• 1 Requests for arbitration
  • 1.1 Lead for State Church of the Roman Empire
    • 1.1.1 Involved parties
    • 1.1.2 Statement by Mcorazao
    • 1.1.3 Statement by Medeis
    • 1.1.4 Clerk notes
    • 1.1.5 Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)
  • 1.2 Noloop and Slrubenstein
    • 1.2.1 Involved parties
    • 1.2.2 Statement by Noloop
    • 1.2.3 Statement by Slrubenstein
    • 1.2.4 Statement by uninvolved Vecrumba
    • 1.2.5 Clerk notes
    • 1.2.6 Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/1)
  • 1.3 Blablaaa
    • 1.3.1 Involved parties
    • 1.3.2 Statement by Kirill Lokshin
    • 1.3.3 Statement by Blablaaa
    • 1.3.4 Statement by Sandstein
    • 1.3.5 Statement by Nick-D
    • 1.3.6 Statement by MBK004
    • 1.3.7 Statement by EyeSerene
    • 1.3.8 Statement by Jehochman
    • 1.3.9 Statement by Deskana
    • 1.3.10 Statement by PBS
    • 1.3.11 Clerk notes
    • 1.3.12 Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/5/3/0)
• 2 Requests for clarification
• 3 Requests for amendment
  • 3.1 Request to amend prior case: Speed of light
    • 3.1.1 Amendment 1
      • 3.1.1.1 Statement by Brews_ohare
      • 3.1.1.2 Statement by Sandstein
      • 3.1.1.3 Statement by JohnBlackburne
      • 3.1.1.4 Statement by other editor
    • 3.1.2 Further discussion
      • 3.1.2.1 Statement by yet another editor
      • 3.1.2.2 Clerk notes
      • 3.1.2.3 Arbitrator views and discussion
    • 3.1.3 Motion
  • 3.2 Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf
    • 3.2.1 Amendment 1
      • 3.2.1.1 Statement by Miami
      • 3.2.1.2 Statement by Seth Kellerman
      • 3.2.1.3 Statement by Protonk
      • 3.2.1.4 Statement by Tothwolf
      • 3.2.1.5 Statement by DGG
      • 3.2.1.6 Uncle G, by request
    • 3.2.2 Further discussion
      • 3.2.2.1 Statement by yet another editor
      • 3.2.2.2 Clerk notes
      • 3.2.2.3 Arbitrator views and discussion
  • 3.3 Request to amend prior case: Date delinking
    • 3.3.1 Amendment 1
      • 3.3.1.1 Statement by Lightmouse
      • 3.3.1.2 Statement by other editors
    • 3.3.2 Further discussion
      • 3.3.2.1 Statement by yet another editor
      • 3.3.2.2 Clerk notes
      • 3.3.2.3 Arbitrator views and discussion
  • 3.4 Request to amend prior case: Eastern European Mailing List (4)
    • 3.4.1 Amendment 1
      • 3.4.1.1 Statement by Martintg
        • 3.4.1.1.1 Response to Igny's comments
          • 3.4.1.1.1.1 Further response to Igny's comments
        • 3.4.1.1.2 Response to Biophy's comments
        • 3.4.1.1.3 Response to The Four Deuce's comments
        • 3.4.1.1.4 Question to Rlevse
        • 3.4.1.1.5 Response to Petri Krohn's comments
        • 3.4.1.1.6 Response to Vecrumba's comments
      • 3.4.1.2 Statement by Igny
      • 3.4.1.3 Statement by Biophys
      • 3.4.1.4 Statement by The Four Deuces
      • 3.4.1.5 Statement by Petri Krohn
      • 3.4.1.6 Statement by Vecrumba
      • 3.4.1.7 Statement by other editor
    • 3.4.2 Further discussion
      • 3.4.2.1 Statement by yet another editor
      • 3.4.2.2 Clerk notes
      • 3.4.2.3 Arbitrator views and discussion
• 4 Motions
• 5 Requests for enforcement
  • 5.1 Shuki
    • 5.1.1 Request concerning Shuki
    • 5.1.2 Discussion concerning Shuki
      • 5.1.2.1 Statement by Shuki
      • 5.1.2.2 Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki
        • 5.1.2.2.1 Comment by Gatoclass
        • 5.1.2.2.2 Comment by Brewcrewer
    • 5.1.3 Clarify the limits
    • 5.1.4 Result concerning Shuki
  • 5.2 Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Brews ohare
    • 5.2.1 Statement by Brews ohare
    • 5.2.2 Statement by Sandstein
    • 5.2.3 Statement by Headbomb
    • 5.2.4 Statement by JohnBlackburne
    • 5.2.5 Statement by (involved editor 2)
    • 5.2.6 Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <Brews_ohare>
    • 5.2.7 Result of the appeal by Brews ohare
  • 5.3 David Spector
    • 5.3.1 Request concerning David Spector
    • 5.3.2 Discussion concerning David Spector
      • 5.3.2.1 Statement by David Spector
      • 5.3.2.2 Comments by others about the request concerning David Spector
    • 5.3.3 Result concerning David Spector
  • 5.4 41.132.*
    • 5.4.1 Request concerning 41.132.*
    • 5.4.2 Discussion concerning 41.132.*
      • 5.4.2.1 Statement by 41.132.*
      • 5.4.2.2 Comments by others about the request concerning 41.132.*
    • 5.4.3 Result concerning 41.132.*
  • 5.5 Russavia
    • 5.5.1 Request concerning Russavia
    • 5.5.2 Discussion concerning Russavia
      • 5.5.2.1 Statement by Russavia
      • 5.5.2.2 Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia
    • 5.5.3 Result concerning Russavia
  • 5.6 User:TimidGuy and User:Littleolive oil and User:Edith Sirius Lee
    • 5.6.1 Request concerning the above three editors
    • 5.6.2 Discussion concerning above users
      • 5.6.2.1 Statement by TimidGuy
      • 5.6.2.2 Comments by others about the request concerning TimidGuy
      • 5.6.2.3 Statement by Littleolive oil
      • 5.6.2.4 Comments by others about the request concerning Littleolive oil
      • 5.6.2.5 Statement by Edith Sirius Lee
      • 5.6.2.6 Comments by others about the request concerning Edith Sirius Lee
    • 5.6.3 Result concerning TimidGuy, Littleolive oil, and Edith Sirius Lee
  • 5.7 Δ
    • 5.7.1 Request concerning Δ
    • 5.7.2 Discussion concerning Δ
      • 5.7.2.1 Statement by Δ
      • 5.7.2.2 Comments by others about the request concerning Δ
    • 5.7.3 Result concerning Δ
  • 5.8 Nableezy
    • 5.8.1 Request concerning Nableezy
    • 5.8.2 Discussion concerning Nableezy
      • 5.8.2.1 Statement by Nableezy
      • 5.8.2.2 Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy
    • 5.8.3 Result concerning Nableezy
  • 5.9 Forsts23
    • 5.9.1 Request concerning Forsts23
    • 5.9.2 Discussion concerning Forsts23
      • 5.9.2.1 Statement by Forsts23
      • 5.9.2.2 Comments by others about the request concerning Forsts23
    • 5.9.3 Result concerning Forsts23

• Would like to hear a few more statements before deciding whether to accept or not. I note that the request for comments has technically not closed yet - how much time is normally given after or during an RfC for the editor concerned to modify their behaviour? I've also read the AN thread where the indefinite block of Blablaaa was discussed, and the difference in opinions between that thread and the RfC is noticeable, so while I was inclined to agree with Sandstein's comment above, I'm no longer so sure. Possibly a case is needed here. Will wait for more input. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I've left a note at the RfC talk page. If any uninvolved editor reading this is willing to close that RfC, that may help make things clearer (there are several different ways that RfC could be closed, all of which would impact on this request for arbitration). Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing (of which I was previously unaware) seems to suggest that the RFC should be left open until it is clear whether or not a case is accepted. I do think that going straight from an RfC to a request for arbitration puts too much pressure on the editor concerned. If an editor continues being disruptive while an RfC is in progress, an uninvolved administrator should be sought to assess the matter first, as further escalation may not be needed. A short-term or long-term block should be applied if an uninvolved administrator thinks this is necessary to prevent disruption, and if disruption resumes after the block expires, then arbitration can be sought. An indefinite block would probably not be appropriate (though it would be if a community ban proposal gained proper consensus). If uninvolved administrators think the situation too complex to assess, then arbitration immediately may be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Accept for several reasons: (1) I think more than just Blablaaa's actions here need scrutiny (and that can proceed regardless of whether Blablaaa appeals or unretires or whatever); (2) I can understand administrators feeling that action was needed here, but at the time Jehochman blocked, the case had reached net four to accept, so for better or worse it should have been allowed to proceed at that point without the drama of a block; (3) If administrators want to save the time of the arbitration committee, it would be more useful if they paid attention to user conduct RFCs, rather than this page, and if those at user RfCs announced an intention to escalate to arbitration (an announcement of which I don't think happened here), then administrators can take action (say in a 24-hour window) before then if needed. To be clear, I would include Jehochman's actions here in the scope of any case, not with regards to any sanctions (the actions were taken in good faith) but to clarify what would have been best done here. Having said that, if the current accepts turn to reject following these actions, it may be that a case is not needed after all. If Blablaaa is reading this, I would encourage them to make clear whether they want a case opened and whether they would participate in a case if it opened. Carcharoth (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Given developments, I now think the request is moot (not needed) and have moved to decline. I still disagree with the timing of Jehochman's block, as such a block would have been better placed before this request for arbitration was made. I also disagree with the revoking of e-mail and talk page access that took place after suspicions were raised of socking (it should have been clear from the contributions that the most recently created account, User:Blablaaa0, was an impersonator). Thanks to Deskana for making clearer what happened there. The question is what to do now? My view is that the community should be able to handle this adequately now that more eyes have been drawn to the issues here (both with the user and with the concerns raised about content), especially now that the RfC exists as a documentation of the problems (but it would be better in future if there was a way to alert more people to such problems without taking the final step of filing a request for arbitration). Seeing as he is retired, the next step needs to be taken by Blablaaa. He would need to unretire before doing anything else, and then needs to go through the standard processes for asking for his block to be lifted (e.g. talk to the administrator who blocked him, file an unblock request, e-mail the unblock-l mailing list). The note left on his talk page by Jehochman does an excellent job of laying out what would be needed for an unblock request to succeed. But ArbCom don't need to be involved in that unless as a final resort after other options have failed. Accordingly, as I said above, decline and let the blocking administrator and the community deal with this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Noting that the retirement/unretirement issue is not clear and not helped by Blablaaa seemingly being unable to handle this by himself. Even if you discount the edits made by the impersonator. Blablaaa said here (08:14, 2 August 2010): Reflecting my time here i guess this is not the correct place for me so i will cease editing anyways. He was blocked at 17:45. The impersonator added the retired tag at 18:09, then Blablaaa made a series of edits undoing and restoring those edits, with this edit at 19:17 leaving the tags in place. Talk page access was revoked at 19:44. When talk page access was restored at 14:03 on 3 August, Blablaaa resumed editing his talk page within minutes (by 14:20), did not remove the retired tag, and the next day made this edit. Deskana should not have had to remove the tags for him (1), 2). It is unfortunate that certain issues (the impersonator, and language difficulties) have complicated matters, but my opinion remains the same: this does not need arbitration, let the blocking administrator and the community deal with this. Carcharoth (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Igny's comments

Shortly after being granted permission to source a number of BLPs, I had an opportunity to undertake some study. Unfortunately about a month later, Igny involved me in an SPI case, however somebody kindly informed me of this via email. I can't recall having really interacted with him that much prior to the EEML case, so it was somewhat surprising that he would go after me like that.

Russavia also became involved in this SPI case too, as he did in a number of other AE cases launching complaints against Radeksz, Biruitorul and Biophys. Consequently the Russavia-Biophys ArbCom case was opened. I took that opportunity to request an interaction ban for Russavia. I believe I conducted myself correctly in that case and Shell even appreciated my decorum [68]. Igny ended up getting blocked for 31 hours[69] for misconduct on the case workshop.

Igny states I wasted everyone's time in that ArbCom case. It is true that I did waste a bit of time, it could have been spent more productively on my studies, but I think given the outcome it was well worth the effort. It's not a nice experience to be informed by email that some are still on the warpath. The way I see it, the bulk of the problems really boil down to personality clashes, some people are just implacably opposed to each other no matter what. Sad, but it's a fact of life. Probably in such cases interaction bans are the way to go when editors can't voluntarily refrain from finding fault and battling with others.

I'm perplexed at Igny's comments here, given that he hasn't made that many recent edits himself either. We all operate under different constraints. After completing the semester I found time from family and friends to source those BLPs that I had committed to sourcing. Wikipedia is a free project, which also means that anyone can devote as little or as much time as they can. I believe I'm a competent editor with an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I've had a long time to re-think things during my self imposed "site ban", and I do "get it" now. I just want to get on and derive some enjoyment from contributing to topics that interest me while allowing others to do the same, without this battleground BS. 2009 was an adventure I do not want to repeat. --Martin (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Further response to Igny's comments

I am some what mystified by Igny's claims of "our personal clashes in the past", as I can't recall a single instance where we might of clashed personally, apart from the recent SPI[70] Igny launched against me while I was away, let alone interacted to any significant degree on any particular article. I just scanned the EEML archive and Igny isn't mentioned at all, so he didn't appear on the list's radar. Perhaps he may have been somewhat radicalised by the EEML case itself, and may have adopted other people's past battles as his own. I hope that is not the case, since from what I have seen of Igny in the past, he seems to be quite a reasonable person with which I could work with.

As to Igny's question whether a topic ban is designed to demonstrate if an "editor's problematic behavior occurs again when he returns to the EE disputes", note that I had edited German related topics in January and February with no problems, and I think I amply demostrated decorum in my response to an EE dispute not of my making thrust upon me by Igny in the form of the SPI in March and again in the follow-up Russavia-Biophy case (and note that I didn't involve Igny in my proposals presented in the case workshop). So the risk of problematic behaviour has been demonstrated to be nil. --Martin (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Biophy's comments

Notwithstanding the fact that Biophys may well be risking a violation of his topic ban by commenting here, my involvement in the Russavia-Biophys case was related to Russavia's behaviour in the SPI case[71], revealing personal information even when asked to stop, for which there was a FoF[72] and an Admonishment[73] and a Restriction[74]. It is true that I spent a bit too much time at the end of the case arguing for more equitable topic bans for the parties with Shell, as that end part did impact my study time a bit, and I probably ended up just annoying Shell too (sorry Shell). In that sense it was a distraction, but in terms of seeking an reciprocal interaction ban (which remains in force regardless of whether or not my topic ban is relaxed) was necessary and unavoidable under the circumstances. --Martin (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no battleground here. People are free to express their views or concerns on this page. I welcome this as it gives me an opportunity to respond as necessary to allay any legitimate concern. --Martin (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is true that I have commented in a few ArbCom cases, but my conduct in doing so has been exemplary and I was motivated by the desire to reduce the level of conflict in that space. If some people are upset that I did comment, well I guess that is to be expected. The Committee can and does examine the behaviour of anyone participating, as they did in the Eastern European disputes case. Krohn's mysterious emailer had every opportunity to present evidence against me, and I'm sure they did during that case however the Committee exercised their judgement. --Martin (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to The Four Deuce's comments

I've virtually never interacted with TFD in the past, the first time being when I voted "Keep" at this AfD [75] which resulted in "No Concensus". I did canvas that on the EEML and that was wrong, no bones about it. After the EEML ArbCom case began there a two more AfDs [76][77] where only two or three EEML members independently voted and these resulted in "No Concensus", despite the closing admin being made aware of the existance of the EEML case and its membership. Finally a 4th AfD[78] was initiated this year where absolutely no one from the EEML voted, yet it resulted in a "Keep". While it was clearly wrong to canvass the first AfD, non-involvement in the 4th actually resulted in an outcome I would have wanted anyway. Go figure.

And yet TFD appears to be continuing to invoke the EEML bogey man in that article, recently claiming "When the article was listed for deletion, they decided off-wiki to rename the article", when in fact the original move discussion had no EEML involvement and predated the AfD, in fact the very first AfD comment confirms that. I don't know why The Four Deuces is singling me out in particular and WP:Poking me with untrue stuff.

TFD's statement has in my view many misleading points, so I'll address them line by line:

• "Martintg's defence is basically that he fell into the wrong crowd and he is sorry."

No, I didn't say that at all. There is nothing wrong with the individuals, but unfortunately a mob mentality developed and led some of us of otherwise good standing (I had a clear block log prior to joining the EEML) to cross the line, which I regret.

• "However, Martintg does not mention any actions he took that he regrets, any articles that he and his colleagues edited and now wish to repair or any editor he offended he now wishes to apologize to."

Sure, the canvassing was wrong, I accept that, but I stand by the substance of all my edits (but in some cases not the form, i.e. the occasional edit warring). I not sure why I need to apologise to TFD though, I've not known TFD prior to the EEML case.

• "This group shared a minority political point of view and damaged the neutrality of numerous articles and continued to collaborate off-wiki even after the case was presented against them."

This is an incredible blanket statement. TFD has no idea what my politics are, or that of other members, and I ended collaboration with the list at beginning of the case. The political viewpoints are as diverse as can be expected by the differing backgrounds and locations of the group members. For example, in my estimation, the majority of the group is for gun control and against Arizona's immigration laws.

• "They do not accept that Wikipedia articles should be neutral and tied up the time of numerous editors. While it may be that they will no longer coordinate their efforts, their approach as individuals is damaging to neutrality."

Again this is a nonsense blanket statement. I've always striven for neutrality, as you can see from the many articles I've created.

• "It is irritating that as I and other editors were arguing with Martintg and his colleagues and they were presenting arguments against us that off-wiki there were agreeing that our arguments made sense and trying to develop a new approach."

This is an absolutely, flat out untrue.

• "Surely editors like this drive away most of the editors we want to attract, people who have the ability to write articles and those who remain are tied up in silly disputes."

I don't know who TFD is referring to here, but I don't think I should become the whipping boy of all that he thinks is wrong with Wikipedia.

• "Dispute resolution, reporting editors for 3RR, writing Wikiquette and ANI reports are extemely time-consuming and allowing editors like Martintg will only discourage capable editors who are discouraged by the processes to counter editors like Martintg."

Again I don't know who TFD is referring too here, my record shows that I have a relatively clean record in this regard, apart from a block for a 3RR violation that was applied 20 hours after I had undone my 4th revert, and a mis-applied block for alleged OUTING that never ocurred. In fact the Committee previously scrutinized my record and found no substantive policy violation [79]

I don't understand what TFD seeks to gain in continuing to flog the EEML dead horse, even insinuating there is some kind of far-right anti-Semitic agenda at play[80] (not the first time either, having to redact similar comment previously [81]), which I find somewhat offensive. I do wonder why I have become the whipping boy of people like TFD who I have never crossed paths with in the past. Nor is it likely that I will interact with him in the future as our interests are divergent. At least Piotrus has the benefit of real opponents with real history of interaction and real issues which can be worked on. But as far as I'm concerned, the EEML horse is truly dead and buried. --Martin (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Question to Rlevse

Could you provide some guidance as to the reasons for your opposition, given:

1. my previous relaxation [82] had caused no problem
2. my previously un-problematic record (clean block log prior to joining the EEML and this affirmation of my previously good standing), indicating there is no issue of recidivism
3. no violations of any WP:EEML sanctions (unlike Biruitorul and Radeksz, both who have had their topic bans lifted)
4. my expression of regret at the trouble caused by EEML membership and undertaking to put all that behind me
5. your explicit support for the relaxation of the topic ban for Radeksz[83] despite the strong concerns expressed by several editors who have a long history of interaction with him.

I just want to use my time to contribute something useful to the topics I've indicated above, all I ask is that I be treated fairly. --Martin (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Rlevse remains unconvinced. The locus of the WP:EEML case involved off-wiki co-ordination and canvassing, which was done via a mail list. Prior to joining that list I was in good standing, a clear block log, no ANI reports, no 3RR reports, no RFC/Us, no ArbCom cases about me, nothing. Having ended such off-wiki co-ordination, and given an undertaking not to engage in such behaviour going forward, I don't understand the basis of Rlevse's reluctance, given that he was previously supported lifting the sanction of another editor with a similar FoF. The conditions that led to the problematical behaviour no longer exists, and having learnt my lesson, will ensure any similar will be avoided in the future. --Martin (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Petri Krohn's comments

What can I say in response to a guy who claims I am the "chief battle axe" "promoting a fringe nationalistic agenda" that "has taken the form of a global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th century", while associating himself[84] in his statement to a radical political organisation operating in Finland then accusing me of attempting to "distort Wikipedia to fit his political agenda". Hmmmm. I don't have any political agenda, I've never have been a member of any political group, let alone one with a published manifesto. Nor have I ever agitated at protest events or even have a blog, let alone write letters to editors. I'm just a regular Joe who enjoys editing Wikipedia in my spare time, attempting to reflect reliable sources with due weight to the best of my abilities. I would suggest that Petri Krohn removes his huge political plank from his eye before complaining about the speck he perceives in my eye.

What is even more spooky is his accusation that "this has extended to multiple forums on the Internet outside Wikipedia" and that "evidence sent to me were new instances of this campaign". Okay, should I be getting scared now that this individual appears to be stalking me outside Wikipedia gathering non-existent "evidence" of this "global ideological war"? Petri Krohn threatens to start an ArbCom case against me should this motion pass, he is free to do so if he wishes.

Petri Krohn has also appended what seems essentially to be a polemic written by someone "who wishes to remain anonymous" presented as evidence. Who ever this anonymous person is, perhaps it is Petri Krohn himself, I will never the less address the main points:

• All the diffs cited in point 2 in relation to the article Denial of the Holodomor are from 2008. Edit warring in that article was investigated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. I don't think it appropriate to re-litigate something from 2008. In any case I've not edited that article since September 2008.
• Regarding point 3, whether a topic ban extends to commenting on a particular editor when there is no interaction ban in place is a grey area that certain admins have taken a position on. I note that Biophys has commented upon myself despite his topic ban here in this amendment request without consequence. However, when advised by such admins to desist in particular cases I have complied.

Petri Krohn admits that his involvement here was a result of being canvassed offline by someone unknown, stating "However, someone, who wishes to remain anonymous, contacted me, and – knowing the strong feelings I have privately expressed about the issue at hand – implied that I am a pussy if I do not express my strongest objection to this motion". So evidently there is an element of off-wiki co-ordination going on here. (Perhaps TFD was also canvassed off-wiki to comment here, that would explain his involvement given no real history between us, who knows). It is a pity that Petri has chosen to resume this troubled path of confrontation, apparently driven by what he perceives as his "global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th century", but I'm simply not going to buy into it.

Why should some one like Petri Krohn, apparently an activist with a clear and documented political agenda, be allowed to smear me and sour my editing experience because he imagines me to be his political enemy solely because I happen to have an interest in Baltic topics? --Martin (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

PS, I'm intrigued by Krohn's reference to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in his statement. I checked out that article and found and fixed some issues. But I don't see the relevance here, unless Petri Krohn is attempting to insinuate something that editors were warned not to do in a previous ArbCom case[85]. --Martin (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Vecrumba's comments

Well sure, if the Committee wants to impose some kind of conditionality, that's fine with me. ArbCom wouldn't even need to be watching that closely, as it's been demonstrated here that there are more than enough eyes to scrutinise my behaviour, even by those wiki-warriors who believe there is a global ideological war over the legacy of the 20th century^TM. Note that I did complete BLP sourcing after a previous relaxation[86] without any issue or drama, so it would be disappointing if the Committee where to now apply the brakes and not relax the topic ban further in some way. I could have just as easily waited out the remainder of my topic ban and return to editing later, I've got plenty of other things to do in the mean time. However the fact that I am requesting an early return should be viewed as a positive development as it indicates that I have acknowledged the issues of the past and have undertaken to more forward. --Martin (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me respond to Martintg's argumentation addressed to Rlevse because the points are so easily refutable.

1) of course the previous relaxation had caused no problem. Nor did Radeksz's or Piotrus's. In all cases they were used as basis to demand more like a slippery slope.

2) you never had a previously un-problematic record. Since the start of your Martintg account you revealed what Arbcom referred to as "poor behavior". Arbcom claimed no "good standing" in the Eastern European disputes arbitration, just that no actionable evidence against you was provided and that was the case. You were all battering Irpen, who refused that the scope should be changed from Piotrus and was overwhelmed by what became known as the EEML team. Provision of actionable evidence and the existence of actionable evidence is not the same, e.g. Irpen was sanctioned on the evidence of 22 reverts in the Holodomor denial article [87] put on an indefinite 1RR per week with the obligation to discuss every single one. [88]. One could have equally added Martintg's 15 reverts in the previous months on that article

[89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]

3) Martintg did little else than take exceptional efforts to violate the spirit of the topic ban and remain an attention-seeking nuisance in the EE topic area despite topic ban. Immediately after the Arbitration ended, Martintg was back on arguing at Mass killings under Communist regimes, [104] falling into the scope of the ban. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&diff=prev&oldid=335698266 Next, he violated the spirit of the Russavia interaction ban and the EE topic ban with a comment about Russavia that sounded positive but had teeth [105] and needed to be reminded [106] Next, Martintg disrupted an EE-related AE and was warned by Sandstein. [107] Still showing the finger, Martintg violated the topic ban again voting on Petri Krohn [108] that was removed [109] Martintg reverted the admin [110] and continued [111], getting warned again [112]. Next came Offliner [113] and soon after the Biophys arbitration [114]. AE request on Biruitorul? Martintg was there.[115] Finally came Radeksz's amendment request.[116]

4) Let me sum up what you wrote: you're all innocent, joined good-heartedly and suddenly became a victim to a mob mentality and hubris and crossed the line. That's not accepting fault but whitewashing and playing down.

5) The destruction of Radeksz's topic ban led to this [117] [118]. For some reason this looks just like the pre-EEML-discovery Radeksz.

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

Request concerning Shuki

User requesting enforcement 

nableezy - 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated 

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. [119] Removes reliablly sourced material because it conflict's with the user's own personal view
2. [120] again
3. [121] again
4. [122] again
5. [123] again
6. [124] again

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

1. Notified of the case

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

Topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Shuki has been filibustering any mention of the status of these settlements in international law. Originally Shuki has complained that the sources did not specifically say that a certain settlement is illegal. Since sources have been provided that specify for each of the settlements listed that they are illegal under international law Shuki has now changed tactics and insisted that the source "prove" that the specific settlement is illegal. The issue here is not the one or two reverts Shuki has made in each of the articles or the content being reverted. The issue is that Shuki has obstinately filibustered what reliable sources have reported and demanded proof beyond the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. The arbitration case specifically says that editors should be editing within the policies of the website, including NPOV, RS, and V. Here, Shuki is violating all three; NPOV by refusing to allow a super-majority view to be represented in the article, RS by demanding that a RS is not sufficient "proof" on Wikipedia, V by repeatedly removing material cited to verifiable reliable sources.

Reply to Shuki's statement: The RFC had nothing to do with the legal status of the settlements or how that should be covered. And it is not an exceptional claim that Israeli settlements are illegal, and even if it were reliable sources were provided. The text is not discussing Israeli law but international law, so Israel's High Court's rulings on the legality under Israeli law is immaterial. None of this addresses the issue though, that you have repeatedly filibustered the inclusion of reliably sourced material for pure POV reasons. nableezy - 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Gatoclass: How much emphasis should be put on the material is certainly something that is strictly a content dispute, but Shuki has not been simply moving this information from the lead into the body, Shuki has been filibustering the content from appearing anywhere in the article. Is edit-warring the only thing that is actionable under ARBPIA? Is a systematic campaign to violate core policies of this website not actionable? Is everything that is not edit-warring a "content dispute"? nableezy - 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass, each of those diffs is of Shuki completely removing the content on legality, claiming that because the source does not "prove" it is illegal it is not acceptable. The only reason there are not more diffs is because I have not made any other edits as I would rather not have edits to the 200 or so articles on Israeli settlements be reverted without cause. Shuki is demanding that a source provide "proof" that the settlement is illegal, that it must reference a specific court decision that says that specific settlement is illegal (see [125], [126] where that argument is made). Shuki is completely disregarding what RS says and removing content that says "X is illegal" and the source that says "X is illegal". But if this simply a "content dispute" then there is not really much of a point of any of this. If a user can simply just say no and block what reliable sources say from appearing in an article then this whole system is ****ed. We have had lengthy topic bans for making too many reverts, but things like this just get brushed away as "content disputes", which lead to, guess what, more reverts. nableezy - 05:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And Gatoclass, not only has Shuki rejected sources that say all Israeli settlements are illegal, he or she has further rejected sources that say specific settlements are illegal if that source does not provide "proof" that the settlement is illegal. Each of the edits listed above are removals of sources that say the specific settlement is illegal. nableezy - 05:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to many of the comments below. It is understandable that people come to the aid of what they perceive to be an ally. I'll just note that many of these same editors also came to the defense of the sock of a banned editor at a recent SPI, claiming that I was attempting to remove an opposing editor. That may well be the end result, but my purpose here is simple. Shuki's edits have violated a number of core policies of this website in contravention of ARBPIA. If there are editors that wish to show how that is not true they should make that case. Making this about me does not help anything. nableezy - 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Stifle: I understand it is easier to say "a pox on both your houses", but if you do so you are effectively saying that it is more important that there is an appearance of an equal application of the rules than it is to actually have an equal application of the rules. I have added well-sourced material about these settlements. The material I added is not "POV", it contains both the majority POV and Israel's by saying that they are illegal under international law though Israel disputes this. The material is both notable and verifiable, in fact every BBC story about a settlement contains that very same information. Shuki has removed notable, relevant, reliably sourced material from a number of articles and has done so by twisting policy such as RS and V or by giving no policy based reason for such removals. Regardless of Shuki's and Ynhockey's absurd comments about this material being "REDFLAG", there are countless reliable sources that flat out say that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law; to record that in supposed "encyclopedia" articles cannot be seen as disruptive unless "disruption" is defined as anything the extreme right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum does not like. I understand that you all are not supposed to adjudicate "content disputes", but that does not mean you cannot actually look at the content. The material I added is backed by literally hundreds of reliable sources. Shuki removed that material on the most specious of reasons and has done so repeatedly. If people are free to simply remove whatever information they like without regard to how well sourced it is then this place truly is a complete waste of time and fails its goal of providing an educational resource. If you or any other admin is actually serious about creating an "encyclopedia" then you should not, no cannot, tolerate such behavior as repeatedly removing well-sourced content. Our "sins" are not all equal here. You have on hand a user adding well-sourced content. You have another user twisting policy and filibustering the inclusion of that well-sourced material. Shuki has in the past removed sources that say all Israeli settlements are illegal because they dont say that specific settlement is illegal. Now, the removals are of sources that say that the specific settlement is illegal because the source does not supposedly "prove" that and does not cite a specific court case saying that the specific settlement is illegal. That is plainly an absurd reason. If you want to treat both the person adding well-sourced material and the person removing it for absurd, ideological reasons then topic-ban us both. If, however, you want to ensure that our articles follow the policies of this website then I invite you to take a closer look at the circumstances. We are not guilty of the same sins here, and treating us as though we were may be easy but is without justification. nableezy - 14:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Stifle: I would like to know what exactly you say I am at fault of. I added sources that say specific Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Almost 5 years ago Shuki reverted the same information asking that a source be provided. I provided that source. Shuki has since shifted the goalposts writing that the source must "prove" that Ariel is illegal under international law. No sane person can read WP:V or WP:RS and come to any such conclusion. What exactly did I do wrong here? nableezy - 18:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[127]

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

Nableezy has never shown any attempt to collaborate and make reasonable efforts with other editors. Nableezy also forgot to mention that he is violating the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements. Since he 'lost' that RfC he started, he has wasted no time in opening a new front with his typical and documented battleground mentality. Nableezy is one of the most negative editor I have met on WP and has nothing good to say on articles. It is not 'fun' to edit with people who hold this attitude for long. Most people mellow out and learn to work with editors with opposing POVs, Nableezy simply cannot. I wish I could say he was pro-Palestinian, but even a superficial glance at his contributions show that he has nothing positive to say on Palestinian pages, and is merely a general SPA for including controversial negative material into Israeli articles. Until now, there was no 'BLP' for geographical places, and because of him, I think there should be one. Nableezy, blocked numerous times for problematic behavior, is himself in violation of AE with his insertion of negative boilerplate WP:REDFLAG material. Specifically, his latest non-consensus solo effort, is to find any mention of a locality that also says that it is illegal. No proof of any court action specifically declaring this and definitely in contrast to many court cases with the Israeli Supreme Court that has decided whether a place is illegal (part of Amona that was in fact torn down) or not (Revava won a libel case against Peace Now for making false claims of its 'illegality').

I have certainly not changed any tactics, thanks for pre-empting me here with what I had just accused Nableezy on another page, I have always demanded that sources specifically mention the locality and not just in passing. There is no such thing as 'super-majority' and the RfC Nableezy filed failed to approve that peculiar non-existent policy. --Shuki (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Nableezy, your RfC was not clear from the beginning, and I'll say that is the reason it failed, and failed to go anywhere constructive and why I (and most anyone not in your POV) was reluctant to take part for so long. --Shuki (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Stifle and others including Nableezy. Peculiar the accusations and follow-up accusations as well. One only needs to look at what both of us do simultaneously to see who collaborates with others and improve WP, and who is merely here to get blood to push his interests. On 18 July at 19:19, at the same time that Nableezy is putting the final touches on this repeat AE against me filed 5 minutes later (and sadly against himself as well - People who live in glass houses should not throw stones), I can be found collaborating with an 'opposing' editor here.

2nd reply, to Stifle, to 'topic-ban us both' Nableezy, and 'take one for the team' RomaC. I certainly do not believe in WP suicide, but we know that Nableezy is ready for martyrdom with many uncivil remarks made and threatened retirement when he was blocked and then surprisingly weirdly unblocked early at the beginning of the year. Frankly, I know that most 'Israeli cities, villages, towns, and more in the West Bank / Judea and Samaria Area' articles are not on the watchlists of many, if at all, and no one has been contributing to the topic of 'Israeli settlements' articles as much as me though I wish I had more help. I admit to the kneejerk reaction to what I saw Nableezy doing (evidently and his admitted flooding of articles with tendentious boilerplate one liners, contrary to Sandstein's closing RfC recommendation to deal with each issue on a case-by-case basis) was to quickly make those reverts, and hopefully merely temporarily freeze him on his admitted conquest to add it to all 200+ articles, so that perhaps the WP community could handle this much better with, hold on, collaboration and consensus. I was not going to follow him around on each page to put it in another section, given that some editors have an issue with that too - something that calm consensus should decide. I cannot recall too many instances in which we have seen a reasonable and rational Nableezy, wanting to accomplish anything except to get is POV included and he only bothers to behave if others are watching too. To his credit, and perhaps the exception that proves the rule, he did start the RfC. Unfortunately, he did not bother to pursue further dispute resolution given his failure with the RfC.

3rd, to Stifle, I do not see how a three month topic ban is proportional to merely reverting six articles once and with my long-term record which is centred primarily around creating, improving and maintaining Israeli geography articles. Since coming out of my single 1RR 'topic ban', I have managed to keep that 1RR behaviour intact except for a repeat SPA anon who was/is repeatedly just making a mess on three articles and has been reverted by others as well. On the other hand, comparing me with Nableezy who was;

1. topic banned for two months
2. blocked and topic 1RR and violates it leading to
3. 2month topic ban and then
4. comes out of his most recent two WP:ARBPIA topic ban swinging to which I alerted the collaboration project and
5. a very SPECIAL MENTION making blanket reverts not unlike what he is accusing me of doing scroll to bottom to the edit comments sources call this place a Palestinian village (?!)

and his repeated use of AE for the hunt (of me), even though warned only a month ago from making non-actionable claims

• by closing admin. Stifle, does that warning count for anything?

The proper thing to do would have been for Nableezy to make another RfC, or use other dispute resolution mechanism to engage editors in this issue, or perhaps get other advice from a mentor, or like-minded but mature editor or admin. I am not interested in 'taking anyone down with me' and frankly, I don't care to see Nableezy topic banned either (and I have tried unsuccessfully in the past to suggest he make positive contributions instead of only the negative edits that he characterizes him). Peace, here on WP and in Israel, will not be made by one side attacking the other but by each side wanting to progress and improve. If I could sanction Nableezy, it would be to A) get him to join Wikipedia:Palestine, and B1) improve above stub status 200 Palestinian locality articles (in contrast to the 200 Israeli articles he was beginning to edit), or alternatively B2) create 100 new 'pro'-Arab/Palestinian articles starting with the requested ones on WP:Palestine (not anti-Israel ones) or alternatively B3) work on getting GA status for five Arab/Palestinian articles of his choice (preferably ones that promote Arab issues, and do not include anything about 'international law', warfare and blood). Instead, until then, I see this as another frivolous attempt ato bully me and scare others as well. Many have come to support me here (surprisingly, thank you and I have not emailed or canvassed anyone either) and few have come to back Nableezy up, and there is no shortage of editors who are on 'his side'. It is a fact that the six accused edits mentioned are definitely not 'an attempt by me at filibustering', that while my accuser prefers otherwise, even if I have shown to accept inserting material my personal POV would rather not have included and I collaborate. --Shuki (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Shuki, where does WP:V or WP:RS require that a source "not just [mention the locality] in passing"? I seem to remember you made the opposite argument in the past. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG --Shuki (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that Israeli settlements are illegal under the Geneva conventions is an "exceptional claim"? Wow. Just wow.

I'm sorry, Shuki, but REDFLAG doesn't say what you think it says, and you don't get to set your own bar for which sources are acceptable and which aren't. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Mbz1

The issues raised in this request are issues related to the contested content of a few articles, and should be discussed on the articles talk pages as such. IMO the request should be closed as non actionable because Shuki has never violated any policy.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

On a side note I am surprised that Nableezy while filing the request about Shuki has no problems with IP, who inserts unsourced POV to the same articles with the edit summaries like this one for example: "an illegal settlement built on a stolen and occupied land is NOT a villeinage!!!! stop promoting lies violating wikipedias terms and the international law!!!!". --Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Gatoclass question about Shuki editing against consensus. No, they did not, just the opposite. Please take a look at one of the articles in question talk page's discussion. Nableezy started it just few hours before he filed this AE, and there's no consensus there. As user:Noon put it:
Israeli settlement is the FIRST descriptor of this locality in this article. Click it and you'll get all arguments regarding settlements. No need to repeat it again and again. This is what links are for in wiki article, unless you wish to make a non neutral point.
I am not going to discuss the fairness and/or correctness of user:Noon's statement because it does not belong to AE. It is a content dispute, which cannot be resolved through arbitration enforcement. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I really liked Shuki's proposal about sanctions for Nableezy. In general I believe that topic bans should be imposed rarely, if there's absolutely no other choice. I believe uninvolved admins should be more creative in the sanctioning of the involved editors. I actually liked how Tznkai topic banned Supreme_Deliciousness:

"This topic ban will run for 30 days from 00:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC) or until I see one of the following: A comprehensive and good faith proposal for a neutral standard on naming conventions, to be submitted for the consideration of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration|The Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject; a comprehensive and good faith proposal for a neutral standard on how images are chosen for Levant cuisine, to be submitted for the consideration of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration|The Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject; or a 3000 word essay on the meaning and importance of assuming good faith and avoiding battleground behavior."

So I concur with Shuki proposal about sanctions for Nableezy. It will help Nableezy to avoid being anti-Israeli single purpose account, and it is always the right thing to do. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To the closing administrator. I would like to stress out three important points provided by me and others as a small summary:

1. Nableezy filed this AE at 19:24, 18 July 2010 less than 4 hours after he started the discussion on the issue at the article's talk page, and failed to get consensus. It is not the way to proceed. It was neither an emergency, nor BLP, nor something else extraordinary that could not have waited for a few days. This request created unwanted wiki drama, that could have been avoided by a simple discussion.

1. Every article in question, except one, is linked to Israeli settlement. Israeli settlement article provides all information about Israeli settlements therefore there's no need to repeat it in every article. As somebody has written ""International law" is a tricky thing that people claim to know, but there has been no binding court case on the matter, and considerable legal debate. The Israeli settlement article discusses the complex legal issues at length", and it is the place to learn about it. The one that is not linked to Israeli settlement is linked to Community settlement (Israel), and I am not sure how it got to Nableezy's request in a first place.

According to the above this AE against Shuki should be closed as non actionable. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To the closing uninvolved admins, I am not going to jump into your space as very much involved Gatoclass did, but I do agree with him: banned editors should know what they are banned for. Shuki has done absolutely nothing wrong at all. The issue of the request is a content dispute, which could not and should not be enforced by AE. Nableezy did not make nearly enough efforts to resolve the issue at the article talk pages before bringing the matter up to AE. He demonstrated a battleground behavior, and it is not first time he files non actionable, time-wasting AE. That's why IMO Nableezy should be given 2 weeks symbolic ban on AE just to make him give it another thought before he files another AE. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass

While I certainly agree that the status of all such settlements in international law should be outlined somewhere in the relevant articles, it doesn't strike me as imperative that this status be noted in the intro, unless perhaps the intro is long and/or the settlement a particular source of friction. IMO, it's sufficient that the status of such settlements be referred to somewhere in the body of the article. In any case, this looks to me like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, and I don't see anything actionable under ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Nableezy's questions - firstly, your diffs do not demonstrate that Shuki has been "filibustering the content from appearing anywhere in the article". If he has done so, that may be an issue worth addressing, but I think you would need a pretty strong case, ie lots of diffs, to demonstrate that and you haven't provided any. In regards to your other question: Is a systematic campaign to violate core policies of this website not actionable? I would say it is, or should be, actionable, but again it would have to be clearly demonstrated. Perhaps, say, if you could demonstrate a persistent defying of consensus across multiple pages, that could be considered disruptive. But ultimately a lot will depend on the view of the closing admin. Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Having just read Shuki's comments above, I am obliged to amend my position. I consider Shuki's statement that "I have always demanded that sources specifically mention the locality and not just in passing" to be an absurdity, as it's clear that if a reliable source states that all Israeli settlements in area x are illegal, one does not need to find a source which specifically mentions that settlement y in area x is illegal. If Shuki has been reverting based on such specious reasoning, that could certainly in my view be considered disruptive and thereby sanctionable under ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

an Israeli organization .... was forced to pay damages and issue a public apology to settlers after falsely claiming that a particular settlement was built illegally on private Palestinian land - Ynhockey.

Well, fine, but that is quite irrelevant to this discussion. Sources can always be wrong, we knew that. The issue here is that Shuki is demanding a higher burden of proof for the inclusion of material than is required by WP:RS. He is demanding that sources specifically state that a given settlement is "illegal", when logically it is only necessary to demonstrate that a settlement is in the occupied territories to demonstrate its illegality. A source could of course be wrong in making either statement, so that's an entirely separate issue. Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

People need to stop making arguments for their take on the content dispute since that it not the scope of these requests - Cptnono.

Cptnono, there is a difference between a content dispute and sheer illogic. If someone holds a position that is plainly logically fallacious, and maintains that position even after having its erroneous nature pointed out to him, that has ceased to be a mere content dispute and become disruption. In this case, Shuki's position is rendered untenable by simple logical deduction:

1. All Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law.
2. This is an Israeli settlement in the occupied territories.
3. This is an illegal Israeli settlement.

There can therefore be no justification for Shuki's claim that Nableezy is required to produce sources that state a particular settlement is illegal. Nableezy only needs to produce a source which states that the settlement is in the occupied territories, because its illegality is a function of its location. If Shuki is prepared to acknowledge his error and agree to stop reverting on those grounds, perhaps there is no need for further action here. If however he is going to insist on maintaining his current view, I think that would be grounds for imposing further sanctions. Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass is in violation of WP:GAME. Nableezy's adding of "illegal under international law [like every other settlement]" to the first -- I repeat: 1st -- paragraph of dozens of articles is exceptionally poor form after the joint RFC to promote this action failed. Gatoclass, Nableezy, Tiamut, and co. support of of this collab RFC did not sway the general public and Gatoclass's comments here are an ARBPIA violation of WP:GAME. i.e. to promote a sanction on Shuki after failing to get the results he was looking for through the proper course of action (RFC, dispute resolution) is a bad faith attempt to use the policies of wikipedia. Thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"the general public", that's a good one! RomaC ^TALK 03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ynhockey

While it pains me to say so, I have to agree with Shuki's assessment of Nableezy's general editing practices (although I disapprove of the specific terms used). It is unfortunate that Nableezy has chosen not to make constructive contributions to articles about settlements, but rather to go out of his way to "prove" that they are illegal. Even if, theoretically, ample sources could be provided and the significance of this statement could be proven, it still seems like a WP:BATTLE action to just go around articles about settlements saying they're illegal and adding no other content. This WP:AE request seems like yet another piece of WikiDrama to get an editor from "the other side" banned and thus have a certain version of the article say. If Nableezy continues to edit settlement-related articles, I sincerely hope that he invests more resources into improving sections about the history, geography and culture of settlements. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a relevant note, although this might not belong at WP:AE, but I thought it more appropriate to post it here than on user talk: As Shuki noted, an Israeli organization (Peace Now) was forced to pay damages and issue a public apology to settlers after falsely claiming that a particular settlement was built illegally on private Palestinian land (Hebrew article). What I am saying is that this is an extremely sensitive issue that is essentially similar to WP:BLP (which was created, in part, to avoid legal action against WMF), and it is important that each settlement is examined on a case-by-case basis. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Note to Stifle: I will respect any decision you make, but ask you to look at what each editor has done for the articles in question. In fact, as far as I can tell, Shuki has singlehandedly written most of the content in settlement-related articles. As I noted above, Nableezy has unfortunately failed to make any contributions to these articles. I ask that this is taken into account in any decision you make. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? nableezy was contributing to the settlement articles by adding the entire worldview with reliable sources. And the sourced worldview was removed by Shuki. Who is the one that has been trying to contribute to the articles here? and who is the one who has been tampering the articles here? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cptnono

I hope that any request for enforcement against Nableezy will not look like reprisal since it has been coming for some time now.

The RfC closure set a very good chance to do some case by case basis with a firm reminder not to start any shenanigans. This should have been handled better and Shuki should not be shouldering the brunt of the blame.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Gilsa makes a point that the wording and the sources have been questioned. Editors continuing to stick them in on a mad spree after a contentious RfC is not the way to go about doing things. Shuki was reverting what he saw as contentious edits inserted on multiple articles and now he gets an AE for being a POV pusher essentially. Bad form and Shuki shouldn;t have even been brought here. A little bit of talk page would be better but unfortunately that hardly stops the wackiness going on in this topic area.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

People need to stop making arguments for their take on the content dispute since that it not the scope of these requests.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop discussing content here, Gatoclass. Not everyone agrees with it so it is therefore contentious. Methods used to include or removed that contentious material are the concern. Maybe editors feeling so strongly that their edits can be defended with assertions such as shear logic is the problem since their are channels in place for content disputes which should not be ignored. Unless of course the purpose is to set a precedent (Shuki was wrong therefore everything must be mentioned as "occupied"). Basically what I am saying is that Shuki is allowed to revert bold edits. Nableezy is free to seek other channels to include it if that is done. There is not an overuse of the revert function and Shuki is not alone so why make such sweeping changes when there is an ongoing dispute? And I agree that AE needs to get a little tougher on editors who have repeatedly been blocked or received sanctions if it is shown that they have crossed the line. Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)\

Why Nbaleezy is being scrutinized has come up here. I really don't think it matters if Gatoclass wants to switch into admin mode and comment down there so fine I will provide some diffs. Nableezy and I were discussing this on my talk page and he also asked for some evidence of what I thought was his wrongdoing. My thoughts on it are that he needlessly reverts and does not participate with a collaborative mindset. If Shuki is POV pushing than Nableezy surely is but if both of them stop reverting and finding other methods I don't care that much about what they do.

His response was typical for him with deflection and other assertions such as: It was propaganda (kind of a dirty word here), It was sourced (disregarding that the sources have been questioned and that we should not be mirroring the tone of biased sources), reverts were to a troll (even though he has edited in tandem with an IP that others have accused of being a troll), and so on. I'm not going to list diffs of accusations of edit warring not related to the subtopic this AE gets into, civility, gaming, outing , and other potential problems since Stifle might have a good suggestion and overdoing the diffs would just lead to needless mudslinging. What is an obvious problem is that Nableezy came off of a restriction and within a day started rocking the boat in issues dealing with the legality of places, occupation, and settlers. Regardless of his feelings, he needs to stop hitting the revert button.

I think a full-on topic ban would be fine but I am obviously frustrated with him and Stifle's idea might work. I also think a 1rr would be good. For Shuki, if he is reverting as much as Nableezy than he should suffer similar consequences. I don't buy any argument that says the listed reverts show him as POV pusher but I am admittedly biased.

Reply to Cptnonos "Diffs and thoughts and stuff" I have edited 1080 articles. I am interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict and so are many others, so those who are interested in the same topic will of course run into me on several articles. Now to Cptnonos accusations where he mentions my name:

• I have edited the Mount Hermon article for a very long time, my first edit there was over a year ago. So I did not just "pop up" there just because nableezy edited it. And my edit there on the 7th July was not the same as Nableezys, they were two seperate edits. At the Golan Heights article there has been talks many times and at Mount Hermon talkpage we have had many talks about the issue, and I have participated at the talkpage discussions at both articles every single time. All reliable neutral sources show clearly that we can not say that the area is in Israel since that is against the entire international view (Npov). Also notice that at the Mount Hermon talkpage pushing for the Israeli pov is at least one topic banned sockpuppeteer Amoruso and his sock the Sipio account.

• Concerning the Ortal, Golan Heights article, nableezy actually reverted himself there, back to Shukis verion, so there was no rv there from him. The problem there was that Shuki had changed position of the settlement and kibbutz and he had not gotten any consensus for the rearrangement yet he continued to change the position from the status quo. So why did he do this? I asked him repeatedly at the talkpage to show me at what time the "kibbutz" was before "settlement" but still he hasn't shown this til this day. And I did one rv at the 24th June and then almost one month later on 18th July did another rv and the only reason for the second rv was because he still after all this time hadn't shown me at the talkpage at what time exactly when both terms was in the article was the "kibbutz" before "settlement". Just like he right now hasn't answered to my latest post there. Also my last revert there at the time 18.32 18th July was by accident, I unintentionally pressed the rollback button, but I reverted back to his version and explained this to him: [146]

• Concerning Neve Ativ, I did not just "stepp in" there, as I will explain below that I am familiar with Jubata ez Zeit and Neve Ativ. A newly registered account Martinakohl came and removed that Neve ativ was built on top of Jubata ez Zeit, he claimed that Marsad was an unreliable source [147] so Nableezy added a source from cambridge university[148] but the newly registered account continued to remove this clearly reliable source several times and also edit warred with a user named Jeff G. and several IPs to remove the sourced information. And I knew in advance that Neve Ativ was built on Jubata ez Zeit because it was me who started the Jubata ez Zeit article, and I had edited the Neve Ativ article before adding this info:[149], and I also had another source to confirm the same thing from the Jubata article, so I added the other source [150] and I explained at the talkpage [151] and just because the title of the book source I added was called "Settlements and cult sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean culture in the Hellenistic and Roman periods" , he removed it saying: "Jubata ez-Zeit is not a Roman village" which is complete nonsense since it has nothing to do with anything, the text I added to the article did not say it was Roman and the source in the book did not say it was Roman. He was blocked [152] and then he created two sockpuppets to continue to forcibly removed the sourced content: [153][154]. So in this "conflict" I made one rv and in that rv added another source and I participated at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if there was confusion. I wasn't trying to single you out here and I did not intend for it to an argument against your editing. I think you still make some mistakes. So does Jujitsuguy on the other side. Both of you have mirrored some bad habits seen in more experienced users like Nableezy but neither of you are under any scrutiny here.Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Gilisa

Yes, the removed material was sourced. However, the wording was far from being neutral. The international status of Ma'ale Adumim is far more complicated than these sources show. The USA discussed with Israel many times the possibility of acknowledging such cities as regular part of Israel, in fact, it's also discussed between Israel and the palestinian representatives.

Also, these sources are all from Guardian and BBC. While they are usually RS, they are not considered impartial in their attitude through Israel. Infact, once Israel submitted official complaint against the BBC for being biased against it. The BBC then was forced to establish a committee that scrutinized these complaints. They never published the committee's conclusions. If you search the web for it, you will find many reliable sources heavily doubt the neutrality of British media sources like the BBC and the Guardian about the I-P conflict. When it comes to settlements thing then no one is argue that the BBC came up with MA being considered as a settlement by the UN. But it does not represent the entire issue and the wording by itself is harsh and not neutral still.--Gilisa (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

Funny how Nableezy’s name keeps popping up on these boards, over and over again, either as a complainant or respondent. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It seems to me that he comes into this with soiled hands, edit warring while mastering the art of tag-teaming. Nableezy has adopted the Lord of the Flies approach to editing Wikipedia, reverting endlessly, baiting others into edit wars, tag-teaming and initiating harassing enforcement actions when things don’t quite go his way. The admin who rules on this case should also note that Nableezy has been indeffed (for threatening legal action, later lifted when withdrawn) has been blocked and subjected to lengthy topic bans. This is not exactly your model editor. As for the substantive issues involved, this is a content dispute in which Shuki has provided ample and cogent reasoning for his edits. If anyone should be sactioned, it is Nableezy who continuously uses these enforcement actions as tools of fear to silence his opposition.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sean.hoyland

This is about policy compliance. We can't have people removing sourced information because the information isn't wearing a hijab or whatever the nothing-to-do-with-policy reason was here. Editors are obliged to edit according to policy. If they are upset by reliable sources saying that Israeli settlements are illegal and editors adding that information to articles there are plenty of other subjects for them to work on. What would happen I wonder if, rather than topic bans and such like, editors who find it difficult to comply with the discretionary sanctions were simply restricted from removing sourced material from articles ? They could add sourced material, reword existing material but not remove it altogether without calmly proceeding to the talk page and making their case. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another alternative to the standard and clearly ineffective methods currently employed to deal with neutrality-challenged editors might be to require them to swop to 'the other side' of the conflict for a period. This is something I would really like to see happen personally. If an editor wants to blatantly ignore WP:COI, blatantly ignore the 'Editors counseled' section of the sanctions and consistently advocate for a side in a conflict as so many do then maybe there should be a cost to the editor. Perhaps they should have to advocate for 'the other side' too and the benefit should accrue to Wikipedia in the form of improved content and a general reduction in silliness. If an editor is genuinely here to build a better encyclopedia they shouldn't mind adding policy compliant material for a period even if it comes from sources they don't like such as..um..the BBC and even if it makes 'their side' look bad in their eyes. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Epeefleche

When we have highly disruptive editors (as in, those who have been blocked three times already this year) elevating their content disputes to non-actionable complaints, in apparent efforts to further their own POV, we have a wasteful time-suck. Perhaps it's time to consider ways to slow down our most disruptive editors; especially those who gravitate towards controversial areas such as the I-P area. Something that slows down those editors who have already been blocked 3 times in 2010, say, from taking any of various steps that lead to wastes of time for the community at large (ARE, AfD, etc., in the I-P area). In the U.S., felons are prohibited from voting in many elections. And at wikipedia, when articles are controversial, we limit editing to certain editors who we view as more trustworthy -- such as non-IPs. Extending those concepts here might prove beneficial.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Misarxist

Just over a week ago Shuki came of a 3 month 1r restriction (AE result) this doesn't appear to have sunk in as since then:

• Halamish edit warring over several days on same point [155], [156] & [157] with no attempt to discuss on talk page.
• Israeli settler violence unactioned 3r violation [158], [159] & [160] again no discussion.

He just doesn't seem to be here to edit collaboratively and probably requires a topic ban rather than another revert restriction. Misarxist (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to get into your space I will move my comment, if you'd like me to, but did you notice by any chance that in first three examples of so called edit warring you provided, Shuki reverted IP vandal, who was reverted by quite a few other editors, me including, as well. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re the admin comments about 'content dispute', obviously there is disagreement about the content, but the complaint is about straight-foward multiple reverts of sourced content without discussion. As I noted above (even with Mbz1's note, yes that's not as simple as I claimed, but the 3r example is undeniable) we are talking about an a know tendentious edit-warrior. There doesn't seem to be any real argument about Shuki being sanctioned again. But the complaints about Nableezey's record (the bulk of the responses here) are not relevant to that. And if Nableezey's conduct is at fault there's going to to need to be evidence cited, the fact that he's in a dispute with a tendentious nationalist editor isn't good enough in itself. Also while the underlying and widespread dispute does need to be dealt with, this simply isn't the right venue. Misarxist (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by AMuseo.

Since the status of all land that has been conquered in a defensive war is a complex matter and the status of the West Bank finds no consensus among international legal experts, it is POV pushing to write the kind of statement that User:Nableezy is defending. I do not see nableezy questioning the status of the Western Sahara, or of Tibet, or criticizing the recent genocidal attack on the Tamil. He writes on behalf of a political cause dear to his heart. This does not make him a useful colleague. You can, after all, always find newspaper articles making flat assertions about just about anything. this is not scholarship. A simple statement that there is no consensus regarding the legal status of the West Bank would be better and could be well-supported. But I do not expect scholarship or balance from Nableezy. He is a highly contentions editor, the kind that drives moderate, informed editors from Wikipedia. Actually, I have come to believe that it is his goal to make editing so unpleasant that moderate people will go away, leaving the field open to him to use Wikipedia as a battleground to wage a Palestinian proxy war.AMuseo (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Fandriampahalamana

Although I wasn't involved in the articles mentioned above, I do feel it necessary to decry Nableezy's disruptive edit habits and intimidation of editors. On the Helen Thomas article while I explained every move I made, he vandalized my edits without any explanation, or with meaningless ones which is even worse. Once, it could have been explained away, but not a pattern of them. Then he had the gall to try to intimidate me by pretending that he is an administrator and admonishing me (for doing what is right) when he should have admonished himself for editing in bad faith. On one edit on July 13 (not pertaining to me) seeing that he can’t have it his way, he then made another controversial edit slanting the lead and explaining it with "all right, you want specifics add specifics, not just one part of the story." He seems to be using Wikipedia to tell the story the way he wants it to be told, as he actually admitted in a moment of truth and exasperation, of if you're getting it your way then I'll get it also my way. He sees everything as "your way" or "my way". I think he is unhelpful and a drain on controversial articles. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Peter Cohen

It's unfortunate that this request is following the usual pattern of people's views on Shuki's conduct being 100% corfrelated with their views on the IP dispute. I regret that I'm conforming to that pattern. Looking at the last edits listed by Nableezy, I see that theis effect is to remove any mention of the status of these settlements under international law. It has to be a notable effect about these places that they are considered illegal by major international institutions that pronounce on and enforce international law. The major institutions I have in mind are such organs ases of the UNSC, the high-contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions, the ICC, ICJ etc. When all those that pronounce on the matter say the settlements are illegal and none dissents, then the fact has to be mentioned in the articles. To remove any such mention is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Noon: I'm surprised by your reasoning. The quote from Nableezy indicates that there are a number of banned or permanently blocked editors who persist in creating sockpuppets in order to carry on distorting Wikipedia in favour of their political position. Persistent sockpuppeteers are damaging to Wikipedia. They increase the appearance of conflict between legitimate editors and anyone who uses SPI/CU to root out these users is to be praised. Accusations by the likes of Stellarkid who was a puppet of a user banned for participating in a drive by an external organisation to distort the content of Wikipedia have a wholly deleterious effect on the project. The fact that they have edit-warring and the reporting of legitimate users to the various admin boards as weapons is just evidence that thre is an organised effort to malign political opponents. One of those opponents should not be criticised for pointing this out. That certain editors leap to the defence of such sockpuppeteers also raises the question as to whether they are here to improve Wikipedia or whether they are themselves part of the effort to disrupt the project.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Brewcrewer

As this is apparently the place to hang out these days, I feel obliged to chime in lest people forget my existence. Unlike some other editors here who feel this is an content related dispute and should be closed as unactionable, I'm of the position that some action should take place as a result of this report.

The editor who filed the report insists that the first three words of any article on an Israeli entity beyond the '48 border should be "illegal settlement". This position has resulted in lots of edit warring. Numerous editors and a RFC later (linked above) have revealed a consensus that although the argument for illegality should clearly be included in an article, it should not be the first three words, per WP:NPOV.

Nevertheless, Nableezy still insists that "illegal" be in the opening sentence and any position taken to the contrary is "stupid". Not only is it "stupid", arguing that it does not belong in the first sentence is an ARBCOM violation.

Nableezy claims that Shuki wants to remove any mention of illegality of article, but that's blatantly false. Each article linked by Nableezy mentions the illegality issue, some even have an entire section discussing the illegality argument.

Thus, what we have here is a blatantly frivolous AE report filed by one of the most prolific AE filers, who should know better. Some sort of action should be taken so that this huge waste of time does not reoccur. Perhaps an AE ban? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, sorry for placing this statement here, but that is simply not true. Nowhere did the RFC say that the words "illegal settlement" should be used as the first three words, legality was not even the topic of the RFC (which, oh by the way, certainly did not result in the consensus that you claim). And nowhere in the articles Ofra, Ariel (city), Amona, or Immanuel (town) is the legal status discussed. Kindly do not misrepresent what I have written or the RFC or the content of the articles. nableezy - 14:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The first two links you brought as the basis for your claim have entire sections catered to the illegality issue.[161][162] I don't plan on spending more time litigating and word playing. This has wasted enough time already.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And the rest of them? You wrote "Each article linked by Nableezy mentions the illegality issue". Is that or is that not true? And you did not address the gross misrepresentation of the RFC. I guess that is "word playing". nableezy - 14:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by RomaC

Concur with Peter Cohen above on all points. See many examples of Israel saying A and the rest of the world saying B, and some editors pushing A first, then a mention of B, then a rebuttal per A as "neutral." As for the admin suggestion below re: possible concurrent 3-month blocks, excuse my cynicism but I imagine Shuki might agree to "take one for the team" and be blocked if Nableezy were also taken out. There are few topic areas with nearly as much concerted partisan activity as Israel-Palestine. Yes, Nableezy may be biased, but he's also badly outnumbered which makes him sort of stick out in these content disputes. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 14:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Noon

As I understand the AE regarding the I-P articles, one of its purposes was to facilitate a reasonable editing atmosphere in this contentious area. Contributors who exhibited "battleground" mentality and aggressive behaviour were banned or were blocked for a long period of time. In contrast to this purpose, the filing party of this request is engaged for a long time in trying to get the upper hand in content disputes by making considarable efforts to ban his opponents or block them indefinitely. Just one sample illustration of his "battleground mentality" may be found here, where he says: "There were three people who had pushed for my first topic ban. One of those was later blocked as a sock of NoCal100, the one who filed the complaint has now been blocked as a sock of Dajudem/Tundrabuggy, and the last is still taking aim at me." WP is not a battleground nor a venue for shooting ducks as done in Luna Parks. It looks as if the filing party spends most of his energy either to make small controversial edits to push his political views, while violating the fundamental WP:NPOV policy, or in targetting disruptively his opponents, espacially those who dare criticizing or reporting him, until they get out of his way. Content should adhere WP:NPOV not only in the facts and refs, but also in the tone of what is written, and how and where the facts are presented (ie. either in the lead, or as a link to the relevant article where all POVs are presented, or in a separate section in the same article where more views can be presented). accordingly, and for the huge waste of time dealing with this unwarranted request, it seems that the filing party fails to adhere to the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and the I-P AE penalty guidelines may apply to him. Noon (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this "and the last is still taking aim at me" too, and I agree it is yet another example of a battleground behavior by user:Nableezy--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Peter Cohen regarding this quote: Please listen to the music, imagine the moving targets, listen to the 'shootings', listen to the happy victory shouts, imagine the sniper tracing and targetting his 'enemies' above earth and in war tunnels, look at the sparkling eyes of this sniper when he realizes that some 'enemy troops' are still there hiding disguised somewhere or trying to sneak away... don't you hear real sounds of WAR here in Wikipedia? and this is just one example I've found in few minutes.

In my opinion this battlefield mentality is what the Arbitration Committee tried to stop, or, at least, significantely reduce, in their harsh sanctions in the I-P case and its subsequent AE mechanism.

There is no place for such a war mentality when trying to build a useful and accurate encyclopedia. Noon (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Stifle, Nableezy has not done anything wrong here, while Shuki has been removing sourced information. Please look at the real issue instead of what other people say here at this enforcement. Every time there is a pro-Israeli editor up for enforcement, the same group of people show up in defense of that editor. Please look at the real issue here instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Stifle, please think about what you are saying, you are talking about a sanction on a user for adding the entire international view with a reliable source into an article. This is not a content dispute, when someone removes the entire worldview that is sourced with a reliable source - that's censorship, you can not impose some kind of "collective punishment" here. Also agree with Gatoclass, please explain your comments about this in more detail, "each side is at fault" is vague. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment by Jiujitsuguy

When evaluating sanctions, prior disciplinary history should be factored in. A look at Shuki’s record reveals two relatively short blocks, the last of which occurred more than a year ago This is an indication that Shuki is adhering to wiki policy and guidelines. By contrast, Nableezy’s block history is a mess, full of lengthy blocks and topic bans[163] In fact, Nableezy has just come off a topic ban. In addition, Nableezy has previously been indefinitely blocked for threatening legal action against Wikipedia. It was lifted when he withdrew his threat but it shows that he has lost sight of reality and can not distinguish between the real and virtual worlds. It is clear from his prior sanction history that this is an editor who takes a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing with a “take no prisoners” mentality. Clearly, under the totality of circumstances, the person who deserves to be permanently banned from the topic area is Nableezy.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot Shukis recent 3 month 1rvpd restriction [164] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

When you are a recidivist, like Nableezy, when your block log history reads like a lengthy rap sheet, like Nableezy’s when you find yourself on these boards on a daily basis, either as a respondent or complainant, like Nableezy, When you come into every I-A article with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, like Nableezy, when an editor loses his grip on reality and threatens to sue Wikipedia, as Nableezy has, it’s time to ask; Is this a productive editor or a disruptive one? I leave it to the admins to decide.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Pantherskin

I have not encountered Shuki in the past, although it is clear from the diffs provided that he has a strong POV which is reflected in his edits. On the other side, he is prolific content contributor in the Israel content area, and most of his edits clearly improve the enyclopedia. Regarding Nableezy I have encountered him and again it is clear that his edits reflect his strong POV. That in itself is not necessarily a problem (although usually it is), but when coupled with incivility and combative language ([165], [166] - some recent example, but from cases clearly a pattern), speculations and accusations about the ulterior motives of other editors ([167], [168]) it becomes a problem as it makes collaborative editing difficult to impossible. I am ignoring here the partisan editing of Nableezy and presumably Shuki - it would probably be beyond the scope and my take on it is that we probably need a fully fledged arbcom case to deal with the current detoriation in the Israel-Palestine topic area.

Nableezys comment "Go away" was to a blocked sockpuppet who had repeatedly disrupted the Golan heights article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it was directed against an IP address that was temporarily blocked and tried to start a discussion on the talk page (at last). I do not know where you get the sockpuppet part from, as there is no indication on the IPs talk page and no sockpuppet investigation. Pantherskin (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP was blocked [169] and then he used another way to edit the talkpage while his other IP was blocked, that's block evasion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Tariqabjotu

This isn't about Shuki specifically, but the prevalence of arbitration enforcement requests and posts on AN3, ANI, and RFPP, especially as of late, regarding Israel-Palestine articles and articles that only mention something Israel-Palestine-related suggests that it's high time for another ARBCOM case. Either that, or admins need to be more willing to exact serious sanctions against editors that have been shown to be disruptive on these articles. We see the same editors being reported again and again (and the same editors doing the reporting again and again). This is one of today's most persistent and divisive conflicts, and while I appreciate people's willingness to give editors second, third, and fourth chances, the fact of the matter is, those people who edit disruptively in this arena will almost certainly always edit disruptively in this arena. This method of moderate sanctions and warnings that never get followed up on is not working. It's clear that a certain set of editors are testing the community's patience, and if they can't voluntarily move to an area in which they can more constructively edit, they should be forced to do so post-haste. -- tariqabjotu 12:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Agree with Tariqabjotu. However the administrators who regularly "manage" these areas are just as much at fault for the disruption as those who some consider "problematic" editors. The admins have become unwilling pawns of so called "battlefield warriors" and are therefore are unable to be non-bias, uninvolved parties themselves. Part of the solution, I feel, to defusing this situation (in addition to a new/clarified ARBCOM case) is to remove the administrators who regularly "enforce" actions on this board. I'm not suggesting revoking their admin status, only that since there is gross failure on their part to effectively administer IP-related disputes on ANI/AE (as evident by the level of REPEATED drama that regularly appears here), they should no longer be making binding decisions on editors whose action is brought to ANI/AE. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the administrators here. The problem is not so much the administrators, as the AE system itself, which is still remarkably undefined and arbitrary. What this project needs more than anything in my view, is a simple, streamlined, transparent and predictable process for dealing with content disputes, which is what most disputation is ultimately about. We have got to stop throwing the content dispute dilemma into the too hard basket, and come up with a method of dealing with such disputes that doesn't compromise the Wikipedia commitment to NPOV. Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The administrators who regularly handle the tag-team "game" that AE has become have ignored concerns stated by others about the process and summarily ignored or dismissed those who question their neutrality. They have allowed themselves to become pawns of those who use Wikipedia as a battleground and therefore have ceased to become "neutral" "uninvolved" parties. Therefore, they do indeed share in the blame. True, the current AE system has been greatly abused and become a tool with which to "do battle", but you cannot ignore the fact that this "three ring circus" has been allowed to carry on as long as it has -- and to the extent that it has. There are other remedies for abuse of wikipedia processes themselves, completely separate from IP Arbcom regulations, but no one seems to be interested in taking advantage of them. Instead, the destructive, abusive, and disruptive behavior is allowed to continue unabated, with editors gaming the system knowing full well that the worst that will happen is a slap on the wrist. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my concern is that remedies are often too drastic rather than too lenient. But it can go either way. That's why I think this process is unduly arbitrary - it's usually left up to a single admin to decide upon a remedy, and depending on who he is or how he sees it, it might end up being anything from a 24-hour block to an indef ban. It's kind of like Russian roulette, you just never know what the outcome will be. We ought to be able to do better than that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What if we had three admins decide a short term remedy - Maybe if an immediate block is warranted, do an emergency block for 12-24 hours, then have a group of admins decide what the "new" block should be. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ZScarpia

Unlike the Israeli legal position, which is irrelevant to it, the overwhelming international viewpoint, as embodied in such organisations as the UN, is very staightforward: the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law (see the article on Israeli settlements, such documents as the text of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 7/18 and newspaper articles such as this one from Le Monde Diplomatique).

The Wikipedia rules require, as stated by Nableezy, that articles should present the all significant viewpoints and in a proportionate manner. Those on Israeli settlements and outposts, particularly major ones such as Ma'ale_Adumim and Ariel, should reflect the main global point of interest in them (as shown by the context in which they normally appear in sources), their status as illegal settlements in occupied territory and their role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trying to minimise or suppress the proportionate representation of that viewpoint amounts to point-of-view pushing. That is particularly true when reasons given for reverting edits, rather than being based on the Wikipedia rules, are, as they have been here, where a reason given for reverting was that the status of the settlements is uncertain because it has never been examined in a law court, is based in a particular viewpoint (from the international point of view, the settlements are illegal because that is the ruling of the bodies responsible for making those judgements).

The reliablitly of the BBC as a source has been mentioned above. The BBC is far from infallible, but its duty as a public service broadcaster to report neutrally means that its reports are subject to more than normal editorial oversight, which, in Wikipedia terms, is an indication of greater reliability. In 2006, the report produced at the end of an independent review commissioned by the corporation's board of governors was, unlike the internally-produced Balen report, published. The review suggested that the BBC's reporting, if anything, favoured the Israeli side. The review panel recommended that the BBC should make public an abbreviated version of the Israel and Palestine part of its journalists' guide to facts and terminology. In light of the conversation going on here, perhaps the guideline which says, "when writing a story about settlements we can aim, where relevant, to include context to the effect that 'all settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this," which is very similar to the text that Nableezy was trying to introduce, might be seen as of interest.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you comment on the RfC? That comment would have been better there. Anyway, so what you are saying is that the articles should start - Ariel is a city in the West Bank....established...with x population. Ariel is an Israeli settlement. That would satisfy what you suggested. --Shuki (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a very revealing comment from Shuki. Even at the end of an enforcement case against him, in which he faces a possible topic ban, he still cannot bring himself to concede that the illegality of these settlements should be mentioned in the settlement articles. Shuki's lack of objectivity in this topic area could scarcely be made more apparent. Is it any wonder that other users become frustrated? Judging by the comments he has made at this AE case, it appears to me that it's time for Shuki to find some other topic area in which to contribute. Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again it is a content dispute, which should be decided individually in every situation at the articles talk pages, and it could not and should not be enforced by AE. It is not as black and white as some try to present it here. And no, it is not an enforcement case against Shuki, or at least it is as much against Shuki as it is against Nableezy. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing the entire worldview from articles that is sourced from reliable sources is not a content dispute, its embarking on an article in a harmful manner. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has demonstrated any wrongdoing by Nableezy in this case. Everything that's been said about Nableezy has been in the form of either vague generalities or dredging up of old disputes. I've seen no evidence of current misbehaviour, and I might add that I think his past record of alleged misbehaviour is also overblown. But that of course is another issue. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You obviously did not read my comments above in which I show specifically that Nableezy has done exactly what I have and much more, and given that his record is problematic, while mine is significantly better. There is nothing 'revealing' here, and as an admin you should know to discuss the AE here against me (and consequently Nableezy for bringing the spotlight on himself as well) and relative to other accepted/tolerated behaviour on WP, not content. --Shuki (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I did not previously read all your comments, per WP:TLDR. However, I have now read them per your request and stand by my previous comment. Moreover, on closer examination of your arguments I find the following:

Nableezy, blocked numerous times for problematic behavior, is himself in violation of AE with his insertion of negative boilerplate WP:REDFLAG material. Specifically, his latest non-consensus solo effort, is to find any mention of a locality that also says that it is illegal. No proof of any court action specifically declaring this and definitely in contrast to many court cases with the Israeli Supreme Court that has decided whether a place is illegal...

Here, you are characterizing the position of every major international legal body that the settlements are illegal as an exceptional claim per WP:REDFLAG. As Malik noted above, that is simply a preposterous claim. Not only that, but you are conflating Israeli law regarding the legality of settlements with international law, when they are entirely separate entities.

I don't want to speculate on what might motivate you to try and defend these indefensible positions, but the fact that you are continuing to try rings very loud alarm bells for me. I'm not in a position to judge your overall contribution to the project, but if this is typical of your approach to disputes, then I'm sorry to say that I think you are editing in the wrong topic area and need to look for an area that is less emotionally charged for you. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

{Reply to the comment addressed to me by Shuki at 22:29 (UTC) on 21 July 2010} Ideally every involved editor should be co-operating to produce a less single-perspective article. If the lead section were to be written by me, it would start something like:

Ariel is a city in the West Bank which was founded as an Israeli settlement in 1978. It is now the mother settlement of 26 others in its vicinity. Together, these comprise the Ariel settlement bloc. Like all settlements in the West Bank, the international community views these as illegal, though Israel disputes this. After the one at Ma'ale Adumim, the Ariel settlement bloc is the largest Israeli settlement in the West Bank.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In regard to court judgements on the legality of the settlements, in its role as the principal judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice stated the following in an advisory opinion given to the UN General Assembly on the 9 July 2004:

(page 9 of the summary) ... the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the 1967 conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel ...

(page 10 of the summary) The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The Security Council has taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal validity” and constitute a “flagrant violation” of the Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The addition of statements noting the international view that particular settlements are illegal has a long history and is not, as far as I can see, a breach of established consensus. For example, in the article on Ariel, the first time such a statement was added in April 2005, a year after the article was created, by Doron.     ←   ZScarpia   15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hope&Act3!

it is the first time that I express my views in such a setting and being inexperienced I will probably be clumsy, please be indulgent. Some have already said things I agree with, no need to repeat them

I don't contribute much since I have been busy reading kilometers of Talk pages, exclusively in the I-P domain, (which is the most vicious battleground in wp despite every guide line,) trying to understand where the grip is and hoping to come up with a proposition to fix it. In my following comment I will adopt the 'they' and 'us' 'pro-I' and 'pro-P' style although it's not my vision of the I-P in real life it only represents the actual situation in wp:en
(1) the context
it's obvious to everyone I think that this endless bickering is a waste both of time and energy, - war is not appealing to most editors so they avoid taking part in it and in consequence don't contribute and that ends being wp's loss
(2) the actors
I won't address directly Nableezy's accusations, the root of the problem is beyond that.
Did you notice that Shuki is the main 'pro-Israel' contributor in these so called discussions? so much so that seeing all the 'pro-Israel' on this page is amazing since they (like myself) don't figure so much there. That's the way it is, only Shuki managed to bear with Nableezy's uncompromising atitude: Nableezy won't ever be ready to give up until he has achieved his goal: occupation is illegal must be mentioned every 3 words at least so that nobody can forget the unforgivable wrong doings of the Zionists... (don't read it literally, it's a caricature, just to make the point of how it feels discussing with him)

I admire Shuki's patience and fortitude for Nableezy is a relentless attacker, if Shuki did fail in anyway it is because he has been pushed unto that intended breaking point.

Nableezy, which might be a pleasant person, is a victim of his blind hatred of the State of Israel and Zionism, and through that is easily manipulated by the 'pro-Palestinian' party: he is the willing spearhead which will eventually take the fall and that did happen many times already as we know
(3) my personnal experience
as soon as I started to grasp the depth of the war -consider that Jiujitsuguy added 'Jewish' before Gamla and SD could not take it: no such word is to be written in any place on the Golan which is Syrian, was Syrian, and will be forever Syrian.... Gamla was Jewish and many RS exist , so when I understood that I refrained from editing and as I said above read and read and read .... and I specially decided not to engage Nableezy in any dispute -not even about the 'stupid things' attack- and let it go since I consider that to be a futile exercise in nothingness and due to lead to frustration and possibly even anger hence my admiration for Shuki.
once in a while I did edit but that brought upon me a tentative of intimidation by RomaC for 'vandalism and warring' (I was waiting a few days before filing a complaint)
out of that I got the message that 'they' want to have a free rein in the I-P editing -as said Ynhockey, AMuseo, Noon - and will try to discourage anybody 'pro-Israel' bold enough to dare come and play in 'their' courtyard -since I am a genuine account 'they' had no chance to oust me for sockpupettery which is 'their' regular feat so 'they' have to find different ways. one must not forget: it's WAR! ('their' opinion)
(4) solution?
- quit this war state of mind (as many advocated)
- blocking editors doesn't work, it's brutal and when they come back, well it's back to square 1 (remember the last return of Nableezy -sorry, I don't mean to target you but this the only example I can think of presently- )
- I too thought like Sean.hoyland of this technique used in conflict resolution groups when everyone has to bring up the other side's position but I figured that in a workshop setting the participants will stay in situ and collaborate, here those which don't want to will simply stay away for the time of the exercise and then... resume the same game

- I will plead not to ban either Shuki or Nableezy -it should be both, albeit not identically, or none- for (see Mbz1) a ban is cruel since it hurts and doesn't reform and in the long term it's bound to be counterproductive, just demand a monitored* cease fire in litigation and pov push and instead of the inumerable rfc et al a serious brainstorming with everyone interested to come up with a friendly solution (not just the administrators), as oppose to the big stick policy which has failed so far -that at least is clear to me-. Violence breeds violence and is to be avoided. I believe that with a lot of good will from everyone we can pull it up, it won't be easy but there is really no choice, carrying on the present way is a dead end. Guide lines are just that, they must not be blindly -and foolishly- enforced but with flexibility to meet both parties' wishes, unless we intend to institute once again the good old Pax Romana
- if you still think that only a firm hand will bring results and do want to break their back, I will suggest a very radical measure: a topic ban of ALL the editors and hopefully the new batch will be wiser (I very much doubt that though)

*should be very closely monitored in order to avoid the type of policy SD -which is not the subject here- adopted so that s.o. else would fight his battles (re Tznkai /topic ban)

:@RomaC: There are few topic areas with nearly as much concerted partisan activity as Israel-Palestine. uh! if it's how you see it that does explain a lot regarding the failure in reaching balance! that is a point to clarify then. Nableezy may be biased, but he's also badly outnumbered which makes him sort of stick out in these content disputes. I disagree, as I said Shuki was mainly left on his own to face endless days of lines of over and over the same words and arguments, are you saying that Nableezy believed he was alone holding the fort? I felt under attack myself I guess that I do not think that I only can save the world where he felt desperately obligated to fight to the end, was it so? that also is to be discussed . On another wiki I read an essay: 'Nobody is irremplacable' (fortunately) still each one of us is unique, ok?
I read again the comments and I saw a lot of a militantist attitude, I hope this is not the tone which will prevail
@Stifle: thanks for offering your help, Hope&Act3! (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional Comment by Pantherskin

One of the most destructive tactics to use on Wikipedia is the introduction of hoaxes into articles, and the use of made-up sources. At the Syria article both Nableezy and Supreme Deliciousness wanted to include the sentence "...to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis." in the article, cited to "Kamrava, Mehran, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, University of California Press; 1 edition, p. 48". I checked the source in the library, neither on this page nor anywhere else in the book is there anything even remotely. You can even check it on Google Books, [170] For me page 48 does not show, but it is clear that this chapters is about the pre-World War I era. You can also search for the numbers 67 and 69, the numbers 67 or 69 are not mentioned anywhere in the book. In short, these editors used a made-up source to bolster their claims and only after being caught red-handed did Supreme Deliciousness remove the fake source (see [171] and [172]). I do not know how one can work collaboratively on this projekt or have trust in Wikipedia articles if we cannot trust our editors to be honest about their sources. This is even more important than civility and conforming to NPOV.

I did not "want to include the sentence" I reverted an edit that you made that removed something that I did want to include and you never once raised any concern about the other material. Perhaps I should have checked the first part of the edit but as you never once said one word about the material or the source I did not. Kindly do not misrepresent my actions here. nableezy - 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We even discussed this section on the talk page and on the NPOV noticeboard, and I made it clear that the claims of Israel having shelled Syria are in conflict with what virtually all other sources say. I even quoted the first part, the part with the made-up source Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Syria, so how you manage to be completely oblivious to this is beyond me. Either way I do not know how one can trust you as an editor when one has to double-check the sources you use. Pantherskin (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You never once said one word about this source. If you had either removed just this and the material it was sourcing or if you raised the issue on the talk page I would have checked the source. But you did not, you just kept removed it with the Dayan quote. The reason I reverted that is because of the Dayan quote, of which there is no doubt of the authenticity or relevance. I dont particularly care what you think of me because, well, I dont think too highly of you. If you want to pretend that this was the issue you can, but anybody who looks at the discussion page can see that it was focused on the Dayan quote and you never once raised a question about this source. nableezy - 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That sentence has been in the article since November 2008. It isn't unreasonable for Supreme Deliciousness and nableezy to assume good faith that the source supported the sentence. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The comments here above from Pantherskin is clearly Assumption of Bad faith. That text was in the article and looked to me as well sourced, Panterskin removed it together with a well sourced Dayan quote and did not say anything about that the Jerusalem office text had a false source. As soon as it was pointed out to me that that specific part about the Jerusalem office had a false source, I removed it myself. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The content was questioned several times by editors on the grounds that it contradicts what is known about this conflict from reliable source, including me (Talk:Syria#Border_Flare-Ups, /Talk:Syria#Invalid_Source_on_Dayan_Admitting_to_Israel_Provoking_Clashes). But you Supreme Deliciousness insisted that it is well-sourced. You never said that you do not know what the source actually says and mislead other editors about the content. The manner in which you removed the content after being caught red-hand furthermore suggests that all the time you knew that the source was fake. Pantherskin (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it suggests that if you had once questioned that line on the basis of the source not supporting it SD would have checked it and removed it himself. nableezy - 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by unomi

To me it seems clear that what we have before us is not a content dispute. The dispute may be grounded in the content, but the enforcement request is solidly regarding policy violations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive

We have had a number of public discussions regarding how sources deal with the illegal settlements; at IPCOLL wikiproject, and across a multitude of talkpages. While there are sources which dispute the 'illegal settlement' moniker, the majority of quality sources support it. For a light primer see fx Daniel C. Kurtzer's article in Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs reprinted here:

Secretary of State Cyrus Vance made this clear in Congressional testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, March

21, 1980: US policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process...Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in the judgment of each of the legal advisers of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that [settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories.

Vance's view was based on longstanding US policy. For example, in March 1976, Ambassador William Scranton told the United Nations Security Council: Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.

Scranton's statement was based on the position expressed by Ambassador Charles Yost, who told the UN Security Council in July 1969: Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation.

I think it is fair to say that these are not fringe views, and they are supported by ECJ and ICJ publications. In light of the supermajority of sources which support the wording that Shuki tendentiously edited to remove I find Nableezys enforcement request entirely reasonable. Unomi (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarify the limits

Can you please clarify the limits of this action? Does it basically include; 1) all locality articles in the region, 2) all geography articles (including parks or attractions), 3) talk pages as well?.

I made a couple of comments at Talk:List of national parks and nature reserves of Israel today. If they are included in the ban, I will refrain from continuing. --Shuki (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the purpose of this ban is to prevent edit-warring over whether or not a particular site is actually in Israel, surely all that is necessary is to restrict editing in this limited area. Even accepting the legitimacy of the block, I can't see a reason why Shuki or Nableezy should be prevented from making edits like this or this. RolandR (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Shuki

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

I invite Shuki and Nableezy to show cause why they should not both be topic-banned for 3 months from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. And I request in advance that all comments relating to this request are added here, not at my talk page. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For clarification, "here" means "on this page". Stifle (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that I have read all the submissions and am analyzing the evidence. In a couple of days I intend to propose a final sanction and invite admin comment on same. I am reading the diffs and other details provided and will not be jumping to conclusions. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read and reviewed all the submissions and diffs and remain convinced that each side is at fault. There is a possibility that one party is more at fault than the other, but that is neither here nor there. I am still minded to impose a topic ban on both parties, although I will shorten the duration to the end of August. I invite comment from other uninvolved administrators here (i.e. this section) as to whether this appears appropriate. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. This is a content dispute which the people involved can't resolve in a collegial manner. I considered proposing limiting the scope to Israeli settlements, but that's probably too open to gaming and disagreement.  Sandstein  11:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your conclusion of course Stifle, but I think the parties to the dispute are also entitled to know what precisely they are being convicted of, and on what evidence. "I remain convinced that each side is at fault" is not exactly forthcoming. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring, tendentious editing, and using reverts rather than discussion on a disputed article. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The individual articles link to Israeli settlement, which contains an overview of the legal situation. To what extent any of this needs to be summarized in the articles is obviously an editorial decision, however edit warring over whether there should be a mention in the lead is disruptive, and therefore can result in sanctions being imposed. I agree that Stifle's proposed sanctions are reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above discussions and pursuant to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, Shuki and Nableezy are both topic-banned until 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. Violation of the topic ban shall result in a block of appropriate duration and the topic-ban being reset to run for five weeks from the end of the block. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As things stand, (1) is included, (2) is included (as a park or attraction is a place), and (3) is not included. Disruption on talk pages will however be viewed dimly. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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 

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – Brews ohare (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed 

<This action by Sandstein is appealed. Following upon a request by Blackburne, Sandstein concluded that I was in violation of “normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”. I have three objections: first, the duration of Sandstein's penalty extends beyond the expiration date of the restriction used to authorize that action; second, the violations of decorum etc. authorizing action did not occur; and third, the warning required by the authorizing restriction was not provided.>

Administrator imposing the sanction 

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)

Notification of that administrator 

Sandstein notified with this diff; Blackburne (instigator of original request for action) notified with this diff.

Statement by Brews ohare

<The motion was this. It refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010.

This statement suggests conditions for reinstatement of the remainder of the initial ban, but does not authorize an individual editor to take action without a proper hearing.

This suggest that an individual uninvolved editor may impose sanctions “if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.” Apparently it is this restriction that Sandstein has invoked.

I would raise the following points:

• Although the restriction does not contain wording limiting the nature of sanctions to be imposed, I would take it as implied that any such sanctions are to run co-extensively with the authorizing motion; that is, until October 20, not indefinitely. Sandstein has exceeded the authority granted by this remedy. To extend a sanction beyond the time of the authorizing restriction itself requires a full arbcom hearing.
• I was not, IMO, properly advised that such action was going to be taken. I believe that claims by Blackburne that I was warned that arbcom action would be taken are erroneous.
• I immediately desisted when advised that arbcom was to become involved.
• There was no warning of impending arbcom action; Blackburne's diffs that he interprets as warnings do not specifically indicate that unless I desist in talking about things on the Talk page, action would be initiated. In some cases, these remarks are simply bad tempered expressions of old wounds.
• There was no violation of Talk page decorum or standards of behavior. What did happen is that extended discussion of a number of points took place, in an entirely civil manner. As a result some improvements of some topics on the article page were made by a variety of editors. Some issues remained open on the Talk page at the time of Sandstein's action. They did not involve Blackburne, who brought the request. It is probable that these matters would have been abandoned in due course due to lack of agreement, and there was no need to intervene with sanctions.
• In view of the bad tempers and impatience exhibited by many on the Talk:Speed of light page, I volunteer that any future contributions to a thread that I might offer upon this Talk page will be limited upon request of any editor actively involved in that thread.

Brews ohare (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) >

Response to Blackburne on civility: As pointed out, these remarks were commentary upon actions participated in by many, and were not personal comments directed at yourself or any other edtior. Brews ohare (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I'll not comment on the merits of this appeal at this time for two reasons:

• I doubt that the appeal is admissible. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light does not provide for appeals to the community against administrative actions taken according to that case's provisions. The only venue of appeal available, therefore, is to the Arbitration Committee.
• The appeal raises some of the same issues as the outstanding request for clarification in this matter. To avoid parallel discussion, I recommend that the processing of this appeal is suspended until the request for clarification is resolved.  Sandstein  17:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb

And the wikilawyering begins; procedures, formal warnings, etc... Brews the truth is admins have the authority and mandate to stabilize Wikipedia and fix problems. Full ARBCOM hearings aren't required everytime someone farts, and warnings don't need to come form the top before you need to heed them.

Also, I want to echo's Elen of the Roads statement "[W]hy does he have to be warned formally EVERY TIME he starts this up. Why can't he remember from one time to the next not to do this shizz, like most of us do with things we're not supposed to do." I and other editors told him several times (see the diffs provided above) to drop the stick in the last weeks (and this behaviour started more or less on the day of topic ban expiry, give or take a week).

I'll doubt, I'll involve myself in yet another ARBCOM nightmare more than this statement (and now that the advocacy ban has been repealed, you can bet your ass that this will be long). I don't feel like debating the obvious with someone who can't grasp it.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JohnBlackburne

The diffs were provided to show that a number of editors - most of the participants of the talk page - had objected to Brews' editing over the space of a only a few days. That some reference the previous arbitration case is unsurprising as it concerned the same page and is hardly "old wounds" as it is still in force. I'm not sure why you expect them to show a "warning of impending ArbCom action".

On civility I again point to [173] and [174], your characterising other editors' contributions as "stupid" and "lazy" respectively. Or only yesterday, perhaps more typically, three good faith attempts by different editors to address your concerns were dismissed like so: [175]. Whether any of this is bad tempered or impatient I'm sure editors can judge for themselves.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <Brews_ohare>

Just wanted to note, from reading Talk:Speed of light. Brews, you were repeatedly advised to take the extra content to the article on the Metre, which all agreed could do with the expansion. You are still able to do that - Speed of Light is the only article you are barred from. Why don't you do that, make it work, and you'll be in a much better position to convince people that sanctions are no longer required. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Procedural notes:

• Sometimes there's a legitimate concern over whether a discussion at AE has enough community input - the best way to avoid this issue is by notifying AN of the existence of the appeal.
• In essence, it would reflect poorly on the community if this appeal was hijacked because "we shouldn't be considering it" - in fact, we should be where we are asked to. That's part of the community's obligations in treating the parties fairly. But that doesn't mean we'll necessarily come to a consensus one way or another. One must remember that any sanction imposed is reviewable by the community, especially where it is an enforcement action. Even if the action is pursuant to an ArbCom remedy, this method of appeal doesn't need to be specified explicitly in the remedy - on the occasions where it has been, it's mere guidance. Even with this, the drafter of this particular decision, Vassyana, would have specifically wanted the community to try to address the issue first. If there is a clear community consensus to support, modify, or lift an action from an appeal, then that's what will happen. Should anyone be unhappy with the outcome of the appeal discussion, an appeal can be made to ArbCom.
• This appeal could proceed on the basis of the substantive issues that Brews is raising or trying to raise, but some people are in an awkward situation with respect to the procedural issue: whether an admin can impose an enforcement action that substantially outlives the original sanction. Although the original sanction was set to expire in October, Sandstein imposed an indef article ban. If Brews wants the appeal to proceed and ArbCom have not voiced an objection at this discussion, the community should go ahead with what it thinks about this situation - it should consider the circumstances that existed at the time of the action being taken and whether or not it is supported, or whether or not it needs to be modified/lifted. In the meantime, if ArbCom want to modify the original sanction, they can do so without affecting this appeal.
• These notes should not be seen as commenting on the content of the appeal. Instead, it notes that the appeal is permissible (to be fair to aggrieved parties and not exacerbate any perceived unfairness due to excess red tape, which in reality doesn't apply anyway). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Brews ohare

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

• I am of the opinion that this appeal is out of order as the decision does not provide for an appeal here. The appeal would need to go to ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the clerks can move this appeal section to the appropriate venue?? Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk comment: This thread is not actionable as an appeal and so it would form no part of any complaint you submitted to the Arbitration Committee. You should simply file a new request, using the old statements and such if you like. AGK 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I need advice on how and where to file the new request, as I cannot understand the procedure. Brews ohare (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why appeal of an enforcement action by Sandstein does not fit into this form of the appeal process. The suggestion by AGK to file under amendment of an existing sanction confuses me, as the template for such action doesn't seem to fit this appeal. I have requested some assistance in this matter from AGK, but so far he has been unable to help. Brews ohare (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am awaiting a response from more knowledgeable users to my own queries on this topic before I reply in turn to you. I'll reply to you on my talk page when I can. Thanks for your patience, AGK 11:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I attempted to close this appeal as out of order on the grounds that the ArbCom sanction was not open to appeal to this noticeboard, having noted and disagreed with Ncmvocalist's opinion on procedure. This has generated a revert war of users attempting to close/reopen this AE (including using the Undo feature, which is explicitly prohibited for non-vandalism reverts), which is lamentable. If ArbCom had intended for the sanction in question to be appealable to the community or to AE, it would have said so. It did not. Therefore the sanction is appealable only to ArbCom and I invite the next uninvolved admin posting here to close this appeal as ultra vires the AE noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I recommend Ncmvocalist be blocked if they further interfere with the operation of this board. We cannot function here when editors take it on themselves to revert the actions of administrators. Jehochman ^Talk 10:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I dislike any thinking that treats the actions or opinions of uninvolved editors as less valuable than those of uninvolved administrators, but still I must confess that I fail to see why Ncmvocalist is protracting this discussion. He makes a number of good points above, but as I understand it he advocates a community review of the sanctions—which this noticeboard cannot provide, being an arbitration-centric process page. I would also say that this disposition to reverting one's fellow editors is unhelpful. I will close the discussion with my next edit and respectfully direct any discussion to a noticeboard that could actually implement a resolution, whether that be on ANI, requests for clarifications, or otherwise. AGK 11:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning 41.132.*

User requesting enforcement 

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

Anonymous editor on 41.32.* range at Bulgars and related articles, most recently 41.132.178.5 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated 

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions (incivility, edit-warring, POV-pushing)

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

1. Edit-warring against consensus of multple editors, OR-pushing, on Cumans: [243][244][245][246][247][248][249][250][251][252]
2. Same on Bulgars: [253][254][255][256][257][258][259]
3. Incivility: [260][261][262][263] (and see also the edit summaries of those above)
4. Refuses to heed WP:V and other policies [264]

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

1. [265] "DIGWUREN" warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
2. [266] patient attempt to engage in discussion by Cplakidas (talk · contribs)
3. [267] 3RR warning by Fut.Perf. (latest rv's [268][269] were after this warning)

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

Topic ban from all articles relating to Bulgaria, the Bulgars, and other Turkic groups

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This is a highly persistent anon POV-warrior who has been pushing nationally motivated OR/fringe positions on Bulgaria, Bulgars, Bulgar calendar, Cumans, Kipchaks and other related articles for several months, revert-warring against a consensus of multiple expert editors. Most of his edits are to remove or argue against the scholarly consensus that the ancient Bulgars and other nomadic group in early medieval Europe were Turkic peoples. He edits from semi-dynamic IPs in an easily recognisable range. We need a topic ban, i.e. a blanket license to revert and block new IP appearances on sight.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. 15:23, 8 August 2010

Discussion concerning 41.132.*

Statement by 41.132.*

Comments by others about the request concerning 41.132.*

• Fully agree with Fut Perf. This is a highly disruptive, combative, uncivil and opinionated editor, who doesn't seem ready to ever sit down and discuss, not when it is about The Truth. Constantine ✍ 16:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Seems to be a hopeless case. A cautionary post from at the anon's talkpage[270] resulted in a reply on my talkpage with heading "Ignoramus".[271] And I should point out that I haven't even hinted at any kind of opinion about the subject issue. Peter ^Isotalo 17:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Procedural note: the IP has been blocked for 24hrs as a short-term measure against the ongoing edit war, by Courcelles [272]. That of course means he can't comment here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've notified the IP about this and pointed out that it's possible to make a comment or appeal at the talkpage (I'm assuming that the block doesn't cover that too). Peter ^Isotalo 23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Future Perfect, Sandstein and PhilKnight that a topic ban should be applied. Since this editor hops IPs, it may help to clarify where he usually edits from. All his edits so far come from the range defined by 41.132.178.0/24 (block user · block log · WHOIS). The individual IPs that are clearly him are

• 41.132.178.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.132.178.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.132.178.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.132.178.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.132.178.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

(His earliest edit is 14 May). IPs from this range who *may not* be him are 41.132.178.229, 41.132.178.11, 41.132.178.180, 41.132.178.183, 41.132.178.237, 41.132.178.192, 41.132.178.217, and 41.132.178.132 (this is going back to 22 March). In case there is any trouble getting him to observe a topic ban, I think a block of the above range for up to two months might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning 41.132.*

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

I agree that this seems to be a persistent and disruptive WP:TRUTH-pusher and am inclined to impose the requested topic ban, unless the user makes a very convincing statement why that should not be done, or another admin objects, in the next 24 hours.  Sandstein  19:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that a topic ban should be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, the person who made the anonymous edits from the 41.132.*.* address range discussed above is hereby indefinitely banned from making edits related to the topic of Bulgaria, the Bulgars and Turkic peoples; this includes edits to articles, talk pages and other discussions related to these topics. Notification of this sanction is made to the talk page of the most recently active IP address listed above, User talk:41.132.178.5. This ban may be enforced by range blocks if needed.  Sandstein  22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Russavia

User requesting enforcement 

radek (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated 

[273] "Russavia (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution."

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

1. [274] Russavia has inserted themselves into a middle of an ongoing dispute between myself, Chumchum7 and others. The question as to whether the controversy about Polish participation is notable or not has been a long running subject of this dispute and Russavia is obviously taking a side here, unnecessarily interacting with me, and so in a clear violation of his restriction. The edit can also be seen as provocative in and of itself, and given the heated nature of that dispute this appears to be a straight forward attempt at "pouring gasoline onto a fire"

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

1. [275]
2. [276] Warning by Sandstein
3. Please also see this statement by Shell Kinney [277] which specifically requests that these sort of violations are reported,
4. Re Russavia's statement below, this note, also by Shell [278] can obviously be interpreted as a warning

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

block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This is Russavia's second violation in a short period of time, after this [279]. Wait. Actually it's his fourth if we count his comments at Miacek's appeal and his request at this very board not too long ago against himself in violation of WP:POINT [280]. Russavia is clearly and deliberately trying to test the boundaries of his interaction ban. Since the ban is mutual, I am of course also forbidden from interacting with Russavia except for purposes of necessary dispute resolution. This is necessary dispute resolution, as Russavia jumped into an argument I was having with somebody else.

Re to Future Perfect: Future Perfect, it's not even about editing the same article. If Russavia had only edited the section on Australian participation then I would not have had a problem with that. But instead he chose to edit the section on Polish participation, one in which I have been extensively involved. That's not participating in 'necessary dispute resolution', that's CREATING a dispute between himself and me, where none existed, in clear violation of the interaction ban. Am I allowed to undo his edit or revert him? Am I allowed to edit articles on Nashi or Air Fiji or The Diplomatic Relations of Russia and Australia? Am I allowed to edit the article on the 2010 Moscow Victory Parade? Specifically making edits against Russavia?

The fact that editor A edits an article does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the article is off-limits for B. But it does mean that B should not jump into any disputes that A is having on that article and should take care to avoid interaction with A on that article. Russavia's not doing that - quite the opposite.radek (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Or think of this way. Now Russavia has made this edit to the talk page [281]. I take my interaction ban with him to mean that I cannot respond to this or to undue his edits to the article. Yet, this is precisely the subject I've been involved in on the article for some time now. If it is okay for him to make these statements despite his interaction ban, and I cannot reply to these comments, I am effectively frozen out of the discussion that I had been a part off much longer then he. If I CAN reply to them, then the interaction ban is pretty meaningless. So a different way of phrasing your question would be: if editors A and B have a mutual interaction ban, and editor A is working on the article and editor B comes in - and this is judged not to be a violation of the interaction ban - then is editor A prohibited from replying or continuing to work on the article? The obvious answer is "no". But that means that either the initial edits by B are in violation of the interaction ban, or the interaction ban simply doesn't exists for all practical purposes.radek (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. So on the same day that all of sudden Russavia pops up in an article I am involved with, which he has never edited before, and inserts himself into the middle of a dispute I am involved in, his close buddy Petri Krohn also pops up in an article I am involved with, which he has never edited before, and inserts himself into the middle of a dispute I am involved in. Oh yeah, sure, coincidence, one was just checking Parade articles and the other looking for random articles to move.

I would also like to ask that whoever the administrator is that takes on this request, they allow me to contact them privately, as I'm pretty sure something else is going on here which I do not care to discuss on Wiki.radek (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re to Igny: I did not "come back to confrontations with Russavia". In fact I've been trying to avoid him. He's the one who showed up on a controversial article that I had been involved in discussions on and inserted himself right smack in the middle of it. Now, I don't know what I'm supposed to do. If I continue participating in the discussion that I was previously a part of I run the risk of violating the interaction ban myself. Yet, it doesn't seem right that a user who is banned from interacting with me can just elbow me aside in such a way. Quite honestly, I basically want Russavia to stay the hey away from me (he did take part in outing my personal information after all) - if he undoes his edits to the "Polish" section of that article (I think it's fine if he edits the "Australian" section) - for example, removes the UNDUE tag - does not participate further in the discussion I was part of and promises to leave that part of the article alone (as well as other articles I'm working on extensively) then perhaps a block is not necessary. That's a less drastic way of dealing with this, but he has to play along.radek (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re to Igny's proposal. Sure.radek (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Russavia may have edited the article before (so what? That was before he had an interaction ban) but he has not specifically edited the section that is under discussion - on Polish participation. All he had to do was to take a look at the discussion page to see that I was involved in heavily discussing that very section. Considering that there is a very good reason for why Russavia got the interaction ban - he shows up at articles and creates battlegrounds or pours gasoline on existing disputes - and considering that Russavia TOOK AN ACTIVE PART IN OUTING MY PERSONAL INFORMATION (for Chrissake!) ([282], 2nd from top in case somebody gets lost) there's absolutely NOTHING frivolous about my request that Russavia stay away from me, as his interaction ban directs him to. Enough.radek (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Russavia, it's simple: STAY AWAY FROM ME PER YOUR INTERACTION BAN, as I have stayed away from you all this time. Then you can have all the good faith in the world.radek (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[283]

Discussion concerning Russavia

Statement by Russavia

During WP:EEML, Radeksz had a finding of fact against him (Wikipedia:EEML#Disruption_6), which stated amongst other things, that he has treated WP as a battleground and has also abused dispute resolution processes. Another finding of fact which covered the entire EEML (Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination) was that "baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned" had occurred, and which to a large extent was likely possible for sanctioned editors receiving a "Russavia topic ban" (Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted), "except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution."

The report by Radeksz clearly goes against the spirit of the "Russavia topic ban" sanction, and what he wrote at the amendment request which led to his topic ban being lifted before its expiration. In particular this statement:

I encourage everyone, former members of the list, as well as their "opponents" to undertake efforts which will reduce the battleground atmosphere in this topic area and lead to more collaborative editing. Somebody's got to make a show of good faith however, and I would like to say that I personally harbor no grudges against any other editor currently active on Wikipedia and am willing to work with anybody. I'm going to reset my "assume good faith" meter back to good faith and I hope others do likewise.

Contrary to Radeksz's statement, I have edited the article before [284], and this was done whilst the EEML arbitration was ongoing. I had also commented on general editor behaviour on the article around the same time[285][286] and had also removed bickering between editors from the article talk page[287]. Given that, this article has been on my watch list since then, although I haven't really taken notice of developments on the article in recent times. My edits on the article, have been explained clearly on the talk page, and are not addressing any editor, either directly or indirectly, but are merely presenting problems with the article as a whole.

I do not regard the statement by Radeksz that this is necessary dispute resolution is warranted, as he could have sought clarification from the committee on the minor issues that he has brought here. Instead, he has instead chosen to attack me (in violation of an interaction ban), and has attempted to turn this into another unnecessary battleground. I would ask that Radeksz' behaviour be given the once over, given that he has continued to make accusations against me in response to comments by other editors. His choice of words is somewhat telling, such as arguing with other editors, instead of collaborating, etc. Also troubling is the assertion of article ownership that he is trying to have validated here. He also seems to be implying that I am acting in an underhanded way, by asking that he be able to contact admins off-wiki with more accusations which are to be considered here. I take offence to such accusations and insinuations.

I would ask that the manufactured dispute against myself be closed off without action. I also ask that Radeksz apologise to myself, as he does not appear to be assuming good faith in relation to my editing and has offended myself in doing so. If some sort of good faith on the part of Radeksz is forthcoming, I think that the request can be safely closed, and editors can get back to editing, otherwise I think it is pertinent that Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted and Wikipedia:EEML#Enforcement_by_block can be enacted. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 07:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia

• I'm not entirely certain to what extent the "no-interaction" ban is meant to cover also editing of the same articles. After all, the rule contains the modification "... except in the case of necessary dispute resolution" – which implies that there must be conceivable, legitimate occasions where the editors involved actually have a dispute in the first place, which seems to imply content disagreements over articles. Does the ban really mean that once A has edited an article, that article is off-limits for B? Not sure. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Arbitrators don't usually intervene in these discussions, but as the drafter of that language in the decision, I can state that it was not intended to mean that these users can't edit the same articles. Of course they are required to abide by all other applicable policies and any relevant restrictions when they do so. (Not commenting on the merits of this request beyond answering Fut.Perf.'s question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• I find nothing surprising in Russavia editing the article – after all he recently created 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade. However, I find this accusation by User:Radeksz that I was stalking him at Talk:Jewish community of Danzig#name unacceptable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am disappointed by this development. Radek, I went back and re-read your statement here, I saw no clue that you'd come back to controversial situations, much less to confrontations with Russavia. I am sure that there are less drastic ways to resolve this situation (such as asking for an advice from an admin) than filing AE report. (Igny (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Before it escalates any further, a solution is quite simple, Russavia you undo your edit (if you think your edit was warranted, other editors could come and make it). Radek, withdraw your AE request. Everyone apologizes without admitting guilt to each other, an admin closes this thread. (Igny (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

• I want to point out that Russavia edited the article in 2009 apparently before Radek has shown any interest in it. Thus, I do not think the request is valid Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Russavia

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

This is the latest iteration of a series of factional nationalist disputes about the article London victory parade of 1946 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) in which many of the editors from previous Eastern Europe arbitration cases are involved. Fut.Perf. has now protected the article because of excessive sockpuppetry. This can't go on like that. The 1RR restriction I've imposed on the article seems not to have helped. I've not got the time (or the checkuser tools) to go to the bottom of this by myself and find out who, if anybody, is most responsible for this mess (and please spare me any unfounded speculation via e-mail; if there's actionable private evidence it needs to go to ArbCom). It may be that another arbitration case is necessary, since I am not sure that the roundabout topic ban that may be needed should be imposed at the AE level. But, to stop this circus for now, I'm imposing the following restriction on the article via its editnotice and talk page:

"Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, all editors with "Eastern Europe" sanctions are hereby banned from editing the article London victory parade of 1946 or its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies or sanctions logged on the case pages WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML or WP:ARBRB, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators."

This is likely to affect some innocent editors, but these are not very likely to want to edit to edit this obscure article in particular, and the benefit to Wikipedia of not having constant wars over the article outweighs that drawback. As to the request at hand, I'll get to that after lunch.  Sandstein  10:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The request is without merit. Simply editing an article that another editor has also edited is not an interaction, as noted by Newyorkbrad above. It would take additional evidence (which has not been provided here) to convince me that the edits should be considered an interaction (e.g., a WP:STALKING), which judging by the edits themselves does not seem to be the case. Consequently, this request does not constitute "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" and is therefore a violation of the restriction applying to Radeksz, WP:EEML#Editors restricted. As Russavia's statement correctly notes, the request is additionally disruptive in that it makes veiled allegations of what sounds like serious misconduct on the part of Russavia ("I'm pretty sure something else is going on here which I do not care to discuss on Wiki") without offering any (onwiki) evidence. This is a serious problem given that the Committee, at WP:EEML#Improper coordination and WP:EEML#Radeksz, found that Radeksz has previously been engaged in similar misconduct, and that I yesterday warned Radeksz not to make serious allegations against others without useful evidence. In enforcement of WP:EEML#Editors restricted, I am therefore blocking Radeksz for 72 hours. Concerning his request to submit offwiki evidence to me, it is declined, because I strongly dislike ex parte proceedings, and because any evidence that is genuinely unsuited for open discussion because of privacy reasons should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee alone. Of course, the Committee is free to change this block as they see fit if they are indeed seized with actionable private evidence.  Sandstein  12:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning the above three editors

User requesting enforcement 

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

1. TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
2. Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
3. Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated 

[288] "that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles."

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

A RfC was filled here [289] TimidGuy deemed these editors misinformed [290] and thus no need to listen to their advice. These violation have been ongoing by these WP:SPAs. Many incorrect accusations have been made including Timidguy insults my usage of source [291], little more than a personal attack. They continue to agree among themselves and attempt to use Wikipedia as a method to advertise their organization.

1. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC: [292]
2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: [293]
3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: [294]
4. Littleolive does not follow RfC: [295]
5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead [296]
6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes [297]

Prior warnings

Timidguy was warned above. Littleolive oil was warned here [298] Edith was warned here [299] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

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

block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[300][301][302]

Discussion concerning above users

Statement by TimidGuy

Doc persists in putting erroneous information in the science paragraph in the lead. For example, he writes, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education," and his citations include Ospina 2007. But Ospina found just the opposite in regard to relaxation: "When compared to PMR progressive muscle relaxation, TM produced significantly greater benefits in SBP and DBP [systolic and diastolic blood pressure]." This is the only meta-analysis in Ospina that used relaxation as a comparator. Why is this objection, in Future Perfect's words below, "nitpicking" and "patently without merit"? There are three randomized controlled trials on TM that use relaxation as a comparator, two on blood pressure that show a benefit beyond relaxation and one on anxiety that doesn't. Is Doc correct to generalize this single trial on anxiety to all health conditions? Doing so is another misrepresentation, in my opinion. Please please please don't come to judgment on this without looking at the details. I can document many false statements made by Doc, not only in the article but in dispute resolution. For example, at RSN he characterized Ospina 2007 and Cochane 2006 as being "one of the only independent analysis of TM research."[303]. But in fact there are scores or even hundreds of independent reviews that include research on TM. (If you do a search on Pubmed on meditation reviews, you'll get about 275 results.) Will I be given the opportunity to document his misrepresentations rather than have a rush to judgment? Future Perfect made his recommendation before I even had a chance to write a statement, let alone document the misrepresentations. In regard to respect for consensus building, look how hard I tried in this thread[304] to build consensus regarding the science paragraph in the lead. I had tentative consensus among four editors, including Will. Fladrif kept objecting but wouldn't say specifically what he didn't like. Then Doc came in after a months-long absence from the article and, in my view, completely took over the process and subverted my effort at consensus building. TimidGuy (talk)

Regarding the specific diffs. I made a single revert to the version that had corrected some of Doc's misrepresentations. The second diff shows my addition of sourced, relevant material. The third shows a deletion of a source that Doc had misrepresented. Doc quoted statements from the source that were directly about the four randomized controlled trials that were examined in the review. None of those four studies was on TM. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am more than happy to address Timid's point as I have on the talk page for the article. Let me provide the exact text supporting the passage:

Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. <ref>{{cite book|author=Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP.|url= http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf|title= Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research|publisher= [[Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality]]|page=4|date=June 2007 |quote=A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients}}</ref> <ref name=Cochrane10>{{cite journal |author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N |title=Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) |journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev |volume=6 |issue= |pages=CD006507 |year=2010 |pmid=20556767 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2 |url= |quote =For this study there was no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the drug therapy group on the teacher rating ADHD scale (MD -2.72, 95% CI -8.49 to 3.05, 15 patients). Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the standard therapy group on the teacher rating ADHD scale (MD -0.52, 95% CI -5.88 to 4.84, 17 patients). There was also no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the standard therapy group in the distraction test (MD -8.34, 95% CI -107.05 to 90.37, 17 patients).}}</ref> <ref name=Cochrane06>{{cite journal|author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M |title=Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders |journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |volume=|issue=1 |pages=CD004998 |year=2006 |pmid=16437509 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2 |ref=harv| quote=The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety}}</ref>

So the executive summary support the comparison to health education. The 2006 Cochrane paper supports the comparison to relaxation. And the 2010 Cochrane paper come to similar conclusion for ADHD not finding evidence of effectiveness. Progressive muscle relaxation is not the same as relaxation. In the rest of TimidGuys response he misunderstand what a Cochrane meta analysis is. Cochrane looks at all the studies done by doing an exhaustive review of the literature. It specifically discusses a couple trials on ADHD and TM. And based on the poor data concludes that the evidence has not found benefits.

TimidGuy states above that I have many false statements and provides the dif above regarding my statement that their are only a few independent studies. Someone much smarter than me however said the same thing in 2004 Canter PH, Ernst E pmid=15480084 "All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization." User:TimidGuy and User:Keithbob allude to my incorrect statements and than this is the best example they can find. One in which we have a review article published by experts in the field in 2004 that supports my opinion.

TimidGuy's statement that I have made "many false statements" and Keithbob's that I have "a long history of mis-representation of sources and disruptive editing" without providing diffs is a continuation of the insults I have been subject too on the talk page. While in most situation and professions this sort of statement would mean little however in academia it is a personal attack of the greatest severity and one that should not be taken lightly. I encourage editors to look at my history ( having brought three article to GA status, having made nearly 27,000 edits on thousands of different pages, and collected a few barnstars on long the way ) which I think speaks for itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

At an appropriate future time and in an appropriate future forum I would be happy to provide the diffs you have requested but since this case was closed prematurely I see no point in posting them here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning TimidGuy

Statement by Littleolive oil

I'll be able to comment later today. In the meantime, I would request commenting admins look carefully at the diffs Doc presented, the research section of the TM article and in relation to the lead, so they are aware of the research. Further, could diffs be provided that indicate non compliant behaviour, per individual editor, such as the supposed tag team editing, so decisions are informed and fair. Thanks.(olive (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

To Future Perfect: You have acted before I and another editor even had a chance to post. This is blatantly unfair and inappropriate. Nor do you say what I have been guilty of. I am forced to wonder why the haste. Further TimidGuy has serious concerns about the edits made by the editor who then posted here. Such concerns deserve serious consideration not possible in a few hours. i hope you will reconsider your overly hasty action.(olive (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

And Cirt: You support sanctions on an editor before that editor has even had a chance to speak, is that right?(olive (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Comments by others about the request concerning Littleolive oil

Statement by Edith Sirius Lee

I also did not have the time to respond here, partially because at about the same time that Doc James made his arb request, there were a large amount of text added by Fladrif and Will BeBack in the Talk page, which I felt had to be answered quickly. There were enough added that I am not yet done. Just quickly here, my understanding is that TimidGuy is accused to have rejected some Rfc comments based on the fact that the external editors were misinformed. May I add that he has done so while being willing to discuss the issue in good faith with others. I don't think he meant to reject any comment, but only wanted to put them in the context of the actual content of sources and of the the policy. As far as the accusation of edit warring is concerned, Doc James seems to suggest that we should not edit the paragraph on Research in the lead because two outside comments say that his version in the Rfc was good (or better than the only other one). I don't understand that argument. Even if these two comments were well informed, which I believe was not the case, the paragraph can still be improved. The Rfc was presented as a vote between two paragraphs, but there is no guarantee that the best paragraph was one of these two. Also, if we look at the Rfc or Noticeboard, we can see that some external editors progressively changed their position as they received more information. It did not seem to me that a definitive conclusion was reached. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record: ESL made this comment before you went to their talk pages and asked both editors who commented on the RfC to clarify their positions . So Edith made his/her comment based on what was in the discussion at that time. The comment you cite was only available later after Edith had commented. I don't find your comment a particularly accurate betrayal of what happened.(olive (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Comments by others about the request concerning Edith Sirius Lee

Prior to registering a username, ESL also posted fairly extensively for ~10 days as

• Special:Contributions/67.230.155.29;
• Special:Contributions/67.230.155.38;
• Special:Contributions/67.230.154.111;
• Special:Contributions/67.230.154.243;
• Special:Contributions/67.230.154.70; and
• Special:Contributions/67.230.154.96.

It has been suggested that ESL is not a new editor, given a level of familiarity with Wikipedia policies that is atypical of new editors. I genuinely think that ESL is not a sock of one of the editors who were parties to the TM ArbCom case, solely on the basis of the occasional odd sentence structure or choice of vocabulary, suggesting to me that English, or at least standard American/Canadian/British English, may not be ESL's first language. Whether or not that perception is accurate, ESL was advised, prior to the edits Doc has listed, and in connection with other problematic edits, including an earlier reversion of sourced material which Doc has not listed [305], that the TM ArbCom decision's discretionary sanctions apply to all editors, not just editors who were parties to the case at the time. [306][307][308] Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I must say I am quite dismayed at the 'rush to judgement' type comment that was posted by Fut Perf six hours after the case was opened. It was posted before any of the defendants had made any statements and it makes many sweeping generalizations that, in my opinion, are not accurate. Anyone who takes the time to examine the diffs and the talk page threads and the edit history's of the accused editors, and their accuser, will see that DocJames has a long history of mis-representation of sources and disruptive editing. As for COI accusations, this has long been used as an intimidation stick by some editors and accusations of COI and POV pushing were levied against parties on both sides of the fence on the recent TM ArbCom but there were no findings, at that time, against any party on either side. Our job now is look to look at recent edits since the decisions on June 4, 2010 and determine who is violating the ArbCom decision. Is it the accused or the accuser?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with ESL's comment "It did not seem to me that a definitive conclusion was reached." I also felt that no conclusion or agreement had been reached and the discussion was ongoing. --BwB (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning TimidGuy, Littleolive oil, and Edith Sirius Lee

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

I agree that some of the behaviour described above is problematic. What I see on Talk:Transcendental Meditation is a persistent effort, mostly by TimidGuy, to block consensus by an endless row of objections of wikilawyering and nitpicking nature, aimed at deemphasizing the findings of studies critical of TM. Many of these objections, mostly about the correctness of summaries of the research literature proposed by other editors, appear to be patently without merit. Taken in isolation, such objections would probably count as normal good-faith content disagreements, but in the larger picture and given their constant, long-time effect of blocking effective consensus-building, they take on the character of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption, especially as he and the other editors who support his viewpoint are refusing to listen to independent outside input, which was successfully elicited by the RFC.

There is also evident tag-team revert warring. Moreover, Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) is yet another single-purpose agenda account that suddenly appeared after the conclusion of the Arbcom case. In this topic domain, which has been plagued by single purpose editors and COI problems, this is in itself highly problematic.

I therefore propose to enact the following sanctions:

• TimidGuy (talk · contribs) to be topic-banned from TM-related articles and discussion for a short-to-medium period, let's say 2 months, to give the discussions a bit of breathing space.
• independent of this, all three editors (TimidGuy, Littleolive and Edith Sirius Lee), to be placed on a collective 1RR limitation to stop tag-team reverts (that is, these three editors together are not allowed to revert more than once per 24hrs).

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the situation further, I have become even more convinced that the above measures are needed. I am therefore now imposing the measures as outlined above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above Arbitration Enforcement enacted here by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Δ

User requesting enforcement 

67.80.250.138 (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated 

term portion "1. You edit under only one username" of the provisional suspension of his community ban as recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Provisional_suspension_of_community_ban:_Betacommand

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

1. [312] First edit
2. [313] Log of all 78 edits
3. [314] Last edit

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

1. [315] and [316] Explanations in no uncertain terms by Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)
2. [317] Explanation by Jack Merridew (talk · contribs)
3. [318] and [319] Explanations in no uncertain terms by Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights)
4. [320] and [321] Explanations in no uncertain terms by Anomie (talk · contribs)

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

block and rescind provisional suspension of community ban (reinstate community ban) for Betacommand, Δ, Δbot, and their doppelgangers

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Between 22:14, 15 July 2010 and 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC), Δbot (talk | contribs) made 78 edits at the direction of Δ (talk | contribs)/Betacommand (talk | contribs) and in violation of term portion "1. You edit under only one username" of the provisional suspension of his community ban as recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Provisional_suspension_of_community_ban:_Betacommand, before doing so was approved in the motion Enacted at 07:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC) and recorded at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Motion. Furthermore, the last of those edits appears to have been an automated task emulating DumZiBoT (talk | contribs) and linking to User:DumZiBoT/refLinks, which automated task was not one of the "automated tasks directly related to the clerking of sockpuppet investigations only as specified and authorized by the Bot Approvals Group" per Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Motion, and was therefore unauthorized.

@Future Perfect at Sunrise the last edit [322] was not authorized by the Committee, BAG, or the Community. 67.80.250.138 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[323]

Discussion concerning Δ

Statement by Δ

I wish people would come to my talkpage before coming to places like this that just stir up drama. I was given a three day trial for the bot, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/%CE%94bot&diff=373692824&oldid=373680411) which covers all but one edit. The last edit was an accident, I am working on a wikitext parser/cleanup tool and was attempting to include the features of reflinks.py (a pywiki script) into my parser and I made a mistake with a single edit that was logged under the bots name. Its was nothing major and wont happen again. So instead of trying to stir up a drama over nothing lets just get back to improving wikipedia. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Δ

• Why on earth let the opportunity to continue the lynching go by??? Way to go, anon-IP! <cough> --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Δ

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

This seems evidently stale, given that the rules have been superceded by the new Arbcom motion, which has explicitly authorized Δbot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Nableezy

User requesting enforcement 

Mbz1 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated 

Link to topic ban decision Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions>#<Name of remedy>

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

1. [324] Changing/removing the content that falls directly under his topic ban.
2. [325] Files edit warring request for content that falls directly under his topic ban.
3. [326] Edit on Tourism in Israel

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

Not applicable. .

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

block, extended topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Nableezy is reverting other editors in the very contagious articles, reverting the very same content that talks about the places in Israel and West bank. If it is not topic ban violation what is? Nableezy should know quite well that he is not allowed to file and/or comment on the edit warring report about the article of his topic ban. Please see here. Nableezy tells other editor: "And why are you here? And arent you topic-banned?". --Mbz1 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

@Sandstein, It is only my second AE request ever. This article is about the war, and about the places too. If Nableezy edited the numbers of troops, the casualties etc, it would not have been a topic ban violation, but his was about the places: West Bank,Judea and Samaria. I was banned for I/P conflict articles, and I was blocked 3 times for my ban violation. First time for editing Rothschild Family [327], second time for absolutely innocent edit on AE appeal [328], and the last time for the message I left at your talk page [329], that supposedly is exempt from topic ban violations. All three times I was blocked by you. Gilabrand was blocked by you, Sandstein, for topic ban violation for editing an edit warring request [330]. So although your comment about my conduct is highly unfair, I do thank you for it. It helped me to get rid of some illusions. You know what I am talking about. I am not afraid of any ban, and besides I am missing seeing your blue signature at my talk page ☺ --Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW I did ask Stifle about AE, and from their response I understood it was OK to file this AE. Besides Stifle did not comment on this--Mbz1 (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

notified

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

The topic ban specifically covers articles on places in Israel and surrounding countries, not any article that discusses such places and not any edit that discusses such places. Articles about places in Israel and surronding countries. Stifle, the admin who imposed the article has said that my edits do not violate the topic ban. In the AE thread that Stifle imposed the ban a question was asked if the talk pages of such articles are off-limits, Stifle's response was no. If the talk pages of articles covered by the ban are not included I cannot see how a page in the WP namespace is. The other editor that Mbz1 is referencing was banned from all pages on Wikipedia from discussing the topic area (Gilabrand's topic ban covered "all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed"), my ban was not that broad. Stifle's ban specifically is on articles about places in Israel and surrounding countries. As much as a few users would like to expand the scope of that ban, none of my edits have violated it. This can be seen in two sections on Stifle's talk page, User talk:Stifle#Nableezy_Topic_Ban_violation and User talk:Stifle#Is_this_a_violation_of_the_topic_ban.3F. The admin that issued the ban has said that the edit in question is not a violation of the topic ban. In fact, Mbz1 asked one of the questions about this issue so there really is no excuse for her not knowing this. nableezy - 21:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

The request does not currently link to the topic ban that Nableezy is alleges to have violated. Please remedy this or this request will be closed soon.  Sandstein  21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to topic ban [331]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by cptnono

I think there is some confusion here. Stifle said ""An AE can be filed to extend the topic ban or issue alternative sanctions if Nableezy's conduct since the topic ban is still creating issues." So I'm not sure if Mbz1 is doing anything wrong in principle. I do believe he misunderstood Stifle's original intent in the writing up of the partial topic ban, though. This came up at Stifle's page since Nableezy was making edits to the Tourism in Israel article related to how and if to address locations such as East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights that were very similar to the edits that got him topic banned. This would often be under the topic ban if it was broadly construed but Stifle later made it clear that was not what he was going for. So problem solved regarding that article and the Six Day War (more occupation based edits). And Stifle did say "articles" and did not specify talk and other pages. It seems a little odd to me that he is receiving such leeway again but that isn't my call to make. So is Nableezy still being problematic when it comes to articles discussing occupation and all that? If so, extending the scope of the topic ban would be appropriate. I am usually annoyed with his behavior but even I don't know if he has crossed any lines recently so anything further may not be necessary. Instead of jumping down Mbz1's throat, the editor should be given the chance to add some diffs or retract the AE due to the misunderstanding.Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Cptnono. I did understand Stifle's response as "OK" for filing this AE. In my understanding all three differences I provided were made in the violation of the topic ban, and that's why I cannot retract this AE. I believe that, if it were me, who made such edits while under the same topic ban as Nableezy is now, Sandstein would have blocked me with no mercy. If Sandstein believes I've done something wrong by filing this AE, and wants to sanction me, I honestly cannot care less. I was enjoying my last topic ban, and spending time much better than trying to get a fair trial for myself and others. Sandstein, I know you do not like, when somebody provides such examples as I did (while talking about Nableezy compared it to my own situation). Honestly I do not like it myself either. I have done it only because I believe everything should be fair, and I am afraid it is not. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any admin would have blocked anyone since Stifle clarified it. I do believe that an AE report instead of a mention on Stifle's page would have had people saying: yes, broadly construed, he violated the topic ban. But that is all meaningless since Stifle did clarify it. It shocked me that he intended it to be so limited but hopefully it drives the message home as is. Not sure if it does or not yet so if you have diffs that show that Stifle's worded enforcement is not doing enough then provide them. I'm seeing the same type of edits and a little reverting but don't know if that is enough to warrant further restrictions at this point.Cptnono (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Nableezy

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

The topic ban covers "articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries". The first cited edit is to Six-Day War, which is an article about a war and not about such places or locations, and the second edit is not to an article. Consequently, the request is without merit. As the discussions with Stifle linked to by Nableezy show, Mbz1 was in a position to understand this before making this request. I expect Mbz1 to stop making unfounded AE requests or they may be banned from making Middle East-related AE requests altogether.  Sandstein  22:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)