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

Request concerning Nableezy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jiujitsuguy 02:32, 25 December 2011‎ (UTC)[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, restriction on adding word "Palestinian" to any article, GAMING and tendentious editing

Nableezy is restricted from adding the word Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January.

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

• December 22, 2011 Adds word "Palestinian" to Jewish population by cities and city areas
• December 23, 2011 Adds word "Palestinian" to Palestinian Arabic
• December 21, 2011 Adds the word "Palestine" to Ecce Homo (church)
• December 30, 2011 Adds the word "Palestinian" in to Rachel's Tomb
• The Category: Resistance movements is added to one article about a pro-Israel organization, and Nableezy reverts,[1] demands sourcing on the talk page,[2] and when a list of sources are presented he demands specificity. [3]

Yet, around the same time, Nableezy adds the very same category to ten articles in the span of less than five minutes.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] All of these are anti-Israel organizations and most of them considered terrorist organizations by the West. It is impossible to find the sources and the articles in that span of time. It is clear that Nableezy is not interested in even checking for sources for his edits when it suits his POV. This type of behavior represents tendentious editing in the extreme.

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

• Nableezy is restricted from adding the word Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January. The restriction even applies to vandalism[14]
• List of Blocks[15]
• Log of Bans[16]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nableezy is an experienced editor who is well versed with the rules and no stranger to these boards. He knew that he was restricted from adding the word “Palestinian” into articles per the last and rather mild AE sanction (tailor made just for him). He also knows that his page is closely watched by his followers. So he cleverly makes an edit that contravenes the ban and self-reverts with an edit summary self-rv, somebody else revert this tho. That edit summary is akin to a call to arms or the sounding of the trumpets. In fact, someone heeded his call[17] and Nableezy thus accomplished his objective. He performs this game three times. The aim is quite simple; to get his version in without technically violating the restriction. The first time he did it, one can perhaps AGF and credit it to a one-time lapse. The problem is that the edit summary on the self-revert demonstrates that Nableezy is very calculating and knows precisely what he’s doing. The second problem is that he did it three times thus evidencing clear knowledge that he is under a restriction, hence the need for a quick self-revert. Thus, the multiple self-reverts on multiple occasions were merely a means to an end. The edits were purposeful with intent to circumvent the restriction and a rather brazen attempt at that.

Nableezy’s explanation of "forgetfulness" and "absent mindedness" rings hollow and is remarkably insulting to the intelligence of the community. He expects us to believe that on December 21 he had a bout with "absent-mindedness" and this "absent-mindedness" repeated itself on December 22 and yet again on December 23. Moreover, the restriction was imposed on Nableezy barely a week prior, not six months nor even three months prior but one week prior! Gentlemen, please further bear in mind we are not talking about a novice here but a rather sophisticated and experienced account.

So while Nableezy is under the microscope and his edits are being watched by friend and foe alike, one would think that he would be a bit more circumspect. But in an incredible display of supreme arrogance, he violates the sanction yet again with this edit and then quickly reverts with "dammit forgot again" There are three possible explanations for Nableezy’s inexplicable behavior. First, it represents a contemptuous display of defiance as if Nableezy is trying to tell us, "I am Nableezy and I can do whatever the hell I want, whenever I want to do it." Second, it represents sort of a desperate "Hail Mary" defense, as if he’s trying to tell us "you see? I’m so absent-minded that I even inserted the word when I was under the microscope; Silly me." The third and most remote possibility is that Nableezy suffers from acute memory lapses when it suits him. If anyone believes that latter possibility, I have exclusive rights to sell you the Golden Gate Bridge and the Taj Mahal and no CODs please.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

At the risk of saying what should be left unsaid, I feel compelled to say this. Jiujitsuguy is among the very worst editors I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with. It has been established, several times, that he lies about sources to push a fringe political POV. Edits such as this should be themselves result in bans. Edits such as this should by themselves result in bans. Take a look at his act at here and at Talk:Katzrin where he attempts to place what is provable false material in an encyclopedia article. That alone should result in a ban. JJG has, since literally day 1 of editing here, been a serial violator of nearly every single content and conduct policy, from WP:V and WP:NPOV to WP:MEAT and more. He has been interested in one thing here, using Wikipedia as a propaganda instrument. You let him get away with lying about sources the last time. Exactly what is necessary to rid this most disruptive and bad-faithed "editors" from this supposed "encyclopedia"? nableezy - 22:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nish, no, I wouldnt try to make such an argument. I just had a momentarily loss of short-term memory. Something that is known to happen with people of my ilk. Had I recalled the restriction I would have just made an edit on the respective talk page, like I did here. I am not trying to avoid the restriction, hell I voluntarily agreed to it. nableezy - 23:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, you dont understand my point. The slip up was the initial edit, and that led to the self-reversion. I am actually allowed to ask that people make the needed edit, I can do so on the talk page, just as I did at [Talk:Bethlehem. I made a comment in an edit summary instead of a talk page. I dont think that makes much of a difference. If told otherwise by an admin Ill just make the note on the talk page instead. But I can ask that others make the edit. There is no effective difference in writing it in the edit summary or in the talk page. The only ways that somebody would see it would be either checking my contributions or having the article in the watchlist. Either way that person would see that I say the edit should be made. It isnt as if I went to a favored user's page and asked that they make the necessary edit, as evidenced by the fact that my edit at Jewish population by cities and city areas had not been restored until JJG himself brought it to wider attention here. I am not claiming that my edit summaries were a lapse of any kind, I dont think there is anything wrong with them to begin with. The momentary lapse was making the edit in the first place, necessitating the self-revert. Had I simply remembered the sanction I would have done what I did at Bethlehem, request the edit be made on the talk page. I dont know where you get the idea that I am asking someone (specifically a person) to make an edit I am restricted from making, or, generally that I am restricted from asking editors in general to make an edit that I am restricted from making. You are incorrect on both counts. I wrote to any passing person that an edit should be made. I did not request that any one editor, or even a particular subset of editors, make an edit. So no, I was not asking someone to do anything. And yes, I am allowed to request edits that I am restricted from making be made. My ban does not include commenting on the subject, it is specific to adding a word to an article. I mistakenly did that a few times, and self-corrected each within a matter of minutes. I am not surprised, well a little bit considering the pettiness of it, that it has drawn attention, though I am surprised that anybody who is not a committed partisan (and honestly I would expect some of them to be shaking their heads at this) could see this as anything at all. I made a mistake and corrected it immediately. If my choice of venue for requesting the edit be reverted was wrong I will not do so again in the future and simply request the edit be reverted on the talk page instead. I am not however going to not request such edits be reverted. Look I just did it again, and again. I am allowed to discuss the issues and allowed to request that an edit be reverted. I am only restricted from actually performing the edit. I made a few mistakes in doing so, and corrected them as soon as I realized, without even being prompted to do so. I dont think this will even be an issue in the future, as I think I have been sufficiently reminded of the zeal of certain users in being able to, well, I leave that unsaid. nableezy - 07:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, JJG, I expect people to believe me when I say that I simply forgot about the restriction as I made those reverts, and as soon as I remembered them I self-reverted. As I, unlike you, do not have an established history of lying here I think it is fair that I expect people to believe me when I say something. And to be clear, youre belief that I did this three times is demonstrably false. I made one edit that added the word Palestine, and self-reverted out of what may be over-cautiousness with regard to respecting the sanction. I made two edits that added the word Palestinian and self-reverted within minutes. You can continue distorting the events, and you may even get a less than careful admin who is not aware of your extensive history of willful distortions to believe you, but your claims remain false. nableezy - 20:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, I honestly do not understand how you can come to the conclusions that you do. You are inventing arguments and attributing them to me. I am not saying that I was just discussing the issue, I freely admit, and have done so several times above, that I was plainly call[ing] for other people to perform the action [I was] prohibited from taking. I already told you that. I can say an edit should be reverted. The sole issue here is that I did it in an edit summary and not the talk page. If that is a problem I apologize, I didnt think it could possibly be an issue. As far as bringing up the past incident, the relevance is that I raise that as evidence of JJG's general tendentiousness, which I think making this report is an indication of. He reported me for several edits that I self-reverted within minutes. This after he spent the last week trying to push into an encyclopedia article demonstrably false statements (see the RS/N and Katzrin talk page), and that after he had just gotten off by the skin of his knuckles here at that AE for repeatedly lying about sources. In my view, all of these things combine to show that the user's purpose remains what it has been since the day he got here, and this report itself is just a continuation of that. nableezy - 05:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I am saying you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with me doing this, nothing at all. And again, I am not telling someone, that implies I am asking an individual to do something. No, I am making a note that an edit should be reverted, and not alerting any specific editors over anything. As far as what the restriction was imposed to prevent, I doubt it was this type of nonsense. nableezy - 06:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, you can think whatever you like, but my restriction is specific to adding a word to articles. It does not say that I cannot ask others to add that word to articles. I am not "topic banned", I am "article banned", there is a difference. But since you are not an uninvolved admin, I cant say that I think it is a productive use of my time to explain this to you any further. Ill wait for comments from uninvolved admins before responding further. nableezy - 15:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, if that is your judgment, I respect it. I am being honest though, I really did forget each time. But I do ask that you choose to make it a month topic ban instead of a block, there is some work I would like to put in elsewhere. nableezy - 23:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But as far as the level of rhetoric, I think I have been rather restrained. But I dont know how you honestly expect me to react to some of these things. nableezy - 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt suggesting that it should be anything. I was asking that you consider making it a ban instead. I still think this should be closed with no action. I made two mistakes, due to forgetting a not exactly common type of sanction, and corrected those mistakes within minutes, unprompted. I dont think that merits any sanction at all. But if given the choice, Id rather take the block. nableezy - 02:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but this is absurd. WGF, please explain It was ignored in favor of edit warring. And that four month topic ban was replaced with a revert restriction, a restriction I never violated. Where did I edit-war? Ed, he quickly resumed adding the word 'Palestinian' to articles is a severe overstatement. I had two lapses, quickly corrected. WGFinley has repeatedly advocated for harsh sanctions on the basis of incomprehensible statements. You cant seriously say that 2 quickly self-reverted edits merits a long term ban. I forgot the restriction, and as soon as I hit save page remembered and self-reverted. How is this different than this, which didnt even have a self-rv? In an earlier case, mentioned repeatedly here, WGF excused a user who, despite a previous year ban for misrepresenting sources, misrepresented a source and removing consensus material because he self-reverted one of the edits after being reported. But here he argues that I should be indefinite ban for two edits of a truly trivial nature that were quickly self-reverted? You are allowing the chorus of disgruntled editors who wish to make a mockery of the content policies in the topic area, who insert propaganda and outright lies into articles at every turn, to, by sheer volume, make a quickly corrected error be a cause for a ban. Comparing the Netzer case below and the JJG case in the archive is a stark reminder of just how fucked up this place is. Lying about sources is excused. Adding the word Palestinian and quickly self-reverting, now that needs a firm response. nableezy - 04:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGF, I have asked that you substantiate your claim that the agreement I made with Ed was ignored in favor of edit warring. You neglect to do so. You are here, once again, advocating harsh sanctions on the basis of incomprehensible claims that do not stand up to any scrutiny. Youre claim that you have no aniums to me is plainly false, so much so that even the briefest looks at our past interactions, such as here, shows that. But I dont even care, that isnt the problem. The problem is that you make unsupported assertions, bizarre judgments, and refuse to back them up. So answer the question please. How exactly was the agreement ignored in favor of edit warring? nableezy - 06:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt surprising that WGF makes false claims with no evidence, his carelessness has been extensively discussed in the past, but the claims that I disrupt what is supposed to be an atmosphere of collaboration and that the agreement between Ed and myself was ignored in favor of edit warring are completely spurious and in my opinion further demonstrate that WGF lacks the competence to be administering any part of an "encyclopedia". His actions in this and several other threads (JJG, where he ignored repeated lying about sources and refused to allow him to be sanctioned; Cptnono, where he argued that my raising an interaction ban was something that should result in my being indef banned; Netzer, where he refuses to allow other admins to comment, closing a request on edit-warring against consensus by himself, despite his judgement to have been shown to be ill-formed in the past) demonstrate either gross incompetence or incredible partisanship. I have said he should not be involved as an admin both in cases against myself and in ones that I brought, even if he, momentarily at least, wanted to action a complaint I brought. I repeat that feeling now. I do not think WGFinly competent to be commenting here, his repeated and overzealous attempts to have me banned on the most spurrious of charges and his repeated excusing of such behavior as lying about sources should disqualify him. But if he is allowed to continue pretending that he is qualified to be commenting in that section, then he has to justify his comments. Again, WGF, justify the comment that the agreement was ignored in favor of edit warring. nableezy - 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as the idea that I am using this page as a battleground, I call BS. Instead of trying to "battle" with editors in article space I bring issues here. That is what I thought was supposed to happen. You are arguing that I should be banned because I raise the misbehavior of others? Why? nableezy - 15:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are, hopefully, my final thoughts on this. I honestly cannot believe that this incredibly petty "violation" is being trumped up into a ban worthy offense. I forgot about a restriction and quickly self-reverted. You dont believe me? Fine, lets say I did this on purpose. Are those two edits actually worthy of a ban? Really? When the filing editor just got away with lying about sources? When a below case involving repeated edit-warring against consensus results in no action? Really? Ed, I trust your judgment, and it was only out of respect for you that I even agreed to the restriction. But you are allowing a clique of editors to distort the events of what happened into something sinister and, by sheer volume of their complaining, to remove one of the few roadblocks between them and their wet dream of making the topic area an arm of the Israeli MFA. This is truly unbelievable, as in I have trouble believing even a place as messed up as Wikipedia can make those two decisions. If you are going to ban me then get to the point already. But realize what you are doing. You are rewarding one of the worst users in the topic area, a serial liar who has repeatedly distorted sources, who has repeatedly put propaganda into articles (including this recently). And you are doing so on the most petty of violations. Its your call obviously, and by banning me you may well see a more collegial editing environment. But what you wont see are better articles. What you will see is people like JJG being able to continue using WP as a propaganda instrument unchecked, to continue lying about sources unchecked. I can see why WGF wants this, but I for the life of me cannot figure out how you are falling for it. I think it is due to some misplaced sense of respect for your fellow admins, regardless of their competence. But I wont speculate further. I am brought here for violating a restriction and then quickly self-reverting. If that violation merits a ban then fine. Do what you feel is required. But know what you are doing and why. nableezy - 16:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy[edit]

Comment by Michael Netzer[edit]

The restriction that Nableezy accepted on adding 'Palestinian' is not like 1RR and 3RR where a self-revert remedies a violation. No such stipulation of self-revert was made by EdJohnston nor accepted by Nableezy. The self-revert cannot thus be said to remedy the violation. It's enough that he does it 3 times to constitute a violation that shows little respect for the sanction, and even more contempt for it by self-reverting and then calling for other editors to revert again. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This case is a symptom of a larger malady. Nableezy is not alone in sowing a contentious behavior in this area. The forgiving hand at AE that he's received has also empowered his friends to arms who've adopted his style. I came from a far more harmonious editing space and quickly found myself assaulted simply for engaging in good faith editing that unfortunately disagrees with how this group operates. It's not easy to stand by and watch how everything Wikipedia stands for is being trampled by a few editors abusing its policies. There is very little respect for facts or civility in this area and the abuse is largely coming from one side. Certainly not all of it, but the aggressive battleground behavior is very one sided. Being silent and forgiving about it is only making things worse. I shrug at one editor pointing fingers at others after the hostility they've dished out of late. I shudder at an editor taking the high moral ground about not hastening to AE every time Nableezy is called to the carpet for a violation. Nableezy has been empowered to get away with spreading intimidation and lording it over others as if he owns the encyclopedia. He jumped into a dispute he wasn't involved in, giving orders as if someone appointed him General, made an edit that had no consensus - and has now filed a complaint for reverts to restore the content to its pre-dispute state. This egregious abuse of policy, also evident in this case, will not stop unless AE begins to treat him equally, and the same judgments are meted out to him as they are to others. Maybe it's time to reconsider whether the leniency has been effective. The results so far, and the growing dissent of editors suffering at his hands, are undermining Nableezey's cause itself. Instead of being an effective spokesman for a cause, his methods are becoming a blemish. This case is only a symptom. But it is a rather clear one for a behavior pattern, and should be seen in the wider context of Nableezy's behavior. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Cautioning for great wisdom seems like a pillar of WP guidance whether for an editor or administrator. For lack of confidence in my own, I've not suggested what action needs to be taken in comments since participating here. I'd wish for a day that no editor would want to bring a case to AE, but instead try to work out disagreements on the field. I know that's not easy for everyone and that tempers flare under duress. I've seen the more collaborative side of Nableezy and I believe he'd like to have it be his dominant approach to editing. I also know that's not always easy for him as the near sole representative for his cause, though he does enjoy wide editor support. Your concern for swirling trouble seems to be of paramount importance. Until we learn how to eradicate storms, the best remedies are protective constructs that help everyone endure them. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nishidani[edit]

If this place were civil, a self-revert would cancel the error. NMMGG told me I had (inadvertently) made 2 reverts. I couldn't understand his point, and took his word for it, and selfbanned myself for a month, from article edits. That is how this should be done mainly, on talk pages, notifying an editor and seeing if he is amenable to reason. As to the diffs, Nableezy is worse than myself in the precise construal of what is said. He was told not to add 'Palestinian'. Some of them consist not of 'adding' the word Palestinian to any text, but restoring it to articles where it had been, vandalistically, subtracted'. Subtraction and addition are diametrically opposed processes. But I think Ed is the person to decide on this. Jiujituguy, this bit about Nableezy dropping hints to 'followers' is pure fantasy. User:Taivo, who followed the point made in Nableezy's edit summary is an awesome wikipedian, a professional linguist who knows exactly how to make the right call on a page dealing with languages, independently bookmarked, and he did as any one competent would do. Seeding tagteaming suspicions where they is no evidence for them is not a proper way to make a formal complaint. Nor is waiting 3 days to bring up old evidence and present Nableezy with a 'Christmas gift'. Gift in German means poison.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you slip up, you should, in my view, police yourself and we should all try to get used to it. It was 'subtraction' not 'adding'. Secondly, once one realizes the mistake, one should drop a note on any AE editor's page, explain it, and impose, irrerspective of the advice there, a self-ban. It saves admins a heck of a lot of time. The temptation for notoriously poor editors to play games and out someone is great here. This however, Nab, is not a mitigating factor. Just take a break, son, for a month or two. If the admins here really think it is more serious than that, they will extend the sanction themselves. I personally think Goffman could write, were he alive, a funny treatise on the mad rules we must adhere to if we join the wiki tribe. But rules are rules, and when in doubt, the guest is obliged to defer to the 'community's' (another word I hate) sensitivities by displays of good will in which one's own personal values (honour, regard for maintaining the highest standards) at times take second place. This is all intensely trivial, alas, and stinks to high heaven, but, at times, you concede nothing to enmity by complaint. To the contrary. Social order in democracies is not secured by police sanctions, but by the daily exercise of individual self-restraint.Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, with good reason, asked me not to argue on his behalf anywhere (I probably do more harm than good). I'll break that pact, because 3 months indefinite won't hurt Nableezy: he needs a rest, but it would injure the encyclopedia, and I am arguing for the good of the encyclopedia, not to save Nableezy's neck.

(a) To accuse Nableezy of a battleground mentality that must not be tolerated and therefore sanctioned is to say he is worse than 90% of the I/P editors, anons, socks and non-RS spouters who proliferate here. We all know it will always been treated by a majority of editors as a battleground. Unlike real warfare, virtual battles (chess being a palmary example) are rule-governed. The impression over time which Nableezy gives with his extremely fastidious insistence on rule-observance or respect for consensual arrangements is, to administrators, one of a distinctive warrior mentality. Unlike a large number of people he has brought here, Nableezy to my knowledge has no record of introducing contentious material, or false material, or extremely poorly sourced material to articles, something which cannot be said for most of the people he interacts with. Given his insistance on meticulous fidelity to rules, for whatever reason, he broke one, and a sanction is inevitable.

(b)I haven't said it before: you take the judge that happens to turn up and shouldn't whinge. But WGF, you did make a, to many, incomprehensible comment, and call, on the prior case over the Golan Heights, refused to justify, when several people noted it, what was an obvious misconstrual of the record, and the editor got off. Your page cites with approval Thomas Jefferson's dictum on laconic statements. I commend the dictum, but my impression is that, as with the M Netzer case, and others, if a thread develops and the issue gets to look more complicated than it is, you have a slight tendency to tire of having to review it, and, at least twice to my knowledge (probably less than the average admin's error rate) rushed to conclude what you haven't had the patience to examine. That played, I presume, some part in Nableezy's evident frustration recently. Unfortunately, he hasn't learnt to manage that. It's inevitable. I got permabanned for 8 reverts in 45 days. I thought it wrong, unjust, but just shut up. Not that I should be an example. But incidents like this happen not infrequently, and as a lawyer once told me: 'the law has nothing to do with justice, but the state of the evidence at hand'.

(c) With Nableezy indeffed, this place (AE(AI) may be, yes, quieter. I very much doubt that the articles will improve, and this is what worries me. Experience suggests the contrary. I don't know how many pages Nableezy monitors - must be several hundred - ten times more than I can manage to control and see that they aren't regularly jerryrigged with nonsense. I think he's done more to make bad editing harder in the I/P area than anyone else since wiki's inception, and that is why his presence arouses intense dislike. I don't note that to suggest he be given a free pass. But rather to caution against an excessive sanction for a brief set of peccadillos, reverted, which did not damage the encyclopedia. There's something offensive in that trivia (I take it however to be sanctionable) being reported, of all people, by Jiujitsuguy, who is a paragon of tendentious editing, and like a dozen here, has set his sights on ridding this place of Nableezy.

Ed Johnson has everyone's confidence, and, on review, he has seen reason to go beyond the 1 month he originally thought appropriate. I think he is probably right. Three months seems however, the limit. You don't get editors of Nableezy's calibre very often in this area. He has a problem with emotive language, true. He has a respect for the precise observance of rules that few of us can equal. He will always be a nuisance, but far more for the invasive POV warriors who care little for the NPOV pillar, than for admins. Sorry for the TL:DR. Nableezy will perhaps read it with anger. The rest yawning.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

I am torn on this question. On one hand I want to assume good faith that Nableezy self-reverted because of an honest failure to remember the restriction or confusion over it. On the other hand the fact he has done this three days in a row, self-reverted within a minute or less of making the edit, and on two occasions in his self-revert calls for someone else to make the revert (something he should surely know is no different from reverting the change himself) leads me to suspect JJG may be correct about Nableezy's intent. At the same time I can see how Nableezy might see several of these cases as legitimate exceptions to the restriction, especially the edit to Palestinian Arabic that I think probably qualifies as vandalism. Such a muddled case makes me wonder if the restriction has much chance of being enforceable. There is a broader issue, however, in the way JJG and Nableezy are both apparently attempting to use this request to pursue a personal vendetta by raising frivolous concerns (the Irgun cat where Nab reverted a sock) or issues that have already been decided on (the Mount Hermon case that was already ended).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy No, I do not think you are stupid. I think you are more than intelligent enough to understand that asking someone to make an edit you are not allowed to make is a clear-cut violation of the restriction and not an effort at discussing the issue. Obviously you wanted someone to see your comment about the material needing to be reverted and act according to your wishes. Maybe you could argue that it was a slip-up in the heat of the moment, but again you did it more than once in a very short period of time. That doesn't make such a defense very convincing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for Heaven's sake! JJG took his little squabble down to the AE case from Nableezy directly beneath this one and now they're duking it out there too.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, the problem is not with the case you presented against JJG, I think you were right. However, bringing it up here where it has no relevance at all after it has already been concluded and complaining that the admins should "get rid of" JJG is not the way to challenge this request. In fact, by immediately resorting to such tactics you are only making yourself look worse. By the same token trying to say that you were just discussing the issue when you plainly called for other people to perform the action you were prohibited from taking is not helping you look better. The examples you give of you discussing are not working for you either, because in two you are making purely technical comments that would not really involve adding the word Palestinian, but simply changing Palestine to Palestinian. The other discussion is you talking about the problematic editing of a user making one of the changes you briefly reverted after other editors have been reverting the editor. None of them shows you simply telling other people to perform a revert in your stead. I do not think the restriction was imposed with the understanding that you could just ask someone else to make the same edit you are restricted from making, though Ed's clarification would be helpful.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am objecting to the idea you have put forward that telling someone to make a revert in your stead so you can avoid a violation is the same as discussing the issue on the talk page. Honestly, I think the actual reverts and self-reverts could be reasonably construed as innocent mistakes or confusion and in one case I think the revert could even have been exempt from the restriction, but insisting that you can just tell other people to make the edits you are prohibited from making yourself does not make you seem so innocent. If another situation like the one the restriction was imposed for should arise it seems like you would be of the impression that you can just tell other people to revert in your place and not be doing the very thing the restriction was imposed to prevent.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone to revert obvious vandalism is one thing, but telling someone to revert a more ambiguous edit is not. Your expressed belief that telling people to revert edits in your place in order to avoid violating a restriction is ok is a serious problem. Just because the few cases involved have been plausible exemptions or unclear does not mean that your position is respectful of the restriction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed It should be noted that he in fact did this three days in a row and on two of those occasions he requested that another editor revert the edit for him, something he apparently believes is completely legitimate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG Seriously, you should take the advice some editors are giving and excuse yourself from these cases with Nableezy. Your reference of the Cptnono case above just goes to show the bizarre hoops you seem to jump through when it comes to Nab. There you did initially agree with AGK about an indef, but the moment someone suggested Nableezy might have technically violated the interaction ban as well you do a complete 180 and insist that not only should there be no action taken against a blatant violation of the interaction ban by Cptnono, contradicting AGK's suggestion, you suggest lifting the interaction ban. Now, you are taking that same insistence on an indef by AGK and citing it here to push for an indef against Nableezy. This after having already pushed for such an indef in a previous case involving Cptnono's interaction ban with Nableezy because you found it frivolous only to back down after several admins told you that would be incredibly harsh, including the other admin you mention to support this latest suggestion of an indef. My advice to you is that you, in the immortal words of Zach Galifianakis, better check yourself before you wreck yourself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JJG Your latest diff is stretching it. If anything this indicates that the restriction was unenforceable as a revert like that would easily result in accidentally violating the restriction without a person realizing it, while otherwise being a legitimate revert. For me it is far more conceivable that this instance was just a mistake. As far as Nableezy previously repeating this violation three times in three days, his calls for other editors to perform the prohibited reverts, or the way he has acted on this AE case, I believe the first issue should be treated with a little more leniency given the restriction would probably have been difficult to follow anyway. The other two issues with Nableezy's conduct are still, in my opinion, legitimate cause for imposing sanctions on him. Not sure if that would really change the resulting sanctions, but endorsing the use of this kind of restriction in the future would probably be a bad idea.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shuki[edit]

I don't see any reason to even contemplate Nableezy's innocent and naive 'slip' of an edit since he just a few days ago, kindly warned me on my talk page, actually threatened to take me to AE, about a problematic edit of mine in which he even brought up his four month topic ban from exactly a year ago where he was caught gaming the system by self-reverting among other things to prove I was in the wrong, which I accepted. So any reasonable contributor to this project would step back and be careful when under the magnifying glass, the same one he uses for others. I would advise Nableezy to take the initiative and precaution and self impose a topic ban but Nableezy (and most of us) seems to understand that he'll just get a free pass once again, a little slap on the wrist, and 'advised' about some behaviour or something. --Shuki (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, you're making a joke out of AE with your inconsistent handling of penalties and breaking your back with this new AGF. And please tell, 1) what does it matter who reported Nableezy's three reckless infractions? 2) What exactly do you have something against JJG? Actually, I think you are quite consistent at handing out bans to many others reported by Nableezy while giving Nableezy a free pass on most, if not all cases. I know that Nableezy is jumping for joy on your latest comment, even saying that he (SPA) would be able to finally work on other things if you make it a ban, not a block. LOL --Shuki (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One would think that being under the magnifying glass would make the editor in question take a step back, be careful, and basically take a low profile. Since the AE was filed, Nableezy has not let up at all. I guess he knows that he's going to get off once again with a little shake of the finger, maybe even that short month ban on IP so he can work on Egyptian articles in the meantime. --Shuki (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Boris[edit]

When I saw this, I did not believe my eyes. Nableezy is a known warrier for the cause, but he is usually impeccable with respect to various rules. And here after the recent restriction, he is under a magnifying glass, and then this. He is restricted from using one word, and he adds precisely this word several times. Puzzling. Now comes an explanation; it is all forgetfulness. OK. But then there are these edit summaries. I just imagine what he would say if one of his usual opponents profesed innocence in this way... I would say like this. Edit summaries by themselves are ok. But edit summaries in the self-revert are problematic, because the self-revert is supposed to be an act of contrition. And then this combative defence. This whole thing has a bad smell. But then, as always, I AGF.

I would also say that I don't like that the report is made by JJG. Perhaps JJG and Nableezy should try to step back from this sustained confrontation, especially here on AE. Maybe impose a ban on reporting on AE page? - BorisG (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least they should probably be banned from commenting about each other on AE and filing requests on each other at AE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say indef tban would be an overreaction in this case. Pattern? Well, wait until there is something more serious than this, edit war or something. Surely if there is a pattern, then there is every chance it will happen soon. If not, even better. As for this minor violation, block him for a week or something. - BorisG (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass[edit]

I support EdJohnston's suggestion of a one-month block for Nableezy. I too think Nableezy needs a break from editing, the fact that he has forgotten an (albeit voluntary) restriction after only a few days is an indication to me that he has burnout.

WGFinley, as I have said, I think you should be recusing yourself from cases involving Nableezy given your apparent animus toward him, remarked upon by several editors over the last few weeks. In response to your comment about previous sanctions, I have pointed out that all of Nableezy's past sanctions are for minor technical breaches of revert restrictions etc., and none for the real problem in the topic area, which is POV pushing. The same cannot be said of his opponents. The central problem involving Nableezy for a long period now has been an apparently neverending stream of Israeli nationalist editors who are constantly trying to push the POV that certain territories including East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank are "in Israel" (a demonstrable falsehood). That is the problem that ultimately needs to be addressed on this board, not the problem of "Nableezy" whose only offence has been to try and defend core policies with regard to these issues. Gatoclass (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the central problem is Israeli nationalist POV pushing. So Palestinian nationalist POV pushing does not occur? Or is fine? - BorisG (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worthwhile emphasizing that this was a voluntary restriction agreed to by Nableezy. He wasn't obliged to agree to it, and may well have escaped sanction altogether, or at least been sanctioned alongside a gaggle of other editors per EdJohnston's comment, had he not done so. A voluntary restriction does not have quite the same strength as a mandatory restriction - particularly given that no alternative sanction had been clearly proposed as an alternative - and I think it likely it slipped Nableezy's mind for that very reason. While a sanction may therefore be considered appropriate, I think the nature and unusual circumstances of the restriction ought to be considered mitigating factors when imposing it. Gatoclass (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my original comment supporting a ban for Nableezy due to the fact that I unfortunately missed some evidence. I now see that Nableezy reverted all three of these edits, within a minute of making them. While it certainly seems odd that he would forget about this restriction on three separate occasions, the fact that he immediately self-reverted means that he effectively complied with his restriction. I don't find Juijitsuguy's interpretation of Nableezy's actions persuasive given that N. could have achieved the same result just by leaving a note on the talk page, which would likewise turn up on watchlists. There is little if any justification in my view for a sanction in these circumstances; certainly not a lengthy one. Gatoclass (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sean.hoyland[edit]

I agree with Gatoclass. We're in danger of losing perspective here. This should be about what is best for content. For example, the first diff in this report shows Nableezy finding a factual error that has been in an article since 2009. His restriction happened to mean that he couldn't fix it at that time but his actions resulted in it being fixed. Nableezy highlighting the issue also allowed me to search for similar factual errors in several articles and fix them. They are the kind of errors, deliberate falsehoods, that are routinely introduced by nationalists who are often frustratingly shameless in their disregard for policy. Once Wikipedia starts blocking editors on sight for advocating or introducing deliberate falsehoods like these which are a clear demonstration that an editor isn't capable of editing in the topic area, the topic area will be a far more stable and productive environment. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the second diff, that is Nableezy reverting an IP, Special:Contributions/108.162.98.101, who has been repeatedly warned and blocked for vandalizing an article by removing the word Palestinian. Trying to erase all things Palestinian is a common sport for the extremist element that edit in the topic area. Punishing Nableezy for this edit and a self-revert appears to be counterproductive and bureaucratic. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DePiep[edit]

@EdJohnston. The introduction of this page says clearly: who comes with unclean hands .... Then while you state this one sentence about requestor Jiujitsuguy: It is disquieting that User:Jiujitsuguy is the one submitting this complaint, [...], you did not see a reason to derive results from that statement. Yet then your reasoning continues about Nableezy, including: so much trouble swirls around Nableezy. From there, you end up supporting ... indefinite topic ban. You did not contemplate that the swirl was put there by others? Jiujitsuguy for starters, and why not take a look at User:MichaelNetzer (who is present here, as the first Commenter in this section: Well, in another recent AE his hands were not checked on cleanness for administrative reasons -- but you have every right to do that check from here), and this, needing protection against apparent target of coordinated IP/sock attack. I myself saw the effect of my edit, after which the indirect accusations (or trolling) by another editor stopped without further ado. With all this, I am not convinced that the "level of rhetoric" (?) and "evident battleground attitude" of Nableezy (which to me did not stand out as such) is dissenting with the other comments in the thread they are in. I think it is misleading that the same "battleground" is visited by multiple others, thereby keeping low both their "trouble swirls" statistics and your attention.
Rounding up: By zooming in on a single editor and their single ARB remedy, the overview is lost and, most importantly, the result is negligible: just one less editor for now, and no behavior is altered re I/P. So (using words from User:Gatoclass's comment here): no improvement against POV pushing by Israeli nationalists. It should be Arbitration's concern that these issues are not handled at that overview level. -DePiep (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. There is a broader overview with regards to this case that goes beyond just one editor. As I noted in my comments, other editors have been using the AE page as a battleground. There is also the question of WG's behavior with regards to Nableezy on AE, which seems to be the main cause for Nableezy's frustration above. Mind you, while other admins have commented Nableezy appears to only have an issue with WG's behavior and WG's behavior in the JJG case saw ArbCom step in to correct WG's perception there, though no action was taken on the actual case, so he cannot claim that it is some tactic employed, or to be employed, unfairly against all admins. On a further note, it doesn't seem anyone is terribly concerned about the way JJG brought up a rather frivolous issue (Nab reverting a sock who inserted a category at Irgun) to pad his request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 172.190.235.61[edit]

(Moved from top to this place to keep structure. Corrected sectiontitle. -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Someone above said, and someone else agreed: "The central problem involving Nableezy for a long period now has been an apparently neverending stream of Israeli nationalist editors who are constantly trying to push the POV that certain territories including East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank are "in Israel" (a demonstrable falsehood). That is the problem that ultimately needs to be addressed on this board, not the problem of "Nableezy" whose only offence has been to try and defend core policies with regard to these issues."

Clearly this statement is in itself an example of the "central problem" with respect to Nableezy. Editors like Nableezy and the person who said this believe that Palestinian nationalism, not "Israeli nationalism" is the correct political position that reflects Wikipedia's 'core principles'. Clearly if one is able to rid Wikipedia of those pesky Israeli nationalists, then the "true" Palestinian nationalist position will be able to be fully expressed. This is the position that Nableezy and his supporters take, and they are more than willing to fight after fight to rid Wikipedia of the opposite POV, constantly pushing the envelope of acceptability with these kinds of games, rather than actually collaborate with editors who do not share their view. This is precisely what the Arabs and Palestinians do in real life, refusing to acknowledge the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, colluding with other Arab nations and the Western-named terrorist groups for the eradication of the state of Israel. Wikipedia is a microcosm of this, except that at Wikipedia, the "Palestinian state" viewpoint is dominant and the Israeli viewpoint (generally called 'Zionist' here at Wiki) struggles mightily to be heard as can be seen in the quote above. Nableezy and a few others dictate policy. I salute the Israel supporters on Wiki, who constantly take a beating at the hands of Nableezy and others of "his ilk." This is permitted by the basically democratic (read: mob-rule) nature of Wikipedia, and supported by those editors and administrators who believe their pro-Palestinian "anti-Zionist" position is the correct, unbiased one. If history (at Wiki) is any answer, we can expect more excuses for Nableezy and the Palestinian nationalists and more hard knocks for the Israeli "nationalists" here at Wikipedia. The facts, the atmosphere, and Wikipedia's reputation are what really suffers. 172.190.235.61 (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dajudem. Nice of you to join us on an AOL IP. nableezy - 17:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notified the IP and logged to prevent future embarrassment. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zero0000[edit]

It seems to be that WGFinley simply cannot think straight when it comes to Nableezy. Every casual visitor to these pages will see it very clearly. This is bad for everyone. WGFinley should recuse himself. Zero^talk 02:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ElComandanteChe[edit]

I took the liberty to ask for closure on this case at WP:ANRFC. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[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.

• I recommend that this be closed with a one-month block of Nableezy. He agreed not to add the word 'Palestinian' to articles and he should be able to stick to this bargain. The diffs show him adding, and then removing the word Palestinian (less than a minute later) on two successive days, December 22 and 23. This does not look to me like a lapse of memory. It is disquieting that User:Jiujitsuguy is the one submitting this complaint, since in my opinion he is on thin ice regarding sanctions. Nonetheless Nableezy should follow what he has agreed to. The level of rhetoric that Nableezy uses against others in his response is painful to see and I invite other admins to see whether they think further action should be taken based on his evident battleground attitude. I continue to be concerned that so much trouble swirls around Nableezy though great wisdom may be needed to decide what to do about that. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: You suggested this should be a one-month topic ban instead of a one-month block. I would consider recommending a *three-month* topic ban instead. You are one of a handful of editors who I suspect may wind up with long topic bans in the next few months one way or another. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially think this is your call Ed as you issued the previous warning. However, if you are going TBAN (which is what should be considered in my opinion) I don't think three months is sufficient given Nableezy's history of TBANs. --WGFinley (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WGF: If it were just your call, what sanction would you recommend, and what rationale would you give? It seems to me that bans are often given out (a) if there is a blatant event for which no real defense can be given, or (b) the editor exhausts people's patience. I think Nableezy is getting close to the second, but whatever standard we apply to him we should be willing to apply to others. That's why I'm asking for the rationale. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of cases on this page and it seems to me, as suggested by AGK and Cailil in cases above, it's time the indefinite TBAN comes out for repeat offenders instead of being seen as some sort of death sentence and it's because of cases like this. You took an action and gave a narrow restriction to avoid a behavior and give Nableezy a chance. It was ignored in favor of edit warring. Nableezy has a history of second chances and already had a 4 month TBAN this year. I think it's time to make clear this topic space and AE are not a battleground and those who choose to make it one and disrupt what is supposed to be an atmosphere of collaboration are not entitled to unlimited chances to remediate their behavior. --WGFinley (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My December 15 negotiation with Nableezy led to a deal which broke down quickly, since he quickly resumed adding the word 'Palestinian' to articles. I'm prepared to support a topic ban anywhere between 3 months and indefinite. With any luck some more admins will comment on what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, Nableezy's failure to abide by a consentual restriction (ban on adding Palestinian) coupled with the longer term issues in this topic area, as well as the repeated use of this page by Nableezy in a battleground fashion are indeed grounds for an indefinite ban from all articles and discussions (including discussion of other editors involved in this dispute) of Palestinian & Israeli topics. Per my above comment re Cptnono, if Nableezy is indeed a good editor but for one hot-button issue, and/or series of interactions, then Nableezy can show us by demonstrating collaborative & collegial editing elsewhere. This restriction can be reviewed after 3-6 months as it is a ban of 'no definite duration', rather than 'a long-term restriction'--Cailil ^talk 15:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Gato - I haven't had any animus against Nableezy, he has fabricated the perception of bias with his constant torrent of criticism he hurls my way. Recusing myself in cases concerning him would just create an example of how to get rid of admins you don't want to deal with. I've taken no individual action against him and kept my comments to his action and the case that's at hand, he hasn't done likewise at any juncture. I have a thick skin, I can deal with the insults, but I have not been biased in my treatment or assessment of his actions. In fact in this case I deferred to Ed and he asked me what I thought. --WGFinley (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Your criticism of Wgfinley's comments is not helping your case. Any admin could have asked WGF to reopen the Netzer case if they disagreed, and no one did. Your further statements give the impression that you are in battle mode 24/7. You seem to be going out of your way to prove that you are hard to work with. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree that Nableezy needs a break from this area. A 3-6 months topic ban is reasonable. Considering the self reverts in mitigation, an indef topic ban is a little on the harsh side, but I can go along with it if that is the consensus. The original sanction was a little unusual and could possibly be drafted more elegantly, but that's beside the point.
2. I think the MichaelNetzer case was closed prematurely. It seems to have been closed on a truncated "no documented warning, therefore no sanctions" analysis. But serious consideration should have been given to whether we should find that MN has been constructively warned given his history of participation at AE and the warning box at the top of Talk:Jerusalem. In addition, the diffs show a prima facie case of edit warring, which is blockable even without discretionary sanctions; this aspect seems to have been overlooked as well.
3. I agree that WGF need not recuse from cases involving Nableezy. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the MichaelNetzer case, hopefully that will let us stick to this case. Nableezy's prior TBAN was 4 months, the offense is minor but the AE conduct and gross incivility is not. I think the TBAN should be indefinite, 6 at a minimum. With that, unless a fellow uninvolved admin has anything else to ask me, this is my final comment on this case. --WGFinley (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: someone makes a custom monobook.js that prevents Nableezy saving an article page if there are more occurrences of the word "Palestinian" than when the page was opened. A request at VP(T) would achieve this in short order. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  
• As admins we are not here to predict or guess or try and understand Nableezy's motive (whether it was intentional or not) with his edits. We refer to the guideline of AGF, and use it to the best of our abilities. In my opinion, assuming good faith has been exhausted as an option here. After reading all the comments, and reading through the evidence, under Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, Nableezy is topic banned, broadly constructed, for all subjects surrounding and including the P/I conflict area for a duration of 6 months. Nableezy is also further non-voluntarily restricted by the previous voluntary restriction that was agreed to, extended until March 1st 2012. To also claify this, it is any form of the word Palestine. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning MichaelNetzer[edit]

Users who are submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 23:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC);Nishidani (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MichaelNetzer (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

• Edit warring against consensus at Jerusalem

1. 17:53, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "Restored meaning of name in lede. No consensus achieved for this change. See talk page.")
2. 01:13, 23 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 467092211 by Zero0000 (talk)Discussion and procedure is still ongoing. Lede should remain as was before dispute. Please do not make these changes until consensus is achieved.")
3. 08:16, 25 December 2011 (edit summary: "Restored opening sentence to long-standing community consensus. See talk page and please wait for clear consensus before changing again.")

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

The user has been a regular participant here so is obviously aware of the ARBPIA case

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

MichaelNetzer, after long discussions at Talk:Jerusalem and WP:DRN, threatened to revert against consensus. MichaelNetzer is alone arguing that a folk etymology be retained as though it were factual. He has threatened to revert against consensus, and has made good on his threat, having reverted the same material 3 times, which has been added by 5 different users at this point.. He has also refused to self-revert, claiming that his argument is superior and despite the overwhelming rejection of that argument his consent is required to remove the material from the lead. No one editor should be allowed to hold an article hostage, and when that editor threatens to do so, and then makes good on his threat, he should be restricted from continuing to do so.

As far as "protocol" demanding the user be officially notified of the case, that wikilawyer-esque objection was heard, and rejected, in the past. The purpose of the notification is to ensure a user is aware of the case. In the last month or so MichaelNetzer has been a constant presence on this board and is obviously aware of the case. nableezy - 19:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJG, Im glad you are amazed that I might momentarily and absent-mindedly forget something and then remember it but can remember other issues after thinking them. I am likewise amazed that you do not remember that thread as your were rather involved in it. But I dont think you are forgetting, there is another word that I would use for your feigned ignorance over that issue. nableezy - 20:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor changes the lede, based on arguments made here and in the talk page, motivated by prejudices against nationalism ("These are the prejudices I bring to edits."), lack of knowledge of facts ("In fact the phrase was alien to my ear, until my eye caught it some years ago on this page") and bias towards "holy writ" ("Very biblical. 'Abode of Peace' is holy writ, and guess who's enjoying the infallibility associated with some office!"), in order to supersede WP policy and scholarly sources that support the lede as it is, then I will revert it

This is what I am talking about. The arguments that are made routinely twist plain English. Michael, it isnt that you just claim your argument is stronger, it is you also say that CONSENSUS says the quality is the more important factor and on that basis there is no consensus. Next, you continue with this absurd accusation of a prejudice against a Hebrew association. Nobody is removing the Hebrew from the lead, nobody is even placing the Hebrew after any other language in the first sentence,and there is a link to an explanation of the meaning in the first sentence. What we have done is remove a folk etymology, an error of fact in an encyclopedia article when translating a word. There is no dispute that al-quds means the Holy in Arabic, so this game of claiming that there is no balance and that a Hebrew translation must balance an Arabic one fails. But even then, several people have offered to remove the translation of the Arabic, even though it isnt necessary, just to satisfy that ill-founded demand for "balance". But no, your argument is stronger, and that determines consensus. And yet you claim you arent taking the article hostage. nableezy - 06:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that MN's 5-year-old account with a completely clean record is a mitigating factor is a red-herring, because he had not been editing in the topic area during this period. MN's contributions, from literally day one, in the topic area do not show a a history ... of trying to work with people. See his contributions at WT:WESTBANK and Talk:Alon Shvut, where you can see the same tendency of distorting the plain English of WP guidelines and comments of others. As far as his having his having such a history on the Jerusalem article, this is, again, simply untrue. MN attempted, several times, to push into the article a map that shows occupied Palestinian and Syrian territory and as being "in Israel", and he did this when there was a relatively wide ranging agreement to use a different map. He continually claimed that saying that occupied territory being "in Israel" is not "political", and he routinely made outrageous charges of others being on a political crusade. When he was told that such charges have a distinct flavor to them (given the context of the word crusade), he simply brushed that aside and continued making these types of attacks. Michael has routinely distorted what others have written, he has routinely attempted to push in to articles an extreme minority view as though it were fact, and he has routinely distorted several policies and guidelines while doing so. He most decidedly does not have a history of trying to work with others, he regularly instigates hostility with others, such as when he made several outrageous attacks on Nishidani, claiming he is so prejudiced that he should not be allowed to edit. And Ed, MN did bold I will revert it, see this diff. nableezy - 15:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as 6 months being harsh as a first topic ban, that may be true. However my very first topic ban, a result of edit-warring in the lead of the article Gaza War (against a sock of a banned user, who also initiated the report) resulted in a 6 month topic ban, later reduced to 4 month article ban and 2 month topic-wide ban. See here. That was, besides 2 short blocks on unrelated articles, my first ban of any sort. And it has been used, repeatedly, to argue for excessively lengthy bans for any misbehavior on my side. nableezy - 16:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning MichaelNetzer[edit]

Statement by MichaelNetzer[edit]

Long before I came to this area, the first sentence in Jerusalem included the meanings "Abode of Peace" and "The Holy Sanctuary" for the names in Hebrew and Arabic respectively. The Etymology section covers the pre-Hebrew meaning "Foundation of (the god) Shalem", with an uncontested scholarly source that was also there before I came.

The same source also states immediately afterward "The popular meaning of Jerusalem, "the city of peace" comes from the Hebrew word "shalom", meaning peace, harmony and wholeness."

I did not fabricate this source, nor insert it into the article. "Abode of Peace" is supported by 5 (five) reliable scholarly sources in the article.

The etymology is factual. How can some editors claim it is not supported by sources when it appears in the article with Five scholarly reliable sources? What else is needed to prove this meaning is factual?

These additional supportive sources that are not in the article show 'Abode of Peace' is the most popular and recognized meaning of the name Jerusalem. They are only supportive sources, but in that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the lede is intended for "a good definition and description" of the topic, 'Adobe of Peace' is factually and extensively supported by sources for inclusion.

On that basis I asked to explain why it should be removed and no answer other than "folk etymology" was given. Yet WP policy clearly states:

"An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns."

I asked for an answer to this and none was given. This pillar policy for the lede was disregarded as if it doesn't exist. Some editors are trying to remove, by force, a long standing community consensus definition in one of the most sensitive articles in the I-P space.

I did not threaten to revert against consensus". Anyone reading what I said there can see that.

I have never threatened to revert against consensus.

I have never claimed my argument was "superior" nor would I presume to be a judge of myself. I pointed to WP:Consensus: "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." That's all I said about quality of an argument.

I have adhered to Wikipedia guidelines diligently throughout the discussions. I only reverted the article to the state it was in before the dispute, until consensus is achieved.

The "overwhelming rejection" of my argument has been exaggerated beyond compare. In this diff, it was said to be "a dozen voices". Some time later in this diff, it became "14-15 people". My latest count shows 7 against 4. Where are the 14-15? Why was this said?

I adhere to the following guideline on achieving consensus:

"This does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); it is not based on majority voting either. It means, rather, that the decision-making process involves an active effort to reach a solution that addresses as far as possible all legitimate concerns raised by interested editors."

I have not seen the slightest attempt to have the most minimal concerns about this addressed.

These are the discussions: Talk:Jerusalem * DR Noticeboard * Talk:Nish * Talk:WGFinley.

They need to be read fully to understand this case. Nothing said here by anyone, including myself, can be taken at face value. To me, they show the process to remove the Hebrew meaning is ill conceived and violates WP policy on the most fundamental levels. No consensus has been achieved to warrant it. I'm willing to be convinced but not this way. Not in this tone. Not with this incivility. Not with this disregard for everything Wikipedia stands for.

I will not respond to the venom spilled here, it speaks for itself. I only ask the case be reviewed thoroughly. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

• Nableezy: There is a world of difference between saying "my argument is stronger" and "my argument is superior". A world of difference in tone and presumptuousness. I have never used the word "superior" in this context. Why is it alright for you to imply your argument is stronger but not for someone else?
• Zero: What expert opinion? Nishidani's? He said he never heard of the phrase "until my eye caught it some years ago on this page." Yet this phrase has been around for nearly 2000 years and saturates sources. It is mentioned nearly everywhere the meaning of the name is referenced. This is expert?
• I have never accused others of wikilawyering and tendentious arguments because I respect WP guidelines about this being a serious accusation. My only fault is in trying to argue in good faith. When looking at the volume of words Nishidani pours on the discussions (evidenced by the length of his opening statement compared to mine), one wonders why Nishidani's verbosity does not cause these editors "misery" as does mine. Is their misery only due to hearing someone disagree with them?
• I did not open the discussions on Nishidani's talk page nor on WGFinley's. I reserve the right to answer when someone else starts a discussion and accuses me as Nishidani and Nableezy did. To imply that I was responsible for them is a grave falsity.
• I have not argued on grounds of politics. Only on relevant cultural status of the city. Nishidani attempted to drag the discussion into politics nearly 10 times and continues to falsely accuse me of politicizing when it is he who does so. I argued repeatedly for the meanings pertaining to the two cultures presiding over the city.
• There was never a consensus for the change Nableezy made when he did it, which removes the Hebrew meaning and leaves the Arabic. AgadaUrbanit, who supports the previous status quo, correctly points to the severe POV imbalance favoring only one meaning in the lead.
• The editors have said my sources are poor and unacceptable, yet Zero admits they are acceptable and uncontested in Etymology. How can they be acceptable in the Etymology section and suddenly become poor and unacceptable in the lede? Especially when the lede is more concerned with broad definitions and not linguistics? These are the types of argumentative runarounds that have been applied here.
• None of these editors have posted sources supporting their claim of "minority meaning". I was the only one who posted "extensive" sources showing 'Abode of Peace' as the common recognized meaning for Jerusalem. Peter cohen, in his excitement to eviscerate me and find relief for his "misery" states Nishidani posted extensive sources. He did not. The sources he posted are only relative to linguistics and distort the picture as if they are "commonly recognized". They are not. Common recognition is mostly supported by my extensive sources. Nishidani's argument is mostly based on his personal previous lack of knowledge of it.
• In this diff that Nableezy opened the complaint with, and this explanation of it, I've stated why there appears to be a prejudice against this Hebrew language association in this case, driven by Nishidani's declared prejudices against "nationalism" and selective "holy writ", pushing to remove only one meaning for the Hebrew name of this seminal article in I/P area. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem is a a city rich with history and conflict, unique and cherished by prominent cultures for their lot in it. Even scholars who decry the violence over it, and have no favor for Israel, recognize its meaning 'Abode of Peace'. Removing the Hebrew meaning and leaving the Arabic, defies all encyclopedic integrity. Removing both meanings from the lede gravely compromises the article's introduction in that both the Hebrew and Arabic meanings, as they appeared by long-standing community consensus, define what the city is most commonly recognized for. They are both "holy writ" and one cannot make an argument that only one such "holy writ" should be prejudiced. There was never a properly achieved consensus for removal of this information. Arguments were ignored by editors on one side who seemed more than happy to win a fight instead of showing concern for neutrality. I acted only to defend the integrity of Wikipedia information against this POV push. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy: What you have done is disregard WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:Consensus, WP:Reliable sources and WP:civility as observed here and repeatedly. Had you and others tried to address my concerns, as I did yours by producing 9 maps in order to satisfy your every objection, in a drawn out process which is the proper way to achieve consensus on such sensitive disputes, we would not have this problem. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA: You are misinformed and appear to repeat others' arguments without checking facts. I am not insisting on any changes. I am only insisting on maintaining long-standing community consensus until a proper agreement is arrived at for changes that others want to make. I declined "compromises" that removed well sourced information on questionable grounds and were not compromises at all. I proposed this compromise based on Nishidani's and Jayen's concerns, which was rejected by Nishidani. I have repeatedly stated that I would support a reasonable compromise. Your comment did imply your agreement that 'Abode of Peace" is one of the primary meanings of Jerusalem. You now reverse your position. Please study the facts before making such allegations. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani's opening statement, full of links, is framed in a way to distort the contexts everything was said in. His presentation is an egregious misreading of the case. They can only be understood by reading the discussions themselves. These are the links again: Talk:Jerusalem * DR Noticeboard * Talk:Nish * Talk:WGFinley.

To close my comments: The way this dispute started reveals the battleground tone and incivility from the first words Nishidani addressed me with. Many of his first comments are laden with personal remarks about my understanding and abilities rather than simply arguing content. This set the tone for everything to follow and nothing I said would matter anymore. I asked Nishidani repeatedly to stop making such remarks, to no avail. Here are only a few of them:

• ("devastating incomprehension") * ("What on earth do you mean by 'earlier incarnations'? That is meaningless.") * {"You do not understand the simplest issues of historical linguistics") * ("You do not understand the issues") * ("trying to edit on an area you know little about") * ("your opinion on a technical issue you are totally unfamiliar with.") * ("your comprehensive lack of understanding") * ("Just back off") * ("you should move on to blogging elsewhere").

For all of Nishidani's self-professed superiority in linguistics, it turned out that much of his argument was based on his lack of previous knowledge of the term, which has been around for 2 millennia and prevalent everywhere in sources. To assault my knowledge on that basis reveals a serious behavioral issue. All my sources were dismissed categorically in the beginning, without sound reason for their context, yet the primary ones are in the article itself and have never been contested there. Something started out very wrong here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy: Read everything I've said to see that I did not ever base my view of consensus on "quality of argument" alone, as you say. It was only one of my points, next to "majority does not..." and "...addressing all concerns". It is hard to AGF when you state such falsities, while the record clearly shows otherwise. Either read more carefully or desist from egregious misrepresentations. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq: You disregard everything else in this dispute and base your appraisal of me on a few select comments. Read how this started and how it continued and you might understand my statement to Nishidani better. I don't think you will, seeing how you're going to extreme lengths to support his uncivil behavior from the start. It is not that "some people" like that meaning, as your weasel definition states. Scholarly sources support it as the common meaning. There's a world of difference between your one-sided approach to "mediation" and "dismissal" of sources - and between the whole body of facts. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nableezy as if he answered my question about linguistics vs. definition are again misleading distortions. His answer suggests I throw out linguistics when no such thing was implied. There exists a linguistic basis for the common meaning "Abode of Peace" which is dismissed here as "wrong" or "folk". What matters for the encyclopedia is support in scholarly sources, which exists abundantly. The few that say it is entirely "wrong" are themselves the minority. There is a natural dispute for such an ancient name but the meaning has been cemented in modern culture and for 2 millennia. It is referenced by most sources. It is being denied by these editors against all evidence. This entire case, most everything they are saying, is one distortion of the facts after the other. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On re-opening the case and T.Canens' comment:

WGFinley did the right thing by re-opening the case. He's been right and fair in his arbitration.

The record shows I entered into the discussion in good faith and conducted myself with civility and patience in the face of enormous hostility, which persists to this moment. If my conduct is to be considered below expected standards, what should be said about the behavior towards me?

I do not apologize for defending the integrity of due process on Wikipedia, nor for the patience and goodwill I tried to convey to editors who disregarded the most basic tenets of good collaboration, and presume to rule the encyclopedia in their contempt for editors who disagree with them.

I regret the disruption but did not cause it. The battleground agitation in the I-P space began long before I came here, and will continue long after.

My reverts were proper and in good faith because the edit-war was instigated by trying to remove well-sourced sensitive information in a sensitive article, without achieving agreement. Due process was not upheld and a long-held community consensus was violated without considering the most minimal concerns raised. I was attacked vehemently from the very beginning for daring to suggest there should be consideration for why the information has been in the article, long before I arrived.

Though I do not apologize for what I've done, I've learned the futility of trying to uphold the values and guidelines Wikipedia stands for, in such a situation.

Administrators will do what they deem proper. It will be the right thing by each administrator's view, and it will be acceptable.

My presence in the topic area is not critical to the encyclopedia.

The future of Wikipedia, should things continue this way, is.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed. I think in that thread I am responsible for the bolding, and Michael should not be held responsible for the emphasis I gave the text. Apologies Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate AgadaUrbanit's comment on long protracted discussions on talk pages. I've allowed myself to be led into a few for lack of familiarity with Dispute Resolution processes. In becoming more familiar with these of late, I found the same thing repeating itself there. They show I was not alone in verbosity, though I take responsibility for mine. I understand it's been nonconstructive and will not engage in it any longer.

• The comment quoted by Ed, which I did not myself make bold in the original text as Nishidani states above, is not representative of my attitude or demeanor in the discussions. As 99% of the discussion shows, this was said in frustration of not having been heard, and in reply to a statement made that implied a severe prejudice behind refusal to consider my points. I might have misunderstood that statement, regret having said it and apologize to Nishidani for it. Characterizations of me do not properly reflect how I've conducted myself in the overwhelming majority of edits and exchanges.

• I reverted the edit in question believing it was made without achieving consensus, and even under the consensus that was claimed, the edit violated that also. I did not believe they constituted an edit war and would not have made them if I thought they did. I now understand the distinction and would not repeat the action.

• Everything I did was in order to uphold due process and policy. I was wrong in some of it and will not repeat the mistakes made due to being relatively new to this area. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning MichaelNetzer[edit]

Comment by Peter Cohen[edit]

I am aware of at least two other people who were talking about filing an AE on this subject. No doubt they will reveal themselves here.

Of far more interest to me than the three reverts which Nableezy has identified is the tendency of MN to argue ad nauseam and the tendentiousness of what he says while he is arguing. Both are exampled at Talk:Jerusalem#Abode_of_Peace which just goes on and on and on with one person arguing against several. Nishidani has produced in that thread an extensive number of references from reliable etymological sources yet MN insists on giving undue weight to an ill-founded folk-etymology by having it in the first sentence. Then when I make my one edit on the subject which has a perfectly clear explanation, he tries to engage me in an equally tendentious argument on my talk page, accusing me of edit-warring and asks me to self-revert, as if he wasn't edit-warring. After all, he could not revert me himself because he had already used his 1RR for the day in that very edit war.

I decided to archive that thread. After all I have seen him at work in various tl;dr threads at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank)#Dispute_on_exceptions_6C_and_D and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Alon_Shvut where he is equally long-winded and equally tendentious in Wiki-lawyering about the meaning of some perfectly clearly written text in a guideline which was created at Arbcom's instigation to try and stop this sort of nonsense.

Dear admins, please remember that tendentious editing is one of the grounds under which sanctions can be applied and put us all out of our misery.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGF, (and any admin looking at closure as unwarned,) if I started acting up on I/P or Shakespeare matters and was brought here, would you close the case becauss I had not been warned formally?--Peter cohen (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Seems to be a pretty clear-cut case of edit-warring. In one case just over 31 hours elapse between reverts by Netzer with the last instance seeing just 55 hours elapse before Netzer reverted again. Maybe not close enough to still be considered a violation of 1RR, but still clearly repeatedly reverting to the exact same version each time in a very short period.

A broader issue concerning this case is that I have seen a similar dispute arise over the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article. That case was the reverse where an editor insisted on the lede "unfairly" excluding an Arab name for the topic in the lede, similar to how this case focuses on "unfairly" excluding the Hebrew meaning of the topic's name in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero You are correct that I do not support his position. It seems like many other editors I am just another person who tried to point out what the facts on the matter are, that they did not support the specific change Netzer wanted, suggested a middle ground to resolve the dispute, only to have Netzer insist on the exact same change he has been insisting on for some time. He seems to be quite insistent on rejecting all compromises or perhaps just thinks compromise means everyone taking his position. Maybe there is a legitimate concern as it relates to inclusion of different translations when it is relevant to a dispute over territory, but edit-warring and stonewalling are not the way to go about resolving it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael No, I never "implied" that I supported your specific contention that "Abode of Peace" is the most common meaning. I suggested that "city of peace" may be a possible translation, though not considered the most likely. My comment even specifically said that there was nothing in the source directly backing your desired wording. You interpreting that as support of your specific position and presenting it as supporting your position without even asking me if I did support your position is insulting.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG If you look through Netzer's edit history prior to his contributions in the I/P topic area, you may notice that pretty much all of his edits were in articles where he had a clear conflict of interest whether it was his own Wikipedia article, some fringe theory for which he is an enthusiast, various people who he apparently is familiar with on a personal level, or a comic book character he created. Now, I think someone is perfectly capable of objectively writing an article about something they have a personal investment in (it seems on his own article there have been some successful efforts with him towards reaching a NPOV), but I also think editing regularly in such areas with little to no activity elsewhere without anyone pursuing action against you should not be counted in someone's favor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJG, Netzer's edit history outside of I/P has been "clean" as far as blocks and sanctions go, but his editing habits over those years he has been contributing would have likely gotten him subjected to administrative action had he not been editing in such an underserved topic area. That said I support a close along the lines proposed by WG, though I think the proposed Jerusalem ban needs clarification on whether it would be a broadly construed topic ban pertaining to that article, i.e. whether discussion of Jerusalem would be allowed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zero0000[edit]

MichaelNetzer is one of the most disruptive editors to come to the I-P area in recent months. He came with a profound ignorance of the subject combined with a pathological inability to admit that anyone else might be right. His style is to endlessly weave and duck, repeating his opinions over and over (and over and over), falsely claiming support from other editors for his views when in fact he hardly gets any support. He has hardly a clue about what a reliable source is. All the time he is accusing everyone of malicious motives while being mortally offended if anyone dare suggest he is not an angel from heaven. This business of the lede of Jerusalem could have been solved in 30 minutes to the satisfaction of all parties if MichaelNetzer wasn't around, but thanks to him it has turned into a monumental waste of time with no end in sight. This isn't the first time his contribution has been of this nature; he should have been topic-banned for his earlier strenuous attempt to break Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) by repeatedly violating it while posting reams of sophistry about it. (Sorry for not adding diffs, it is 2am in my part of the world so that will have to wait until tomorrow). Zero^talk 14:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the lack of an ARBIA warning, the purpose of such a warning is to make sure that the receiver is aware of the arbitration ruling and the consequences of breaking it. Since MichaelNetzer has repeatedly commented on other cases on this very page, it is completely impossible that he was unaware of what was going on. It has been recognized for many years on all dispute resolution pages that sufficiently experienced editors don't need to be warned. Zero^talk 01:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, MichaelNetzer's comments here are deceptive and cannot be understood by anyone who hasn't watched the whole saga. Key points:

1. Nobody has argued that "Abode of Peace" and similar don't belong in the article, and nobody has tried to remove it. Nor does anyone deny that it is popular and there are sources which support it. The problem is that the consensus of specialist experts is that the real meaning is something else.
2. The only real issue is the first sentence of the article. MichaelNetzer wants it to say "Abode of Peace" with no qualification and no alternatives (a clear violation of WP:NPOV as well as misleading). He has refused to accept any other possibilities, which included (a) putting "Abode of Peace" as a popular interpretation alongside the scientific interpretation, (b) leaving the question of the meaning for later in the article. Either (a) or (b) would be acceptable to the great majority of people who commented.
3. MichaelNetzer claims that three other editors support him. This is a fine illustration of MichaelNetzer's style. Of those claimed in support, JN466 does not support MichaelNetzer's position but supports one of the alternatives that MichaelNetzer refuses to accept. Piz d'Es-Cha supports leaving the subject out of the lede, which MichaelNetzer also refuses. The Devil's Advocate has not supported MichaelNetzer's version of the lede either, as far as I can determine (correct me if I'm wrong). This is what counts as "consensus" in MichaelNetzer's view.

Zero^talk 02:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nishidani[edit]

The problem is a larger one than a simple IR editwarring infraction- It's behavioural.

Background (Content issue, which is not in discussion here, but the behaviour associated with it by one editor)

Open any Hebrew dictionary and under יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim you get the meaning, ‘Jerusalem’, not anything else (‘abode of peace’ etc,.) (Karl Feyerabend, A complete Hebrew-English pocket-dictionary to the Old Testament, Langenscheidt nd. p.135 col.1)

• (1) The general etymology given as probable by semitic specialists for this urban toponym is: ‘Foundation of (the god) Shalem’, as the very source, there on the page version Michael defends, writes. Popular, rabbinic, or folk or false etymologies abound; there are several. Google and the results are that ‘abode of peace’ is not the most popular. Michael has threatened to revert, however, anyone who alters this, because of an ostensible historic consensus.
• (2) Almost all city articles I have examined, in the Near East and the world, do not have a meaning or etymology in the lead. Jerusalem is anomalous, and old lead was, also, wrong in glossing the city’s name to mean ‘abode of peace’ when the source, Stephen Binz, says the meaning originally was 'Foundation of Shalem'.
• (3) 23 days ago I raised the problem. Three weeks over several pages of arguing have produced an industrial quantity of argument, with Michael virtually alone in insisting that the false meaning ‘abode of peace’ be retained. Compromises have been suggested, and accepted. He has accepted none. Almost 20 people have commented on aspects of the discussion. As Zero says, commonsense and respect for process would have resolved this in 30 minutes, without three weeks of indeterminate and exhausting wikilawyering.
• (4) After it was apparent Michael has a very unsure grasp of linguistics and appeared incapable of understanding anything technical, I suggested several times he desist from arguing on an issue he misunderstands. He takes that as a personal attack.

• (a)From the outset Michael admitted clearly his support for a false or folk meaning reflected political interests. He insists on abode of peace because

The Hebrew meaning is significant for the lead because of its history relevant to the city's current situation.

He repeated this (also dubious as WP:Recentism) a week later, he dismissed Christian folk meanings on similar political ground:

There is no Christian political presence nor territorial issue such as with the Arabic to warrant introducing such a Christian meaning there. (on both points he is drastically wrong, by the way, and confuses Arabic with Muslim Arabs, ignoring Christian Arabs, etc.).

He was reminded that these two remarks violate a pillar of wikipedia (WP:NPOV)

• He refuses compromises by third parties (WP:Negotiation), having successively rejected mediations by *User:Oncenawhile, User:FormerIP, User:Jayen466 and User:FCSundae the last three at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

• User:Oncenawhile suggested a compromise here, here and again here. I accepted that, and it was compatible with Zero000’s position. Michael refused to budge. 10 days had passed, 7 of intensive analysis, and Michael was alone against a compromise position supported by 3.(12 December)

• The problem is not simply IR. At Alon Shvut, Michael began to try to change longstanding consensus and policy, by wikilawyering Judea and Samaria, in order to establish a precedent for the unrestricted use of those terms in the West Bank. The argument was exhaustive, he appealed to at IPCOL here, and when that fails to produce the desired result, he went to Naming conventions (West Bank)raise objections here. He hoped indeed that an ARBPIA3 be formally convoked to reexamine the whole issue.

• Michael consistently dismisses the views of those who disagree with him as politically motivated, with a couple of editors who declare strong biases and appear to be using Wikipedia to advance a political agenda on their user pages. He appears to identify (implicitly) me as a member of some cohort commanded by Nableezy, which, empowered by AE leniency, overlords and intimates nice people, threatens editing in the I/P area, and must be dealt with.

• WP:RS

He hasn’t the faintest notion of what RS means. He thinks a book’s inclusion in a major library’s holdings, thereby qualifies it as RS; he thinks that the time stamp for a book’s inclusion into a library’s stacks indicates it was both published by the library and RS by virtue of its place of residence. He argues repeatedly that a Pakistani high school teacher’s Islamic-oriented book can trump modern linguistics because it repeats a meme that happens to be erroneous; he thinks a quaint, outdated, self-published book (68 copies) by an LA mystagogue picked up by an occult books specialist when the copyright expired is RS for semitic philology. When each source is examined and picked apart comprehensively, he goes on undaunted and keeps plastering it, with minimal changes lower down on the page and elsewhere on admin pages with minor alterations as in accordance with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

• WP:CONSENSUS

He cites it but no one can understand why he appears not to have read it, since he argues that a lone hold-out impedes the unanimity required, unanimity meaning everyone changes sides and accepts his unique position.

• Wikipedia:No personal attacks

He constantly misconstrues simple sentences, and makes insidious inferences from his flawed interpretation of them. Thus he wrote an extraordinarily bitter tirade challenging my bona fides. Indeed, he said my putative prejudices were a threat to what he thought was the core of Judaism itself, if that is what he means by the extraordinary suggestion my presence and prejudices on this area of wikipedia threaten to erase most knowledge of a civilization entrenched in collective nationalism. At the outset he hinted he reads me as, well, anti-semitic, which is what his remark Nishidani, I find your tone unpleasant and combative, as is your visible contempt for Hebrew associations in many discussions,’ implies. It didn’t help with his rabbit-out-of-the-hat misprision about my putative ‘disdain for "holy writ".’ Users Johnuniq and NSH001 either gently asked him to reflect on his complete misinterpretation of my remarks, or apologize. Nothing doing. I don't mind insults. But Michael's use of them shows he has a problem.

Michael interprets editorial disagreements as a form of personal attack I have suffered repeated insults and character assaults by you since we began interacting . . Maybe you know in your heart that I'm right about this, but I can't otherwise understand your unwarranted frustration at me.

• Wikipedia:forum shopping

He went to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard here. A lengthy recycling of the same poorly substantiated arguments there involved several more, independent observers and their responses. The result was Michael refused the several compromises, similar to Oncenawhile’s offered by respectively Jayen, FCSundae and FormerIP. He then went to User:Wgfinley’s page and tried to restart the argument there, to my page, and to Peter cohen’s page.

• I told Michael to desist from his attacks. User:TransporterMan ended the thread there with a warning to behave. I can see no edit there by anyone else than Michael which could be described as aggressive.

• Stacking the vote tally to create the impression of rough parity, and therefore a lack of consensus.

He stacks his vote score by listing people who effectively voted against him. When informed of the errors, he refuses, except for one instance where he noted my protest that one vote for the consensual majority position was improper, to change his own tally.

He added User:Jayen466 to his support list on the basis of Jayen’s first comment here. After discussion, Jayen modified his initial view towards a compromise here, where he writes “So you could say 'Foundation of Shalem'(?), often interpreted as 'abode of peace'", or something of that ilk.” and then approved of my suggestions for compromise, saying in his edit summary ‘sounds good’ here He also added User:AgadaUrbanit, who removed his name from it, declaring himself neutral. The support of two others is doubtful. The list really should have only Michael and perhaps one other on it, against 7 supporters for an edit which will remove the anomaly and error in the lead. I.e. the solution 30 minutes of commonsense could have agreed to. This fiction of a disputed consensus was what enabled him to edit war in the three reverts Nableezy outlined above.

• Michael has developed a WP:Battleground mentality that transforms efficient editing into a nightmare of dealing with attrition based on trivia, misunderstanding, and unfounded suspicions of personal or cultural or religious or ethnic enmity.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jiujitsuguy.

Thisthis and this all show Michael thoroughly familiar with the ARBPIA issues, since he has minutely examined and challenged them, and participated on many pages where these protocols were discussed. Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael now writes:'I did not threaten to revert against consensus". Anyone reading what I said there can see that.'

If an editor changes the lede, based on arguments made here and in the talk page, motivated by prejudices against nationalism, lack of knowledge of facts ' and bias towards "holy writ" , in order to supersede WP policy and scholarly sources that support the lede as it is, then I will revert it. (bias towards holy writ(!!) must mean its opposite:'bias against holy writ). That editorial opposition to nationalism in wikipedia must be subject to automatic reverts reveals Michael's clear position as a nationalist POV editor.

Any attempt to change the lede based on your sordid prejudices will be met with the staunchest opposition.

how is the mention of the Hebrew different from the mention of the Arabic in the lede? Unless you can address that, without basing it on etymology, my core point about notability stands, and forbids its removal from the lede.

A majority opinion existed when he made these remarks, whose tone was peremptory in asserting frequently he would revert unless his unique personal conditions were satisfied.(WP:OWN). Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, this is not the place to repeat content arguments. Arbs needn't be required to wade through the massive archives of sheer chat and equivocation. The central fact is that a simple solution was readily available and that even though about 20 people watched, advised, commented or voted in what was the thankless task of following these huge meanderings, you refused to listen. You challenged virtually everyone to the bitter end, which is unfortunately this. (ps. 'abode of peace' googles low or middle in the ranks of common 'meanings'. What one community thinks familiar, another may ignore (that's why we have WP:NPOV). I occasionally heard as a boy 'Visio pacis'/vision of peace,etc., (which was the predominant etymology for Jerusalem in Western civilization for almost one and a half millenia,) and encountered the scholarly etymologies as a young man at University).Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you still complain of my 'prejudices against nationalism', Michael, and appear to have identified your own position as one of defending 'the entrenched nationalism of a civilization', you'd better read policies like Civil POV pushing and its warnings against 'nationalist issues'. Our differences are summed up there. I don't think editors with a mission to entrench nationalism should be editing here.Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given his clean sheet (my presumption, I haven't checked) any serious ban is out of the question and should not be called for. I would suggest that you offer him the option of asking for a third opinion, and/or going to WP:RS to see if he can muster any support for his extremely isolated and idiosyncratic interpretations of a very simple, straightforward issue. He certainly should not have reverted a consensus reconfirmed after almost three weeks in which he has failed to persuade anyone he has had the better in what has been an endless succession of repetitive arguments.

I believed that at the time and hoped MN would mollify his intransigence on reading this. He didn't. Perhaps Michael persisted after that date (21 Dec) in forum shopping and further reverting because he assumed from what I wrote that whatever happened if he crossed the red line, his record would save him from a serious ban. That is just one of several possibilities, though. The fact is that he kept up his exasperating behaviour, and was supported in this by AgadaUrbanit, who did not act as a neutral party trying to mediate. I won’t go into details, but AU’s version of events is all summed up in his aside (‘However something went wrong’) between the 9th of December and the 21st of December. When I read that I mentally posted an Oscar to AU, who is wellknown for his antic sense of wry but highly purposive playfulness. He has never been 'neutral' and did not step in to mediate. To the contrary, he himself acted against consensus (his edit summary is a joy to read), and only very lately in the piece stepped forward when Michael's persistence became startingly dangerous to MN's reputation here.

Michael reverted three times. The third time I restored the consensus version. AgadaUrbanit reverted me, i.e. supported Michael’s defiance of the consensus immediately 08:38, 25 December 2011‎, intervening for the first time on that date, 3 weeks after extensive discussion on 4 distinct pages. Within 7 minutes, Michael gave me a formal warning for edit warring and disruptive behaviour and, an hour later, added Agada’s name to the (otherwise mostly fictitious) list of people supporting him.

Much happened (something went wrong?) but a full day later, Agada suddenly decided to remove his name from Michael’s list and classify himself as neutral. In that same edit, while supporting Michael’s view, he accepted finally a compromise others had been suggesting to Michael for over two weeks.

I have hesitated to say anything here. I therefore must correct the impression people are liable o have that this is vindictive. I don’t believe in longterm bans. I think people ought simply to be told, when they show egregious POV behaviour like this, to write an article that treats of an issue dear to the hearts of the ‘other side’. If Michael undertook to write an article on ‘Fatalities among navvies/labourers on Israeli construction sites’ to NPOV, then as far as I’m concerned, no sanction at all would be necessary. Once it was completed, and reviewed as satisfactory, comprehensive and neutral, he could come back. That is the kind of sanction I would apply to everyone from ‘every side’ who has failed to respect NPOV, and who brings to the encyclopedia an undue interest in only one ‘angle of incidence’.

Comment by Jiujitsuguy[edit]

I have reviewed User:MichaelNetzer's talk page as well as the ARBPIA logs[18] and it appears that he was never issued an ARBPIA warning (unless I missed something). If this is indeed the case, protocol would mandate the issuance of such a warning to the account before a sanction (if any is warranted) could be imposed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cut and pasted the relevant section from the page:

• Standard discretionary sanctions

6) All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. (Emphasis added by me) Passed 14 to 0 by motion, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: I find it amazing Nableezy that you can remember an event that occurred over two years ago within seconds of my post but you are “absent minded” or had a “momentary loss of memory” when it comes to your own sanction that was imposed barely a week prior. Keep burying yourself.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgfinley. I think Tim voiced concurrence with Cailil's compromise when he noted "works for me" just under Cailil's comment.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik. Cailil noted MichaelNetzer's unblemished record and further noted that any temporary ban should be limited to the Jerusalem article. He did not however, specify a duration of the article ban. Considering that Netzer has been editing for five years and has never been cited for anything in the past, I think a one-month article ban is a bit on the harsh side.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Johnuniq[edit]

I encountered Nishidani at an unrelated article (SAQ), and occasionally scan his talk page, but have not been involved with any P-I issues. I was amazed to see a claim on his talk page that Nishidani had made a statement that "is enough to block users from editing areas relating to their prejudice" (i.e. Nishidani should not edit P-I topics due to a prejudice) (01:42, 20 December 2011 by MichaelNetzer). I have no idea what perspective Nishidani has on P-I matters, so while I was skeptical of the claim that he had a blatant prejudice I am sufficiently open minded to consider that he might have a problem, so I investigated the background to MichaelNetzer's comment. I then responded and engaged in a discussion that leads me to believe that MichaelNetzer should not be editing any controversial topics, and that he has violated ARBPIA#4 (AGF, NPOV, CIVIL, NPA).

My reasons for these conclusions are that MichaelNetzer has grossly misinterpreted some comments made by Nishidani, and maintained those gross misinterpretations with no hint of compromise even after the errors were explained. Following the diffs is too confusing, so I will merely outline the issues which can be seen in the wall of text at User talk:Nishidani#Notes (permalink): Nishidani made a comment at DRN that included: "I'm a pagan, so I have no horse in the race. I dislike or rather have deep suspicions about feelings of nationalism, esp. collective, that rise above the love of a landscape, food, and language. These are the prejudices I bring to edits." (diff). MichaelNetzer responded (link above) with a claim that this statement shows Nishidani has a prejudice [and should not edit P-I topics]. I responded that "Nishidani of course is saying he has no prejudices other than that NPOV should be observed". MichaelNetzer's reply switched to '"I'm a pagan, so I have no horse in the race" means the editor has a "pagan horse" in the race'. That interpretation is simply absurd so I realized that it would not be fruitful to further explain the meaning of Nishidani's clear statement, so I switched to the more substantive issue of how to interact with an editor (Nishidani) who disputes an edit (Jerusalem means "abode of peace")—my attempts failed.

While the gross misinterpretations made by MichaelNetzer at Nishidani's talk could be overlooked as just another event at Wikipedia, they demonstrate that it is not possible to rely on MichaelNetzer's judgment about what a source says—when a couple of obvious errors are visible, it is likely there are many more.

Regarding the content issue of whether the word "Jerusalem" means "Abode of Peace": I gather that no one disputes that there are many sources containing that claim—the point is, that scholarly sources show the claim is not correct, it is only that some people like to refer to the city as "Abode of Peace". Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FormerIP[edit]

I have no opinion about whether sanctions should be applied here or what they should be. I would say that I find Michael's position regarding the content issue to be fairly absurd, and he is also a little too trigger-happy with personal attacks.

What matters is that the article is improved by excising the folk etymology from the first sentence. No other editor appears to support its retention.

As an aside, perhaps Wikipedia could benefit from a specific guideline regarding folk etymologies. As an aside to the aside, this is a good example of where "verifiability not truth" does not make sense. Folk etymologies are usually very easy to verify. Genuine etymologies are harder, but they have the merit of being closer to "truth". --FormerIP (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DePiep[edit]

So an admin reopens this, quite probably through my edit. But I am not allowed to post a single word here without a diff. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Boris[edit]

So a six-month topic ban is proposed. In other cases, on this page, indefs are proposed for long-term editors (and for much smaller violations). We hear a lot from admins that term bans are ineffective and indefs are the way to go. Can we have some clarity of the overall approach please? - BorisG (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AgadaUrbanit[edit]

Hope my comment here is appropriate. I've been involved lately in discussions on Jerusalem, trying to separate fighting parties. I am not sure that Michael reverted a "consensus" version as submitter claims. It is really important in the topic area of Jerusalem to preserve balance between religious and ethnic groups involved in the subject.

• edit by Oncenawhile, 9 December 2011, edit summary: "removing abode of peace from lede, as per talk. Nishidani, will you amend the etymology section?"
• After the discussion of this edit revert, it was suggested by user:Oncenawhile to remove both Hebrew and Arabic translations of the name, see diff:

Hi all, can I suggest the following for a compromise proposal for the lede: Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (audio)^ⓘ, Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym; Arabic: القُدس (audio)^ⓘ, al-Quds)

• However something went wrong and next edit trying to fix the first sentence was not balanced: edit by Nableezy, , 21 December 2011, edit summary: "inaccurate, consensus to remove this on talk page and DR/N" The wording introduced was not hammered on the article talk page.
• I've noted on the talk page that the wording is not balanced, see diff and waited couple of days. There were no objections, Michael specifically "Generally agreed", see diff. So I went ahead, see diff and changed the article per Oncenawhile's suggestion.
• The wording was immediately(within 16 mins) balanced even more, see diff. Who could disagree that "one transliteraation is plenty" ( for Hebrew, when Arabic language has only one )? With that, on downside, this change was not discussed by submitter of this request on talk page either.

Previously, Michael demonstrated a great flexibility in handling a long standing issue of Jerusalem location map, see talk. Submitter of this request claimed "consensus" prematurely, see diff. With that Michael managed to achieve an agreement with submitter of this request on question of map, so I am not sure why the submitter still pushing this enforcement request. Maybe it is related to this submitter's comment on Michael during previous AE request. I think we're lucky to have Michael as a contributor. With that Michael should realize that wall of texts on article's talk page is not a purpose of Wikipedia. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ElComandanteChe 2[edit]

I took the liberty to ask for closure on this case at WP:ANRFC. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz[edit]

It seems to me that Cailil and T. Canens agreed to a six-month Jerusalem topic ban and a six-month Israel–Palestine probation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jiujitsuguy, the question is whether words mean what they say. I'd be on board for a Jerusalem topic ban and a Arab-Isreali topic wide probation for 6 months. That means a topic ban on Jerusalem and an Arab–Israeli topic probation for six months, not thirty days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning MichaelNetzer[edit]

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

WP:ARBPIA requires the user receive a warning, the report template includes a space for the warning diff as well. Per the decision (emphasis mine):

MichaelNetzer wasn't previously warned, warning and closing the case. --WGFinley (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given questions I am reopening this AE report to discuss more, I won't be doing it. This is my final comment on this matter.

To me the process of sanctions concerning AE is very important, if we sanction users who haven't been warned without giving them an opportunity to remediate their behavior we are setting a very dangerous precedent. I am not and have not justified any conduct by Michael as my warning shows but I still feel he is entitled his chance to listen to the warning and remediate his behavior. This case should be closed but it won't be me who will do it. --WGFinley (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have explained the reason for my view that the original close was premature in my comment in the Nableezy case. Two aspects of this matter require more in-depth attention than what has been given to it thus far.
  • First, I'm of the view that MichaelNetzer has been, at a minimum, constructively warned of ARBPIA sanctions prior to this report and may consequently be sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions. There is no requirement in ARBPIA that the warning be particularly directed to the editor, or given by an administrator, or logged (or even loggable); all that is required is "an initial warning". My view is that MN's history of participation at AE, especially when considered in conjunction with the ARBPIA banner on Talk:Jerusalem ("WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"), compels the conclusion that he has been constructively warned and no additional warning is necessary. This reading is consistent with the reading of the discretionary sanctions provision that allowed for article-level 1RR: the edit notice advertising the 1RR was considered sufficient warning to allow for imposition of a block as a discretionary sanction. (See this request for clarification.)

    If there is ever a case where finding constructive warning is appropriate, this is that case. We have here an editor who's clearly familiar with the discretionary sanctions provisions by virtue of his repeated participation in this noticeboard. To require yet another warning before sanctions can be imposed in such a case is, at a minimum, counterintuitive, and we should try to interpret the remedies in a way that avoids such a counterintuitive result whenever possible.

    Turning to the actual conduct, I'm of the view that the complaint has merit. I have reviewed the discussions at WP:DRN and Talk:Jerusalem, and frankly MN's conduct in those discussions is well below the expected standards of behavior, to say nothing about the revert warring. His style of discussion made him...extremely difficult to work with, to put it charitably. Johnuniq and FormerIP's comments are well taken.

    I propose a six-month topic ban.

  • Second, a simple edit warring block should have been considered even assuming that another warning is required. As I'm of the view that another warning is unnecessary, I'll not comment on this aspect at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a question for Tim - are you proposing a topic ban from I/P generally, or Jerusalem related topics, or something narrower (etylomological edits/discussions in articles under WP:ARBPIA)?--Cailil ^talk 15:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm actually thinking of the broadest topic ban available to us - my personal inclination is a broad Middle East topic ban; failing that, an I/P-and-Jerusalem ban will work too (I added the Jerusalem part just to be extra clear; my view is that any edit to Jerusalem will fall within a straight I/P ban, but it never hurts to make it clearer). We have a pretty bad case of inability to collaborate here, and I frankly don't want him to be anywhere near this topic area. T. Canens (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • I agree that MN should be considered to have been constructivey warned and concur with Ed that edit warring in the lede of Jerusalem is an incendiary act. However, WGF has a point: a 6 month ban from the whole Arab-Israel topic is harsh considering that MN has no record, that any disruption here is related to a single issue. I'd be on board for a Jerusalem topic ban and a Arab-Isreali topic wide probation for 6 months. If that gets violated harsher sanction would be inevitable--Cailil ^talk 16:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • Works for me. T. Canens (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that a person like Michael Netzer who has edited extensively at WP:Arbitration enforcement regarding Arab-Israeli topics (64 edits altogether) should be considered to be aware that ARBPIA carries discretionary sanctions. A six-month topic ban sounds correct. I was especially influenced by his firm declarations at WP:DRN about the lead of Jerusalem: "Any attempt to change the lede based on your sordid prejudices will be met with the staunchest opposition". Translations of names and alternate-language terminologies for place names are often at the center of ethnic disputes at Wikipedia. These are the kind of disputes that discretionary sanctions are intended to address. Michael Netzer's uncompromising persistence, and his use of phrases like "I will revert it" (in bold type) does not sound like an open-minded search for consensus. Fighting over the lead of Jersusalem is like grabbing the third rail of mideast disputes. His persistence seems to reveal a lack of common sense. If MN returns to general editing of I/P topics you can probably expect a lot more talk comments from him like the unhelpful and stubborn ones you seen now in the DRN thread. You would then be expecting regular editors who want to work in the I/P area to calmly and patiently search for consensus with a person who displays that attitude. There is a limit to what they should have to put up with. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC). Corrected my comment -- MN did not use bold face in the original. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I changed my mind and am going to weigh in one more time on this. First, I found AgadaUrbanit's comment above as the most insightful from someone who has been working on the article. MichaelNetzer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history on the article of trying to work with people, he has a 5-year-old account with a completely clean record: no blocks, no bans and no formal ARBPIA warning before this AE report. I find a P-I TBAN to be extremely harsh for someone who has no prior history. Finally, I think we see something rare here on AE and that is some contrition: "I was wrong in some of it and will not repeat the mistakes made due to being relatively new to this area." I think his formal warning and admonition I delivered is sufficient but if others feel some sort of TBAN is required I think 30 days on Jerusalem would be the most appropriate for his tendentious editing there. --WGFinley (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also as to Tim's point that this is the perfect case where someone didn't need a warning I feel this ignores half of what the purpose of a warning is. Per WP:AC/DS the warning is not just to make someone aware problematic editing in the topic area is subject to sanction, it's to specifically tell that editor his current actions could lead him to sanction and counsel on how to avoid sanction. It's an opportunity for someone to remediate their behavior before sanction, outside of blatant and gross disregard for WP policies I feel every editor should get that opportunity. --WGFinley (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move For Close[edit]

To try to summarize here and see if we can get this one warped up. Tim and Ed suggested longer TBANs, I thought that was harsh given the record and Cailil has suggested a middle ground. Can we get agreement on:

• 30-day Jerusalem ban
• 6 months P-I probation
• Any verified complaint of WP:TE during probation triggers a 6 month P-I TBAN

--WGFinley (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a little different set in mind, just didn't get around to posting last night:

• 1RR on P/I Already set in the case & Jerusalem topics, broadly constructed, in 24 hours
• 4 month Probation on P-I
• 1.5 month Topic ban on Jerusalem topics broadly constructed
• Any verified complaint of WP:TE during probation trigger of P/I TBAN, allowing the enforcing admin to use discretion on time, recommending 3 month minimum.

I am recommending this because:

• MichaelNetzer was not clearly notified as a requirement of WP:AC/DS, but had knowledge of DS in this topic area
• MichaelNetzer was edit-warring, and threats to continue were observed
• MichaelNetzer created a tense topic editing area with his edits ignoring quite a few WP policies.

I'll wait around for a reply before closing. -- DQ (t) (e) 04:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Modified 19:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that modification. --WGFinley (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Tuscumbia[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Winterbliss (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

AA2, ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct

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

• Ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct:

1. [19], denying validity of neutral sources on grounds of their supposed ethnic origin, line 73.
2. [20], denying validity of neutral sources on grounds of their supposed ethnic origin. N.B. User:Tuscumbia was topic-banned for six months by User:Sandstein [21] because of a similar violation [22].

• Revert war on Murovdag page:

1. [23], First revert on Murovdag page
2. [24], Second revert on Murovdag page
3. [25], Third revert on Murovdag page
4. [26], Fourth revert on Murovdag page

• Revert wars on other pages:

1. [27] First revert on Gülablı article on 27 Sept.
2. [28] Second revert on Gülablı article on 27 Sept.
3. [29] Third revert on Gülablı article on 28 Sept.
4. [30] First revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 30 Sept.
5. [31] Second revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 30 Sept.
6. [32] Third revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 3 Oct.
7. [33] Fourth revert 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 3 Oct.

• Unfounded accusations on sockpuppetry Wikipedia:NPA.

1. [34], unfounded accusations on sockpuppetry running counter to evidence
2. [35], unfounded accusations on sockpuppetry running counter to evidence, line 47, accusing User:George Spurlin of sockpuppetry

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

1. Warned on [36] by Stifle (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on [37] by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)
3. Arbitration Enforcement topic Ban for 6 Months [38] by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
4. Blocked for violation of Arbitration Enforcement Topic Ban [39] ] by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
5. Blocked for edit warring [40] by Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (talk · contribs)
6. Warned on Dec 27, 2011 on [41], line 81, by Anomie (talk · contribs): "Reach a consensus before using ((edit protected)). Protected edit requests are not a vehicle for continuing your edit war."

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editing record of User:Tuscumbia shows that he has been topic banned several times. His most recent six-month topic ban expired in mid-summer 2011. Since then User:Tuscumbia returned to an editing behavior that is highly unwelcome and needlessly combative. Since the end of the ban User:Tuscumbia demonstrates continued disregard of those Wikipedia rules for which he was banned.

A special concern is Tuscumbia's battleground attitude regarding sources. Tuscumbia has been warned and topic banned by User:Sandstein [42] for specifically choosing to exclude sources based on his or her ethnicity, as evidenced by [43]. He still continues to use racism in his arguments regarding sources: [44], [45]. Tuscumbia recent speak [46], line 73: "Neutral sources"? Are you kidding? Bournoutian, Cheterian, Gilanentz? Come on... These are Armenian authors who are likely to indicate the Armenian names in their writings rather than the correct names." As a note: George Bournoutian is a world-renowned peer-reviewed Western USA-based academic with impeccable reputation. Gilanentz is a medieval (!) author. Cheterian is French. In addtion to these 3 authors whom Tuscumbia is demonizing as "Armenians" User:George Spurlin also mentioned the following sources: John F. R. Wright, Nicholas Holding, and Karl Derouen [47]. Tuscumbia pretended he did not notice these other NPOV sources and focused on his supposedly "Armenian" targets. As pointed out by User:Sandstein when enforcing a topic ban on Tuscumbia [48]: entering into conflicts about either editors or sources on the basis of any ethnic, national or other background, rather than on the basis of their individual reliability or the strength of their arguments, is entirely at odds with WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#BATTLE, as well as strongly morally objectionable. User:Tuscumbia is continuously found in various revert wars. The most recent example is the Murovdag page. This and other examples are shown above. Winterbliss (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments by administrators and others[edit]

• I have been CU-checked in an SPI just recently. In fact that was my first encounter with Tuscumbia who accused me and a group of other editors of being socks by filing an SPI report. I was active in Russian Wikipedia for a long time and know rules, regulations and techniques of WP editing relatively well. It still takes me while to file a report like that though. As a confirmation, I type this sentence in Russian: Я хорошо знаком с правилами Вкипедии и технической стороной редактирования текстов в режиме Вики. Please look into the matter and essence of Tuscumbia's continued misconduct. Suspecting someone to be a sock or meat is not an excuse for violation of rules of WP editing or disregarding Tuscumbia's battleground attitude. Here is the opinion of an independent editor Lothar von Richthofen who commented on Tuscumbia's misuse of SPIs: "Checkuser is not for fishing. If you can present actual evidence other than "they make edits that I don't like and it makes me mad so I want to harass them with SPIs on the offhand chance that they will turn up to be the same people", then maybe a new Checkuser might be in order. Otherwise, your invocation of phantom sockpuppeteers is borderline disruptive"→ [49] Winterbliss (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello WGFinley and other administrators. It is with pleasure that I disclose my old WP-RU account. It was Участник:Brindz (before I moved to the USA). I hope this will stop groundless accusations in sockpuppetry, "drawers," etc. You can learn from my Участник:Brindz page I was majored in chemistry, and I recently published an article about Crocodile fat. I was postponing publishing it because was carried away by battleground conduct of Tuscumbia and Verman1. You can also see that I edited an article on Biodiesel [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] before filing this AE report and being confronted by sockpupptry accusations. As Участник:Brindz I also extensively edited pages on Armenian monasteries and Armenia too. Winterbliss (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[55]

Discussion concerning Tuscumbia[edit]

Statement by Tuscumbia[edit]

Actually, there is no statement to be made as I expected one of the new suspicious accounts to report me on one of the boards. That's the main intent why these accounts are generated. This account Winterbliss by itself is a part of the suspicious group of new users who don't act like new unexperienced editors and seem to know their ways around the most controversial articles. The simultaneous appearance of the accounts Dehr, InTheRevolution, Winterbliss, Sprutt, Zimmarod, Hablabar, George Spurlin, shortly after blocking of the following sockpuppet accounts: Bars77, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, Szeget, 2492BC, Repin3, Oxi42 is not coincidental. Their contribution histories suggest that they are generated to make just a few or several minor edits like typo fixing, removal of names, adding commas, etc to build a contribution history and seem genuine; and in between reverting controversial articles pertaining to the subject of AA2. The main purpose is to assist the established users on their side to avoid santions or being reported, and more importantly, drag the established users from the other side into reports such as this one with an intent to get them sanctioned. Note that they are there to sacrifice themselves to sanctions and pull the established users along with them, thus clearing the path for their established peers. This is a long term practice by these users and many have gone into indefinite blocks (Please see rich archives of similar sock accounts for Hetoum I, Meowy, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon/Archive, Andranikpasha, Paligun, Capasitor, Aram-van and many more which can be found in SPI archives. However, neither administrator enforcement is able to stop these sock masters from generating newer sock accounts as range blocks of IPs are often discouraged. At times, new accounts like that of Winterbliss may also act as meatpuppets using people at different locations or proxy IPs. It's a well established fact that the user Meowy, Ararat arev, for example, edited from various locations. It is also likely that you will often witness them try to fool administrators by lame compliments to themselves such as this one where Aram-van compliments himself by using this sock account 2492BC and then responds to himself as Aram-van. Little do they know that they are to be disclosed soon as yet another sockpuppet.

• Now, responding to the "ethno-nationalistic battleground" claims.

1. [56] does not state anything claimed by the reporting party. It just states what I just reiterated above in this report.
2. [57], this is actually a valid response to User:MarshallBagramyan, who discredited three neutral authors of Jewish, Swedish and Persian heritage, giving the credibility over them to the Armenian author Bournoutian. In other words, an Armenian Wikipedia user adds POV information to the article supported by an Armenian-American author, and when the article was NPOV-ed by adding arguments by three non-Armenian authors (who are also non-Azeri), MarshallBagramyan started this discussion. By the way, he had been indefinitely sanctioned for making derogatory statements on authors based on their ethnicity, place of their publication, etc. Discussion with George Spurlin on Murovdag is of the same content.

• Murovdag article. Yes, I made all those reverts. So? What's your point, Winterbliss? It is perfectly explained on the talk page of the article why the reverts to the stable version have been made. Even the admin reverted it back to the stable version. Ironically, User:George Spurlin made the same reverts ([58], [59], [60], [61], [62] as the sockpuppet Oxi42 of sockmaster Xebulon: [63], [64].

• Gülablı article. Yes, I did make all those reverts as well, but did you forget to mention the discussion on the talk page of the article and how users Fedayee, Takabeg, MarshallBagramyan engaged in the same war [65], [66], [67]? Or are you just being selective?

• On sockpuppetry statements such as this [68]. Please see my response above. An intelligent person, understanding how accounts come and go in Wikipedia, will confirm that these accounts do act suspiciously and the pattern of editing behavior suggests their activity is coordinated. An experienced admin involved in AA2 and SPIs that got many of similar socks and their masters blocked will tell you how often and likely these sockpuppets operate. So, whether these accounts are technically found related or not at some point is not that important. What's important is that these accounts acts the same way, edit with the same pattern and revert in the same articles.

• What are those diffs for warnings? Did you forget to post a warning by my kindergarten teacher three decades ago for spilling the juice on the floor? Yes, there had been warnings and bans which have been taken care of. Unlike your peers, I had continued to edit on various subjects, because I am not a casual editor like you who's brought here to edit war and subsequently drag established users into arbitrations.

The bottom line is that reverting is not a crime, as long as it's a blind reverting without commenting and engaging in conversations. Many of the socks are usually used for that. I have not violated a WP:3RR, neither did I make unsubstantiated edits. The user George Spurlin whose only edits are an engagement in edit/revert wars (other minor tweaks are for display) was even requested not to use the edit-protected article request, he had made as a vehicle for for edit warring. Note that the reporting party lied in section 6 of Diff of notifications above claiming the admin is warning me. The admin is in fact warning the George Spurlin account who had filed the edit protected request. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashot Arzumanian, please read the whole discussion and see in what context the reference was made to an author of Armenian heritage. Very simple. User A (MarshallBagramyan) was adding information to the article, in favor of Armenian version of historiography written by Armenian-American author (unsupported by any neutral source), while User B was adding the counter arguments by neutral authors of Swedish, Jewish, American and Persian heritage which do not promote the Azerbaijani version of historiography and as already as stated here, both the arguments of User A were retained in the article and views by non-Azeri neutral authors were included. When the issue is controversial, the preference is to use neutral sources. I hope this clarifies.

Moreover though, since you have been "busy", is it really coincidental you appeared on this page to comment? Or was it the suspicious new user George Spurlin, who became pretty active right around December 11, 2011 when you ceased your activity, that inspired you? After all, Ashot, it's an established fact that you have previously used sock accounts. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallBagramyan, I'm sorry but your statement has no base whatsoever. First of all, I can produce dozens of diffs where you revert other new users or IP without that "patience" you're pretend to advocate here. Secondly, was this not you proposing to avoid using sources based on the ethnicity and place of publication? Or this one where you denigrade an author? In fact, this section on the article talk page shows evidence how you mistreat Azerbaijani authors while favoring the Armenian ones (of the same credibility). Last but not least, I'd like to show MarshallBagramyan's insincere intent here where he first bashed an author claiming he has "a discernible affiliation with Azerbaijan, such as Charles van der Leeuw" and then said something quite different: "...even the two non-Azerbaijani government affiliated sources, van der Leeuw and Bolukbasi, make use of the word allegedly...". Gaming the system and admins, Marshall? Anyone?

Anyway, Marshall and others, you may try to come onto me in this kind of baseless reports by numbers, but your arguments hold no content. Hence the use of potential socks. After all, all accounts who edit warred on AA2 pages in coordination such as User:Vandorenfm, User:Gorzaim, User:Bars77 and so forth, lately, turned out to be socks. So, this new wave of socks mentioned above in my statement as well as this report is most likely coordinated off-Wiki. Your off Wiki coordination with a professional sock master Meowy is indisputable. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashot Arzumanian, just a simple fact that after a long absence you appear on this page to be a part of quantitive attack against me indicates two things: either you're in a constant off-Wiki coordination with the filing suspicious user and others who have been trying to get me blocked, or you're using one of sockpuppet accounts yourself and have been all aware about the ongoing revert war by George Spurlin (the account that became active the day you decreased your activity).

MarshallBagramyan, I'm not a part of any Russian Wiki group busted by Russian administrators that you have been promoting in all forums and never wanted to be. You, on the other hand have been in an off Wiki coordination and have been known to use proven sock accounts.

The Devil's Advocate, thank you for seeing what I have been seeing in disguise. These new sock accounts are well aware of the Wikipedia rules and go-arounds. They are a repetitive pattern which come and go, which I don't expect to decrease. The archives for the above mentioned socks and their masters clearly indicate they are nowhere near to stop.

EdJohnston, I had actually filed two SPIs suspecting Meowy's and Hetoum I's possible sock accounts which were found unrelated. However, I do believe they use many techniques to avoid SPIs. For instance, we know Meowy travelled and used various IPs for his sock accounts in the past. At one point in time, his IP 93.97.143.19 was not found related to the sock master first, but with the insistence of another editor, the same IP was found related to Meowy. The George Spurlin account did file an SPI on himself, but what's the point? He could have travelled from his regular location of User:Ashot Arzumanyan, as I allege, to another where he used the alternative account User:George Spurlin. One thing is clear. The new editors who come to Wikipedia with a genuine intent to contribute, do not appear to make minor tweaks to build themselves a contribution history and create a fake user page to seem like regular editor and then edit-war. Many of them such as Dehr, InTheRevolution, Winterbliss, Sprutt, Zimmarod, Hablabar come and go in a suspicious pattern. They might as well be friends of blocked users living on another continent, who would log in and edit/revert/remove on their behalf spending only 2-3 minutes a day. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, don't mislead administrators. The off-Wiki coordination charge is not currently against Kafka Liz but against you and the link I posted above proves that you are in off-Wiki coordination with blocked sock master Meowy, the fact that speaks for itself. As for the Winterbliss comment, as I mentioned above, the reason the new suspicious accounts are brought to edit war and drag established users into arbitration is that when and if administrators decide to sanction both the reporting party and the reported party, the established editor loses because he loses his only established account and ability to edit while the loss of a sock does not matter. Do you understand that? Tuscumbia (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to The Devil's Advocate's and WGFinley's comments

Devil's Advocate, thank you for your investigation of Winterbliss. I must remind you that there is yet another account Winter Gaze which was generated on November 21, two days after Winterbliss was originated with similar "simplistic user page. I mention this account because it fell into the category of casual editors who edited articles pertaining to AA2, with Winter Gaze being a more frequent minor edits contributor, who all of a sudden stopped on December 3. Like I had mentioned in one of SPIs, these new casual yet seemingly very experienced accounts get generated around the same time for a planned campaign. A most likely scenario is to storm the same topic area articles supporting "each other" and then drag established users countering their POV to arbitration, such as this one. If one of them gets blocked, no problem, they have the similar new accounts which were started around the same time and built some "contribution history", to continue. For instance, if Winterbliss is found a sock, it is likely that Winter Gaze will revitalize and continue the same type of edits Winterbliss had engaged in.

The fact that Winterbliss mentions he was some account in Russian Wikipedia does not mean that he's not Xebulon, Meowy, Andranikpasha or Hetoum I. I find it very hard to believe that a user with such a proficiency in English Wikipedia would edit in Russian Wiki and not in English one. In fact, if he mentions that he moved to US (with a nice haha laugh, by the way which he later deleted), then everything adds up and suspicions will grow since it might as well be some blocked user who relocated and continues his edit-warring from a new location with a new account. As far as his quick contributions on Crocodile Fat and Biodiesel, please take a look at this interesting fact. The account RobertMel who was found to be the same as blocked user Magotteers, who was one of dozens of Meowy's socks, also edited on topics related to biochemistry. Please scroll through his edits to see more. The funny thing is that every single sock of Meowy desperately "fought" the claims that he was a sock and ironically at the end of the day, each one of those accounts were found to be his socks.

That being said, I wholeheartedly support WGFinley's proposal to get both George Spurlin and Winterbliss on TBAN and see how genuine their intentions are on contributions to Wikipedia versus their immediate edit-warring on "battleground articles" right after accounts were created. I bet they won't withstand that test. See George Spurlin's continuous edit-warring despite the fact that the consensus was not reached on the talk page (Warned by WGFinley). The history of sockpuppeting by sock masters is too long to ignore: Hetoum I, Meowy, Xebulon, Andranikpasha, Paligun, Capasitor, Aram-van. What else is new? Tuscumbia (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Advocate, no, I don't get that impression, God forbid. I was just making a reference to another suspicious account which not only resembles the same editing pattern but has a similar user name. I never said or implied that I was using the sockpuppetry of the above mentioned accounts as a shield. Whatever opinion you have on those articles is simply your opinion and can be voiced on the article pages. As you correctly mentioned, this is a conflict area. The articles on those villages and town names were created by a proficient non-involved editor who relied on third party sources, not Azeri, not Armenian. The fact that Armenians live there, whether it was where they lived before the conflict, or they forced out hundreds of thousands of Azeris during the war is irrelevant. By the same token, Azeri names would need to be added to half of Armenian cities and villages where Azeris constituted a sizable minority before the conflict and even majority before the second decade of the twentieth century. Unfortunately, Armenian users don't want that happening. Neither do they want to see Azerbaijani name added to the article Kars ([69], [70]), even though Azeris constitute the biggest minority in the city today and Armenians - none. The point is though, Devil's Advocate, that whenever there is a dispute over an article, you will see some established users back off, and new sock accounts pop up to continue the battle, relieving the established users from pressure to fall into arbitration. That's the whole argument I have been presenting over several days. That's the reason this kind of accounts are not afraid to use labels like "chauvinist". Established users would have been more careful with their words. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Tuscumbia[edit]

Comment by George Spurlin[edit]

In my short interaction with Tuscumbia he showed zero effort to listen and reach a consensus. It was like talking to a wall. He definitely needs a break from editing, all that nationalistic anger can't be good for his health. --George Spurlin (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I usually edit at a very specific hour for my time zone. How many of the sockpuppets and their masters have done the same? This accusations are really getting old. What happened to the AGF? --George Spurlin (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objections to be checked. As a matter of fact, I requested to be checked, but was turned down. And yes, I created the userpage to stop it from being red, but had no desire to add more. My first encounter with Winterbliss was when he notified me about this report. --George Spurlin (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ashot Arzumanyan[edit]

I wanted to report Tuscumbia myself, but nowadays I am very busy out of WP, so this is a good chance to share a serious concern on this editor. One of his topic bans was for this comment: "Armenian authors ... are naturally biased ... because they dismiss any reference to anything good Turkish/Turkic." [71] However he recently came up with very identical statement: "... you, as usually go on giving credibility to the historian of Armenian heritage who is more likely to write in favor of Armenian majority, than those three (of Persian, Jewish, Swedish, etc heritage) who have no affiliation to Azerbaijan and thus wouldn't fake the demographic information in favor of Azerbaijani majority" [72]. I can't see any improvement though almost a year has passed. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 16:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not acceptable to criticize sources on the basis of the alleged ethnic heritage of their authors. People cannot influence where they are born, and it is fallacious to assume that they hold certain opinions or are more or less reliable simply because of who their parents are. Advancing such opinions is misusing Wikipedia as a vehicle for ethnic conflict (see WP:BATTLE). Instead, all sources and authors should be evaluated only on the basis of their reliability as set forth in WP:RS. This is very simple, and Tuscumbia was made aware of this by Sandstain. However his last comment demonstrates that he is reluctant to change his views, therefore the issue needs to be addressed by admins. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that really matter who the filer is? The filer's identity issue really needs to be addressed since the his/her history of contributions is suspicious at least. But I agree with Marshal that this doesn't diminish the evidence brought forward. I am ready to refile the report on behalf of myself if this technical formality is the case.

And per Tuscumbia's unfounded allegations regarding me. Any checkuser can confirm that I logged in WP almost everyday from my regular locations once I opened my browser. The checkuser can also confirm that I always follow my watchlist.

PS: I have no problem with being checked if it is necessary. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 06:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Marshal Bagramyan[edit]

I've shared similar concerns about Tuscumbia and it should be noted that I had reported him earlier to the Arbitration page in October; for some inexplicable reason, the complaint was never followed up on, even though I re-listed it twice on this page (see, e.g., here). I don't want to dwell on that report but I would just like to address Tuscumbia's point on the alleged sockpuppets: regardless of how many of them spring up, he, as an established editor, should exercise restraint and be patient when working with other editors, even if they are suspected socks. Report them if you have enough evidence, but there is nothing compelling you to make those immediate reverts and thus no reason for you to be sucked into these edit wars that they initiate.

I must reiterate, furthermore, that never have I used the ethnicity of an author to exclude them as a source. If one goes back to the discussion page of the article Tuscumbia keeps making reference to, they will notice how much I emphasize that the article must rely on the works of peer-reviewed scholars and academics, and not political scientists and individuals who are not experts in the fields they are working on.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "coming on to you" Tuscumbia. In all the cases you cite to support your argument, nowhere do I mention ethnicity as a reason for exclusion. I take in other factors into account, such as the conditions they are writing in, their scholarly credentials, their level expertise in a given field, etc. And let us not pretend that sockpuppeting and off-Wiki coordination is a one-way street on these articles. I hardly need to remind you and everyone else here about that, let alone the massive off-Wiki coordination that was taking place on the Russian Wikipedia before that ring was busted by an editor and dealt with by administrators. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscumbia, perhaps you should stop trotting out that false canard of off-Wiki coordination when you know full well that Kafka Liz's interaction with Meowy was personal in nature; the fact that the former has offered to disclose the details of that communication should be enough to dissuade you.

Ed, regardless of who or what Winterbliss is, does that still mitigate the merit of the evidence he has brought forth? As I noted above, I, too, had filed a complaint here two months ago (the link is found in my first comment) and that was promptly ignored, even after I re-listed it two times. The invasion of sockpuppets is disconcerting but I think we shouldn't allow it to detract from evaluating the material presented. Nevertheless, I would it desirable if Winterbliss at least subject himself to at a CU.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Seems to me like the sockpuppetry allegations against the filer have some merit. Winterbliss is unusually familiar with the process. See this in light of this. Also, see these violations of WP:CANVASS: [73] [74].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Devil's Advocate: you are an account banned recently by Wgfinley. See above. You are not supposed to be on AE pages and posting comments. Your comment about WP:CANVASS is not accepted. I was obligated to notify George Spurlin and MarshallBagramian because their names are mentioned in the case. Winterbliss (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who has been topic-banned from one topic area is perfectly free to comment on AE cases involving other topic areas.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear part of the evidence is that Winterbliss filed an SPI within a month of registering accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet that was similarly accused of being sockpuppetsaccused of meatpuppetry by banned account User:Vandorenfm.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that and this is not true. I filed an SPI on Verman1 and he has never been SPI reported by the account called Vandorenfm. Yet another manipulation by Devil's Advocate. Winterbliss (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did accuse Twilight Chill/Brandmeister of being a sockpuppet in that report, though it seems I mistook a comment from the Vandorenfm account as implying sockpuppetry, when it was in fact just noting that they are the same users.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winter, according to SUL you registered at the Russian wiki after registering here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devil, this is a manipulation on your part. I never edited in Russian wiki as Winterbliss and had a totally different user ID. But if someone is in English Wikipedia and happens to visit Russian pages globally from his/her English account, he/she leaves a trace by automatically creating a phantom account. The same is true with Wikipedia Commons and other wiki outfits. You are trying to misrepresent this trace as a separate account disregarding that there are no edits there at all. Absurd. Please try your devil-advocate skills/manipulations somewhere else. Or perhaps you are Tuscumbia's sock/meatpuppet? Winterbliss (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you have contributed to the Russian Wikipedia and so I checked to see if you had. When you mention contributions you have made with another account it would be good to provide the name of that account so any interested admin can check your claims.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the CU inquiry only determined that you are not User:Meowy. It did not determine that you are not a sock.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG Winterbliss has said he has a separate account for the Russian Wikipedia. Should he provide the name of that account an admin can check to see if it matches up. As for what other account Winter may be linked to, it seems Vandorenfm/Xebulon is the most likely candidate if Winterbliss is a sockpuppet account. Winterbliss has made a revert to Caucasian Albania, an article that had been a favored target of both the Vandorenfm and Xebulon accounts. In an SPI Winterbliss filed, not only is the editor who filed an AE request against Vandorenfm named as a sock with no supporting evidence, there are numerous references to the Amaras monastery article that Winter has no history of editing, but that Xebulon does. Vandorenfm, Xebulon, and Winterbliss all demonstrate this focus on Armenian monasteries in their edit histories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With my old Russian account Brindz (before I moved to the USA) I made a total of 35 edits on Armenian monasteries :)):)))) And I checked the editor who filed an AE request against Vandorenfm. He was NOT named as a sock by me in my SPI against Verman1. Devil you keep manipulating and making things up. Most of Vandorenfm's and Xebulon's interests and topics do not overlap with my edits. Winterbliss (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you would say that given that anyone can look at the diffs I provided in my initial comment and see clearly that User:TwilightChill/User:BrandMeister requested enforcement against Vandorenfm and that you named User:TwilightChill/User:Brandmeister in your SPI.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the history of various Xebulon socks brings up more correlations. User:Oxi42 was blocked as a sock of Xebulon on November 15th, 2011. Four days later Winterbliss registers his account. Though there do not appear to be any other significant correlations with that sock (Tuscumbia has, however, alleged a connection between Oxi and George Spurlin), Winterbliss has edited the Gandzasar monastery and Tsitsernavank Monastery articles that have similarly seen contributions from User:Bars77 and User:Sarmatai, both socks of Xebulon. Sarmatai also specifically criticizes User:Verman1 who is the subject of the SPI Winterbliss filed that also named TwilightChill/Brandmeister who filed the AE request against Vandorenfm, another sock of Xebulon. The Russian account Winter has provided seems to have been inactive for almost two years. I find that to be a very long time for someone to not be editing at all without some apparent instigating incident. If he has edited since between the last activity of the Brindz account and the creation of the Winter account it would be nice to know.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Tuscumbia I do not want you to get the impression that finding your allegations against one or two editors to be of merit means I endorse your actual behavior on the articles above. Sockpuppetry by another editor is not some magic potion that gives you +5 sanction resistance. You appear to be using accusations like this as a bit of a shield here given that the reverts to Gülablı show no evidence of involving sockpuppets and most of the reverts to the Agdam bombing were of an established editor, not a sock. Also, sock or no sock, I do not find your contributions in the Murovdag article to be constructive. In deference to the fact that both sides have a stake in the dispute, you should not be insisting on only presenting the Azeri name for or the Azeri connection to a piece of territory subject to that dispute. The objection on the basis of sourcing is quite irrelevant. Armenians reside in that territory and claim it as their own, whether you like it or not, so the name they use for that territory should be included in the lede right next to the Azeri name. Edit-warring over that kind of change is a very serious problem. Should an editor with clean hands present this case here I would see plenty of cause for sanctions against you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tuscumbia[edit]

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

• Since there has been so much sockpuppetry in the area of Armenia-Azerbaijan, I would be tempted to disregard complaints by editors who don't have a track record of useful contributions. User:George Spurlin seems to be too new to be submitting a complaint like this one. I'm afraid that the page at User:George Spurlin looks like a typical sock user page ('Hi, I'm George.'). This appears to be noninformative content added simply to keep the user page from showing up as a red link. Forgive my skepticism. WP:SOCK forbids socks from editing project space, which is where AE is located. I would withdraw my objection if you are willing to identify yourself to a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Ed I could hear this quacking a mile away. Although just to correct Ed, User:Winterbliss submitted this and has a "typical sock user page" and talk page. Winterbliss's account was created November 2011 and has around 90 edits. George Spurlin's account was created in May 2011 and has around 90 edits. While I don't know if these two are socks of one another, as Ed says the Armenia-Azerbaijan sock drawer is full to overflowing.
  Recommend closing and sending this to SPI--Cailil ^talk 21:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We appear to have a new pair of socks for the sock drawer and I would agree to SPI but to which accounts? Both George Spurlin (talk · contribs) and Winterbliss (talk · contribs) have few edits, went right to the conflict area and have already been on SPI and AE. I'd go with TBAN on both, indefinite, they are free to build some standing editing outside of the conflict area and demonstrate they aren't socks. --WGFinley (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I would concur that if Winterbliss' reason for lack of edits yet extensive DR knowledge is an account on WP-RU then yes, he should disclose that account. --WGFinley (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]