Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72

User requesting enforcement

— kwami (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hammer of Habsburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

WP:ARBMAC (article currently at 1RR)

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

1. (first revert, the limit per ARBMAC)
2. (second revert, violating 1RR)
3. (third revert)

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

• HH has been blocked twice for violating 1RR on this article.
• Chipmunkdavis warned HH to self-revert the third time.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

whatever you feel appropriate

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

HH reverted a line in a text that I was working out with another editor, Chipmunkdavis; we are trying to come up with some text that will resolve some of the objections Croats have about the article. The line was marked 'citation needed', as the point had been in the news but needs confirmation. (Waiting for response from the EU.) — kwami (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Given two fairly recent blocks, I'm blocking for a week. T. Canens (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition, given that all three 1RR blocks are for edit warring on the same article, under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, Hammer of Habsburg (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from the Croatian language article for one month. They are permitted to edit the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Striking that, since the user does not appear to have been served with an ARBMAC warning. Done now. The next violation will result in an article ban. T. Canens (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. I'm not optimistic that the editor's behavior will be any different when the block expires, but a topic ban should be the next option to consider. Suggest that the ban should cover all the articles under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Concur per T. Canens. --WGFinley (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN, 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – mark (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

The current block

Administrator imposing the sanction

Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

I think this block is atrocious. There is no justification for a block based on my commenting on an ANI discussion. And most certainly not a two week block for what was essentially a mistake.

I suspect those who supported a block did not even look at what i had written at ANI Not even commenting on CC is it? The discussion was including edit events from these.

• April 2009: ANI discussion which resulted in a block. The block was reduced when he showed remorse and an intent to improve .
• August 2009: He was again blocked for edit warring and again promised to desist in the future . His block was again reduced.
• July 2010: Personal attacks (deleted edit), which resulted in a block.
• October 2010: Petty vandalism when questioned about recent reverts (archived discussion).
• My block for 3RR on William Connelley.

Is my comment really worthy of a two week block, especially as sideaways said he just wanted clarification? I withdrew voluntarily from the CC articles over 6 weeks before the case even finished, and have not touched one since, does this count for naught? come on. mark (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Mark's talk page to AN. NW (Talk) 18:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

N.B. No editor who has been a protagonist in the CC fracas should comment here.--Scott Mac 18:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The CC dispute must end - entirely and completely. Those editors in dispute must stop disputing - entirely and completely. We can manage the CC topic without them, and we can deal with any problematic behaviour from any editor involved in that fracas without any comment from other editors involved in that fracas. Our patience is exhausted. Editors who have been causing the problems need to go totally out of their way to bodyswerve any discussion that's even remotely related. Editors failing to get this, or pushing anywhere near the boundary of it, take the consequences on their own heads. Zero-tolerance.

Does Marknutley get this? If he does, then perhaps we can remove this block - but it is the last time for any lienancy.--Scott Mac 18:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the main reasons I agreed on the block is that while Mark is generally well-meaning, he has no concept of where the boundaries are. HE pushed the limits of prior sanctions that had been placed upon him, and it is likely that this fiasco is another attempt to do that. This, it is apparant that he doesn't get it, and the block is necessary. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This appeal is in the wrong place. Per WP:ARBCC remedy 1.2, sanctions may be appealed "to the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement)". I recommend that somebody move it there.  Sandstein  20:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Since he was blocked as a result of an AE report, I feel that it would be unfair to make him appeal to the same noticeboard. But it looks like it doesn't matter. NW (Talk) 20:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the instructions are pretty clear. I'll be moving it now.  Sandstein  20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the action is sanctionable, but I also think two weeks is too much, though. I also find it depressing that from the wide range of possible discretionary sanctions, apparently blocks are the only ones that are ever considered. To me, this seems to be playing to the crowd, not considering what is likely to work well. In particular, Mark has always acted like a rhino in a China shop - without malice, but energetic and potentially destructive. I don't think a block alone is able to change this. What is needed is a clearer explanation of the limits, as e.g. possible with the power to enact a stricter topic ban as enabled by the discretionary sanctions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I am not seeing any cogent argument that the block was improper, nor any good reason the block shouldn't be concluded. Sometimes it sucks to be the first person to get one's knuckles rapped for being over the line, but that doesn't change the line's position. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• This was a Wikipedia-related process in line with the wording of the sanction. That said, I can understand what mark thought he was doing (commenting as a member of the community on a sanction discussion which was not really being veered to a specific topic, except by a few users who participated in the CC probation). Newyorkbrad has offered an undertaking to mark at the clarification request so perhaps that will resolve the issue here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

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

• Keep it on and keep taking this exact same approach. The time for any tendency toward leniency is long past. Let this be a message to the rest of the named parties. Come even that close to anything CC related and you will get the same. It's over, you are all topic banned. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I agreed to the block as a compromise, and the reason for that block stands. Mark has repeatedly shown he doesn't know where the line is; now all the involved editors know. When he was under a restriction against adding sources, he continually pushed the boundaries of it. It would appear that the case that resulted in this block was another attempt to do so, with the topic ban. I continue to endorse the block. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Fully support the block. There was nothing unclear about ArbCom's requirement for the editors sanctioned to stay away from anything involving CC whatsoever. This is a clear message that pushing those boundaries will not be tolerated. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block - it was quite clear that the 1RR proposal was meant to deal with Climate Change issues, so Mark shouldn't have gotten involved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with block reason and length. The Community wants the topic banned users to stay completely away from anything related to the subject including all matters that are related. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Just a note, since I didn't see it above: the text of the topic ban can be viewed here. The phrase "...participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles" appears to be the key one. Protonk (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse the block, obviously, per my comment at the original AE thread. T. Canens (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse, per Seraphim. --WGFinley (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an appeal of the enforcement from the #William M. Connolley section above.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Banned means leave it alone, entirely. No exceptions. is the one that Beeblebrox has made up.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

WMC is blocked, so I have done this for him. The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The arbcomm sanctions do not apply to a user's own talk page, therefore this block is invalid

I didn't make anything up. The community and ArbCom have made it clear they want this topic ban interpreted as broadly as possible and that the liberal use of blocks is the preferred enforcement remedy. This kind of testing the waters is exactly what they were warned not to do just last week in the conversation at the ArbCom noticeboard. I was fully prepared to be attacked by WMC's army of fans and apologists over this, but I don't actually see any need for me to repeat myself any further as I have made my position abundantly clear already. I will not be reversing this block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment here in clarification because I've been quoted below for my opinion in this discussion, "What does topic banned mean?" At the time, just 12 days ago, I argued that the topic ban didn't forbid edits to user talk pages. Having since then seen continued sniping, bickering and bad faith statements on arbitration pages and user talk pages , and even links to external discussions of climate change placed by topic banned editors on my own user talk page , I've changed my mind, and I've also made efforts to ascertain the opinion of the community and of the arbitrators. There seems to be near unanimity that a problem still exists and that no allowances should be given. My opinion is now completely opposed to permitting the discussion of climate change or any disputes whatever arising from the editing of the topic anywhere on Wikipedia by topic banned editors. It is the continued inappropriate conduct of the topic banned editors that swayed me, particular the efforts by several of those editors to continue their dispute using the medium of various discussions on the problem . This was a self-feeding fire and must be stamped out before it infects more of Wikipedia. If there is an article edit or comment to be made, some non-banned editor can make it--TS 10:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This was a response to the comment by Tony Sidaway above

This seems to me to be moving away from whether this block was correct though. Why was WMC not warned? You say yourself that you started off thinking that edits to user talk pages were ok. If the ruling was clarified to exclude this, or consensus moved to exclude this, then WMC should have been told and warned, not instantly given a 2 week block. --Merlinme (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(moved from down below, sorry about that)

Honestly, the best thing in all ways is ALL the topic banned, on both sides WALK AWAY. No attempts to stay in the topic area via efforts On-Wiki, off-wiki, on-WR, email, IM, hell, I'd suggest barring smoke signals if I thought anyone would actually do it. What we're seeing is people who are here for the fight on Climate Change, who the Committee attempted to remove from the area, who the community of administrators are trying to remove from this area, trying desperately to remain in this topic area, NO MATTER THE COST OR THE TACTICS USED. That's not what the encyclopedia needs. That's not what the community wants. Walk away from it here on Wiki. SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine. That's perfectly reasonable, and I would advise everyone who was banned to do that. But would you be willing to block someone for doing what WMC did on WR or on a blog? I assume not. Then what's the difference between posting there and on his talk page. NW (Talk) 22:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Because they've been told specifically to disengage on-wiki? SirFozzie (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me expand on that. Of course, we cannot control what people do on places outside of Wikipedia (with certain limited exceptions, such as off-WP actions meant to have on-WP effects, such as threats, or as in the EEML case, attempting to stack consensus and target opposing editors). The actions of the Committee members who voted these topic bans in and the administrators who have enforced these bans (on both sides), however, has made it clear that they want to see an absolute clean break between the editors sanctioned and the Climate Change topic area. It reflects poorly on the people sanctioned so far that they cannot accept the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that topic-banned editors should avoid the subject on WR or other websites, under pain of sanctions against their Wikipedia accounts? I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but there would be a lot to police. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies do not support sanctions for off-Wiki activities, except for those limited exceptions I noted above. I'm not going to state that any potential situation would or would not fall under those limited exceptions (that is for the Committee to decide should any such situations be brought to their attention). Please note, I do not suggest changing those policies to broaden the exeptions, for a very good reason.. I've seen the pendulum swing the other way on this.. it was called BADSITES. SirFozzie (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Obviously one can't police the whole Internet, and it also is possible that an editor can post anonymously that X is wrong with the CC articles and Y is right. I personally don't see the harm in editors stating those positions on their talk pages, as long as it is factual and not disruptive. Talk pages seem to be "safe harbors" generally. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(This is just from reading the statements of the people who voted on the decision and the administrative actions taken so far to enforce the remedies in the decision). I think the reason is two-fold.

One) The personality conflicts in this area are absolutely toxic. Allowing folks to continue to opine from talk pages would just continue the conflict, in more of a throw and run way rather than the full fledged battles we're used to seeing.

Two) The dangers of meatpuppetry and battles by proxy are great. The problem would continue, only with a whole new set of editors mixing it up and the people who were Topic Banned here acting as the generals, so to speak, directing the effort (either privately or on their talk pages). I think I can speak for EVERYONE here (Arbs, Clerks, Parties, Involved Admins, General Public)... no one wants a "Climate Change 2" ArbCom case. Everyone spent four months here battling it out. 16 weeks. Do we really want that kind of battling (the kind that caused an article to be protected MULTIPLE times during the ArbCom case because the two sides wanted to slant the article their way?) SirFozzie (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You might better understand ScottyBerg's point of view if you look at it this way:

One) The personality conflicts in this area are absolutely toxic. Allowing folks to continue to opine from Wikipedia Review would just continue the conflict, in more of a throw and run way rather than the full fledged battles we're used to seeing.

Two) The dangers of meatpuppetry and battles by proxy are great. The problem would continue, only with a whole new set of editors mixing it up and the people who were Topic Banned here acting as the generals, so to speak, directing the effort (from Wikipedia Review). I think I can speak for EVERYONE here (Arbs, Clerks, Parties, Involved Admins, General Public)... no one wants a "Climate Change 2" ArbCom case. Everyone spent four months here battling it out. 16 weeks. Do we really want that kind of battling (the kind that caused an article to be protected MULTIPLE times during the ArbCom case because the two sides wanted to slant the article their way?) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I kinda wish they would take it to WR, or anywhere else really. (Not that I would wish the CC folks on WR, mind you (or vice versa!) The difference is, the Community, the Committee, the administrators, have all stated their fervent desire that theon-wki CC battles STOP, as much as possible. As I said above, in general, we can't control what goes on with the other ninety billion or so websites out there, but we CAN and WILL control what happens here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

But William being discussed and later reported at AE was exactly motivated by the sort of battlefield mentality that we don't want here. William posts links to CC science pages that were affected by Scibaby-like edits which went uncorrected after more than 24 hours. Realistically, it would always take some time for the rest of the community to take on the task of patrolling all the CC pages. Beeblebrox only started doing this today.

So, this should not be seen as a big deal. It is entirely natural for someone like William to move on to other areas over the course of one or two weeks, while still checking his old watchlist every morning, but gradually seeing that all unambiguous problems (e.g. Scibaby-like edits) are fixed by others, as more and more other editors take on the job of patrolling all the CC articles.

If Wikipedia were my personal website and I were the only Admin, I would actually block those people who were misrepresenting things. And if you violate your topic ban, you better have a damn good reason for that. Thing is that William had a good reason (and he didn't actually violate his topic ban). File an AE request against someone who you know reported an unambiguous problem, and it will be you will be blocked. Count Iblis (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent) Count: I haven't seen the exact edits and to see if the user has been blocked. However, through his actions, it is not currently WMC's place to bring attention to this. He has been topic banned from the area. As it says above, a topic ban means you do not interact in that area. Period. End of story. If that was not abundantly clear before, it was made clear with the action taken against him. At least one administrator has stated during this appeal that they would be more inclined to unblocking WMC if he stated he understood the boundaries as had now been explained to him. WMC declined to give that statement. That pretty much states that he plans to continue to do so. SirFozzie (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I do think this needs to be explicitly clarified by a an ArbCom motion. What we now have is a dispute about a consensus for this view. I accept that many people have this view, but I don't see the consensus that e.g. Beeblebrox claims exists for this view that would make an ArbCom motion unnecessary. Count Iblis (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is another example of the Giano effect: Once a huge "target" sign has been placed on an editor, they attract bad blocks because every single admin has a de facto veto right against not blocking. A single editor who misreads the situation is enough to cause unnecessary drama. In this case Beeblebrox apparently doesn't understand that due to the formulation of the topic ban a prior formal warning was definitely required. Blocking WMC without proper discussion for something he has been doing for weeks without any formal warning looks like a very stupid action, but this kind of thing had to happen under the circumstances. The only question was which admin would fall into this particular trap.

In legal systems there is a process for assigning a judge to a defendant, and this judge will then decide. A judge who acquits the defendant does so explicitly, and normally no other judge gets a chance to change the verdict. Wikipedia's system of having hundreds of judges who are free to pick any case they are interested in and take action if they think it appropriate (while there is no formal process for acquitting someone) is adequate for the vast majority of low-profile cases, but it does not scale to high-profile cases. Some ideas for making sure this kind of thing does not happen again:

• Whenever behaviour falls into a grey zone, a clear process must be followed. Action must only be taken after a consensus has been established. (In this case such a consensus would have existed implicitly after a formal warning – a step which Beeblebox skipped for no apparent reason.)
• Admins who display poor judgement and treat grey-zone behaviour as if it was a clear infraction must get very clear negative feedback that strongly discourages this kind of drama-increasing mistake. Hans Adler 22:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: Has anyone who is familiar with Scibaby checked the contributions history of EngineerFromVega, the editor who filed the request that led to this block? I believe WMC's offending actions were pointing out Scibaby-like edits that nobody else has noticed. In this context the strangeness of EngineerFromVega's few edits outside the climate change area is remarkable. Hans Adler 11:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly familiar with Scibaby's edits, and no, it doesn't look like them. Scibaby makes quite subtle changes to CC articles using misleading edit summaries, where it's not immediately obvious that the meaning has been changed to favour scepticism. As far as I can see from the contribution history EngineerFromVega apparently spends a lot of time on talk pages, with an occasional edit on India/ cricket/ technology related issues. --Merlinme (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a fairly good idea who this might be (probably not Scibaby, as you say). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This block is based on an unstated extension of the topic ban, going beyond the standard exceptions to limited bans which allows action on obvious vandalism. Thus, this notification of blatant vandalism has been made into an issue of the ban, so the ban itself disrupts normal maintenance of Wikipedia.

The topic bans on the various editors are asymmetric, in that WMC has a track record of high quality contributions to this specific area, while other editors have been attracted by the toxic atmosphere largely created off-wiki by opponents of the scientific consensus, and some have appeared to have the specific aim of getting WMC removed from the topic area. For example, Cla68 in his closing comments (announcing his temporary withdrawal) said "My whole purpose for getting reinvolved in the CC articles around a year ago was to see the behavior of these editors, one in particular, corrected. This PD appears to do so, at least for six months." Having achieved his purpose, he can readily return to other topics where he has more expertise, though he has continued to show a combative response to discussions on this page. In contrast, the ban on WMC's content contributions is to the detriment of article quality, taken further when mere noting of vandalism on his own talk page in a manner previously allowed to topic banned editors is escalated into a block.

Three topic-banned editors have been involved in questions arising from the vague definition in the Scope of topic bans, which refers specifically to articles and and article talk pages, then rather vaguely bars them "(3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles". They breached item (3) interpreted very broadly. In one case no action was taken, not even a warning, in the other two a block was imposed. In these cases it would have been better to give formal clarification before the block, but Enforcement by block doesn't require a warning, and I accept that the blocking admin imposed the block in good faith.

However, the result is deeply discouraging to those aiming at improving article quality rather than aiming to remove editors who face vocal political opposition. The links on the user talk page were not disruptive, but indeed constructive, and involved none of the personal interaction which has been problematic in the past. As pointed out above, action on obvious vandalism would normally be acceptable: in this case, even suggesting that vandalistic edits be reviewed has been turned into a major issue: the block is over-reaction, and should be reconsidered. . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already made it clear that I agree with the many editors who have argued that William's actions on his talk page were not a problem at all. Indeed, the whole fuss created about this is yet another episode of the CC conflict and this AE process has now been dragged into it.

I call on ArbCom to pass a motion that makes it clear that the Remedy 3 editing restrictions don't apply to talk pages and that this will be reviewed in indiviidual cases if restricted editors are contributing to conflicts via their talk page.

Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox that the community and the Arbs want a liberal use of blocks. However, in Roger Davies own words "All that is required before an administrator acts is a "cease and desist" message on the editor's talk page." Emphasis added.

There is no gray area concerning whether talk pages are in scope or out of scope. Arbitrator Coren explicitly said they were out of scope. That doesn't mean an uninvolved admin can't block based upon a talk page comment, it simply means that a warning is required first. Actions clearly within the scope (such as MN's post) do not require such warning.

The words are quite clear. And we are wasting too much time on this. If we follow the process as outlined by the arbs - block immediately for actions clearly in scope, warn then block for actions an involved admin feels are undesirable, we will be fine. WMC should be unblocked.--SPhilbrickT 22:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sustain the action. It is WMC who has hallucinated the implication that a topic ban does not apply to an editor's own talk page. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I made much the same point (as Sphilbrick) earlier today, before this case was filed, in the AE case against Cla68. I felt that case was premature because he hadn't been warned, and because the margins of the topic ban were hazy. I feel the situation is the same here, only more so because of the severity of the block and because his actions were neither disruption nor battlefield. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I point to what I wrote above and endorse Sphilbrick's comment. Yes, ArbCom has "topic banned", but they have also (maybe unwisely) defined what that means in this case. I fail to understand how someone can in good faith read this as including non-provocative, helpful comments on the users own talk page, especially not after the ArbCom clarification. Mind-reading what the community or what ArbCom want, on the other hand, is not a useful bases for any kind of process. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW it looked grey to me, because the community supports strange rules on user talk pages, they were not mentioned explicitly in an explicit list and pushing stuff undercover is worse. So yes B can interpret it this way but as it is grey a cease and desist was needed. Might well reach the same outcome a few minutes later but the process was short-circuited. --BozMo talk 22:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

@various pther admins below. It is very hard to argue that from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles unambiguously covers discussion on user talk pages. It just isn't clear --BozMo talk 22:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it. The whole point of the arbcom case was to get WMC's head on a pike; all the other stuff was just window dressing. This was so blindingly obvious that the so-called "vandal version" of the decision, released before the arbs even got around to their first proposal, was nearly identical in substance to the final decision.

The bottom line is that WMC is going to get kicked around for whatever real or imagined offense folks can come up with. If he says "got to work late today because there was a bad storm" someone will leap at the chance to block him for using the word "storm," which they will contend is climate-related "broadly construed." Since he's guilty no matter what there's no real incentive to reform. Why don't you just indef block him from the project and be done with it? Or is the goal to prolong the drama? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I read Coren's statement as admitting that the current language of the relevant Arb remedy does not strictly address user talk pages. In that sense the language of the enacted remedy was more narrow than what is commonly understood by "topic ban". I also read the Arb statements (1, 2) as indicating that this technical loophole was unintentional, and if forced to do so they would amend the Arb remedies to fill the gap. Which from my point of view answers the issue, and user talk page posts relating to climate change are not okay. It appears to be within the scope of the discretionary sanctions to address this, and so a full amendment by Arbcom is probably unnecessary (though it might be helpful, for clarity and to demonstrate consensus among Arbcom members). The only caveat I would add is that since there could have been plausible confusion about whether this behavior was technically okay or not okay, it might be reasonable to unblock WMC this once with the understanding that similar edits in the future will lead to blocks. In addition, others topic banned in this case should probably receive an explicit warning about the use of user talk pages if this is how we plan to interpret the issue going forward. Dragons flight (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Can those who says I'm mistaken point out the mistake?

• Coren clearly states that "suggesting" edits (which is even stronger than what WMC was doing) is outside the scope of the ban, and would require an amendment to include.
• Roger concurs, and goes onto suggest how to properly handle this situation.
• Shell "agree with the opinions of my colleagues above" so no dissent there.
• Carcharoth says "I agree with the responses by Newyorkbrad, Coren and Roger Davies."

I don't see any wiggle room. I believe the topic ban should have included user talk pages, I'm stunned that it did not, but as user talk pages were the subject of extensive discussion, it's not like it was an oversight (as, say templates might be). I'd be happy if some or several arbs chimed in and said, we intend talk pages to be included in the ban. Then going forward, they would be in the ban. However, the present request is for someone to explain how several arbs explicitly concurred with Coren, and none dissented, yet we've enact a block against someone who followed the rules.--SPhilbrickT 23:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, let's reboot our brains in safe mode, remove the ArbCom spyware, make appropriate changes to the system registry and then take fresh look. Only then will the following comments sink in. So, here we go: Edits on userspace are not part of Wikipedia processes. It doesn't matter one iota whether William posts a comment on his userspace, his personal blog, The Wikipedia Review, or any other cyber-public venue. Also think about the logic of blocking an editor who violates the topic to make sure he/she doesn't do it again. Does that logic apply here? Is William now constrained from posting links on his userspace? Even if he were to be blocked from editing his userpsace, nothing would stop him from posting links on his personal blog.

Conversely, if William had done as Beeblebrox and some others demand, he could have posted on his blog a few months later how bad the ArbCom ruling is because "look at all these Scibaby edits that have accumulated during the last 3 months". That would have made him look bad, it would actually have amounted to a violation of WP:POINT by staying silent for so long. Count Iblis (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I reject the notion that WMC has a moral imperative that allows breaking the rules. First, if the moral imperative exists, then surely it mean he can do more than post to a user talk page, it means he can actually make the edit. Clearly, there is no point to a topic ban if it can be evaded that easily. Second, to the extent that WMC truly sees a wrong which needs weighting, he can email you in private, or any one of a dozen others, so on the chance that WP will burn to the ground but for WMC, that can be handled without breaking a topic ban whether narrowly or broadly construed. I don't think it helps to resolve this dispute by arguing that WMC could edit in userspace even if we did the right thing and included it in scope. This issue is quite simple - we agreed to a process, and we aren't following it. The solution is simple - follow the process - either amend the decision to include user spaces generally, or have a sysop declare that user space edits are now disallowed, and issue a warning then a block to anyone who breaks the new rule. We are spending far too much time trying to convince ourselves that the rule already says that.--SPhilbrickT 23:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that process should be followed and that this issue has to be clarified. But given a precise formulation, there is always room for notification of problems. As you say, William can send emails if banned from CC related notifications on his talk page. But note that the AE request against William was motivated just on the grounds that William places notifications. If William had notified me via email of a problem and I had been fixing a problem and writen in the edit summary that I was notified by William, then a similar AE request could have been filed: "William is editing via proxies". Count Iblis (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I thank User:FloNight for the link to a relevant page explicitly discussing whether user talk pages are in scope. Relevant excerpts:

• Lar "Does it extend to user talk pages?"
• TenOfAllTrades "it does not include user talk pages"
• Arthur Rubin "discussion ... whether one climate change category is a subset of another?"
• Roger Davies "Sure... for those who want ... discretionary sanctions" (NB, discretionary sanctions require warning before block)
• Count Iblis "It seems clear to me that discussions about climate science are allowed on talk pages"
• ScienceApologist "When I was topic banned, I proposed edits all the time from my talkpage to no objections"
• Beeblebrox "just stay the hell away from anything that could be construed as even vaguely related to climate change"
• TS (responding to Beeblebrox) "t looks to me as if you've misread the discussion."
• BozMo "WMC ... can give technical comments ... seems an elegant solution."
• Arthur Rubin "user talk pages ... should be fine"
• Roger Davies "I disagree sharply with what you say about uninvited talk page comments" (implicitly accepting other talk page comments)

Caveat - I did this in only a few minutes - I attempted to use ellipses honestly, but read the whole thing, and reach your own conclusion. My summary - many people explicitly saying talk pages are OK - the only major dissent is Beeblebrox. Note especially that Davies tells us that people gaming the rules (the specific example was category talk, but could be construed to include game playing on talk pages) will be dealt with harshly, but with DS, which requires a warning. That's all I'm saying, the clear consensus is that if an admin wants to prohibit talk page comments, they can, with a warning.

I truly understand the frustration this community has with the CC issue, but read the FloNight linked page as if you didn't known about the whole issue, and tell me if you can come away clearly convinced that a talk page comments can earn a block without a warning.--SPhilbrickT 00:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Messy addendum: Unfortunately, I ran out of steam at the wrong point. The very next paragraph:

• Carcharoth "If we (ArbCom) had intended to allow limited discussion of sources on user talk pages, we would have made provisions for that. As we didn't, there are no provisions for that to take place."

While that strong statement undoes a lot of what came earlier, but in my view, it muddies the waters, rather than adding clarity. Arguably, they did make provision for talk page discussions, butby failing to include them on the list despite discussions. Had Coren and Davies followed up with "That's really what I meat" I'd say case closed, but they did not, so we are left with multiple clear, but conflicting statements from Arbs. (A situation easily resolved with a clear warning prior to a block.)--SPhilbrickT 01:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Just to make things extra clear, none of my comments on that matter can be construed to mean that WMC's raising issues he saw in articles in the CC area was in any way acceptable. I explicitly advised him to the contrary, in fact, and my comment in the clarification request squarely put the behavior for which he was blocked in the "should not do" camp. — Coren ^(talk) 00:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Coren. And there is also this post yesterday at AN: "Support. As another Arb wrote ( Carcharoth, at , "My intention, when voting for the topic bans, was that those topic-banned would stay away from the topic area completely (as Beeblebrox has said). If we (ArbCom) had intended to allow limited discussion of sources on user talk pages, we would have made provisions for that. As we didn't, there are no provisions for that to take place." This has gone on long enough. I'm with Scott Mac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)" Speaks for itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I had missed that one too. Much clearer. thanks. --BozMo talk 12:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Block no longer necessary

William has now made arrangements to comply with the don't ask don't tell rule regarding his scientific orientation by keeping CC discussions confined to a mailing list. Count Iblis (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec):I'm sorry but I have to say something here. I asked on WMC's talk page here why the block was done now and not 10 days ago when WMC made what I was told his first edit to his talk page about the CC area which you can see the explanation to me here. The response I got from Cube lurker was that the complaint came here and 15 min. later a two week block was applied against WMC. 15 whole minutes were allowed prior to blocking the editor, why? Was this an emergency block to protect the project from harm? Also, WMC asks nicely what he did for a two week block which the blocking administrator has ignored as far as I can tell. Am I the only one who has a problem with the way this was handled? It's nice Coren clarified things more but doing so today after the block isn't really all that helpful to the editor that is blocked. Now WMC may deserve a block but I have to admit that what Phil says I too thought it was alright to discuss on talk pages. Editors have been going to WMC with questions too. What this block does is it is making editors take their questions and comments offline to either email or other forums. We lose transparency now which I think is a shame. At least the discussions were in the open which is what was said before about whether WMC and the others talking about CC on their own talk pages. Seriously, this block was wrong the way it was handled. If WMC was causing an immediate threat to damage the project than the block 15 minutes after coming here would be appropriate. I have to ask now what the administrator that blocked him had in his/her mind to feel that the block was needed so quickly. Is there a history between the administrator and WMC? I would also like to know what the specific reason for the block is for please. I think now the banned editors understand not even their talk pages are allowed, if they don't then the block will now be deserved. But that being said, if Coren had to clarify himself now, then things weren't clear to all editors and you can include me in that. Thanks for listening to me, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, clearly WMC has turned a page. Oh wait, he has resorted to petty name calling: . Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You just blocked him for two weeks, anger is normal as I'm sure you are aware. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Another way of circumnavigating the Arbcom ruling. Apparently, there is no improvement even after this two week block. EngineerFromVega (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also a list, joking around is not a sin here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about the future

Other topic banned editors have used their talk pages to comment on the topics from which they have been banned, and without anyone objecting. In the future, will topic banned editors who have done this be subject to blocks, or will this be a special rule, which applies only to WMC? Cardamon (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• What happened was that through a series of discussions it became increasingly clear that the community wanted this type of thing to stop, and as you can see here, several arbs have clarified that they did not intend to leave a back door open in this manner. Marknutley and WMC were simply the first two persons reported here since that consensus developed and have both been blocked for two weeks. It is absolutely not a specific rule aimed at any particular user, it applies to all users under this topic ban equally. It's just that it took a moment for this to become clear. Any further attempts to end run the ban will be dealt with in a similar fashion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• What really happened was that it became increasingly clear that one party in a highly polarised conflict wanted WMC to stop pointing out the disruptive edits that continue to flow in from throw-away accounts that are on their side. When an editor with a total of 72 edits as of this writing (less than half of them unrelated to climate change) and no disclosed alternate or earlier accounts, but with a history of conflict with WMC dragged him here, there was a sudden influx of admin comments in favour of blocking and you blocked quickly before a more solid consensus could be established. The block was a bad one because (1) it was purely punitive (as it does not actually prevent the behaviour you supposedly blocked for), (2) it was quite obviously not covered by the topic ban, and (3) it was for behaviour that had been going on for a while without any formal warning and which a large number of editors considered acceptable though not politically opportune. When are you going to apologise for your substantial contribution to the polarisation in the climate change area? Hans Adler 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• Capricious and arbitrary blocks do Wikipedia no credit as they make the wrong sorts of headlines for Wikipedia (and create even more misunderstandings between editors and administrators). The Committee was aware that if it wrote in 'user talk pages' into the restriction, then this would cause issues; note that the blocks imposed by Wordsmith and arbitrator SirFozzie for talk page issues earlier this year were reversed by the Community.
• The Community sent a message that it was sick of this mess (and a hardline approach is needed), but it is by no means a message that administrators should not fully look into situations. The circumstances here were such that EngineerFromVega (talk · contribs) has made about 50 contributions to Wikipedia, a substantial proportion of which have been on the CC topic and in conflict with WMC (including past enforcement requests against WMC). Although the account was created in November 2009, substantial contributions were made from 21 January 2010 - close to the time when the Community was sending a message to the most disruptive editors in the field (most obvious example of GoRight being indef blocked a couple of weeks earlier) and aroudn the time the first CC request for arbitration was declined due to the probation that was proposed/enacted by a clerk. This gave every indication to the problematic editors that their disruption is not going to be tolerated and had led to other ways to try to game around what it is the Community wanted (puppetry being the most obvious route).
• EngineerFromVega had not made any contributions since 17 October 2010 in terms of very recent contributions, but made a contribution on 26 October 2010 for the sole purpose of making an allegation to WMC on his user talk (a page which he probably should not have even had watchlisted or watched). It filed the AE report; it was unhappy with the bracketed response was provided by WMC. It's very likely we would have avoided the drama of this discussion had this account not brought about this foolish AE request with edits which are inconsequential to the larger scheme of things. That no investigation has still been conducted into this account, an enforcement action was taken, and the blocking admin freely admits to making several 'guesses', is concerning. The sanctions imposed under CC were not for the purpose of another form of battling between involved editors; that is, EngineerVega continues to make contributions for the sole purpose of trying to site ban its adversary (see his comment in this thread at 27 October 2010). If administrators are not thinking twice about what it is they are doing, why it is they are doing it, and what it is going to accomplish in terms of practice (not some stupid theory which is never going to work), then that's a problem that the larger Community is going to need to address through other means. The Community's messages should not be read in isolation of one another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ncmvocalist good summary, you show things that I missed when I looked so I bet others did too. I hope that the administrators who iVote below prior to this summary and all the new comments will return and make a decision on all the new information now provided. Personally I believe that SA gives us all proof that we should allow comments on talk pages as long as they are not words for battlefield behavior. I also think only editor who are welcomed at the talk page should comment and editors definitely know by now whether they are welcomed or not. Above Cla68 was given a pass on the complaint against him. I think things here should be dealt with equally so why not do the same for WMC and even Mark Nutley? This is of course my opinion, but from seeing discussions from banned editors going on off site it has me thinking that if they can behave the way they are there than transparency here on site is the best way to go which means letting editors talk about whatever they want on their talk page with the normal rules followed. Thanks for listening again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that blocking without warning on something which wasn't clear is incorrect. However I think the implication that EngineerFromVega might be a sock is a bit of a red herring to be honest. The edit history could as easily be a new user feeling his or her way around as a sock. The only mildly suspicious thing I found was an undo of a notification re: the Climate Change restrictions on EngineerFromVega's talk page, and that's scarcely conclusive. It certainly doesn't look like GoRight to me, unless GoRight has suddenly developed an interest in India and cricket. --Merlinme (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Bad block - WMC was blocked as a violation of an ArbCom topic ban that clearly did not apply. Tony Sidaway's comment proves the point - he decided after the fact that the ban should include talk pages. If the original ban was so unclear that its extent had to be decided later, then the prohibition isn't part of the original ban but rather part of the later decision. ArbCom was a bit sloppy here - not a great crime, but it's something that needs to be clarified before, not after, blocking editors basically for editing while unpopular. The admin comments below aren't very insightful - why does their opinion count more than anyone else's here anyway? They haven't thought carefully about this. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• I disagree with a 2 week block for the following reasons: the ArbCom ruling did not clearly apply to User talk pages. The fact that there has been lengthy discussion about this since the ruling surely makes this point clearly. Even if it has eventually been clarified and decided that it did apply to User talk pages, it is not clear to me how WMC was informed of or supposed to know about this decision. With that in mind, a block without warning was inappropriate. It is also unclear to me what has been achieved that could not have been achieved by a simple warning. I am not aware of WMC in the past having attempted to evade the letter of restrictions, so if it had been spelled out I assume he would have kept to it. I'm aware that some people think that WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Enough_is_enough. However the only reason I can see to block WMC in this case without warning, let alone a 2 week block, is simply to make an example of him, and I do not think that is good policy. --Merlinme (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn I believe that this heaving handed action by Arbs and former arbs at the blocked user's talk page are a violation of his user rights. I see no breach by WMC of Arbcom ruling that resulted in this block. There has been no breach of WP:UP insofar as I can tell. Note that remedy 3 stated: "Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited (1) from editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (2) from editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; and (3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles." In short, there is nothing anywhere which would prohibit from talking about it in his userspace, even if it is supposedly covered by Arbcom's usual "broadly construed". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn See the new info that clarified some things written late yesterday and today. Ncmvocalist shows some things that could have been missed by editors along with some of the other comments, they should be read and this poll should then be updated. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a poll. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Then what is it? --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn The block was undeniably punitive, not preventive, the circumstances (imposed 15 minutes after the issue is raised by an account of dubious history) are questionable, the applicability of the topic ban to user pages was unclear, and the edits were not disruptive. Clearly a bad block. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to repeat these conversatons? I will so you know what I'm talking about.

First this was listed above by Phil;

• Coren clearly states that "suggesting" edits (which is even stronger than what WMC was doing) is outside the scope of the ban, and would require an amendment to include.
• Roger concurs, and goes onto suggest how to properly handle this situation.
• Shell "agree with the opinions of my colleagues above" so no dissent there.
• Carcharoth says "I agree with the responses by Newyorkbrad, Coren and Roger Davies."

Then this one was:

• Lar "Does it extend to user talk pages?"
• TenOfAllTrades "it does not include user talk pages"
• Arthur Rubin "discussion ... whether one climate change category is a subset of another?"
• Roger Davies "Sure... for those who want ... discretionary sanctions" (NB, discretionary sanctions require warning before block)
• Count Iblis "It seems clear to me that discussions about climate science are allowed on talk pages"
• ScienceApologist "When I was topic banned, I proposed edits all the time from my talkpage to no objections"
• Beeblebrox "just stay the hell away from anything that could be construed as even vaguely related to climate change"
• TS (responding to Beeblebrox) "t looks to me as if you've misread the discussion."
• BozMo "WMC ... can give technical comments ... seems an elegant solution."
• Arthur Rubin "user talk pages ... should be fine"
• Roger Davies "I disagree sharply with what you say about uninvited talk page comments" (implicitly accepting other talk page comments)

I think I cut and pasted all that was put up there on this page. I would also like to add to this record that WMC using an alternate account called WMC had been editing other articles until the block was given to him as this shows. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for putting my comments in the administrator sections. It was not intentional and I appreciate the editor moving my comments up. Thank you for that. Again, sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

• Receiving a topic-ban means that the topic in question is off-limits everywhere on Wikipedia; the arbitration committee has made this clear with regard to a number of cases on a number of occasions. They have made it clear that wiki-lawyering as to whether a particular namespace was explicitly proscribed is both unwelcome and irrelevant. I would have preferred a duration of 7 days, rather than 14, but the current duration is not excessive and I do not support overturning the sanction. CIreland (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• SPhilbricK, You misunderstand. WMC was topic banned by ArbCom, and this is an enforcement for that remedy. He has been notified of that with the close of the case. AND Coren (and others) clarified the scope of the ban for him. Only new editors or changes need prior warning under the Discretionary sanctions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Add link to thread on ArbCom Noticeboard where more than one arbitrator and some uninvolved admins clarified that the topic ban was to enforced on all pages. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    • FloNight, the ArbCom ruling was pretty clear in what it specified and what it did not specify. All arbs had the chance to add talk pages to the ruling at the time, but didn't
      • A topic ban is a topic ban, period. ArbCom is not required to think of every potential way that an user will attempt to skirt the ban and write it into the ruling. Instead, users need to know that if they make edits related to the topic on Wikipedia anywhere, then they are violating the ban, and it will be enforced with sanctions. In this instance, WMC developed a new process for influencing edits to the topic (a dedicated section on his talk page), something that ArbCom could hardly know to add to case when writing the ruling. On Wikipedia we have always enforced the spirit instead of letter of a policy. And in my view, for WMC to continue to engage with other editors about this topic on his talk page is a definite violation of the spirit of the ruling as it applies to the issues involved with the CC case. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Admins who frequent the AE noticeboard look at the diffs to determine the sanction and do not dwell on who made the report. That is basic to admin work and arb enforcement. In any case, the problems of one party in a dispute does not give other people involved a pass for violations of sanctions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    • • • • In this case, the letter and the spirit you envision are too far apart. We have amendments for this reason. The whole "A topic ban is a topic ban, period" argument is just us making up our own rules; the actual ArbCom ruling has a "scope of topic bans" section which omits user talk pages. At the very least it would be better if he was blocked under a general rule about violating the spirit of a topic ban, rather than through an incorrect extension of a topic ban. This isn't about petty lawyering, but rather protecting even ArbCom sanctionees from unfair treatment. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Ultimately, the purpose of the topic bans are to protect the encyclopedia from continued disruption. The topic ban doesn't omit user talk pages at all: it says that the sanctionees are prohibited "from participated in any Wikipedia process" and it's no stretch at all for that to include user talk pages, which are an essential part of the consensus-building/collaboration process.  Roger ^talk 11:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Just to further clarify this, if people who are topic-banned move discussion that belongs on article talk space onto their user talk pages as a proxy for the article talk page, they are circumventing the ban. It's a simple as that really. Here's an example.  Roger ^talk 12:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
              • Yes, from my reading of the ruling, ArbCom intended the topic ban to cover everything. And no arbitrator commenting after the case has indicated otherwise. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
                • Thanks for this. I'm not sure the term process would normally be understood as covering talk pages, not by everyone anyway; I at least would understand it to mean activity in or deriving from pages marked WP, portals, guideline pages, and so on. Even so, in wordings I would assume ArbCom members realise the traditional exceptionalism thought to apply to talk pages in the community, and if talk pages were actually meant, specify them. We have other policies for disruption of course. We don't need to start extending rulings without amendments in order to enforce WP:DISRUPTION. In reference to Flo's point, judges don't ask individual legislators what they really meant when they passed laws; the reasons they don't and shouldn't are pretty obvious. And once there are rules, they have to be fairly applied as laid out, so that they can be applied fairly to all. I mean, are you two really certain there won't be a past or future AE case where a similar request has been dismissed because an incident was on a user talk page? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• As FloNight says, SPhilbricK is mistaken; WMC has been banned from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. PhilKnight (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• endorse topic banned means "find a new topic" - it is not an invitation to "find a new venue for the same topic". Enough is enough.--Scott Mac 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Topic-banned means that area of Wikipedia is no longer your concern. Courcelles 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• If WMC had indicated that he didn't know it was a violation of the ban, and would abide by the new, expanded scope of it, I would be willing to grant his appeal. However, he has declined to make such a statement, so i must reluctantly endorse the block. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• As with the other block above, "topic ban" means "cease all participation in this area, period", not "try to find loopholes and stay involved anyway". And as above, this sends a clear message that boundary testing and lawyering will not be tolerated, and that the expectation is that the topic banned editors will stay entirely away from that topic. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block I do appreciate the argument that this block was outside the scope of the discretionary sanctions - if this was a court and I was a judge I'd uphold that argument. But it's not. Thankfully we have the ability to sanction conduct that is itelf designed to avoid sanctions. Good block. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Good block, per most of the above. T. Canens (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse and extend, how much more admin time being consumed by WMC is enough? I think we have passed that point. --WGFinley (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn. Unless I'm missing something, the user's talk page is not covered in 3.1 "Scope of topic bans". All the user did was post something on his own talk page. This has nothing to do with the editorial process on Wikipedia, besides perhaps "influencing" other users. Not good enough to justify censoring someone's own talk page. He could easily have a blog which he could direct sympathetic readers to follow, so the only fault is that these messages were on wiki space rather than journal space. The remedy is to keep him away from article disputes, not to scare him out of voicing his own opinions on his own talk page. The block was a overreaching one, sets a bad precedent, and should be overturned. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The amusing thing is the direction that this encourages editors to go down . If WMC doesn't want to stop watchlisting the topic area, he can simply create a thread on, say, Wikipedia Review entitled "things that should be fixed but won't", add some criticism of the ArbCom decision, and periodically post to it. Exact same effect, but now is driven off-wiki. NW (Talk) 21:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

So, what would you have us do? Let him end-run the topic ban on-wiki so he won't do it off wiki? The vast majority of users named in the ban have accepted it and moved on. Those who cannot exercise the self control needed to do that need to have controls imposed upon them until such time as they can restrain themselves from ignoring the ban and/or trying various underhanded tactics to evade it. The message WMC and everyone else named in the ban was sent was "stay away from anything on Wikipedia related to climate change." That some have voluntarily elected to ignore that perfectly clear message is a reflection on them, not a flaw in the decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The matter isn't that difficult. He's not lawyering his ban by posting on his own talk page. Users have always been allowed to do this. Unless I'm missing something, the ArbCom ruling clearly does not authorise blocks for comments on his own talk page. What was the point of the "Scope of topic bans" section, if intervening admins can just ignore it for unpopular users and make up their own rulings ("topic banned means "find a new topic", "Topic-banned means that area of Wikipedia is no longer your concern")?! People often need their own space to vent, and that serves a function. If he starts on project and article space, block him; if it's just his own talk, ignore him and leave him to it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You are in fact missing something, although you can hardly be blamed for it. There has been a lot of discussion since the ruling was originally posted, and as a result of those discussions, mostly located at the arbcom noticeboard talk page and WP:AN a consensus emerged which favored including such editing within the scope of the ban as it was clearly intended to be an end-run around the ban. There was fairly broad agreement that the time for talk was over and the time to start issuing harsh blocks in order to send the message that this dispute must end had come. So, even if these blocks (everyone seems to have forgotten this is actually the second such block and the block of Marknutley was possibly even more tangental to actual CC content) were not in within the scope of the original decision arbitrators, administrators, and the community at large were in favor of a more hardline approach in order to stop this once and for all. As I've mentioned, most of the other named parties were able to walk away when they were asked to do so, there are only a few holdouts who wouldn't let go, and WMC participated in at least on of these discussions so he was not unaware this was a possibility. It is my guess that he did not think anyone would actually do it and he was testing the waters to see how close he could come without getting blocked. I trust he now knows the answer to that and I sincerely hope this the last CC enforcement block that will be needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. As I said to Fl above, I'm not comfortable with this at all, and am not persuaded by these arguments. While much of this may or may not justify blocking WMC, it doesn't justify blocking him in the name of an ArbCom ruling that doesn't cover the matter. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Having a strong consensus behind an action does not justify it unless ArbCom specifically says so? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't said anything like this. This block was issued as an AE block, and has special protections.

We have a situation here where one user, unpopular as he is, is blocked on an AE ruling that doesn't actually authorise it, and is blocked everywhere but his own talk page for infractions committed only on his own talk page. "Consensus" or not, it is not right. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse. Essentially agree with comments by Roger Davies (talk · contribs), SirFozzie (talk · contribs) and FloNight (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Update About 24 hours ago (well after the initial block) WMC made another contribution to the section of his talk page where he was notifying tpw about issues in articles in the CC topic. I removed the whole section, warned WMC to not return the section, or create a new area to discuss CC on his talk page. Additionally, I warned him that future edits to his talk page of this type would result in an extension of his block. Since then, there has been loads of discussion about the block and editing restriction (topic ban) on his talk page, but not further violation of the topic ban. My suggestion is for us to close this AE as resolved now as the request has been actioned and there is not consensus to overturn it among uninvolved admins. Then hopefully WMC will be able to focus on other topic areas on WP where he is welcome to edit. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this comment by FloNight (talk · contribs). There is not an existing consensus to overturn. This AE thread should be closed as resolved at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Does leave one puzzled about the point of the block ... I mean, does it really make sense to block someone for talk page comments but not block the talk page? Given the preventative not punitive Wikimantra .... what's the block preventing? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I admit it is not a perfect solution. The block is intended as a message to WMC about the wisdom of trying to sneak around the edges of the ban, as he was already warned not to do. I also agree that this conversation should be closed. It seems clear that the block is not going to be overturned. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement

Atabəy (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Andranikpasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#1

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

1. See edit comment. Accusing contributor of having meatpuppets without basis and to push his WP:POV in violation of WP:CIVIL
2. Another comment violating WP:CIVIL
3. , , Numerous reverts in violation of permanent 1RR/week restriction by A-A2 Arbitration Remedy, insertion of dubious or NPOV tags even when presented with concise references showing otherwise. Please, follow the discussion at Talk:March_Days and the revert history of March Days to find out more about disruptive editing.

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

1. Warning by Atabəy (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

The contributor has previously been under arbitration for edit warring and banned for 3 months. He is back, clearly violating the imposed remedies by reengaging in edit warring, reverting, irrelevant tag insertion against references, assuming bad faith of contributors in violation of WP:CIVIL. I warned the contributor for this behavior, but he took no action instead simply removed my warning and continuing to push WP:POV. He is currently inserting irrelevant references, some of them unsourced or with no URL provided, attempting to change the essence of the topic. I request that the contributor is topic-banned from Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics for the prior restrictions have not resulted in constructive editing. Atabəy (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Per statement from user Andranikpasha below, since when simply adding an R.G. Suny book reference to an article, citing historical details and pointing to a discussion page, is considered "incivil" to warrant a baseless warning, accusation of chauvinism and other personal attacks? Especially, when in the course of debate on talk page, user Andranikpasha was presented with numerous additional references, proving and reinforcing the facts contained in the legitimate reference that I added. Atabəy (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Another wholesale revert in violation of permanent 1RR/week and messing up all the references, formatting per Wikipedia templates. It is impossible to contribute any reference or any useful information to March Days because Andranikpasha's reverts and WP:POV pushing. Atabəy (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested has been made

On October 26, 2010 User Atabay (who is also under AA2 remedies, placed on civility supervision, supervised editing, and revert limitation ), without any discusissions and explanations on the talk added some dubious text to the article . The he was the first being warned for his incivil behaviour as after I started to discuss his misinterpretation of a souce (currently he seems to agree with my opinion by his last edit ) and chauvinistic remark on Armenian descent of naturalized American scolar Roland Suny , another Azerbaijani user who never was involved in our discussion deleted my <dubious> tag with aggressive manner (after few hours our discusssions started). After some attempts to readd his misinterpretation, Atabay seems to aggreed on a version and this request was made late, it is added after the discussion seems to be ended and looks like an attempt of revenge, as Atabays misinterpretations were proven (see the talk ). I never pushed any POV, as all my addings are supported by numerous reliable sources. And I made only 1 revert, it was this . Andranikpasha (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

First off, I must correct Atabəy. The link he provided for A-A2 Arbitration Remedy is actually better described here where the admin actually places the Andranikpasha on permanent 1RR per week on all articles due to his long history of disruptive editing. Don't let him confuse you with statements that he only made one revert. He reverted here and here (he just takes a step further by replacing his dubious with NPOV tag for the whole article). Before edit warring on March Days article, he reverts in the article Blue Mosque, Yerevan - , a day later he reverts in the article Hamidian massacres , clearly violating the 1RR per week for all articles rule, as mentioned above. Additionally, he edit-warred in 1977 Moscow bombings including making emotional reverts -

In addition to his disruptive editing, he makes a completely outrageous remarks in his source indicating author Thomas De Waal as pro-Azeri See here: pro Azeri author Thomas de Waal, Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war, p. 100. Since when are editors allowed to highlight their POV and personal bias in the source names? Tuscumbia (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Another example of disruptive edit . --Quantum666 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm thinking about a year, now. It is obvious that the last 3-month block didn't do anything. T. Canens (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur. It's time to enforce the maximum sanction available to us, as everything short of a year off has failed to modify behaviour. Courcelles 16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also concur. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I support T. Canens' proposal of a 1-year block. If the same behavior were being discussed at ANI an indefinite block would be logical, since that board places no limit on the block length. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Enacted. Courcelles 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement

— kwami (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jack Sparrow 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

ban on the article and WP:ARBMAC (article currently at 1RR)

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

1. (first revert of sourced statements, violating his ban on the article)
2. (second revert, violating 1RR as well)

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

• JS3 was blocked for a week after violating ARBMAC, and banned from this article.
• Chipmunkdavis warned him to self-revert the second time, though that would only address the 1RR violation and not the ban.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

enforcement of the existing topic ban as appropriate

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

JS3's is a strongly held political belief by some editors that Croatian is not a form of Serbo-Croatian and is not particularly close to Serbian, a POV contradicted by a huge number of RS's (some of which he deleted) and which has no RS support. Discussion on the article has centered on how to follow sources without unduly offending this POV.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

• Straightforward breach of topic ban. Given the prior history of blocks for breach of 1RR and for block evasion through IPs, we don't need to suppose this was an accidental mistake or anything. Escalated block to 2 weeks for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed to indef after this latest personal attack. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Closing. Future Perfect issued a conventional indef block, not an arbitration enforcement block, since it was for more than one year. The rules for appealing it are given at WP:UNBLOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement

CIreland (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Prunesqualer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions specifically, the article-ban imposed and logged on 21 Oct 2010.

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

1. Edit to article from which user is banned
2. Edit to article from which user is banned
3. Edit to article from which user is banned
4. Edit to article from which user is banned

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

1. ARBPIA notification by CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Block for edit-warring and concurrent ban by CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Additional generic edit-warring warnings visible on user talk page.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block for 14 days, the original duration of the article ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I gave this user an ARBPIA notification, blocked him for violating the 1RR restriction at Gaza War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and imposed a 14-day article ban from that article. Strictly speaking, it would be acceptable for me now to block the user for making edits in violation of their article ban. However, I feel uncomfortable with continuing to be the sole administrator to have warned and sanctioned this user and would prefer another admin to act at this stage, as means of ensuring the the user receives fair treatment.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Blocked for 21 days, and extended the topic-ban to be over the entire area of conflict and removed the time limit. As far as flaunting restrictions goes, it doesn't get much more blatant than this. Courcelles 19:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement

Cptnono (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Prunesqualer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions.

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

1. : Removal of declined unblock requests, ban, and validly-imposed edit restrictions while sanctions are still in effect. (WP:BLANKING)
2. Refering to other editors as "vultures" in the section title and creating a laundry list against WP:UP#POLEMIC

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

I assume one is not required. The editor is aware of the possible sanctions.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

1. Blocking user's access to their own talk page (often a final step) and an extension to the overall block to encourage a better understanding of what is and what is not acceptable.

OR

1. Removal of my comments that were reduced or inclusion of the complete comments. (I was actually OK with keeping his edits in and that should have been clear) Please also see User talk:CIreland#Prunesqualer
2. Restoration of the block templates.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Groovy. Thanks guys. My primary concern was the half comments which misrepresented what I said and that looks handled. Feel free to close it out. Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I think using 'vultures' once in an established metaphorical sense isn't that bad, so I'll remove talk page access, but won't extend the block. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Phil beat me to it, I concur. I don't think it's a big deal the notices are gone as long as you logged them, on ARBPIA. --WGFinley (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

User requesting enforcement

Khodabandeh14 (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iksus2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#1]

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

• Threatens to disbar an admin who had warned of his WP:NPA violation: . Note the comments on the previous violation:"If anything, don’t look at the past, look at what Iran is right now: one of the most backward countries on Earth, living according to a dark-age ideology, abusing women’s rights, and electing a total clown as your president. Very little indeed. So, I guess, again, I do understand why it is so important to Iranians of today to try to put as much of their national pride on what happened in the past, a side effect of this being attempts to appropriate anything you can. But even if you look in the past, to be frank, there is not much to be proud of. Really. What did this ancient Persia do? Greeks kicked your ass, and you left to the world 0% of what the Greek philosophy and science have left. You claim to fame is to have been beaten by an Ancient great nation, and is such a very derivative notion. It is like saying, “Hey, look, I am an accomplished person too, because Brad Pitt slapped me in the face pretty bad 20 years ago.” " and "Move on, and don’t try to steal other people’s achievements". These comments violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK and WP:BEP.

• New comment also generalizes

users based on their background violating WP:NPA and WP:BEP. " It is a sign of clear Iranian bias to hide this fact." "I see that Persians have overrun this page". Also threatens to disbar an admin who had warned him is a serious violation.

• More minor but still serious issue when it comes to Armenia/Azerbaijan topics, removing sources without discussion in the talkpage.

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

1. Warning by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user has obvisouly has come with a WP:BEP and WP:NPA approach. However, his 2009 comments were extremly xenphobic, which makes it impossible to work with in the article. The user should be topic banned from the article Nezami Ganjavi whose introduction has come through a many months worked concensus (which the user has been told in 2009 as well as the preamble of the article he is editing). His comments about "page being overran by Persians" , "Iranian bias" violates WP:BEP and WP:NPA. More seriously, threatening the admin who warned him about WP:NPA] with disbarment. With the addition of his severe WP:NPA, WP:BEP violats on the talk page, the user should be banned from the talkpage. Also a block for WP:NPA and threatening the admin who only warned of him WP:NPA with disbarment (which is an attempt at a psychological threat). Account could also be an SPA.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I request a permanent ban. Here is part of the latest comments after he got the warning. " So with this in mind, here is the promised political opinion: I hope the US and Israel bomb Iran sometime soon. Not because I hate Persians or Iran. I just think it would be good to bring some humility to Persian chauvinism, to talk some sense to them, to bring them up to date with the modern realities of the world (from being stuck in a time period three thousand years past),..." . And this too: " Since I am already going to be banned anyways (in an Iranian style censorship. Well, at least I will not be whipped ... I hope, or be issued a Fatwa against). ". This was just a portion of the latest comments. The user's acount is 1 years old and he has been warned multiple times today and last year. Do you really expect that such a user can be compromised with in the talkpage? Are other users supposed to forget all of his hatred and act like nothing happened and continue normal topics discussions that might arise? The user is asking to get banned as he states too and you predicted: "Ok, now you can go ahead and ban me. I plan not to use Wikipedia anyways. I think the Britannica subscription price is worth it, which I have realized thanks to this exchange. So thank you! As they say, you get what you pay for.", "I have no intent of wasting my time any more than I already have.".. etc. Well I think admins ca give him the oppurtunity of not wasting his time and the time of other users (for complaining to admins). It is really a waste of my time.

If he is not permanently topic banned from such articles, then other places the user contribute, has already been poisened, and has created a WP:BATTLE atmosphere. For example, no one is going to talk calmly to another user who has called for a bombing of a country. There is a reason this sort of topic subjects have gone to two Arbitrations. I believe new measures are needed, where the first such comments, the user is blocked for a week and the second such comments, they are banned. In the case of this user, he was warned three times for the same type of comments, but got absolutely nothing except a light warning from admins (actually the first one was a serious warning but admins did not follow it up). This is a disaster in terms of admins weak policy, and some serious actions would perhaps reduce the number of users like this. Specially since such topics have come under two arbcomms, and admins need to get strict. Not follow one light warning with another with another. . Again, when a topic has gone through two arbcomms, it means admins need to be serious. Moreschi is surely missed, as he would have banned such users on the first incident. Not three light warnings in a row. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder per discussions below: "Because this editor has very little history and the warning from Nishkid came last year, I felt it was more reasonable to give a clear and explicit warning that battleground behavior is not acceptable than to block immediately. However any repetition of this very aggressive behavior should lead to an immediate response. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) "}}.

I know admins have a lot on their plate, and they deal with so much nonsense everyday. However, they should act upon the previous warnings that were issued. Else violaters of the system might not take their warnings seriously. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Because this editor has very little history and the warning from Nishkid came last year, I felt it was more reasonable to give a clear and explicit warning that battleground behavior is not acceptable than to block immediately. However any repetition of this very aggressive behavior should lead to an immediate response. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified Iksus2009 of the AA discretionary sanctions. Since he hasn't continued to revert any articles, and the main problem is his intemperate and nationalistic rhetoric on talk pages, I suggest we close this with no further action. According to him (June 2009), Iran is "right now one of the most backward countries on earch, living according to a dark-age ideology, abusing women's rights, and electing a total clown as your president." At Talk:Nezami Ganjavi#Protected Status he has stated:

  My "fault" was that I was objecting to the clear Persian bias on display in the editorial board overseeing the Nizami page. I will pursue this issue to the end with Wikipedia until a balanced approach is reached. I think there has to be at least one ethnic Azeri present on the editorial board of this page.

  If he actually goes ahead and edits in accordance with a nationalist philosophy, a topic ban is one of the possible options. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• This comment by Iksus is precisely what we don't want to see. I am minded to not err on the side of leniency on this occasion, although I do understand why some are. AGK 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not minded to err on the side of leniency, I'm just minded not to poke an editor who has a good chance of disappearing if he isn't poked too much. Looie496 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that an individual admin may impose a topic ban on an editor from all AA articles "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." This could be done in the future without opening up a new enforcement request. The possibility of a topic ban may be held in reserve, even if the present request winds up closing without further action. If anyone thinks a block would be wise, can they specify a duration. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement

O Fenian (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rigger30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

1. Revert to this version
2. Second revert, within 24 hours of the first
3. Third revert, within 24 hours of the first

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

1. Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Has clearly received the notification prior to the second revert, since he replied to my talk page messages here before the second revert.

I will admit to a 1RR violation myself, but please allow me to explain. Here I reverted the third edit he made, as it has BLP implications and it is also factually inaccurate. In the early 1970s Gerry Adams was not held at a prison, as it was not a prison at the time it was an internment camp. Internment was for those held without trial or charge, whereas prison obviously implies either convicted or on remand after being charged. As the article was on the main page at the time, I felt it was unacceptable to have such an error in the article especially with the possible BLP implications. You will note my second revert ignored their second edit. I believe only reverting the one edit considering the lack of accuracy, BLP implications and the article being on the main page at the time should not count against me, but will accept any decision. O Fenian (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Clear violation, blocked for 24 hours. Given his explanation above, I"m not inclined to block O Fenian at this time. Courcelles 20:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with decision and agree that O Fenian's explanation is adequate. Closing this thread. AGK 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement

User:The Four Deuces TFD (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Block. Topic ban.

User:Martintg is topic-banned from topics related to Eastern Europe. "Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics...." A request for clarification explained that this included "Communist terrorism". Although Martintg challenged whether this decision related to him, he abandoned it. A recent decision involving User:Marknutley shows that becoming involved in procedures involving other editors is the same as editing proscribed articles. Martintg has chosen to defend User:Justus Maximus who has been blocked for offensive comments about other editors at Communist terrorism. Therefore Martintg has violated his topic ban. TFD (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I would ask the arbitrators to look at their recent decision considering mark nutley who has a CC topic ban: "I really don't know how much clearer the message can be to the topic-banned users: Please go away. If the discussion is on-wiki and even tangentially related to climate change, and is not directly discussing you, then leave it alone". Martintg was topic-banned from "Communist terrorism", asked for clarification and then abandoned it. TFD (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Sandersaede, there was a request for clarification that decided this topic was part of Eastern Europe and Martintg raised then abandoned a request concerning whether it still applied. Martintg's definition of terrorism as including government actions allows for the inclusion of Soviet terror against other nationalities inside the former Soviet Union which were "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe". TFD (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

From 1940 to 1990 the Soviet Union considered Estonia to be one of its republics, although the legality was disputed. Therefore the legitimate constitution during this period is a matter of dispute, which the article resolves by referring to the Third Constitution as de jure, although the Soviets considered the Soviet constitution to be de jure. TFD (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was talking about Justus Maximus' unblock request for a block he received for comments he made on ANI, where he implied some editors were Marxist apologists who promoted terrorism, which is clearly offensive. He did remove those comments but was blocked in any case. I've been discussing JM's unblock for several days on ANI,,,, on his talk page, on an admin's page and nobody (let alone The Four Deuces who was also involved in that discussion too) had any issue in regard to my involvement until now. I thought talking about issues of WP:BITE and how we treat newbies is sufficiently abstracted from any underlying content, in this case whether or not Karl Marx promoted terrorism . I would have participated just the same as if the original issue was related to Right-wing terrorism or Apple pies.

FWIW, the original topic ban "topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed" was narrowed to topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, until December 22, 2010 (one year from the closing of the original case) by motion, dropping "widely construed". Note that the Climate Change topic ban under which Mark Nutley was blocked incorporates the term "broadly construed". The importance of the presence of "broadly construed" in the remedy was higlighted in a clarification related to the original topic ban, most of the Arbitrators concurred with the viewpoint of Steve Smith when he stated: "But there is also a case that they are eastern Europe-related, in light of the "broadly construed" portion of the remedy". This "broadly construed" portion of my topic ban was removed when it was narrowed in September.

I drafted a recent clarification request in good faith about whether the narrowed topic ban was still applicable to the article Communist terrorism, but soon abandoned it since it seemed to be a waste of the Committee's time (and mine) over something that I can easily avoid (and have avoided since) in deference to User:The Four Deuces (despite a couple of other editors welcoming my involvement), since the issue would be moot anyway in a couple of months time as my topic ban will expire anyway. But construing my good faith discussion of a user's unblock request due to his block over comments on ANI in light of WP:BITE as a violation is stretching things a bit too far.

So it is not clear to me how discussion of JM's unblock request, which was related to his block related to his use of phrases deemed offensive during a discussion on the ANI page, which in turn was due to his perception of some editors and his view of their conduct, which in turn was related to a discussion of whether or not Karl Marx (a German national, by the way) promoted terrorism in his 19th century writings, which in turn was related to Communist terrorism which is an article about terrorism in Western Europe, Asia and South America (and no mention of Eastern Europe) and its proported relationship to Marxist doctrine, is related to my topic ban on East European national, cultural or ethnic disputes.

I was only trying to help diffuse the situation and help JM understand how things work on Wikipedia. He seems to be widely read on Marxist writings and seems to have great potential to contribute. However given the climate of the increasingly broad and elastic interpretation of topic bans, I'm quite prepared to strike all my comments on JM's talk page and take no further part in trying to assist. --Martin (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Petri Krohn's involvement below appears to be an issue of WP:ACTIVIST, Arbitrator Shell Kinney is familiar with Petri's affiliation with a certain fringe political group, please contact her for the details. --Martin (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My edits of Constitution of Estonia are fully sourced from Estonica, Estonia's reference encyclopaedia similar to Britannica. Text accurately reflects the content from Estonica. There never has been any connection with the article Constitution of Estonia and ethnic, cultural and national disputes. Nobody objected to my edits until it appeared that the original AE report wasn't going to get the result desired by Petri Krohn

I must say this is the first time I've seen Bronze Night interpreted as a struggle over "opposing constitutional views", I thought it was about people protesting about the appropriateness of moving a war grave, but then I've only edited that article twice. After scanning through the article Bronze Night, the only reference to the Constitution of Estonia is in the section Bronze Night#Proposed Law on Forbidden Structures, where the constitution is actually used in support of the minority to veto more extreme legislation in regard to the Bronze soldier monument. No mention in that article that the disturbance was a result of conflict between two "opposing constitutional views".

Now Petri has said he has just now created a redirect from Constitution of the Estonian SSR to Constitution of Estonia to apparently bolster his case, which begs the question on why Constitution of the Estonian SSR hadn't existed as a redirect before this AE report if there truly was a dispute over "opposing constitutional views". My reaction to this is that constitutions are specific legal documents related to a specific legal state order. Constitution of Estonia discusses the evolution of a series of specific constitutional legal act(s) related to a specific state order of the Republic of Estonia. Our opinions of a republic's notion of itself, based upon a specific legal POVs and assumptions as presented in the text of the constitution and commentary from sources like Estonica, is irrelevant and cannot be subject to dispute over POV, only verifiability. Redirecting Constitution of the Estonian SSR to Constitution of Estonia makes no sense. Constitution of the Estonian SSR should be expanded to discuss the specific constitutional legal act(s) as they pertain to the Soviet system and in the mean time be redirected to either Constitution of the Soviet Union or Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, I have no problem with that.

I'm not sure Petri Krohn's POV of "opposing constitutional views" is actually based upon any published source or is it likely he just made this up. I've done some digging around and all I could find is manifesto published by SAFKA here, apparently signed by a person named "Petri Krohn" which Petri has linked himself to here. Whether Offliner has some sort of affiliation with SAFKA too, who knows. Are Petri Krohn's and Offliner's disagreement with my good faith edits to Constitution of Estonia an issue of WP:ACTIVIST? That needs to be determined elsewhere.

Given the way Petri Krohn and Offliner have piled on to this AE report, in conjunction with the creation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Martintg, there appears to be a larger issue than that what was originally reported. This AE report ought to be referred to the Arbitration committee, admins patrolling AE have done that in the past.

The battleground is where you want it to be. I was minding my own business editing what I thought was uncontroversial topic based upon reliable sources and now this is be painted as wrong doing by two apparent activists. Afterall, the article isn't called Estonian constitutional dispute or something. If the admins here think my good faithed edits to Constitution of Estonia backed by a reliable source is also covered by my topic ban, then I will no longer edit that article either. --Martin (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how long this report will remain open and be continued to be used as a platform for apparent WP:ACTIVIST WP:SOAPBOXING by Petri Krohn. But his latest unsourced (and unsourcable under WP:RS) assertions are just plain factually incorrect, one only has to read the original text in wikisource to see there is no ethnic element to the Constitution of Estonia, Article 9 states:

"The rights, liberties, and duties of everyone and all persons, as listed in the Constitution, shall be equal for Estonian citizens as well as for citizens of foreign states and stateless persons who are present in Estonia."

These rights that Article 9 refers to include Article 49:

"Everyone shall have the right to preserve his or her ethnic identity"

and Article 50:

"Ethnic minorities shall have the right, in the interests of their national culture, to establish institutions of self-government in accordance with conditions and procedures determined by the Law on Cultural Autonomy for Ethnic Minorities".

There are no issues with the constitution, that I am aware of, ethnicity does not play a part at all. There may be issues with regard to some laws passed by the parliament in the past, but as I have shown above, the constitution has been used to veto those laws. Edward Lucas is presumably referring to internet sites like those russophone sites run by SAFKA and their supporters.

I've been thinking the other day about what I find so objectionable about Petri Krohn's SAFKA organisation, it is that they seek to turn an issue of the rule of law that applies equally to all into an ethnic issue through misrepresentation, agitation and soapboxing. To my mind that is incitement to ethnic hatred which has no place in Wikipedia. --Martin (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made every effort not to cross paths on or off Wikipedia with Martintg or his Eastern European supporters. I do not follow his edits or interfere with his editing and try not to edit articles in his limited scope of interest. Yet Martintg is exhibiting a pattern of following my edit history and editing the same or related pages, or coming to the defense of my opponents in disputes where I am a party. (The most innocent case of this is editing Operation Catherine after I added a link to it in two articles.) This has to stop! I will also be filing a related sock puppet investigation on him in a case where I believe he broke his topic ban by editing an article I had pointed him to.

In the previous arbitration enforcement case against Martintg I posted a long comment explaining the dispute Martintg is involved in.

"The central and core issue in the Eastern European disputes – as it relates to Estonia and other Baltic republics – is the claimed state continuity of the Baltic states in exile..." '

It is of relevance only for the record, as due to conflicting edits, I made my edit two minutes after Jehochman had issued a one week ban. I could have been more terse. A minimal topic ban that would keep Martintg out of the dispute could be worded as follows:

"Any content, (edit, section or article) that describes or tries to describe Soviet rule in the Baltics or Eastern Europe as illegal or oppressive or communism as immoral or criminal."

This week Martintg started rewriting the article on the Constitution of Estonia. (history) The article is now yet another POV-clone of the claimed state continuity of the Baltic states in exile, as it only reflects the legal fantasy on the unrecognized government-in-exile. Already his first edit falls under his topic ban on “disputes”, as it introduced the disputed claim that the Soviet Union "occupied" Estonia in 1940.

Martintg's only other contribution to article space, after his last topic ban ended, is to the article on Mart Laar. (history) Laar is the former prime minister of Estonia a, but also a controversial revisionist historian, who's books have been... (Claimed BLP violation removed by Martintg, will restore with source – or, why should I care. If Martintg cannot even allow this statement to exist, then clearly Laar is part of a dispute, and he should not be editing the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)) – and a primary source for Martintg's disputed POV. Although the edits were innocent, I would consider the article to be under his topic ban. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – I have made request for a sock puppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martintg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

One side in the ethnic conflict in Estonia, including the right-wing nationalist parties, the former “Estonian Government in Exile” and most notably, former prime minister and historian Mart Laar will argue that the underground “National Committee” formed by Kaarel Liidak in 1944, and the government in exile declared by August Rei, in Oslo, Norway in 1953 represent a de jure continuation of the Republic of Estonia – as it existed before June 1940. They also argue that constitutional rule was only established in Estonia in 1992, when the government in exile ceased operations and handed “power” over to president Lennart Meri and then prime minister Mart Laar. According to this view Estionia was under military occupation from 1940 to 1991 or 1992. and any action taken by local Estonian authorities, including implementing its workforce-hungry immigration policy, were actions of occupation authorities and thus without legitimacy. This is the point-of-view the article on the constitution of Estonia – as created by Matrintg – exist to promote. This interpretation of history is relevant, as it forms the legal basis of the denaturalization (loss of citizenship) of the ethnically non-Estonian population carried out under Mart Laar's rule in 1992. At the time the share of Estonian speakers in Estonia was a little over 50%.

The opposing view, shared by Estonia's Russophone minority as well as modern Russian historiography is that the non-violent anti-authoritarian revolution in Estonia in June 1940 (known as Juunipööre) preserved the legal continuity of the Estonian state, and thus the petition of the Riigikogu to join the Soviet Union on July 22 as the Estonian SSR was constitutional. This view also holds, that the renamed Republic of Estonia of 1990, under prime minister Edgar Savisaar, and the succeeding independent member state of the United Nations of 1991 – all the way to modern Estonia – represent a legal continuation of the Estonian SSR (and thus its Soviet constitution.) Some on this side would argue, that the rise to power of Mart Laar and the constitutional changes that followed were a coup d'etat, carried out to pursue a racist national policy. People holding these views will argue that Estonia practices an apartheid policy by disenfranchising and discriminating against its minorities.

The conflict between these two opposing constitutional views reached a climax in April 2007, with violent civil disturbance. The events also brought in a large number of new editors to Wikipedia, initially to edit war over the article Bronze Soldier, with some of them continuing in disputes that eventually resulted in the EEML arbcom case. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – I have redirected Constitution of the Estonian SSR to Constitution of Estonia. However, I cannot see how the article could accurately reflect the needs of this redirect with Martintg anywhere near the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Update – Apart from the historical dispute of the continuity of the Constitution of Estonia and its reflection on present-day ethnic violence, there is the question if the undisputed post-1992 constitution is in fact a tool of oppression used by an apartheid government. I am not going to provide reliable sources as I will only show that a dispute exists. Here is one that came up from the on-line forum on Pravda with an English translation of Russian sources. UN report- Estonia is a racist, apartheid state – Quote: UNITED NATIONS again reminds about its apprehension those that in article 48 of constitutions of Estonia the participation in the political party is permitted only to the citizens of the country. The underlying claim seems to be that Estonia is a racist, apartheid state and the 1992 constitution of Estonia is instrumental in creating this system of apartheid. There is thus no need to go into the history to show that the constitution is part of an ethnic dispute in Eastern Europe. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

...some more on the 1992 constitution.

The lead section of the article Constitution of Estonia should in fact contain text on the following lines.

The purpose of the new constitution adapted in 1992 is to transform Estonia into a mono-lingually Estophone monocultural entity. Opponents of the constitution argue, that it is a racist tool of oppression targeted at Estonia's Russophone population, and the foundation of Estonia's policy of "apartheid".

I will not be providing any sources, as I have no intention of editing the article. A quick Google search in English provides some interesting results, including this opinion by Edward Lucas: eSStonia. I am not endorsing anything that Lucas is saying, but he is making a strong argument that a ethnic dispute exists – and that, any dispute about Estonia, be it about the constitution or whatever, will follow ethnic lines. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Biophys – You are in fact arguing, that Martintg should be allowed to edit the Bronze Soldier, as it is about a statue, but not the Bronze Nights as it about an ethnic dispute. I cannot agree with you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be "topic ban extension shopping" at best. The comments did not address Eastern Europe as a topic, and the extension of Digwuren has reached the level of putting a size 20 foot into a sixe 9 shoe. The nature of each editor's personal biases is irrelevant - there is no case to be made for stretching Digwuren even further. Note: I am banned from editing the London Victory Parade article which I have never even read, as a result of the spandex topic bans. Collect (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A few weeks ago Martintg was blocked for a week for a massive violation of his topic ban. Additionally, former arbitrator FloNight urged Martintg to step back from pov contributions in the Eastern European topic area. Based on the current AE report, and especially this edit one has to question whether Martintg has learned anything from his latest block. The edit inserts text when the Soviet Union occupied Estonia, which clearly is a POV contribution about the topic of Occupation of the Baltic states, one of the main EE disputes and battlegrounds. The edit is similar to what Martintg was already blocked for. It seems that—contrary to ArbCom's demands—Martintg has failed to disengange from the battleground, and is continuing to violate his topic ban. Offliner (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to AGK. This edit relates to the national dispute about the occupation of Estonia, with the other side claiming that Estonia being joined to the Soviet Union constitutes an occupation, while the other claims that it does not. The topic is the same for which Martintg was already blocked for (mainly this edit.) Please see this thread for details. Offliner (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is too broad understanding of the topic ban. Although User:Justus Maximus edited only two articles, both of which had a relation to Communism, he is a newbie, so it would be premature to speak about him as about an anti-Communist SPA. In his posts Martin has been focused only on the way User:Justus Maximus was being treated, not on the content of his edits. He carefully avoided any content disputes. In my opinion, it would be hardly correct to speak about violation of the topic ban. In any event, even if it is the case, this violation is rather tangential, so a warning would be quite sufficient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I concur with Paul Siebert here. It seems unduly harsh and possibly counterproductive to interpret a topic ban as extending into discussions about other users, merely because said users have been themselves banned in relation to a somewhat-distantly-related topic. I think the MartinG's arguments on Justus Maximus's behalf may actually help JM to understand that the action taken against him wasn't due to his viewpoint, but to his behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Martintg is not topic-banned from articles about Eastern Europe, see here. I guess that is the reason why TFD was unable to link the appropriate ArbCom decision, as required for enforcement. In any case, I hope that this time a deeply involved administrator will not abuse his administrative rights and quickly enforce a highly dubious extremely harsh block without support from other administrators, like it happened before (why does he even have admin right after such major violation is beyond my understanding). --Sander Säde 08:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Could we stop with this nonsense now? There is nothing controversial in articles about Mart Laar and Constitution of Estonia - this can easily be seen from the fact that there are not even unreliable sources claiming any controversies. This is just an attempt to silence or drive Martin away from Wikipedia. Martin has agreed to stay away from further attempts to defuse issues peacefully, I recommend an official ArbCom warning for both TFD and Petri Krohn (perhaps an interaction ban - or ban from ArbCom and AN/I pages?) for repeated attempts to misuse arbitration enforcement to resolve personal and content issues. --Sander Säde 21:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Re to AGK. I suggest to quote accurately this According to Arbcom motion, Martintg "is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes...". This article is about constitution. Of course any political or historical subject is related to numerous conflicts (consider US constitution, for example). Such an extended interpretation would prohibit Martintg from editing any historic/political subjects in Eastern Europe. If that was Arbcom intention, this should be explained to Martintg and other users who have similar sanctions.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

People, how about helping your colleague to resume productive editing, instead of looking for every excuse to report him to AE? This battleground must stop.Biophys (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly second that last comment, Biophys. AGK 20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is obvious. The modified editing restriction by Arbcom is well-intended and can work in a friendly atmosphere. If one thinks that "Estonian constitution" might be a violation of ban, why would not one discuss this with Martintg? In fact, I left Martintg a notice a couple of weeks ago that he should not edit "Communist terrorism" article (violation or not) because that will bring him and Marlnutley a trouble. But Estonian constitution looks a legitimate subject to me, so I would not even bother... Biophys (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rsp to AGK - no, there is nothing controversial about Mart Laar and Constitution of Estonia, which can clearly be seen from lack of any kind of sources in Offliner's and Petri's claims, not to mention, solid, peer-reviewed sources in major scientific journals. The claim that Mart Laar's book was banned in Germany is simply an untruth.

As for Martintg's previous block, it was a clear-cut case of administrative abuse. At the time when the only non-involved administrator expressed worries about quality of evidence against Martin and suggested him to stop editing those articles or he might get a warning, an admin deeply involved in WP:EEML case (who also was against partial lifting of the Martin's topic ban) blocked Martin in what must be a record time in closing arbitration enforcement case. And since it was Martin's first offense, a standard procedure would have been a warning, especially considering the weak evidence. Second offense would get 12 or 24h ban. But the admin blocked Martin immediately for a week. Like I've said before, I do not know why his administrative rights were not immediately removed after such blatant misuse.

--Sander Säde 08:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sander: What do you say to User:TFD at #Reply to AGK, re: "Constitution of Estonia" and to User:Offliner at #Statement by Offliner, after "Response to AGK"? AGK 20:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In case of TFD, note "Soviet Union considered Estonia..." and "Soviets considered the Soviet constitution to be de jure ...". There are no modern scholars in the Western world who support this view, only couple of local-importance Soviet apologists. Hence there is really no dispute. I would recommend creating a separate article about the constitution of the Estonian Soviet Republic, in case someone thinks it is needed - I don't think it is, as the constitutions of Soviet republics were pretty much copy-paste material.

As for Offliner... I would recommend to stop this battleground mentality immediately. Again, there are no modern Western scholars of law or history who dispute the occupation - quite the opposite, the case is often used as a textbook example of a military occupation. This has been discussed in-depth in the talk page of Occupation of the Baltic States - and at best so far there are some sources who fail to use "occupation", no scholarly sources whatsoever which claim there was no occupation. Of course, Russia's official view is that Baltic states joined Soviet Union voluntarily, but even historians in Russia (e.g. Roy Medvedev, the grand old man of history) do not support that view.

I heartily recommend reading the link to the Pravda.ru web forum that Petri gave. I don't think I've never seen the level of racism as in that forum before (actually, lying here - I remember seeing a Russian forum which called to kill all people in Baltic states as they are "nazis") - and this is the best source for Estonia being a "racist, apartheid state", a web forum mentioning UN report which according to a post in the thread actually doesn't exist... I don't think further comments are necessary.

--Sander Säde 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I heartily recommend reading Petri's latest link, a blog post by Edward Lucas, which concludes:

Of course, Lucas doesn't mention the constitution at all, he discusses the citizenship law. I think that Petri's arguments would only win if he would read the sources he links to, perhaps then he would also stop using Holocaust denialist web pages as sources for Wikipedia, as it has happened a couple of times recently.

--Sander Säde 21:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

With reference to Petri Krohn's "I have made every effort not to cross paths on or off Wikipedia with Martintg or his Eastern European supporters," Petri made it a point to stalk me and level accusations of bad faith at Sandstein's talk and Shell Kinney's talk—where I was pursuing options for putting conflict in the past—culminating in Petri leveling blatantly false allegations of outing attempting to get me blocked, followed by his attempts to cover up his own self-outing on-Wiki edits. Diffs have been provided prior. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And you will note I have not filed an AE or AN/I over Petri's behavior, but as I have noted elsewhere, even my personal commitment to moving forward from conflict can tolerate only so much abuse. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

• See User talk:Martintg#WP:AE.23Request concerning Martintg. Martintg has agreed to concede the point, at least as regards to his actions during the remainder of his topic ban. The ban expires on 22 December. I asked him to "voluntarily agree to absent yourself from any unblock review proceedings (or in ANI discussions or on any admin talk pages) where the person involved has recently edited any article or subject matter on your banned list." Based on his agreeing to this, I recommend that the enforcement request should be closed with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, Petri Krohn may be expanding his statement. He has more issues besides Martintg's participation in the unblock discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for Petri Krohn and others

Can you create a list of articles from which you think Martintg should be restricted during the remainder of his topic ban, that would avoid the problems you identify? Do you think he should avoid editing anything to do with Estonia during WW II? In your opinion does this prevent him from writing about the Constitution of Estonia? EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have reviewed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive70#Result concerning Martintg, which closed on 3 October with a 1-week block of Martintg. I find myself agreeing with the admins who closed that one that Martintg's editing of State continuity of the Baltic states was improper. I am not quite convinced by the people bringing this case that he can't edit Constitution of Estonia, though I could be persuaded otherwise. The admins in the 3 October case seemed unhappy with Martintg's general behavior at that time, and I see their concern. However, I'm not seeing enough problems for a new block of Martintg at this point or for any additional restrictions. So I would be willing to close this case with no further action. Per my comment at the top of this section, he's already agreed to behave as though his topic ban covers unblock discussions, which was the original reason for bringing this case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Marting has edited the article Constitution of Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article which it is claimed relates to "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe" (as prohibited by Arbitration motion). For the benefit of me and other administrators not intimately familiar with the subject matter of the conflicts of Eastern Europe, an explanation is required as to how that article does relate to the specified disputes.

  If it is demonstrated that the article does relate to the historical disputes in question and so for Marting to edit the article would constitute a violation of his topic ban, I would be minded to propose a two-week block for the infringement (with the absence of leniency in the length of that block being owned to the fact that Marting was blocked for violating his topic ban not even one month ago). AGK 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Response to Biophys' 22:08, 1 November 2010 comment: Um, yes, I see that, and that's what I quoted. Unless I'm missing something, you just said "you quoted that wrong, the arbitration motion says this: …", then quoted precisely what I said.

  On a general note: Thanks for the responses from everybody. I'll read through them all, then comment further. If any other uninvolved sysops have a comment to make, now would be an ideal time to jump in. AGK 20:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Biophys: Thanks, that makes more sense. AGK 20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am unsure whether AGK is planning to make a further comment. My own inclination at this point, if I am the one who closes, is to say that the original complaint that Martin unwisely participated in an unblock discussion has been addressed by his voluntary agreement to the wider interpretation of his ban. The allegation about Constitution of Estonia is a new issue raised by Petri. This may reflect unclarity in the editing restriction, since I don't know whether Constitution of Estonia is about a dispute. I am inclined to close this with no action, not ruling out a new filing about Constitution of Estonia. If there is a new filing, I'd expect more data as to whether the current restriction is adequately holding down disputes in this topic area. I don't see any actual edit war at Constitution of Estonia. I note that WP:AE does not lose jurisdiction to consider Martin's editing on 22 December, when the official Arbcom ban expires, since AE could impose a new restriction if it is shown to be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement

Pfagerburg (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned

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

The IP's listed in the most recent sockpuppet investigation have been making baseless accusations of sockpuppetry against me. Due to the articles which the IP's have edited, their obsession with tagging an IP in Canada as being me (though the sockmaster knows full well I live in Colorado), and the geolocation corresponding with the sockmaster's recently self-reported location, these are ban-evading sockpuppets of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs), and should be blocked.

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

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive25#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive41#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive48#Jvmphoto
4. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive65#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block IP's listed in the SPI. High-level contact from Wikimedia Foundation to the ISP to inform them of the abuse originating from one of their subscribers.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As also noted in the SPI, I am under an interaction ban with socks of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs), but the terms of the ban explicitly allow me to report socks to administrative boards.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

, , , , Pfagerburg (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Most recent IP blocked. If you want "high-level" contact from WMF you are at the wrong page. T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

User requesting enforcement

Acroterion _(talk) 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Oclupak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions

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

At Talk:September 11 attacks, # , in support of recent IP vandalism , and . It is clear that Oclupak supports disruption of the article talkpage (edit summary a kind of vandalism that can be justified, as all other avenues to bring about a NPOV have been tried), and that he is not able to edit 9/11-related topics without promoting his view that "it is a kind of vandalism that can be justified" and "this article promotes exclusively the official propaganda of the U.S. government."

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

1. Warning by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Minimum 3-month topic ban from 9/11-related topics, broadly construed, enforceable by blocking. Given the opinion expressed in the diff, I see little hope that this editor can ever edit on 9/11 related topics.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@ T. Canens, this is just the most recent occurrence in a pattern of behavior that indicates that Oclupak is not able to respect community norms in this matter. He otherwise seems to be a productive editor, so I have to believe that he understands the likely consequences of his support for outright vandalism. Acroterion _(talk) 13:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I have nothing to add to what I already said. It will all come down to this: if the administrators who will pass judgement on this incident are of the same clique as Tarage, MONGO and Acroterion, they will blindly follow their suggestion and ban me from all 9/11-related articles. If, on the other hand, they are genuinely impartial, and if they investigate the matter, even superficially, they will come to realize that this article has been hijacked a long time ago by editors who tolerate no other POV but their own and that the claimed consensus for their approach only exists because, one by one, all opposing views have either been banned or have quit Wikipedia in disgust. The result is the vandalism we are witnessing right now which is apparently the only way available to express a dissenting view to this extremely biased article. If the responsible administrators do not find a reasonable and equitable solution to this situation, what can they expect if not even more vandalism in the future? I'm sure IP 174.89.59.40 would have had something worthwhile to contribute to the 9/11 article and that his acts of vandalism are the result of being blocked systematically with weasel arguments at every attempt before he resorted to this. Oclupak (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If, on the other hand, they are genuinely impartial, and if they investigate the matter, even superficially, they will come to realize that this article has been hijacked a long time ago by editors who tolerate no other POV but their own and that the claimed consensus for their approach only exists because, one by one, all opposing views have either been banned or have quit Wikipedia in disgust. Editor seems to fail to realize that wikipedia is not here for him to spread the truth, but to report what mainstream, scientific concensus. 9/11 conspiracy theories have been universally debunked and are fringe. Soxwon (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Supporting this kind of vandalism is simply unacceptable. On Wikipedia, subjects such as Evolution, the Holocaust, Climate Change, Barack Obama's religion and birthplace, Alien abduction etc. all have in real life substantial numbers of people who believe, often fervently and with the greatest conviction, that the "official version" is not correct, and that moreover, there is a conspiracy to stop the truth coming out, and that most key "official" evidence has been doctored somehow. 9/11 conspiracy theorists may find it difficult to accept that as far as Wikipedia policy on fringe ideas goes, they are in much the same company as these people (although some clearly cross over into a couple of the other areas quite happily). Such discomfort is not a reason to change Wikipedia policy regarding the use of the best reliable sources. I feel particularly strongly about this because the current vandalism has led necessarily to the talkpage being semi-protected, which is always a regrettable event. Encouraging such behaviour shows contempt for Wikipedia processes rather than a desire to make them better, and, as suggested by Soxwon above, an open attempt to abuse Wikipedia for political ends. Oclupak has been on Wikipedia for a while now; he should by now have learnt that encouraging vandalism (and no one questions that it is vandalism) is thoroughly out of order. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What can I say? I knew he would be back to his old tricks. I would have been one one to make this request had Acroterion not done it first. This user simply does not understand, will never understand, and will continue this inappropriate behavior. Wikipedia loses nothing with his removal. --Tarage (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Since the editor seems unlikely to follow Wikipedia policies concerning conspiracy theories, especially 9/11, I recommend that he be topic banned from articles and talk pages concerning the September 11 attacks, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban would be indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am quite hesitant to impose any sanction, let alone an indefinite topic ban, for a single comment that, as far as I can tell, caused no disruption by itself. We are not (or at least should not be) in the business of banning people solely for expressing unpopular viewpoints on the talk page. But this is clear disruption, and on the basis of that diff, I concur with the proposal for an indefinite topic ban. Indefinite is not infinite, and in the unlikely event this user can demonstrate their ability to edit in accordance with our guidelines, they can always appeal the ban. T. Canens (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm seeing a pattern of consistent tendentious editing that has not ceased since I gave my warning. I think that Ed's idea is a good one. NW (Talk) 04:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for the additional data. After hearing the views of the other admins I'm imposing an indefinite ban of User:Oclupak from articles and talk pages concerning the September 11 attacks, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban will be logged at WP:ARB911. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

User requesting enforcement

Nableezy 15:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. Removes material that is the subject of intense discussion on the talk page. The user has not made a single comment on the talk page
2. Removes tag that is the subject of discussion on the talk page. The user has not made a single comment on the talk page.
3. Removes tag that is the subject of discussion on the talk page, discussion that even includes discussion of why the tags should not be removed. The user has not made a single comment on the talk page.
4. Reverts an edit discussed extensively on the talk page. No reason given in the edit summary and the user has not made a single comment on the talk page.

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

1. notified of case

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Gilabrand has repeatedly reverted without discussion on a number of pages. Trying to get this user to explain their reverts is more difficult than getting a baby to explain relativity. It is not possible to engage in a good faith discussion about a dispute when users refuse to discuss the dispute and when they deny that a dispute even exists, as seen in the repeated removal of tags placed and discussed on talk pages.

I think the self-rv was enough and request that this be considered withdrawn. nableezy - 07:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Nableezy has again succeeded in throwing a wrench into the works. After the tags were reverted by other editors, I copyedited the article to remove all sources of dispute. After this cleanup, I removed the tags believing that contentious statements on both sides were no longer there and the tags were no longer necessary. Instead, Shuki reinserted a poorly worded POV section that I deleted, and Nableezy popped an artery because he wanted all the SYNTH and OR put back so that he could fight some more. He then added not two, but three tags, for spite. I reverted them with an edit summary explaining my actions. It may have been impolite, I agree, but nothing compared to the rude, threatening and vulgar comments that Nableezy spouts non-stop, as he snoops around for opportunities to wreak havoc in this project. Just seeing his name on a page is enough to scare people away. I am sorry for leaving that edit summary. I am sorry I edited the page. I am sorry for being so naive as to think that I could stop the fighting on a page where Nableezy's name appears. I restored the tags and the way is now clear for Nableezy to continue doing whatever it is he does. As I said, it's a free world.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The "creative solutions" below regarding sanctions on my editing will certainly make Nableezy very happy. But you might as well delete my account right now, because I do not intend to leave 50 word messages about every sentence I change. My interest is in improving articles on Wikipedia, not wikilawyering with the likes of "editors" who are probably 90 weaklings in real life who are using this site to terrorize others. Please check the records to see how many articles I have expanded, copyedited and upgraded over the last several months, and don't forget to check Nableezy's record, which includes not a single valuable contribution to ANY article on Wikipedia. Yes, he has been busy, adding controversial tags, hunting down sockpuppets, masquerading as an administrator with the power to "block accounts immediately," threatening new editors, engaging in edit-wars with perceived opponents, and wasting everybody's time and energy reporting people endlessly on boards such as this. His commandeering of articles by placing multiple tags on them and not allowing anyone to touch them from that point on is outrageous, and administrators who side with this behavior by imposing sanctions on those who are trying to help need to think again. --Geewhiz (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Shuki This is a extremely lame and quite frivolous. Frankly, I questioned one of the edits myself, but thank God I'll AGF Gilabrand anyday given her experience in copyediting articles to better English then most of us and NPOV. Gilabrand was just being WP:BOLD. Big deal. Nableezy has been warned about about bringing frivolous reports to AE. --Shuki (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Comment by NickCT Fairly unabashed WP:BATTLEGROUNDing. Not really all that surprising given the editors history. nableezy has a point with the whole "commenting on talk page" thing. If you want to WP:BATTLEGROUND at least try to make some excuse on the article's talk page. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Supreme Deliciousness: It seems as the lifting and shortening of Gilabrands 3 month block and six month topic ban, did not help her behaviour: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by AgadaUrbanit: How it seems when it's not? I think we should leave Gila alone. There is a consensus for her edit. She made a single edit on the discussed page, took part in discussion and had an intellectual decency to self revert. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Gilabrand has backed away from the dispute, which obviates a need for action at this time. However the sarcastic tone of comments at Talk:Psagot is not a good sign. An editor who would be operating under a topic ban if it had not been lifted needs to be very careful about tendentious editing, and Gilabrand has not been careful enough here. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Are we saying that GIlibrand is off the hook because of this single revert? I would prefer to see her make an actual promise to stop edit warring on this article. If not, restoring the topic ban might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the editing on both sides has been lame, with a pointless edit war over tags. Also, there's a centralized discussion over the legality issues, which is nearing completion, so I've protected the article. Although I disapprove of Nableezy's hyperbole, a restriction to require Gilabramd to explain her edits along with a 1RR per day could be helpful. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both suggestions: the 1RR and the required explanations. I hope the explanation will be better than Gilabrand's 2nd-last edit summary: "No dear, the problems have been addressed and all statements are sourced so go take a hike". Her explanation should be on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I propose the following wording, then - taken, mutatis mutandis, from an ARBMAC sanction imposed by Stifle (talk · contribs):

Gilabrand (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for 3 months. Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page in a minimum of 50 words, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert.

I think 3 months is a reasonable starting point. Feel free to suggest alternate durations. T. Canens (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

3 months is perfectly sensible. Personally, I'd say until the end of January, if only because it's easier for admins who watchlist the pages to remember, but that's entirely up to you. While I think there should be a requirement to explain edits, I don't consider a 50 word minimum to be necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(←) Very well. Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Gilabrand (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, until 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC). Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert, excepting reverts of obvious (as in, obvious to someone who has no knowledge of the subject) vandalism, as defined in WP:VAND. T. Canens (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

1RR restriction, Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. 1st revert
2. 2nd revert

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

1. notified of case.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In the past 6 months or so, Nableezy has been

1. banned from editing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for two months on 16 April
2. topic-banned until end of August from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries on 27 July
3. topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for six weeks on 15 August
4. restricted to 1RR until December 31 for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights on 16 September
5. blocked 24 hours for reverting without discussion contrary to 1RR probation on Golan Heights article on 9 October
6. blocked one day for violation of 1RR restriction on 19 October
7. restricted to 1RR per day for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, until the end of December 2010 on 21 October

Something is not working here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

The first "revert" listed is not a revert, it is an edit. Could NMMNG please explain what version of the page I reverted to? Shuki initially made an edit to that page. I modified, not removed or reverted, that edit so that it properly reflected the source cited. There is not a single version of that page that resembles my rewrite of Shuki's edit. This is one of the reasons that reports at AN3 have to show what version of the page the edit reverted to. No such version exists here and no definition of the word "revert" applies to my initial edit. nableezy - 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, a revert is anything that changes content another editor put in the article, per WP:3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And what material did I "reverse" "in whole or in part"? By this definition any edit to existing material is a "revert". nableezy - 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

EJ, could you please tell me why I should be sanctioned for making a single revert when I am restricted to 1 revert? How many reverts did I make? What edit did the first revert listed here "revert"? nableezy - 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That is truly retarded. I replaced "Palestinians and left-wing activists intentionally vandalizing trees with saws in order to accuse settlers" with "Palestinians had destroyed trees with the intention of blaming settlers for the destruction.". You are going to call the first edit a revert because not every word Shuki wrote was kept. Fine, block me, but that is idiotic. nableezy - 21:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to expand on why this is idiotic. EdJohnston says that I removed, in my initial edit, the phrase "intentionally vandalizing trees with saws." It is true that I changed the sentence "Palestinians and left-wing activists intentionally vandalizing trees with saws in order to accuse settlers" to "Palestinians had destroyed trees with the intention of blaming settlers for the destruction." I then also added a direct quote from the source which says the following: 'According to Yedioth Ahranoth, photos taken by the group "allegedly show Palestinians and left-wing activists cutting down Palestinian olive trees using an electric saw".' So I included that the trees were cut down with a saw. The only part of the phrase that I am accused of removing that actually isnt in my edit is "intentionally vandalized". I replaced "intentionally vandalized" with "destroyed". Because of this replacement I supposedly made a revert. This effectively says that every copy-edit of any edit, no matter how awkwardly worded or nonsensical the original, is by definition a revert if any word is replaced. My edit has as a section title that these are claims of "staged vandalism", including even that word. To call the first edit a revert opens up an insanely wide definition of a revert, a definition that I certainly will remember for any future AE or AN3 report. Change any word and its a revert, thats the rule you are making. nableezy - 00:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Its nice having fans, it really is. As much as I would like to respond to some of the mindless droning below, I would instead like to focus on the topics that matters here. If I made 2 reverts I should be blocked, if I did not I shouldnt. There is a restriction on the number of reverts I may make, I acknowledge that and I have been scrupulous in abiding by it. I would like EdJohnston to clarify his reasons for calling the first edit a revert. My edit included a portion of the phrase he says I removed. Is it his position that the changing of the words "intentionally vandalized" to "destroyed", for the first time, constitutes a revert? nableezy - 03:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, I would like to ask a question. If there were a 0RR, would there be no changes allowed to any text? That once material is added it cannot be modified in any way? nableezy - 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is decided that my first edit was a revert then fine, I should be sanctioned. But to define that first edit as a revert opens up the definition of the term way past what has been used at AN3 and AE in the past, and if that is the definition used here it is the definition I will expect admins to enforce for every future AE or AN3 request I make. But can yall get to the point and make a decision already? Either that or restrict the ability of my many fans from filling the below section with the babbling that largely characterizes it? I can ignore it for only so long before a response to some of the more asinine comments will be necessary. nableezy - 16:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Phil, if pointless edit warring over tags from editors who've in the past have edited far more constructively is a reference to me, allow me to explain. I have just about given up trying to actually deal with the content. Any correction to the inaccurate or biased material that fills the articles in the topic area made by me is summarily reverted by a number of users. So I place a tag and discuss the issues, vainly hoping to either convince the other party and have them make the corrections or have a third party evaluate the discussion and do the same. Apparently I cant even do that anymore as even tags placed are summarily removed by POV-pushing accounts that demand that not only their biased view be the only one included but further demand that there cannot even be mention of the fact that their biased view is the only one included. nableezy - 21:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• • NOTE: Countering bad editing with worse editing is a bad idea. I'm not saying WP:AGF can't be applied even after an editor was banned 4 months in the same year but Nableezy refuses to abide by wikipedia guidelines and is, if anything, an interruption to proper oversight. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Shuki Looie496, you got to be kidding. I have yet to see Nableezy work things out with anyone and that is why it is so frustrating to edit with him. Please bring examples of this collaborative behaviour you attribute to him. Honest. I'm waiting. As for maintaining neutrality, it exists but very rare. Nableezy is a SPA account to introduce negative information on Israeli articles and has virtually no interest in improving Arab articles. I have previously proposed a creative resolution instead of a block that he should concentrate on improving Palestinian articles and perhaps bringing them to good status rather than the sad state they are in now. Until then, you cannot ignore that no one on 'the other side' has a record in the past six months like Nableezy. --Shuki (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Chesdovi regarding Looie496 I find Looie’s comment worrying. I am blocked for 1 whole month after having a clear 4 year run for being “unable to edit from a neutral point of view.” (I have yet to be informed which of my edits compromised NPOV.) Nab has had ban after ban, restrictions and blocks in such frequency and is still deemed a viable editor? What message does this give to other editors, myself included, who get severe treatment without anything like the AE history Nab has managed to attain for himself. I am encouraged however, that you have not rushed to block Nab before a fair and comprehensive discussion has taken place. Chesdovi (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it's worrying. I think it would be helpful if one of the more experienced admins could let us know if the attitude Looie496 is displaying below is compatible with how AE is supposed to work. I mean, do editors with multiple topic bans, editing restrictions and blocks in a topic under ArbCom discretionary sanctions get "more latitude"? And if it's impossible to give them more latitude, should editors of opposing POV be topic banned for no specific offense? I must have missed the discussion about all this. I think I dropped out at the point where an editor with a clean record for 4 years got blocked for a month because an admin wanted to "give a strong response". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• I think you guys need to look at it a different way. I completely disagree with Looie496 and it isn't based on the 7 sanctions mentioned. It is on the 11 total (at least 1 reduced) and extensive block log. I do see what he is getting at, though. It is easy to assume that Nableezy is up against a wall and is either a necessary evil or fighting the good fight by countering hordes of POV editors. Whatever the reason, he has gotten away with much more than anyone else (see Chesdovi), continues to be tendentious in anything even mentioning the legality or boundaries of Israel, and won't stop slinging mud (calling others wikilawyers and made it clear that he meant it "in the most derogatory way" is my favorite recent one). I think he should have been banned months ago. He wasn't. And realistically, I don't think this potential violation was that bad. POV pushing (WP:WORDS!) yes but he did use the talk page. Like usual he doesn't appear to be interested in reaching consensus but at least he waited to make the last revert. So if we want to open a discussion on his overall editing then super. However, this incident probably isn't enough and I see why Looie might be hesitant. Realistically, a week block isn't near enough for Nableezy's transgressions so no block would be just as well, IMO. It won't matter since it will be appealed and lifted anyways. So this might as well be closed unless we are going to address the overall concerns and not this particular incident.Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Epeefleche regarding Looie496

"If Nableezy is taken out of action I am going to feel a need to topic-ban a number of other editors who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally without oversight, and that is a suboptimal solution"

Looie -- let me be clear ... You are not allowed to threaten editors that you will topic-ban them if Nableezy is sanctioned here. That is beyond the pale. A shocking threat from a sysop. It is a form of wheel warring; though you are not threatening to reverse the sanction, you are threatening to take an opposite (and more than equal) action in the face of the sanction being applied. It is clearly a threatened abuse of admin tools. If the editors are not subject to topic-ban today, they will not become so simply because Nableezy is sanctioned. If another editor decides to bring the issue of your threat here up at AN/I or elsewhere, kindly let me know, as I would like to contribute to such a discussion.

I would also note that this area is now one in which Looie has indicated he is involved, in that he has flagged for us his strong feelings about it, which he indicated will lead to him taking admin action against other editors if this editor is sanctioned. Involvement is generally construed very broadly, to include disputes on topics, regardless of the age or outcome of the dispute. It is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, as he has flagged himself as being here, that he pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by NickCT - More tit for tat arbitration. Note that the aggressive editing Gilabrand took part in above seems somewhat more sever than the technical 1RR violation nableezy stands accused of. NickCT (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Response by Looie496 Just look at the edits that form the basis of this complaint, and then look at the source. It should be perfectly clear that the original version misrepresented the source, and that the version as Nableezy modified it was neutral and accurately represented the source. I am new to the I-P domain and haven't yet seen all that many examples of conflicts, but so far every example I have seen has followed this same pattern. I have little doubt that both sides would like to push their own point of view if they could, but so far every indication I have seen is that the Israeli side currently has the upper hand. Looie496 (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your response reflects that you are taking to heart what I have said. I understand that you are new to this domain. Also that you are new to having admin responsibilities. Both facts militate, I would suggest, to you heeding my advice. As a new admin, you must exercise care in using your new functions. You may have reviewed these already, but if not you may find helpful the Administrators' how-to guide and the new administrator school, as well as the Administrators' reading list. As admin tools are also used with judgment, it can take some time for a new admin to learn when it's best to use the tools, and it can take months to gain a good sense of how long a period to set when using tools such as blocking in difficult disputes. New admins such as you are also strongly encouraged to start slowly, and build up experience on areas they are used to. Your approach seems to be somewhat at odds with that.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Looie496, if you make a statement "that the Israeli side currently has the upper hand", it should be supported by differences as any strong statement is. Reading your posts I believe you should not be the one to handle the editors involved with I/P conflict articles.

  About Nab, and 1RR in general. 1RR is imposed to stop editor edit warring. Nab never stopped edit warring. Only now he reverts in 25 hours instead of reverting in 24 hours. I believe topic ban should be imposed, during which Nab could concentrate on contributing on different topics. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  Wow, 25hrs looks like full-on borderlining to me. Again, it is a separate incident than this report. Of course, it could be argued that the tags should not have been removed anyways so again it would just be appealed and lifted again.Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  @Looie -- As to your comment that" "In my opinion Nableezy is the main force maintaining any semblance of neutrality ... and needs to be given if anything more latitude rather than less. The system of Nableezy working things out with other editors ... is working reasonably well." I would suggest that you take a look at the string directly below this one. Perhaps we are discussing different editors?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Sol The policy in question specifies that a revert "reverses the actions of other editors". The first edit modifies and expands on the content, it doesn't reverse it. *Yawn* It's just another day in the hot I/P e-turf war. Someone spots Nableezy with a possible policy violation and the usual lynch mob arrives. The judge acquits and the crowd burns him in effigy. I'm amazed anyone volunteers to admin these things. Sol (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment by VsevolodKrolikov (uninvolved editor) (I've never, as far as I recall, ever edited I-P pages and don't intend to start.) Nableezy's first edit was to what was clearly a POV representation as fact what the source itself called an allegation. He replaced with key quotations from the source. Is this a revert or an expansion? I think a certain generosity of interpretation is allowed, given what was changed. The second edit was clearly a revert, rather WP:OWNy and done aggressively, but I don't think a formal warning is merited (just a word from an uninvolved admin). Sanctions would be silly based on the evidence presented here, including user history.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment by Nsaum75 What nableezy is accused of is no different than what people from the "other side" have been accused of. However enforcement and sanctions often *appear* lopsided, casting doubt on the fairness of AE and the admins who manage it. In general, AE has become a tool used to punish those with opposing views and the baiting, gaming of the system, provocation and like must be stopped. Several admins have even as much as acknowledged this. However NOTHING has been done, and good, productive editors have been driven away because they do not want to become part of the "game". The "pro israel" side is just as guilty as the "other" side when it comes to creating a disruptive atmosphere. And the rampant sockpuppets on the "pro-Israel" side create animosity and only make the situation more clouded and complex. HOWEVER If those who manage these boards are incapiable or unwilling to apply uniform, firm, decisive action and make progress towards restoring editors' faith in the AE process, then perhaps it is time to recall some of the admins who regularly manage the boards, or at least find new leadership. Over the past few years I have watched I-P issues turn AE into a three-ring circus. I'm sure I am not the only one who has taken note of this, although it escapes me why I'm the only person who says anything. Maybe its fear of somehow being "punished" or "sanctioned" for bringing up one's concerns. I dont know...but I do know that the the lack of effective leadership here discredits Wikipedia and creates a vicious circle into which the admins are pawns of those who abuse the system. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment by WookieInHeat while i find nableezy's approach to editing rather uncooperative in often making thinly veiled personal attacks and automatically assuming bad faith with other users (even in this very thread), i can't really be bothered with this case per se. regardless, thought i would offer an opinion on looie496's comment below which generated many replies. i understand where looie is coming from, in that nableezy could be seen as providing balance against the opposing side. however the line "nableezy is the main force maintaining any semblance of neutrality" gave me a chuckle. nableezy openly displays his COI with the arab-israel subject on his user page; he may be a "balancing force" to some degree, but calling him a "neutral force" of any sort can only really be described as a bad joke. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  Wookie, you have twice, insultingly, characterised Looie496 as "loonie". Could you please strike and correct this? Thanks. --NSH001 (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

changed it, sorry my mistake, wasn't meant as an insult; honestly misread his name (it was 2 in the morning). i apologized to looie on his talk page for any offense i may have caused. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me that it would be unjust to discipline Nableezy for not knowing that his edit constituted a revert when even a couple of admins (Timotheus, Mkativerata) don't come to that conclusion. Since he acted in good faith, maybe we should all just walk away better informed and on notice for the future. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to make clear that last message was a Comment. By me. JGGardiner. Sorry about that. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I make this comment to remark that I am grateful to you, JCGardiner, for making it clear that your above comment was a comment. AGK 16:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with JGG that Nableezy acted in good faith here. Furthermore, it is perfectly clear that Nableezy's version is a much more accurate summary of the source than the one he changed. Are we really going to punish Nableezy for accurate editing? This is an enormous exercise in time-wasting, and should be closed with no sanction, other than a note to be more wary in future. --NSH001 (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

QuestionPhilKnight, what are you going to topic ban Shuki for? It is Nab, who was edit warring, it is Nab, who violated 1RR. What Shuki, who hardly edited in the last month, has to do with it? Please compare Nab contributions to Shuki contributions. Nab made 500 contributions between October 21 and today. Shuki made 500 contributions between August 15 and today. See the difference? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Shuki has made over 100 edits in the last week but I fail to see why you are even stating the numebr of edits unless you think it somehow adds to the weight of your arguments, which it clearly does not. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a bit curious too. I was not even part of this article edit war but admins are dragging me into it and talking about topic banning me??? --89.139.214.24 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

• In view of the large number of sanctions already issued for this editor in 2010, I suggest that there should be a one-week block for the 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Here are the two reverts: Twice, on October 31, Nableezy removed from the article the phrase "intentionally vandalizing trees with saws." The definition of a revert is given in WP:EW. It means undoing the work of another editor. Removing words previously added meets the definition. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I can't agree. In my opinion Nableezy is the main force maintaining any semblance of neutrality in this and a number of other articles, and needs to be given if anything more latitude rather than less. The system of Nableezy working things out with other editors such as Shuki and Cptnono is working reasonably well. If Nableezy is taken out of action I am going to feel a need to topic-ban a number of other editors who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally without oversight, and that is a suboptimal solution. Looie496 (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• I cannot agree with Looie. If the AE process is to have any credibility, we must not show favors one way or another. Mitigating factors - such as baiting, provocation, enforcing consensus, correcting obvious misrepresentation, etc., can and should be taken into account in deciding upon any sanction; but no editor is (or should be) indispensable, and showing favors in this way only destroys the credibility of the AE process. If others are being disruptive, they can and should be sanctioned, but that is not a reason to not to impose sanctions on this editor if a violation is established.

  That said, I think EdJohnston took the definition of revert too literally. The definition should be interpreted with common sense - for under a literal interpretation even adding material that has never been there is a revert, as it "reversed" the implicit decision not to include it. That is nonsensical. I think the first edit cannot be fairly characterized as a revert, and therefore this request should be dismissed on that ground. T. Canens (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Having thought this over, I agree with T. Canens regarding whether there was a 1RR violation. PhilKnight (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I accept Nableezy's characterisation of the first edit as not being a revert. Taken literally every tweak would be a revert. In addition - though this has little bearing on whether 1RR has been breached - the edit appears to have been completely justified. I agree with Timotheus Canens above that this AE request should be decided on the no-breach ground rather than for the reasons suggested by Looie. Right or wrong as they may be, they don't justify a 1RR breach and seem to have provoked unnecessary distractions in the sections above.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have been asked to comment here on my talk page by PhilKnight. I agree with EdJohnston that both edits are reverts because they undo - at least partially - the edit by Shuki immediately preceding them. This must have been clear to an editor of Nableezy's experience: WP:3RR provides that "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors," (in this case, Shuki) "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." According to that policy definition, every tweak is indeed a revert, as Mkativerata says. I disagree with T.Canens that under that definition even "even adding material that has never been there is a revert", because in that case there is no action by others that is undone. Consequently the request is actionable. I also disagree with Looie496 that the perceived impact on the editing environment must be taken into account, because the 1RR restriction (to be enforced here) did not include any socially gameable exception of that sort. Topic-banning "a number of other editors who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally" sounds like a pretty good solution to me. Since I'm taking a break from AE, I'll not take enforcement action myself, but frankly, if such clear-cut violations of validly imposed sanctions are not acted upon, you may just as well shut down this board.

  I'm also amazed at the palaver going on here: the point of AE is not to arrive at a consensus solution, but to give individual admins a basis on which to take action, like WP:AIV. If any admin believes that the conditions for action are met, they are free to go ahead and act. This sort of discussion can then take place, if needed, on appeal. No need to have it twice.  Sandstein  06:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Firstly, thanks to Sandstein for commenting. Regarding Looie's comment, if a sanction was perceived to be overly stringent, then I'd prefer to block or ban anyway, followed by modifying the restriction to 2RR/day or whatever. However, in this case, I don't consider there's a problem with the sanction, more a problem with a number of editors who are incapable of editing neutrally. I agree with Sandstein, issuing topic bans sounds like a pretty good solution. I'm inclined to topic ban Nableezy and Shuki until the end of the year, but allow involvement with centralized discussions at WP:IPCOLL. PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Having posted the above comment earlier today, and thought it over, I'm less certain about giving Nableezy and Shuki equal topic bans. PhilKnight (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It is not obvious from the face of the request the ground for a topic ban on either party, since we seem to agree that there is no 1RR violation, so diffs would be helpful. T. Canens (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm no longer intending to issue topic bans. However, I'm concerned there seems to be a general deterioration in the I-P editing, such as pointless edit warring over tags from editors who've in the past have edited far more constructively. PhilKnight (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh, I agree with that. T. Canens (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• I concur with Sandstein that both the first and second edits constituted a reversion. An editor is placed on a 1RR/2RR prohibition because it has been demonstrated that they are consistently unable to engage in constructive consensus-building through editing; for that reason, I am disinclined to show leniency here. AGK 16:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• I concur with Mkativerata. I do not concur with Sandstein. I view a robotic literal interpretation of the finer points of policy wording (the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law) as a form of Wikilawyering, as if people are reaching for any excuse to impose a punishment. In the spirit of WP:3RR, I accept Nableezy's claim that the first edit was not a revert, but rather an attempt to be constructive, and I also allow the possibility that Nableezy was unaware of the interpretation being bandied about above. I see no need to impose sanctions on someone who made a good faith edit while being completely aware of sanctions already in place. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Among the admins who commented, I do not see any consensus for action against Nableezy. Enforcement discussions don't become any wiser when they are open more than 48 hours. Suggest closing this. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User requesting enforcement

nableezy - 20:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. Removes tag discussed extensively on talk page without making any comments on talk page
2. Again

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

1. Notified of case

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Restriction on reverts, or removing tags, or a topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think Epeefleche is being purposefully antagonistic with his removal of the tag, knowing that I am under a 1RR. The tag and the cause for its placement is discussed extensively on the talk page. Epeefleche twice removes a tag that explicitly says to not remove absent consensus for doing so, and he does so without making any comment on the talk page. Such editor behavior makes it impossible to assume good faith and when an editor even denies that there is a dispute it is impossible to have a good faith discussion about how to solve the dispute.

This may seem like a minor, trivial thing, but I am really sick and tired of dealing with bullshit like this. Epeefleche claims that whether or not OR is present in the article is discussed in the AfD and that there is consensus that there is no OR. That is a manifestly absurd statement that any person who reads the AfD can see. He then also claims that I am the only person on the talk page who feels that there is OR in the article. I am also one of only 2 editors who had made any comments at all on the talk page, so 1/2 isnt exactly a small percentage. The removal of a tag that is discussed on the talk page was done in bad faith and the second quick revert of a tag that says not to remove absent consensus is further evidence of the bad faith practice and gaming that Ep regularly engages in. I dont know whether or not an admin will see this in the same way, but I for one am sick of dealing with such editing behavior. nableezy - 21:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, your response does not make any sense to me. What about Ep's involvement with the AFD entitles him to repeatedly remove a tag placed on an article and discussed on the talk page? Should I take from this that editors may remove any tag they wish without discussion or addressing the cause of the tag and make multiple reverts within minutes to do so? If that is the lesson here I can learn it, no problem. But I dont think that is the lesson here. The user has not been engaged on the talk page, despite what you write below (this is the only edit the user has made to the talk page, and he did that after removing the tag twice), and the user has not addressed any of the issues raised. Why exactly should an editor be entitled to repeatedly remove a tag placed in good faith and discussed on the talk page? Both removals by Ep were manifestly done in bad faith, if that is not sanctionable then so be it. But Ill keep that lesson in mind going forward. nableezy - 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Che, in case you havent noticed, I havent brought AE cases every time I have been reverted. If Ep had been reverting content or something similar I would not have brought this here. But I cant even place a tag on an article, a tag that is valid and discussed on the talk page, without certain users repeatedly removing it? I have already given up trying to fix the actual content, I realize that there is a set of users that will revert almost any content change I make. But even a frickin tag is removed? The reason I brought this here is I am tired of dealing with such bad faith actions and bad faith editors. What other recourse is available to me? nableezy - 21:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Nableezy fails to reflect the following:

1. Nableezy, I, and others had extensive conversation at the article's AfD as to whether the article is OR or not. Nableezy argued repeatedly that it is. In comment after comment at the AfD. For example: "To combine sources using the analogy into an article on an analogy is synthesis of primary sources. In other words, original research." and "OR based on syntheisis", and "You invented a topic", and "that is just a facade that if wiped away reveals serious problems with this article regarding original research." Not only was Nableezy's position revealed not to be the consensus position. It was revealed to be a fringe, tiny minority position. As I and others pointed out to him. In fact, of the 12 !voters, only 1 other agreed with him.
2. When I first deleted, I left a note in the edit summary that the tag was inapplicable, Nableezy reverted me pointing me to the talk page. And making the curious statement—at distinct odds with the AfD discussion of a dozen editors— that "it is quite clear this tag is applicable and consensus is needed to remove it".
3. When I reverted, I in turn indicated in my edit summary "see the AfD -- it is quite clear that your view is a minority view, and not the consensus view", and within 2 minutes (and before this was opened)
4. I wrote at the talk page "As reflected in the AfD, Nableezy's view that this is OR is a fringe, tiny minority view. Consensus is at odds with his view."
5. The talk page that Nableezy referred me to, curiously, was one where he was the only editor to express his view of OR.

To be transparent, I have in the past triggered a sanction of Nableezy myself with a complaint. But I'm not sure precisely why Nableezy is under 1RR at the moment, or what the scope of his restriction is. Frankly, whenever I run into him, he seems to repeat himself a lot and not respect consensus, as at the AfD, so I'm not interested in conversations that involve him for the most part.

But this sort of bad faith behavior and blatant attempt to intimidate on his part is just the sort of thing that should qualify an editor for sanctions.

I made a good faith appropriate revert of the tag. Completely in line with the AfD rejection of his notion that there is an OR problem at the article. He is of the somewhat peculiar (IMHO) view that because he is under 1RR, I should not have reverted. He appears to believe that because he is under a 1RR restriction, presumably for disruptive editing, all other non-disruptive editors editing articles that he edits are under 1RR as well ... or else they are editing in bad faith, if they disagree with him. I'm not quite sure that is the intent of 1RR.

In the immediately preceding string, Nableezy's sanctions for his disruptive behavior over the past six months are detailed. Though I weighed in there, I did not weigh in against Nableezy. Making his suggestion that I am "being purposefully antagonistic" towards him somewhat odd. If I were, surely I could have joined those in the above string calling for further sanctions against him.

Just yesterday, Nableezy at the AfD accused others, without apparent basis, of "half-assed questioning of motives". And yet here he himself accuses me without any honest/legitimate basis whatsoever of "being purposefully antagonistic", "regularly" engaging in "bad faith practice and gaming", "manifest" bad faith, "bad faith actions", and being a "bad faith editor". Nableezy's incivility here, and the defamatory nature of his incivility, is disturbing to me.

I urge an admin to take appropriate action against Nableezy. He surely was aware that his view was a severely fringe minority view in the AfD. And that it was not supported by anyone else on the talk page. And I had in fact responded on the talkpage before he brought this. He has rebutted the assumption of good faith, and should be appropriately sanctioned for bringing this in bad faith, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And — as to the continued thumbing of his nose by Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at core Wikipedia policies, and continued disruption, at the same AfD — see this, where he knowingly violates Wikipedia policy while saying he does not care if he gets blocked.

Rarely have I seen a 7-times-blocked editor so blatantly tell admins to go F... themselves, and so clearly admit his lack of interest in abiding by core Wikipedia policies. We really need the admins here to step up to the plate, and sanction Nableezy for his continued willful disruption. To do otherwise is to encourage continued disruption and a complete lack of respect for WP's policies and the admins who apply them (by him and others), to the detriment of the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ElComandanteChe: I only wounder if filling AE complaint every time being reverted is a honest attempt to build a consensus, a refusal to get a point or a creative attempt to relegate own 1RR restriction? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it belongs to this page, but I'll still replay to this comment here instead of user talk page: Nableezy, you did а great job alienating many editors (perfectly able to edit productively otherwise) with impatience, arrogance and disrespect. No surprise AGF is applied to you no more. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Greg L: Complainant writes Epeefleche twice removes a tag that explicitly says to not remove absent consensus for doing so, and he does so without making any comment on the talk page. I can’t see that this bit has a factual basis. The differences provided by complainant ( and ) resolve to the removal of {{Original research}} tags wherein the rendered tag on the page has no proviso about not removing the tag nor does the rendered code for the tag. I see there was an AfD tag there too, which states in the rendered banner that the tag is supposed to be removed only by an administrator. However, no differences were provided regarding respondent’s removal of AfD tag.

Too often, these {{I DON'T LIKE IT}} tags are used as sort of ransom note to force continued and protracted debate over a complainant’s concerns after others have concluded that the complainant’s views are not shared by the community consensus and that the complainant is merely being tendentious. I wasn’t there, and I haven’t seen the talk pages, but I have no doubt that the matters were being discussed and there was an honest difference of opinion as to the factual need for having the tag the respondent removed. Greg L (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You werent there, you havent read the talk page, but you know, to the extent of having no doubt, what happened. That is amazing. nableezy - 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I wrong? Was there no discussion on the talk pages? And please explain your allegation that the tags supposedly say they aren’t supposed to be removed; I can see no such thing. Hold that thought; let me go look at the page now; one moment…

Well, I wasn’t surprised. Your name is cybersquated all over that talk page twelve times and Epeefleche’s name is there once, where he wrote as follows: As reflected in the AfD, Nableezy's view that this is OR is a fringe, tiny minority view. Consensus is at odds with his view. I don’t have to go look at the AfD discussions blow-by-blow to have a pretty good idea as to what occurred there and there is no requirement that the entire wikipedian community drop what it’s doing and get swept up in wikidrama of your making. If you really want me to don my fishing waders and jump into that article chest deep to understand the blow-by-blow of this wikidrama, I think I might be willing to oblige you. And perhaps I might spend some time there to really understand the atomic-level details of the dispute and (hopefully) add another voice of reason to the community consensus. But you just might do better to let things settle out, take a break, and catch your breath. Greg L (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was standard operating procedure for tags that you only remove them if there's no ongoing discussion. And for the OR tag, it is. In the AFD I voted for keeping it on the grounds that there is enough material here for an article but with the reservation that the article in it's current form was largely SYNTH. And Epeefleche seconded my opinion so it looks like he's removing an OR tag for something he'd already agreed was OR. Which is bizarre. Either way the article is still largely OR and the tag needs to stay up until it's resolved. Sol (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The art, here, is in trying to ensure that one’s actions are a true reflection of the community consensus. If the number of editors active on that article discuss an issue and arrive at a general consensus that the article content is deficient, then the article content is to be fixed. If the general consensus is that there is no problem, then the tag is removed. It is not be be used as an {{I DON'T LIKE IT}} tag by a party that didn’t get his or her way so as to force continued discussion; that would be tendentious. I don’t know what the true situation is here since honest editors can have honest differences of opinion. But the phenomenon I am describing here—of a tendentious editor using tags as a tool to force the community to continue to deal with issues that have already been addressed—is exceedingly common on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

• Comment: Will defer to judgment of other admins on this one, but it does not seem that action is warranted with regards to Epeefleche (talk · contribs), due to the user's engagement with Wikipedia processes, including talk page discussion and an AFD consensus determination. Whether anything should be done with regards to Nableezy (talk · contribs), is also another matter responding admins may wish to evaluate. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• As it regards Epeefleche, my opinion is that this complaint should be dismissed without action. Both parties have been previously notified of the case, and I'm not seeing enough to justify sanctioning either. Courcelles 23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting enforcement

Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

1RR restriction, gaming the system (see explanation) Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. Blind, reactionary "garbage" revert (after I disagreed with his promotion of fabricated material on Psagot).
2. tag-team blind revert, calling the removal of picturesque wordings, and further edits "introduce POV assessment"
3. The only response I received was from RolandR's handler following my request that he clarifies the blind revert. I say blind revert because, for example, he reinserted the false claim that Levy's parents were holocaust survivors - which was not in the supplied source and, best I'm aware, isn't true. Anyways, I posted a request for clarification and this was my reward.
4. Side comment: Ravpapa also made a single quirky claim and vanished from the talkpage. I find it disturbing when editors game the system in this fashion but to his defense, he made no reverts.

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

In the past 6 months or so, Nableezy has been

1. banned from editing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for two months on 16 April
2. topic-banned until end of August from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries on 27 July
3. topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for six weeks on 15 August
4. restricted to 1RR until December 31 for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights on 16 September
5. blocked 24 hours for reverting without discussion contrary to 1RR probation on Golan Heights article on 9 October
6. blocked one day for violation of 1RR restriction on 19 October
7. restricted to 1RR per day for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, until the end of December 2010 on 21 October

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

To the discretion of admins who are not suggesting to respond to bad editing with obfuscation and worse editing.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

My concern is very great. Nableezy is not only playing games but still (after being banned 4 months for it) pushing "colonial" type descriptives towards Israeli localities, completely ignores the input of fellow editors about bad sources and what is factual content while making such commentaries as calling others "certain ultra right-wing nationalists"

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

both editors notified on their respective talk-pages.

is

I would invite any admin to take a thorough look at Jaakobou's editing of BLPs of people he finds to hold objectionable views. I invite them to look at his involvement in the articles on Saeb Erekat, Gideon Levy, and Rashid Khalidi and contrast his editing behavior there with his editing of the articles on people whose views more closely align with is such as Avigdor Lieberman. After doing that I would like that admin to consider if Jaakobou should be allowed anywhere near the BLPs of those people who hold views antithetical to his own.

To the current dispute. Jaak raises two articles, but focuses on Gideon Levy. Jaak made an edit the article that reinserted Jaakobou's favored phrasing in the lead, phrasing that had been discussed in the past and rejected by more than a majority of editors. I reverted that edit on 16:46, 1 November 2010. Two minutes later I opened a section on the talk page explaining why I did so. Ravpapa commented agreeing that Jaak's edit was inappropriate. Jaak did not respond to the comments there, instead choosing to revert in a BLP the very next day, ignoring the fact that a section had been opened and so far had unanimous agreement that Jaak's favored phrasing and edit was inappropriate. To sum this up, Jaak is upset that after I reverted his edit and explained why, another editor agreed that his edit was wrong and that when he re-reverted, ignoring the open section on the talk page, another separate editor agreed that his edit was wrong and reverted.

Now, Jaak's complaint about Psagot. I supplied a source published by a university press, another written by well-known journalist, and on the talk page supplied another one by a mainstream news source calling this specific settlement a colony. I dont think providing such high quality sources to an article is a bad thing.

Finally, Jaak's complaint about my calling certain people "ultra-right wing nationalists". Im sorry Jaak, I wont do that again. Ill forget the veiled insinuations of antisemitism regularly bandied about by your good self and not make such comments in the future. nableezy - 03:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not the faintest idea why I have been included in this request, and there is no indication of what sanction or remedy I am supposed to have violated. I have made just one revert on this article; and I am not subject to any sort of restriction. My revert was of an undue and poorly-sourced POV addition, which had been extensively discussed several months ago, when Jaakobou was last edit-warring to include this. Perhaps it was thought that adding a second party to this latest attack on Nableezy would make it appear better-founded than recent frivolous attempts to sanction and silence him.

I object most strongly to the characterisation of Nableezy as "my handler", and I request that this comment be struck. This implies an untrue accusation of meatpuppetry, and suggests that I am incapable of editing on my own. It is a serious breach of many Wikipedia guidelines, and should not be permitted.

There is not even the flimsiest case here for me to answer, and Jaakobou should be warned against any further unfounded harassment.RolandR (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Further, despite Jaakobou's statement above, my one edit did not "reinsert the false claim that Levy's parents were holocaust survivors". This was the sole evidence for Jaakobou's characterisation of my edit as a "blind revert", so this charge too can be seen to be false. RolandR (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Using my own definition for identifying agenda-driven editors, I suggest that Nableezy, RolandR, and Jaakobou might all be candidates for forced extended vacations away from this topic area unless they start collaborating, cooperating, and compromising with each other a little better. Cla68 (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by VsevolodKrolikov I fail to see what RolandR has done wrong except disagree with Jaakobou. Referring to Nableezy as RolandR's handler is making an accusation of meatpuppetry, which should be redacted or backed up. Jaakobou's notice to RolandR about this discussion seems rather dramatic for one revert: "you two have left me with little choice". Ravpapa is insinuated as doing drive-by editing and being "quirky". Ravpapa's actual comment was to tell Jaakobou that he was editing against long established consensus of which he was aware, and was phrased in a civil and articulate manner. Nableezy's previous behaviour, for which he was penalised, is aggravating, but cannot form the basis of a complaint. Apart from incivility, which he has got to stop, I think Nableezy hasn't done anything wrong in this instance. He's used the talkpage, not broken 1RR etc. If anything, Jaakobou is edit warring on Gideon Levy. This complaint seems frivolous, particularly against RolandR. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment by Ravpapa: I almost never comment on matters like these, but, since my name has been mentioned, I feel it behooves me to say a word. The article in question, Gideon Levy, was the subject of a long and very vitriolic edit war nine months ago, in which Jaakobou and Setraset were very active. After some time, Jaakobou stepped away from the fray, and Setraset carried on. After some pretty intensive negotiations, I managed to reach agreement with Setraset on the content of the article. Setraset's comment on the last section to be negotiated was "Fashionably late, I am adding a response: I am content with the reception section as it stands."

The result of that negotiation was a version of the article which survived without edit wars for eight months, and which has garnered praise from some disinvolved editors as an example of BLPs on controversial people. Since I was heavily involved in the writing and editing of this version, I feel proud of my work.

The attempt by Jaakobou to reopen the edit war at this time, by reintroducing a version of the lead that had been rejected by agreement of all the warring parties was a surprise to me, and also a disappointment.

I realize that this is not the place to argue the merits of Jaakabou's edits, but I do want to note that, in addition to attempting to introduce inaccuracies and a rather blatant bias into the lead, Jaakabou's version is (as it was originally) full of mistakes of English grammar and syntax. In the past he has vociferously defended these errors on the grounds that they introduced impartiality. Well, so be it.

Finally, I would like to note that Nableezy and RolandR, like Jaakabou, have clear POVs which are as legitimate as Jaakabou's. It is surprising and pleasing to me that this article has survived as long as it has without an edit war; it suggests that, perhaps, Wikipedia's policies on neutrality have a remote chance of prevailing in a world so riven as ours. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• ... and yet another comment by Ravpapa: I would also like to say that, in the heat of the moment, I called Jaakabou a nasty name in Yiddish in an edit summary, for which I apologize. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou has been blocked and/or sanctioned a number of times, and been the subject of numerous AN/I threads for tendentious editing or other misconduct related to the I/P conflict. The original ARBPIA case itself featured J. as a prominent participant. In short, J. has been making a nuisance of himself on I/P related pages for a long period of time. I note that in relation to this current case, J. has once again been editing against consensus, something he has been accused of doing as I recall on numerous previous occasions. This also appears to be another case of J. returning to an old battleground to try and restore a version that has previously failed to achieve consensus.

J.'s case against Nableezy and RolandR here is entirely frivolous as he accuses Nableezy of violating his 1RR ban by posting a diff from RolandR! He then violates WP:AGF by referring to Nableezy as RolandR's "handler". The entire "case" appears to rest on an unstated accusation of sockpuppetry. I trust therefore that this case will be given the treatment it deserves.

I would only add that users have been warned in the past for bringing frivolous cases to AE, and as this appears to be yet another example, as well as another example of a "tit-for-tat" case, the closing admin may want to consider imposing a sanction against Jaakobou in light of his long history of problematic behavior at I/P and as a deterrent to future misuse of dispute resolution processes. Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

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

This request is frivolous. Nableezy and RolandR apparently have similar positions in a content dispute and made similar edits -- one apiece; no long-term problem. What exactly is the issue here? -- tariqabjotu 05:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

User requesting enforcement

Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (Decorum which expressly mentions Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility)

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

1. "I dont care if I get blocked for this, the line nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association hamas demonstrates that you are an idiot." (emphasis mine)
2. I am not going to bother with the diffs right up above where he calls another editor's comments retarded and idiotic.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to

1. Notification
2. Wikiquette alerts for telleing another editor to "fuck off"
3. Previous AE based on him calling others "duchebags" (note that his apology was part of the reason enforcement was not taken)
4. 11 sanctions
5. Poor block log

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Speaking of idiots (me), I feel bad for bringing this here since anyone wanting to look at it from a contrary point of view can easily see the ongoing conflict and assume the worst. So just to make it simple: Calling someone an idiot is not OK. There has been ongoing civility issues and it cannot continue. I've already expressed that I believe Nableezy should be topic banned. This issue has nothing to do with potential POV, edit warring, gaming, or any other true or false accusations. Can Nableezy call editors idiots?

Realistically, there should not be this many AEs open here. I should't be putting this up for review. But in the midst of ongoing discussion here Nablezy made the comment and an admin closed the discussion without seeing it. So add me to the list of editors about to get a topic ban. I feel that I have a good case for appeal if it comes to that. And if not, maybe a break is something that should be considered.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Ugh. See Sean's first statement. nableezy - 12:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Epeefleche

Disturbing behavior. Especially in light of his other behavior re: the same AfD and associated article, discussed above. My comments are noted in the last two paragraphs of my entry here. While Nableezy seems undisturbed by the prospect of being blocked, I concur that one is in order.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sean.hoyland - An baseless accusation that an American citizen supports a designated terrorist org on a public website and it's Nableezy response that's the problem. Marvelous. He should have told him to go fuck himself. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy's support for a designated terrorist org is not really a matter of dispute. See the nice yellow userbox at the bottom of his page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're confusing Hezbollah with Hamas. "But George," you say, "aren't all groups that have been labelled terrorists the same?" Why, no, they're not. For instance, Hezbollah, a Shi'a group, would hate al-Qaeda, a Sunni group. I don't know Nableezy, but if their name has any relationship to Nablus, the city in the West Bank, and they were to have a preferred political party among the Palestinian groups, it would probably be Fatah. Fatah and Hamas are mortal enemies as of late, so telling someone from Nablus that they support Hamas just might come across as insulting and uninformed. ← George ^talk 10:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nab is from Egypt, and although all those terrorists groups fight each other once in a while, they will make up to fight Israel. Trust me on that.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidently WookieInHeat's statement was a matter of dispute as far as Nableezy was concerned. I think it's safe to assume that Nableezy read the comment, understood it and responded in a way that reflected his views on the deductive reasoning employed. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by George - Clearly an uncivil comment, though somewhat understandable. Apparently Nableezy was responding to WookieInHeat's accusation that Nableezy had an affinity for a certain terrorist group. WookieInHeat's comment came after a third editor asked them to "avoid such pointless personal attacks", and the comment itself is rather... naive and insulting, to put it nicely. Even if one believes that Nableezy has an "affinity for the Palestinian cause" as WookieInHeat suggests, Hamas is one of many political groups in the Palestinian territories, and members of those various groups often hate each other. It would be like telling someone "you're proud to be an American, so you must be a socialist" because the current President of the United States is a Democrat and has been accused of being a socialist by his critics. However, while the reason behind it is understandable, I wonder if the incivility by both Nableezy and WookieInHeat wouldn't be better resolved with some apologies and striking of statements. ← George ^talk 10:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Shell Kinney - I'm a wee bit concerned that we have multiple editors making a report on the same person at the same time, especially if the best evidence they have is getting called an idiot after bad faith remarks that included claiming an editor was supportive of terrorism. That looks a lot like poking someone with a stick until they pop and then running here because you got them to say "idiot". Boggles the mind a bit. Shell ^babelfish 10:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Shell Kinney, I've seen people get temporarily banned for calling others stinky, and you dismiss the incivilities here because you claim he has been provoked? That certainly boggles the mind. --Shuki (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I always respect George's opinion (not only for the Sounders but because he is usually right) and Sean typically also has some good insight. But then Shell Kinney disregards the issue completely while only mentioning the obvious concern of multiple AEs (which I mentioned already was a red flag). If an editor can call someone an idiot, duchebag, wikilawyer (in the most derogatory way), stupid (yeah, there is a diff for that if you want), or whatever else then so be it. I have no problem with it if everyone can do it but I am pretty sure that smacks in the face of both the guidelines and the related arbitration. Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

@T. Canens & Shell: Perhaps I can shed some light on the latest "flurry" of AE reports. Nableezy creates a hostile editing environment for people he doesn't agree with. He is deliberately uncivil. He bullies and provokes. He regularly calls people idiots and their opinions retarded. He tells them to fuck off. Most of us just try to stay away from him when possible. But when he reports someone like Gilabrand, who is an asset to this project, who has improved countless articles not only by copyediting but by adding huge amounts of content that makes this look like a real encyclopedia, for the sole reason that she didn't want to talk to him (which I personally find perfectly understandable considering his behavior) it just sticks in my craw. That is what caused me to file my first ever AE report. I now understand my report was not as clear cut as I thought (although not completely without basis I must add) and I would have not filed it had I known that was the case, but at some point people just say enough is enough and let's get rid of this nuisance. Nableezy's "colorful" block and restriction log is just the tip of the iceberg. Those are just the things that stuck. He has wikilawyered his way out of numerous complaints that would have probably got other users removed from the topic area. I still don't understand how he went from a complete two month topic ban in April, to a tailor-made one month ban on all locations in June, to a 1RR only on settlements in September. Aren't sanctions supposed to get harsher not more lenient? I think Looie496 in an above case gave us some insight into why that happens. Is this really how things are supposed to work around here?
Enough. I don't know how many people Nableezy has chased off this project, but it is high time someone did something about this continuing disruption. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some merit to what you're saying, but the approach is wrong. If Nableezy is being uncivil to the point of being disruptive, say so, and provide the diffs that back it up. When editors come here and try to get a user banned for other, minor infractions, it clouds the picture. I mean, you just said that the reason you filed the case above accusing Nableezy of violating 1RR was because Nableezy filed a case against Gilabrand ("But when he reports someone like Gilabrand... it just sticks in my craw. That is what caused me to file my first ever AE report."). I understand that you felt the infraction was real, but the motive behind your reporting it was wrong. When editors use AE as a weapon—when the infractions being reported are secondary to an underlying goal to get an editor banned—it gums up the works and the system breaks down. At best, these cases that harp on minor infractions will get Nableezy a slap on the wrist, and create more animosity between editors. If you really think that Nableezy is being uncivil to the point of disruptive, make that case, and make it clear. Trying to find a chink in the armor via minor infractions won't prove fruitful longterm, and might be viewed as disruptive itself. ← George ^talk 12:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

George, when the 'minor infractions' are recurring, there is a problem. --Shuki (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I completely agree. But the case for incivility to the level of disruption hasn't been laid out by anyone filing on this page. Editors keep reporting the minor infractions instead of organizing all the evidence to try and paint the bigger picture of disruption. I'm not saying I agree or disagree regarding the infractions or the disruption, I'm just saying the approach could certainly be better; clearer. ← George ^talk 12:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The motive behind my filing the complaint was to create a more hospitable editing environment. As it happens, I came across a 1RR violation (or what I thought was a violation). This is not a "minor infraction". What's the purpose of these restrictions if violating them is considered something minor? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think George has a point. However I disagree that calling a fellow editor an idiot is a minor infraction. I think it is a direct violation of WP:NPA and I advocate a zero-tolerance approach to this. I know others may have different opionions on this. Some editors are content with this kind of language but others will be driven away. If we adopt a zero-tolerance approach to WP:NPA, and apply it equitably to all sides of this and other disputes, we may create a better climate for all cocerned. In my experience elsewhere on the internet, it is quite possible to have a robust debate on extremely contentious matters without personal attacks. However it is very easy to descent into mudslinging if all boundaries are removed or ignored. - BorisG (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It really comes down to a matter of letter of the law versus spirit of the law for me. Everyone seems to be trying to show that Nableezy is violating the letter of the law, which he is often quite careful to not do, while nobody seems to be trying to show that Nableezy is violating the spirit of that law. From reading editor comments, it sounds like they think he's violating the spirit of those sanctions, but they're trying to prove it by citing minor instances of him breaking the letter of those sanctions. And by minor, I mean for instance this case. How long do editors think Nableezy will be topic banned for using the word "idiot"? I don't think it will be very long, and rightly so to some extent, as I think it's a relatively minor personal attack (relative to what one could say to another if they wanted to personally attack them). ← George ^talk 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

George, you're missing the point.It does not matter for how long Nab is going to be blocked or topic banned. Even, if he's blocked for a day, he will be more polite the next time.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is given a punitive block for making a personal attack, the editors who baited and provoked him/her should receive blocks that are half as long. Cla68 (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying "I don't care if I get blocked for this... you are an idiot" is a minor personal attack that shows he was only violating the letter of the law? To me it seems like something quite deliberate, the potential consequences of which were obvious to Nableezy when he made the statement.

But seriously, if an administrator explains why he thinks something is a revert, and Nableezy replies with "That is truly retarded" right on the arbitration enforcement board, and nobody says a word, I honestly no longer have any expectations that this problem will be solved anytime soon. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Statement by VsevolodKrolikov With all these editors protesting about the importance of civility and nableezy's poisoning of the atmosphere, I'm very surprised that not a single one of them has made any attempt to warn or upbraid user:WookieInHeat for what was far worse than calling someone an "idiot", despite Wookieinheat being aware of the ARBCOM decision, and being asked by other editors to cease with such attacks before s/he made his/her insinuations fully clear. Indeed, some editors have gone on to repeat the attacks for good measure (and if you don't understand why they are attacks, you should question your ability to edit in this area). For communal editing to work, policing of disruptive editors should not be a matter of taking sides. Those who share your point of view should be subject to the same standards of civility. This is clearly not happening here. Captnono is surprised at the reaction of some editors - I'd like to know why he chose not to talk much about the provocation nableezy received. If you want a reputation for being a fair and balanced editor, you need to be, well, fair and balanced. I'd say that accusing people of being supporters of quasi-theocratic terrorist groups also "smacks in the face of both the guidelines and the related arbitration." nableezy shouldn't have responded, and I would have no problems with a short block - but only if that block is extended to all the people who have made or repeated the personal attack, which he made very clear was offensive, and which other editors have made clear is an attack. Everyone is responsible for keeping the editing atmosphere civil, not just nableezy. Perhaps a block for all concerned would make them realise they're not as exemplary as they seem to believe, and come back with a little more, well, maturity.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree we need to apply the same standard to all sides. I also agree that WookieInHeat's statement was not nice, and his reference to WP:COI was ridiculous. However neither was personal attack. - BorisG (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)u

Boris, WP:NPA says these are personal attacks:

• Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.
• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor.
• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.

Could you explain how telling an editor they support an Islamist terrorist group and as such their judgement is clouded is not a personal attack? It seems very clear cut to me. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how you look at it. For you, Hamas is an Islamist terrorist group. Many, including, as I recall, Nableezy, won't agree with this characterisation. There are some who consider Hamas as legitimate freedom fighters. I don't know what's Nableezy's view of Hamas, but it is not inconceavable or uncommon for a suppporter of the Palestinian cause to be sympathetic to Hamas. It may not apply to Nableezy and his reaction may be understandable, but it is not necessarily a personal attack. That said, I do not support such statements as they can upset people. - BorisG (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters what Nableezy thinks of Hamas, characterizing an editor as a terrorist supporter based on . . .I have no idea what it's based on. But Hamas issues aside, the COI invocation was another frivolous attempt to try and get Nableezy out of the "Hamas and Taliban analogy" discussion. Which I find troubling in light of the recent spate of system gaming, sock puppetry and merit-less requests for bans, all focused on harassing a very select group of editors. This request at least has a bit of merit, although the provocation and minor nature mitigate the infraction, at least as I/P editing goes (where adding terrorism cats gets you accused of Antisemitism). So could we please go back to wasting each others time on talk pages? That at least produces the occasional result :P Sol (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that COI reference was ridiculous in the extreme. By this logic, if people are Americans (or interested in America), they can't write about America because of COI. - BorisG (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Ravpapa: Please see my comment in the previous section, which is relevant to this discussion. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Tijfo098. The problem with WookieInHeat's assertion is that one can use similar lines of thinking to label anyone a terrorist supporter or worse. For example: "You are an American, therefore a Zionist terrorist supporter because neocons in your country support Zionism." "You are an European, therefore a supporter of Islamic terrorism because the EU parliament endorsed the Goldstone report." "You are a Kosovar, therefore a supporter of terrorist movements." "You are a Serb, therefore a supporter of crimes against humanity." Etc. Now Nableezy replied to something like this with a statement about the intelligence of the person making the argument, instead of keeping his comments on the argument itself. I believe neither of these actions were conductive to a rational or civil atmosphere. Had Nableezy called WookieInHeat's argument a logical fallacy instead, would we have seen this WP:AE report? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Are people really discussing when it is OK to call another editor an idiot in the topic area? Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, calling another editor an idiot is never okay. However, WookieInHeat's comment that elicited the response—saying that Nableezy had an "affinity" for Hamas—is, in my opinion, the more uncivil of the two infractions. Two wrongs don't make a right, and Nableezy is guilty of taking the bait and making a personal attack. Whether making a personal attack after being baited warrants the same punishment as an unprovoked personal attack is something for administrators to weigh. ← George ^talk 20:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Says you (and I do agree) but several comments up above and the lack of action by administrators contradicts that sentiment. I think a centralized discussion on the issues is fine but that should have no bearing on if Nableezy can continue to be uncivil.Cptnono (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that administrators are weighing larger scale action than just a few days block for Nableezy for using the word "idiot"... probably against multiple users and for longer periods of time. What I haven't looked in to is if Nableezy has a documented history of incivility. If so, it seems clear to me that there should be some escalating action for each infraction, just as there would be for chronic edit warriors. Eventually, the message that incivility, no matter the reason, is not a viable course of action will get through. ← George ^talk 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What bait prompted this kind of response? --Mbz1 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty is any different than saying they're POV-pushing. ← George ^talk 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thnk you, GWH. Think it is a little short but some enforcement is better than none.Cptnono (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm seriously disturbed by the recent flurry of ARBPIA requests. Thinking it over. T. Canens (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree there are serious concerns with recent flurry of ARBPIA requests. I've set up a page for centralized discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Independently of the wider discussion - I have (on my initiative without wider discussion here) blocked Wookieinheat for 48 hrs for the baiting attack that started this section, and Nableezy for 3 hrs for their response. Differentiating factors in block length include who started that particular incident, the severity of the insults on each side, and one side having been baited. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

WookieInHeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – WookieInHeat (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

- Blocked for 48 hours for: "Personal attacks or harassment: NPA and ARBPIA violation - accused editor of supporting terrorism"
- Discussion of sanctions at WP:AE

Administrator imposing the sanction

Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Georgewilliamherbert's reason for blocking me relied solely upon the idea that i personally attacked Nableezy by accusing him of "supporting terrorism". from an absolutist POV, nowhere in any edit was the word "terrorism" even mentioned. my observation that nableezy's political POV on wikipedia aligns with the political goals of hamas was by no means meant as a personal attack, nor to insinuate the more abstract idea of nableezy's support for terrorism. my primary intention was to highlight nableezy's possible WP:COI with the subject while he was pushing to have negative information about it removed. my main point here is that i find george's reasoning for my block to have been rather arbitrary and ambiguous.
also, the duration of the blocks handed out seems somewhat irrational. nableezy, a user with a lengthy history of often thinly veiled and sometimes outright personal attacks not to mention numerous complaints about their civility, was given only a token block of three hours for a direct personal attack . whereas i have no significant or pertinent history of incivility and was blocked for 16 times that length (48 hours) for what some have misconstrued as a personal attack based on the wholly fabricated idea that i called someone a "terrorism supporter". not to mention nableezy plainly knew that his blatant personal attack would result in a ban, where i went to some length to clarify that my comment was not a personal attack. also, i did not respond when nableezy attacked me directly, and i was the first user to drop the argument and bring the discussion back to the topic at hand .
i really cannot stress enought the fact that i never accused nableezy of "supporting terrorism", not only did i never directly say this, it was never even implied by my comments. thus it would seem my block was based entirely on a misconception of what was meant when i said "nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association hamas" implying this was actually instead intended to say "nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association terrorism". this is simply not the case, and frankly i am somewhat offended myself at george's insinuation that i would arbitrarily classify someone as a "terrorism supporter"; i have better ways of proving my point than making baseless accusations about other users. and i must say, i am slightly dismayed that my block log has been tarnished by an admin with such a fallacious and subjective view of my actions. george didn't bother to clarify his misunderstanding of my comments with me before coming down with a heavy admin hand and sullying my block log forever.

Should be unblocked immediately. There was no PA in the difference provided to block the editor.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• It does look a bit like they were "looking for an excuse". If what he says fall under the definition of a personal attack, it's quite a technical one. HalfShadow 20:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Looking in at the report that prompted this sanction, Nableezy never said he thought WIH was calling him a "terrorism supporter", that idea was brought up by other editors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - So are you saying, WookieInHeat, that you do not consider Hamas a terrorist organization? As an aside, might I ask if you have ever edited under another account here on Wikipedia? ← George ^talk 21:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• @PhilKnight: That statement is insulting to the large number of actual (not just "pro") Palestinians who voted for Hamas. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm confused by PhilKnight's recent comment. I have always assumed some editors here do support Hamas. Not everyone believes it is a terrorist group and they are a socio-political organization that is in charge over in the Faza. So even if I or someone else does not like them it doesn't mean that oterhs feel the same way. If we trust what Wookie is saying then maybe a reversal is appropriate. Of course, we could assume the worst that Wookie is not being completely open and was trying to say that Nableezy supports terrorism. Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned the comment by WookieInHeat was completely unnecessary, and making this sort of remark should be strongly discouraged. PhilKnight (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • If you are blocking him for commenting on the contributor and not content then you should have said that instead of saying it was a personal attack.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The way I see it, there are three possibilities: (a) WIH thinks that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and was intentionally insulting Nableezy, (b) WIH does not think that Hamas is a terrorist organization, but is aware that other people do, and should have realized that the comment might be insulting, or (c) WIH does not think Hamas is a terrorist organization, and is not aware that others consider them such, and was therefore oblivious of the potential insult. It's really up to WIH to tell us which is the case. ← George ^talk 21:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• comment: It's troubling that WookieInHeat appears to be completely indifferent to the fact that his/her comments could cause offence, despite not only this block but other users (including myself) advising him/her it was a personal attack and nableezy's now well-documented reaction; in his/her appeal Wookie repeats the baseless claim of COI (if s/he means it per policy rather than a determinedly odd misreading, s/he's making the claim that nableezy works for the Taliban or Hamas - which makes matters worse), s/he claims that this purported affinity clouded nableezy's judgement - which is a clear violation of WP:NPA as I detailed in the discussion - and not just a "technical" one. What's wrong with being associated with Hamas? We can argue all day the meaning of "terrorist" (and it's very interesting to know that WookieInHeat doesn't think Hamas is terrorist), but they also have a nice line in anti-semitism and the suppression of human rights of Palestinians - as documented by other Palestinians. Some editors appear to think "well, maybe that is what nableezy believes" is a defence - he clearly doesn't, and such speculation is irrelevant. The lack of contrition or any sense that Wookie thinks anything he or she has done could possibly have upset anyone unnecessarily (and the comments were clearly about an editor, not the topic in hand) suggest that shortening the ban would undermine the desired effect of any block, which is altering editing behaviour. If Wookie pleads ignorance of Hamas' nature, then an apology is still needed before any block is shortened.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• You misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't commenting on whether or not Nableezy supports Hamas. I was saying that the idea that WIH was calling Nableezy a supporter of terrorism and this was the "bait" that prompted Nableezy to call him an idiot, didn't originate from Nableezy. Perhaps Nableezy called him an idiot because he didn't appreciate his reasoning in general? Keep in mind WIH was not the person who was reported. The report was about Nableezy calling him an idiot. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• After discussing the issue with WookieInHeat on their talk page, I think they've learned that this sort of comment should be avoided in the future, meaning the block served its purpose and is now unnecessary. I think they should be unblocked. ← George ^talk 22:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Hmmm. He doesn't appear as contrite talking to me. If he apologises to nableezy, I'd support an unblock.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• While I don't consider it absolutely necessary, I think apologies both ways would go a long way in burying the hatchet on this (which is something I suggested before the editors were blocked). ← George ^talk 23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Alas, George, I don't think he means what he says to you, and I think he's gaming. See this section, particularly his last reply ("semantics") to see his refusal to engage in the nature of the comments he made, and refuses to acknowledge, let alone take reponsibility for the possible implications of his comments, or the specific point that NPA forbids claims that political affiliation prevents an editor from editing with NPOV. He also will not back down despite several editors telling him, that his COI accusations involve an incorrect understanding of COI. It seems typical of problems in this area - a blank refusal to see the other side, and a refusal ever to admit fault. Everyone on both "sides" seems agreed that admins and arbcom have to become a stricter than they have been in regulating behaviour even with current tools, and I can't see why we don't just start from here. Applying policy doesn't need any extra agreement from users.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like WookieInHeat cannot comment here. Questions posed to them should be raised at their talk page. ← George ^talk 22:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Note to PhilKnight: Nableezy's page refers to support of those who "violently resist" (blatant euphemism for terrorism) and that he's aware that he is "disallowed from naming" those he supports. The COI query is of poor taste, but nothing to merit more than a warning, IMHO, for an editor of a clean slate. If anything, presenting other editors in bad light on your personal page -- e.g. this diff -- seems a tad more objectionable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC) c 02:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Given that WookieInHeat was notified of the WP:ARBPIA restrictions, in my honest opinion, 48 hours is well within admin discretion. However I agree with you in regard to the Brewcrewer quote, which has now been removed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Nableezy has queried my removal, so I've opened a thread at WP:ANI. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)