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



Placed on-notice of ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. Request for clarification filed at WP:A/R/CL. AGK [] 14:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Alinor[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ladril (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Alinor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

While under a topic-ban from Kosovo-related articles, Alinor did engage in a edit-war in an article related to the same topic (or to be more precise, he edit-warred over the same topic on a related article). Note the current sanction was for edit-warring.

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

March 4, 2011. Alinor was topic-banned from Kosovo-related articles for a period of three months [2]. After this happens:

1. [3] A long dispute over the sorting criteria for List of sovereign states ends in an informal mediation stage. A rough consensus emerges, but two users (Alinor among them) refuse to compromise with the majority. The mediator closes the mediation as unresolved.

2. [4] While moving to close the mediation, the mediator states: "I suggest that a sufficient consensus on sandbox 3i2 has developed here for it to be implemented directly over any objections. Those who might still object are (obviously) within their rights to challenge that action, but I strongly recommend that any such challenge not involve further debate between these participants, but be turned over to third parties via RfC, 3rd Opinion, formal mediation, or arbitration."

3. [5] Indeed, the mediation closes with thirteen users accepting this sandbox as a new version of the page to be improved on. You can see evidence of acceptance here [6] [7] [8]. The "3i2 version" becomes the consensual version accepted by thirteen users, while the two opposers (Alinor among them) continue to object to it without proposing any alternative than convinces the community. Note this sandbox was created and proposed on 21 May.

4. [9] Time is given for the sandbox to be reviewed and objections raised. Since no more users object about it, it is incorporated into the main article space on 29 May. It should be noted that the two opposers made no alternative proposals during this period, despite being repeatedly prompted to do so (they continued to cling to their positions made during the mediation, failing to compromise with the consensus adopted by the other users). The acceptance of this version is not implied to be a claim on ownership of the article or to unilaterally close the dispute resolution process.

5. [10], [11], [12], [13] One of the two opposers begins to edit war over the consensus version with several other users, intending to restore the previous version . An uninvolved administrator intervenes and determines this version [14] is the consensus version.

6. [15] After the administrator has made his call, Alinor continues the edit war, claiming no consensus exists. Page is protected after this.

On the talk page and on the mediation, Alinor has stated repeatedly that his reasons for opposing the consensus have to do in part with how "RoK" (Republic of Kosovo) is portrayed. Three examples: [16], [17], [18]. He is not satisfied with the current consensus but instead of following proper avenues for continuing dispute resolution, has engaged in edit-warring.

Alinor, during the duration of a temporal topic ban, knowingly and willingly engaged in an edit war in a related article, explicitly stating that one of his reasons to edit-war was an inconformity with the portrayal of Kosovo in the page. I argue that this is acting against the spirit of the previous sanction applied to Alinor. I read that in the previous case, where he earned the topic-ban, he edit-warred, tried to WP:BLUDGEON the process and did not engage in constructive listening of other people's points (WP:HEAR). He apparently did not learn anything from the previous AE, because he is adopting the same behaviour in this case.

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

At the time of engaging in the edit war (June 1) [19], Alinor was under a three-month topic ban (set to expire on June 4, 2011). Appropriate admin warnings and arbitration decisions can be found here: [20]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Extension of the current topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

In case somebody wants to argue that Alinor did not "edit war" because he made only one edit to the page, it must be emphasized again that an administrator intervened to restore a page to a consensual version after an edit-war, and Alinor continued the edit war in defiance of the admin action.

In addition, this probably goes without saying, but if my behaviour in this case deserves a sanction I am completely willing to accept it, no questions asked.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[21], [22]

Discussion concerning Alinor[edit]

Statement by Alinor[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Alinor[edit]

@T.Canens, is there any obvious reason to treat this any harsher than any other 'ethnic' AE area? In other words, is there a good reason to think that this slightly different wording was deliberate? - BorisG (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Alinor[edit]

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

One second. The drafting of WP:ARBKOS is....not a work of art. WP:ARBKOS#Modified states that "editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruptive editing, may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely." What ban are we talking about here? Contemporary cases, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000, seems to indicate that "ban" here is used in the sense of a site ban or block and not a topic ban. Has Alinor been warned about WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions? T. Canens (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The case log reveals six occasions where bans from Kosovo have been issued since 2006. Principle #3 says "Users who disrupt the editing of an article or set of articles may be banned from those articles, or, in extreme cases, from the site." This suggests that bans from 'a set of articles' were considered doable. ARBKOS makes no requirement to issue a warning before sanctions are imposed and no warnings appear in the log, though warnings might be a good practice from now on. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
One could say, though, that those bans came under the article probation (Remedy 8) rather than remedy 9.1. I still think the latter is better read as site-banning/blocking provision rather than a topic/page ban provision. T. Canens (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
@BorisG: date of the decision. The Kosovo case is one of the earliest "ethnic" cases, as you put it. You'll find that early arbcom decisions involved such odd remedies as "banned for one day (!)" and often refer to enforcement actions as bans rather than blocks. The more standardized remedies and discretionary sanctions did not come about until much later. There is also the problem of making remedy 8 superfluous since article probation includes page bans. One can certainly argue that the ARBKOS remedies are anachronistic (no required warning, etc.), and it probably is, but until arbcom "modernizes" it that's what we have to work with. T. Canens (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we formally warn Alinor per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions and call it a day. I find working with ARBKOS excessively frustrating. For instance, which enforcement provision should we follow, Wikipedia:ARBKOS#Enforcement by block or Wikipedia:ARBKOS#Enforcement by block 2? Perhaps we can request clarification from arbcom (except that none of the arbs who participated in that decision are serving), but I don't think it's worth the effort given that the general sanctions of ARBKOS would have been entirely subsumed by ARBMAC but for the additional warning requirement, which is not that big of a deal. T. Canens (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable (use ARBMAC from now on). The two 'Enforcement by block' clauses look to be competing remedies. The arbs should have made a choice and only passed one of the two. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Interjection: I wasn't on the Committee in 2006 but it appears that EdJohnston is correct, that enforcement 1 and enforcement 2 were meant as alternatives but wound up both being passed instead. From the proposed decision page, I suspect that enforcement 2 would probably have been first choice if anyone had asked the arbitrators at the time, but it's too late now. I also agree, individually, that T. Canens' suggestion to use the more up-to-date remedy structure from the Macedonia case makes sense. If anyone wants to post a request for clarification to make this more official, I have no objection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Per T. Canens, Alinor is placed on notice of the discretionary sanctions provisions of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions (with that notice logged appropriately). I've also, as suggested, submitted a request for clarification with the Committee, in order to determine which of the enforcement provisions of WP:ARBKOS should be used and which should be discarded. AGK [] 14:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Topic banned from I/P, 4 months. Restricted to one account on I/P pages, 1 year. AGK [] 11:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Lutrinae[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lutrinae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

There are so many violations of the sanctions that I'm struggling a bit to know where to start here. This is a single purpose account who seems to be a textbook example of the kind of tendentious and disruptive editor the sanctions were designed to keep under control. I and others have tried to be patient with this editor but it hasn't helped. Intervention is now required.

This all started at the beginning of February 2011 when the editor started editing the Palestinian people article from dynamic IP's listed below, registered to the University of Hawaii.

He subsequently registered as Lutrinae on 28 April 2011, two days after the article was semi-protected because of disruption [23], much of which was caused by him.

Disruptive misuse of edit summaries

He has a very bad habit of using edit summaries that misrepresent the nature of his edits.

Here the editor removes reliably sourced, policy compliant material

  • [24] ES = "grammatical corrections and a few removals of obviously contradictory information"

He was reverted.

  • Reverted ES = "That was a deliberately missleading summary for contentious POV edits"

He repeated the edit together with a few more changes.

  • [25] ES = "Khalidi and Sorek are both expressing opinions that contradict the rest of the article. Just because someone said it doesn't mean we can use it as a coat hanger for political opinions. Removed weasel words like "distinctiveness" and "homeland."

He was reverted again.

  • [26] ES = "This user is again using deliberately misleading edit summaries in order to make POV edits"

He repeated the edit together with a few more changes.

  • [27] ES = "Removing POV material from fringe historians Sodek and Khalidi. Their quotes are both used to imply Palestinians are "ancient" inhabitants of the land. Weasel words, Mr. Roland, look it up. "longing for a lost homeland" is inappropriate"

He was reverted again.

  • [28] ES = "rv; your edits do a lot more than just remove two historians you claim are fringe"

I think the cycle was repeated at least one more time.

A particularly disruptive cycle

Here is the beginning of a particularly disruptive cycle. The editor removed information from an impeccably reliable academic source by Assaf Likhovski, a book that was awarded the Yonathan Shapiro Best Book Award in Israel Studies in 2007. He also removed 2 more reliable references.

  • [29] ES = "PLO has a dual role. The Syrian-Pally conference was overstated before. The "prevailing notion" weaseling has been removed."

To his credit he came to my talk page to explain. Unfortunately that made matters worse.

Please read it in full because it provides an overview of everything that is wrong with this editor's approach in microcosm. Can I ask that only admins who are willing to look at the substance of the discussion and spend the time to read it involve themselves in this AE report please ? It isn't very long but it includes examples of the editor's extreme tendentiousness, the disruptive dismissing of reliably sourced information based on his own real world opinions, an admission that he didn't read the source cited, an accusation that I didn't read the source (...somewhat puzzling given that I added the content and source...please note the effort I made to make sure that he could see the source for himself), and the extraordinary degree to which the editor assumes bad faith. The editor has repeated his removal of this information again [30], and again [31], and again [32] (note that he refers to content from an RS as OR, a common theme). Before the last edit I posted a warning on the article talk page Talk:Palestinian_people#Stop_the_disruption at 05:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC) that I would take this to AE if it continues. The disruption has not stopped. He still went ahead with the last edit and he continues to repeat the false and bizarre accusations about having "caught me in a lie" about the Likhovski source despite the extensive discussions on my talk page where I made sure he could see it for humself, despite me reminding him of that, and despite another editor, OhioStandard, explaining it to him again. I have demanded that he strike the accusations. I don't mind what he accuses me of no matter how ludicrous it is and but he can't be allowed to behave like this in the topic area.

Repeated disruptive removal of pictures

The editor has repeatedly removed pictures, some of which are featured pictures, and has been reverted by multiple users. (see [33], [34], [35], [36] and [37]. I may have missed some. I had a discussion with the editor about this disruption on my talk page early in the cycle. User_talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive_3#Palestinian_pictures. It also been discussed on the article talk page to no avail (Talk:Palestinian_people#A_leaner_article_would_be_a_better_article.)

There have also been various other issues such as objections to his repeated use of the term "Pally" to describe Palestinians, his tendentious style of arguing without sources and what not. I will supply diffs if necessary later.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 6 June 2011 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

topic least for a while. Let him learn to edit in other areas for a while.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This editor is not all bad. Some of his challenges have been useful (e.g. I made some picture captioning changes in light of somne of his comments) but he must not be allowed to carry on as he is right now in this topic area. He needs to learn at the very least to provide sources to support his statements and to stop voicing his personal opinions....and of course not making patently false accusations.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Lutrinae[edit]

Statement by Lutrinae[edit]

Comment by Zero0000[edit]

This filing is overdue. Lutrinae is pure disruption with no redeeming features. He can't even bear the word "Palestinian" which he thinks is a "ridiculous phrase" [39], preferring instead the word "Pally" that is popular on racist web pages. Please help him to go away so we can get some proper editing done. Zerotalk 10:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Lutrinae[edit]

Result concerning Lutrinae[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I will review this request presently. In the interim, I request that everybody only makes comments that relate to the merits or specifics of this request, and that comments by editors involved in the Palestine/Israel topic are kept to a minimum. Thank you. AGK [] 11:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Having reviewed the Lutrinae's contributions (under all of his account names), it is readily apparent that this editor is a disruptive influence on the articles he is editing. He cannot seem to keep his anti-Palestine bias from affecting his edits. Accordingly, Lutrinae is prohibited (topic-banned) from editing any Israel/Palestine page for 4 months, and prohibited from editing any I/P page from an account other than his primary account for 1 year. (These restrictions are to run concurrently, and are per WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions.) AGK [] 11:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Editor notified[40] and result logged at ARBPIA. Closing request for enforcement as resolved. AGK [] 11:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC) sockpuppetry[edit]

Accounts blocked outside of AE. AGK [] 22:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please could an admin or someone have a look at this User: and this User: and possibly this one as well User: I do not really know what is happening here but it does not look right.Seem to be new users who head straight to the same article.Some dodgy editing.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like two of them have been blocked just now.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
In future, reports of sock-puppetry should be referred to WP:SPI or WP:ANI. Thanks, AGK [] 22:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification required on scope of Israel-Palestine articles[edit]

All articles in the Palestine-Israel conflict space are currently under a 1-revert per day restriction. There's an article - The Sergeants affair - that deals with events in July- August of 1947 (hanging of 2 British mandate soldiers by Irgun) which to me is obviously within the scope of the restriction. An editor has claimed that because Israel was only founded in 1948, and because the incident involves only Jews and British, that article is not subject to the restriction (and by implication, neither do any articles that deal with events prior to May 1948, or that do not involve both Arabs and Jews). I think that can't be right, but perhaps I'm mistaken, so I think some clarification is needed. I've asked an uninvolved administrator (AGK) who has been active in enforcing arbitration requests here, and he has voiced agreement with my view (see, but suggested it might be useful to ask for clarification here, as well. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making up stuff about what I said.I said that Israel was not formed at the time and that the incident involved the Jews and the British no Arabs.I did not say that all articles pre 1948 were not in the scope of the arbitration.Plus maybe someone should make it clear as to what articles are actually involved in that arbitration and also put headings on those talk pages so people know.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The article on Irgun is under WP:ARBPIA, and the The Sergeants affair is about murders committed by Irgun. See Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Area of conflict. "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." The phrase 'broadly interpreted' is significant. I agree that this article should have an ARBPIA banner. I see that one was placed on the talk page by Red Stone Arsenal on 6 June. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Owain, I think it is impractical to find all articles that would fall under these restrictions and place banners on them. How can we find them? Besides, on Wikipedia, new articles are created every day. Thus such a banner is only placed once someone notiices that it is due. That is my understanding; I may be wrong. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
OK but maybe it would be wise to inform people that if they start a page in that area that they need to put up that notice straight away to stop confusion when other people edit it.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that the article is subject to ARBPIA. I just added the edit notice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I cannot see that you have added anything on that page.It already has the notice on the talk page Owain the 1st (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
If you open an edit window, you'll see a warning that editors are limited to one reversion per day. That's the edit notice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok, I wondered what you were on about.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I agree that this article should fall under 1rr - generally I would suggest that in any situation involving editors known to be participating in I/P and in articles that could even tangentially be related to I/P it is much better to err on the side of caution, restraint and proper WP:DR venues. In general I would urge everyone to take to centralized discussions at WP:IPCOLL or specific noticeboards as soon as friction arises. unmi 17:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I have removed a discussion between User:Red Stone Arsenal and several other contributors, that concerned Red Stone's history on Wikipedia and whether he had previously edited from another account. Whilst such discussions are undeniably valuable, especially in a topic area that suffers from sock-puppetry as frequently as does Israel/Palestine, the tone of the discussion was uncomfortably intense, and many of the participants were being unduly persistent. It was quite embarrassing, actually. That's a person behind that username, so enough with the hounding. Discussions concerning sock-puppetry should not be raised "since we're here", but rather in an appropriate venue—which would first be the editor's talk page, and then SPI. Take it to the appropriate place, folks. AGK [] 22:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have undid the restoration of the discussion. Just as administrators are authorised generally to put {{hat}}s over irrelevant discussion, so too can they remove discussion that is not on-topic, or is otherwise not productive or appropriate. We do not specify every minute eventuality in policy, because we follow the spirit, not the letter, of guidelines and other documents. Furthermore, this noticeboard is for the discussion of arbitration decisions that have an element of community enforcement. The above clarification thread relates to this process, but vague, not definitively–proven allegations of sock-puppetry do not. AGK [] 09:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • AGK has now twice deleted comments by six different users here that are relevant to the issue of new accounts with obviously experienced users behind them in the Israel/Palestine topic area. Interested parties may view the thread as it existed before each of his consecutive deletions here and here. Perhaps the content was technically off-topic for this thread; I had believed that the severe problem it concerns would not have been thought off-topic for this board. It's my belief that his repeated deletion was improper, but I won't engage in an edit war with him to restore the content.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have explained my action fully. While you may say it is incorrect, it is misleading to say it is inappropriate. If asked, I would probably say that linking to the removed comments is inappropriate on your part, but I am not going to delete the diffs. Regards, AGK [] 09:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


No action taken. NW (Talk) 14:37, 11 June 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 Headbomb[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding hyphens and dashes
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 2011-06-09 HP7 Pt 2 video game
  2. 2001-06-09 HP7 Pt 1 video game
  3. 2001-06-09 HP7 Pt 2 soundtrack
  4. etc. - 5 articles and 1 RM filed as uncontroversial
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 2011-06-09 by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

As appropriate.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

When I reminded Headbomb of the moratorium, he responded: "See WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR. These moves have nothing to do with the ARBCOM mess anyway."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Headbomb[edit]

Statement by Headbomb[edit]

This is pure sycophancy. These kind of move were never contentious, either pre- or post-ARBCOM crap (which I admittedly haven't followed). Proper titles either use colons or endashes (aka Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1. I can move Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows − Part 1 (soundtrack) (which has a minus rather than an endash for some reason) to its proper title [which is how it all started], but I can't move Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 to its dashed version? That's a textbook case of WP:BUREAUCRACY. We're to have some titles with their improper hyphenated version, and some with their proper endashed version???

Give medals to Sarek for blindly following rules and admonish, ban, or permaban me to your heart's content, but this is as far as I indulge you in this exercise in futility. Deliberate all you want, I won't read it. Enjoy your circle jerk. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Headbomb[edit]

  • @Courcelles - I filed this because Headbomb claimed those moves weren't covered by the Arbcom restriction. If he had just said "Oops, forgot about that", there'd be no need to act further.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • @T. Canens - I'm not sure you can say there's a strong argument when the motion said "There is to be a moratorium on article title changes that are due to hyphen/endash exchange." There's no "controversial" in there -- it's "everyone cut it the hell out until this gets settled". I don't disagree with the moves, just with Headbomb's assertion that they don't fall under the restriction.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." That's all that was done here; and now the encyclopedia has been made (a little bit) worse through the action being reverted. This thread has to take the biscuit in terms of bureaucratic futility.--Kotniski (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur against any enforcement action at this time. I have no position in the dash wars, but it seems clear to me that these sorts of changes were not what the Committee set out to stop, and constitute just the sort of uncontroversial improvement to the encyclopaedia IAR is designed to be used for (on a once-off basis, it should be stressed). Skomorokh 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Headbomb[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Why are we here at the moment? Headbomb may think the injunction was a bad idea, but he hasn't violated it since being informed of it. Unless he does, there's no reason to even consider a sanction, not that I'm particularly comfortable with this being a "sanctionable" action, in the first place. Courcelles 18:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • @Sarek; In my opinion, yes, they are covered by the injunction. the injunction is to STOP the edit warring for now, not to allow debates over what is and what isn't controversial; it is a fairly blanket rule that for the time being "thou shalt not". That said, holding an ArbCom decision in disdain is not sanctionable as long as one does not choose to violate it. Until and unless Headbomb makes further moves, there is no need to act, and no need for this thread. I don't agree with Tim, the injunction is a moratorium, not an invitation to assess what is and what is not controversial. @Headbomb, whether you support the injunction or think it's one of the silliest ideas ever, the rules are fairly clear for this period, and I'd urge you not to continue to perform these moves without first seeking clarification from the Committee, as written, there are no exceptions to this injunction. Courcelles 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Exactly how many pages of virtual ink do we have to spill on the precise variety of short horizontal lines to use? I'm fairly sure that most people, myself included, do not know or care about the fine contours of the dispute that led to the arbcom injunction, but I can definitely see a strong argument that arbcom did not intend the injunction to go further than controversial hyphen-dash changes. I fail to see what exact purpose a sanction will serve in these circumstances (especially in the absence of any indication that the editor has notice of the injunction before the move is performed) if these moves are noncontroversial, as they apparently are. T. Canens (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • My take is that the intention of the Committee in passing the injunction was to stop the disruptive prolongation of existing disputes over dashes in article content. Unless I am unaware of other context, this was a correction of a perceived mistake in the title of a new article. Wikipedia articles are often created with incorrect titles, and I view the action of Headbomb here as being no different as, say, moving Obama, Barack to Barack Obama soon after the creation of the former page. Accordingly, as with T. Canens, I do not see what the purpose of enforcement action here would be, although perhaps we might resolve to informally remind the respondent that dashes are generally a contentious issue at present, and that it would be prudent if he were to abstain from similar corrections in future—at least pending the termination of the injunction. AGK [] 23:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


Barong ranges blocked by Amalthea; specific IPs also blocked. General advice given to Barong. AGK [] 10:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning User:Barong[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
5 albert square (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Barong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding User:Barong
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 12 June 2011 It's in violation because the motion was that he can only edit from Barong's account.
  2. 12 June 2011 Same as above, because he can only edit from Barong's account, and he doesn't appear to be doing this or appears to be trying to avoid it by editing from an IP and using the signature of the account he's not allowed to use.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

I am looking for the ban against User Barong to now be enforced because they're in breach of the motion mentioned above by editing from an IP and signing from their other account, Jack Merridew.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I am unable to provide diffs to warnings simply because of the length of time that this has been going on for. I am unable to locate them.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning User:Barong[edit]

Statement by User:Barong[edit]

Jack and Barong are not banned; they're not even blocked. They're sul:locked because I scuttled them. I was directed to name another account that I wish to use (which I've not done).

I didn't 'sign' as Jack, I linked to that account, and signed with an IP/timestamp. Bzzt.

Anyway, this is all about my ignoring inappropriate indefinite restrictions that many have stated should have long ago been lifted. Epic-project-failure. Barong (mythology). (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Jack continues to thumb his nose at ArbCom and the comnunity, playing both sides of the sreeet, pretending not to be Jack while obviously being Jack. If ArbCom is going to go for this ruse, so be it, but from the standpoint of anyone who's actually cognizent of reality, Jack has once aqain given the finger to the community. ArbCom needs to enforce its edict, and not let Jack run roughshod over them: Jack has been instructed to edit from one account, and to communicate with ArbCom via emial what account that will be. He has chosen instead to edit from an IP account without contacting ArbCom. ArbCom, if its authority is not to be undermined, needs to block his current IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

what IP would that be? rangeblock:Indonesia, mebbe? Your 'Holy Community' is awash with vicious little shits that are responsible for the ambient toxicity of this site. (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:KETTLE. Doc talk 06:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You will please play nice, gentlemen. Professionalism is required of all editors who edit this noticeboard. Thank you, AGK [] 10:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning User:Barong[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I blocked a few ranges, and hope that we do not have to extend this to the whole of Indonesia. Barong, I implore you to think about your next actions, and the reasons behind them. Do you think that insisting on your point and ignoring the ARBCOM motion is improving this encyclopedia? Or do you just not care anymore and want to go out in flames?
    It appears to me that the majority of editors here do abide by enWPs norms because they believe they work, flawed as they are. If you disagree, attempt to change them from within, or leave. I hope you do the former, but your current actions deliberately disregard those norms and are disruptive. Amalthea 08:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I directly blocked the two IP addresses too, for 12 hours; I wasn't sure if Amalthea's ranges would cover those. Jack/Barong: You must register a new account, declare it as your username, and edit only through that. During the last request for amendment, you and I discussed demonstrating during this latest period of probation that the restrictions are truly unnecessary. The edits cited in this request for enforcement demonstrate a gross disregard on your part for the authority of the community and its Arbitration Committee. Please think about what you are doing; I thought you had a little more sense than this. (Closing request as actioned.) AGK [] 10:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


Communicat blocked one week for personal attacks and violation of his topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Communicat[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Communicat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II#Remedies
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Communicat (talk · contribs) has returned to editing as Communikat (talk · contribs) (openly declaring that he is using a new account at User:Communikat and elsewhere ) and has resumed making personal attacks on other editors involved in the arbitration case and complaining about the case's outcome:

  1. 14 June personal attack on other editors (note that this is a string of two diffs, with the second two being minor changes to the original post)
  2. 14 June rehashing the World War II article-related issues discussed in the arbitration case by once again claiming "systemic POV bias" and complaining about the material he added to articles being removed
  3. 14 June Using user page as a soapbox to complain about the outcomes of the arbitration case
  4. 16 June another personal attack, along with patently false allegations of 'outing' (see below)
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

Not applicable, but Communicat was blocked this exact behavior last week: [41] (he was editing under an IP account)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Request that Communikat (talk · contribs) be blocked for again violating their restrictions against personally attacking other editors and commenting on articles relating to World War II and its aftermath per the remedies specified in the arbitration case.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

While sockpuppetry isn't an issue at present, Communicat's claim that when this was previously raised it was "unsupported assumptions and without any hard evidence whatsover" is clearly false as he's actually been blocked for sock puppetry/block evasion: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Communicat/Archive and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence#Communicat has engaged in sockpuppetry. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Communicat has made a further, and quite serious, personal attack on Binksternet (talk · contribs) here. It includes a claim that Binksternet has 'outed' Communicat by revealing that he's Stan Weiner, when in fact Communicat announced this himself at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Communicat (diff). This is a continuation of Communicat's previous behavior in which he frequently made very serious, but easily disproved, allegations against other editors. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Communicat[edit]

Statement by Communicat[edit]

Nick-D claims falsely that I have been topic-banned from "commenting on articles relating to World War II and its aftermath per the remedies specified in the arbitration case." In terms of the Arbcom case, I am topic-banned specifically from editing or commenting upon the "World War II and Aftermath of World War II" articles, as identified by the provision of specific links specified clearly in the Arbcom decision. I am not topic-banned from all articles "relating to" WW2 and its aftermath as falsely alleged. There are many individual wikipedia articles relating to World War II and its aftermath, and their individual titles are too numerous to list here. I have NOT been specifically banned from editing or commenting those articles, and my recent postings have neither edited nor commented the specific World War II and/or Aftermath of World War II articles.

I have, however, referred in passing to certain matters concerning "a broad range of articles" edited by me, and that broad range of articles were not necessarily in reference to the specific articles from which I am topic-banned. I have in the past edited and/or discussed a variety of other articles outside the ambit of the military history project, as well as some non-WW2 and non-Aftermath of World War II articles within that project.

Nick-D complains that I have commented at my user page and/or elsewhere upon the Arbcom decision referred to above. I have of course not been banned from commenting upon that decision, and I am perfectly entitled to do so if I wish. For Arbcom to have banned me from mentioning of commenting on its decision would have at least notionally have had the effect of prohibiting me from lodging any appeal against its decision, which in turn would have been a violation of wikipedia policy. The same applies to any requests for review or any appeals by me against any subsequent blocks or any statements, such as this present one in rebuttal of Nick-d's latest request that I be blocked once again.

I have not made any intentional personal attack since my last block expired yesterday. What I have done is to cite specific wikipedia rules in reply to certain unfounded comments and erroneous and/or tendentious claims stated by certain editors taking part in Contributor Copyright discussions about me and/or my participation at wikipedia. Is this how it works: other editors can say what they want to about me and/or my contributions, but I have to remain silent, or when I do exercise my right of reply on justifiable grounds citing WP rules, its seen paradoxically as a "personal attack"?

In view of the above facts and matters, and IMO, this latest request by Nick-D amounts to nothing other than clear harrassment. Communikat (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I reject Boris-G's unfounded allegation below, to the effect that I am attempting sockpuppetry. I have made it very clear (about 24 hours before Boris-G posted his false allegation) that I am in fact the former Communicat. This was made clear on my new user page, on my talk page, as well as at my former IP address talk page, and at the CCI discussion page. Communikat (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I reject Boris-G's claim "Communikat uses multiple accounts and real-life names, and has a habit of writing about himself in third person." I do not use multiple accounts. I withdrew from wikipedia editing six months ago when I cancelled my Communicat account. I was subsequently compelled for legal reasons to make it known that certain copyright conditions had changed, and I made this known via a posting on the CCI talk page. This was done using an IP, because I did not have an account. Subsequent to that, related postings were made at the same page also using an IP, and for the same reason, viz., no account. Use of the third-person voice does not necessarily indicate sockpuppetry. It's simply a literary device. It was abundantly clear from the content of those postings that I was the former Communicat account holder; everyone concerned was under no illusion in that respect, nor did I make any effort to conceal the fact. Nor have I used or disclosed a real-life name, as alleged, except within the limited confines of the Arbcom case, in order to clear Communicat / myself of serious plagiarism / copyright violation charges.
Nick-D and others have a history of accusing me of IP sockpuppry, always on the basis of unsupported assumptions and without any hard evidence whatsover. In fact, this was one of the issues deliberated upon by Arbcom and I was effectively cleared in that regard. Viz., it's a WP:DEADHORSE and/or WP:IDHT. Moreover, it is inconceivable that I am the only person in South Africa with access to wikipedia via an IP. It is further inconceivable that I should feel any need to hide my identity through IP usage. Everyone knows I have a tendency, when deliberately provoked, to openly call a spade a spade. I have no need for concealment behind IP addresses.
As regards the more important matter of topic-ban. Having now familiarised myself with wikipedia banning policy by reading and understanding all relevant banning policy pages, I accept that the topic-ban relates to anything and everything connected with World War II and its aftermath. It is regrettable that the Arbcom decision in that regard was presented in ambiguous and (for me) misleading terms. However, one issue remains: What does the term "aftermath of WW2" mean exactly? This question has in the past been debated energetically at relevant article talk pages, viz., Aftermath of World War II and (now merged / discontinued) Effects of World War II. If memory serves me correctly, the consensus was that aftermath meant the immediate aftermath period up to 1949. Are we agreed here that 1949 is the relevant timeline cutoff date? Agreement on this might help to avoid further tedious arguments and complaints.
As to administrator T Canens' pertinent question: Why should I not be indefinitely banned? I have already stated above my position as supported by WP rules and by CC terms and conditions; and I would value an honest and unambiguous response to my own earlier question: "Is this how it works: other editors can say whatever they want to about me and/or my contributions, but I have to remain silent, or when I do exercise my right of reply on justifiable grounds citing WP rules, it's to be seen paradoxically as a disruptive "personal attack"?
I should add: I'm comparatively inexperienced at editing wikipedia; I'm not 100% familiar with all its rules or their practical implementation; I've been on a steep learning curve without much help from others involved; and I've had to learn by my own mistakes. If anyone wants to interpret that as disruptive behaviour, then so be it. But I can state unequivocally: I am not the one who keeps lodging tedious complaints about "personal attacks" and dispatching repetitive requests for enforcement, without first discussing things with me in a cordial and helpful manner, as capable administrators are obliged to do. Communikat (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Further, administrator please confirm or deny in very explicit terms whether or not I am prohibited from commenting or stating an opinion on the Arbcom case concerning Communicat vs Nick-D and others. My comments on / references to that case resulted in this present matter currently under consideration. IMO, I did not break specified topic-ban. Thank you. Communikat (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Re Additional comment by editor filing complaint, re sockpuppetry. Yes, exactly. I was arbitrarily blocked for alleged sockpuppetry purely on the basis of an unfounded assumption and without proof. When the block expired I repeatedly approached the administrator concerned, informing him there was a technical problem with my ISP causing a large number of users to share the same IP address. I received no response whatever from the admin concerned, and I didn't bother to appeal the blocking for alleged sockpuppetry. I had less tedious and more productive things to do with my time. The ISP problem was subsequently fixed and I obtained a unique IP. Please let's stick to the primary concern at issue here in this present matter, so as to avoid digression and obscurantism distraction. Thank you. Communikat (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I await Nick-d's valued input re my above proposal aftermath cut-of date be 1949. Agreement on this will help avoid further tedious arguments and complaints. His co-operation will be appreciated. Other key and as yet unanswered questions (to admin), just in case they've become obscured, are:
  • Am I prohibited from commenting or stating an opinion on the Arbcom case, as has given rise to Nick-d's latest request for enforcement?
  • Am I prohibited from exercising my right of reply on justifiable grounds citing WP rules, as I did at CCI discussion, which has also given rise to Nick-d's latest RFE? Communikat (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree with the contents of Nick-d's latest posting, about Binksernet. Since neither Nick-D nor anyone else here has answered my repeated requests for clarity as to the cut-off date to which my topic-ban applies, I take this as concurrence that the topic-ban history timeline cut-off date is 1949 as proposed, viz., the last day of 1948. I'll edit / contribute accordingly. Nor has anyone answered my specifc questions above as to what else I am prohibited from commenting about or making contributions towards. I take this as concurrence that I am not prohibited from exercising a right or reply, nor am I prohibited from commenting on the Arbcom case. Thank you for your time and concurrence. Communikat (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The sentence complained of by Nick-d in his further comments re Binksternet and outing has been redacted. Never the less, Binksternet's posting as referred to by Nick-d was IMO an act of disruption. It made no contribution whatsoever to what was in fact being discussed constructively regarding RS principles, namely a definition of the term "mass media". Nick-d's complaint should be dismissed accordingly. Communikat (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Communicat[edit]

This is a clear case of sock puppetry (to evade a topic ban) and has to be dealt with accordingly. The content of the diffs is not important. Sorry my bad. To my defence, it is mildly irritating and confusing (but also amusing) that Communikat uses multiple accounts and real-life names, and has a habit of writing about himself in third person. I propose to instruct Communicat to edit from one account only. It is confusing. - BorisG (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins should examine whether this is within the topic ban or not. ArbCom is unlear in its decision: "Communicat is prohibited from editing and commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II." (emphasis BorisG). Is it about these topics or is it those two articles only? - BorisG (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add that of the diffs presented here, #1 is a mild personal attack, while #2 and #3 are incomprehensible to me. But none appears particularly disruptive to me. - BorisG (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@T. Canens. OK, it makes sense. But obviously, this is not how Communicat understood this. Please clarify to Communicat what he is and isn't allowed to edit. Not everyone is as experienced as you are. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@Hint to Communikat: Walls of text don't help. - BorisG (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • The Arbcom decision [43] clearly says "1) Communicat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II." and "2) Communicat is placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, any personal attacks, or any assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked as provided in the enforcement provision below." With the new nick, Communikat is clearly in violation of both provisions of the Arbcom decision against him. Edward321 (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Communicat[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Even assuming for the sake of argument that the text of the remedy is ambiguous, the title of the remedy, "Communicat topic-banned", is unambiguous that Communicat is banned from all editing related to the topics, and not just the specific articles. In any event, they do fall under the second remedy (the civility parole). A one-week AE block seems to be in order.

    Apart from that, I invite Communicat to explain why he should not be indefinitely blocked for continuing disruption. I'm tired of dealing with the same thing every week. T. Canens (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What I perceive to be the issue is that Communicat (under whatever username), is either unwilling or unable to move on; all I see is refighting essentially the same disputes, skirting the limits of his topic ban, and generally engaging in the same type of behavior that lead to the arbcom sanctions in the first place. If that doesn't stop immediately, then our options are quite limited. T. Canens (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I concur with the proposed action of a 1-week enforcement block. I note that the enforcement provision of the WWII case allows us after 5 blocks to increase the maximum block length from 1 week to 1 year. I agree that Communicat's behaviour is unprofessional and disruptive. I would directly counsel Communicat to start contributing in a less prolific and more helpful way, and to abstain from community discussions in which is influence is unhelpful; and I remind him that he will be excluded from the project under the 1 year block provision of WWII if his behaviour does not improve. AGK [] 11:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I concur with AGK's remedy of a 1-week enforcement block; while I sympathize with T. Canens' frustration, an indef block seems a bit premature at this time. Note that this does not mean that if Communicat continues to disrupt, that I would not support such an action in the future. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
All right, one week it is, then. T. Canens (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


No action taken. Dicklyon is advised not to violate the hyphen-dash injunction. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Dicklyon[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

There is an ArBCom injunction here against "article title changes that are due to hyphen/endash exchange. The only edits allowed will be to create a redirect to the existing article title until the resolution of the debate below."

This move request, from multiply-accumulate (hyphen) to Multiply–accumulate operation (dash( is a patent evasion of that moratorium; I tried dealing with this as a side-issue to the question whether a word should be added. Please deal with it; it may also be informative to see what else Dicklyon and Noetica have gotten away with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Diff of move request.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Please amend the move request to not request a dash; warn Dicklyon and Noetica not to do this again.

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

Here: I will refine the link after I file. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Dicklyon[edit]

Statement by Dicklyon[edit]

I have no objection to the requested enforcement action if that's deemed useful. I had already agreed with PMA that a slash would be a safe alternative if the moratorium is thought to apply. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Noetica[edit]

I have only now become aware that User:Pmanderson has made this approach (that is, after the result was posted below). It is improper that the instigator did not duly advise me of his action, though he surreptitiously names me and seeks action against me (his move is formally against another editor, not me). I object also to his suggestion that I have done anything at all against any ruling, injunction, policy, guideline, principle of good faith, or standing order of any sort. I stated in my first post at that RM: "This is an especially difficult case, and one that I would not have brought in the current climate." I also agreed with a point made at the RM, making this comment: "Indeed, it does not infringe the ArbCom injunction: it is not 'due to an exchange of hyphen and dash' [a quote from the relevant ArbCom injunction], but only involves one incidentally to the matter of wording." I object strongly to these remarks from PMAnderson: "Please deal with it; it may also be informative to see what else Dicklyon and Noetica have gotten away with"; and "Please [...] warn Dicklyon and Noetica not to do this again." These are gross violations of procedure and fairness, politically and selectively deployed against me. Why was User:CWenger not named (who posted just as I did at the RM, supporting it)? Interestingly, CWenger has voted with PMAnderson in recent RMs concerning dashes and hyphens.

If we are to be alerted to what people have "gotten away with", Dicklyon and I are not the editors of interest. If anyone has anything to say against me, with the unblemished record that my log shows, I will be entitled to due process.

I thank AGK for giving us a definite interpretation for this sort of RM (see below), where the wording of the original injunction had warranted more than it intended to.

NoeticaTea? 00:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Dicklyon[edit]

No injunction on discussion[edit]

I think the move discussion is fine, but it should not be executed until after the injunction is over. Similarly, I put another move discussion "on hold" awhile back. We just won't close it until after the injunction. I can put a note on the rm, and keep relisting it to help prevent closure. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is pretty well petered out there; we can decide later whether to relist, or just move it if such things come to be regarded as non-controversial as a result on the process going on, which is what it looks like will happen. Dicklyon (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Dicklyon[edit]

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

If this can be settled without AE action, it should be. I don't see a pressing need to resolve the space/slash/hyphen/endash problem, so I would suggest keeping the status quo until the injunction is no longer in force. T. Canens (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Dicklyon: The moratorium on endash/hyphen changes does apply to that article. Please proceed to implement the compromise you have agreed upon. I am closing this request with the result of "no action taken", but be aware that your account will be blocked if you violate the injunction again. AGK [] 11:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Russavia and Tammsalu (aka Martin, the filing party) blocked for 24h each for violating the EEML interaction ban. AGK [] 20:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Russavia[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Martin (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 11 June 2011 [44] Direct interaction by reverting my edit with an offensive edit comment about me casting my edit in bad faith: "reverting sneaking in of controversial changes to the article under the guise of a see-also link" , thus is a violation of Russavia's prohibition from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.
  2. 11 June 2011 [45],[46] edit warring with Sander Säde (talk · contribs), another breach of the interaction ban, one in which he can't possibly use the excuse that he wasn't aware that he was breaking his interaction ban.
  3. 17 May 2011 [47],[48] violated the interaction ban by commenting on a AE request made by Piotrus (talk · contribs) - one in which he had no business commenting.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

Not applicable. Aware of the result of the ArbCom case.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Block or ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

As legitimate and necessary dispute resolution I was permitted to participate in the original WP:ARBRB case where my evidence and workshop suggestions where taken on board and subsequently led to Russavia's current interaction ban[49]. In this case Russavia initiated the unwanted interaction by reverting my edit here therefore I have a legitimate and necessary reason to resolve this dispute and asking an administrator to end that unwanted interaction and ensure that the Arbitration decision continues to be enforced by bringing it here. I note that Russavia continues to breach the ban by commenting about me on his talk page[50].

@AGK, seven days after opening this request and four days after sanctioning Russavia, I'm not sure why this report has remained opened, no other admin has deemed it necessary to take any further action, let alone comment on your block. I am wondering why you are still considering blocking me despite the passage of time making the issue stale. If Russavia wants to pursue further action, he ought to go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, rather than present a wall-o-words here. Now if he wants to interact with other former members of the EEML, fine, but he ought to ask ArbCom to amend his ban, rather than apparently thumb his nose at you with further prohibited interaction[51] immediately after coming off his block. --Martin (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit rich of Nanobear (talk · contribs) (who was indef site banned for taking the WP:BATTLEGROUND to the depths of WP:OUTING) to accuse me of "battleground behaviour" because of my habit of lazy edit comments, which as far as I know have never been subject of any ArbCom remedy to enforce. As for his claim "Tammsalu is now taking advantage of Russavia's block and the latter's now-sanctioned inability to contribute to an article", that is nonsense, Russavia block has had no effect on him editing Russophobia[52] or the talk page[53]. --Martin (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • This must be the first time a case has remained open beyond the term of the reported party's sanction. After all the froth and bubble here, Russavia has finally lodged an amendment request [54] as I suggested above. I think after 8 days the case is well and truly stale. At this late stage any further action would be seen as punitive rather than preventative. This is rapidly descending into a circus, with further renewed accusations [55],[56] after coming off his block (which I don't want to be forced into interaction by having to respond) in an apparent attempt at retaliation for me originally seeking admin assistance to prevent continued violation beyond this. --Martin (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In regard to AGK's conclusion that I violated the interaction ban in filing this report, WP:IBAN explicitly exempts seeking admin intervention in violations of interaction bans by the other party:

The following exceptions to article, topic and interaction bans are usually recognized:
  • Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason.
Such edits are allowed even if the ban would otherwise prohibit them.

Reporting a violation to WP:AE, which is the appropriate forum in this case, is in effect seeking admin action which is explicilty permitted by WP:IBAN.

Secondly, his claim that I am not an established contributor to Russophobia while Russavia is, is incorrect. I started editing that page on 2007-03-13 with 54 edits while Russavia started in 2008-06-22 with 36 edits [57]. My previous edit to that article was on June 3rd[58]. My sum total of two edits to Russophobia since was to ask for a quote [59] and raise the issue of possible OR issues [60] hardly disruptive acts compared to Russavia's direct reverts [61],[62],[63]

Therefore, while the block itself cannot now be undone, I ask that AGK in fairness to re-evaluate the appropriateness of his block, and in light of the explicit exemption of reporting violations contained WP:IBAN to amend the result here recording no violation on my part before final closure. --Martin (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified [64]

Discussion concerning Russavia[edit]

Statement by Russavia[edit]

Who is Tammsalu? A couple of hours ago I skimmed thru their contribs and noticed that the editor had edited since several years ago, I just assumed that it was a long-standing editor I hadn't crossed paths with. Only just now, by way of Martintg posting to my user talk page, and starting this request and claiming a link to EEML, have I realised that User:Martintg has changed his username.

But even in that case, the edit by Tammsalu was not just the inclusion of a see-also link, but also rewording of information in an article which changes the complete meaning of what was written. I have reverted, and re-included the see-also link in my edit. There is no dispute here, nor should there be. As per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia, editing the same article is not part of the restriction, neither is reverting, and as per Wikipedia:EDITSUMMARY#Always_provide_an_edit_summary I have provided an accurate edit summary, and the summary itself is not commenting on anyone's character - the edit summary offered by Tammsalu does not adequately describe their edit. I have taken note of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions and act accordingly.

Also, might I add that Martintg, aka Tammsalu, is also bound by Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted -- his bringing this to WP:AE is the manufacturing of a dispute by him, and this report is NOT a part of any reasonable dispute resolution process, and given history of harrassment of myself by those editors who are restricted from interacting with or commenting on myself, this is a furtherment of a battleground mentality that they swore to give up as they went back to the Arbitration Committee to have their return to this area of editing allowed by way of having their topic bans lifted. I believe it is quite telling that Martin has raced to AE to ask for a ban on myself, when there is no valid reason for any belief of his report being part of any reasonable dispute resolution process.

I would suggest that Tammsalu withdraw this frivolous battleground complaint (Wikipedia:EEML#Disruption_4) which is lacking in any good faith, and get back to editing, or I will ask that WP:BOOMERANG apply. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? Two pints of lager 00:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, instead of dropping his vexatious complaint, Martintg has decided to attempt to turn this into a battleground; something which I will not allow to occur and which I will not participate in. At no stage were interaction bans giving editors carte blanche to claim ownership of articles. Again I point admins to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions; I have taken Carcharoth's comments on board; others should be doing the same. What Martintg fails to disclose is that WP:BRD has basically taken place at Talk:Russophobia#Aivars_Slutsis - and not a single complaint; discussion is able to occur. We are adults and we should act as such. Why is Martintg bringing this to WP:AE? Is that not just continuing with Wikipedia:EEML#Disruption_4? And breaching Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted? It is in my opinion vexatious reporting, and should be seen as block/ban shopping on his part. I will offer to Martintg one last time to drop this frivolous complaint, and get back to editing, or I will ask that WP:BOOMERANG apply. And with that I am happily leaving Martintg alone on his battleground, but I will be happy to respond to any questions from admins. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? Two pints of lager 12:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
For AGK[edit]

AGK, as the blocking admin, can I ask why you simply acted on the report by Tammsalu as it was written, without taking into account the following:

  • User:Martintg (now known as User:Tammsalu) was found in EEML, amongst other things, to have abused dispute resolution processes (Wikipedia:EEML#Disruption_4)
  • User:Martintg was covered under Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted, under which he is "prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution."
  • As a result of Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted I am unable to interact with any editors from the EEML case.
  • It should be noted that only editors sanctioned in EEML are restricted from interacting with me, whilst I am restricted from interacting with ALL EEML members. Given that I do not have a history of vexatious reporting (this was explicitly stated by Arbs in the WP:ARBRB case), etc I saw some problems with this, as noted at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions. User:Carcharoth, although not agreeing to extend the restriction, commented that one should be concentrating on content, rather than the editor. And this I do agree with, and this is what I have done in my editing.
  • It also should be noted that myself and User:Miacek have ignored these restrictions and we have (and will continue) to interact with one another.
  • On 11 June, I made this edit to Occupation of the Baltic states.
  • Not long after User:Tammsalu files this AE report. As stated in there, I did not know that Tammsalu is the editor formerly known as Martintg. I have not kept tabs on the EEML editors for a year (plus) now. I don't keep tabs on these editors and their name changes, nor do I have a need or desire to.
  • At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia User:Newyorkbrad stated that editing the same article is not interacting.
  • At his request, Tammsalu states that because he was allowed to participate in the Arbitration case, so this gives him cause to breach his own interaction ban by reporting me to AE. This belief has not been clarified by the Committee. After making my first statement, in which I stated that I did not know Tammsalu was Martintg, and that this was not legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, Tammsalu instead of dropping the request as WP:AGF, decided to push further into battle by bringing up edits of mine on an article in which he was not involved.
  • Russophobia is an article which I have an interest in, and for which I am developing materials (such as the Russophobes bible). Tammsalu was not involved in this at all, so I fail to see how he would be able to be given carte blanche to ignore his interaction ban on me by reporting my actions on that article.
  • My actions on that article comprised of one revert of an editor who was in EEML and upon whom I am banned from interacting (but yet there is not a reciprocal ban on them interacting on me). They reverted me, and I reverted and then added additional information. At the same time, inline with WP:BRD, discussion takes place at Talk:Russophobia#Aivars_Slutsis_Sl.C5.ABcis. I am not complaining about the other editor, for I do not believe there is a good faith reason to do so, as any discussion that was taking place was about the content.
  • Surely, if any editor had a problem with my editing on that article, they could have reported me. But why would that be needed, when discussion has been cordial on the talk page, and information provided for each other as requested.
  • There was no need for Tammsalu to report editing and discussion on Russophobia as he was not involved, and there is no conceivable way it could be construed as legitimate and necessary dispute resolution on his part. In addition to his reporting this article, there certainly was no need for Tammsalu to be combative with words such as "Both Nanobear (talk · contribs) (a.k.a Offliner and Russavia (talk · contribs) have a history of teaming together to tendentiously edit Baltic related topics in order to perpetuate the battleground against certain editors." Unfortunately, this goes against what User:Carcharoth wrote by not concentrating on content, but instead attacking myself and another editor with unfounded accusations.
  • Unfortunately, User:AGK blocked me for 4 days, not for my innocent interaction with Tammsalu, but for Tammsalu's report of my edits on Russophobia.
  • No sooner had I been blocked, and Tammsalu immediately then goes to Russophobia and begins to edit the article and other resultant diffs. Obviously this is a WP:POINT violation. What would a user doing this appear to be to the uninvolved?
  • Given that the AE report by Tammsalu was somewhat battlish (said by way of his words and unfounded accusations), it could appear that the entire point of the AE report was to have me sanctioned by way of what I believe is vexatious reporting on issues in which they were not involved, ostensibly to have me all-but-ejected from an article. This sentiment is somewhat backed up by User:Igny's comments on the talk page here. Tammsalu's interjection on an article that I had been editing, and discussing with other editors in a civil manner, immediately after I was blocked as a result of his report is obviously a WP:POINTY thing to do.
  • I don't have any opponents here on WP, and am happy to collaborate with all editors who are here for the betterment of the project. However, it could appear that Tammsalu continues to treat WP as a battleground by way of 1) manufacturing disputes where there are none, 2) making accusations against myself and other editors, 3) using harsh language against myself (e.g. saying that only I was edit warring, but ignoring other user [who should NOT be sanctioned for anything anyway]), 4) even accusing me of edit-warring, when what occurred was a normal part of WP:BRD.
  • No other editor, apart from Tammsalu, saw my edits on Russophobia as disruptive. As there is a history of vexatious reporting, and also harrassment on myself, one should be asking if the very report by Tammsalu wasn't in itself disruptive, and an obvious breach of his interaction ban on myself.
  • During my 4 day block, I continued to work on content on my talk page. I also began writing this information up to bring here to AE to you AGK. This resulted in Tammsalu making further comments on myself with this edit; with this edit he is implying that I am continuing to breach the interaction ban, by preparing material which questions his behaviour with this report and his interaction ban breach.

AGK, given the information that you now have, can you please explain why:

  1. you have all but given Tammsalu/Martintg immunity from Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted, given his history
  2. you have only acted on his report, which is somewhat vexatious, but are leaving it up to other admins to determine whether Tammsalu has been disruptive, and perhaps creating a battleground where there was no need for one in the first place.
  3. you shouldn't apply sanctions on Tammsalu to demonstrate that there is some appearance of impartiality here. I am not assuming that you have not acted in good faith here, but I am suggesting that all information available should be taken into account.

Your response to this is appreciated AGK. --Russavia Let's dialogue 07:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

AGK, I thank you for your response. Can I say, that I WP:AGF interpreted "Nanobear: I have intentionally not closed this request for enforcement, in order to allow another administrator to determine whether Martintg/Tammsalu has violated his topic ban. If an administrator does not do so soon, I will." to state that you will leave this thread open for another admin to look at, and that if another admin does not do this, you will close the thread. I am sure you can see how this could have been interpreted this way. This also lead me to perhaps assume that impartiality perhaps wasn't being applied. So I apologise if I have misinterpreted your words and actions here. And I do appreciate that you will look at other's edits, for there was absolutely no need for "necessary dispute resolution" on the part of Tammsalu in this case, and it could be inferred by their subsequent actions that this report was artificial creation of a battleground in order to have me sanctioned with the aim of having me all but removed from an article (Russophobia). --Russavia Let's dialogue 10:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Other issues[edit]

To bring up consentual interactions between myself and Miacek is very petty indeed. So that any admin is aware, as a result of two cases, there is an interaction ban on Miacek from interacting with me, and an interaction ban on me interacting with Miacek. A history of interactions between the two of us, since interactions have been all but been banned include the following: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and it can go on. I even commented at his request to have his topic ban lifted, because as Miacek mentions in that very request, relations between the two of us are normal. We have also been in occasional email contact, the last time just the other day, when I emailed him for fixing an issue with another article after he saw my note on my talk page. It is clear that this is consentual interaction, and no-one in their right mind would sanction two editors who have inconveniently been banned from interacting from doing so, when interaction is and always has been cordial, respectful, constructive, and clearly welcomed by both parties. Tammsalu is, of course, aware that interactions between myself and Miacek are consentual, and they have been discussed in the past and found to exactly what should be happening in EE topics. So I find it extremely disappointing that Tammsalu is intent on turning an example of exactly what the EE area needs into part of his unwarranted and unneeded self-manufactured battleground. Instead of seemingly being intent on battling, Tammsalu should be looking at why Miacek and myself are able to have a collaborative editing relationship, and how he could have done the same thing. My initial suggestion to him of dropping his initial report based on WP:AGF would have been a big step, but his clear intent to escalate non-disputes into a major war and subsequent pointy actions show that this is not part of his agenda, so yes, I totally agree, such behaviour needs to be stopped. --Russavia Let's dialogue 13:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive65#Russavia has comments from FPaS and Sandstein on this interaction ban. --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
On lazy editing[edit]

It is difficult to regard this as lazy editing. After the edit summary on the article that brought us here, and Tammsalu's comment that was laziness, it is suspicious that this is mere lazy editing as it is not a copy edit but rather it is essentially a substantial revert of edits which I made in August 2010. Compare Tammsalu's copy edit with the article as it stood before I edited it in August 2010.[65]. Tammsalu has reverted every change which I made to the article, which included removal of information which failed verification (synthesis)[66], placement of opinion from the lead to relevant section[67]. And especially telling is this edit, where I moved it from the lead to a relevant section, and at the same time expanded it by providing context. If one looks at the copy edit one can see that last edit has been undone in its entireity by moving opinion back to the lead, and all context and additional information being removed. Of course, Tammsalu knows that I am unable to do anything about it because to do so would constitute an interaction with him. The timing of my contributions being wholesale removed from that article (i.e. after my unblock and my edits on Russophobia which added information) also is suspicious. And then to claim that his edit summary is lazy editing, after using that excuse only a short time ago. I think it is pretty clear what is happening there. And it needs to stop; editors who are intent on WP:POINT disruptive POV editing and battleground creation and advancement should be removed from the area. It is about time that an admin look at this and draw their own conclusions and act appropriately. --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia[edit]

In my view, the edit summary reverting sneaking in of controversial changes to the article under the guise of a see-also link is a personal attack. The editor needs to be reminded about the requirement to observe Wikipedia's civility policy. Clarified and expanded in response to a comment by user Igny below. - BorisG (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you refer to Russavia's edit summary then no, it is not. (Igny (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC))
@Nanobear: I think both edit summaries are problematic, and both are at fault here. The former doesn't justify the latter. But I agree, given his own highly misleading edit summary, bringing this to AE can backfire. - BorisG (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
If my edit summary was seen as not properly reflecting the edit, then my bad, it wasn't intentional, more a function of laziness. Claiming it was "sneaky" is an assumption of bad faith gone too far and a personal attack. But that is not the point. The point is that Russavia is under an active Arbcom interaction ban. Now it is conceivable that he was unaware of my username change, but certainly edit warring with Sander Säde (talk · contribs) is a clear breach of that interaction ban. Both Nanobear (talk · contribs) (a.k.a Offliner and Russavia (talk · contribs) have a history of teaming together to tendentiously edit Baltic related topics in order to perpetuate the battleground against certain editors. I had hoped that Nanobear (talk · contribs) has moved on from that when he changed his name, but when Russavia turns up to revert my edit with an offensive comment and to begin edit warring while breaching his interaction ban in support of Nanobear, this is a return to the bad old days. The interaction ban was designed to stop precisely this kind of behaviour, and has been successful until now. --Martin (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Re AGK The diffs to the edits involving Sander Säde show that Russavia has violated his interaction restriction. But they don't show that. Reverting an editor or even edit-warring with him does not constitute interaction in a strict sense, otherwise, the interaction ban is too open to an abuse, when one of the parties (A) make controversial edits to an article where the opposing party (B) is an active contributor thereby banning him (B) from editing the article to avoid interaction with A. (Igny (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC))

Comment by Nanobear[edit]
  • User Tammsalu edits: [68] (edit summary: see also link) (Question: does this edit summary accurately describe his edit? Does the edit concern controversial material about ethnic and national disputes?)
  • Russavia reverts: [69] (reverting sneaking in of controversial changes to the article under the guise of a see-also link; which I will now be happy to go and add to the article)

That Tammsalu has chosen to report Russavia's edit summary as "offensive" just shows how frivolous this request is. Since when is accurately describing an edit a policy violation? Should we reward Tammsalu for the misleading edit summary?

This appears to be pure block shopping by Tammsalu. We should apply WP:BOOMERANG to stop this kind of battleground behaviour. ArbCom has previously found that Tammsalu was engaged in battleground behaviour and banned him. It seems that Tammsalu has learned nothing during his ban. Nanobear (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note that User:Tammsalu has now continued to make controversial edits with misleading edit summaries. He is doing this after his frivolous request against Russavia was successful. Tammsalu is now taking advantage of Russavia's block and the latter's now-sanctioned inability to contribute to an article. I checked all edits by Russavia in this article, and found them to be well-sourced and constructive, where as Tammsalu's unfortunately are not.
  • This "copy edit" is basically a revert to a 1-year old version. Tammsalu has just undone all edits by Russavia in 2010: [70] vs. [71].
If this isn't punishable battleground behaviour by Tammsalu, then I don't know what is. Nanobear (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Russavia[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • The diffs to the edits involving Sander Säde show that Russavia has violated his interaction restriction. I note that this is Russavia's second such violation, and so he is blocked for 4 days per the enforcement provision of Russavia-Biophys. I have not closed this enforcement request yet, because I want to leave it open to other administrators to block other editors involved in these incidents. I find it doubtful that Russavia is the only one who has behaved disruptively here. AGK [] 18:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Igny: That is incorrect; the interaction ban does include reverts. AGK [] 10:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Nanobear: I have intentionally not closed this request for enforcement, in order to allow another administrator to determine whether Martintg/Tammsalu has violated his topic ban. If an administrator does not do so soon, I will. AGK [] 10:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Response: Did you read my comment above? I said that "if an administrator does not do so soon, I will." (Emphasis added.) Precisely why did you not come to my talk page to say "I think you've forgotten about that AE thread you were coming back to", rather than seizing upon my own forgetfulness (there are more demands on my wikitime than there probably should be) as evidence of my own impartiality? I am completely sick of wild allegations of bias from involved or partisan users, and I have learned to ignore them. I will perhaps sanction Martintg soon. AGK [] 09:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Russavia: Thank you for the explanation. That is understandable. AGK [] 10:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

With this post, I am following up on the complaints about User:Martintg (aka User:Tammsalu), who filed this request. I am presuming that the only enforceable remedy here is WP:EEML#Editors restricted, which would prohibit Martin from interacting with Russavia. There are multiple elements of the argument by Russavia, so I will in turn answer the substantial ones, but ignore informal remarks or references to violations of arbitration principles (because we can only enforce remedies).

  1. At Occupation of the Baltic states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Martin was editing for some time before Russavia reverted him. In my view, the sudden arrival of Russavia would be a violation of the interaction ban (although I am not dealing with that point because I have already blocked Russavia, above), but Martin's actions would not because he had already been contributing to the page for some time.
  2. I disagree with Newyorkbrad's interpretation that the remedy does not cover interaction by editing the same article, at least in the sense of one restricted editor appearing suddenly on an article that the other is contributing to. I would be more lenient if the two editors were already established contributors to the page, or were undertaking genuine debate about the subject matter.
  3. It is difficult to say whether the remedy would prevent one editor from filing an enforcement request on the other. On one hand, if it were to cover enforcement requests, that would prevent genuine misconduct from being properly reported. On the other, if it were not to, it would on the face of it allow the parties to interact (in violation of the spirit of the remedy). I am inclined to say that it does cover such behaviour, especially as Russavia was an established contributor to the Russophobia and Martin seems to not be.

Filing this report was therefore a violation by Martin of the interaction ban. On that basis, I am enforcing the remedy by blocking Martin for 48 hours for violating WP:EEML#Editors restricted and per WP:EEML#Enforcement by block. I am also reminding Martin that it is imperative that he avoid all non-content-related interaction with Russavia. AGK [] 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


AgadaUrbanit topic-banned for 6 months. AGK [] 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning AgadaUrbanit[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
AgadaUrbanit (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. 15 June 2011 See below for explanation
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Informed of the ARBPIA case by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
  2. Blocked multiple times for conduct on this article, see block log
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

About two months ago AgadaUrbanit reverted an edit at Gaza War dealing with the inclusion of two names, one in each Hebrew and Arabic, in the lead of the article. At this time I opened a content RFC over this topic. This RFC was recently closed by an uninvolved admin with the conclusion that the two names are to be included in the lead (see close here). Following this close I reinserted the contested material here. Agada then proceeds to remove the material and claim on the talk page there is still no consensus. This type of I did not hear that game playing following a clear close of an RFC is disruptive, similar to past cases with Israeli settlements and international law. The user is well aware of the RFC, having participated in it and commenting directly below it claiming there is no consensus. The RFC asked "Should the name used by each of the combatants be included in the lead of the article?" The close said "the result is include". And yet AU claims there is no consensus to include the material in the lead, disregarding the clear close of a discussion that lasted two months. This is simply bad faith editing and should be dealt with accordingly.

The user now claims, in the comment linked below, that he did not see the close. However, now that he understands that the RFC was indeed closed, the user has still not self-reverted his edit. Additionally, a reply was made to him that said that the RFC was closed by an uninvolved admin and this AE request was opened and the user informed since the revert. The user only responded to the notification by saying you are welcome and ignored both the comment on the talk page and this AE request until Tim commented below. I cant believe that the user did not know, at least since the comment on his talk page directing him here, that the RFC was closed by an uninvolved admin. And even if he did not know that then, he certainly knows it now and has yet to rectify the issue of the disruptive revert. nableezy - 21:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The user is continuing with the I did not hear that type disruption, as evidenced by this comment in which he claims that he is looking into ways to implement the RFC closure, despite the way to implement it being to self-revert his edit. nableezy - 21:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If yall feel that I need to respond to Agada's comments about me, please let me know. Id rather not waste the time if it doesnt matter though. nableezy - 14:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning AgadaUrbanit[edit]

Statement by AgadaUrbanit[edit]

... and also WP:LEAD should burn in hell!

Tim, apologize for creating needless drama. Please see my thoughts here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I already noted that I have missed the closing and was under impression that the RfC was closed by the bot. It might appear as unreasonable to some, but the last RfC that I was involved in was never reviewed by any administrator and was closed by the bot. Additionally this enforcement request was initially published with wrong link to closing, probably by mistake, I have fixed the link later, Revision as of 20:21, 15 June 2011. Once I have read the closing I have self reverted, Revision as of 22:00, 15 June 2011. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I have also asked Nableezy if he would be willing to consider withdrawing this request following my self revert. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
However he denied the request. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case of outcome, I'd like to apologize again for unneeded drama, which was caused by my misunderstanding. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@BioSketch Thank you ;)

  • I've been topic banned from Gaza War article, but it was a blessing I've learned how to use watchlist feature and currently I have 1,586 pages on my watchlist (excluding talk pages). I am not following Gaza War closely, that is why I have missed the close. Bio is right, I would not be surprised if more than 80% of my edits are outside I-P area.I think reviewing administrators are fair and this expansion is, well, to make the editing environment more clean.
  • Despite the existing B-M RfC, Nableezy denied the existing consensus and performed unilateral edit two months ago. Here is discussion Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_67#Name about my two months old revert. Much more than one editor were *actively* objecting. So following revert, Nableezy immediately initiated RfC on the same topic as B-M RfC - a current RfC: Talk:Gaza_War#RFC: Should the name used by each of the combatants be included in the lead of the article? Nableezy 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC). Is Nableezy refusing to accept the verdict of the other editors? Some might see this episode as WP:IDHT.
  • This is not a forum to discuss content, but just to clarify. New RfC consensus according to many interpretations is for including ALL names in the lede, provided WP:V by WP:RS. My involvement in discussion is to ensure WP:NPOV, since currently Nableezy insists that only two official names should be included, but others, which also have WP:RS support should not, which appear as Wikipedia policy of neutrality violation to me, that is why I have add POV tag. This is Nableezy traditional opinion which was not changed a bit by years of discussion.
  • @EdJohnston, Agree I have messed up with my last edit on Gaza War, I definitely should have waited a week or so for more editors to express their opinion. However that was a discussed on talk page edit and it is WP:V by WP:RS. I didn't want to raise another RfC, my intention was to discuss an implementation of current one, fully accepting consensus on all previously discussed names, for clarity including Gaza Massacare. Names added in the discussed edit are used as the title names of Arabic language article Gaza War (original Google translate) , quote: "Attack on Gaza [18] [19] [20] [20] and the Gaza massacre [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] or Operation Oil Stain [29] or Battle of Criterion (Al-Furqan) [30] [31] as it is called by the Palestinian resistance [32] ..." Operation Oil Stain & Battle of Criterion (Al-Furqan) are attributed to combatant, according to sources, so might appear as valid names for inclusion per current RfC. During discussion on talk page long list of sources were presented. Among them refs 2-4 from original article. I guess only those sources should be enough, but more primary (combatant using the name) and secondary sources saying (combatant name is ...) were provided. I realize though this BOLD but discussed edit caused a disruption and I apologize. Though revert rational appears as questionable to me: Your understanding is incorrect, and your use of a source in a language that you do not know is curious at best. nableezy - 12:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC). Appears as comment on editor and not content at least partially.
  • Nabeezy expressed many times opinion that I should not edit the topic area, and I might agree. It is enough to glance at my talk page archive to see Nableezy constant WP:NPA and civility lapses. It is clear that Nableezy does not asume my good faith. Definitely me and Nableezy come from opposing partisan camps, as far as Gaza War is concerned.
  1. Submission of this enforcement is timestamped 06:13, 15 June 2011 while my revert is timestamped 06:01, 15 June 2011, no attempt to discussion in the middle
  2. Nableezy refusal to withdraw the request after my self revert

I find those two points as WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior. See for instance my week long block for not following WP:SPI and Nableezy is just asking User_talk:AgadaUrbanit/Archives/2010/August#what_are_you_doing.3F? Is this a famous sock slayer, failing to see clear sock pattern? It is enough to glance at User:Nableezy user page to see that we're talking about WP:ACTIVIST, he just can not help it, according to his own words. While in his constant topic bans, which for some reason are not as prolonged as topic bans of others, Nableezy does not contribute to areas outiside I-P. He is here to dispute:

  1. names
  2. locations
  3. origins
  • BTW I would not count Nableezy blocks or topic bans, but should not Nableezy be I-P topic banned currently, banned following hmmmm enforcement by my request? I am a bit surprised he is editing in the topic area at all.
  • In anyway, I'd like to clarify reviewing administrators opinion appear fair to me and maybe I should be topic banned. My comment is only to ensure less disruptive I-P editing environment and in current situation I realize it does not mean much. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


I think that we're making much fuss about nothing. This is not about WP:WIN, I need a break from I-P topic area, especially from interaction with certain editors, who probably will continue to be stars of AE. I'd like to thank admins who reviewed this case and their patience. Agree with User:EdJohnston, three strikes law is a way to go, this principle should be applied more. I'm unilaterally banning myself from the I-P topic area. Half a year sounds reasonable to me. Let me quote Macrakis: Wikipedia has tremendous potential, but it is discouraging to see how much effort we have to spend to deal with mindless vandalism, puerile boosterism and nationalism, and crank POV-pushing. I don't really mind if admins would want to make the ban official and log it. This discussion is a waste of community time and resources, so closing it would be the best way to move forward. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning AgadaUrbanit[edit]

What, Tim? I thought discussion was a good thing. Considering that we have had multiple discussions (some that even led to the name not being included) then this does look good. The editor believes there is a way to address the neutrality problem and is actively discussing a perennial request without being a jerk. What is the problem with ongoing discussion?Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

<comment redacted> I strongly disagree. AgadaUrbanit doesn't want to abide by consensus, so she/he is restarting a closed RfC. Classic IDHT behavior. But thank you for your opinion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it as restarting an RfC but instead expanding on options available after more than one editor said that other names would need to be discussed separately. Am I reading the discussion incorrectly or differently than you? And if you are going to refer to the comment as "manure": consider how many RfCs we have had on this. At what point does it become manure? Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, Cptnono. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
PS: Do you honestly believe AgadaUrbanit isn't being a jerk in that discussion? No need to answer. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Honestly? If his repeated" thank you for your opinion" is meant to be snarkey then it is annoying. But maybe he is bending over backwards to be polite to an editor who it is hard to be polite to. If it is the former, I doubt it is bad enough to require a 6 month ban. Is it against our standards to continue a discussion after being requested to do so? I do not believe anyone will say it is so the only question left to answer is if the closing admins believe he is lying when he says that he did not realize the details of the close before finally self-reverting.Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Can an admin explain what is wrong with continued discussion on adding other names. I feel like I am missing something and I would like to get it so I don't also get a topic ban.
There was an RfC that took place after other discussions.->Adding on to that RfC after being requested to was done.
Is the problem that he intentionally "did not hear it"? If so, what id he not hear? Editors invited more conversation.
Is the problem that he intentionally gamed the system?
Is the problem that he intentionally edit warred?
Is the problem that he intentionally broke decorum?
How is reverting against consensus found in an RfC on accident (assuming we assume it was an accident) and then participating in discussion requested in the RfC a problem? TK, and Ed have not provided any actual reasoning for banning. He applied a tag? Is that the reason? Man up and give us some reasoning. What actually was wrong with opening more discussion after being asked? Was it how he did it? Are you just assuming he did something wrong? Why aren't you making it clear before making statements? Cptnono (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

@AGK: Who is Mike? - BorisG (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I really like Agada. But sometimes I don't understand Agada. Sometimes he seems so oblivious and unconcerned about his own well-being. I almost want to say that his edits were so blatant that he must have felt it was acceptable. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biosketch

@Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), @AGK (talk · contribs), @EdJohnston (talk · contribs), I'm not going to defend AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs)'s conduct at Gaza War; once the RfC was an established reality, he should have discussed rather than made a bold edit that went against the spirit of the RfC's conclusion. However, in determining the length of the topic ban, there are a couple of points in User:AgadaUrbanit's favor that I think ought to be considered. The first of these goes back to Nableezy (talk · contribs)'s recent topic ban. If one looks through Agada's edit history after Nableezy was topic-banned, they'll see that Agada basically removed himself from the I/P topic area, editing exclusively outside it. No one asked him to self-ban or anything like that, and I don't know his reasons for doing it. But it struck me then, and it still strikes me now, as a noble thing to have done. Perhaps he felt it best that, during Nableezy's absence from the topic area, it would only be fair that he take a break himself, seeing as he was the one who filed the AE against Nableezy that led to Nableezy being topic-banned. I doubt it's a coincidence that Agada only returned to Gaza War after Nableezy was paroled, which suggests to me that he deliberately waited for his chief rival, as it were, to return and be able to challenge him. He could have edited the article a few weeks ago and gotten away with it; instead, he waited for Nableezy to return to the topic area and only then made his bold edit.

Another fact I would like to see the Admins address is Agada's penitence, which to me sounds genuine. It's one thing when an editor tries to defend his actions when he's clearly in the wrong: in cases like that, enforcement is understandable as a necessary preventative measure. But when the editor is willing to acknowledge his mistake and pledge not to repeat it, it could be more constructive to give him the benefit of the doubt. Agada, according to what people are saying here, has something of a problematic record in the topic area, so some kind of topic ban would make sense. But in light of the circumstances just described, I believe a six-month ban is being overly harsh.—Biosketch (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Ohiostandard

This illustrates very poor judgment; it's not the action of a person who's interested in diminishing needless drama. Yes, I'm aware from AU's talk of the origin of this particular anti-barnstar, but coming from a very pro-Israel editor and posted to the talk page of a very pro-Palestine editor, it's just offensive and inappropriate. Caucasian people realize that they're not free to call a person of African ancestry "nigger" on the basis that people who share that ancestry ironically refer to each other so; likewise, there's nothing remotely funny or ironic about AU's post in this instance, either. I do think a topic ban is called for; it's my impression that the user is missing the internal filters necessary to edit productively in so contentious an area as this.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Biophys

@Ohiostandard [72]. I believe that dividing editors to "pro-Palestine" and "pro-Israel" is completely inappropriate, just as as dividing them to "white" and "niggers" and telling that they are not equal. The problems in the Palestine-Israel area are so intractable precisely because of such division and attitude.Biophys (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning AgadaUrbanit[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
This does not look good. At all. I propose a six-month topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have held off on involving myself much in this request, because I've taken the lead on most of the recent I/P enforcement requests, but I concur with Mike T. Canens that the behaviour of the respondent in this case is passively disruptive and with T. Canens that a six-month topic ban would be fair. AGK [] 11:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am guessing that T. Canens got caught up elsewhere, or forgot to check back here, so I have implemented the 6 month topic-ban of AgadaUrbanit from all I/P articles, as discussed. With this edit, I am also closing this request. AGK [] 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • (Post-closure note to BorisG) I meant T. Canens, and I'm not sure where I got Mike from! AGK [] 21:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The original problem causing this AE to be opened was a clear failure by AgadaUrbanit to accept consensus based on a closed RfC, as noted by T. Canens, and a parallel to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive74#Shuki. After the AE was filed AgadaUrbanit undid his own edit and allowed Operation Cast Lead and Gaza Massacre to be restored. Still, his new placement of a POV tag on Gaza War, the immediate opening of a new RfC and the unilateral addition of his proposed alternate names before the new RfC had finished, suggests he is refusing to accept the verdict of the other editors. On this basis I support a 6-month ban from I/P topics as recommended above. AgadaUrbanit has been blocked three times in the past for warring on this very article, and has been banned from editing it for three months. The next reasonable escalation is an I/P topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


No action taken on the complaint. Closing this before I have to ban a bunch of people from AE. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 24 June 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 
Biosketch (talk) 15:59, 22 June 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
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 22 June 2011 – user attributes to me a "batshit insane obsession."
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (partial list)
  1. Banned May 2011 by AGK (talk · contribs)
  2. Blocked December 2010 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
  3. Blocked December 2010 by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)
  4. Blocked April 2010 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
  5. Warned February 2010 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested
Topic ban.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

What the hell? A discussion I had with Nableezy (talk · contribs) on Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs)'s Talk page finally petered out after dragging on for two weeks. Hardly do three days go by and I have to read him accusing me of having developed a "batshit insane obsession" with his edits. I made minor and uncontroversial modifications to two of User:Nableezy's edits, and that's the kind of feedback I get subjected to. AGK (talk · contribs) was unequivocal in demanding that Nableezy cultivate a professional demeanor when he vacated Nableezy's account restriction prematurely less than two weeks ago. I asked him to keep in mind those terms a few days ago when I felt he was close to crossing the line. Not only is Nableezy making no effort to be civil but he's showing every indication of continuing to be an aggressive, vulgar and overall negative influence on the Project.—Biosketch (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

1. @Nableezy (talk · contribs), permit me to not believe you when you deny having attributed the "batshit insane obsession" comment to me – and frankly I'm astonished you would even attempt that line of defense. There's no other contributor on that page to whom your comment could conceivably have applied.
2. @Tarc (talk · contribs), the dignified thing for you to do after baselessly accusing me of being a sock would be to either put your money where your mouth is and file an SPI or withdraw the accusation with an apology. I expect you'll do neither.
3. @Those who think discussion with User:Nableezy would have been of any help in resolving this matter, take a few moments to read through the discussion that did take place higher up on that page. I suggest that, based on our earlier exchange, trying to discuss the incident would have looked something like this:
Biosketch: Nableezy, I don't appreciate coming home from work and having to read that you attribute a "batshit insane obsession" to me for modifying two recent edits you made.
Nableezy: I wasn't referring to you.
Biosketch: To whom were you referring?
Nableezy: [?]
Biosketch: Could you please strike out the comment?
Nableezy: Actually, I'd much prefer if you went with this to AE as that would be hilarious.
4. @Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), if you feel no enforcement action is necessary given Nableezy's redaction, I won't press the matter further. However, what of the fact that Nableezy's most recent sanction was reduced under the condition that he be duly professional in his interactions with other contributors here? Given this incident, has he lived up to that commitment?—Biosketch (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Tarc (talk · contribs), this is the second time you've accused me of sockpuppetry without offering a shred of evidence other than the color of my username and the fact that many of my edits are in the I/P topic area. Do you not yet realize how hypocritical your accusation is? or do you realize your accusation is hypocritical but pray no one else'll pick up on the hypocrisy? Then let me spell it out for the benefit of those who may have missed it: Nableezy (talk · contribs) is redlinked and the preponderance of his edits in the I/P topic area far exceeds mine, yet User:Tarc's accusation of sockpuppetry is directed exclusively at me. No matter – I expected nothing less from you than baseless inconsistent biased and prejudiced accusations.—Biosketch (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Asad112 (talk · contribs), I challenge you to produce a single diff of AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs) ever being anything less than a mensch in his interactions with other contributors here. At least for as long as I've been around I've observed him to be nothing but a patient, considerate, civil, and morally upright editor. Who else would be so noble as to self-ban from I/P after winning an AE against a rival editor and only return to a controversial article after that editor's sanctions were lifted? That's why I was taken aback by his barnstar on Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs)'s Talk page, and that's why I readily accepted his reply that it was meant in irony. No one who has commented here, myself included, is in User:AgadaUrbanit's league, as far as I'm concerned. I would say we should all follow his example as forbearance would benefit our collaboration immensely, but he's of course been banned for six months, for an edit he self-reverted prior to being sanctioned, and that doesn't leave me with very much hope for the Project, sadly.—Biosketch (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

"batshit insane obsession" were the words used by another editor, not me. I quoted them. Biosketch has indeed followed me to some articles. I dont really have a problem with his edits, though I do with the idea that it is fair game to go through another editor's contributions on a regular basis. Also, this happened where exactly? A user talk page? Is there any indication that I have made any uncivil or otherwise disruptive edits on article talk pages? No, of course not. But I emphatically deny that attributed a "batshit insane obsession" to Biosketch. I, playfully, quoted another user applying that term to somebody else and made a word (Nableezitis) and applied that to an unnamed editor. But it is demonstrably true that Biosketch has gone through my contributions to follow me to multiple articles. A word to him that he cease doing so would be most appreciated. But to show just how what this "battlefield mentality" that you all keep talking about, this user is taking a comment made on a user talk page and asking for an article topic ban. He could have asked that I strike the quote, he could have ignored the comments made on a user talk page. But he instead chooses to come here. There is no problem with any edit I have made to articles or article talk pages. This is purely an attempt to use an unrelated, and I might dare say something that is not covered under ARBPIA, incident to remove an editor that Biosketch disagrees with from the topic area. To underline the main point here, Biosketch is asking that I be removed from editing articles and talk pages on the basis that I made a comment he disliked on a user talk page. And the part of the comment that he takes issue with, which leads him to make the unsubstantiated assertion that I am "aggressive, vulgar, and overall negative influence on the Project", werent even my words. nableezy - 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

But as Biosketch has made clear how offensive he found those words, Ill redact them and replace them with something with less color. nableezy - 17:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
And done. That would have been much easier if Biosketch just asked me to modify my comments to begin with. AE is not WQA or ANI, it is not a place to seek punishment for each and every single issue that one takes issue with. I dont think the comment above is even covered by ARBPIA. And even if it were, WQA should have been used prior to that. And a note on my talk page even before that. nableezy - 17:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Biosketch, I was referring to you, obviously, that was not what I meant in my above comments. What I meant was that those werent my words, that I was quoting a description given by somebody else, and that I was attributing to you, with my words, "Nableezitis". And if you had said you found those words to be offensive I would have done what I did, change them. In the future, you may want to consider actually having a conversation with me instead of playing one out in your head. You may be surprised at the result. nableezy - 13:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I think you are mistaken. nableezy - 23:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, this is now the second time where you have made an indirect and unsubstantiated accusation that I have a sockpuppet. You make this accusation and refuse to provide any evidence for it. That you do this while accusing me of being a jerk is unbelievable. I am requesting that Cptnono be warned for making unsubstantiated accusations. I would also request if the admins might consider banning Cptnono from making comments about me. A reimposition of the interaction ban between us would be just fine by me. I am getting a bit tired of these malicious accusations made without even an attempt of offering evidence, as well as the repeated hounding of my edits to revert whatever edits I make. On this very page, you have accused me of breeding cancer, of making the topic area toxic, implied that I was operating a sockpuppet (saying you know it has been a concern), and then saying that it not you making the accusation, but rather unnamed others, all the while refusing to provide any evidence for an accusation made in a public forum. You repeat this behavior below. Exactly how much crap do I have to take from this (it took me literally five minutes to decide what word to use next, weighing the costs and benefits of using the word that first was written, then deleted) person? I have held my tongue, or fingers, about what I think of this "editor" for a long time, but I have reached my threshold for patience for unsubstantiated, in fact unfounded, accusations. nableezy - 06:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Boris, due respect, but this page is not the problem. The problem is the editors who feel the need to involve themselves in every single enforcement request that involves certain users. The problem is the repeated unfounded accusations. Those problems can, and should, be solved. nableezy - 18:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy[edit]

I find it hard to attach much credibility to any complaint filed by a redlink-name account, one that has only existed since February of this year, and had edited almost exclusively in the Israeli/Palestine/Arab/Middle East topic area. The Enforcement page here is routinely used to game the system, where socks return again and again to try to get their wiki-adversaries in trouble, and evasive non-answers such as this are troubling. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm under the impression that violations of principles in arbitration decisions are not actionable. That is to say, even if nableezy violated the principle linked to by Biosketch, which I don't believe he did, no action against him will be taken.
    I assume Biosketch was not aware of this, so I don't fault her/him for making a frivolous complaint, but I recommend this be closed ASAP. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Agree with T. Canens. No need to examine redacted comment. Agree with Nableezy that this would have been best discussed on the talk page and not here. - BorisG (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Really Tarc? Have you checked his contributions? He is certainly on one side of the fence but he actually is an editor. I know AGF means nothing here but c'mon. In regards to Nableezy, he has been told multiple times to be "professional" and to not break decorum. How many times is needed? I was blocked for 24hrs for saying "cancer". I was not given a chance to strike it out (something I would have considered). So how many times is enough? I think not blocking him is a great idea. It is yet another piece of evidence against him. The unfortunate part is that people will forget about it (much like you forgot about the other times he was uncivil) and will prove once again that Nableezy can do whatever he wants. He will get his restriction lifted, he will be mean to others, he will edit war... and admins don't care No escalating blocks for him even? That is why this topic area has so many AEs. You want to fix it? How about actually staying consistent. The admins are the third biggest problem in the topic area. Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, really. This s a bad-faith AE filing by a likely-banned-under-another-username user. The quacking is deafening. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch's actions here are an utter joke and he should be sanctioned for his battlefield mentality editing and AE filing. Nableezy says a borderline offensive statement, Biosketch asks for a topic ban of the entire I/P area. The now topic banned AgadaUrbanit adds a nasty barnstar to Sean.hoyland's talk page [73], Biosketch responds by taking matter, not directly to AE as he has done here, but to AgadaUrbanit's talkpage [74] with the reasonsing that he probably has just sat in the sun too long or somebody hacked is computer. Is it not clear to the admins on this case that Biosketch is just trying to get Nableezy banned by any means possible, does that not constitute battlefield mentality? Again -- utter joke. -asad (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You want to know what constitutes battlefield mentality? Nableezy refusing to withdraw his AE report after AgadaUrbanit self-reverted (which resulted in a ban that escalated both in length and in scope from his last ban a year ago). Then, while on parole from his never-ending but rarely escalating bans, behaving, well, like he always does (isn't civility supposed to be one of the five pillars of wikipedia?) then claiming this report is moot because he corrected the problem. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who sees the irony here.
And to the admins below, what kind of ridiculous cop-out is this? If what he did is ok, just say so and let's move on (I also have some stuff I'd like to say to other editors which I'll gladly redact if it gets me in trouble), or if what he did is not ok, consider the fact he was warned multiple times about civility, has been banned repeatedly and is currently on a modified topic ban, and smack him with the kind of ban you'd give someone who's not Nableezy. This has gone way beyond absurd to bordering on the grotesque. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
What is beyond absurd is that everytime Nableezy lets out a virtual fart, instead of politely ignoring it, somebody has to run to to this noticeboard and report him for it. Don't people have better things to do with their time? Tiamuttalk 20:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
If those are virtual farts then he has a serious virtual gastro problem and some of us don't like to edit where it stinks. Civility is one of the five pillars of wikipedia, or so I hear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Clarification - @Asad112, the barnstar AgadaUrbanit posted wasn't meant as a nasty barnstar. It was a joke. I understood it was a joke...although I was away when it arrived and later vanished. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of that. But my point still remains that Biosketch had no idea it was a joke either, as is made evident by this edit [75] [76]. He had no problem taking such a matter to the talk page of an editor that is on his side of the conflict, but for Nableezy, he goes directly to filing an a report against him and asks for a total topic ban because he got his feelings hurt by something that Nableezy said that might ultimately be true. Pretty battlefield mentality-like to me. -asad (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
OK Tarc, you have no business commenting here. You assume a redlink is bad but when you look at his edit history you assume he is a sock. So lets assume he is a sock. Lets assume that everyone in the topic area is a sock. That allows Nableezy to treat people like garbage? Is that your final answer? Confirmed editors * (who may also have a sock) are allowed to be jerks because the people who bring them to AE must be a sock? I have a better idea. Do the job you volunteered for. Boomerang is cute but it is an f-all ploy that sidesteps the real issue. Is Nableezy allowed to be a jerk to people or not? It is really simple and does not involve this much conversation.Cptnono (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
If everyone is a sock, can I be a shoe? I bet they will be in high demand. ← George talk 06:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll comment where I see fit to, Cptnono. Learn your place. It has nothing to do with Nableezy's comments, which were really nothing to get all (to borrow a Palin-ism) wee-wee'ed up over. All this is is a sock hounding another user's contrib history looking for "gotcha" moments, and that is the last I have to say on the matter. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe someone can just hack into BioSketch's gmail account like was done to Mbz1 and sort this whole mess out. That seems to be an acceptable tactic used by certain Wikipedia editors. Done and done? 14:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop worrying. You assume everyone else is a sockpuppet and I assume you have a sock. You disappeared when you were topic banned so it is a logical conclusion. Since I don't have any evidence I am not going to worry about it myself because it won't go any where. So don't change the subject: What is your excuse for not being "professional" when that was part of adjusting your last sanction being lifted? If you have to shift blame I can only assume you know you are guilty. Care to clarify why you continue to be rude to other editors after having a sanction modified? Can you justify your presence in the topic area?Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
But for the admins: Last time? 2 of you want to let him skate since he retracted it. So no more right? This is really really it? Can we assume that Nableezy gets zero tolerance this time finally? Please? Edit warring, decorum violations, legal threats.. c'mon: Please put a stop to it once and for all. Next time is it after multiple blocks bans and warnings? Give him one more chance then indef the guy.Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
And this sums it up perfectly. Nableezy is lucky to be back early and he repays the community by opening an AE against someone and then being rude to another editor? He should be kissing butt right now. So lets do it. ARBPIA3. Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

= Comment by BorisG[edit]

Dearadmins. Clearly, this page has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It propagates drama. Something needs to be done. - BorisG (talk) 17:37, 24 June 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.
  • Malik, while violations of principles in the absence of a remedy are not by themselves actionable in AE, where discretionary sanctions are authorized they may constitute evidence that the user "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" and sanctionable as such.

    Regardless, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Nableezy's initial remark was sanctionable misconduct (a question I find unnecessary to decide and about which I voice no opinion), I do not think any enforcement action is necessary given the subsequent redaction. T. Canens (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree with T. Canens that this should be closed with no action against Nableezy since he withdrew his comment. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


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

Request concerning Anythingyouwant[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
MastCell Talk 21:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge restricted
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) is Ferrylodge (talk · contribs). In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge, ArbCom found that: "Ferrylodge has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion, but has edited reasonably on unrelated topics." As a result, Ferrylodge/Anythingyouwant is under an indefinite restriction against disrupting "any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly."

Abortion is currently subject to community-imposed 1RR. Anythingyouwant has reverted twice in the past 3 days:

Both times he's cited WP:BRD, but to this point he has not actually discussed either revert on the talk page (his last substantive contribution to Talk:Abortion was 1 month ago).

I think that repeatedly reverting a contentious article, citing WP:BRD but not actually discussing, is disruptive even though the reverts are slightly outside the official 24-hour window for 1RR. Given the pre-existing findings from the ArbCom case about Anythingyouwant's disruptive editing on abortion-related topics, I've brought this here.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  • Anythingyouwant is aware of this sanction; previous requests for enforcement have been filed, and he petitioned (unsuccessfully) to have it lifted. No formal warning is required by the ArbCom sanction.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
  • Topic ban from abortion (plus or minus related articles), as the ArbCom-prescribed remedy.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Anythingyouwant[edit]

Statement by Anythingyouwant[edit]

I made two reverts to the article over the course of three days. My edit summaries were as follows:

(1) "Revert per WP:BRD. Pastel Kitten is correct that this longstanding image was edit-warred out of this article without consensus. Many reasons were given by many editors for keeping it."[78]

(2) "Revert per WP:BRD. No one has asserted there is consensus to remove this longstanding image. Many reasons were given by many editors for keeping it."[79]

MastCell apparently does not assert that I have misapplied WP:BRD, and I was not misapplying it. As MastCell knows, there was extensive discussion at the article talk page about this content issue last month.[80] MastCell was deeply involved in that discussion, and he favored removing an image that was in the article for well over a year. There was no consensus to remove the image at that time, but the image was nevertheless edit-warred out of the article, contrary to WP:BRD. Another editor (not myself) reinserted the image this week.

My edit-summaries (quoted above) were thorough and self-explanatory. No editors who seek removal of the longstanding image have commented about their recent removal at the article talk page. Despite the lack of discussion at the article talk page, I did edit the talk page today to more fully explain why I reverted them (inserting template).[81]

Please note that there was a huge RFC on this topic in 2009 here. This RFC is linked in the FAQ at the top of the article talk page. All I was doing here is implementing WP:BRD, I did not come anywhere close to violating 1RR, and I reverted two edits that were unexplained at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The image has again been edit-warred out of the article today without consensus or talk page discussion, which apparently is fine with MastCell and other admins. After the present attempt to delete the image from Commons is concluded, I will probably bring this matter up again at the article talk page, and restore the image to the article (pending consensus for its removal).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Anythingyouwant[edit]

What a weird sanction! I thought ALL wikipedians are under indefinite restrictions from disrupting ANY articles... - BorisG (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems that 2 reverts over three days does not violate 1RR in any case ... this is a content dispute, and not a case where AYW should be punished for actually staying within the restrictions given. Nor can I view the edits as "disruptive". Please - keep content disputes out of AE. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Most disruptive editing centers around a content dispute. The two categories aren't mutually exclusive. MastCell Talk 01:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Anythingyouwant[edit]

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

Hmm. It is true that this edit restores a contentious image; however, as far as I could tell in reading Talk:Abortion/Archive_41#Picture_of_abortion, there's no consensus on its removal, either. Anythingyouwant did fail to start the conversation again at the talk page, though. I am unwilling to enforce action against Anythingyouwant as disruptive (because I don't consider it to be disruptive), and he in theory didn't violate 1RR/day. If it were up to me, I'd rather force additional discussion on the image yet again. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


Frivolous request. T. Canens (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Page: Rachel's Tomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: asad112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The following was added by an IP on 21/11/10: It is regarded by Israel as part of its "Jerusalem envelope" to be eventually annexed. Chesdovi (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Asad first reverted this on 29/12/10: [82] On the next occasion, Asad removed any mention of it being somehow “annexed”, on 13/01/11 @ 19:54: [83] His second revert with a 24hr period occurred on 14/01/11 @ 1:09: [84] where again, any mention of annexation is removed.

A second instance of Asad breaking the 1RR occurs regards the phrase "Historically located on the northern outskirts Bethlehem," which Asad changed to "located in the Palestinian town of Bethlehem" on 13/01/11 @ 19:54: [85]. At 14/01/11 @ 1:03 he again removed the word “Historically”: [86].

A third instance on 29/12/10 @16:50, Asad reverts to “The tomb is located at the north end of the West Bank city of Bethlehem, part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories": [87] On 13/01/11 @ 19:54 he reverts by writing “located in the Palestinian town of Bethlehem” and changes “occupied territories” at the paragraphs end to “occupied Palestinian territories”: [88] On 14/01/11 @ 1:11 he re-adds “Palestinian Territories”: [89].

These 3 examples are in violation of the 1RR set by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies. Asad has been notified about the 1RR twice in the last 2 weeks of December 2010: here and here. Chesdovi (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh, besides the fact that this report is badly malformed, are there any edits from within the last few months here? The most recent I see is from around 6 months in the past. This pretty clearly filed in retaliation for the above report and should be dismissed as a cynical attempt to game the sanctions regime in order to distract from the above request. nableezy - 16:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I compiled this at the time and for what ever reason, declined to bring it. Now Asad has stored up enough edits for me, I will now file the report. That it occurred some months ago does in no way diminish the violation of the rules. Chesdovi (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Really. Ill leave it to the uninvolved admins to decide what to do about such behavior as storing edit warring reports for 6 months and then using them to attempt to retaliate for another report. I have my thought as to what should happen, but Ill leave those to myself. nableezy - 17:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Asad's report is lame. He is just bored and grapsing at sticks. It will be him who gets a sanction, not me. Chesdovi (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin's please note that this matter was addressed six months ago here and here. Also please note, it seems like this report was saved somewhere in case I filed a report against Chesdovi. I believe that to be true because there is no way in hell I could believe that all that was conjured up nine minutes after I filed my report against Chesdovi (even considering how messy as the report is). I ask that this report be dismissed because of its frivolous nature, as if there were a matter of real concern by Chesdovi he would have filed the report a long time ago. -asad (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, that was about another article. Needless to say, I don't remember all those details half a year later. Irregardless, this report is still frivolous.
My God you make mistakes. Too many in fact. And this is as serious as it gets. You are in violation of 1RR. If after being blocked for 2 weeks and not being able to file a report duirng that time, and then filing one straight away, you and Nab would accuse me of the same. Accept your fate like a man. Have you never heard of old murder cases being opened after many years? Chesdovi (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You are in violation of 1RR. He is in violation of the 1RR? Really? The word "is" is the present tense of the verb "to be"; your accuse Asad of currently being in violation of a rule based on edits made six months ago. It is beyond the pale that you think this is a proper use of AE. A purely retaliatory filing, admitted as such above, based on edits made six months ago is (present tense) incredibly unwise. nableezy - 18:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Asad broke the rules. He must be punished at sometime or other, be that 6 months ago or now. He has continued to show his unseemly obsession with my edits as the above ficticious report shows. He cannot be trusted any longer. I gave him a chance, now he will pay. Stop sticking up for him, unless you want to stick up for me aswell that is. You in the past accused other editors of running to help their comrades, yet you are truly guilty of the same here. He was in violation 6 months ago, if I would have reported him then after my block you would also cry "retaliation!" Everything has a time and place, and now is the time for Asad to pay for his misguided reporting of other users, and for his violation of 1RR of course. Chesdovi (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I call out blatantly bogus reports. This is one such report. The one above is not. You are not helping yourself by insisting that a user be "punished" for something that took place 6 months ago. nableezy - 20:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Asaad cannot be expected to get let off scott free, not be initiating bogus reports again and again. He has done this before and was found to have made another "mistake" driving everyone mad. You keep on repeating "6 months." 6 months of Asad evading justice. Now his time has come and he will surely be punished duly. I ask for a strong block as Asad does not edit much. 6 months may do the trick. Chesdovi (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins: please allow me the right not to respond to any allegations until Chesdovi has filed this report properly with the proper template. No one should have to defend themselves in A/E with a mess of a report as this one is. -asad (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Block Chesdovi, please. Editors can't be allowed just stash away alleged 6-month-old violations to deploy when convenient; in this case, case to use in a retaliatory filing against someone who filed a report on him. Hell, just look a few paragraphs up... "He must be punished", "now he will pay", "now is the time for Asad to pay". Tarc (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
My quips are tounge in cheek and it is 5 months! "retaliatory filing against someone who filed a report on him". Am I ever allowed to file a report if Asad filed one against me? i.e straight after my block is lifted? Chesdovi (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think I have ever seen such an ill-founded request. To store up alleged (and apparently very minor) breaches of 1RR for six months, in order to use them as retaliation for a genuine request, is surely a breach of good faith, and shows extreme battlefield mentality. Even if the request were well-founded, and I don't believe it is, any sanction now would be punitive, rathew than preventive; and indeed, that is what Chesdovi wants, insisting that Asad "must be punished", and that he must "pay for his misguided reporting of other users". This request should be dismissed outright, and Chesdovi should be sanctioned for such a flagrant abuse of this noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning asad112[edit]

This request is entirely frivolous. No action taken with respect to asad112. T. Canens (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


Chesdovi topic-banned by another administrator. Clarification requests should be addressed to that administrator. NW (Talk) 00:10, 1 July 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 Chesdovi[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
asad (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Chesdovi seems to have a problem with adding and changing information in articles that he knows will never survive consensus in an effort to make a political point. It ranges from outlandish edits, sarcastic edit summaries and tit-for-tat editing. Some of these diffs are a bit dated, but the show a tendancy in his edit practices.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 28/6/2011 Changes the municipal seal logo of the Palestinian city of Hebron, with a population of over 150,000 people to a logo of the 500 or so Israeli settler community and adds the edit summary of "how can both fit?"
  2. 6/6/2011 Adds Re-adds a tit-for-tat explanation of the occupation of the Mount of Olives in East Jerusalem saying that is occupied with the authority of God.
  3. 28/6/2011 Adds the word "Nabi" (Arabic for prophet) for the transliteration of "Qabr Yusuf", Although the Arabic text in the article has no mention of the word "Nabi". Here, he misrepresented a translation in an effort to push a POV in support of a controversial view that Palestinians believe it is the tomb of the prophet Joseph.
  4. 8/5/2011 Changes the caption of protesters at an Ahava store to say they were occupying the store. He then added in his edit summary "employing tactics of the enemy" (which is obviously a reference to Israel occupying the West Bank and these protesters in the picture being against said occupation).

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

Chesdovi has served numerous bans for his behavior in the I/P area, his most recent being a 72 hour topic ban, in which he violated flagrantly as shown by these diffs:

Enforcement action requested

topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Chesdovi is a very knowledgeable contributer, especially in the realm of Jewish history. But the diffs provided in this request show that he quite often falls off the wagon and disregards WP policy.

1. The discussion was opened after you made the edit. And it was not opened by you, but by Nableezy.
2. You re-added information that was needly quite rightly deleted in the first place. I will strike and correct.
3. I am sure you know that the transliteration that follows the translation of a word is just that -- the transliteration. I will not go around making edits to Russian transliterations in articles unless I fully understand the translations that precedes it. But I don't really buy that. That is because the word for prophet in Arabic and in Hebrew are almost identical (nabi -AR, navi-HE). Not to mention Joseph's Tomb is almost identical in both languages as well (Qabr Yusuf - AR, Kever Yosef - HE). So I assume, for someone with your knowledge Hebrew, it would be extraordinarily easy to determine that "nabi" in Arabic means the same as "navi" in Hebrew, which is the word for prophet.
4. Sorry, but what are you talking about? It is quite clear from this photo that the protesters are not occupying the Ahava store -- they are standing outside of it. What is quite sinister, though, is that you felt like you needed to misrepresent the photo by adding an inaccurate caption that says they "occupying" the store, and labeling your edit summary as "employing the tactics of the enemy." It seemed pretty clear that you knew what I was saying, as you provided another picture of protesters actually occupying an Ahava store on my talk page.
Your topic ban violations were quite clear: you were banned from editing the I/P area for 72 hours, and makes an edit to the Palestine Israel collaboration page. As far as my edit for Anabta, I copied the article text directly from my sandbox after hours of translating and attempting to improve the article, I didn't notice your edit about the electric network, I just noticed the edit you made about the Municipality. I then, very civilly brought up the issue of Jewish, Christian and Druze population in the town to your talk page. You didn't even respond. Please refrain from saying such things about me complaining about "there ever being Jews in the village". That is not true, and it hints that you are accusing me racism (as you didn't even mention the part about Christians or Druze)-- which I don't take lightly. -asad (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Chesdovi[edit]

Statement by Chesdovi[edit]

  1. This has been reported while a discussion at talk on two pages has ensued. Hebron is about the whole city and there is no reason why one logo of the PNA should be shown in the infobox while the seal of the Israeli section of the city is left out. I tried to make both fit but could not accomplish it and ended up leaving the alternative logo in position.
  2. Weird point. Text was added by IP, removed by Zero, re-added by myself, removed and re-added by Asad and still appears?
  3. I don’t read Arabic, but found in a RS that this was it’s name in Arabic. Who says that the Arabic is beyond the need of editing anyway. It’s not cited and is obviously wrong and Asad should have corrected it.
  4. Also very strange and sinister point to raise here. Why? Because Asad himself later agreed to use the term. Asad claimed “Please see dictionary definition of "occupation"”. I duly gave it to him: I like to keep you occupied.
  • With regard to the so-called violation of the topic ban, by flagrantly removing some images of a synagogue, I realized my grievous error and revert in a couple of minutes. The other diffs are of talk pages. Hardly a violation. Nableezy does not seem to have noticed this?
These are general, run of the mill edits. Asad is using strained accusations, made to impede my editing. It is a lame and feeble attempt to try and frame me. I must add that Asad removed reference to Israel’s efforts of behalf of the Arabs of Anabta when he did this [94], removing references in the history section about Israel giving the village local council by Israel in recognition of its superior development and its connection to the Israeli Electricity Network. He also complained of there ever being Jews in the village, despite RS to the contrary. There are others, but I don’t slyly follow other people around and collect up chaff, poisioning it and leaving it for enemy fodder. Chesdovi (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy is not being clear. There was never any objection to me adding the Israel infobox separatly. The only objection so far is having the Israeli seal in the Palestinian infobox, not having it as a separate entity. If Nab wants to interpret my edits the way she has, so be it. AFAIAC the isreli infobox addition is compromise until a conclusion is reached. Yet Nab deletes the Isralei infobox on the basis of only her objection. Chesdovi (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@Asad. 1. Topic bans do not affect talk pages. 2. Was it you or Zero who added material from the 1931 census and delibertaly left out Jews? Chesdovi (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Reposted here after it was removed by Asad from his talk page because it was "too long" for him to bothered to read. (He can bother filing this long report here though) :-)
  • 1. In my opinion, the both seals should feature. Indeed, the discussion was opened after my edit by Nambia. The discussion has continued, without me replacing it. Just in case you do not get it: User A edits. User B reverts edit and objects. User A embarks on discussion to solve dispute. (User A does not replace image while discussion is taking place.) That's how thing work. By adding in the summary "Can both fit?" is a clear signal that I feel both seals are needed to truly represent the city. Leaving one without the other is not right. Therefore to have changed the image to the alternative one is in my mind not altering the status of the infobox, as both are equally as valid as each other. I looked at the code and saw that it was not possible to have both, so left my version. You did not even ever comment at the discussion. You should be banned.
    2. It was not "quite rightly deleted". Zero reworded the whole section and deliberately left it out (as she did with Anabta's Jews). For some reason you also added it. So I cannot for the life of see why I should be held to account for this, while when you added it, that’s okay? I re-added material inadvertently (?) removed and get sanctioned for it. Or are we not allowed biblical references on such articles? I re-add it and get blocked. You re-add it and nothing happens. And it is still there? Go figure. You should be banned.
    3. The 3rd. diff was not from June, but in fact it was from April, 2 months ago. Wikipedia is about editing. If there is an error, I will fix it. If you don't like it, rather than storing it and reporting it later, which seems a bad move, ask for explanation: You may think The word "nabi" is not even in "قبر يوسف", I don't know why this got added. Just because قبر يوسف happens to be written, it does not mean we cannot edit it. It is called Qabr en-Nabi Yūsuf in RS, that's why I added it. The question is why did you delete material from Reliable Sources to push your POV that the biblical Joseph is not buried here when it is quite clear that this is the view of the vast amount of RS? You should be banned.
    4. Admit that you had no idea that the term "occupation" could be used in this way until I showed you English usage. Standing outside is still considered occupying it. So there. (Unless you want to claim Gaza is not under occupation since Israeli is not "in" it, only "standing outside"!) Then photo shows they are occupying the store. Period. You just had a little buzz about the edit summary. The image caption was valid. You should be banned.
    5. Editing the Palestine Israel collaboration page under topic ban is not a violation.
    6. Well you better start "noticing" things then, because you did keep the population statistics I added. I did not need to respond after Zero replied. Chesdovi (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Chesdovi[edit]

Along with the above edit at Hebron in which Chesdovi replaces the seal of the city with the seal of a committee of settlers in the city, Chesdovi is continuing with this tendentious editing as seen here, in which the user re-adds the seal, but adds a complete infobox for the settlers committee. The inclusion of such was objected to by two users; when Chesdovi made the initial edit and was reverted he attempted to justify his actions at a user talk page (see here). I also opened a section on the article talk page about this. Despite having no consensus for such an edit he continues to attempt to push into the article this material, completely disregarding the objections of others and making no attempt to follow the procedures at WP:DR. This goes beyond "POV-pushing" into disruption. If the user was willing to not continue with such blatantly tendentious and disruptive editing then I for one would be fine with no topic ban. But the user has shown no willingness to slow down and attempt to gain consensus for his edits. nableezy - 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember when we were kids and the teacher would ask the class a question? We'd stretch our hand up excitedly, dying to get called on, barely able to stop ourselves from jumping out of our seats. Instead of calling on us, though, Mrs. Social Studies called on Zack. But that didn't matter – we couldn't contain ourselves and blurted the answer out anyway. In response to which the teacher gave us a stern stare and barked, "Is your name Zack?" That was when we were twelve.
Nableezy (talk · contribs), "Are you an Admin?" It was only the day before yesterday that you said, with what sounded like genuine conviction at the time, "this page needs to do away with the comments by involved editors." How about practicing what you preach instead of waxing indignant one moment and then turning around and doing the same exact thing you were critical of everyone else for? There's a word for that. It starts with an h.
Or how about, instead of badgering Chesdovi (talk · contribs) five minutes after he starts filing an AE, and proceeding to bombard the page with five (five!) edits in rapid succession, you chill out and restrain yourself? At least try, for goodness' sake.—Biosketch (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Biosketch, apparently you haven't seen the nasty stuff that has been going on at that article and elsewhere by Special:Contributions/FindersSyhn (including threats to kill people) and Special:Contributions/Nasleezy that seems to have been inadvertently but predictably triggered by Chesdovi's provocative actions, which I'll admit I assumed were nothing more than some kind of pointy joke knowing him, (and Nableezy simply being alive/an Arab/whatever). So, some perspective on what badgering is and the kind of truely hateful idiotic and infantile nonsense people have to put up with here if they try to enforce policy would be good too. Just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
While I admit I didn't look too closely into the case itself, it doesn't detract from my argument. I have my own issues with Chesdovi (talk · contribs) over an unrelated set of articles, and I appreciate what you're saying. But my point was that there are Admins who examine these AEs. They're grown men, presumably capable of distinguishing a solid case from a frivolous one. And the thing is, I happened to very much agree with Nableezy (talk · contribs) two days ago when he argued that comments from uninvolved editors don't belong on this page. They turn AE into a venue for mudslinging and for people like Tarc (talk · contribs) to come out of nowhere and throw darts at editors he dislikes. Then why couldn't User:Nableezy stick to his own argument? I keep going through the same cycle with him over and over: for a few instants I think, maybe the guy's not so bad after all and just gets a hard time here – only to have my hopes dashed the next instant and wonder, what the hell??Biosketch (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
A. As soon as they change the format of the template to make this section titled "comments by uninvolved editors" I will gladly stay away. That isnt the case right now. And I argued that comments from involved editors should not be here, not uninvolved editors, so Tarc could still throw whatever darts he wished to. B. If Chesdovi had not written the below utterly frivolous request I would have stayed away. C. If Chesdovi had not continued with the disruption in the Hebron article I would have stayed away, but as it were a request was already open on an issue that I had become involved in and felt obliged to show that the user was continuing with the same disruption while this request was open. D. I generally dont get involved in these requests. I did so now because of the edit to Hebron following the opening of this request that completely disregarded the talk page and the use of AE as a retaliatory weapon by Chesdovi below. E. I dont care if you think I am "bad". Though I am heartened to see that you have a cycle with me. It makes me overjoyed. Really. F. Finally, none of your comments have anything to do with what this page is here for. If you would like to say something about me you can try saying it to me on my talk page. nableezy - 12:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi is already systematically breaking this topic ban: see [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]. That looks like seven breaches within less than three hours of imposition of the topic ban. RolandR (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages are not affected by topic bans. Chesdovi (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
yes, they are. You are banned from "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces". That clearly includes talk pages, it in fact includes every page on Wikipedia and bans you from discussing anything related to the topic area. I, sincerely, hope you dont get blocked for this as you seem to honestly not understand the scope of your ban, but it includes every discussion on any page anywhere on Wikipedia that deals with the conflict. nableezy - 12:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) As it states below, "Chesdovi is hereby banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, for one year". RolandR (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I see. I was thinking this from the last unjust topic ban. So what do I do now? Chesdovi (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is that you self-revert any comments you made since the ban was imposed. Or at least say you understand what it includes and will not make similar mistakes in the future. nableezy - 12:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
How about striking them with the suggested comment?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe the normal procedure is to hang around on the Wikibias Granfalloons-Я-Us site, have a bit of a rant, do a bit of diabolizing the enemy and then just open an undetectable sockpuppet account (Cheesdofi for example) and return to edit the same articles in the same way. But in your case, I'd suggest another excellent 'Judaism and ...' article, at least in your userspace. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
What I will do is file a report against asad on my talk page now, before I forget like last time.... Am I allowed? It is clear that the ban was initiated in such decisiveness due to the "frivolous report", which had it not been for Nab or Tarc, (whom I do not trust), I was not to have known the dire consequences. Nab is all too familiar with the etiquette at AE, alas I am not that well informed, as Asad who was preparing a response! Do you really think I would have proceeded to file it if I was aware it was truly an issue? An outsider may see diffs 1, 2 & 4 as a problem, but bar the “occupying” edit summary, I see no major issue with any of them as I responded above. The supposed violation of the previous 72hr ban was bogus. I may have been previously blocked and topic banned several times for disruptive editing related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but bar a timing error, I believe them all unjust and implemented without due course. Chesdovi (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Chesdovi[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I'm going to deal with this request along with the one below. I find this request actionable, in that it shows that Chesdovi has edited tendentiously on articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as demonstrated by the first, second, and fourth diffs. (I will not evaluate the third diff as I'm unfamiliar with Arabic.) In addition, I find the filing of an entirely frivolous and obviously retaliatory AE request to be clear evidence of battleground behavior from Chesdovi.

A sanction is accordingly appropriate. Chesdovi has been previously blocked and topic banned several times for disruptive editing related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Consistent with my view, shared by at least one other admin that is involved in ARBPIA enforcement, that liberal use of topic bans is necessary to control the deterioration of editor conduct in this topic area, I'm going for a sanction that is lengthier than the normally presumptive length for AE topic bans.

For the reasons stated above, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Chesdovi (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, for one year. This ban may be appealed following the procedures set out in Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions; however, I will not consider any appeal until at least three months have elapsed. T. Canens (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)