Request concerning TheDarkLordSeth[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Sardur (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement

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

9 reverts within 24 hours on Armenian Genocide:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]
6. [42]
7. [43]
8. [44]
9. [45]

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

Not applicable, see the warning on top of Talk:Armenian Genocide

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

I trust admins as to the choice of the appropriate action.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Typical case of edit war of one user against very different others. Discussion on talk page after reverting, and repeating arguments already addressed on talk page (and its archives).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[46]

Discussion concerning TheDarkLordSeth[edit]

Statement by TheDarkLordSeth[edit]

There are two words that are edited over and over again.

One of the is the claim word in the introduction. The sentence is as follows:

The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, translit.: Hayoc’ C’eġaspanowt’yown; Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) – also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres and, by Armenians, as the Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն, Meç Eġeṙn, Armenian pronunciation: [mɛts jɛˈʁɛrn]) – refers to the deliberate and systematic destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I.[1]

The edited version:

The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, translit.: Hayoc’ C’eġaspanowt’yown; Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) – also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres and, by Armenians, as the Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն, Meç Eġeṙn, Armenian pronunciation: [mɛts jɛˈʁɛrn]) – refers to the claims of deliberate and systematic destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I.[1]

There reason for adding the claim is due to a non-existence of equivocal voice from historians or scholars. You might be inclined to believe that all historians agree on the genocide claim yet there are many historians or scholars who have an expertise on Ottoman history believing otherwise. Of course they're not-Turkish. I'm not counting any Turkish historians for the sake of the discussion. I have listed such a list of 17 scholars who are one of the leading voices. For the sake of neutrality, the article needs to mention it as a claim as there is no verdict or equivocal voice from historians on the subject. So to me it's the members who kept reverting this "claim" word edit over and over again that are causing an edit war. I have stated my reasons in the discussion page before reverting. The argument against the revert was that adding the word "claim" denies the genocide and that it has no place in the article. Obviously, this is not true.

The second revert is the change of word "Armenian" to "Western" by an other member. It's only Armenian sources that puts the numbers at 1.5 million deaths. Yes, many articles from West do utilize this number but if you check the French, British or American sources the number never exceeds 1.2 million. I will put a source for the numbers when I can find the link again. Added to that it should be noted that the reference that comes right after the claim that Western sources put it at 1.5 million, is an article from BBC. From the article:

"Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915 - a claim strongly denied by Turkey."

It's clear that the article referenced for the claim that Western sources put the number of deaths at 1.5 million is incorrect. I have explained this on the talk page but of course it was ignored.

As I do not know how everything works in Wiki I did not report those users that were constantly reverting without discussing it on the discussion page. I have referred to the discussion page multiple times only to be ignored. So I request the same request that is done here against me for those members also. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• KillerChihuahua, can you tell me how I accused you of lying? I explained to you my view respectfully and I was actually considering requesting for you to be my mentor(as I got aware of this procedure recently) and make my edits and discussion to be utilizing Wiki rules and tools completely but what I got back instead is lack of understanding and a look down approach to me. I'm new to serious editing and you know it. You could have approached me in a much more civil and comprehensive way. Aside everything, I need you to tell me how I accused you of lying.

After being warned I did not continue to point out nationalities of people. I only used it above as I saw it's relevance to the reverts that are being discussed. I tried not to turn the discussions I had in the talk page as I could very easily turn them into yet my posts have been called nationalistic propaganda multiple times while my edits were reverted for no reason. So singling me out as if I'm the one causing the trouble is rather inaccurate and I simply cannot understand the approach I see here. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its linked where I mentioned it.[47] I said "I tried to help you" you responded "You just proved to me that you're not here to help me [...] but simply here to blame. [...] you made it clear that you're not here to understand or help me." KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And that's my accusation of you lying? How vague can that be? Did I said "You're a liar"? No. An accusation is a direct action. If you have a personal quarrel with me please do it in a separate request or issue. Doing it here simply dilutes the discussion. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Also what's the reason behind the request for topic ban? I've already been blocked for 31 hours due to violation of the revert rule. I haven't had any edits since then. Added to that I'm the only recent member who tries to discuss the edit before doing the edit. So how am I disruptive for this particular topic? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Instead of acknowledging mistakes, and indicating that, in future, you'll be more circumspect, you're attempting to justify your earlier comments. PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I didn't acknowledge as a mistake I would continue using it. Did I continue the behavior after the case here? No. That would be defying you guys. If I did that of course you would have the right to punish further.

On the other hand does it take my right to argue about it? Of course as a member I will accept it but can I not argue about the decision? So just because I do not agree with you, but accept the verdict nevertheless, I am subject to more punishment? In any way, I did not try to justify my previous comments. I never said it was ok to do it. Those comments and actions may be not acceptable but what I tried was simply to make you understand why. So that you know my intent was not to insult or disrupt an article or a discussion. Arguing against it's acceptability is different than arguing about it's understandability. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Acknowledging a mistake is not the same as discontinuing it. Your first statement is incorrect and conflates the two.
2. "The right to punish further" shows such profound errors in comprehension I don't know where to begin. Sanctions, including blocks, bans, etc, are not punishment. They are to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. We don't "punish". We prevent you from disrupting, vandalizing, causing strife, etc. If we think you won't cause more problems, we don't do a thing. If we do something restrictive, it is because we think you'll cause more problems.
3. Since our restrictions are based on our view on the likelihood you will cause further problems, clearly you have failed utterly to convince anyone you won't.
4. Your intent may not have been to insult or disrupt; if that is the case, you have failed in carrying out your intent. You may wish to consider how to improve your ability to realize your goals. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. Discontinuing an action does mean that you acknowledge that action as a mistake in the given context. I don't think I did anything wrong but I do think it was a mistake to do it.

You simply playing semantics game. "Punishment" or "prevention," they reach the same conclusion.

Obviously your view is flawed as I explicitly stopped the use and improved the way I propose an edit. If you have a personal quarrel with me please open a another request for enforcement.

Your last statement is simply inaccurate. Just so you know I'm not accusing you of lying. You're simply wrong. The very fact that I stopped the actions that I was blocked for proves my intention and further behavior.

I know defying your judgment as an admin doesn't really help the process as you will be likely to resort to not neutral views and actions as an admin but I take the accusation of vandalism as an insult. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your above post leaves me very perplexed. This shouldn't be anywhere near this complicated. If you just straightforwardly indicated that in future you'll ensure that your comments will be in accord with behavioral standards such as WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith, then I'd be inclined not to apply any topic ban at this stage. However, at the moment, I'm leaning towards a complete topic ban from this subject area. PhilKnight (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did I said that my future posts will not follow the standards such as WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith? The very fact that I stopped the behavior that I was warned for shows explicitly that I have taken those standards much more seriously. For me it's actions that matter. I could tell you that I'll follow the rules all day long but in the end it's my actions that are important. Just to please you: My comments are and will be in accord with behavioral standards such as WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• On the note by MarshallBagramyan: I'd like to point out that the comment of mine that's linked by MarshallBagramyan below is well before I was warned on that issue. I'm moving point by point in that "Armenian Genocide" article. I need to first establish the fact that the issue the article addresses is a disputed one. I can't include the historian views which discredit certain points made in the article without establishing this. My arguments given for my proposed edits are rather sound. You can refer to the talk page for that certain article. It's not the place to argue on these issues here. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning TheDarkLordSeth[edit]

Does it not even bother any of the administrators that almost all of Seth's arguments are augmented to deny something that is grounded in fact? He does not care that hundreds of sources, both primary and secondary, are provided on the article and his only objective, based on his edits and comments on the talk page, is solely to negate that the genocide took place. Everyone who tries to tell him otherwise is dismissed outright or have been met with particularly nasty ethnic insults (see this one he directed towards me). He clearly has no desire to improve it and to this point has made no concrete arguments to begin with. Like I have asked numerous times before, would we even be treating this with any seriousness if the topic in question was the Holocaust article? Most of the genuinely concerned others are exasperated with this kind of obstructionism and WP:ICANTHEARYOUism and it's impossible to see how anything on that article can improve when there are editors who are questioning its very factuality on absolutely no scholarly basis but one propagated by the Turkish government.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning TheDarkLordSeth[edit]

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

I've notified the editor of ArbCom restrictions, which restricts him to 1RR/week from now on. I'm not sure if stronger measures are required at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the restriction is enough for now. I was all set to block him as well, but I see he hasn't been warned about 3RR (even though 9 reverts is ridiculous). Given that you've placed him under restrictions, I think that should be enough - if he chooses to break the strong restrictions, he can be blocked for that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you're punishing me for reverting constant reverts by multiple members? How retarded can that be? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You revert 9 times in one day - far more than the 3 reverts that are usually allowed - You're lucky you're not blocked so I'd take the restriction if I was you. Cut out the attacks as well. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I cannot revert a revert that the user does not discuss on the discussion page even when told so? And also just because the Armenians have flood this article they can revert as much as they want. I reverted the revert, discussed it in the discussion page. Gave explicit reasons for why it should be. Gave my sources and they simply reverted again without any argument. And you guys punish me for it. Good job. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"And also just because the Armenians have flood this article they can revert as much as they want.": I'm not Armenian and several of the other users are not either - in any case, that nationalistic and personal attack should be taken into account. Sardur (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Majority of them are Armanians and I bet the rest is Greek. They, you, come with a grain of bias. You guys revert anything that doesn't agree with your own agenda. Simple as that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not Greek either. Another nationalistic and personal attack. Sardur (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Blocked for 31 hours by Tim Song. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sigh...I was acting on a related AN3 report and didn't realize that there's an AE thread as well. If there's agreement that an AE block is not appropriate, consider it a standard edit-warring block. It should not take a genius to realize that 9 reverts on an article subject to 1RR is blockable. The 1RR is prominently advertised on the talk page, which the user has edited. Tim Song (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's broken his civility supervision restriction ((see his talk page) several times, I almost blocked him last night for this 19:32 post above. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose topic ban for the user. I see clear evidence of treating Wikipedia as a battleground. And no, before you ask Seth, I am not Greek or Armenian. NW (Talk) 23:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm inclined to give him another chance. It may be fruitless, but at least we will be certain. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Never mind. I tried to reach out and explain,[48] but his lengthy response[49] was all excuses and exceptions - why his ethnic comments weren't objectionable, why his 3RR violation wasn't actionable, and why his use of the word "retarded" was justified. Do whatever you find necessary. I support any measures taken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Now with an accusation that I am a liar, as well as a truly juvenile trollish attempt to bait me[50] User exhibits no interest in learning The Rules here, but rather has misread Wikipedia as either a battleground or a flame forum. I'm done with this one. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No objection to a topic ban in view of [51].  Sandstein  16:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree with topic ban, per Sandstein and KillerChihuahua. Enough is enough. Tim Song (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree, I'll back a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per the clear consensus of the discussion above, TheDarkLordSeth (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from editing Armenian Genocide and all related discussions and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution involving themselves), broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed as provided in WP:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement. Tim Song (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mbz1 requested that I propose an interaction ban between Vexorg and herself. She felt that Vexorg's comments were attacks against her, but, due to her topic ban, is unable to report them herself. I asked Sandstein the correct venue for such a request, and he suggested here; so here I am. I don't see much downside to fulfilling her request, since she feels that his comments are attacks directed at her, and this is probably an easier solution than trying to decide the merits of that, so I'm proposing an interaction ban between the two users be put in place. This shouldn't be seen as an accusation against either user, just a suggestion that I believe could help eliminate some Wikidrama. ← George ^talk 09:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to go all bureaucratic on you, but a request of this type is unlikely to be honored unless accompanied by (a) clear and well-explained evidence (in the form of diffs) why such a sanction is necessary; (b) diffs of the required prior warnings, (c) a link to the applicable remedy, and (d) diffs of the notification of all involved. I suggest that the template ((Arbitration enforcement request)) be used for this purpose. I also suggest that such a request be made only by one of the editors involved; edits for the purpose of necessary dispute resolution in the proper fora are exempt from topic bans.  Sandstein  09:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I see. The only diff Mbz1 gave me was this one, but hinted that there were other instances of (what she viewed as) attacks against her by Vexorg. I don't know if any prior warnings had been made, or what an applicable remedy would be (though I notified both editors). I've never filed anything at AE before, so it's probably a better idea to close this and, per your suggestion, let one of the involved editors make the request themselves. Sorry for the waste of time! ← George ^talk 09:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Vexorg - Given these arbitration reports are the very catalyst of the Wikidrama can I suggest this is closed swiftly before it ends up being a 100,000 word waste of time like the previous several reports have ended up being and a wasting everyone's time (especially admin) and ending in them just fizzling out like a spent firework. Seriously, the usual players will only end up coming to this one and regurgitating old beefs ad nausea Vexorg (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closing as withdrawn.  Sandstein  16:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

TheDarkLordSeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Prohibited from editing the article "Armenian Genocide" and it's subsequent talk page as stated above: WP:AE#TheDarkLordSeth.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

Statement by TheDarkLordSeth[edit]

I have been blocked(User_talk:TheDarkLordSeth#April_2010) for 31 hours from this article due to misuse of reverting in 6th of April. I have not reverted anything since then. I have been warned(User_talk:TheDarkLordSeth#Advice) on 7th of April for my use of nationality on my observation for various editors. I have stopped this use after this. Even though my initial approach was rather blunt and confrontational I do not feel that I deserve to be banned from this article. I would like to request that the ban be lifted as I have taken the advices and warnings seriously. Even though I'm accused of doing the contrary, my actions of editing and use of talk page of the article shows clearly. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Sandstein The very fact that I have not carried out the same actions again and trying to engage in a constructive discussion in the talk page trying to show that why such an edit is needed to improve the articles accuracy shows that I have improved my ways. Certain members ignored this fact while still implying that I was continuing disruptive behavior if you choose to check my history. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Tim Song There is no explanation for justification of the indefinite ban from the topic neither by Tim Song nor by other members. Whatever you may think of me, at least I deserve an explanation with some proof. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to KillerChihuahua Only two admins have commented on the previous discussion for the topic ban; three others simply agreed. First comment by NuclearWarfare accused me of treating Wiki as a battleground ignoring the fact that I stopped any action after I was warned about it. The second comment by KillerChihuahua stood against me just because I did not agree with him. No other explanation or proof was provided to show that I have broken the guidelines for WP:Civility and WP:Assume_good_faith though I'm beginning to see the violation from the very same admins that have accused me of it. If I was the one posting this sentence, "TDLS has now gone from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to what, WP:IHAVEAMNESIA?" I would most likely be warned for civility and insulting others by KillerChihuahua. The same behavior was also apparent for my request to make the "Armenian Genocide" page fully protected(pointing out that I'm likely to be banned from the page in a place where it was irrelevant to do so). Nevertheless, I have looked back at the previous discussion, the discussions that were made in my talk page and my previous posts to simply fail to see that I have done anything wrong after being warned. That's not an opinion but a fact. This is not a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument as such an argument requires ignorance of constructive and concrete evidence which simply lacks in this and the previous discussion. My only mistake after being warned was to be confrontational and blunt. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Sardur The topic ban is about "Armenian Genocide" and it's talk page. Where I posted is a different. Can you please revert your delete as it's not a part of the band. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to AGK So what am I being banned for? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Nuclear Warfare I understand. I was under the impression that it only included the article itself and the talk page. Check my talk page for that. But I still don't understand why I'm banned from this topic?

• Just to clear one thing. There are only 4 comments by 3 members on the subject of a ban. Though only two of them are explicitly on the ban. The two others simply criticized me for my behavior which I completely stopped after being warned. KillerChihuahua accused me of failing utterly to show that I will not continue the same behavior where in fact the very fact that I stopped the actions that I was warned about tells that he is simply wrong. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Tim Song[edit]

I imposed the topic ban per the consensus of the discussion in the AE thread above. I have nothing further to add to that discussion. Tim Song (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TheDarkLordSeth[edit]

• I'm inclined to decline this appeal because it does not appear to advance any arguments that were not already considered in the AE discussion closed just yesterday in which the topic ban was broadly supported. More generally, administrators enjoy wide discretion in imposing sanctions of this type; overturning such a sanction is an exceptional step that would require evidence of a clear and substantial error in judgment on the part of the closing admin. No evidence of this sort is provided in this appeal. An appeal (to the sanctioning admin, not here) might be more successful after TheDarkLordSeth has shown that they are able to edit actively and uncontroversially in similarly sensitive areas for a few months.  Sandstein  09:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Decline per Sandstein; no evidence that the admin did anything other than enact a decision which had strong unanimous support. No wrongdoing nor error there. There have been now some 17 thousand characters and over 3 thousand words expended on this decision. The issues were clearly, not to say exhaustively, remunerated. TDLS has now gone from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to what, WP:IHAVEAMNESIA? No rationale given for request other than a complete denial of those 3,000+ words expended. Should TheDarkLordSeth truly desire to know why this restriction was applied to him, he need only read the discussion which led to it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 07:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm not sure whether I should add this here or whether I should start a new request: TheDarkLordSeth is already violating his topic ban on Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide: [52]. Sardur (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks, post removed and I have informed him that is a violation and a blockable offense. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• TheDarkLordSeth: You were topic banned from "editing Armenian Genocide and all related discussions and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution involving themselves), broadly construed." Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide is certainly related to that. Consider your topic ban applicable to any page related to the Armenian Genocide. NW (Talk) 00:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result of the appeal by TheDarkLordSeth[edit]

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

• Further to the discussion above, I'm going to action this appeal as declined. Nine reverts in a day is absurd; and contested topic areas are not the place for second chances to be handed out flippantly. I see no substance to KC's concerns that TDLS poses a wider problem—in part because the only evidence of disruption presented was that documenting the nine reverts. But even the edits of April 6 are in themselves sanctionable. Per Sandstein, I too would be willing to reconsider my position after a few months of good behaviour. AGK 23:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  With all respect, I have voiced no such concern. Are you confusing this case with another, or me with someone else? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No, I meant you; but I may have misunderstood your position. You said that TDLS expended 3000 words on this topic area, then denied… something about them. I had only saw a handful of edits, and those were only over a single word in the article. Did you mean something else by "3000+ words"? Sorry if I misrepresented you. AGK 11:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I apologize for being unclear earlier, then - the 3000+ words expended (pls note that although you have misunderstood me to say "by TDLS", I did not, I merely stated they were expended without specifying by whom) were the count for all discussion in the section above which led to his topic ban, in which multiple people discussed what TDLS had "done wrong". My comment was a direct response to TDLS' assertion to Tim Song: "There is no explanation for justification of the indefinite ban from the topic neither by Tim Song nor by other members. [...] I deserve an explanation" - there is indeed explanation, contained within the previous discussion (as well as on his talk page). I was suggesting if he didn't understand why he was topic banned, he go read the discussion which led to that very ban, and commented that his appeal seemed to be a denial of all the discussion which had taken place there, by multiple editors. Is my post now clearer, or does it still somehow suggest to you that I have further concerns? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Drork[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Nableezy 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. [56] Repeatedly accuses others of of hijacking articles, intimidating users, and introducing propaganda into articles
2. [57] Accuses others of an "anti-Israeli agenda"
3. [58] Accuses others of acting together in a "campaign" to push a POV
4. [59] accuses others of "hijacking" articles
5. [60] accuses others or pushing propaganda and "manipulating websites"
6. [61] Accuses others of engaging in an "ongoing political campaign" and "intimidating" others.

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

Notification of ARBPIA

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

Topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since receiving a 1RR restriction in late February, Drork left Wikipedia until a few days ago. Since he has come back he has done nothing but repeatedly accuse others of "hijacking" articles and pushing "anti-Israeli propaganda". Nearly every single edit Drork has made since coming back to Wikipedia has been filled with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. He doesn't even try to discuss the content, focusing solely on attacking other editors. It seems clear to me that Drork is incapable of discussing the content and not attacking others, and I would like to either give a proper response, which would likely lead to me being blocked, or have him stop with the attacks. nableezy - 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re Shuki, my 1rr restriction has nothing to do with Drork repeatedly personally attacking me and others. I know you would like to make everything about me, but the problem here is simple. Drork has done nothing but attack others since returning. Also, while I realize you are in the habit of making unfounded accusations, please either provide a single diff of me "canvassing admins" or strike the comment. nableezy - 23:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re Angus McLellan, could you list the number of times I have filed a frivolous complaint against anybody? nableezy - 10:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[62]

Discussion concerning Drork[edit]

Statement by Drork[edit]

Nableezy is intoxicated with power. He currently acts a sniper who shoots anyone who dare to stand against his despicable conduct for which he has been condemned in the past. I am the next in his target list, and I won't be surprised if he manage to successfully target me too. He knows how to do it. He learned how to game the system. I just hope someone on the Wikipedian community will finally come to his senses and stop this bulliness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drork (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pieter Kuiper was blocked on Wikimedia Commons for asking to make an antisemitic cartoon a featured image. Naturally he teams up with Nableezy for his campaign against Israeli editors. Pieter Kuiper also did his best to hinder a free content commons-related initiative of Wikimedia Israel for political anti-Israeli motives. I wonder how long en-wp is going to allow these campaigners to bully around here. Pieter Kuiper almost managed to destroy Wikimedia Commons. His next target is en-wp. DrorK (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Drork[edit]

• I also noticed "mafia-like threats" in Drork's edit comment; his recent contributions on talk pages are mostly attacks on opponents. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• DrorK's comments here are not helping his case. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by SD: What I find the most disturbing is this comment: Of course, your tag team partner is here to massage your back while you fight the "infidels". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by unomi

Just about every single edit by Drork since at least the 28th of February has either been alluding to meatpuppets, organized editing or plainer forms of personal attacks.

I think that the problem stems from the fundamental untenability of the argument that Drork subscribes to; discussions necessarily devolve into less than constructive exercises.

For my part I don't care if Drork is banned at this point in time, as long as we can keep further disruption to a minimum. A discussion regarding the the applicability of Israeli-occupied territory was opened at WP:IPCOLL, but so far no one have been presenting arguments against it. Unomi (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a poor symptom that you dont care and peculiar that you had nothing to do with I-P and now virtually only edit here. Anyway, it is hard to AGF when we see that that assumed discussion on poorly trafficked page WP:IPCOLL, turn into a battlecry to go push this POV on other articles and create and add POV cats and then take the discussion to those areas wasting everyone's time. Amoruso actually put up a short-lived good side to the debate but then he was brought down quickly with no mercy. So that does not build any good faith from the 'other side'. Did you take the time to pull in many editors from all sides to build visibility? No. The same thing happens on noticeboard discussions and AE's. Frankly, that is disruptive. --Shuki (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that IPCOLL seems a bit disused, but why is that? Am I to blame for you not watch listing what should be our shared project for centralized discussion? And actually.. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#General_discussion_on_Israeli-occupied_territories. I notified all the WikiProjects I could think of a week ago. No one forced Amoruso to fall back on stating that 1 out of the 14 judges who agreed that that it was occupied Palestinian territory was an antisemite, thats just silly. Unomi (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Shuki In fact, Nableezy is an aggressor on the warpath. Limited with this 1R sanction, what he cannot achieve on the discussion pages, he will prod and bait other editors until he can build a case to bring here and canvass admins too. Amoruso and drork are significant threats to Nableezy's POV. Better to not have to deal with them. --Shuki (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nableezy is a single purpose account. All his editing is either

1. contributions to the P side of the I/P dispute articles, or
2. attempts to get editors on the I side blocked.

It appears that the editing situation in the I/P articles has worsened in recent months, which I did not think possible. I could understand if topic bans were handed out all around, en masse, to both sides, in the hope that a new set of editors will get involved and be more neutral. That might help improve the articles, which is what all else on WP is supposed to be about. But allowing the campaign, by one side to eliminate the editors on the other side by wiki lawering, to succeed will accomplish nothing but remove even the hope of WP:NPOV. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Cptnono It is a shame that Drork did not keep his cool. Regarding Nableezy, another AE request or a noticeboard would be counter productive but another reminder on civility is in order regarding his parting short ("Grow the fuck up") at Drork.[63] Cptnono (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Factomancer

A major problem with the I/P field in Wikipedia is the extremely combative and non-collegiate atmosphere that has developed. The result of this is that uninvolved editors who might otherwise provide much needed neutrality and an outsider's perspective are driven off leaving only the battle-hardened POV warriors who thrive on insulting each other. The best way to change this state of affairs is to remove the unapologetic repeat personal attackers like Drork from the topic area because they poison the debate for everyone else by making insults the norm.

Question to AngusMcClellan below: If Nableezy's behaviour is truly equally problematic can you produce a comparable set of diffs to that of Drork's above? Factomancer (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A quick look at Talk:Golan Heights, shows that Nableezy and Drork have been in a protracted and acrimonious editing dispute there. Nableezy may have done some baiting of Drork, which is problematic even if Drork should not have taken the bait. For instance, at the top of the talk page Nableezy calls Drork a liar [64].This diff is old, but still shows that he has done some baiting of Drork, and shows that the problem is not all on one side. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nableezy didn't call Drork a liar in that diff. He said that intentional factual errors are lies, which is true by definition. And truthfulness is an absolute defence against claims of a personal attack. If that is the worst comment you can come up with, Nableezy is probably more civil than most Wikipedians. Factomancer (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The implication, rather obliquely put, is that Dorork was a liar. That appears to be baiting, at best. PA at worst. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by ZScarpia Angus, with respect to your comment in the Result section regarding banning Nableezy from AE, I would agree that it would be a good idea to try to reduce some of the trivial or vexatious issues being raised on the Incidents and Enforcement pages. But, does your comment mean that you think that the current request is one of them or do you just think that Nableezy appears on this page too often? To a certain extent, the problem of trivial or vexatious requests is already being dealt with, I think. Editors who have raised such requests have themselves been sanctioned. Presumably, an editor would have to be raising a large number requests of which a high proportion was low merit or meritless before being given a blanket ban?     ←   ZScarpia   11:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Someone should write a tool that shows how often certain groups of editors are involved as a group on the administrative boards. It didn't take much time at all between Nableezy filing this report and a certain group of very familiar faces showing up to support him, some of whom had no interaction whatsoever with Drork since he resumed editing. It's all quite intriguing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since there's only about four people that this could be referring to and has appeared just below a comment by me, I'm figuring that there's a pretty good chance that I'm one of the people who the comment is aimed at. We could take it up as a topic for conversation elsewhere if you like.     ←   ZScarpia   13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Huldra

Comment to No More Mr Nice Guy: I am sure such a tool would show a group of "very familiar faces" turning up and with a 100% predictability-rate: oppose whatever Nableezy supports. It's not very intriguing really; I´ve seen the same since I arrived on wp nearly 5 years ago... The day, say, you, or Shuki support anything Nab proposes: I swear: I´m going to faint.... ;) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from the admin section

I think you are quite wrong. What is going on, in this complaint against Drork, is the wiki-equivalent of SLAPP. It is an attempt to intimidate opposing editors by making the investment in time, effort and stress so high that the opposing editors will give up the fight...or perhaps be pressured into behaving foolishly enough to get sanctioned. Administrators should not allow this noticeboard to be misused as an instrument of pressure and intimidation. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Drork[edit]

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

I see clear battleground behavior from Drork, which is unacceptable in any topic area, but particularly problematic in this one. With the history of three edit warring blocks - all resulting from editing on Israel-Palestine related topics - and a 1RR restriction that failed to curb the disruption, I think an extended break from this topic area is in order. Unless another uninvolved admin objects, I'm inclined to impose an indefinite topic ban on Israel-Palestine related topics, including discussions, broadly construed. Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I rest my case. You've proven my point. The clique worked again. Another Israeli is off the list, time to snipe the next one. DrorK (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur with Tim Song's assessment. (I'm not removing the preceding comment because it has a certain illustrative value.)  Sandstein  17:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't disagree regarding Drork, but I'm finding Nableezy's behaviour here to be equally problematic. Is there a precedent for banning editors from AE? If not, we can set one in Nableezy's case. Just as in other problem areas areas, I/P editors need to spend very much less time trying to get their "enemies" banned, topic banned, or blocked, and more on writing an encyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No precedent I'm aware of for filing actionable reports. I understand your concerns, but don't entirely share them. I'll ask Nableezy whether there are any more reports in the pipeline. PhilKnight (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, if this needs to be addressed, it should be done in a separate thread, to avoid sidetracking this one and allow for fuller examination of the circumstances. Second, it is AFAIK unprecedented and IMO inadvisable to sanction user for filing meritorious reports. Frivolous reports are definitely sanctionable, but I don't see how filing meritorious reports could possibly amount to misconduct in the absence of improper motives (e.g., threatening to file a report unless user agree with him). Tim Song (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. If Nableezy's conduct is of concern, it should be made the subject of a separate request. But making AE requests is only a problem if the requests are frivolous or otherwise disruptive, or are mostly non-actionable.  Sandstein  17:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See now also Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/IP/Users#Nableezy as a test case; eventually I envisage us having similar sections dedicated to logging potentially problematic conduct by all prominent parties to the ongoing I/P drama.  Sandstein  19:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's helpful, thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the discussion above, Drork (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from editing all articles in the Arab/Israel conflict topic area, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, and all related discussions and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution involving themselves). This sanction may be appealed as provided in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. Tim Song (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Gilabrand[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Factomancer (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

ban from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log_of_blocks_and_bans - "Consequently, to prevent continued disruption of this sort, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, I am hereby banning Gilabrand from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the duration of three months. (For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed.) This ban may be enforced with blocks or additional sanctions as necessary."

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

• Removed a section that includes material about the film Munich which is about the Mossad assassinating Palestinian militants - [65]. The removed section explicitly mentions "Black Tuesday"/the Munich massacre which is definitely a subject in the scope of the I-P topic.
• Edited an article entitled "Religious Zionism" -[66] [67]. Zionism is a major part of the I-P conflict. The criticism section in particular contains lots of material about the I-P conflict ([68])
• Added a link to an Israeli pundit talking about Gaza - [69]
• Added material about a person's daughter being killed by Jordanian shelling during the 1948 war; which is a major part of the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestinian conflicts. [70]
• Added links to "Notable religious Zionist figures" on the Religious Zionism page ([71]) which includes a link to the biography of She'ar Yashuv Cohen that contains a large section about his views on Israel's disengagement plan from Gaza.
• Edited a section that includes material about the partition plan, a major point of contention in the i-P conflict - "The area of Eilat was designated as part of the Jewish state in the 1947 UN Partition Plan" - [72] Factomancer (talk) 7:42 am, Yesterday (UTC−7)))

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

1. [73] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. [74] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. ...

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

indefinite topic ban on I-P issues and a 2 week block.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Gilabrand has already violated her IP topic ban many times and she seems to have no respect for the community-imposed topic ban. How many second chances is she going to get? It's time for an indefinite topic ban from I-P.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[75]

Discussion concerning Gilabrand[edit]

Statement by Gilabrand[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand[edit]

• Seems to me that this is a completely frivolous request, that should be sanctioned. Popular culture sections, dress-code for Religious Zionists, information about Eilat, which has never been in contention. No violations here. 91.135.102.197 (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, this request should be sanctioned. I couldn't agree more. Factomancer (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Tariqabjotu[edit]

Thankfully, arbitration requests are handled by human beings, rather than computers, for if this request were handled in a robotic fashion -- similar to how Factomancer did -- the algorithm would have asked similar questions (Does this section mention the year 1948? Yes.) and immediately blocked Gilabrand. But if one were, as humans can, to look at the nature of the edits (removing useless trivia sections from an article about an intelligence agency, simply changing the name of a section in a manner that says absolutely nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), one would see that Gilabrand has done absolutely nothing wrong in this case. Gilabrand's previous violations of her topic ban, and the actions leading up to that ban, should not prejudice users into expanding the topic ban beyond its original, intended scope. Gilabrand is not, especially insofar as I interpret it, banned from any and all articles related to Israel or Judaism, and there is no reason to waste time and hassle Gilabrand over actions that have been met with no controversy except from those traditional adversaries who use AE or admin talk pages as courts of first resort. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Zero0000[edit]

The original sanction reads "(For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed.)", my emphasis. It doesn't say the individual edits have to relate to I/P. Is the page religious Zionism related to the I/P conflict? Zero^talk 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

Wow. 40 minutes between the time this was filed and a six month ban? Way to reward the people who use the admin boards as a BATTLEground. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The Eilat article is not an I/P conflict sanctioned article...as far as I know. So there is only one item: the removal of a trivia section. I could understand a block of a few days for that, but this decision gives a very long block for a very minor infraction. Why so long a block and ban? 173.52.124.223 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Gilabrand[edit]

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

Frankly, this is getting ridiculous. A ban is a ban is a ban, no matter how many times you try to circumvent it. Whatever the merits of the other edits, [76] and [77] are clear violations of the topic ban. Gilabrand needs to take a break from this area - indeed, it is probably to their benefit to take a break from editing anything remotely connected to Israel altogether. Blocked for one month, topic ban extended to six months, to begin to run after the block expires or is lifted. Tim Song (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tariqabjotu - I saw your comment after I posted the comment above. To respond: yes, a topic ban is a blunt instrument. The fact that it has been imposed means that the issuing admin determined that this user's good edits in this topic area do not outweigh the problematic ones, and allowing them to continue is a net negative. Once topic-banned, it is unacceptable to attempt to test the limits of the ban by making "good" edits. That is gaming the system. The proper thing to do is to take a break, edit in other areas, and demonstrate the ability to edit nondisruptively. This user has been blocked numerous times for topic-ban violation, and that history is relevant in determining if the act is an innocuous vio or a gaming attempt. I'm convinced it's the latter. Tim Song (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with that assessment.  Sandstein  16:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also agree; Good call by Song. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, now at ANI. -- tariqabjotu

I've been given a ban, without warning, and apparenlty it's indefinite. The reason was that I've said something that was in my opinion, and explained it in a talk page about an Israeli college in the west bank. I have no idea why this was WP:BLP but if an administrator would have told me why, I would have removed it. The justification of this ban seems to be 3RR that I've done years ago, and an accusation of a case of sockpupptery done a long time ago, which I didn't really do - and the outcome was "likely" not certain, but I was still banned for it even though I was innocent. Anyway, apparently this ban is indefinite without warning.

20 minutes before the ban, another adminstrator warned me on my talk page. I would have complied with that. Since this was already dealt with by the 1st adminstrator, why did a 2nd adminstator weigh in and ban me? [78] Again, I would have complied with it, but apparently the 2nd adminstator was asked by an involved user to come, and I find that offensive.. I didn't have a chance to comply with the first adminstrator, which again I would have done gladly.

No 1R restriction, no asking me to delete the alleged WP:BLP, no anything... banned indefinitely. I don't really mind that much, but this will be an excuse for users to revert a lot of work that I've done. They've been doing this every time I was away. I would gladly accept a 1R revert rule per day or per week or month, or anything reasonable, like I've seen users engaged in these articles... but indefinie for alleged WP:BLP that I don't even understand why, and explained why it wasn't... without an administrator telling me that it's WP:BLP first... is unbelievable... Amoruso (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin Sandstein is clearly out of line. 11 hours to judge - jury - and decision handed down on a freakin Sunday. --Shuki (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeing the discussion here, I believe that the ban is appropriate. Keep in mind that indefinite does not mean infinite. This was not a decision made on a whim, and you did violate previous sanctions. –Turian (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This diff indicates there are very serious behavioral problems, so I support Sandstein's ban. PhilKnight (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appears to me to be an admin being an admin. Please remember that discussion is not required. Discussion usually ensues here, when another editor reports someone here for violation of an ArbCom decision - but this page is recent compared to ArbCom, and it is not a required step to enforce ArbCom decisions. You would have to show some reason why Sandstein's action was in error - for example, some other editor was the one who violated the ArbCom decision, not you, or the ArbCom sanctions (and any sanctions previously enacted against you) were not violated - to have any argument for appeal. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I realize I was wrong. I didn't know the scope of WP:BLP. I would have never kept the information if an administrator would have told me about it. But I don't see how a ban is justified. It does feel like it was made on a whim. How did I violate previous sanctions? What do you mean? I was guilty of 2 3RR incidents years ago, and this happened in contentious subjects. Then I was suspected of sockpupptery once and I was innocent but a determination was that it was likely that it was a sockpuppet... I realize that it doesn't matter what I say about that, but well, you can take it anyway you'd like it.. that was too a long time ago anyway. I think this is extremely harsh. I was never in an ArbCom decision issue - I don't think I was active at the time, and I'm still not active, I was only editing a few articles that I was heavily involved with, and returning portions that were deleted to some articles, and I made this WP:BLP mistake about a non issue really.. it was an off-comment and a mistake in a heated debate where two users were heavily edit-warring and reverting an article about an Israeli college to say it's occupied palestinian land again and again.... I was familiar with this article from years ago, and the attack on it was relentless [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] This user Nableezy does nothing but edit war on articles - he's assisted by user:Unomi and a couple of other users, and then Nableezy goes to an administrator's talk page and complains about my WP:BLP to ban me? while there's an open case at BLP noticeboard? Why?

And I realize that there is a problem - I'm editing articles that sometimes get heated and this happens to all users... but an indefinite ban is too much. A 1RR per a time period restriction is more appropriate and this is what other users have. Amoruso (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didnt go on Sandstein's page, I only opened the BLP/N section. nableezy - 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consistency is not necessarily required when handling different users. Like I said, this is only indefinite. If you prove to other users that you are able to cooperate and behave, then down the road you can make an appeal do the topic block. You realize you are wrong; now go fix it. –Turian (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand how in the middle of a discussion someone can come and ban me when an inolved user goes and notify him. This is wrong.

Here are replies to the thread I never had a chance to read:

• "free speech" does not apply to talk pages per WP:FORUM. Editors opinions about the subjects of WP:BLPs on talk pages are unwelcomed, unneeded, and against policy. Please use the talk page to discuss how the article can be improved. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• [copied from user's talk page] Amoruso, you do not appear to be listening, and to an extent people are pussyfooting around, so let's be really clear here. WP:BLP applies everywhere, and the most important thing you need to know about it is that if you insist on engaging in commentary that is identified as violating the policy, that is, is polemical commentary about living individuals, then you may be blocked from editing. There are a whole raft of essays and guidelines covering this area including WP:TRUTH, but the most important is WP:BLP and also WP:NOT, which describes what Wikipedia is not for, including being a forum for discussion or an experiment in free speech. You have two choices: you can understand and dial it back about ten notches, or you can carry on and I will block you. This is not because of what you believe, it's because of what you are saying and about whom. If you want to blog that stuff then you're welcome, just please don't bring it here, OK? Guy (Help!) 19:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, these are administrators.... why on Earth would another administrator come and ban me? They said THANK YOU, and OK? How can this be appropriate? Nableezy (or is it UNOMI in fact... he reported it wrong?) goes behind my back and complains to ANOTHER administrator to be more harsh? Amoruso (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because they might have done something wrong, which I don't believe the did, that does not minimize what you have done. –Turian (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I initially asked for Sandsteins opinion after I reverted the fairly blatant BLP violation you introduced on the talkpage. I did this as I simply wasn't sure how much I should make of it, when Sandstein indicated that in his opinion it was problematic enough to warrant a warning I found that BLPN had been taken in use and I posted there. You then start arguing with uninvolved editor off2riorob, rather than actually reading the policies which you had been given links to. I don't think anyone tried to get harsher punishment for you or any of that sort. Unomi (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sympathetic to you Amoruso and notice how it is always the same people getting involved in these discussions, screaming for blood. Pro-Israel editors are getting banned and blocked left and right. (see above and below) I put up a couple of ANI's about Vexorg and others' rudeness and accusing everyone of being part of a lobby, and all I get are people screaming for my blood! I can't even get a uninvolved administrator to take a look. You on the other hand get walking papers without warning ?! I for one think it highly unfair. I imagine that will get me banned shortly as well for being disruptive and battlefield etc. With respect to Unomi, he made the following edits to people who showed support for Mbz1, in a clear effort to influence them to change their !vote or view. [84],[85],[86][87][88] Stellarkid (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you even read those diffs? Unomi (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stellarkid!!! PLEASE STOP using arbitration reports that have nothing to do with me as an excuse to fuel your obvious ongoing personal agenda against me. Thankyou. Vexorg (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• After viewing the six diffs provided here, I am at a loss to see why Amoruso deserves anything stronger than a warning, and a reasonable time in which to withdraw anything in violation of the rules, if, in fact, rules were broken. Everyone stumbles at times. Prior discussion and an opportunity to remedy a problem may not be required, but would be considerate. A sudden, indefinitely long ban seems grossly excessive and an overreaction. The administrator apparently had to bring long-past incidents and suspicions into the picture to inflate what otherwise would be too weak a case for a ban. If expressing opinions in non-article space is a crime, we are all in trouble. In my opinion, it would be healthier for WP to look into whether the opinions expressed might be justified, than to automatically rule them off limits. The ban should be rescinded. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If Amoruso was a new editor who needed some educating, I'd argue that Sandstein's action was excessive and should be replaced by a short block. However, Amoruso is in fact a very experienced edit-warrior who has disrupted the I/P section of WP for years with endless POV-pushing, endless tendentious debate, and worse sins like lying about sources (repeatedly, proof provided on request) and sock-puppetry. On the positive side, ...er...er...er... my memory must be defective. Zero^talk 12:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zero, we were involved in many content disputes over the years, and you also wiki-stalked me on numerous occasions. You were banned yourself, even banned yourself, and I don't think your comment is in good faith. I can provide many incriminating diffs concerning you, but I don't do that. I want to move on amicably. Any discretions were long time ago anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Topic_ban#Types_of_topic_bans "Note that topic bans are meant to be preventative and not punitive. That is to say those users subject :to topic bans are not being punished for bad behavior but instead the removal of the user from that topic area where they repeatedly violate policy" ... talking about 3RR that you did yourself years ago, and that case of isolated sockpuppetry (which I deny. it was never confirmed, I was blocked for "likely") is abit too much. I'm not guilty for life for those things, it didn't happen recently, and I resent your unfounded accusations.

• For the record, I await Sandtein's response but here's my apology to user:Sandstein and an explanation that my mistake was based on an WP:RS who used the same word prominently. That WP:RS was in the Jerusalem Post and referenced in an article in Florida Law Review.Amoruso (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This case is over, but I just want to record that the Jerusalem Post article Amoruso claims was the source for his libel against the Egyptian judge does not mention the judge at all. Furthermore the Florida Law Review article which cites JP (thereby supporting a charge that JP didn't even make?) only goes so far as to quote an Israeli statement that the judge should recuse himself since in a previous diplomatic role he had been "actively engaged in opposition to Israel" (footnote 218). This is a completely typical example of how Amoruso has always operated. Zero^talk 04:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zero0000 is lying.. again. The JP article claimed that the ENTIRE ICJ case was anti s (using much harsher words than I did), and the most extreme one was the Egyptian (because he had a special 'dissent' - he also made a big deal not accepting a self defense argument because of the situation, which is what Singer was talking about). Furthermore, The Florida Law review uses the reference of Singer to show the anti-Israel approach (it's not footnote 218, it's footnote 317 to page 13 of the article... Zero didn't even read it, which is also typical). This is a typical case of user:zero0000 trying to disrupt and distort, even when cases are over. Amoruso (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You libeled an individual, and then you claimed that you were merely citing a reliable source, but that source does not even mention the individual you libeled . If you are unblocked, this lie of yours will feature in your next case. As for the Florida Law Review, it cites Singer at footnote 357 (not 317), but doesn't mention Judge Elaraby there. The only relevant mention of that individual is where I said it is. I'm willing to send copies of both these sources to any admin who wishes to check. Zero^talk 14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zero0000, why are you still lying? The source mentioned the ENTIRE COURT and he was one of the judges (and the harshest) one. It's A fortiori argument, everybody understood it except you, and Amoruso did not misrepresent anything... You should cease your continued harrassment immediately. --Shuki (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh really? So the Jewish judge on the court is an antisemite too? I didn't know that, thanks for your lesson in a fortiori logic! Zero^talk 07:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Shuki. You're correct. He was talking about the decision and the judges that rendered it, and it was made perfectly clear. I have the articles right here if anyone wants them. I learnt that it's a waste of time though to deal with Zero0000.... this latest harassment will feature in his eventual block from wikipedia. Amoruso (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

another RS was brought to my attention here. However, this is not the core of the argument - I think it was too contentious and came up in the heat of the debate, and it will not be repeated. At the time it did not even occur to me how this could be a violation of WP:BLP. Another user commented on how it's common within many circles including in Israel to equate anti Israel with anti-semitism. I could not see how such accusation could be a violation of WP:BLP and I misunderstood or rather did not know the scope of BLP. These RS's show that it wasn't out of the blue or crazy, but I still won't ever introduce such a thing into a talk page, any talk page. On a related note, I ran across this statement from user:nableezy on Avigdor Liberman talk page "It is SYNTH for you to cite unrelated sources to support the phrasing in this context in that you seek to give the leader of this racist and fascist party (to soapbox in your manner) an excuse for such language". I think the use of the word fascist is largely similar to the use of the word antisemitic and can be found in numerous sources that reflect opinions, not facts. Why was user:nableezy bothered about antisemite but not racist or fascist. all of them are wrong by WP:BLP and all parties should avoid them from now. Amoruso (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That it is being claimed that the sources being presented are reliable indicates, I think, a misconception of what reliable sources are.     ←   ZScarpia   22:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

This is also in reply to various issues raised at my talk page and at WP:BLPN. Insofar as this unstructured mess of an appeal is made to me, I decline it, and insofar as it is made to the community, I recommend that they do likewise, for the following reasons:

As explained in my original rationale, this ban is not principally because of the BLP violations at issue, but because Amoruso was essentially given a last chance by being blocked for only two months in response to the abusive sockpuppetry documented in his block log. By his continued disruption in the same topic area he has failed to use that chance. I was about to block him indefinitely, as suggested by Moreschi in his block log entry, but decided to use the lesser sanction of a topic ban instead.

The ban is also necessary because Amoruso does not understand WP:BLP, as he has admitted subsequent to the ban; his later statements to the contrary are not credible. As documented in my rationale, the BLP violation consisted in his repeatedly voicing his opinion that a certain judge is "antisemitic", "an utter loon" and "legally daft and biased". On appeal, Amoruso argues, in substance, that his statements were supported by a source that refers to a decision in which that judge took part as "joining the parade of anti-Semitic infamy". Nothing Amoruso has said so far makes me believe that he understands that this source does not justify him stating his own opinion, without attribution to any source, that the judge is an antisemitic loon etc.; at most, the source (if reliable) might have been used as a reference to support a statement that "so-and-so has said that such-and-such decision is antisemitic".

Amoruso's statements that he would have complied with an administrator instruction to cease his BLP violations are also not credible: As documented in my rationale, he has up to the moment of the ban ignored the advice of the multiple editors who told him to stop. Instead he has made long, spurious arguments why he should be allowed to voice his opinion, and has reverted other editors who removed his violations. There is no reason to believe he would have changed his conduct had it not been for the ban.

I advise Amoruso to spend a significant amount of time, about six months, editing actively in less sensitive areas to prove that he does understand WP:BLP now. If he can do so without causing any problems, I will review his ban upon appeal at that time.

Many correctly point out that editors should work on articles or resolve their differences amicably instead of engaging in drama. But administrators cannot make them do so; our only power is to remove from the game those who become too disruptive.

Apologies are irrelevant: policy requires compliance, not contrition. So are any good contributions by Amoruso: we are all expected to make only good contributions and may not use them as excuses for bad ones. Finally, it's indeed likely that many other participants in this dramafest also deserve sanctions, but that is no reason not to sanction Amoruso. It is, however, a reason for admins to start work at WP:WPAE (which I intend to do now) and bring those others, too, into compliance.  Sandstein  17:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moreschi was obviously only talking about the sockpuppeting charge - if I repeat THAT, not that you can use WP:BLP violation years later as an excuse to say that it warrants a penalty. I emailed him and asked him if there's any evidence to be presented that can exonerate me over that old charge. I immediately erased those other comments you're accusing me of. The "likely and not certain" sockpuppeting of ages past (that I always denied) have no relation to this issue. It's whether I'm disruptive now. And of course I would have complied with an administrator telling me what to do other than users who kept insulting me. This is a mistake but actually a favor. User:Nableezy can go on and call people "fascists" and "racists" and that will not be WP:BLP violation, but I say one time "anti-semitic" and get banned indefinitely in a period of less than 12 hours on a Sunday (for other users to comment and talk to me) and a remembrance day eve in Israel. I DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TIME TO ADD SOURCES OR CHANGE THE PHRASING BECAUSE I WAS BANNED SO QUICKLY. Thank you. I hope other administrators can see how wrong and counter-productive this ban is. Amoruso (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for information, I have been canvassed via e-mail by Amoruso, in which he states "could you have a look at yom kippur war article and perhaps alert wikiproject israel? i'm concerned that it seems that egypt was victorious in the war, both by picture in the lead, caption and actual statement of who won the war "strategically" based on one misreading of one source... this is in contrast to reality where israel won decisively. don't mention me, i'm currently topic banned". пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I contacted you specifically as a neutral administrator, not pro-Israeli, to take a look at what I saw was a disturbing situation just before my ban. One other administrator told me that I can still make edits at project Israel to alert others of the problem, but on the safe side, I thought I'll ask an administrator to do it, and yes, not involve me directly so I won't be dragged in (if someone asks me a question etc). Sorry if you thought this was inappropriate, but it's not 'canvassing' at all. I merely asked you to have a quick look, not to do anything. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL!?! Unomi (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He who laughs last, laughs best.. Amoruso (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't believe this led to a ban... there are many cases in which certain editors say how can you defend such and such Israeli racist? If diffs are presented in that regard, is that also enough to lead to a ban? Anti-semitism is just another form of racism. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we talking about Avigdor Lieberman?   ...   If it's someone who's the Israeli equivalent of David Duke or Jean Marie Le Pen, where there would be a huge number of sources referring to that person as a racist, it's hard to see that anyone would run a risk of being sanctioned for a WP:BLP violation.     ←   ZScarpia   02:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no difference. you can find sources of opinions that will label him as a racist just like you can find opinions that will think of others as antisemites. It's exactly the same thing. Plot Spoiler is correct. Amoruso (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no difference? Really? Doesn't it depend on who is doing the labelling and how common the point of view is? (The two parts of my comment above are not connected, by the way. I'm not suggesting that Avigdor Lieberman is the type of person mentioned in the second sentence.)     ←   ZScarpia   14:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some people acknowledge that they're doing something out of racism. Some people would say they have completely different motivations. People belonging in the second group are the same thing with regards to this issue. Anyway, I'm signing off here. Amoruso (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha. It is the same thing ZScarpia. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've missed my point, I think. I'm not arguing about whether racism and antisemitism (or calling somebody a racist or an antisemite) are the same or different things, but about source justification for stating that somebody is a racist or an antisemite (and therefore whether WP:BP violations have been committed).     ←   ZScarpia   15:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding usage in articles, the guideline is Wikipedia:Words to avoid, in particular WP:LABEL. The biography of the person you mentioned has a section Avigdor Lieberman#Allegations of Anti-Arab racism, which I think complies with the guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Nableezy[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Shuki (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

#

1. [89] [90] Accuses users of lying and making stuff up about them without provocation.
2. [91] Inciting violence on his user page and refusing to remove pictures and hateful text when asked. [92] [93]
3. [94][95][96] Repeatedly removes categories and templates or changes them to meet his narrow WP:POV.
4. [97] Removing images
5. [98] Removing Hebrew language
6. [99] Changing order of sentence so that "settlement" appears before "village" and not vice-versa. very productive.
7. [100] Change NPOV leads to POV leads
8. [101] [102] [103] using popups when users nominate cateogories for deletion
9. [104] saying that today it is modern day "Jordan and Palestine", denying Israel's very existence. but everything he says "not in israel" [105]
10. [106] threatens users to just be happy with current version or he'll write something worse
11. [107] Lies about naming conventions to revert-massively
12. [108] Violating civility by telling editors what to do - "Grow the __ck up"
13. [109] [110] Violating 1RR restriction applied on recently here [111]
14. [112] [113] Violating 1RR restriction again on different article
15. [114] Instead of welcoming new editor, WP:BITE and makes sockpuppet claims to editor who he cannot collaborate with and refuses to join discussion on talk page by deleting it [115]

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

#

1. [116] Notification of ARBPIA sanctions
2. [117] previous two month topic ban
3. [118] Civility warning by Malik Shabazz

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

Extended topic ban and/or other timeoff

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I find it absurd that Nableezy is filing repeated AEs while he himself continues his disruptive behaviour of being uncivil, failing AGF, and violating his own recent 1RR restriction, twice in one day (three times actually, but to his credit, he self-reverted on Jerusalem). The editor finds it hard to mend his ways and lose the battleground mentality. He has improved, thank goodness to the warnings and restrictions, but apparently needs more and/or much more time to think. --Shuki (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [119]

Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

Ill just say that whatever Shuki thinks is "POV" generally means that it is not an extreme right-wing Israeli POV. So his accusations about "POV" really dont mean anything to me. The only thing that might matter here is numbers 13 and 14. On 13, the second edit was not a revert. On 14, pan-Arabism is not a part of the A/I conflict topic area. I'll also say that number 9 is a complete lie. In no way do I "deny Israel's very existence", the article that we have covering the "geographical area" for both Israel and the occupied territories is Palestine. And my edit summary makes this clear. Just one more in a long line of unfounded attacks by Shuki. I'll also say that what Shuki has accused me of doing, skirting a 1RR, is exactly what Shuki has done on the Ariel University page. Each of these are reverts made just outside of 24 hours:

1. 20:42, 10 April 2010 (edit summary: "yes, and all could not give a crap about the quality of the lead. Perhaps Peter Cohen can comment again.")
2. 21:04, 11 April 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 355260994 by Nableezy (talk) rv, the context is apparently needed unless you can totally cut down the lead to NPOV")
3. 21:24, 12 April 2010 (edit summary: "reduce even more confusion to concise, what it is and where")

nableezy - 01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, George, for your last question, no. But this is the second frivolous AE request Shuki has filed against me. nableezy - 01:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandstein, yes some of the pan-Arabism article discusses Israel, but if you look at what I have actually removed the only references to Israel are from a quote from an Egyptian at a bus stop saying that he would prefer an alliance with Israel as opposed to one with the Arab states. How does that fall in the scope of the A/I conflict? nableezy - 22:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, if the sanction is to be based on my violating a 1RR rule I would rather just be blocked. nableezy - 22:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANd for number 13, combining the two versions (as I did in the second diff, keeping the armistice lines and the internationally recognized line) is a revert? nableezy - 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy[edit]

Comments by George[edit]

Going through Shuki's diffs in order:

1. Hmm, you neglected to mention that Nableezy apologized and struck out his accusation.
2. I can't read Arabic, so I don't know what those song lyrics say. What about them "incites violence"? And what pictures are you talking about?
3. These diffs look like a move toward neutrality, so I'm not sure how you interpret them as POV pushing. Labeling the Golan Heights as part of Israel is a particular POV; removing any label from them (not saying they are in Israel, and not saying they are in Syria) is hardly POV pushing.
4. It looks like there was some consensus for their removal on the talk page a month ago. Nableezy discussed the issue; you don't appear to have been a part of that discussion?
5. That's a highly selective description. Editors should note that he removed both the Hebrew and the Arabic.
6. This looks like a content dispute between yourself, Nableezy, and Supreme Deliciousness. It's unclear to me why your version or Nableezy's is better, but this isn't the place to decide that.
7. This is a diff of Nableezy re-writing a lead that was unsourced by citing sources. Are there counter sources? This diff alone doesn't seem to indicate anything of POV pushing (in contrast to if Nableezy was replacing certain sources with other sources).
8. I don't know what this diff is supposed to show. What's wrong with using popups?
9. The first diff should say Israel, not Palestine. I see nothing wrong with the second (an Israeli settlement in the West Bank isn't considered to be in Israel, as far as I know).
10. This is a repeat of an earlier diff, and I hardly see it as a threat... seems more like an encouragement to accept compromise.
11. I don't understand what Nableezy meant (maybe he was referring to the term Judea?), but you should watch the personal attacks labeling his statement a lie. In general, his version is a bit more readable, but it's unclear if this is anything more than a content dispute. And really, you're going to describe his changing one sentence as reverting "massively"?
12. Yup, it was uncivil.
13. Looks like two different, but similar, versions of this sentence, not a revert. Note that in the second diff Nableezy isn't removing or replacing material (as in the first diff), only expanding.
14. Why would Nableezy be on 1RR on this article? How is Pan-Arabism related to the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
15. Asking a new editor if they've had a previous account isn't a WP:BITE, though Nableezy seemed quite terse with them in the back and forth.

Going over all your diffs, #12 and #15 seemed like minor incivility, and probably should have been taken to WP:WQA or put to Nableezy directly. However, this seems like yet another monstrously large AE report, filled with meaningless diffs and exaggerated summaries, and it's getting old. As I've stated before, throwing a pile of crap on the wall to see what sticks isn't the way to handle these cases. ← George ^talk 23:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would add that the number of AE reports Nableezy has filed in recent days is concerning. Is there any evidence that any of these, or his past reports, have been frivolous? ← George ^talk 23:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• reply to george The apology (#1) was later rescinded. [120] --Shuki (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Can you be more specific Shuki? That's a very long discussion, but skimming over it, it looks liked Amoruso asks for an apology, Nableezy explains how they were confused & apologizes, Amoruso accepts, it turns into a discussion on what the map means, then Breein1007 chimes in with a minor personal attack towards the end, and says that Nableezy didn't apologize. Where in your diff did Nableezy rescind his apology (a quote would be nice)? ← George ^talk 09:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Cptnono Much of the stuff mentioned may not be a problem but there are two obvious concerns:

• His reverts at Pan Arabism included removing a source discussing it as racist partially based on Israel. This is removed from the bulk of the text being reverted so it should have been easy enough to leave alone the second time. The source might be problematic but that is for discussion on the talk page not breaking 1rr.
• He told another editor to "grow the fuck up". He has continued to not be civil to editors despite repeated warnings.Cptnono (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone (George?) mentioned throwing poo against the wall to see if it sticks somewhere else. LOL and agreed that people need to watch out for that since it does nothing but detract from the transgressions that should be worried about. It also comes across as a low blow.Cptnono (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Vexorg[edit]

Yet another ( as competently demonstrated by George above ) highly petty and exaggerated AE report designed to attack another editor rather than for the good of Wikipedia. My advice to you Shuki and anyone else in the I-P conflict to stop these reports (and withdraw this one). The admins are fed up with it. All that will happen here is that a bunch of partisan editors will turn up and attack each other again. Vexorg (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you are saying to turn a blind eye to disruptive behaviour and / or just when it is involving someone you identify with. Please deal with the content of the report, and discuss the idea in another forum. --Shuki (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should actually try reading the posts BEFORE commenting ... I repeat "...and anyone else in the I-P conflict..." "anyone else" means anyone involved. Got it? thanks. Vexorg (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ' Gatoclass says - "We have to stop penalizing users for occasional venting. We cannot expect people to behave like saints" - I couldn't agree more. What I noticed, and I myself have been guilty of this on occasion, is that editors on either side of this Zionists v. Opposition war here have been shouting 'BLOCK! BLOCK! BLOCK!' at the slightest misdemeanor by one of the other side. It's gotten ridiculous and has become a schoolyard. It's quite clear that people on both sides are trying to get people on the other side topic banned to alter the balance of POV editing certain articles. People are compiling huge lists of diffs, 99% of which are innocuous and even worthy of a second look. Well said Gatoclass -- Vexorg (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by 173.52.124.223[edit]

• I think #15 alone may be grounds for some sort of ban against Nableezy. It is clearly an attempt to intimidate a new editor who is on the opposing editing team. Of course the whole process on this noticeboard has become absurd, and its bans are, at this point, probably more disruptive to the editing process than the user violations that are the grounds for the bans. I really dislike the idea of having Nableezy topic banned. The problem is that he has initiated so many reports here (in my view attempts at intimidation, and attempts to make editing I/P articles ever more difficult and stressful for editors with opposing views) that it is difficult to argue that he should be exempt from what he so frequently wants for opposing editors. The I/P dispute situation on this noticeboard seems to be spinning out of control, and may harming the editing of articles, making balanced content and NPOV ever less likely. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see a problem with #15. Nableezy did not accuse Rocalisi of anything but merely asked a simple question. Given the high incidence of socking in the i/p area (certainly much more than is uncovered) it wouldn't hurt to ask all new users that question. Zero^talk 12:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That question is always an accusation, and you would think so too if I asked you that in the context of an editing dispute. And the accusation is more than just an assumption of bad faith, it is a tool in WP:Battle. The perpetual filing of reports on this noticeboard, CU fishing expeditions, etc, is a way of wearing down the opposing team, and may indicate that some users are spending as much, or more, time wiki-lawering (which is disruptive) as editing articles. The entire process appears to be used as "a mere continuation of controlling content by other means," to paraphrase Carl von Clausewitz. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A question isn't an accusation, that's oxymoronic. If you think that way you must find dealing with immigration officers at airports quite painful at times. The question Nableezy asked needs to be seen within the context of the Pan-Arabism article, an article and talk page that has been subjected to extensive and blatant policy violations by multiple editors and associated sockpuppets. Blatant policy violations aren't 'an editing dispute'. I often wonder, when it comes to the nationalist nonsense that goes on here, why these things are dignified with terms like 'content dispute'. It's not an 'editing dispute' to say that the planet is 6000 years old, evolution has never been observed etc etc, it's vandalism and it's dealt with immediately by editors with no drama and no admin involvement. Those editors are not participating in a battle, they are simply implementing policy. And yet, when it comes other topics, blatant and absurd policy violations and attempts to insert fringe nonsense become a 'content dispute'. If you are concerned about content editing and editor behavior at the Pan-Arabism article I suggest you volunteer your time to help keep things under control over there so that both the content and editor behavior comply with mandatory policy using the means available to do so in the interests of the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reply:

1. I have already explained that a question can be an accusation, and in this case it certainly was an accusation.
2. Your edit is filled with terms that prejudge the dispute, such as blatant policy violations, and multiple editors and associated sockpuppets, and nationalist nonsense, and it's vandalism, and blatant and absurd policy violations, and attempts to insert fringe nonsense, all of which statements suggest that you are very far from being a neutral player in this dispute.
3. I understand that you may feel strongly about the issues, and certainly your point of view needs to be represented in I/P articles for balance. But your implication in your edit above, that truth and good faith editing exist on your side only, seems not to be particularly constructive.

173.52.124.223 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No you haven't explained that a question can be an accusation. Just saying so doesn't make it so. I see no problem whatsoever with #15. All the person has to do is answer. Vexorg (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your claiming that a question can not be an accusation is silly because that claim is so obviously false. See, for instance [121] or [122] or [123]. As I have said already, I consider Nableezy's question an accusation, and a rather disruptive accusation, so in the context of arbcom enforcement articles that probably justifies sort of sanction. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No the question is not an accusation, it's a question. An accusation is a statement not a question. note: I think IPs shouldn't be allowed to edit wikipedia. People should open an account. Vexorg (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion has been amusing, but nevertheless a waste of my time. Again, many times what appears to be a question is not a question at all, and such instances are often disguised accusations. Even a complete fool would know that asking a sock if he/she is a sock is not going to get an honest reply. And Nableezy is not a fool. He was apparently accusing a new user of being a sock in an attempt to intimidate. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No, you explained that a question can be an accusation to you and that you believe you can apply your model of self to others. You are welcome to that view but there is no reason to believe you.
• There aren't any terms that prejudge anything in my statement. The events I described have already happened, the terms I used are consistent with the events, I witnessed them along with others including an admin that locked the article and admin that blocked the sockpuppets. Like I said, you can go and have a look for yourself, make your own mind up about policy compliance rather than make statements based on your understanding of what language might suggest about events for which you have no knowledge and help out at the article to deal with the train wreck disruptive editors have caused and continue to cause.
• Your response and the way you understand information illustrates the problem here and why these battles persist. For example, you think I 'feel', care about 'truth', have a 'point of view' that 'needs to be represented' in articles, that I am on 'a side' etc etc. In fact, none of those things are the case. I just want everyone to follow policy, use reliable sources and keep their personal opinions to themselves. I'm not alone in this view by any means. These errors in the way people model and interpret other editor's statements, actions and motivations are far more irrational, damaging and policy non-compliant than asking someone who is edit warring on an article over the same information as blocked sockpuppets whether they have had an account before. I've lost count of the times someone has called me anti-Israeli or something similar for doing or saying something that is intended to increase policy compliance based on reliable sources. It's funny the first couple of times. So, yes, in that sense, just like many other editors, I'm not neutral at all on policy non-compliance and find editors who won't simply follow the rules irritating, frustrating and time consuming.
• Regarding constructive editing, this is another root cause of the persistent problem. It seems to me that many editors simply cannot recognise constructive, policy compliant editing. Case in point, Shuki's point #3 listed above. Shuki cannot recognise that these edits correct errors and increase policy compliance. Why can't Shuki recognise that these are constructive edits when it's entirely obvious that they are ? Who knows and it's a question I personally have no interest in whatsoever. I would just like the disruption to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think item 12 is the most concerning; I don't consider item 15 to be a problem. I think it would have been nicer to leave a welcome template, and then ask the question, but that sort of thing is hardly worthy of sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I call upon Nableezy to keep on editing ME-related articles despite any "ruling" by admins. The spirit of Wikipedia rejects any such ruling and render it invalid. I just hope his next edits and arguments will be fair and less politically-motivated. DrorK (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Couldn't agree with this more. Of all editors, Nableezy and Drork are not the people who should be receiving topic bans here. The ludicrousness of this is actually mind boggling for me. Nableezy and Drork are two editors who actually bring positive contribution to this encyclopedia. Yes, I disagree with most things Nableezy edits. Yes, he often inserts things and makes comments on discussion pages that show his extreme POV on the issue. Yes, his user page promotes what I believe is a despicable message. However, with that said, and even with the fair number of disagreements I have had with him, he is still able to bring something good to the table and work issues out with other editors to come to some sort of collaboration and improvement to the article. Meanwhile, there are other editors who shall remain unnamed who bring absolutely NOTHING positive to Wikipedia, who have been blocked upwards of 10 times for the same infractions, who show NO signs of willingness to compromise and work together with editors who disagree with their POV, who make their WP:BATTLE mentality no secret and in fact seem proud of the fact that they are using Wikipedia to disseminate inaccurate information to demonize a certain side in the I-P conflict. It is these people who should be not only topic banned but fully blocked from Wikipedia because they are harming the project and making it impossible for other editors to work together. The last few months have seen things get much much worse because of a few mysteriously "new" editors who have turned the atmosphere between the two "sides" into the worst that I have ever seen it. And it is a real shame that they are allowed to reign on and succeed in their goal to cause conflict. If there is any good part of this all, it is that it reflects the real life I-P conflict. It is the minority of radical extremists who manage to get their way and hold onto power to ruin things for the rest of us, who are actually interested in working together towards a solution. What a shame. I guess that's the end of my rant... I guess that went pretty off topic but it needed to be said. Who knows, maybe I'll get blocked again now with the explanation that it was in line with arbitration enforcement. What a joke... Breein1007 (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To quote WP's main page: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. - 173.52.124.223 (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Huldra[edit]

• Regarding #12: it should be noted that that comment (and yes; it is not very civil), is made by Nableezy on his own talk-page, in response to User:Drork posting there and accusing Nableezy of "mafia-like behavior" (and that is not very civil, either, IMO!). However, as anyone who has posted on Nableezy´s talk-page know, you see this sign, encircled in red, on top of the page before you post anything: "Notice: Civility does not exist on this page. If you feel the need to say something uncivil to me feel free to do so. Personal attacks too, though if you say something be prepared to either back it up or have a large collection of insults hurled at you. Be forewarned that I give as good as I get, though not quite as good as this" In other words; to me it looks as if two guys are just fighting it out between themselves, and both doing so quite willingly, and rest of us should just leave them alone. Or am I missing something? Of course, the whole idea that you can have a "civility-free zone", is another matter. But if Nableezy is going to be sanctioned on this, then at least make it clear that in the future no one can declare their own talk-page a "civility-free" zone. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass[edit]

We have to stop penalizing users for occasional venting. We cannot expect people to behave like saints, telling someone to "grow the fuck up" is a commonplace phrase and at most a mild incivility. Note also that this comment was made to a user since indef topic banned for constant bad faith assumptions - provocation being an obvious ameliorating factor.

I also find it highly problematic that this "case", such as it is, has been initiated by Shuki, a user who has clearly been pushing a WP:FRINGE POV for quite some time now with his many edits stating that the Golan Heights and other such occupied territories are in Israel, the case against whom was recently dismissed as a "content dispute". I think there is something very wrong with this process when users can escape a ban for such tendentious editing, when those who are attempting to uphold policy end up with bans for occasional technical breaches. This is the very opposite of a desirable outcome for the project, and clearly contradictory to the aim of AE. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ' Gatoclass says - "We have to stop penalizing users for occasional venting. We cannot expect people to behave like saints" - I couldn't agree more. What I noticed, and I myself have been guilty of this on occasion, is that editors on either side of this Zionists v. Opposition war here have been shouting 'BLOCK! BLOCK! BLOCK!' at the slightest misdemeanor by one of the other side. It's gotten ridiculous and has become a schoolyard. It's quite clear that people on both sides are trying to get people on the other side topic banned to alter the balance of POV editing certain articles. People are compiling huge lists of diffs, 99% of which are innocuous and even worthy of a second look. Well said Gatoclass -- Vexorg (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC) [restoring removed comment :( ] Vexorg (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, editors who edit in this area are expected to behave like saints. See WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. If they don't feel they're up to that, they are free to leave the topic area, or may be made to.  Sandstein  18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Tiamut[edit]

I don't believe there is evidence here of Nableezy having been a disruptive editor. He is one of the most well liked editors in the I-P domain by editors from both sides, because of his generally fair approach to editing (and perhaps for his sense of humour).

If he did violate his 1RR restriction, he could be blocked for edit warring and given that his last block for edit warring was for 24 hours, a 48 hour block would be sufficient. However, as he is no longer edit warring, and he has recognized that it is possible that he did violate 1RR and suggested himself that he be blocked for that, this report should be treated as stale and be closed. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive.

Finally, Shuki should be prohibited from filing any further AE reports against Nableezy, as he has filed a number of them, mostly made up of imaginary infractions of NPOV, which Shuki himself has difficulty understanding. Tiamut^talk 09:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, sanctions are preventative, and in this case, a topic ban will prevent further violations of arbitral restrictions. Any personal merits that Nableezy may have are not relevant; arbitration enforcement is not a popularity contest.  Sandstein  18:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy[edit]

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

That said, there are three entries that are of concern:

• 12 is incivil.
• 13 is a 1RR violation. At 02:45, 11 April 2010 Nableezy removes the text "that marks the armistice lines" etc. that was previously added here, and at 23:54, 11 April 2010 Nableezy adds the text "which is internationally recognized" etc. that was previously removed here. These are two actions that "reverse the actions of other editors, in whole or in part", i.e., reverts as defined at WP:3RR.
• 14 is also a 1RR violation. The restriction applies to the area of conflict, which is the Arab-Israeli conflict. The article Pan-Arabism talks about that conflict a lot (just search for "Israel" in the current version of the article) and is therefore covered by the restriction.

Agree with Sandstein's assessment. Tim Song (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also agree with Sandstein's assessment, but would strongly suggest Shuki avoid throwing enough mud at the wall in the hope that some will stick and focus on specific infringements. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right. Shuki is warned that they may be made subject to sanctions if they file more largely inactionable enforcement requests. Nableezy is, in application of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, banned from editing articles which (or whose edited parts) are broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for the duration of two months. Reverts of vandalism and BLP violations are not excluded from this ban, and may be reported to the appropriate noticeboard instead. — Explanation: The ban covers only articles because the principal infringements occurred in article space; this allows Nableezy, per Unomi's suggestion, to contribute (in a hopefully constructive manner) to discussions. I note that the incivility was preceded by an equally inacceptable allegation of "threats" and "mafia-like behavior" on the part of Nableezy; while this does not excuse the incivility, it reduces its significance. As to Shuki, I agree with Stifle.  Sandstein  19:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Shuki[edit]

User requesting enforcement

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

[124]

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

1. first rv as can be seen here that its a rev:[125]
2. second rv as can be seen here that its a rev:[126]

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

Not needed.

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

block or bann.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

He made two reverts to the same article within one day, his restriction is that he is only allowed to one rv per day.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[127]

Discussion concerning Shuki[edit]

Statement by Shuki[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki[edit]

Comment—Seems like forum shopping to me. It is clear that the two edits were made one after the other, and they are not two separate reverts; not to mention, they are not even the same edit. I suggest that Supreme Deliciousness should receive a warning for unnecessary drama similar to the case that Mbz1 introduced just a short while ago. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because they were made after each other doesn't mean its not two reverts, And they don't have to be the same edits, each one is a revert on its own. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert." Is part of the definition at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You could argue that he modified two of your edits so the principle of him disrupting your work could apply. It would not be edit warring since there was no back and forth though. The lack of crossing a bright line makes this one a challenge.Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up: I believe that SD believes that this is not frivolous. He probably shouldn't be restricted himself for a frivolous report even though the timing is suspect.Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I believe that sequential reverts count at one, as Cptnono noted above, making this not a violation of 1RR. ← George ^talk 00:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This is clearly a single revert per WP:3RR. Supreme Deliciousness, please don't create unnecessary drama by bringing frivolous matters here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, sorry, I didn't know. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm withdrawing this request. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment -- Always astonished that editors are so well aware of any restrictions particular editors on the other side have, but for whatever reasons are not aware of 3RR/1RR. Now I am only curious which side of the I/P conflict will file the next enforcement request. Pantherskin (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Shuki[edit]

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

Frivolous report, as it is well-established that consecutive reverts count as one for 3RR/1RR purposes. Tim Song (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I have reverted Supreme Deliciousness's removal of this thread and advised him that any withdrawal should be noted as a comment. Editors are not entitled to remove threads in which other editors have commented.  Sandstein  08:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]