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

Request concerning YehudaTelAviv64[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

—Biosketch (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

YehudaTelAviv64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

1. 14:49, 1 December 2011 – revert of this edit by me
2. 10:23, 2 December 2011 – revert of this edit by User:George
3. 17:49, 2 December 2011 – probably also a revert revert of this edit by User:Jiujitsuguy

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

1. Warned on 1 December 2011 by me, followed by this message by Admin:EdJohnston.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user's behavior is aggressive and hostile, and his edits at Golan Heights and Holocaust-related articles articles could be considered POV-oriented. Additionally, there've been concerns he's masquerading as a new user under false pretenses.—Biosketch (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After being formally advised by an Admin of ARBPIA sanctions, YTA64 continues to edit-war against consensus at Golan Heights:

• 04:21, 4 December 2011 – partial revert of the same infobox content that he's been edit-warring over since he started editing the article a few days ago
• 06:22, 4 December 2011 – and again, same thing—Biosketch (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.—Biosketch (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion concerning YehudaTelAviv64[edit]

Statement by YehudaTelAviv64[edit]

This user is hounding me in response to me reporting him for edit warring here in the Administrators noticeboard.

Also, he calls my removal of an image with clear copyright violations a revert of an edit [1] from May 16, 2011. It's entirely unreasonable to call my removal of that image a revert, especially since I had never even heard of that edit until Biosketch hunted it down for this ridiculous witch-hunt. I went through a lot of work to track down the origin of that image and I found that it is a Rights Managed photo that is part of the Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS collection. Biosketch himself recommended that that image be deleted. Biosketch is just hounding me for the sake of hounding me.

The same is also true for the third diff he links to. I tracked down the copyright violation (it's a Corbis Rights Managed photo) and removed the image from the article. Biosketch then tracked down some ancient edit from February 2011 and claimed the image removal was a revert of that. The first diff he links to was an edit where I undid a revert that he himself made and did not bother to discuss on the talk page. He also did not link to his revert here. I opened a discussion regarding my edit immediately, but Biosketch did not bother to link to that discussion when he opened this request.

I was very clear in my image removal edit summaries that they were clear copyright violations. I suspect that Biosketch threw those edits into this request as part of his hounding efforts to make it make it more difficult to respond to this request by adding spurious accusations to refute. He must have seen those edit summaries.

Furthermore, "concerns he's masquerading as a new user under false pretenses" refers to these [2] [3] personal attacks that I reported here in Wikiquette assistance. Also, he accused me of "aggressive and hostile" and "POV-oriented" edits but then did not point out any instances of this.

I would appreciate it if someone could stop Biosketch from hounding me so I can instead spend my time on constructive edits. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In response to EdJohnston: I agree and think that Biosketch just created this request to hound me. However, technically, you shouldn't be editing in the "Result concerning YehudaTelAviv64" section since you are actually an involved administrator. As part of Biosketch's "Additional comments" he mentions "concerns he's masquerading as a new user under false pretenses." Those false accusations include one by you here. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• In response to WGFinley: I was hasty in labeling the edit I reverted "vandalism", but I only did that in the edit summary. When I opened a discussion in the talk page I used more accurate language. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning YehudaTelAviv64[edit]

Comment by Sean.hoyland

I don't understand your reaction to the questions about whether you have edited before and your statements about lack of evidence. You look like a sockpuppet because your edits are not like those of a new user. The observational evidence suggests that you are not a new user. Every edit you make is one more piece of evidence that you aren't a new user. So, they aren't evidenceless statements. They're statements based on observations by experienced rational observers using heuristic methods that have a near 100% success rate. In other words, people know what sockpuppets look like and you look like one. You could simply say whether or not you have edited under a previous account and if you have, tell people what it was and move on. You haven't done that yet. You've confirmed that you aren't a Pelican which has at least ruled out one of the large water birds but while questions remain unanswered and you find yourself in conflict with other users, partly because of their doubts and partly because of your responses to them, my concern is that your presence will attract sockpuppets to the topic area who will justify their presence by your presence. Editors could also use it as yet another excuse to do nothing about the long term repeat offender sockpuppetry by people whose views they agree with. If you just answer the question, edit constructively and don't come into conflict with other editors, people might just leave you alone. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I act insulted when people accuse me of being a sockpuppet because it's insulting to my intelligence. A stupid person would have trouble understanding Wikipedia formatting right off the bat and these accusers point to my correct formatting as proof of sock-puppetry. I have never edited under a previous account. I'm astounded that people are surprised that I was able to learn about formatting from Wikipedia's pages on formatting and by looking at other formatting in articles. This is not complicated stuff. Your "100% success rate" figure sounds made up. I am not a sockpuppet, time to move on people. I've been accused of both pro-Israel bias and anti-Israel bias now, and that was just for my constructive edits. I'd like to spend more time working on my constructive edits, but it's difficult when confused editors hound me with false accusations. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, since you've said that you've not edited under a previous account that is all I wanted to hear, thank you. And if you could continue to edit in a way that results in you being accused of both pro-Israel bias and anti-Israel bias that would be great. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears the pelican remark is because an editor accused Yehuda of being User:Supreme Deliciousness whose user page features an image of a pelican. What I will say is that what seems more relevant to me is how the editor has used various templates and policy references. My impression from the editor's actual usage of formatting is that this is not an experienced editor. The way the editor started out citing sources, for instance, is similar to how I started out with citations. Using the ref tags and simple brackets around a plain link rather than a more complex citation template does not suggest an experienced editor. Also, any editor who brushes up against a serious dispute is likely to end up becoming very familiar with policy very quickly. Even so, the manner in which Yehuda pursued policy actions again does not demonstrate familiarity. He went to AN/I to report an ArbCom violation. If this was an editor familiar with the dispute and familiar with Wikipedia it is not likely that he would have been unaware that AE is the place to file such reports.

None of this editor's contributions appear to be particularly problematic or tendentious. Seems this is more a case of WP:BITE than anything else.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Shrike[edit]

Did the user broke 1RR? [4] [5]

Comment by Cptnono[edit]

Reverts are reverts. He was right to make them (copyvio is a major concern) but it is not exempt from edit warring in the topic area. To block or ban would be silly since he was not being malicious but don't give a strait pass on it. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy but when editing in this topic area it is. It should have been "hey YehudaTelAviv64, next time make the revert but follow it up immediately with a request for assistance from the community". He was actually right says consensus but we all know editors have assumed (and edit warred) over copyright violations when it is undetermined. Being proactive by seeking the proper channels (there is a whole group of Wikipedians who look out for potential copyvios) would have been better than what resulted. I think admins should be a little more blunt in their warnings on this. Yes, he thought he was right. But he may not be right next time. Make the revert if you are confident that it is for the good of the project but make sure to follow it up in the appropriate channels. It may not matter in other topic areas but it matters here since not following protocol ends in requests for enforcement of the arbitration decision. That does not help anyone.

Result concerning YehudaTelAviv64[edit]

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

1. Diff 1 is troubling, with the "vandalism" comment, will await his response.
2. Diff 2 and Diff 3 the user was right, they are copyvios [6] [7] and appear to be on their way out at Commons.
3. The sock allegation has no proof submitted, you'll need to provide more info or go to WP:SPI if you have evidence believing the user to be a sock.

Appears an admonition about reverts in P-I space and use of the term "vandalism" are in order. --WGFinley (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• YehudaTelAviv64 has now been warned of the discretionary sanctions under ARBPIA, per the result of an AN3 case. In case any discretionary sanctions are deemed necessary, they can only be based on edits which take place subsequent to this warning. I agree that some of Y's reverts are justified by valid concern about copyright violation, so those should not count against the 1RR limit. I don't see anything in the present AE complaint that would justify a block of YehudaTelAviv64. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I find the tactic of digging out months-old diffs buried in the page history to be particularly distasteful. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Agreed. --WGFinley (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Editor75439[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Editor75439 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Case amendments (discretionary sanctions)

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

Editor75439 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account. Over the 5 days since this account's creation, it has made several hundred edits focusing solely on William Herbert Sheldon and his claims about somatotype and constitutional psychology. I believe that this topic clearly falls under the WP:ARBR&I discretionary sanctions ("the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed").

This account's edits consistently remove (well-sourced) negative information and attempt to present this topic in an unduly favorable light. For instance, here he removes two New York Times citations, leaving the article essentially unsourced. (The Times states that Sheldon's claims have "long been dismissed by most scientists as quackery", a conclusion which is unacceptable to Editor75439). He seeks to replace the content of these reliable sources with his personal opinion (that "Sheldon's somatotypology is the de-facto standard in modern developmental psychology.")

He has edit-warred to remove the Times source; see [8], where he uses a false and deceptive edit summary (the quote is not from a "former Ivy League student", as even the briefest perusal of the source confirms). He was blocked for edit-warring to remove this sourced material on 3 December; since the block expired, he has immediately resumed edit-warring to remove the sources and material, with no further discussion ([9], [10], [11]).

He clearly places his personal viewpoint above that of reliable sources (e.g. edit summary here), and has edit-warred to remove those reliable sources and replace them with his personal beliefs.

His talkpage contributions (which start here) are less than constructive:

• "your capacity to add any meaningful contributions to Wikipedia is at best disputable."
• "Arguments like 'but I know' is a typical weasel arguments used by people with bloated self-esteem. Could you do us all a favour and refrain from infesting this article with your weasels?"

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

1. Warned on 2 December by MastCell (talk · contribs).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a single-purpose agenda account edit-warring to remove well-sourced information and to promote their personal beliefs. Since their behavior contravenes a large percentage of our content and behavioral policies, I think administrative action is warranted even in the absence of discretionary sanctions. Since the article falls under discretionary sanctions, the bar should be if anything a bit lower for dealing with this kind of editing.

I would request a topic ban or, failing that, a 1RR restriction to at least tamp down the agenda-driven edit-warring to a manageable level. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [12]

Discussion concerning Editor75439[edit]

Statement by Editor75439[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Editor75439[edit]

The user in question has failed to follow Wikipedia policy multiple times, even after warnings, ranging from NPOV (removal of critical material, particularly material critical of fringe theories) to failing to discuss massive changes on the talk page to engaging in personal attacks (see Talk:Somatotype and constitutional psychology/Archive 1#Removed material not mentioned in the original source, self-published references; copyright status?). Most of the material this user has newly added (after the block was lifted) is extremely similar or identical to the previously-removed (for original syntheses, material not in citations, etc) material, thus being a de facto reversion. I have attempted to do some repair work on the article, including placing back in some critical material removed by Editor75439; we will see whether the user in question (if allowed) removes, reverts, or otherwise alters it from NPOV. Allens (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently they are continuing down that road. See diff [13] et seq. De728631 (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And similarly on Somatotype and constitutional psychology; see diffs [14], [15]. I will, of course, refrain from further reversions of this material (at least while this user is allowed to be active), not wishing to engage in an edit war; it is unfortunate that this leaves some citations not properly formatted (I had been trying to turn this user's block quotes into proper citations with, if desired, quote portions). Allens (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Editor75439[edit]

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

• Topic banned indefinitely. NW (Talk) 18:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning FergusM1970[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mo ainm~Talk 10:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

FergusM1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. 09:08, 6 December 2011 Revert #1 to FergusM1970's version
2. 09:33, 6 December 2011 Revert #2 to FergusM1970's version
3. 09:49, 6 December 2011 Revert #3 to FergusM1970's version
4. 09:58, 6 December 2011 Revert #4 to FergusM1970's version
5. 10:03, 6 December 2011 Revert #5 to FergusM1970's version

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

1. Warned on 09:43, 6 December 2011 by Mo ainm (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Edit warring against consensus and against multiple editors. My offer for him to self-revert and avoid being reported was met with this and revert #4. Since starting this request editor has now made a fifth revert in a 24 hour period..

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of this request

Discussion concerning FergusM1970[edit]

Statement by FergusM1970[edit]

The city is called Londonderry. That's it's legal name. There is no dispute about this, therefore it's ridiculous for people to insist that the nickname "Derry" is given prominence over the actual name. Multiple editors acting together to force me to either break 3RR or leave false information in an article is abusive. I request that the users who have reverted my edits are required to prove that the city is NOT properly named Londonderry, and that if they cannot do this they are subjected to appropriate sanctions. --FergusM1970 (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning FergusM1970[edit]

You'd think someone so obsessed with accuracy wouldn't replace the text "While the city is more usually known as Derry" with "also called Derry by Irish nationalists" despite the references he removed saying "but today most people just call it Derry, whatever their politics" and "Popular opinion has it that nationalists call it Derry while Protestants call it Londonderry. However, as with most things in Northern Ireland, it's not always as simple as that. Many Protestants also refer familiarly to the city as Derry". Of course we (well, most of us I hope) all can see therefore the edits aren't related to accuracy at all, but FergusM1970 editing based on his own opinions. WP:ROPE springs to mind with this editor, based on his current talk page posts I'm not brimming with confidence that the behaviour won't continue once his current block expires, so we'll probably be back here again in a few days time I think.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning FergusM1970[edit]

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

I've enacted a short (standard 24hrs) block to stop the edit-warring, because FergusM1970 had already broken 3RR and seemed unwilling to stop. I'll leave this open for the moment to determine if further discretionary sanctions are appropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, lemme see. The guy has two prior blocks for revert-warring, one back in 2009 (on a political topic broadly related to British national politics) and another (though on an unrelated topic) as recently as a month ago. He's showing an aggressive and inflexible "I'm right, you're wrong" stance and unwillingness to consider established consensus. This [16] edit appears quite unacceptable to me. I also find this [17] edit troublesome, as its reference to "people who don't like the laws of the land they choose to live in", directed at Northern Irish republicans, displays a highly hostile and divisive attitude.

Any objections against a topic ban? The area is now not only under the old Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case but also under Standard discretionary sanctions. Has the necessary warning paperwork be done to apply those? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems he was warned but he did exactly 3 reverts after the warning. I'm on the fence about it and might be inclined to admonish as oppose to sanction. --WGFinley (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Only" three reverts after the warning? I'm not sure how that is supposed to be a mitigating factor. This means he had already broken 1RR before the warning, so even a single revert after it was two too many. Plus breaking normal 3RR too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict)I think that the warning (issued at 09:43 Dec 6 UTC) is fair notification, and I think you must be mistaken WGFinley - the WP:TROUBLES ruling imposes a 1rr on all articles related to it - he was in breach that ruling before the warning. He then reverted 3 times after the notification[18][19][20], thus he is well into sanctionable territory. Support topic ban based on this and on the battleground mentality evidenced by FPaS--Cailil ^talk 15:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that FergusM1970 has clearly broken the 1RR, which needs no warning. By continuing to revert after Mo ainm gave him a warning on his talk page that linked to the WP:TROUBLES arbcom case, Fergus opened himself up to regular discretionary sanctions. It seems to me that, given how determined he is, a three-month restriction from the Troubles articles could be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Jonchapple[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Domer48_'fenian' 21:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Arbitration Enforcement Topic Ban

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

1. 7 December 2011 Editor is Topic Banned from "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland..." as of 11:41, 20 October 2011
2. 6 October 2011 While adding the fact tags are questionable considering their ban, removing the text is violating their ban.
3. 6 December 2011 Again, this has been a matter of some dispute and is also subject to the Topic Ban.

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

1. Warned on20 October 2011 by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) explicit warning on flags
2. Warned on20 October 2011 by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on 29 October 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
4. Warned on 14 October 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor was given a topic ban on 20 October 2011 for violating the terms of their Arbitration enforced probation. They were explicitly warned about the issue of flags and some of the diff's used during the Arbitration which imposed the topic ban were on exactly the same article herehere. Having been topic banned, they were then blocked by Arbitration for 3 weeks for violating the ban and imposed by Mkativerata here. Despite this block, they then launch a personal attack on me describing me as a sympathisers of terror. Regardless of the fact that they have been already warned by Arbitration for another personal attack on me, I actually let this go despite the scurrilous nature of the attack. Now having be warned, blocked and "Topic Banned" from all articles related to The Troubles, they again violated their ban. Regardless of who makes an edit on a Troubles related article, this editor has no business on these subjects! They are Banned. I also want that personal attack removed.

• Reply to Bretonbanquet: They were given explicit warnings on flags! They are topic banned, and have no business reverting anyone on any article that is covered by their ban. They were blocked for violating their topic ban already, and were explicitly warned about personal attacks. They have ignored all and every warning.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I've added another diff as I consider it a violation of their ban. Adding fact-tags only to remove the text is plain gaming of the ban and the fact-tags.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21]

Discussion concerning Jonchapple[edit]

Statement by Jonchapple[edit]

Ed, I reverted an IP-hopping vandal. Bretonbanquet above or somebody else would have done exactly the same if I hadn't've got there first, because the edit added an incorrect piece of pointy vandalism that directly contravened both Wikipedia consensus and the bare facts. And if you really think I'm making "no effort to curtial my inappropriate edits", we must really be looking at a different list of contributions. I see a set of useful, contructive, good-faith edits that are helping to make this project a more accurate resource. I don't know what else I can say. JonC^Talk 22:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple[edit]

Can an article about a racing driver be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland..? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not the racing driver article per se but the addition/reversion of Irish/British flags that is covered by the sanctions. Mo ainm~Talk 22:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even when he's simply reverting vandalism by a popped-up-out-of-nowhere IP? The edit he reverted looks extremely dubious to say the least. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't vandalism it is a long running content dispute that is ongoing and I'm surprised that he even made the revert knowing full well that flags were covered in his topic ban. As regard to it being an IP hopping vandal I don't know if they are or not but they made two edits which certainly wouldn't be construed as vandalism. Mo ainm~Talk 22:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The dispute has been dormant for five weeks after no sources were found by anyone to back up one side of the argument. Given the discussion on the talk page and the lack of edit summary, I'd say it was vandalism. A total of two edits, one of which just happens to be extremely contentious? Hmmm... At best, it's disruptive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I was the last one to enter the UK flag icon before the IP edited it to the Irish one I feel that if Jonchapple hadnt undone it myself or Bretonbanquet would have . I had edited the discussion page[[22]] with up-to-date facts before I became aware of this . If this is consistent with the Troubles ruling , maybe in Jonchapple's case it is , it is also about the motor racing issue. There is no evidence to show that Carroll has ever been Irish in a sporting sense and that the remit of flags in motor racing infoboxes is based on sporting nationality - Northern Irish isnt a motor racing nationality and as Carroll isnt Irish the editor has just undone a comment with-out an edit summary and without a discussion ot the talk page . The IP made no effort to engage , discuss or explain their edit , the undoing of which would seem appropriate for an article on motor racing .Murry1975 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Jonchapple[edit]

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

• The recent practice at AE has been to consider revert warring on British versus Irish nationality for people born in Northern Ireland as being covered by Troubles enforcement. In fact Jonchapple was blocked for a week on 28 October for this revert in which he disputed the nationality of a golfer named Rory McIlroy. His new edits at Adam Carroll represent more of the same. Nothing has changed, he was blocked before for the same thing, and he seems to be making no effort to curtail his inappropriate edits. I suggest doubling the previous block, which was for three weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Per Ed, I agree this is more of the same from Jonchapple and support a 6 week block. However, given that this user will then have been blocked for 9 weeks of his 13 week (3 month) topic ban for violating it I'd suggest resetting the ban from the date of his future unblock (ie a new 3 month topic ban to run from Jan 18 2012)--Cailil ^talk 23:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I've blocked Jonchapple for six weeks. If he wasn't aware that edit-warring over nationalities like that was considered to be within the scope of WP:TROUBLES, he might have had a defence, but considering Ed clearly warned him about it (and this is very similar conduct to that which got him blocked last time), that is not applicable. The suggestion resetting the topic ban is not an unreasonable one and I'll leave this open for discussion of that proposal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I support the block, the two edits are blatant violations of the TBAN, it wasn't vandalism that was added, typical POV pushing in this topic space (large chunk of Unionist vs Nationalist language in the first diff and "province" vs "country" of Northern Ireland in the second). I support resetting the topic ban to 3 months from this date. --WGFinley (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning VanishedUser314159[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Professor marginalia (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

VanishedUser314159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist limited to one account

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

1. 8 Dec 2011 Maybe just the most ironic edit. Has been editing from this IP since indef block in Mar 2011 for socking to evade sanctions, more persistently since about Oct 2011
2. 15 Dec 2010 Confirms he edited with the IP before his block

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

Not necessary. He knows he can't do this.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It's a shame it's come to this, but this is a mess. With all the courtesy blanking on his behalf, the misuse of the Right to Vanish, socking, and block evasions - I had to say something. I always found him to be a real asset at wikipedia and I don't have any opinion about the arbitration cases he was party in-I didn't follow them. It was only because in a discussion with him yesterday, I recognized the IP as VanishedUser314159 and looked him up that I learned he was currently blocked. But to continue editing he should come out in the open, seek his block be removed and edit under his user account.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[23]

Discussion concerning VanishedUser314159[edit]

Statement by 128.59.171.194[edit]

I know that as an IP my abilities to edit on Wikipedia are limited. I encourage any administrator who thinks it appropriate to block this IP if you feel the contributions have been in any way disruptive. I do not have access to VanishedUser314159's account, nor do I have any desire to create a user account. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by VanishedUser314159[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning VanishedUser314159[edit]

Result concerning VanishedUser314159[edit]

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

• VanishedUser314159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• In December 2010, VanishedUser314159 added the signature of a named account under a talk comment left by this IP. In January 2011 the vanished user offered to take a one-year wikibreak, but it does not appear that he was serious. The IP geolocates to Columbia University. I've notified Jpgordon, who placed the indefinite block on VanishedUser314159 in March 2011, to see if he wants to comment. The IP is very active on fringe topics since March 2011, which goes against past advice by Arbcom. It also violates a one-year topic ban from fringe science imposed here at AE in January 2011, still visible in Archive81. Unless the user volunteers to seek unblock under his main account we may need to treat this as evasion of an AE block and shut down the IP for a long period. It does not appear necessary to go to Arbcom for advice since they have expressed themselves clearly in the past. We should consider imposing a one-year block. We can give the user the address of arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if he is hoping that the Committee has changed its mind about allowing him to use multiple identities. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That diff is pretty clear proof it is him, it appears a block defense has been lined up as the IP added the Shared IP Edu template.[24] Since the IP went right on editing after responding here and the IP is clearly associated with the banned user and I don't see any other substantive edits from this IP indicating it is truly shared it would seem a long term block is in order.--WGFinley (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Closing: 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs) is blocked for one year for evading the AE block of User:VanishedUser314159 and the AE topic ban from pseudoscience and fringe science imposed in January 2011. This sanction is being logged in WP:ARBPS and in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Someone35[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Someone35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 2 December 2011 See below
2. 19:39, 6 December 2011 See below for explanation
3. 19:15, 7 December 2011 Hounding
4. 10:04, 9 December 2011 Hounding, disruptive editing
5. 9 December 2011 Accusing others of being paid to edit Wikipedia

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

1. Notified of the case on 24 August 2011‎
2. Topic banned following the user calling me an "antisemite"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not daycare, and we should not have to deal with children running around making a nuisance of themselves. The user's disruption has escalated from a minor annoyance to active disruption, and I request that his or her indefinite topic ban be reimposed. When the user can demonstrate that he or she has the required maturity to edit in the topic area the ban can be rescinded, but I think it is clear that after the 3 month ban that this child still is not fit to edit in the topic area.

It is very obvious who the user was referring to in the edit on his talk page, and the comments below are disingenuous to say the least. Compare this with this and you can see that the claim that he was not referring to a specific user falls flat. This is similar to the behavior that occurred prior to the user's last topic ban, where the user claimed that because he or she called me an antisemite in Hebrew but not English it should not count. See the past thread here (collapsed section, the extension of the ban occurred during an appeal of a block). nableezy - 16:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Someone35[edit]

Statement by Someone35[edit]

I'll reply to each edit:

1. How is this a violation of any guideline?

2. Was there anything offensive in this question?

3. Am I not allowed to involve in a discussion about a place that I know well? I even visited there a few months ago so I am knowledgeable in that article.

4. That edit was underlined for a purpose...

5. Did I mention you there? See who's wikihounding (or stalking) others...

Reply to Nableezy's statement:

• I already apologized for that, look for it if you want.
• In my opinion that question wasn't inane, also you didn't even answer me, you just removed it.
• That's because you haven't answered me, you could at least say that you are not interested in telling me that...
• Again, I am knowledgeable about Hiriya and I agreed with his position.
• That was underlined for a purpose
• Where did I mention you in the last diff? Also, the meaning of the userbox you put in the bottom of your userpage is also clear and you can get arrested for supporting terrorist organizations...

• Since mostly children read Wikipedia (usually to copy their HW from there), you SHOULD have children editing here in order to make Wikipedia more open to children.

Also, Nableezy is the only user who seems to be disrupted by my edits and that's the 3rd or 4th time he reports me.

Response to WGFinley: Nableezy is the only editor who complains about me. Once I saw asad's warning I removed the problematic sentences. But I went out for about 3 hours so I only saw it after Nableezy complained here.-- Someone35  16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the fact he's the only one that complains about you change the fact that you asked him if he has a job and accused him of being paid to edit WP? --WGFinley (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't accused him. I haven't even mentioned him in that edit. I asked him once oafishly (that's the word google translate gave me, I'm not sure it's accurate, I never heard of this word before) if he has a job since he seems to edit a lot on Wikipedia. As far as I know, asking somebody if he has a job isn't against any Wikipedia policy.-- Someone35  16:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Man, you really outta stop burying yourself with these self-destructive comments. Have you not taken to heart what you have learned in your mentoring course? -asad (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the sentences you asked me to remove in order not to get myself in trouble, but I only saw your warning after Nableezy reported me-- Someone35  16:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to Nableezy's second comment: There other people who are not you that make POV pushing edits and are getting paid for editing Wikipedia...-- Someone35  16:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to the admins: Then give me a one year interaction ban with Nableezy, since I don't engage in edit wars with other users, or make problematic edits in Israeli Palestinian conflict articles (I am not edit warring or violating any rule there). Also, again, I removed the sentences Nableezy complains about in the moment I saw asad's warning, but apparently it was too late and Nableezy already wrote the report here.-- Someone35  06:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Someone35[edit]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

@WGFinley We shouldn't continue to add a little more time and send them back out to cause issues when their TBAN expires. Precisely. So why add a little more time and send Someone35 back out when his (proposed year-long) topic ban expires? Why not reinstate his indefinite topic ban? Hasn't he made good use of the WP:ROPE he was given? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Demiurge1000

I'm Someone35's mentor (agreed after his initial topic ban) so unfortunately I'm partly responsible for this, as I only noticed and replied to all this on Friday morning. The mentoring work that we've done so far clearly hasn't successfully dealt with the issue that Someone35 has extremely strong views about certain groups whose stated aim is to destroy his country, that he (wrongly) associates opposing viewpoints on Wikipedia with those groups, and that he not only focuses his feelings about this on Nableezy as an individual, but also doesn't restrain himself from expressing those feelings on Wikipedia. (In retrospect, probably the first part of the mentoring should have been "let's talk about Nableezy and your feelings about Nableezy", but instead I took a more conventional approach.)

The comments made are indefensible; there's no world in which one asks a on-wiki opponent "do you have a job?" just out of curiosity, and secondly I don't see how Someone35 or anyone else can expect the comments about paid editing to be interpreted as other than referring to Nableezy.

I would prefer WGFinley's suggestion of a year long topic ban rather than an indefinite one, though the only argument I have in support of that is that for a teenager, a year is a very long time.

An alternative suggestion would be an indefinite one-way interaction action ban to stay away from Nableezy, to include not editing any articles where Nableezy already edits. I do feel that if adhered to, this would prevent the expression of personal animosity that is the focus of the problem here. I'm aware that one-way interaction bans are generally frowned upon because of the potential for provocation in the other direction, but Nableezy has been very restrained in dealing with this, so I don't believe that would be an issue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by MichaelNetzer

Someone35's interaction with Nableezy is unfortunate, and exhibits an immaturity that should not be tolerated. It does seem, however, that it's not driven by subject or content issues, rather by a personal one with an editor who is himself controversial when it comes to this topic area, as it's not the first time conflicts have risen around him. A topic ban may not be a focused enough solution, wherein a long interaction ban would more likely address the root of the problematic behavior. If within or after such a ban, Someone35 continues to behave this way towards Nableezy, then there would be good reason to widen the scope of the ban to include the topic. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael, it's part of the nature of the topic area that there is hardly an editor in it of which some other editor would not say that they are controversial or have been the source of conflict.     ←   ZScarpia   19:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't intend to single out anyone in the overall context of this topic area, and I appreciate it being hot for most everyone. Only to say that it is specifically a personal issue in this case, which has roots in the interaction between both editors. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll notice that Demiurge thinks it goes a bit further than a personal issue. Having said that, I have no view on what the best solution would be.     ←   ZScarpia   20:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure about that, ZScarpia. Demiurge suggests a one way interaction ban as an alternative solution saying: "I do feel that if adhered to, this would prevent the expression of personal animosity that is the focus of the problem here." True that SO35's young age plays a factor as well, but it does seem to focus on a personal animosity. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Someone35[edit]

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

Of Nableezy's submitted diffs 2 is a pretty blatant personal attack and 4 and 5 are battleground fodder. Previous ban was 3 months, I believe a year off of P-I is in order as this isn't even a month since the last TBAN expired. We shouldn't continue to add a little more time and send them back out to cause issues when their TBAN expires. --WGFinley (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Malik -I might be so inclined to support that but wouldn't make that call solo, would like some other opinions. --WGFinley (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree that the case for reinstating the editor's I/P topic ban is strong. I suggest that the indefinite topic ban be reimposed, with the option for review of the ban after one year and then every three months thereafter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Demiurge1000 and MichaelNetzer: A review of Someone35's last two appearances at AE does not inspire confidence about his ability to edit neutrally on Israeli/Palestinian topics. The problems with his editing shown here in August and here in September indicate that it's not just a question of interpersonal conflict with Nableezy. It's clear to me that Someone35 could not live up to the hopes that people had for his reform when his ban was commuted to three months back in September. If anyone thinks that Someone35 has a good grasp of what is going on here, read over the five points that begin his statement, above. Asad112 has responded above that Someone35 is burying himself with self-destructive comments. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to the appeal of Someone35's mentor, I'm inclined to go with one year as pretty ample and don't want to make this too complicated. So I will make it a year TBAN and wrap this up. --WGFinley (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Wgfinley[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

asad (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ADMINACCT

WGFinley has seemingly lost sight of his of his duties as an Administrator on Wikipedia. As to why I feel this has happened, I will not speculate it was do to his preference towards a certain POV, unwillingness to admit a mistake or even flat out arrogance, because I quite frankly see that as irrelevant. This all stems from his adjudication of the User:Jiujitsuguy case. In quick summary, Jiujitsuguy violated WP:Consensus (in particular WP:Legality of Israeli settlements), by removing reference to Katzrin being an Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights. Jiujitsuguy later self-reverted. Something is important to note here: that although the complaint was originally filed for JJGs removal of a consensus statement, more diffs were added which shows that Jiujitsuguy deliberately abused sources to push a certain POV. This was especially concerning considering JJGs recent expiration of a topic-ban of, which he received largely for misrepresenting sources.

I am not going to copy the text verbatim, but it is clear to see from JJGs most recent A/E case he distorted sources to push a POV that Mount Hermon is in Israel. Both User:EdJohnston and User:Timotheus Canens both seemed to agree that there was an issue with JJGs sources and were willing to discuss the matter. But WGFinley was not interested at all. WGF was asked multiple times to please address the issue of JJG misrepresenting sources, he either did not, or claimed that he already did. I still, until this very second, have no idea where he purportedly addressed the issues.

JJG source misrepresentation diffs:

1. 13 Nov 2011 Claims Mt. Hermon is in Israel by using the Fodor's Travel Guide source and the quote he cites in the ref, "Mt Hermon, famous as Israel’s highest mountain," but leaves out, "at 9,230 feet above sea level -- is actually in Syrian territory." The full quote should read (with the strikethroughs being what JJG omitted), "Mt. Hermon -- famous as Israel's highest mountain, at 9,230 feet above sea level -- is actually in Syrian territory." (see the source here)
2. 13 Nov 2011 Uses this source to claim Mt. Hermon is in Israel, although the source clearly writes, "Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. The Hermon Ski Resort is in Israel's Golan Heights."

Besides the multiple requests on the A/E thread, WGF was asked on his talk page to explain the issue:

1. 30 Nov 2011 Asked by User:Malik Shabazz to address JJG misrepresenting sources after prematurely closing the A/E thread without seeing T. Canens latest post calling for a topic-ban
2. 30 Nov 2011 User:Gatoclass brought to WGF's attention that the issue in A/E was misuse of sources
3. 1 Dec 2011 Matter brought to attention, again by User:Nableezy with request for an explantion
4. 1 Dec 2011 Asked by myself to, again, address the issue of misrepresentation of sources

WGF's confusion of the matter was further illustrated by claiming that JJG had "self-reverted" himself at Mount Hermon, which he never did (see Mount Hermon's history):

1. 30 Nov 2011

This was the only other time WGF even brought up JJG and Mount Hermon in the same post. Neither of the diffs refer to him addressing misrepresentation of sources at all, whatsoever:

1. 30 Nov 2011

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Lets pretend for a second that we want to accept WGF's position that Nableezy was uncivil and, therefore, WGF wouldn't want to respond to someone who was acting to so "uncivil" towards him. Fine. But what is the excuse for the other three editors who posed the same question? WP:ADMIN clearly states, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." WGF can't just say he has responded to something he didn't even respond to push the issue aside. He should be accountable for his actions, he can't use ambiguity to disguise bad judgement calls he has made as an admin. He seems to have an issue with editors questioning decisions he makes, as is evidenced by the amount of "discussion closed" hats he places on his talk page.

But what has become even more hard to bear in this whole debate is the fact that some admins are only catching the tail-end of the situation and noticing Nableezy's perceived "incivility", without even understanding the context of the situation. By doing that, some admins seem willing to sacrifice one "uncivil" editor to better the so-called "Project", but not look at the larger issue of POV-pushing and falsification of sources. Being an admin on A/E is not about personal vendettas or tallying up blocks and bans, it is about using tools in a proper way to make the encyclopedia experience more reliable for the average person trying to get information on a topic based on a simple Google search. This admin, in particular, has decided that a more important issue for A/E is the is an editors perceived incivility, but not one editors manipulation of sources that degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. I find that extremely distasteful.

I don't think WGF's adminship should be recalled, but I do think he should not be allowed to adjudicate anything further relating to ARBPIA. He should also be reminded, that he should be required to give a clear response when serious questions (like falsification of sources) are asked to him.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Wgfinley[edit]

Statement by Wgfinley[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Wgfinley[edit]

Comment by Zero0000[edit]

I do not support any actual sanction against WGFinley. However, I wish to record that several times I have been quite startled by the apparent animosity that WGFinley shows towards Nableezy, very little of which seems to be justified by the circumstances, and by the lack of logic displayed by WGFinley when discussing matters related to Nableezy. The AE process should not only be dispassionate, but should appear dispassionate to a disinterested reader. That is not the case here. I think WGFinley should voluntarily retire from AE cases involving Nableezy. Zero^talk 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Shuki[edit]

The best defense is a good offense We see 'friend' Nableezy about to get an indef, so best thing to do is attack the admin. Nice. --Shuki (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes... it does seem transparent. It's also amusing that once Nableezy put up his initial unadvised tirade, Asad undid Nableezy's edit [25], then after he was reverted (by me), brushed it off as an accident [26]. All seems a bit too coincidental... Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Nableezy[edit]

But to the substance. I think that WGF has demonstrated that he lacks the competence to be administering the topic area. I do not know what can be done about this short of him either voluntarily agreeing to refrain from doing so or an RFC and arbitration case to force him to do so. I dont know that AE is a venue where this can be addressed. But WGF has repeatedly made false statements on AE, and has repeatedly refused to provide any explanation for those clearly false statements. I have asked him several times to this comment. He has steadfastly refused to do so. The comment he made is simply untrue, and in his refusal to acknowledge that he, in my opinion, forfeited the right to act as an admin in this area. But again, I dont know that AE is equipped to deal with incompetence by supposed uninvolved admins. nableezy - 22:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Wgfinley[edit]

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

• I disagreed with WGFinley's position in the matter cited, but I am not seeing anything actionable here. At the very least, the linked policy is not a remedy that this page is empowered to enforce—"Arbitration Enforcement is not the place for anything other than enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling". This is the purview of WP:AN or WP:A/R/C. I would highly discourage any reporting to those pages, because I don't think that there is merit to this request, but that is your decision. NW (Talk) 22:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Block logged at

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

User is blocked and can't send notice, I acknowledge the appeal. --WGFinley (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

The policy on topic bans indicates there are exemptions to topic bans where the editor is addressing a legitimate concern about the ban. I believed the concerns I was raising fell under such an exemption. Other than the concerns obvious from my comment, like the editor who pushed for the topic ban apparently using it to game consensus to revert uncontroversial changes on the disputed article, I provided several more concerns on my talk page. My understanding is that one reason a topic ban provides for exemptions in the case of notifying admins about violations of interaction bans is because a violation on the part of one individual inherently invites a violation by the other individual. In other words, one editor should not be baiting another individual into violating a ban and an editor under a topic ban should raise concerns about such baiting to an admin. Here I went to the admin who had specifically imposed the topic ban, indicating I had no intention of violating the topic ban. Given all of this, I believe this was not worthy of a block. Even if one argues that it was a violation, the circumstances were sufficiently ambiguous under the policy that the imposition of any block seems inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While my block has expired I still have every intention of pushing this appeal. As it pertains to Zero's argument I am not suggesting that I was not commenting on an editor's actions in the topic area, but that the specific concerns I had about those actions fell under an exemption. As I say below, the actions of the editor who filed the request leading to the topic ban had numerous issues with it that were relevant to the topic ban. See the last sentence or two of the comment on WG's talk page to get what I was concerned about. I believe this question needs some clarification as an editor concerned about WP:GAME relating to the editor who files an AE report should be able to notify an informed admin about this without fearing a block.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additionally, I would ask that EdJohnston not present himself as an uninvolved admin in this case since his involvement in the dispute about the block on my talk page clearly falls under one of the criteria listed in the procedural notes at the top of this appeal. I have e-mailed him twice about his being an involved admin, but the first time he insisted he wasn't and he has yet to respond to the second e-mail I sent yesterday morning where I specifically quoted the criteria above.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to WG on block appeal[edit]

While I understand the concern about a comment about a user's conduct becoming a discussion, this would be true for any exemption. Mentioning an editor's actions in violation of an interaction ban, for instance, may cause the other editor to respond in a way that leads to further violations, but the point is where the comment is made. An admin can hardly argue that he would not be able to control what is occurring on his own talk page. That is why I made the comment there. Perhaps it would have been better to send an e-mail, something I considered, but when using e-mail there is a concern about it being perceived as an inappropriate effort to lobby in secret.

I further feel I had to mention why the action was of concern and that required some specificity. To be clear, it was not a general concern about an editor continuing to make contributions to the article, but the attempt to undo uncontroversial contributions of mine that had been standing for weeks and the way that attempt was being portrayed. The editor who filed the request leading to my topic ban was using the topic ban resulting from that request to revert changes of mine and give them the illusion of real consensus by implying that it was a compromise being put up for discussion, even though the editor knew the person who was being reverted was not going to be able to provide input on the "compromise" over those edits. Since the topic ban ten days ago this proposal has been the editor's only action on the article.

That, from my perspective, is quite a serious concern about the ban. Editors using AE to game the system is certainly a problem and goes straight to the question of whether the request was made in good faith in the first place. One impression I got from the proposal was that the editor was being vindictive and attempting to hound me by undoing as many of my contributions as possible until I stopped contributing to the article altogether. It should be added that this specifically concerned an issue I raised with WG about the topic ban being extended to talk pages as it seems unlikely the editor making this proposal would have done so knowing I could quickly chime in to point out all the deceptive language being used.

Finally, despite what WG says, I have no real animosity towards any of the editors contributing to the article. On several occasions I have sought the opinions of these editors on changes to the article and have specifically sought to accommodate their concerns. Sometimes I have found them cooperative, and other times I have found them to be the opposite. After the edit-warring block issued by EdJohnston it appears the latter response has become more common.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by WGFinley[edit]

TDA states he was just inquiring about his ban, I think that's clearly not the case as shown in what he wrote on my talk page.[28]

TDA was given a 30 day TBAN for 9/11 articles (log) resulting from a previous AE Request. My notification to him is very clear to him about the terms including, "...any discussion of that topic on other pages. While he may have been speaking about the ban to complain about it he went on about the conduct of another user, how they were making changes to the article and this was wrong because he was banned.

This is a common reaction of TBAN users but as we had previously discussed his TBAN in excruciating great detail there was no ambiguity he was under a TBAN. If the other user he was referring to responded it would just make the article talk page out of my talk page and clearly that's what TBAN's are intended to prevent - further disturbance on the article. I've tried very hard to encourage TDA to work collaboratively but he can't seem to put aside the animosity he has against other users, and one user in particular, in order to edit harmoniously.--WGFinley (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe WG's wikilink on "excruciatingly great detail" of discussion on the ban is referring to this discussion. That discussion did not concern what qualifies as an exemption, however.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Jordgette[edit]

Am I expected to defend myself for posting in my userspace a draft of suggested changes to an article,[29] and asking for community input,[30] without making a single actual revert or edit to the article in question since November 21? No thank you; I will use that time to improve an article instead. But if it would make you feel better, I'll ask someone else to move over those changes once discussion is closed. (Or maybe that's still "gaming consensus"...I'll take my chances.) -Jordgette [talk] 01:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

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

• The Devil's Advocate is *not* appealing his recent one-month topic ban from 9/11 articles, he is appealing the one week block that was issued by WGFinley for making this edit at WG's talk. The language of WP:TBAN permits restricting the banned editor from raising the issues anywhere on Wikipedia, including on user talk pages. Finley used this specific wording to impose the ban:

This is to inform you that, as the result of this Arbitration Enforcement request you are hereby banned from editing all articles which relate to the September 11 attacks, broadly interpreted, as well as their talk pages, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban is through 30 December 2011.

TDA violated the restriction by using Finley's talk to complain about actions of the other party in the edit war, User:Jordgette. WGF's action appears routine to me, since this is how topic bans are supposed to work. On his user talk TDA is contesting at length the accepted theory of topic bans. He argues that the admins are wrong in trying to prevent him from from discussing the other party's editing of the 9/11 articles since his own topic ban was imposed. I recommend declining this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Looks like a topic ban violation to me. If he just argued about his block that would be one thing, but he mostly argued about the editing of others. Decline appeal. Zero^talk 07:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• TDA's action (the comment to WGFinley [31]) is clearly a breach of the ban. The block is a obvious, as the ban clearly states "any discussion of that topic [ September 11 attacks ] on other pages." On the basis that this appeal is about said block I'm declining it.
  Additionally TDA's comments about Ed are not appropriate - Ed has not violated WP:INVOLVED because, "warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'."--Cailil ^talk 20:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Nableezy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 19:12, 14 December 2011 - WP:EW at Nazareth

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

1. Warned on 20:16, 14 December 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

You missed your chance to put yourself on safe ground, and now you may be considered to be a revert-warrior like all the others. There is no 'right to revert to a long-standing version', especially during an RfC on that exact matter.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am uninvolved in RfC taking place at Nazareth talk page, though I've noticed its existence. I do not have any opinion on the matter. I have reverted an IP, since I was not sure that the anonymous editor was aware of the discussion and warned other editors not to get into WP:EW. However User:Nableezy, who is active contributor to talk page discussion, reverted anyway. The Nazareth page immediately got protected due to Edit warring / Content dispute: Nationalist revert war by EdJohnston. Ed suggested:

Patience could be a virtue, even if it takes longer to get to a conclusion. You edited while an RfC was running so as to revert the very term being discussed in the RfC. I'm requesting that you take a voluntary one-month break from adding the word 'Palestinian' to any articles.

However Nab believes:

Ed, I dont think this is justified...

I personally do not know what should be done here, but maybe AE administrator could figure it out.

Re nableezy - 21:54, 14 December 2011: I'm not sure why you have waited for revert of IP in order to start edit waring. You are still appear trigger happy with reverts, despite your numerous clarifications that you are indeed cured Why have not you edited earlier, if you believe your actions were justified? If you have agreed to Ed's limitation, which I have not noticed earlier, then maybe this incident is moot. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

Umm, what? nableezy - 21:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given Agada's repeated vexatious comments about me in numerous AE requests (a sample, [89], [90], [91], [92]), would it be possible to instate an interaction ban? I generally avoid Agada as I feel dealing with him is a waste of time, but that one-sided self-imposed ban doesnt do much. I would appreciate a restriction being placed so I dont have to deal with this user's incessant squabbling. nableezy - 21:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And, just for clarity, despite Agada's dishonest portrayal of my comments above, I had already agreed to Ed's proposed restriction, and we were discussing the issue on my talk page. The reason Agada brought this here is obvious, so much so that I think I can leave it unsaid. nableezy - 21:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless of how this is closed, I would still like an interaction ban with Agada. His constant squabbling is more than a minor annoyance, and if at all possible I would like to avoid dealing with this particular "editor". His whinging is becoming more and more tiring. nableezy - 23:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael, your comments have several distortions, and given your familiarity with English I have no doubt they are intentional. I dont plan on responding here to an editor who repeatedly distorts things, and, as you have proven yourself to be such an editor, I dont plan on replying to your latest fabrication. nableezy - 13:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsurprisingly, a collection of like-minded users have arrived, blessing us with what they think is their oh-so-clever evidence. Can this finally be dealt with? Or is there a reason that every time I am either brought here or bring somebody else here, a chorus of users, the submitter of this report included, bring a collection of distortions, fabrications, and outright untruths in a poor attempt to create confusion about the actual issue. Can this please be dealt with now? I again suggest that this board do away with comments by involved users. Everybody already knows that Shuki, MichaelNetzer, Hearfourmewesique and several others think I am a BadMan™. I dont see why it is necessary or productive to give them another venue to distort evidence. Article space should be plenty for them. nableezy - 13:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy[edit]

Comment by Shuki[edit]

Frankly, I think the vast majority of heavily-involved I-P editors on both sides of the POV have had nice extended topic bans and have cooled down substantially. Except Nableezy who, if even sentenced, gets short ones, and then raises appeals successfully to get back on the battleground. Some have even said Nableezy is needed because they add 'balance'. I've come back from a one year hiatus from I-P and I am truly amazed that Nableezy has managed to keep the aggressive attitude intact. But what's the point of bothering to bring Nableezy to AE? The invincible smart one who seems to wait until the 24hrs are up to revert (in the past 3RR, and now 1RR) and if caught on a mistake, merely apologizes for the technicality and everyone is happy. The person with nine lives, who always gets a second chance, who gets endless warnings from AE admins, just when the guideline is about to be thrown and some admin comes by on AE to be the voice of mercy. --Shuki (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In our pretty little world of WP, we want to assume that everyone is really civil and here to build the encyclopedia. Where someone can screw up but apologize, even if that same someone screws up dozens of times, attacks others for same infractions, but a simple 'who me? I'm sorry' is enough for this one too. I've never seen one editor get so much attention from AE admins, so many personal warnings on the user's talk page, so many breaks. What is being accomplished here? I suggest WP:BOOMERANG here but EdJohnston, sorry to call your bluff, but the admins are all talk. --Shuki (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by RolandR[edit]

This seems a totally unfounded complaint. Several editors were involved in reverting and re-reverting, but AU has seen fit to complain about just one of them. As evidence of Nableezy's alleged malpractice, he cites a comment by an admin made an hour after his edit. How can Nableezy have been guilty of ignoring a polite suggestion, if it had not yet been offered. The "Get Nab" crowd just don't give up, do they? RolandR (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re Ed'd proposal below about blocking all editors involved in an extended edit war, this proposal could only be of benefit to Wikipedia if it had a clear exemption for editors reverting obvious vandals, sock puppets, New SPAs created in order to entrap editors, and other offenders who plague I/P articles. In the absence of such an exemption, their vexatious POV edits would be required to remain, and those attempting to enforce Wikipedia policies would be penalised. RolandR (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Just think it should be noted that the first revert Nableezy made was of editor Odiwkatc who appears to have made the edit within a minute of registering, and it so far being that editor's only contribution. Maybe there should be a checkuser inquiry made into that editor. Also, I think when there is an RfC going on any attempt to change the wording away from the old consensus should be frowned upon unless it actually seeks to balance the concerns of both sides. Making a new change that only favors one side seems more like an attempt by that side in the dispute to force their version into place thus undercutting the RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by MichaelNetzer[edit]

@EdJohnston: While it's understandable to be duly forgiving of Nableezy's behavior because he's an effective representative for a cause, concerns voiced around the I/P space recently are not at all frivolous or unfounded. This case may not be representative of the core issues needing to be addressed here, but still, a voluntary ban on adding a word to an article has little to do with a problem of conduct that persists after every slap of the wrist Nableezy gets. Editors under fire from him have to endure insults, bad faith insinuations, distortions of intent, intimidation and generally the type of aggression that's not tolerated in anyone else's behavior. It's worrisome that Nableezy seems to become more empowered in time knowing he can dish out the most toxic diatribe with impunity because administrators afford him special protection. If such a door is to be opened on Wikipedia, then we can eventually expect the collapse of the conduct guidelines altogether.

Nableezy does not show an obligation to change his tone in the editing space, regardless of repeated advice and warnings about it. He's said himself that 1RR bans caused him to curb those violations. The next time he blows up at someone and contaminates a relatively collaborative atmosphere, a ban for uncivil conduct needs to be considered more seriously because even he admits that a stringent measure compels him to modify his behavior. The kid gloves treatment not afforded to others will continue to boomerang and cause arbitrators to spend more time putting out his fires than most anything else they do. A certain measure of tolerance can be appreciated, but only until it becomes a detriment to the community as a whole. I say this with utmost respect for your efforts to keep things peaceful here. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nableezy: What I see in that discussion is the beginning of a disagreement that quickly escalates into a fight, mainly because you project an uncompromising one sided attitude that seeks to pulverize anyone standing in your way. You show no capacity to collaborate with others as they attempt to cooperate with you. Then you fly off the handle when shown that your source attempts to whitewash, for obvious political reasons, a speaker who is on record for having called for mass genocide. You show no capacity of understanding how that speaker can be offensive to people his remarks are directed against, yet you are of the quickest editors to take offense at the slightest criticism directed at you. It is not at all a pretty game that you play. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What kind of compromise would you have found appropriate? Using a book by a source who has previously directly been denied RS status in this context? Or a non-refereed journal article by a person who seems to have no relevant credentials? In this case compromise would have been detrimental to the integrity of the project - please show some understanding of how offensive that might be to some of us. Please also take some time to think hard about the game that you are playing. un☯mi 07:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not say anything about compromising on an RS, though this particular case there exists no consensus for the RS being unreliable in the broad way Nableezy characterized it in his first response "Wow. A book published by WND Books by an author of WorldNetDaily fame". This characterization does not reflect the consensus discussion and wrongly excludes the source on a broad basis that was never agreed to. The article in question cited reliable sources itself, which at least should made it legitimate to ask the question and should have been taken into consideration instead of such an aggressive mocking dismissal by an experienced editor, who's expected by all WP standards to show more courtesy to younger and less experienced editors. Naturally, most of us are familiar with this incivility used by Nableezy, especially to overpower, intimidate and drag editors into arguments he can use to file another in a long series of complaints against (which he's already threatened this editor with). Instead of rising above the battle-POV-aggressive tone he uses to disqualify information that doesn't suit his prejudice, something all WP guidelines frown upon, he could have been more courteous in explaining his reservation. If you are so offended at a perfectly legitimate question about using an RS but are not offended at the near malicious behavior Nableezy displayed in waging such uncivil battle for his "cause" (with declarative AE admin support), then perhaps it's better for you reflect on that double standard with yourself alone. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. I've been following that exchange at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#New_sources_proposal. It's not okay to repeatedly bring poor quality sources to discussions. It's especially not okay to make ethically indefensible and morally repugnant accusations based on total distortions of what another editor has said and done and the nature of a source. That's wrong, as in right and wrong. If someone does that they can't expect things to go well and they certainly shouldn't be defended by others. Perhaps Hearfourmewesique has simply misinterpreted the situation. I really hope so, because the alternative explanation, that it is willful, is quite astonishing. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your definition of poor quality is amusing. You call Klein's book a poor source, but have no problems with other books written in the spirit of refusal to recognize Israel, thus insisting on calling all what is Israeli "Palestinian". Your neutrality mask is melting, and no one actually says anywhere that Aaron Klein is unreliable, nor that Middle East Quarterly is unreliable, especially when its article cites 43 of its own reliable and verified sources. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Tiamut[edit]

Well its more of a question really. Is Nableezy's ban on reinstating the word "Palestinian" to apply to any text with that word in it? What I mean is even when its not the source of a dispute but the word happens to be in a paragraph where other material is being contested? And if so, doesn't that pretty much amount to a topic ban? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Hearfourmewesique[edit]

Ever since the beginning of my (relatively) short time in the I-P area, I was reverted dozens of times and reported to ArbCom without being given the time to properly respond to warnings, mostly by Nableezy, which resulted in being blocked twice. Now he is trying, for the second time, to threaten to report me for alleged lies and attacks on him and/or his sources, when in reality all I do is call him out on the use (and defense) of controversial sources, which constitute the coverage of work that is anti-Semitic in nature. Moreover, he is falsely accusing me of WP:HOUNDing him because I chimed in in a couple of discussions,in which he is involved, and reverted a couple of his contributions; he also threatened to start hounding me unless I ceased being involved in the same topic areas as he is. He calls sources I provide "excremental" and "crap", claiming "it's not gonna fly here". It is clear that Nableezy is very experienced in what he does, and I see it as WP:Civil POV pushing, which, of course, is the worst kind because it is the hardest to prosecute or even detect without being called incivil or having bad faith. Incidentally, it seems as if he filed more reports on this board than anyone else, all against editors who do not edit in a strong pro-Palestinian fashion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This offers some context for the above charges. un☯mi 06:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it does. It offers a dispute about a book that opinions over it seem to be divided 50/50, while the poisonous incivility and intimidation in the discussion were more like 100% from one side. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you serious?!? That editor claimed that I attempted to use a source by somebody calling for the destruction of all Jews when what I was citing was a report by the Office of the Mayor of London. And all the incivility came from one side. Yes, I was uncivil when an editor maliciously lied that I was citing somebody who called for genocide. How terrible of me. nableezy - 06:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rofl. No, it shows one editor with severe competency issues and another who is calmly but with increasing frustration trying to set him straight. If you really believe the characterization you have put forwards then I feel very sorry for you. un☯mi 07:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your link is for a subsection, so I scrolled up to see how everything started and commented on that first. I've made another comment to Nab about the subsection itself. And I do appreciate the affection, you're not the first to feel sorry for me. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not by somebody, about somebody, and the quote speaks for itself – should I provide the links again? Also, to make things worse, Nableezy is now suggesting to ban all users, who are not in his favor, from this noticeboard. When exactly does too much become too much??? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, not surprising – now Nableezy is seeking an extended ban against me... gee, I wonder why? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy[edit]

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

• Since Nableezy has already agreed to the voluntary restriction, I think this report could be closed. Another option would be to sanction all the editors who reverted on 'Palestinian' in the Nazareth article after the RfC was opened at 09:25 on 12 December. That set of people would include the filer of this report. The revert war at Nazareth caught my attention because (a) that article is on my watch list, (b) the war is reminiscent of one at Irgun (discussed here recently) where several people reverted the same thing back and forth but nobody broke 1RR. The term 'poor judgment' was used in the Irgun case, and that also seems to apply to Nazareth. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Closing: Per his somewhat reluctant agreement here, Nableezy is restricted from adding the word 'Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January. The wording of the restriction was proposed here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One final comment. It is worth considering whether the practices should be changed so that all participants in an 'extended revert war', like the one here (at Nazareth) or the one in a recently-closed AE at Irgun, could be blocked for a period of time. This would allow admin action even when the 1RR was not broken. Proper definition of 'extended revert war' would be needed. Perhaps: making the same revert of a controversial term as a previous editor made, within 24 hours. A similar issue came up in a case regarding Eastern Europe some time back. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RolandR: I'd agree to modify the proposal to exempt any editor who (a) reverted something as vandalism, then reported the person to AIV and the request is plausible or (b) filed an SPI on an apparent sock where the SPI checks out as a good-faith complaint. I'd agree that Odiwkatc who participated in the Nazareth war qualifies as an apparent sock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]