Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive90

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

Contents

Ludwigs2[edit]

Closed without action; dubious (socky?) filing circumstances, and addressees of the cited attacks have expressed no desire for sanctions. Fut.Perf. 06:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Ludwigs2[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
151.100.102.127 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_Enforcement_sanction_handling#Ludwigs2_cautioned
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 14:11, 8 May 2011 Complete and unadulterated attack on User:OrangeMarlin.
  2. 8 May 2011 Uncivil threat of using enforcement as a bludgeon against User:Mathsci with whom Ludwigs2 has disputed.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 22 September 2008 by Elonka (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Ludwigs2 should be given an interaction ban so he doesn't continue to violate the spirit and the letter of the arbcom caution. A six month topic ban from all articles related to pseudoscience might help cool him down a bit too.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[1]

Discussion concerning Ludwigs2[edit]

Statement by Ludwigs2[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Ludwigs2[edit]

  • I do not understand why this request has been made. Ludwigs2's feathers might have been ruffled by the AE arbcom case and he did make a few inappropriate remarks immediately after the closure, but none of this warrants any action here or elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Ludwigs2 is a combative editor, but the two diffs provided are hardly his worse. It's just noise that is mostly ignored. I'm kind of concerned that an IP with 2 edits did this so well. Not that I'd ever partake of this kind of procedure, but the IP did it quite well. In one fell swoop. Since Mathsci and I are currently the subjects of most of Ludwig's incivility, and neither of us are known for sock usage, I'm very curious who's bringing this. Based on the writing style...I've got a really good guess. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Ludwigs2[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • The IP has only two edits. Socks should not edit Wikipedia space. An IP with no track record who files an enforcement request here should not be taken seriously. The IP has not replied on whether he has another account. This should be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Closing. Can be reopened procedurally if and when the filing IP discloses who they are and how they have a legitimate involvement in this dispute area. Fut.Perf. 06:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Piotrus[edit]

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


Request concerning Piotrus[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Mibelz
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions

I have just read Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus's inform. He had written: rv move: in Polish context, it is wójt, not vogt. First of all, we rather use English words, than Polish, Russian, etc., in the English Wikipedia. Look at the article, please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion_of_vogt_Albert The Rebellion of vogt Albert was an uprising of burghers of the Polish city of Cracow in the years 1311–12. What is he taking about? -- Mibelz 21:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Mibelz for 20 hours for page move warring. AGK [] 22:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
As for the complaint against Piotrus: he made only two page moves, compared to Mibelz's three, and the second of his two was accompanied by a detailed talk page rationale. On balance, I therefore would dismiss this complaint as without merit. AGK [] 22:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I concur with closing this request. There is a previous one dealing with Mibelz and nothing Piotrus has done in this matter is actionable. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy[edit]

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


Request concerning Nableezy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Rym torch (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

 

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

 

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 20:50, 12 May 2011 Nableezy is currently banned from all articles related to the I-P conflict, broadly construed. Above is a discussion (related to a similar ban on User:Mbz1) which indicates that even articles about new Israeli bandages or Israeli startups are within the scope of such a ban. Majida_El_Roumi clearly falls within that  scope, as her article discusses her songs, among them "Elie Choueiri composed two more patriotic songs for this album, the powerful Qana, condemning the Israeli massacres there", and under "Career highlights" it notes that "Magida takes a firm stand opposing the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories and Israeli human rights violations. During her concert in Beirut on April 15, 2002, She said, "What is going now in Palestine is a crime against humanity, and I am here to say a final 'No!' to the Israeli occupation. To the Palestinians, I say, our hearts are with you; our souls are with you; justice is with you, and the land will always be yours." She also released the song, "Qana", Anakid Al- Ghadab April 1996,as a form of protest against the massacre that the Israelis committed in the town of Qana in southern Lebanon."

 

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

 

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Block and extend or rest topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
@T. Canens: if that's not a violation, why would mbz1 be in violation of an identical ban if she wrote about Israeli bandages, without mentioning the conflict?

Not making a WP:POINT here, just making sure we use consistent standards. I asked the admin who imposed the sanction on Nableezy what the difference is, and he said i should ask here. I do so, and now I'm to be blockewd for this? Rym torch (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)   @HJM: are you saying an article that specifically discusses the subject's involvement in the conflict is outside the topic ban scope, but an article about bandages is within the scope?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
 [2]

Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

Can somebody block this sock of NoCal? Magda el-Roumy is not in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Yes, she has sung a few songs about Israel, and the things that beacon of light for all humanity has done, but most of her songs are love songs and other such things. Every single Arab singer of any import over the last 60 years has at least one song about Israel. From Abdel Halim to Umm Kulthoum, from Fairouz to Abdel Wahab. If I cant even write about Arab musicians without a sock of NoCal hounding my contributions to report me here then you might as well block me and be done with it. I did not touch any part of the article that deals with the conflict. My edit removed a link to a non-existent image. If that is a topic ban violation then Wikipedia as a whole is in the Arab-Israeli topic area. But really, can somebody please block this NoCal sock? Pretty please? nableezy - 23:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with NoCal; can you file an WP:SPI please and request checkuser attention? NW (Talk) 23:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That is already done, and I have sent additional evidence to HelloAnnyong. I could send it to you as well if you wish. But based on the typing problems with Rym torch's edits I am certain he is editing from a cell phone which will make any CU data useless. But there is additional behavioral evidence that I can provide to you. nableezy - 23:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Unless you have some reason (like WP:BEANS or privacy concerns), it might be an idea to post the evidence publicly at SPI so we can have a discussion about the matter. I'm not familiar enough with NoCal to comment on the merits of the accusation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No, such a discussion would enable future socks to evade detection. As you can see here, it is a certainty that there will be more socks. nableezy - 00:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy[edit]

  • This is a frivolous report and should be dismissed. nableezy removed a redlink to an image (of the performer) that doesn't exist. I fail to see what that has to do with the Arab–Israeli conflict. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Nableezy[edit]

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

Removing a redlink on a page of a "Lebanese singer and a soprano"? I don't see how that is a topic ban violation. T. Canens (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have to look that ahrd to a see a violation of a topic ban, it's not there. Although I'm scaling back my activity here, I'd suggest an admonishment of the filer for filing a frivolous AE request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Silly me, I should have read up the page. I propose a block and/or restriction on filing complaints at noticeboards for the filer, who is clearly trying to make a point. No comment on the Mbz thread, I wasn't aware of its existence until a minute ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing as no action. Note that filer has been blocked indefinitely for reasons unrelated to this complaint. T. Canens (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy 10 May 2011[edit]

Nableezy topic-banned from P/I for 2 months. AGK [] 20:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Nableezy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

At administrator's discretion

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The editor is just out of their yet another topic ban and back home to pattern of WP:DE. While in topic ban the editor did not produce any significant contribution to the project. The editor disregards civility and engaged in slow motion WP:EW denying WP:Consensus and WP:BRD as appropriate WP:DR procedure, which might appear as WP:GAMING. The disruption which spells WP:IDHT is across multiple articles in I/P topic area, though I have gathered diffs for Ramot and Quds Day article, where East Jerusalem is pushed as a fact into the lede.

I am involved in Ramot. EJ is pushed as a fact location, where actually the source used as ref "They began planting neighborhoods such as Ramot Allon on annexed West Bank land..." says West Bank.

  1. Bold edit, 22:25, 30 April 2011
  2. Revert, 13:12, 2 May 2011
  3. Revert, 16:12, 5 May 2011
  4. Revert 07:46, 8 May 2011

Long discussion follows, during which the editor prefers to discuss contributors and not contribution. Finally stating: BRD is an essay, it has no special status that allows you to choose the lead. "No consensus" is not a valid reason to revert. I ask again, do you have any sources that contradict the many sources that say the settlement is in EJ? The final revert WP:ES is typical: this is silly, you havent given any sources disputing any aspect of the lead. brd is not a tool to filibuster any movement of the article

Similar edit pattern could be seen at Quds Day, where I have never been involved, the editor is pushing East Jerusalem into the lede.

  1. First edit in the article after topic ban period, 19:09, 28 April 2011
  2. Revert, 29 April 2011
  3. Revert, 2 May 2011, after WP:3O was provided

Long discussion, involving 3rd opinion intervention, the discussion is disregarded.

Notification to editor of this discussion

Due diligence: Initially I've been WP:SPA and have WP:EW history at Gaza War with editor in question. Topic ban which since expired helped me to realize I've been lame and helped me to contribute more constructively to Wikipedia

  • Comment I do not want this discussion to devolve into regular food fight between partisan parties and generally prefer clean talk environment. I would perform a voluntary halt to all my Ramot article editing while this request is being looked into. I feel that an objective of talk page discussion is WP:DR. and imho a constructive way to move forward was suggested more than once. There's little point discussing the issue of location/political definition on multiple article pages of Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem topic. I still believe that if we want to resolve the issue with minimal risk of triggering edit warring across an entire set of articles, WP:IPCOLL seems like the best place. Honestly I'm not sure why this proposal was rejected.
  • I realize that this is not a forum to decide on content disputes, however I'd like to address a reason why the editor's edits were opposed both in Ramot and Quds Day. The edits presented POV as a fact. The editor provided multiple sources, however there were conflicting sources brought during discussion on the talk page. My line of thought was that opinions should be fairly attributed. The point is that ignoring some sources and claiming others as a fact is not NPOV and unacceptable in Wikipedia project.
Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.
  • I am aware of WP:Boomerang and realize I could be sanctioned for this request. With that I want to assure everybody that my intention is less disruptive I/P environment where WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS do matter and people try to be WP:CIVIL. Imho currently we see that discussions go and go in persistent and well known POV circles, which do not contribute to I/P topic articles content Oh well, c'est la vie. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. Bold edit
  2. My revert
  3. Editor's Revert.
  4. 3d party warning :Regarding this revert at Golan Heights, as a veteran editor who's been sanctioned in the past and who frequently warns other users about violations of I/P policy, you're expected to know that "All editors...and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page." A message to that effect appears both when editing the article itself as well as on the Talk page.. Anyway, please explain your revert...
  5. BRR discussion: BRD is an essay. You have to have reasons to remove content, including maps, and no consensus is not a reason. You cannot simply use BRD as a tool to filibuster content. That is what you are doing and that is unacceptable.

Initially it appeared as violations of I/P policy, but later the editor commented on the talk page, they probably forgot. To me, this history spells WP:IDHT and WP:CIRCUS. Bottom line there is such thing as WP:DE, so I clearly support User:Cla68 observation and suggest to widen the topic to GH article or maybe even wider. Do I dare to say whole I/P area? Otherwise I would not be surprised, based on previous history, to see the discussed editor starring on this page again and again, maybe be in a role of a user who is submitting this request for enforcement or as a user against whom enforcement is requested. I'll pull up a chair and start some popcorn first though - it would be a good show. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. Some articles which cover dangerous I/P area could devolve into partisan patchwork crap (See Falafel for instance) still others stay sane and nice (See Hamsa) and could go without WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES header. One just needs to click on the article talk page tab to see if it is true. So I was topic banned previously. My personal opinion is that topic ban could be a blessing instead of a curse and could help any WP:SPA editor to contribute more constructively to this project. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

At Quds Day, I went and asked for the 3rd opinion. That 3rd opinion backed my position and I made one further revert. The revert was re-reverted and the author of the 3rd opinion reverted back to my edit. To say I "disregarded" the 3rd opinion is so blatantly dishonest that I cannot think of a way of describing that statement without making a personal attack.

At Ramot, Agada has been filibustering, without cause or sources, the inclusion of a statement that has 5 reliable sources listed on the talk page backing it up. The user also reverted an entire section on the legal status of the settlement ([3]) despite the consensus at IPCOLL on this very issue. The user has been doing almost nothing at that page except for reverting based on "no consensus" and "brd" (eg [4], [5], [6]). Despite several requests for a single source backing his position (eg [7], [8]) the user has declined, instead choosing to say BRD and no consensus. These bad faith maneuvers to disrupt the progress of creating an encyclopedia article should not be tolerated. The user refuses to discuss the actual issues, instead choosing to rely on any guideline that supports his quest to remove any material he personally dislikes. The fact is I have provided several sources for each of my edits. Agada has, instead of looking for sources that dispute mine, has chosen to stick his fingers in his ears and yell out NA NA NA NA I CANT HEAR YOU and revert without cause. nableezy - 18:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I also note that Agada, instead of discussing the actual issues on the talk page, has been lobbying for administrative action to be taken on User talk:Timotheus Canens. Having not gotten the wanted action there, he has moved here. Thats fine, Im a big boy, but the biggest issue here is the reverting based solely on "no consensus" where "consensus" is taken to mean that if Agada shouts NO long enough then there is no consensus. nableezy - 18:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, casting aspersions without evidence is a personal attack. I object, strenuously, to the backhanded swipe made without a shred of evidence of sockpuppetry on my part. Your "most problematic" set of edits does not contain a single revert. Not one. contains one revert, the first diff listed. The next two are edits, not reverts. It is good to see the quality of the evidence against me remains at its usual level. nableezy - 01:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, no doubt on accident, reveals that the issue here has nothing to do with my editing behavior. For example, he says I "instantly jumped back into disputes he had previously." citing Gaza War and Falafel, and uses this as evidence of my supposedly disruptive nature. At Falafel, I have been asking him to back up his unsourced assertions that go against reliable sources cited. He has, for weeks now, refused to comply. I have not made a single revert on Falafel. On Gaza War, I brought several sources to a talk page, and made an edit. When that edit was reverted (by Agada under the spurious grounds that there was "no consensus"), I did not revert a single time. I opened an RFC and am patiently waiting for it to conclude. There are a set of users here that will do anything they can to shut me up, and they will do this for a simple reason. They oppose the content of the edits I make, but find it difficult to actually find policy based reasons for doing so. They dislike that I bring sources and make edits that reflect views that they find distasteful, for whatever reason. And because of this, spurious charges are filed left and right against me. There was one point on this page where there were 3 separate complaints filed against me, the only one that brought any sanctions against me resulted in a 3 hour block. nableezy - 01:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
A game, right. Cptnono makes statements made up out of thin air. I ask him which reference, he refuses to say. And Im playing a game. Right. Again, I did not make a single revert on List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. I made 3 edits, not a single revert, 27 hours or 27 days apart. the first of which was a revert. The others were all edits. What edit did they revert? I again object to your fallacious accusations. What is "toxic" in this topic area are the editors who insist on making unfounded statements and dishonest arguments on talk pages and follow it up with fallacious charges on administrative boards. I repeat, an arbitration decision found that casting aspersions on editors without evidence is "unacceptable". Either provide evidence for your charges, including the one of sockpuppetry, or strike them. nableezy - 02:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Who are these people and where have they made such an accusation? Again, either provide evidence for your accusations or strike them. I will ask that you be blocked if you refuse. nableezy - 03:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
How so very interesting, so now it is off-wiki private communication that you refuse to provide to support accusations you make on wiki. How charming. I have already responded to your allegation of gaming the 1RR. Those were not reverts. Exactly what edit did the second diff listed revert? What edit did the first third diff listed revert? Those were both edits, so regardless of whether they happened 27 hours or 27 minutes apart there would be no 1RR vio. And so there was no 1RR gaming. nableezy - 03:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, golly, thats just super. Your diffs only show what you are willing to do to attempt to have me banned. That you will literally manufacture evidence or, when you cant make up evidence, make wild accusations without showing a shred of evidence. nableezy - 03:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Cla, this isnt a revert, this is me restoring a tag. You are left with 3 reverts over a week. Please look at Agada's "contribution" to the talk page. It consists of one of two things, misuse of a source or repeating the mantra BRD and no consensus as a means of filibustering. You cannot compare our contributions. Of course Agada supports your proposal, the reason he does all this is to have me banned. It does not matter to him if he is likewise banned, so long as I am then he did what he sought out to do. His purpose here is to filibuster any material that he dislikes, and he sees an effective way of doing that by having me removed. nableezy - 13:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Tim, I understand your frustration, but believe me, it pales in comparison to my own. I dont know what else I am supposed to do. I am hounded from article to article by a collection of sockpuppets, accounts that barely understand clear English (or at least feign to not understand for the purpose of stalling), ones whose sole purpose is to filibuster any change I make, and ones that willfully make things up out of thin air and say no when asked for sources. I no longer edit war, I try to be as civil as I possibly can, I make edits that are supported both by the sources and the policies of this website. What else would you have me do? Just give up and leave them to it? The reason there are regular requests for enforcement against me is simple. I am effective at adding content that the "pro-I" group would rather not include. But because I add this content with reliable sources it is difficult for them to give an honest argument for removing it. So the easier route to stop the inclusion of such content is to have me removed. To illustrate the point, how many enforcement threads have been opened against me that resulted in no sanctions? How many have been opened by accounts later shown to be socks of banned editors (and I have no doubt the one recently archived will soon be added to that list)? I am repeatedly brought here on the most trifling of charges, often on completely spurious grounds. Asinine accusations, such as the one below of sockpuppetry, are routinely made without evidence. But all these charges add to the perception, rightly or wrongly held, that I am the problem. That without me the topic area is "better". If by "better" one means that it is easier to ignore the Palestinians and present a slanted account of their history, when not completely denying it, then sure that part is true. But if by "better" one means that the articles reflect the policies of WP, such as NPOV and V, then that is emphatically not true. If you tell me what exactly you think I am doing wrong I will correct it immediately. But dealing with the type of bullshit that I regularly see from some of the editors commenting here makes me much more frustrated than I could imagine you being. nableezy - 16:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

AGK, do you have any idea what a third opinion is? It is a third user offering an opinion to break the deadlock among 2 users. nableezy - 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy[edit]

  • Oh dear, it's "Get Nableezy week" again, is it? I see nothing in this submission that is any more actionable than the previous groundless complaint (above). As AU notes, Nableezy's topic ban is over; therefore he ids free to edit in this area. This is precisely what he has been doing, without edit-warring, disruptively editing or in any way acting other than as an asset to Wikipedia. I will not speculate on motives, but I am growing increasingly weary of attempts to remove him.
In this instance, I note that AU's latest revert of Nableezy has itself been reverted by the editor who gave a third opinion. So it is disingenuous for AU to accuse Nableezy of disregarding the discussion; the accusation would be better self-directed.
I think that this clearly unfounded and vexatious complaint should be speedily closed with no action against Nableezy; and that AU should be warned against further such frivolous actions. RolandR (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Broccolo

Just a month ago I would not have argued about banning a user for using the word "trolling", but another editor was banned for doing just that Should we be consistent here? While the differences presented in Mbz1 case were collected over a few months I'd like to bring your attention to two differences for the last 2 days made just a few week after user:Nableezy prior topic ban expired. user:Nableezy has been repeatedly warned over uncivil comments he made. Let's see his reaction:

Another "crime" for what Mbz1 was topic banned was described by user:passionless as "Inability to work co-operatively . Here is a similar example by user:Nableezy.

I am not saying user:Nableezy should be sanctioned over the differences I presented. I am simply looking for some consistency. Broccolo (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously providing, as your first example, a diff that shows Nableezy removing a message (from his own talk page) posted by AgadaUrbanit, in which Agada, himself, says, "... you are free to remove this warning."?? I seriously hope admins take into consideration how low users are going with there quote/quote evidence in attempt to get him banned. -asad (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
A difference that springs to mind is that in those diffs, Nableezy is describing an edit (to his own talk page) as being trolling, whereas in the case of the "another editor" you refer to, the diffs presented referred to multiple editors (including me) as being "trolls" (and "wikihounds", et cetera). That's the difference between commenting on content (or lack of it), and commenting on the contributor. Having seen a fair few of these things pop up on Nableezy's talk page, yes I think there is a reasonable case for describing some of these edits as being "trolling". But that wouldn't justify describing the editors as being "trolls". See the difference? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Pick on Nableezy week (by Cptnono)
I get the skepticism. Why else would people be picking on Nableezy if it wasn't to win content disputes? Nableezy must be a good editor who just happens to be the on the receiving end of POV pushing jerks' scorn. So here are my thoughts. Afterward feel free to scream that an interaction ban is needed:
  • Nableezy chose to sit out his topic ban by contributing almost nothing to other articles. Sure there was some but the ratio (a few edits a week vs scores a day) says enough. That is within the rules. He is allowed to be a single purpose account even if SPAs get some grief. I know that sockpuppetry (eg: he didn't sit it out but relied on a secondary account) has been a concern but I will let others present evidence if they are inclined.
  • Nableezy instantly jumped back into disputes he had previously. Falafel and Gaza War are just two examples. Of course, he sat out his ban so he is allowed. Doesn't mean we should respect it.
  • Most problematic: He was just here for potentially gaming 1/rr. He has been accused of gaming the system before but in this most recent episode he was reverting a probable sockpuppet (But what about this: contraversial edit ->revert->revert(clarifying edit: controversial modification of other editors in direct response to a revert) 3 hours after 24 hours had elapsed
So yeah, I think we should pick on him. He has proven that he is here for one reason and that that he believes the reason is sufficient to come dangerously close to gaming thew system over and over and over again. I had assumed that the "break" would bring a new and improved Nableezy. That was not the case. He is (and should be) under increased scrutiny for his previous infractions. On the other side of the coin: Good for him on sticking to his principles and at least being transparent. At least we know what we are getting with him.Cptnono (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
But Nableezy instead wishes to dispute my reference to him starting touble on Falafel. So fine. We have a source in the article discussing Alexandria and yet he actually says that it is not in there. Read the article it is right there. He is playing games. Whatever he can do to "win" he will do. Since Gaza War and Falafel are so hard to prove I will again point to the flagarant abuse of 1/rr. He waited 3 hours to make a revert. He was already making a controversial edit. To follow it up with coming so close to 1/rr is obvious. Nableezy makes this topic area toxic. In his absence we got a GA. In his absence we had relatively quiet talk pages. He is edit warring over FLAGS in an article. He is willfully ignoring sources. He is willfully starting trouble. If he isn't gone now it is only a matter of time so it doesn't hurt my feelings if the admins again give him a pass. I a, confident that he will gain dig his own grave because that is just what he does.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Stop changing the subject Nableezy. It isn't my fault that others thought you were editing with an alternate account. And it isn't my responsibility to make the argument for them. If you reread my statement I did not say you had a sockpuppet. I simply acknowledged that others called that. But you and I arguing isn't going to help your case. If anything It is going to get me bounced along with you. You are toxic to the environment here. Just like this conversation is. I hope that an administrator closes this without any action because I am confident that you will again be here within a month and I won;t have anything to do with it. You are simply a problem. Everyone knows it. Even the admins while looking at this might believe I am also a problem but they will know that you have done nothing but rock the boat. Go write a GA in the topic area and then I will be happy to work with you. Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not allowed to divulge private communications according to Wikipedia's rules. Even if it was not against the rules I would not since it would be bad form. You can ask for me to be blocked if you want but I will not apologize for simply pointing out that others have raised the issue of you editing with an alternate account. I especially do not need to since I did not say you did. I made it clear that that was the bottom of my list of issues. So stop changing the issue and actually respond to the allegation of gaming 1/rr. Can you actually discuss the concerns or would you rather change the subject in an attempt to dodge the major issues?Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
My diffs show a concern. If you do not see it then you deserve to be at AE. I really don't need to say anything else here since you are just proving my point. After this is closed out (regardless if bans for the both of us are long or not) I will be happy to try to edit with you if you change your behavior. Cptnono (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. As far as I know I've never edited that article. Nableezy's edits are ギリギリ violations (Onomatopoeia alert!) but appear to be part of a larger problem. From what I'm seeing, there appears to be a edit war going on there between two editors. There should be no revert warring taking place while editors are trying to reach a consensus on the article talk page. The other editors at that article appear to be trying to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise. Here are reverts over the last week or so:

I suggest article-banning Nableezy and AgadaUrbanit and I think the current conflict problems with that article will largely evaporate. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should be article or topic banned for the time being. However, AgadaUrbanit should be subject to a restriction preventing him from warning Nableezy or filing or commenting on AE reports against him. He templated him multiple times despite being asked by Nableezy to stay off his talk page, asked by me to stop it, and referred by Timotheus Canens to WP:DTTR (will provide diffs on request - not much time right now). The same restriction should apply to Cptnono, who has it out for Nableezy as evidenced by his multiple AE filings and pretty much every comment he has ever made to him or about him. That restriction could also be applied to Nableezy so that interaction between these users outside of regular article editing can be minimized and with it the unnecessary drama it provokes. Tiamuttalk 13:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply to Nableezy on Cptnono's talk page: Been a little busy IRL and keeping you inline since your return (how has no one else dragged you to AE yet?) is not a priority. Yes, there's the thing, keeping Nableezy 'in line'.     ←   ZScarpia   01:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
What of it? Thai is part of volunteering here. Nableezy has been active in three sockpuppet investigations in not even the last month. He is obviously attempting to keep others inline. That is what we do here sometimes. Actively searching out for solutions to problems is not forbidden unless it is done only to harass the other editor. But how about you comment on Nableezy and not me since he is the one accused of doing wrong? All of this changing of the subject. No wonder admins never read these things.Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
So Nableezy should be sanctioned because other editors have created sockpuppets? Come off it! As you know, there is a serious problem of serial sockpuppetry, with scores of accounts being created by a handful of blocked editors. Coincidentally, all of these seem to favour a "pro-Israel" point of view; there has been no evidence of a similar concerted campaign by "pro-Palestinian" editors. If there was, we can be sure that you would, quite correctly, be active in preventing this abuse. What is Nableezy's crime here?RolandR (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
But how about you comment on Nableezy and not me. Since you're making accusations, I think that it's relevant to address what your motivations are. What of it? I think that the comment on your talk page illuminates the reason why Nableezy is being brought to the AE board. If you think that part of your job here involves keeping other editors in line, I'd say that indicates that you have an attitude problem. Nableezy has been active in three sockpuppet investigations in not even the last month. I think that he should be commended for doing a very important job.     ←   ZScarpia   16:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • comment I think Nableezy has recently shown exemplary restraint in the face of persistent provocation and obstruction, and certainly doesn't deserve to be sanctioned. His comment above of 16:37, 9 May 2011 is spot-on in my view.
I sympathise with admins who have to deal with these requests. I suggest that anyone bringing a request here should be automatically sanctioned if no action is taken against the subject of the request, and a warning to this effect be well-publicised and displayed prominently in the edit notice here and elsewhere. The level of sanction should be sufficient to deter frivolous or poorly-grounded complaints without deterring well-founded requests. (The thought of something like the system of "challenges" in tennis has occurred to me in the past, but I can't see a way of doing it that wouldn't be subject to gaming.) --NSH001 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Nableezy[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I'm seriously thinking that if this trend continues, we should simply throw our hands up and send this to arbcom for ARBPIA3. T. Canens (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The seven reversions cited in the initial request are adequate corroboration that Nableezy's conduct is so problematic as to warrant sanctioning. For reference, the reversions are: Ramot30 April 2011 2 May 2011 5 May 2011 8 May 2011; Quds Day28 April 2011 29 April 2011 2 May 2011.

    Nableezy's primary argument with relation to Quds Day is that there was support in a third opinion (3O)[20] for including East Jerusalem. But, as User:Plot Spoiler correctly commented in the 3O thread, no other editors were involved in that discussion—rendering the 3O at best a valueless exercise, and at worst an attempt by Nableezy to gain some pretence of validation for his edit. A small third opinion is not an adequate consensus-building exercise for such a major dispute, and especially in such a contested topic area. Additionally, there was no counter-argument by Nableezy with relation to his four reverts at Ramot. On balance, and taking into account his previous record in this topic area and the volume of reverts made, Nableezy is prohibited from editing any page related to Palestine-Israel, broadly interpreted, for two months. For clarity, the two-month topic ban will expire on 20:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC). Furthermore, I intend to initiate an evaluation at WP:WPAE or here into the wider pattern of editing in the articles involved in this request, because I suspect that Nableezy is not the only one whose behaviour warrants a sanction. AGK [] 20:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

46.38.162.18[edit]

Proxy sock blocked
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 46.38.162.18[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
RolandR (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
46.38.162.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 07:28, 16 May 2011 Replacing consensus, wikilinked term Arab citizens of Israel with POV alternative "Israeli Arabs"
  2. 09:29, 16 May 2011 ditto
  3. 09:51, 16 May 201 ditto
  4. 09:27, 16 May 2011 Tendentiously misciting
  5. 09:44, 16 May 2011 Ditto
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

block of this and all related socks.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This IP, apparently part of a disruptive sockfarm targeting IP articles, persists in adding or removing material from articles on the basis of mis-citing sources. Please note that, under the terms of the arbitration: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning 46.38.162.18[edit]

Statement by 46.38.162.18[edit]

I have no idea what any of this means - all I know is this: he initiated an edit war with me, warned me of 3RR, he then BREACHED 3RR, i reported him - then this appears. And he still continues to delete all my contributions. Voila. 46.38.162.18 (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning 46.38.162.18[edit]

Result concerning 46.38.162.18[edit]

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

I've blocked the IP as a socking anonymising proxy used by a blocked or banned user. Also, Roland's identification of this sock elsewhere is correct, IMO. I consider this request closed. Other socks should be dealt with at ANI or as they turn up. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nableezy[edit]

Appeal unsuccessful. After more than one week of discussion, it is clear that there is no "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" sufficient to overturn the sanction at issue. T. Canens (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
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 
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)nableezy - 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
2 month topic ban
Administrator imposing the sanction 
AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
[21]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

AGK uses as evidence of me "gaming" my asking for a third opinion at WP:3O about a dispute. He says that because no other users were involved the 3O is a valueless exercise, and at worst an attempt by Nableezy to gain some pretence of validation for his edit. Of course there were only two editors involved, why else would I ask for THIRD opinion. To use my using a proper DR procedure as cause for topic banning me is ludicrous. Next, AGK identified 4 reverts that took place over the course of a week. The first of those "reverts" was not a revert, it was in fact one of my first edits to the article in some time. I challenge AGK to say what edit this "revert" reverted. That leaves 3 reverts over a week. A two month topic ban for making 3 reverts in a week is not justified.

I did exactly what I was supposed to do at Quds Day, instead of continuing to revert, I went through DR. In fact, WP:DR contains the following advice: If you need neutral outside opinions in a dispute involving only two editors, turn to Wikipedia:Third opinion.

At Ramot, yes, perhaps I made more reverts than I should have. However, the other user, Agada Urbanit, was completely ignoring the sources and misrepresenting the one that he had. When it was shown that the source he was claiming supported his view (the Israeli NGO B'tselem) actually explicitly contradicted his view he simply reverted again under the guise of there being "no consensus". I admit, I have little patience for such bad faith filibustering tactics. But since that time, and before this sanction, I have opened an RFC on the issue. AGK has completely ignored the bad faith actions by the filer of the above request for enforcement and has sanctioned me on the basis of me properly following DR on Quds Day and making 3 reverts over a week on Ramot.

It is true, I have been sanctioned a number of times under ARBPIA. I have only appealed once, the one time that I felt that the decision was completely unwarranted. I feel that this decision is likewise completely without merit and request that it be lifted. nableezy - 21:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Two serious arrays of reversions???? On Quds Day I made 2 reverts, requested a third opinion and waited. When that 3O came back supporting my position I made one more revert. That is it. The end. When that edit was re-reverted (by the same user who had reverted the other 2) I made no further reverts. In fact, the editor who gave the 3O made the revert. On Ramot I made 3 reverts over the course of a week. You call that a "serious array of reverts"? Come off it. Forgive my use of the word "gaming", but I dont know how else to take "at worst an attempt by Nableezy to gain some pretence of validation of his edit". Sorry if I have little faith in your "stated intention to evaluate the conduct of the other editors", given our history I dont have all that much confidence in your judgment. nableezy - 23:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I would like you to clarify your statement. You say the original report shows enough reverts by me to show I was placing back my preferred position. Are you referencing Quds Day or Ramot, or both? On Ramot, 3 reverts over a week while multiple sources were provided backing my position and the other reverting editor providing none supporting his is enough to show that there was both "no consensus" and that I was simply putting back my preferred position? How are you defining "consensus"? nableezy - 20:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Ncmvocalist. Yes, opening an RFC is what I should have done from the start. The reason I did not is because this is a manufactured dispute that should not need an RFC, anybody who looks at the sources should be able to come to that same conclusion. When users refuse to provide sources backing their position, or when the sources they do provide are shown to not back their position, I dont consider their objections as having any merit. Everything that happened at Ramot was predicated on filibustering, or, as George put it, bureaucratic bullshit. I dont deal well with bullshit. My offer to AGK to abide by a 1RR/week was not meant to say that I am entitled to revert once a week, but rather to make it so I have to open RFC and other such processes to deal with such nonsense instead of reverting. Ill go through these processes if it is necessary, but yall should understand that what happened at Ramot was caused by inane arguments by those insisting on ignoring the sources with the sole purpose of impeding me at that article. The same user has done this at a number of other articles, always reverting because of "no consensus" where he takes "consensus" to mean that if says "no" there is "no consensus". nableezy - 13:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly going one way, so there is little need to continue. But I would like to make clear a few points. I am given a two month topic ban for 3 reverts in a week on one article. The reverts at Quds Day cannot be used as justification for this ban, I did exactly what WP:DR says to do. If I am to be sanctioned for that then there is no point to any of this; all that is left is 3 reverts over one week at Ramot. Im cool with two months off, but know I that I will use this as the baseline for future AE reports. An editor makes that many reverts in a week and they should be subject to similar sanctions. Yall make the rules, thats fine. But be prepared to enforce those rules for everybody. Starting with the users who were also reverting at Ramot and Quds Day. I say AGK, hows that review going anyway? Feel free to close this out, aint much of a point in keeping it going. nableezy - 19:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono has repeatedly made false and disparaging comments about me, and has repeatedly made accusations without diffs, and on an administrative board no less. I am fed up with reading that bullshit without responding, could an admin please inform this "editor" that such behavior is not acceptable? Unless of course you all would like to see how I respond to some fool saying I "breed cancer". nableezy - 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK[edit]

I did not say that Nableezy "gamed" the 3O; I said that that could be a motive for his continued reversion with that flimsy thinking. Nableezy says nothing of his two serious arrays of reversions, which is telling of the baseless nature of this appeal. Nableezy also cites the "the other party did as much wrong as me" argument, which first does not mitigate his own conduct, and second ignores my stated intention to evaluate the conduct of the other editors within the next few days. These sanctions are as warranted as the previous ones on Nableezy were. AGK [] 22:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments from the editors in the below section. Who among you are involved in this topic area? Uninvolved editors usually do not object to an administrator's action so profusely, especially where the action has a clear and reasonable rationale. AGK [] 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • George: Thanks for your comment. I've only just read it, so I'll need a while to think about it, but I am still unconvinced that Nableezy was pursuing appropriate dispute-resolution, or otherwise attempting to actually gain consensus for the inclusion of the East Jerusalem thing. Even in light of his 3O and RFC, the five reversions are still extremely excessive—especially when balanced with the fact that his edits were continuing to be disputed. Behaviour of this nature is part of the reason why the I/P topic area is such a mess. AGK [] 11:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by George[edit]

Not sure if I'm considered involved. I was part of some of the discussions on the Ramot article talk page with Nableezy and AgandaUrbanit, and also edited that article.

I haven't read the entire conversation above, and just noticed that Nableezy was topic banned for two months. I can't comment on the Quds Day article, as I haven't checked the diffs and wasn't involved in that discussion, but I have been witness to the Ramot article discussions and reverts.

The first point I'd like to address is AgandaUrbanit's contention that Nableezy made a bold edit, inserting "East Jerusalem" into the article on April 30, 2011, which was then reverted. This isn't completely true. Here is a version of the same article from two years to the day earlier, which states:

"Because of its location east of the Green Line it is considered to be an illegal settlement by the International Community, though Israel disputes this and the United States also traditionally refrains from characterizing Israeli localities in East Jerusalem as settlements."

Here's the version of the same article from three years to the day earlier:

"Because it was built on land annexed by the Jerusalem municipality from the West Bank after the Six-Day War it is often considered an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem."

So the concept that this is some new, bold change Nableezy had reverted is somewhat flawed.

Now, let's consider who reverted Nableezy first. The editor in question is named Editorprop. They have made 142 total edits, 66.2% of which were to this very article.[22] They are the very definition of a single-purpose account in my book, and I largely question their neutrality.

Who subsequently reverted Nableezy? AgandaUrbanit. His reason? "No consensous for this edit, please discuss on talk page."[23] Nableezy's response? To try an alternative. The result? That too got reverted, and there was indeed lots of discussion on the talk page, which led to an ongoing RfC.

But let's take a step back for a moment. What's really going on here, and who's to blame? Nableezy makes an edit, and a relatively new editor, Editorprop, reverts it. Nableezy reverts them, and Aganda reverts Nableezy, citing no consensus. In my opinion, there are a few problems with this series of events:

  1. Editorprop is a single-purpose account, whose initial revert was based on pretty poor reasoning. The article has said Ramot is in "East Jerusalem" for years.
  2. AgandaUrbanit hasn't read or doesn't agree with Wikipedia:DRNC, and was filibustering Nableezy using bureaucratic process and "no consensus" reverts as an excuse. There was a certain amount of WP:TAGTEAMing here as well.
  3. Nableezy took the bait, and got involved in a slow motion edit war.

If action was deemed necessary, I would have expected to see all three editors given similar punishments (and, to be clear, it would be a punishment - I don't view this sanction as preventative). And that punishment should have been far less severe than this sanction. But what action should have been taken here? None. There was a lot of good discussion going on with all three editors, and Nableezy opened an RfC on the issue (which is 5 to 1 in his favor at the moment). It would have eventually worked itself out, and while we might have been going in circles for a while, there wasn't any foul, and the conflict didn't appear to be escalating. Just my two cents, anyways. ← George talk 06:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply to AGK - A few thoughts regarding Nableezy, this situation, and the topic space in general, in reverse order (seems to make sense to me at 5am). First, this topic is highly controversial; we all know that. I've seen some really bad edit wars, and editors - on both sides - rightfully blocked or banned. By my bar, this was a relatively minor edit war, without much real impact. I mean, we're talking about two words, that are already in the same article a sentence later, in an article on a neighborhood in a city. Yes there was too much reverting going on, but I think there was also some progress being made in the background through discussion.
Regarding Nableezy's general behavior, there are a few things I've observed over the years. First, Nableezy makes a lot of enemies, and doesn't care. Some because he tends to get a bit hot under the collar; many are because he's particularly good at sniffing out banned users parading as sock puppets. Having that many enemies has made Nableezy a target for more AE & AN/I requests than probably any other editor on Wikipedia - some warranted, many not. Many are just his ideological enemies throwing a pile of shit at a wall to see what sticks. Once in a while something does, but they often get overturned upon review because of the motivation of the filers. Second, Nableezy sometimes does what he thinks is "right" rather than what he thinks is policy, and Nableezy understands policy well. I think if there were more eyes on these articles, Nableezy would have a much easier time editing in general, because his edits aren't pushing minority views, or out of line with the reliable sources he cites, they're simply contradictory to the ideologies of his enemies. Many of the walls put in front of him are bureaucratic nonsense, forcing him to justify every word of every line of every edit from every source, just to slow him down so that he can't add more information that contradicts the ideologies of his foes.
If you have an active editor who is prone to getting hot under the collar when frustrated, the way to "beat" them is to bury them under a pile of bureaucratic bullshit. Nableezy, who knows policy, knows it's bullshit, and sometimes skirts Wikipedia's policies to combat it, taking the bait. Nableezy's ideological enemies then go running off to the nearest board with their catch. I'm not saying that's what happened here necessarily, but one has to consider the context. Why did AgandaUrbanit revert Nableezy and not Editorprop if they're just going to cite "no consensus"? Why did AgandaUrbanit report Nableezy for edit warring instead of Editorprop? Would any other editor besides Nableezy have been reported at AE for making the exact same edits to that article? I doubt it, but most other editors just give up in the face of a filibuster; Nableezy doesn't. ← George talk 12:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR[edit]

Moved from uninvolved section; see Wikipedia:ARBPIA for involvement in the topic area.

  • I think this topic ban is scandalous. Nableezy has not acted in any way against either the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia in the edits cited as reason for this sanction. As can be seen in the discussion above, not a single editor proposed or supported a topic ban. Seven editors commented in support of Nableezy, one editor called for an article (not topic) ban for both Nableezy and the complaining editor, and three criticised Nableezy without calling for a topic ban. Even if a sanction was justified (and I don't believe that it is), this two-month topic ban is grossly over the top. It should be overturned without delay. RolandR (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Al Ameer son[edit]

Moved from uninvolved section; contributions from May 3 to May 10 (as a sample) indicate he is involved in the topic area.

  • I cannot agree to the imposition of this topic ban on Nableezy. It should be lifted or at least considerably reduced. For all I know AGK thought deeply about his decision and on the face of it seven reversions in two articles constitutes edit-warring. However, these reversions span eleven days. Also, while it may not have been too wise for Nab to have made the reversions, we should take a minute to look at the content being disputed. Namely, the usage of "East Jerusalem." The argument that Nab has ignored consensus which was brought forth as a reason for his ban is plainly false since the overwhelming international consensus stipulates that Ramot, an Israeli settlement is located in East Jerusalem which is supposed to be the capital of a Palestinian state. Facts on the ground (like Israel annexed the area years after its capture in war and that Israel administers and enforces its laws in the captured area) should be mentioned of course as they are of obvious relevance. However, the article, in line with consensus, must state firstly that Ramot is not merely an Israeli neighborhood in Jerusalem, but an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem. Quds Day is a bit murkier. Nab's reversions support the notion that Quds Day calls for the "return" of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. The other editor argues that the Iranian regime doesn't differentiate between east and west Jerusalem while Nab in turn insists that Quds Day isn't solely an Iranian government-sponsored holiday, but one celebrated by many Muslims. I haven't taken the time to go through all the talk page discussions and don't intend to go over them here since my thread is turning out to be a long one. All I'm trying to say is with all of this taken into account (eleven-day span of seven reversions for two articles and the justification of Nab's reversion at Ramot at least), the punishment doesn't fit the crime even with Nab's past history of being topic banned. Something that should also be noted is Nab's efforts at stamping out sock puppetry which he seems to do on a near-weekly basis. This of course doesn't warrant a pass for Nab to edit war which I don't believe he has done anyway. Nab may have committed violations at Quds Day and is guilty of being openly angry which some users could see as being in violation of WP:CIVIL. I hope my fellow admins could take some time to study the circumstances surrounding this A/E thread (I know it's frustrating and I'm the last person to talk since I'm not active in this area) and determine whether or not Nab deserves to be topic banned for two whole months. At the most, I could understand one week, but I suggest scrapping it altogether. Nab should try to cool down whenever he is provoked, be cautious before making any reversions, and if he believes he should revert, but does not want an edit war, he should RfC. As for the other editors who might receive disciplinary actions, I have not taken the time to study what they have or have not violated and will not comment on them at the moment. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Zero[edit]

Disclosure: I have been editing the Middle East section of Wikipedia since 2003 (must be a bit of masochist, eh?). Nableezy wanted to write that Ramot is in East Jerusalem. Where else is it? The fact is that the vast majority of sources agree with Nableezy and hardly any disagree. It isn't a matter of Israeli opinion versus the rest, either, since most Israelis would also agree that Ramot is in East Jerusalem. What is really going on is that some of the Israeli right wing persuasion want to suppress use of the common place names East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem because they might hint to the reader that "Jerusalem, unified forever" is not the whole story. It may well be that Nableezy could have handled this better than he did, but on the other hand he was trying to write an article conforming to the rules while his opponents were not. I suggest that the penalty be greatly reduced and that his editing opponents receive at least the same. Zerotalk 09:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]

AGK, if your decision had a clear and reasonable rationale I don't think you would get an eminently reasonable and sober minded editor like George spending the time to add a detailed analysis which I sincerely hope you read. It accurately describes the state of affairs upon which a clear and reasonable decision could have been made. The validity of an argument or objection isn't a function of the degree to which an editor is involved or uninvolved. Editors aren't allowed to grade the validity and policy consistency of content arguments on talk pages based on the degree of involvement in an issue according to things like nationality/ethnicity/political views etc. They have to address the arguments themselves. Since you have the privilege of being an admin surely that obligation applies to you here even more than non-admins ? I'm involved in the topic area, although not the articles in question, but I can't see any possible justification for a topic ban based on the actual events that transpired. If a few reverts over a week is now the state of edit warring and disruption in the I-P topic area there has been an impressive improvement and people should be being encouraged not punished. People can say whatever they want about Nableezy but as a process he tries to increase the degree of policy compliance in articles by actually making sure that content complies with mandatory policy by using policy based arguments and reliable sources. A topic ban will not result in an improvement of article content. Quite the opposite. We shouldn't be encouraging the manufacturing of controversies via talk page disputes when there isn't really a controversy in reliable-source-world by punishing editors who try to build an encyclopedia based on policy. If Nableezy were editing the same way in the evolution topic area where there is zero-tolerance for POV pushing, fringe views, unreliable sources, non-policy based arguments on talk pages, content edits that don't comply with policy etc, no one would bat an eyelid and he certainly wouldn't be topic banned. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

re: Ncmvocalist's comment at 10:57, 12 May 2011. With respect Ncmvocalist, I think you're missing the point a bit. The key point as far as I'm concerned is that an editor shouldn't be put in a position where they have to make a revert over silly things like where Ramot is in the first place and they shouldn't have to post an RFC to ask whether Ramot is partly located inside the spatial object that is referred to by reliable sources as "East Jerusalem". It is, as a simple matter of objective spatial positioning, partly inside East Jerusalem just like the Portland metropolitan area is partly inside Washington state. It's this kind of thing that shows how out of touch with reliable-source-reality things have become in the I-P topic area and how editors are being forced to jump through hoops that shouldn't be there to write articles based on reliable sources according to policy. Not that it will ever happen, but imagine if someone were to change the description of the Portland metropolitan area from "an urban area in the U.S. states of Oregon and Washington" to "an urban area in the U.S. state of Oregon". They would be reverted over and over and over again until they were either persuaded to stop or blocked no matter what they said on the talk page. Too much effort is spent trying to solve "disputes" with editors on talk pages when the dispute doesn't matter and it has no legitimacy from a policy perspective because the sources are clear. Editors need to at least be able to make edits based on policy that improve articles without getting punished for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Broccolo[edit]

I support the ban. user:Nableezy is violating 1RR on a regular basis. Please see the article List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. The user made 3 reverts in less than 5 hours.

  1. [24]
  2. [25]
  3. [26]

Broccolo (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are not three reverts. The first is a revert. The second is a edit to new text added another editor. The third is a compromise edit based on the edits made by Rym Torch just prior. Please don't make false accusations. Its this kind of mud throwing that's clouding the issue here. Tiamuttalk 06:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
A checkuser/sockpuppetry investigation on Rym Torch is pending by the way. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
..and of course both Rym Torch and Tzu Zha Men were blocked for sockpuppetry. Both accounts were used to file recent AE reports against Nableezy and support edits made by others in the I-P topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tiamut[edit]

Nableezy has been given four topic bans by two administrators: AGK and Sandstein. AGK issued his first topic ban ever [27], based on a report filed by a sockpuppet of banned user User:Dajudem (of the CAMERA scandal). He set it for four months and after multiple complaints about it being unwarranted, lowered it to two and blocked Stellarkid (the name of the filer) for two months (before he was ultimately blocked for being a sock). Nableezy was burdened by the sanction which has since been used as a baseline every time he has been brought to this board.

Shortly thereafter, Nableezy was topic banned by Sandstein, who lifted the ban on appeal [28] after numerous complaints about it being unwarranted. Sandstein later topic banned Nableezy for two months based on a report filed by User:Shuki which Sandstein himself described as "largely frivolous", but invoking Nableezy's "problematic record", a sanction was deemed justified nonetheless. [29].

Now we have this topic ban, which is based on 4 reverts made at two articles over the course of a week. Ed Johnston claims this alone is enough for a two month topic ban. Really? From now on, all users who revert 3 times at one article over the course of a week, while engaged extensively in talk, adding sources, moving toward compromise wording, can be sanctioned if reported here from now on? I submit this sanction is overkill, as were Nableezy's previous sanctions. Nableezy has a lot of enemies for being persistent in bringing forth good sources to support his arguments and for hunting down socks. As Stifle once said though, if you throw enough mud it will stick. Tiamuttalk 06:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that administrators who take action against a user should not be considered "uninvolved" next time around (exceptions for vandals etc). It is unhealthy. Zerotalk 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Tiamut: How did you come to conclude that it was my "first topic ban ever"?

Zero: Nonsense. Should arbitrators recuse from cases that re-examine an old case in which they also voted? Should members of the community recuse from voting in a second RFA for a candidate whose previous RFA they also voted in? Would your claim that it is "unhealthy" hold if I had concluded in that first thread and in the most recent AE complaint that Nableezy's conduct was not problematic? AGK [] 13:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The "his" in that sentence referred to Nableezy, not you AGK. Sorry it wasn't clear. Tiamuttalk 14:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally though, since you brought it up, it was the first topic ban you ever issued in the P/I area, and the first day you involved yourself in ajudicating cases in this area. The only other topic bans you issued in P/I cases (besides Stellarkid mentioned above and Nableezy twice now) were on User:Passionless and User:Shrike and those were overturned, with your agreement. Besides a probation and warning issued to User:Cptnono on the same day you rendered your decision against Nableezy the first time, I believe that covers the whole of your involvement in adjudicating cases in this topic area. Tiamuttalk 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AgandaUrbanit[edit]

Moved from uninvolved section; see Wikipedia:ARBPIA for involvement in the topic area.

Response to George by Cptnono[edit]

Moved from uninvolved section; see Wikipedia:ARBPIA for involvement in the topic area.
If you are going to move comments: at least do it right. Below is my response to George. BTW, when is someone going to nom him for admins?

It isn't a good thing that Nebleezy spends so much time on socks. Yes it is good that he flushes them out but it is on one side only. He has even admitted that he does it on one side only. If he actually attempted to clean up the topic area overall then it would be a good thing. But instead he spends time here and at SPI in a battlefieldesque effort. How many SPI and AE comments has he had since his return vs actual constructive edits? He is a POV warrior. Being good at using SPI to take down what he sees as an enemy is not a net gain for the project. Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy's puppet efforts may be one-sided. But a lot of people think that it is a net gain for Wikipedia to frustrate any potential instance of disruption without regard to intent. Actually that was the theory behind this ban if I'm not mistaken. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Even if an editor made no content edits at all and did nothing but investigate and report sockpuppets from one side of a conflict or even just the sockpuppets of one person or file AE reports against editors who don't follow policy/the discretionary sanctions (and there are many), it would still be a net benefit to the project. It's not like there is a balance of power that needs to be maintained because it's beneficial. There's simply a set of rules and the question as to whether an editor is complying with them or not. If not, they need to be dealt with within the framework of rules by people who follow the rules not by people who use deception and will do whatever it takes because they think they are right. You need a diff to support a statement like "He has even admitted that he does it on one side only" by the way. The question of "pro-Palestinian" sockpuppets is an intriguing one though. Who and where are they ? Despite being pretty familiar with editors in the topic area I'm not able to recognise "pro-Palestinian" sockpuppetmasters with sufficient confidence and evidence to file an SPI. I think the bar for SPI reporting and blocking is too high. If someone looks like an obvious sock and they are participating in the I-P topic area in a way that brings them into conflict with other editors they should just be blocked to reduce disruption where disruption=unconstructive arguments/edits that cannot be justified by policy because no sources were provided etc etc. Also, I don't buy the "Nableezy is a POV warrior" proselytizing. The evidence doesn't bare it out. In so very many cases, what he is pushing is policy compliance and the notion that people base arguments on policy, a seemingly impossible task here because of the abundant supply of tendentiousness together with sockpuppets to support it. I'm pretty confident that even a very smart bot that could automatically and very rigorously implement content policies in the topic area would be called a POV warrior. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
In fairness to Cptnono, the animosity and intransigence from the two sides is a serious problem. In fact, it is the essence of the I/P problem in my view; everything else is just a manifestation of it. Ironically, Nableezy is one of the more accommodating I/P editors in my experience. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I actually see sock puppets as worse than POV warriors. An editor willing to use a sock puppet to circumvent a block or a ban is inherently a POV warrior, but a zealous one who also puts their personal ideology above the interests of Wikipedia. Compare that to Nableezy, for instance, who has been blocked or topic banned in the past, but has never (to my knowledge) resorted to crossing that line and creating a sock puppet to keep pushing. While I don't always agree with Nableezy, and I understand why he gets the POV warrior label, I can also respect his willingness to not cross that line. I don't tend to pay much attention to how many SPI or AE cases someone files, but rather how many frivolous cases they file vs. how many cases of merit. I haven't done any analysis of his edits, but I have the feeling that overall Nableezy has a fairly clean record in that area.
On the other hand, Nableezy clearly focuses on one side's viewpoint. Editors (on both sides) who edit from a particular viewpoint often don't do it intentionally, or even realize they do it. They write something they think to be true, and seek out information to back up their position. Editors are rarely active in seeking sources that contradict themselves, but we're all guilty of that at times. I do think that the pro-I side is more organized and uses significantly more sock puppets than the pro-P side, but they're probably also a smaller group in terms of numbers, so I can understand why they feel the need to make up for it. But that doesn't mean that what they do is right or acceptable, and it create an even worse state of mistrust between editors. When you don't know if the editor you're trying to work with has any actual good faith or if they've been banned repeatedly, it makes collaborating constructively exceedingly difficult.
On the whole, the whole I/P topic area is a big game of cat of mouse. If you get rid of the largest cat (Nableezy), you're going to have a mouse problem on your hands. In that way, the status quo balances itself out, in that neither side ever "wins", so neither side ever "loses". I think what we really need is to address the mouse issue first and permanently, and then lay the smack down on any cats that are still chasing things around that aren't mice. You can check out an idea I'm mulling around on how to do that here. We should be trying to rehabilitate sock puppets, not forcing them to go back into hiding under a new account IMO. ← George talk 03:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The real problem with sockpuppets is that they are uncooperative edit-warriors, just like typical I/P editors. They exacerbate the problems that already exist. Sure they overwhelm edit wars but edit wars shouldn't be happening in the first place. They deny consent on talkpages but how often do you see I/P editors give a fair audience to views from the other side anyway? Both sides basically treat the other as an obstacle to overcome. There's no time to compromise for the Conquerors of Namespace. Look at the Old City example Asad brings up below. The regular editors hardly behaved well. Sure there were socks but it takes two to tango; extra tangoers just complicates the process. It is indeed unjust that banned editors continue to edit so freely but it is hardly the only injustice that occurs here. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes and no. Sock puppets edit war like any other I/P editor, but they do so with impunity. They don't care about the repercussions, because there are none. Sanctions, bans, and blocks don't stick, and their nonexistent reputation means nothing to them. Regular I/P editors, while often disagreeing, can build up a camaraderie with each other, which leads to better discussions and more compromise. Take a look at IronDuke's comments on Nableezy's talk page, for example. There's disagreement, but respect too. Sock puppetry is a cancer; the crack that brings down the wall. If you suspect the person you're dealing might be one of these guys that runs a racist, nationalist, or supremacist website, that has been banned a dozen times before, you have no interest in working with them, let alone compromising with them. Even if the person isn't a sock puppet, the fear that they are creates mistrust, which leads to a breakdown in communication and cooperation. "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." ← George talk 08:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Nableezy's bromance with Iron Duke is touching but hardly representative of I/P relations. Again, that's what makes it so ironic that Nableezy is the I/P editor being topic banned. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
"...these guys that runs a racist, nationalist, or supremacist website" are just as bad as Nableezy as far as I see it. Nableezy tries to game Wikipedia like people from one of those sites only he is smart enough to do it almost right. All the pro-Israel editors won't just come out and say it: Nableezy is bad for this project not even considering his POV. Nableezy breeds cancer. He inspires sockpuppets by engaging them with the same (albeit it slightly more policy based) fervor
When Nableezy had the balls to say that he knew someone was a sockpuppet but that he was keeping his mouth shut because he likes him it showed that he was here for one reason and one reason only.
And twice he has descended down into complete garbage when he is hit. He made a legal threat after his first big reprimand just to be blocked. Then this time he called people cunts. I could care less about the language (***t=cunt and you know it) but he should not be pretending to be some nice guy when he is not.
Two months? That is a step down. He was just banned for longer. How many editors come to AE and get less than before? When Nableezy stops edit warring this will be a better topic area.
I do like disagreeing with you George. It will make my support vote of you getting the mop and bucket mean even more if you go for it. And Portland sucks.Cptnono (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right of course. Nableezy is bad for Wikipedia. But the thing is you're bad for Wikipedia too. And so is Tiamut and Agada and pretty much every I/P editor. And I like you and Nab and Tiamut and Agada. That's what's so god-damned frustrating. I think you're all good people and outside of I/P probably all good editors. If I can borrow Steven Weinberg's phrase "there are good and bad editors everywhere; but for good editors to act badly—that takes I/P. I've never heard an I/P editor admit that there is an I/P problem. They just think that there is an I problem or a P problem. You guys all worry about how one side is messing things up for the other side without realizing all y'all are ruining the topic area generally and excluding participation from regular editors. I'm not an I or a P and I find it very difficult to work in the I/P area. It would be nice if I had a team to encourage me on. I see less team unity on Hockey Night in Canada than in the I/P. That's why 1RR never worked. I suggested 1RR when we talked last summer (on your talk) but now I think it was misguided. There are effectively only two I/P editors: I and P. Both are more robust than ARPANET and always manage to survive the loss of a node or two.

I don't know what the answer is. But I think individual bans don't really help the general I/P situation and sometimes make it worse even if they are otherwise justified. That's what I was getting at with my Chinatown message below. Maybe Wikipedians are too young for the reference. And I agree Portland sucks if you mean the one in Oregon. You know it's pretty much one big wasteland between Tsawwassen and Sacramento. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, and I understand your reasoning, but our disagreement is essentially "Which came first—the chicken or the egg?" Could you link me to where he said he knew about a pro-P sock puppet but wouldn't report it? I sort of remember him saying something like that in a hypothetical sort of way, but if he ever actually did that it would be pretty strong proof of a battleground mentality. I know I've "caught" several pro-I sock puppets, and gotten them banned, but I would have just as readily gone after a pro-P sock puppet if I ever saw any (which I haven't). Doesn't matter too much I guess though, 'cause I'm not really in the sock-hunting business any more. There are two or three editors I strongly suspect of being pro-I socks, but I don't feel like putting hours of research into it, and to some extent I'd rather see them stick around on their current accounts, in a "better the devil you know than the one you don't" sort of way. Oh, and fuck Portland. ← George talk 18:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
No he cant give you a link, because it is a bald faced lie. A malicious untruth made with not even the semblance of an attempt to substantiate it. The discussion he is referencing is here. The issue was a pro-I editor editing with an IP address. I said I knew who the named editor was, but declined to say because of two reasons. The first being that there was no overlap in edits, making the IP not a policy violating sock, and the second was because I sort of liked that user. Not anywhere close to the malicious lie written above that he knew someone was a sockpuppet but that he was keeping his mouth shut because he likes him. Given that a. this was a "pro-I" user, and b. I explicitly said that the IP was not a sockpuppet, it would be impossible for any thinking person to draw the same conclusion that Cptnono draws. I make no comment as to whether Cptnono qualifies as a thinking person. Oh, and Cptnono, "***t" is not "cunt". I would save that word for, well, Ill leave who I would apply that word to untyped. Im sure Cptnonos telepathic gifts will enlighten all of us as to what exactly I mean. nableezy - 19:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor)[edit]

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

  • "These sanctions are as warranted as the previous ones on Nableezy were." I suppose AGK has reviewed nableezy's entire Wikipedia career and concluded that every action taken against him was warranted. Or maybe the previous ones were as unwarranted as this one is, because it is unwarranted. I certainly do hope you get around to evaluating the edit patterns, as you said you would, AGK, because something stinks here—beside your decision—and you stepped right into it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What of Nableezy's conduct? Your remark only addresses one minor side point of my statement, and says nothing of the actual basis of the sanction. AGK [] 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I appreciate Nab admitting that "yes, perhaps I made more reverts than I should have." Admissions save time. Nab pointing to his disagreement with the editor he was reverting does not, of course, excuse Nab's own actions. I appreciate Nab also acknowledging that he has previously been sanctioned a number of times under ARBPIA. The combination of his admission as to the problem with his edits here, and his history of being sanctioned under ARBPIA (which should have informed him of the inappropriateness of flouting wp rules), suggest to me that there is good reason to support the most recent sanction.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Remember, it takes two or more people to edit war, so Nableezy wasn't the only one engaging in it. Being fair, consistent, firm, equal, and strict in enforcing the policies and ArbCom sanctions regarding the I/P topic area is important in letting the participating editors know that the past behavior which caused so many problems will no longer be tolerated. Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have already indicated my intention to review the conduct of the other editors who were involved in this dispute, but in any case the behaviour of the others does not mitigate Nableezy's own misconduct. AGK [] 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we should just hand one of three options to the sanctioned user who has filed this appeal (the last option is more of a "if you're not happy with one of the first two, the second being the obvious default option"), Nableezy can:
  1. temporarily suspend this appeal for no longer than a week (to permit the review of other users behavior to be completed). Under this option, Nableezy can assess whether to continue/withdraw this appeal after the review is completed or 1 week has passed. There may be scope for relaxing the restriction after this time; there might not be; time will tell. If there is not scope, you will still have the ability to appeal back here or to the Committee at another time.
  2. proceed with the appeal right now where the only behavior which will be considered is Nableezy's, as well as remedies relating to that behavior. If the decision is to keep things as they are, then under this option, you will NOT have the ability to appeal this topic ban (except by email to the Committee) unless it is amended again.
  3. move this appeal to the Committee - but bear in mind that under this option, AC will explicitly be given the option to either relax or increase the severity of this restriction, by any duration of time (including indefinitely), if justified in light of your editing record in this topic area.
  • Nableezy, which of the 3 do you opt for? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a very sensible way of proceeding. AGK [] 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • 2. nableezy - 14:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking at Nableezy's history of blocks and disputes, I'm surprised he hasn't been indefinitely banned already. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The optimist in me hopes that these editors will learn their lesson from the continued application of discretionary sanctions, and correct their behaviour. The pessimist in me agrees with your comment. AGK [] 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The optimist in me hopes that twelve-day-old editors editing from Amazon EC2 and who happen to stumble upon AE aren't another of the more nefarious things Nableezy is particularly keen at sniffing out. ← George talk 12:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I would respectfully ask that you to withdraw that accusation George. Nableezy and I were editing and discussion the same article (Lara Logan). I use numerous proxy services to get around internet censorship in my country of residence (Although I've never heard of Amazon EC2 - It must be utilized through one of my third party clients). OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't believe I made an accusation in there, I merely expressed my hopes. If you'd like to discuss the issue further, however, feel free to drop by my talk page. ← George talk 12:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The frequency with which this area is coming here is utterly ridiculous. Which part about "this area is under a sanctions regime" do people not understand? We do want editors who care about the project and what it is they are doing, but not to the point that they have lost complete control of how to respond to difficult situations and problematic editors. I see a situation where the Community is soon going to say "enough is enough" (like with the CC topic area) very soon, except that it is relation to how this topic area should treated.
  • The second most recent remedy which was imposed in response to concerns about Nableezy's conduct in this topic area was a 4 month topic ban for what was in a large part, edit-warring, and this expired on 4 April 2011. At the time, a specific warning was also given in relation to edit-warring and a number of factors were also considered about edit-warring by this participant. A little over a month after this ban expired, we find ourselves here due to a 2 topic ban from the same topic area for what is in large part, slow edit-warring. It appears 1RR is still being treated as an entitlement and the same types of arguments are being expounded each time this is brought here. I don't think thehints are being picked up on and the message has obviously not sunk in even after all of these threads.
  • In view of all of the circumstances, and the fact we inevitably have yet another trainwreck to deal with in the near future if we do get involved, and Nableezy's decision to proceed with this appeal despite the other options available, I'm not inclined to change anything at this point in time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The AE which led to the sanction appears to have been filed at 18:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC). The RFC was opened at 13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC). I don't want a message being sent that this area can continue to be subject to an undue amount of administrative investigation each time this chronology repeats itself - purely because editors are not utilizing the mechanisms available to them more appropriately (be it SPI for sock allegations, AE for conduct issues in this area, article RFC etc). Simply agreeing not to revert more than once a week is still not going to address the underlying problem of the revert rules being treated as an entitlement. These and a few other factors led me to change my initial impression (which was similar to Heimstern's view) to the above view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The reason this topic area is under a regime is because the state of this topic area has deemed to be unacceptable on a lot of fronts; that's the point which is being sent here. More than enough months have elapsed for adjustments to your approaches to be made. All of the policies need to be complied with as much as possible and you need to work within those and the confines of any other decisions which are applicable (that includes, for example, "jumping through hoops", doing things effectively, and utilizing the mechanisms available). If you aren't willing to do so, then this topic area is not, at this particular time, the area for you to be contributing in. All of you need to make the effort to move this towards a less problematic area; make the necessary changes to your approaches or take the respective breaks that are necessary. I'm not sure how many other ways I need to put it to impress upon you all to protect the heart of the project AND prevent even the appearances of disruption in this problematic area. If someone is misbehaving in this area, use the mechanisms I referred to above sooner - even if this swallows up a bit more time/effort than any of us would like to spend. Additionally, there is a Committee who you can request clarification from if you are still having trouble dealing with these types of problems or where principles of the project appear to be in conflict as a result of this regime. This may appear very simple on the surface, but you all need to reflect on this for more than just a few minutes or hours in order to move forward even in the options you select. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
        • A major reason we have such huge problems in this topic area is the proliferation of socks and throwaway accounts. We have users pretending to be new, violating 1RR and even 3RR all over the place while pleading ignorance. They just happen to edit side by side with the same set of established editors of the same POV (I can and will provide names and examples upon request). The socks and throwaway accounts do all the reverting while the established editors on their side do some discussing and throw out the occasional revert of their own. This leaves those of us not socking and editing using sources at a technical disadvantage, open to being sanctioned, often based on reports filed by socks (just like Nableezy's first topic ban which came pursuant to User:Stellarkid's report). This is a huge problem that AE is not dealing with. Instead, AE is being used to punish an editor who has an uncanny ability to detect socks, file reports and get them stopped. We have admins here, in this very section, conversing with socks sympathetically, seemingly missing the forest for the trees. Excuse my frustration, but really, what do you want us to do? Tiamuttalk 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
          • For this appeal, where is the evidence of (1) filing an AE when one of the reverters was misbehaving? (2) filing a SPI on any SSP? (The third question would be using mechanisms instead of reverting, eg; the article RfC but I already made a note on that and that the reverting came before it). For the general problem, which is what your comment seems to tend to, ask AC for clarification on what they want you to do: 'is the regime working the way it is supposed to? How can we make the articles comply with content policies without being sanctioned? How do we address socks, throwaways, and other accounts which may be attempting to evade bans/blocks at the same time (and how many hoops do we need to jump through in order to prevent a cause for being sanctioned)? Is an amendment required? Or should we be following a different procedure? Or do you want us to avoid editing the area altogether?' (Note: you may need to show evidence to support some of the assertions a few of the questions rely on, eg; sock determinations, sanctions, evidence of using all of the best practicse you think of yet something still not working, etc). Where insufficient data has been provided on-wiki, you may also need to forward the evidence to AC and the functionary team. I do at one point hope to have enough confidence and cause for making a recommendation to lift/amend it in a certain way, but that point has certainly not been reached at this time. For now, use the time to review best practice under AC's guidance and presuming it is helpful, think of how all of you will deal with such issues thereafter in accordance with that and policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I still think the valid points raised throughout the discussion (and through other discussions occurring at some user talks) are going to be lost by not pushing this to ArbCom. I am specifically not suggesting that this be escalated into a new case; the point is to avoid that unless it is absolutely necessary. What I am suggesting is that some clarification could be helpful on the questions I asked above; I don't think I'd gain or lose anything either way, but parties may get a fairer idea of how to go about things and what to expect. At the end of the day though, I'm not going to force them to drink water from the well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you do in Chinatown? As little as possible. --JGGardiner (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Nableezy[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I recommend declining this appeal. There are enough reverts documented in the original complaint to show that Nableezy was putting back his preferred version when it was clear there was not yet any consensus for the change. Nableezy was just returning from a previous topic ban. Other editors may have misbehaved as well, but the AE complaint just below this one (opened by AGK) is a place where those issues can be heard. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I admit that I share some of the concerns of those who've objected to this ban. I think it is allowable per policy and was within AGK's discretion, no question, but I'm worried it was still not the best choice to make because, while Nableezy certainly has edit warred, he's also been making clear efforts to comply with BRD. Starting an RFC, as he did, is just the right thing to do, and I'm concerned that this sanction could send the message that trying to resolve disputes through consensus-building is futile. I also do note that Nableezy has been insisting on sources, and my reading suggests those not doing so, by contrast, seem to be using unsourced opinion. All the rv warring by Nableezy was still a bad idea, and particularly given his far from spotless record and the crapfest that I/P is, I see no case for the sanction as invalid. But I do disagree with it and would rather it be lifted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you say to Ncmvocalist's points in the section immediately above? AGK [] 10:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it probably doesn't help us that I haven't actually been at AE long and so haven't had to deal with I/P stuff as much the rest of you no doubt have (one of Ncm's principal points seems to be the frequency of these issues coming up, and that's something I've not experienced myself). Maybe I am being too tolerant just because I'm fresher here than everyone else. That's actually very hard for me to gauge. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I would never try to give less value to your input as an administrator because you haven't been active here as much as myself or others might be. If anything, I'd give equal or greater value to your input, because you have the benefit of having a completely fresh perspective. But yes, I think it is important to appreciate how problematic this subject area is—even by the standards of AE, which has within its scope as the DS processing page almost all of Wikipedia's most bothersome topics. AGK [] 14:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Whether or not I would have opted for the same sanction is irrelevant. The fact is that AGK's topic ban is within reasonable administrator discretion, and we should not be in the business of micromanaging discretionary sanctions by committee. I agree with EdJohnston that the appeal should be declined. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This appeal should be declined. As T. Canens explains, it was within the bounds of administrative discretion. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The appeal should be allowed. It doesn't matter whether it was "within the bounds of administrative discretion" so much as whether it is in the best interests of the mess that is I/P. We can't manage AE as if socking in this area is under control; it is rampant, and punishing established editors attempting to do the right thing (dispute resolution, relying on sources) is making a bad situation worse, both immediately, and by the message it sends. Personally, I avoid the I/P topic area like the plague, and occasional blunders into always become sharp reminders of why. Anyone who can contribute constructively to this area in the long-term ought not to be banned from it for quite chunky periods for minor offences, leaving the field clearer for sockpuppets. Rd232 talk 03:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • So you propose that we allow an editor to go unsanctioned for his conduct, because he's good at sniffing out sock-puppets? That is a ludicrous suggestion. AGK [] 12:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 topic ban clarification[edit]

Create article in user space to be reviewed. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statement by Mbz1[edit]

I'd like to write an article about Israeli medical high pressure bandages please. This article is not falling under my topic ban restrictions as they were specified here There are not going to be any single word about the conflict, and I mean this.User:Gatoclass requested I consult him about my new articles, if I have a doubt about the topic. I have zero doubts, but I did ask Gato, and he eventually agreed that I could write this article without violating my topic ban. I also asked my banning administrator , and he declined my request, but kindly allowed me to ask for a review of my proposal at AE, so here I am.

If I am to write the article, I will write it in my user space and present it for review before it is moved to main space. I will not touch the article and its discussion page after it is moved to the main space. I will not nominate it on DYK, and, if somebody else will I will not comment on the nomination.

IMO it is important for a topicbanned editors to be allowed to write such articles in their user spaces, the articles that are not violating their topic bans at all, but might be seen as borderline. Why it is important? It is important because it teaches an editor to behave in the topic he/she is banned for. It is a very harsh punishment not to be able to edit and/or to comment on your own articles, it is very difficult not to watch what's going on there, but it does teach to be patient and more tolerant to other users opinions.

May I please write this article? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sanction or remedy that might prevent writing this article[edit]

  • Mbz1 is topic banned from all articles and discussions related to Palestine, Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, until 7 April, 2012 per this notice by 2over0. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Mbz1's request[edit]

It seems to me your request should be at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. I suggest you move it there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, but I am not sure about this because I was banned on AE not by ArbCom.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Piotrus: He was banned under the discretionary sanctions provision of an arbitration decision, so a clarification of the scope of the topic ban belongs, unless I'm mistaken, here, and not at clarifications. AGK [] 18:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ah, I see. In that case, I'd suggest you reformat your request per the guidelines at the top of this page. Admins here, in my experience, pay much attention to such technicalities, and your request may be rejected due to improper formatting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
But there's no template for my situation.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to wonder why we have to keep revisiting mbz's nibbling around the edges of her topic ban. Out of all the permutations of topics within the sum of human knowledge, it should be fairly simple to write about something that has nothing to do with Israel, Palestine, the Middle East, Jews or Arabs. Write an article about arachnids. Submarine warfare in WWII. Buddhism. Water polo. The soon-to-be-crowned American Idol finalist. Anything that gets away from the big I and the big P. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • yeah it would be simpler if, instead of annoying us with these requests, mbz1 would just do what User:Nableezy is doing he's subject to the smae topic ban, but he just edits these "borderline" articles anyway - like this one Majida El Roumi (Lebanese singer who sings about Israeli massacres) or this one Lara Logan - TV reporter sexually assalted in Egypt whan a mob suspected she was Israeli. Rym torch (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Your attempt to paint those articles as "related to the Arab–Israeli conflict" is pretty lame. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    they are at least as related to the conflict as an article about innovative Israeli bandages or Israeli startups. Rym torch (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Info In accordance with this an involved user:tarc opinion should not be taken into account for this discussion. Actually it should not be commenting here at all. I could present lots of links to its attacks on me off wiki.
  • In general I would like to ask everybody, but uninvolved administrators including of course my banning administrator, to avoid commenting on this thread, if it is possible. It is a simple request, please let not to turn it to another battleground.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • My personal opinion on an editor does not invalidate my position that a topic-banned editor should steer well clear of the topic area; review the tu quoque logical fallacy at your leisure. Everyone is free to offer insight as they see fit. Those that eventually decide these sorts of things can then take into account or discard completely what they see fit, but it isn't your place to censor other editors' contributions. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment from 2/0: I imposed this topic ban following discussion here, which is why I think that this venue is the appropriate one to request further opinions. I have reviewed the sources for the proposed article, and am of the opinion that it probably veers too close to broadly construed, especially in light of the recent brouhaha at Start-up Nation. On another hand, it looks like it should be perfectly possible to write a complete and informative article on this topic without touching on ARBPIA issues except incidentally. I asked Mbz1 to make a request here to draw out a new consensus whether the proposed article should be covered by their ban. Real life may prevent me from participating much, so please close this discussion under the norms for establishing consensus at this board. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I anticipate that, like Start-up Nation, the first edits to the proposed article will bring it squarely into the Arab–Israeli conflict. For that reason, I recommend against this request. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Malik, I doubt very much this is going to happen to the requested article. Even very much involved user:Gatoclass blessed me with this article. Besides, if I am to write an article in my user space with no violation of my ban, and will not edit it in the main space, there simply cannot be ban violation.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I saw that in your request. I have mixed feelings about this matter, and I've withdrawn my recommendation.
        The reason I'm convinced this article will become another Arab–Israeli battleground is because I anticipate that the first edits to the article will discuss why Israelis invented the bandages: to treat victims of Palestinian terrorism, or not. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments by George

I support this request, provided that Mbz1 abides by the guidelines she herself set out above: she will only edit it in her own userspace, and will not edit it after it is in the mainspace (nor submit it for DYK or the like). The only caveat I would add is to be clear that it should only be only be moved to the mainspace by an administrator. Remember folks, this should be preventative, not punitive, and under those restrictions I see no reason to refuse this request.

If we don't allow banned editors the option of structured contribution (with review) as a way to improve their behavior, we only push them to circumvent policies (like writing the article in notepad anyways, and emailing it to a friend to post). ← George talk 02:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 response to HJ.

I want to write this article for two absolutely different reasons:

  1. Israeli emergency bandages are easy to use, could be used by anybody, and sometimes using them could be a matter of life and death for a bleeding person. If after reading the article some wikipedia readers add those bandages to their first aid kit, and a life of even one person would be saved thanks to this, I'd very happy, and no I am not going to write an advertisement article.
  2. My second reason is described in my initial request. Writing such articles in my user space without being able to edit them in the main space is going to help me with editing the topic, when my ban is lifted.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Responses to Ed and Tim, I know it is useless, but...
  • Ed, this article is not going to be nominated on DYK. The actual wording here, at AE request, covers only conflict, and 2/0 clarified his intentions.
  • Ed and Tim, so is this OK, if I am to edit-warring in main space in Egypt over the subject of Muslims killing Copts in Alexandria, as another user did over and over again during their topic ban, but it is not OK, if I am to write an article about Israeli medical bandages that are used to safe life in my own user space? Just asking. Anyway... Even, if worse comes to worse, and the article will became I/P related article after it is moved to the main space (not by me, but somebody else) how it is going to affect my ban, if I am not to edit it there?--Mbz1 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Here are the sources I was going to use
  1. [30];
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]
General comments on topic bans

My understanding of the purpose of topic bans is it is imposed to prevent an editor from causing disruptions in the topic. What are disruptions? According to this guideline disruptions are:

  • vandalism;
  • gross incivility;
  • harassment;
  • spamming;
  • edit warring

I hope any reasonable person would agree that there is no way to violate any of the above policies while writing a new article in one own user space. I strongly believe that any topic banned editor should be allowed to write a new article in their own user space, move it to the main space in one edit, and never touch it again while under the ban because the purpose of topic ban is preventing an editor from causing disruptions in the topic, and not preventing a constructive contributions to the topic because preventing constructive contributions to the topic is an absolute absurd, and is not good for Wikipedia's image.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 response to Tim

Tim, thank you for clarification of your position. As I pointed out above there is a discrepancy between the The actual wording here, at AE request and this notice left at my talk page. The first one states that I am "topic banned from all articles and pages covered by WP:ARBPIA ...", The second one states: that I am topic banned "from all articles and discussions related to Palestine, Israel, or the Arab-Israeli conflict". I am not sure if such discrepancies are usual, if it was 2/0 intention, but why we should second guess 2/0 intentions, if HJ asked 2/0 this very question and 2/0 responded "no (the state of Israel yes, but not diamonds just because Israel exports them).--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to Tim.

There is another interesting thing on the matter of my topic ban. Please take a look at the language 2/0 used to close the request: "An argument could be made for dismissing this report with prejudice given the weak and highly inappropriate nature of the filing statement"(highlighted by me). So my banning administrator understood I should not have been banned at all, but banned me because of "consensus". I am far from saying I have done nothing wrong. I did, but I am being greatly over-sanctioned because of what I call "a name recognition" :-) The only thing I am interested in doing in this particular topic is writing new articles. So in an unfortunate case my topic ban cannot be lifted now with no restrictions as it should be lifted IMO, here's my motion to modify its conditions. I hope you find this motion to be fair, and reasonable because the proposed restrictions would completely prevent me from causing any disruptions in the topic and it is a sole purpose of topic ban.

  1. Mbz1 topic-banned indefinitely for all articles and articles discussion pages related to I/P conflict in main space, except the situation described in #4
  2. Mbz1 is topic-banned indefinitely for all deletion requests on I/P conflict related articles.
  3. Mbz1 is topic-banned indefinitely for nominating I/P related articles on DYK and/or taking part in DYK discussions on such articles.
  4. Mbz1 is allowed to write any I/P related article in her own user space, and add it to the main space in a single edit without consulting an administrator. To be eligible to write an I/P related article Mbz1 should write 4 articles that have no relation to I/P conflict for each I/P related article she wants to write.
  5. Mbz1 is banned indefinitely from responding and/or removing any messages added to her talk page in regards to I/P related articles.
  6. Mbz1 has the right to appeal the sanctions in 6 months.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Gatoclass

I told Mbz I couldn't see a problem with this topic. The reason I said that is because none of the sources she proposed to use mention the A-I conflict, and, somewhat to my surprise, a quick Google search did not turn up any additional sources on this topic that mention the conflict either. I did however have some concerns about the notability of the topic, which might best be tested by an AFD.

As regards the "Israeli boosterism" issue, I'm not especially concerned about that and it seems to me a stretch to consider articles about Israeli (or Arab/Muslim) achievements to be a violation of an ARBPIA topic ban. However, I am concerned about articles which deal with Arab/Muslim-Jewish relations, because it's been clear for a long time that the Arab-Israeli conflict has spilled over into this area, and I think it would be appropriate for topic banned users to avoid such articles. I also think it's inappropriate for topic banned users to make edits which portray the opposing ethnic group in a negative manner. The longer term solution for these issues might be to file a request for clarification/amendment with arbcom.

Finally, I might add that I think it unhelpful to interpret ARBPIA sanctions as applying solely to article subjects rather than to edits. Lots of articles can be about a subject almost entirely outside the topic area but which touch in some respect on the topic, while at the same time it's possible to make edits which do not actually touch upon the topic to an article which is plainly within the topic area. IMO it's better to focus upon edits rather than article subjects, but certainly, topic banned users should not be authoring articles which cannot be effectively covered without mentioning the topic. I've yet to see any evidence, however, that this particular proposed article falls into that category. Gatoclass (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Observation by Volunteer Marek

I think one particular reason to grant this request is that it can serve as a test case. If indeed Mbz1 can create a good article on the subject while managing to avoid the obvious pitfalls then she will have demonstrated that she is capable of making constructive edits. One of the ongoing themes here has been that Mbz1 does in fact make lots of constructive edits (and images!) but that when she steps into the I-P battle arena, she tends to get into trouble. If she succeeds here she will have demonstrated that it is possible to separate out the controversial from the non-controversial here.

With that in mind, I think HJ Mitchell's suggestion of a resolution (creating the article in namespace, etc.) is a good one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Result of Mbz1's request[edit]

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

I have two questions. One for 2/0 and/or other admins who were in favour of the topic ban at the previous AE request and one for Mbz.

@2/0: Was it your intention, when implimenting this restriction, to prohibit Mbz from editing any article remotely connected to Israel (not the slighly narrower area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but those topics concerning Israel which are not related to the dispute)?
@Mbz: Forgive my cynicism, it's not personal, but why do you so badly want to write an article so badly when a coherent argument could be made that it violates the letter of your restrictions? (Whether it violates the spirit of them is what I'm seeking to ascertain from 2/0 or other admins.)

If 2/0's answer is no and Mbz's answer is satisfactory, I don't see a problem, providing one of the admins who comments on this request reads the article before it's moved to mainspace. On a more general note, I think it shows a desire to to adhere to the topic ban that Mbz has requested this clarification rather than risk violating the ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: "no" (the state of Israel yes, but not diamonds just because Israel exports them). Long answer: how broadly is it useful to construe "broadly construed"? I confess that my internal algorithm for predicting what people will consider important is still in the development stages. As always with a topic ban, we have a tension between wanting to foster an environment where people like contributing to the encyclopedia while discouraging edit warring and pointless in-fighting. Is it wise to allow the creation of an article that itself does not have anything to do with ARBPIA, but there is a reasonable fear that it shortly will? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Will the newly-created article acquire an ARBPIA banner as soon as others start to edit it? Also, if it is submitted for DYK will others see it as Israeli boosterism. How hard will it be to arrive at a neutral article? This bandage was created for the Israeli army, and that army has often taken part in the Arab-Israeli conflict. I see that a bandage of this kind was reported on the 'Good News from Israel' page here. (Search for 'Naimer'). I recommend that this article not be allowed as an exception to Mbz1's ban. The actual wording of the ban, as left by 2over0 on Mbz1's talk page, covers all articles and discussions related to Israel, not just the conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • 2over0's topic ban covers more than the conflict, exactly per EdJohnston. I don't see how it is possible to argue that this particular proposed article is not related to Israel. T. Canens (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Let me put this way. 2over0's topic ban in this case was substantially broader than the usual topic ban we hand out in ARBPIA cases, since it covers not only articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but also articles related to Israel (or Palestine) generally. A good argument can be made that your proposed article is not related to the A-I conflict, and I think it highly commendable that you asked first instead of creating your userspace draft, but the fact is that such an article is covered by the sanction currently active on you, and other admins simply cannot modify it (by granting you an exemption or in some other manner) without 2over0's (or arbcom's) permission. T. Canens (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Normally I would say the version that's in the talk page notification controlled, since an AE thread is not required for a sanction, but then the logged sanction incorporated the AE case by the link and not the individual notification, and it's not quite clear whether the "articles covered under WP:ARBPIA" referred to WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict or the "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" in WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions (that is, articles that a topic ban under ARBPIA could cover). And 2over0's response to HJ above isn't quite illuminating (diamond would not normally fall within even a topic ban for Israel). Okay, 2over0, can you clarify exactly what you intended to ban Mbz1 (and, for that matter, Passionless) from? Just the A-I conflict, or also Palestine and Israel? T. Canens (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I wrote the language of the ban immediately after reading up on the old disputes that led up to discretionary sanctions being placed on the whole topic area. An exceptionally broad swath of the encyclopedia has been part of these disputes, and I intended mentioning the states as a way of indicating that the bans should be interpreted broadly. Specifically, they should be interpreted as broadly as the sanctions authorized by ARBPIA, but no more broadly. The point to mentioning diamonds is that a really in-depth article could legitimately mention Israel at Diamond#Gemstones and their distribution, but I would nevertheless not see the topic itself as being covered by the ban. In other words, the bans should be interpreted broadly but not absurdly broadly. The question then is whether this proposed article is of that nature or whether it is more like indirectly participating in the dispute by promoting one side. I have given my answer, but I think that there is enough doubt that I am deferring to this board instead of summarily rejecting the request. Perhaps I should have opened this request myself instead of asking Mbz1 to do the work. If nobody else thinks that the proposed article is a good idea, then we should close this by asking Mbz1 to wait a few months. If the general opinion is that I am being too cynical, needlessly standing in the way of the development of the encyclopedia, or punishing Mbz1 for the possible future edits of others, then we should get out of the way.
Mbz1, I think I was unclear in my closing comment; sorry about that. My meaning was that if I had been the first to see that thread, I would have closed it. I found some of the points made against you singularly uncompelling, but there was enough legitimate concern that I think focusing on other areas for a while would be a good idea. I try to do this for myself periodically, and generally find it quite refreshing. I read your work on Lower Swell and found it quite neat, and your pictures are casually fantastic. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
With that clarification in mind and any cycnicism I had put to rest by Mbz's explanation of why she wants to write the article, I propose:
  • We allow her to create the article in her userspace, but
  • She should seek comments from at least two of the admins who have commented in this section before moving it to mainspace
  • If the article attracts edits which put it within the scope of ARBPIA after it is moved to mainspace, Mbz must not edit the article any further until the expiration or successful appeal of her topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Alright, this has been open for nearly a week and we owe Mbz1 an answer. I am going to err on the side of getting a new article for the encyclopedia, under the conditions below:
    • Article to be created in userspace;
    • Article to be reviewed by at least two of the uninvolved admins who have commented here or at the original AE thread before being moved to mainspace;
    • If any ARBPIA-related edit is made by any editor to the article or its talkpage, the article will be considered to be covered by Mbz1's current topic ban.
Mbz1, if this is acceptable, I hope to read your article soon; if this is not acceptable, please re-open this request or open a new one. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Mibelz[edit]

Banned for three months from changing names from one national variant to another, under WP:DIGWUREN. Details within. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Mibelz[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Mibelz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. May 12 - second move revert on the same day, with an incivil edit summary
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. User_talk:Mibelz#Blocked_and_warned - Warned on 22 March 2010 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

I am not fond of ban/blockhammer use, and whether any blocks are necessary, I leave to the discretion of AE regulars. However, action is needed to stop an editor from move warring and ignoring discussions. Further, Mibelz's incivility is problematic, as such comments directly lead to battleground atmosphere. I'd ask that 1) he is reminded and warned about civility 2) warned that move warring can lead to a block and 3) that the article in question is moved back to the long-established name by a neutral party and move-protected for the next few weeks (with no prejudice to a proper RM being started). PS. I am also open to withdrawing this request if Mibelz apologizes for his incivil comment, and self-revets himself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

On April 18 Mibelz (talk · contribs) moved Rebellion of wójt Albert from its stable location to Rebellion of vogt Albert without a talk comment, and with a rather uninformative editing summary. I reverted him with a more informative edit summary and as I saw no further activity on the article, I thought the matter settled. Today he moved the article again, with a hardly more informative edit summary ([34]). I reverted him (since it was almost a month since the last revert), explained my rationale in detail on talk, and noted that explanation in my edit summary, also asking that any further moves are made through WP:RM. Less than an hour later, he reverted me again, this time with an incivil edit summary ("some Polish nationalists"). Given this unconstructive attitude (lack of discussion, incivil comments, willingness to move war) I am hesitant to revert him again, as I expect he would just revert me back - and a "move war" would hardly help. If it wasn't for the incivility, I'd likely start a 3O/RfC, but with the incivility added into the mix, I am bringing this incident here. PS. Minutes after move, an IP changed all instances of Kraków to the obsolete, old-English redirect Cracow: [35]. In the context of the relatively recent blocks for name-reverting, this is another worrisome sign.

While I realize that AE deals primarily with editor behavior, I'd also appreciate a comment on 1) whether the article can be moved back to the stable name and move protected and 2) whether and when I can move it back so that my action is not seen as "move warring". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: Mibelz has not bothered replying here; he has still not bothered commenting on the article's talk page, he has however reverted another editor again, forcing his preferred name spelling (in violation of WP:NCGN: [36]. Note that I have explained this naming issue on talk as well, at the same time I made my original explanation regarding the article's name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Update 2 Mibelz is still refusing to comment on talk, even after Ncmvocalist asked him to. He has, however, made several talk page comments in which he again shows bad faith: [37], [38], [39]. His Kraków example, relevant to him edit warring about the name in the article, is contrary to WP:NCGN (note also that the article itself is at Kraków, Cracow is a redirect, and the name has been discussed on that article's talk, with the consensus still being "keep Kraków"). His latest comment shows part of his POV; but contrary to his statement he has not been reverted yet, because he even added it to the article after making the complain in question (complain, edit)! (Note, also, first, that he does not add information on Polish origin, nor that it is customary for articles to state such origin in the way he is doing it). As such I will not be surprised if he is reverted by another editor. Reviewing his edits, while it seems his contribution to chess/sports articles are usually fine, his recent contributions to historical articles, as demonstrated in this incident, are not very constructive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to Mibelz: yes, you have "argued", in your edit summary to your second revert. You still have not replied to any of the issues raised on article's talk. And if you want to rename Kraków to Cracow, raise it on that article's talk page, although I doubt it will succeed, as this issue has been debated many times, and the consensus is to keep the article at Kraków, which, despite your assertions to the contrary, is widely used in English language. What we are trying to tell you here is that 1) you should use talk pages 2) you should be civil and assume good faith and 3) you should not engage in edit warring, and you should try to discuss issues before reverting more than once (WP:BRD). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[40]


Discussion concerning Mibelz[edit]

Statement by Mibelz[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Mibelz[edit]

  • I agree with EdJohnston; unless it continues, I don't think 1RR is particularly necessary either. A single incident of edit-warring on History of Kiev from a year ago and this recent incident of move-warring on Rebellion of wójt Albert (which has already been dealt with via a 20 hour block by AGK) isn't much to go on.
  • Piotrus, although I was tempted to move the page back myself, I think you should proceed with the article RFC. The move-warring was strange, and it was fine to bring it here, but things cannot move forward if parties also started avoiding steps purely because of an instance of perceived incivility ("Polish nationalist"). You should ignore it and recognise that the user is obviously having trouble in communicating whatever it is he's trying to say on this matter; if there is no logic in what he was trying to say, there's no harm in getting extra input to be sure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As the request below demonstrates, Mibelz has already been blocked for 20 hours for page move warring, hence this request would also have to be seen as closed. However, Mibelz, as are all editors, would be now aware that contentious edits within this area are not going to be tolerated. It makes sense to stsart with a short block (which has occurred) and then escalate it if required. Heaven forbid, I've seen editors let off multiple times for incivility in this area as of late, even after persistent warnings, it makes no sense to me to topic ban an editor due to this infraction. But make them aware that is where they are headed if they continue. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 16:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that a merit discussion is important, not insinuations - for example: "he again shows bad faith" (Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus), or "you are ridiculous" (81.164.215.61 who renamed of Cracow in the Rebellion of vogt Albert). I have argued that "English name is Cracow, as well as Nuremberg, Munich, Cologne, Prague, Warsaw, etc., not Kraków, Nürnberg, München, Köln, Praha, Warszawa, etc."

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus also wrote: "Reviewing his edits, while it seems his contribution to chess/sports articles are usually fine, his contributions to historical articles, as demonstrated in this incident, are not very constructive." Look at some history articles I expanded considerably (i.e. Galicia (Central-Eastern Europe), Grand Prince of Kiev, List of Ukrainian rulers, List of Polish monarchs, List of Russian rulers, History of the Jews in China, Kaifeng Jews, Shanghai Ghetto, etc.), please.

By the way, I do not intend to write how constructive are Piotrus's articles. -- Mibelz, Ph.D. 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


    • Ed, that topic ban needs to be placed both ways, on users who are changing Krakow-->Cracow and on users who are changing Cracow-->Krakow. Especially when those changes are being made under the pretense of "bypassing redirects", which should see [[Cracow]] being changed to [[Kraków|Cracow]] instead of [[Kraków]]. Mibelz is not the only user here who is disregarding these conventions. You should be investigating that. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 16:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Russavia, when did your sanction from the Russavia/Biophys case get revoked? As far as I know you are still "prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution." [41]. You were already banned once for breaking this restriction [42] [43]. Yet here you are agitating for topic ban against Piotrus ("topic ban needs to be placed both ways"). Or did I misunderstand that? Since you are not involved in the original disagreement on "Rebellion of (mr.) Albert", this is obviously NOT in any way a "case of necessary dispute resolution".

The sanction in the R/B case against you interacting with people from the EEML case was designed to prevent EXACTLY this kind of battleground behavior. How about you strike your comments and withdraw before more trouble and unnecessary drama ensues?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Mibelz[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • With the problematic nature of Mibelz's general approach to interaction and with his previous block for edit warring on a Digwuren-related article, I am minded to topic ban him from all such articles for about 3 months. A mentorship might do some good, but we simply do not have the resources for that—and in any case, we cannot permit editors like Mibelz to be active in contested topic areas. AGK [] 22:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Mibelz has been here since 2006 and has 18,000 edits. He has created a lot of articles, many of them on chess players. He also does a lot of work on Eastern European topics. I'd advise against a complete topic ban from Eastern Europe, but a 1RR might be considered. There is a slight language barrier, and in spite of his long record here, he may not know much about WP:Dispute resolution. There is no hint of any ethnic motivation for his recent move warring. Check his move log, which appears unexceptional except for the May 12 fight. EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • My efforts to get through to Mibelz have not been successful. I still hope to avoid having him banned from the entire WP:DIGWUREN area, even for three months. Does anyone who commented above want to propose an alternative sanction? Maybe a 1RR/year on moving articles in Eastern Europe? EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • A new proposal: Mibelz will be banned for three months from changing any names of people, places or things from one national variant to another. For instance, he may not change wójt to vogt, or Kraków to Cracow. He can propose these changes on the talk page, or at any WikiProject, and leave it for others to handle. This applies both to article moves and to any changes of names in article text. I will close this request soon with the above ban unless there is further discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm closing with the above ban of Mibelz from changing names from one national variant to another, for a three-month period. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wessexboy[edit]

Blocked 24 hours for 1RR violation on a Troubles article. Details within. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Wessexboy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
O Fenian (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Wessexboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
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. 19:32, 17 May 2011 Partial revert to remove a paragraph added in this edit
  2. 12:17, 18 May 2011 Adds back the "anti-Monarchy activist" label originally added as "anti-Monarchist" in this edit by Wessexboy himself
  3. 13:49, 18 May 2011 Adds back completely out of context (see below for details) quote originally added in this edit by Wessexboy himself, all three reverts performed within 24 hours breaching the 1RR restriction


Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 16:39, 15 June 2010 by O Fenian (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 04:50, 18 May 2011 by Mjroots (talk · contribs) (note, this is the addition of the restriction template to the talk page, but Wessexboy posted to the talk page at 12:25, 18 May 2011 before making his third revert.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Block or article ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Wessexboy first appeared on the Troubles radar almost a year ago with this edit, which is virtually (with the exception of the addition of Londonderry) a revert to a version from over a year before which included this section where a known tendentious editor had added the claim that regarding a death threat a living person had received 'subsequently many people were reported to say "couldn't happen to a nicer guy"'.

Virtually every edit he makes to the British Queen's visit article is tendentious.

  • [44] Claims that the only people alleging British collusion in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings are "Provisional Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein its sympathisers have repeatedly alleged that members of the British security forces colluded with the loyalists", when the families of those murdered, Taoiseach Enda Kenny and a host of others who believed there are unanswered questions about British collusion are nothing of the sort. You will also see the addition of "left wing" and "anti-Monarchist" labels to Morrisey because he criticised the visit
  • [45] Removes paragraph about a government report into the bombings
  • [46] A combination of the above two diffs, addition "anti-Monarchy activist" and removal of the government report
  • [47] Adds "Trotskyite" label to Joe Higgins because he criticised the visit
  • [48] Adds quote that completely misrepresents what Gerry Adams said, claiming that he "welcomed the visit, saying "it will be a matter of considerable pleasure, not just for her Majesty but for the rest of us as well."". As both the secondary and original source make clear, what he actually said was that "he hoped the Queen's visit would lead to a "better relationship between the peoples of Ireland and Britain"", and the following paragraph in full reads "The visit by the Queen of England provides a unique opportunity for the British establishment to make it clear that this is its intention also. If this is the case it will be a matter of considerable pleasure, not just for her Majesty but for the rest of us as well." So he is talking about a better relationship between the peoples of Ireland and Britain being a matter of considerable pleasure, not the British Queen's visit. As the secondary source also makes clear, the "pleasure" part is also a reference to his detention at "Her Majesty's Pleasure".
  • [49] Adds back same quote

Their two talk page contributions are little except attacks on other editors. There is little constructive coming from this editor, so I do not believe a short block will accomplish much other than a day or so's respite before the problems start again, so I request they be banned from the article. There are very few other ways of dealing with editors who persistently make multiple tendentious edits to an article at a time when it is on the main page, since anyone wishing to revert them is hampered by the one revert restriction. Making a tendentious edit, wait for someone to revert it, make a totally different tendentious edit which that person will be unable to revert - that is gaming the system. O Fenian (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[50]


Discussion concerning Wessexboy[edit]

Statement by Wessexboy[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Wessexboy[edit]

  • I was asked to intervene in this case. As I'm a UK resident, I hereby recuse myself in this case. Any admin making any decision on this issue should be from outside the UK and Republic of Ireland, to ensure no allegations of bias can be made. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Wessexboy[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • A 5 day block for the 1RR violation and the tendentious statements could be sufficient. Wessexboy does seem to have a strong POV which he is not shy about. He has made about 200 edits altogether since 2006 and has no previous blocks. A topic ban may not be essential. By the time a 5 day block expired, the royal visit would be over. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the clean block log and lack of revert warring, I would prefer a shorter block to start with say 24 hours. Then block for a week if he doesn't change his behavior. If any further disruption occurs while this discussion is ongoing, I fully support a 5-7 day block. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Five days is a bit too long for a 1RR violation on a clean block log. I think Eluchil404's proposed solution is probably best here. T. Canens (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Closing with a 24 hour block, per the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay[edit]

User:GoodDay formally warned for breaching WP:Editwar, no further action taken as GoodDay recognizes his mistake--Cailil talk 15:16, 22 May 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 GoodDay[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Daicaregos (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
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. 16 May 2011 Reverting "Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom." to "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom." 1st revert
  2. 16 May 2011 Reverting "Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom." to "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom." 2nd revert, breaking 1RR restriction: ("All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."
  3. 16 May 2011 Reverting "Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom." to "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom." 3rd revert, breaking 1RR restriction: ("All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls underWP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 16 May 2011 by Mo ainm (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested topic ban

The user GoodDay has broken sanctions on an article relating to The Troubles and should be topic banned from those articles. The Troubles are defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland. The user GoodDay reverted three times within 24 hours on the article Northern Ireland, in breach of WP:1RR restrictions placed on all articles by Arbcom at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case related to The Troubles, which says "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."

Additionally, the user is a persistent low level disruptive editor. Numerous requests to edit constructively appear regularly on their Talkpage. There seems to be no awareness that their opinion should be supported by verifiable, reliable sources. Their heavy involvement in sensitive, delicate areas does not seem to be accompanied by sensitive, delicate editing e.g. despite having an extensive knowledge of WP:BISE and WP:BITASK they added "British Isles" to an article here directly contradicting their statements here, here and here at BITASK. Consequently, an extension to the topic ban should be considered to include any British related issues.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[51] :


Discussion concerning GoodDay[edit]

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

I messed up 'big time' on this article, even though I was trying to restore the status-quo version of that article's intro. A version which 'ironically' I oppose. I plumb forgot about the 1RR restriction on the article-in-question & so I should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the "threat" that Daicaregos mentions in his 22:52 post, was 'in fact' a typo, which I (moments later) fixed. Therefore, there was/is no threat. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning GoodDay[edit]

Please note that I have been contacted by User:GoodDay here, which I consider to be further evidence of their inappropriate behaviour. Daicaregos (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ... and they have continued to post inappropriately both at this page and at my Talkpage. Daicaregos (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ... and User:GoodDay continues to intimidate me. It is highly inappropriate for them to contact me while this is live. Would someone please ask them to stop. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ... on and on Daicaregos (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would fully support Daicaregos assessment that GoodDay is a low level disruptive editor. GoodDay seems to contribute very little to this project in terms of actual content but is actively involved in what can only be described as stirring the pot. I also get the impression that he might actual want a ban... Bjmullan (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I find this rather poor taste to be honest. GD has already said he'd forgotten about the 1RR, and was actually reverting (believe it or not) to get back a consensus that was 'hard won' a couple of years ago: ie to avoid more 'problems'. He was actually reverting edits that he's been arguing for for years. I don't think that was clever at all (and have told him so) but is it really something to complain about in here? Whatever people say about Goodday, there are clear nationalist agendas that (for me personally) ultimately 'counterbalance' his behaviour. If it is 'extreme' to insist as GD does that Wikipedia can only use the term 'country' for sovereign states, then surely it is also 'extreme' to refuse to allow the term 'constituent country', which the avowed Scottish and Welsh nationalists do. They also use their talk pages as 'Facebook' pages for talking about devolution, which I find totally inappropriate for WP. I personally think they should flipping-well put up with GoodDay's misdemeanour’s, because he really does nothing compared to what they've got away with for years imo. At the end of the day, the whole UKnationality 'area' is much more of a problem than individual mavericks like GD, or Sarah777 too. WP's inability to offer solid guidance on nationality is surely not their fault. IMO it is ultimately Wikipedia's - and largely for allowing these kind of 'cabals' to so-comfortably settle in and light their nightly candles. It's impossible to make progress with cabals as tight as this. 'Cabals' are the scourge of Wikipedia, and to my knowledge wP does nothing to even try to discourage or prevent them. Why not even attempt to deal with it? And I'd personally take this complaint a lot more seriously if somebody neutral opened it, rather than Dai Caregos, who's very much involved in it all. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I assume Matt Lewis means me, Daicaregos, rather than a user with a similar name. I had no involvement during GoodDay's revert spree on a page with well-known edit restrictions. Matt Lewis's polemic has absolutely no relevance to this matter and is skirting very close to a personal attack. Matt Lewis has had been almost invisible on Wikipedia since August last year (other than to do some campaigning hoping to try to save a reservoir near where he lives), until yesterday, and can't possibly know what has been going on here over the last nine months. Daicaregos (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Other than a decidely un-wikipedian template for BI, I've noticed very little changes at all. And I'm not in the smallest bit surprised either. I expect GD has been the same as ever, as I expect has it all. And if Calil is getting cheesed off, when have any one of you ever seen an admin get through all this with a smile on his face? If I've missed anything maybe you could help me get up to scratch? I actually came back for the reservoir thing (not a campaign, but to counter-balance the most obviously-made SPA company bias you'll see on WP), and noticed that Sarah's been indefinitely blocked (which should really be a warning over complaining about GD - these things can get really out of hand). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
While GoodDay is a long term low level disruptive editor and I fully understand Dai's frustration here it is the case that GoodDay was properly reinstating a long standing consensus position against three editors at least two of which were fully aware of the agreement. Matt goes a little over the top and we could really do with a lot less drama on this subject. I suggest that its a warning for a technical infringement if needed and also that someone keeps an eye on the page. Long term consensus positions should not be changed without agreement and this was a mediated consensus reached across four articles --Snowded TALK 05:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I would say I go 'to the top' sometimes. I've just seen so little change Snowded. But I could use less drama right now too - I can't seem to concentrate on different things on WP like I used to. Anyway, perhaps this could be closed, Dai? (or just left, or whatever). NI wasn't the strongest platform from which to raise your concerns at very least. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose this could be closed, but not by me. It should be the decision of an uninvolved administrator. It is not in my gift to allow editors to flout sanctions. As I said on your Talkpage Matt, GoodDay disregards any rules he chooses to, usually claiming ignorance, or blaming his poor memory, when challenged. He added "British Isles" to an article and 3RRed on a 1RR Arbcom restricted article all in the same week. It just doesn't stop. I have followed Snowded's suggested strategy on how to deal with GoodDay's constant disruption (noted on GoodDay's Talkpage during yet another lengthy discussion on GoodDay's behaviour): “I think the strategy is simple. Revert any trolling behaviour, report clear sanction breaking … ”. Well, three reverts, which is borderline edit-warring anyway, on a 1RR Arbcom restricted page is clear sanction breaking. It has been reported. Something should be done. If nothing happens, it sends out a clear message that sanctions mean nothing. And GoodDay's disruption will go on, and on, and on … Daicaregos (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Daicaregos. I consider you a friend. As well I consider GoodDay a friend. I am gently asking you to close this proceeding. As you opened it, it would be appropriate for you to close it. Involving an Administrator as this point would be unnescessary formality. You and GoodDay have your differences. You also both have your good points. Please close this. Thank you for considering this matter. Your friend, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
About the only thing GoodDay is guilty of is treating WP like a social network and popping onto Talk pages making what are seen as pot-stirring comments - based on his own view of the world or his own opinion. This really has to stop. But I'd say he's Mostly Harmless. In this instance, he picked up the toys of the big kids, big kids got annoyed, GoodDay gets put straight. Hardly needs a sanction though. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
And his behaviour has come up at ANI as well. Best a independent admin closes --Snowded TALK 11:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello High King. Your characterisation of GoodDay is most uncharitable, and frankly dismissive (especially the "Big Kids" comment). GoodDay made an honest mistake, that he was in the process of reverting when "this proceeding" was initiated. He subsequently made an open and sincere apology for the mistake (one which I have faith in, by the way). You have shown your "true colours" here High King ... and they are not "good-colours" that is for sure. If you ever made a similar mistake ... see who comes here again to help you, I suspect the list will be very short indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Two things Armchair. First off, GoodDay and myself have had similar toned discussions recently which he found amusing. Then I stated more like the harmless spirit in a haunted house that occasionally makes its presence felt, and at worst, is mischievous. I usually think of him fondly, but occasionally I want to kick his arse. No offense given, none taken. Similarly here. The "Big kids" comment you dislike is harmless, and I'm sure the analogy isn't lost on most readers. No idea why you've a problem with it, or decided to use that comment as a launchpad to attack my character about showing true colours, whatever that's supposed to mean. Second thing. My comment was helpful to GoodDay. I didn't support any sanction in this instance. But...now that I'm reading through this and looking at the comments across multiple Talk pages left by GoodDay....
Thinking about it some more, perhaps we have reached the point where a more serious sanction should apply before GoodDay turns into a monster. In the past I thought that GoodDay likes to be a spectator, not a participant. Sure, sometimes the comments from the sidelines will get a reaction. Then he started supporting a POV or position, but maddeningly would withdraw support if anyone questioned him, or flipflop to the other position. Then he started making suggestions or making silly analogies. Then he made the same suggestions or comments over and over, even when it had been discussed and dismissed (anyone remember the "Irish Sea" comments?). At this point, he crossed into mild disruption. But now, he's *editing* articles in topic areas that often are under various sanctions, against consensus, and on this occasion has breached a very serious Arbcom sanction. Not helpfuly editing either. Changing a sentence or phrase or word in such a way as to generate a reaction.
But all of that could be forgiven if GoodDay had the good grace to put his hands up and agree he was wrong, or to strongly defend and argue his position. But he's done neither. He's rolled over, practically asking for a sanction and offering no defense. But more worryingly, he has made personal comments about Dai, who reported him, and has tried to garner support on other Talk pages. That, to me, is not the actions of an editor that intends to address the problem. --HighKing (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello High King. What GoodDay does on his own TakePage is GoodDay's business. He and user Jeanne Boleyn have a great Wiki-Friendship, and I personally find reading their friendly discourse of GoodDay's talkpage a delight. If other persons do not like GoodDay's and Jeanne Boleyns friendly conversion on GoodDay's Own Talkpage, well too bad ... simply do not read it.
Secondly, the behaviour of GoodDay on Article Pages (and other persons talkpages) is the only truely relavent topic for discussion here, at this proceeding. Frankly, I am disappointed at you HighKing for helping along GoodDay getting Lynched. I will remember your actions here. Indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
What GoodDays friendship with Jeanne Boleyn has to do with this escapes me. As far as I'm aware no one has mentioned it, for good reason, it has nothing to do with what's happening here. Seriously, do you think you are helping here? Carson101 (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Carson101. The mention of GoodDay's Own TalkPage has been raised in the past (by others), and specificall here by HighKing (albeit indirectly) in the text below,
"About the only thing GoodDay is guilty of is treating WP like a social network and popping onto Talk pages making what are seen as pot-stirring comments - based on his own view of the world or his own opinion. This really has to stop."
The Social Network (i.e., a comparasion to Facebook means GoodDay's Own Talkpage). In answer to your query ... yes I am trying to help GoodDay. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes why is why name being dragged into this? I am beginning to feel like an innocent bystander about to get caught in the crossfire.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Agree with Jeanne, don't know what AVDL's motives are with his interventions. On this issue I'm assuming good faith and would give GoodDay the benefit of the doubt. However, I urge admins who are eye-balling this section and who will make the final decision to take note of what people are saying regarding GD's persistent, below the radar, troll like activities. Many editors have asked him over the course of many months maybe years to modify his behaviour but he refuses to get the point. Admins really have to involve themselves on his future activities. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning GoodDay[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • The ArbCom decision allows for blocking on a first offence but as days have passed I don't see this as an appropriate action now. I also note that there is no other record of any other breach of the Troubles RfAr by GoodDay (or indeed any history of blocking at all). In light of this, and of GoodDay's acknowledgment of his "messing up" this time, I would be reluctant to impose editting restrictions on him, since I do not think that a high level sanction (like topic banning) is either appropriate or necessary as a preventative measure in this instance. Rather I suggest that User:GoodDay be warned formally for breach of editing and behavioural practices (WP:EDITWAR) on the article Northern Ireland, with no further action to be taken with regard to this particular breach of the Troubles RfAr.
    I would note also that the "low level disruption" attested to does not fall under the remit of this RfAr ruling, and I would therefore suggest that normal dispute resolution or requests for comment be used--Cailil talk 01:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm closing this after just over 2 and a half days have passed since my last comment and (about 5 days since this thread was opened) with no further remarks; as such I'm implementing the warning without further action in this instance--Cailil talk 15:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)