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

Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

72 hour block, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ferahgo_the_Assassin, logged at Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[43] Courcelles 08:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

As far as I knew, this article was not covered by my topic ban. I actually did not notice that this article discussed race and intelligence until after Mathsci pointed this out in the AE thread - if you look at the diff of my initial statement there, I said I thought the article did not mention intelligence at all. After Mathsci mentioned this I updated my comment, stating in my edit summary that I hadn't previously noticed the article's single sentence which referred to this. As is evident from my contribs, I regularly edit paleontology articles, and I noticed the edit which I reverted because most articles about well-known paleontologists are on my watchlist. I don't think that a single sentence discussing race and intelligence should necessarily make this a "race and intelligence related article" which I'm therefore not allowed to edit. And if it does, then this was an honest mistake on my part, because I didn't notice this sentence in the article until after Mathsci pointed it out.

If I had been warned prior to this block that the article was covered by my topic ban, I would not have made another attempt to edit it (I made a second edit to the article while the AE thread was open, but at that point no one other than Mathsci was expressing an opinion that my topic ban covered this article). Since I have had no prior blocks for any reason, and it was not completely clear that my topic ban covered this article, the lack of a warning seems unusual. I'm also concerned by the lack of discussion among admins prior to the block. The AE thread was open for less than three hours before I was blocked, and MastCell blocked me before any other uninvolved admins had commented there. Of the other editors commenting in that thread, no one else felt that a block was an appropriate result. I don't think it's appropriate that on my first offense, I should be blocked for 72 hours with no warning and no discussion among uninvolved admins.

I think that the appropriate response in this case is a warning, and I would like my block to be replaced with that. If I am unblocked and warned that the Henry Fairfield Osborn article is covered by my topic ban, I will not attempt to edit it again as long as I remain banned from race and intelligence articles.

Statement by MastCell[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among involved and uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

Comment by VsevolodKrolikov It was disappointing for the dispute with user:WeijiBaikeBianji to be seen as a vendetta by two editors that aggravated the supposed offence. It's not a matter of two editors, as the certified RFC regarding that user shows; other editors find his editing odd and at times tendentious. WBB has been adding various links as "further reading" to a number of articles (not just this book) which don't appear to be that necessary (and I'm not sure he's read them, so I don't think it's editorial recommendations as covered in WP:FURTHER); it seems to be a way of suggesting sources to other editors to integrate into the text (rather than doing it himself or using the talkpage). I don't think Ferahgo reverting WBB specifically should be seen as aggravating the situation. Anyone might have reverted that addition as not useful (after all, it's not a book dedicated solely or mostly to the article topic, and indeed heavily implies POV regarding what the topic is most notable before). I also think the closing was really far too swift, and it should be noted that MathSci does seem to be getting involved in disputes in this topic far too much for someone banned from it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Mathsci In her two submissions to WP:AE, Ferahgo the Assassin wrote first that she was "removing material related to race and intelligence from the article",[44] and then that she was "removing material that made the article too focused on race and intelligence". [45] The edit to which she which she refers [46] is the addition of one book, unrelated to race and intelligence as far as I am aware, with the edit summary "added further reading section and citation to book". Her unfortunate choice of words in both edits indicates unambiguously that in her perception she was removing content explicitly related to the subject of her topic ban. In addition to her own perceptions, the article explicitly mentions the topic of racial differences in intelligence.

The two diffs above also cast aspersions on other editors which Ferahgo the Assassin has continued to make since the imposition of the topic ban of her boyfriend Captain Occam in August. On this occasion her wording suggests that she was following the edits of another editor in what she perceived to be the subject of her topic ban: she has placed herself in a long-standing, acrimonious but wholly one-sided dispute with this editor. Ferahgo the Assassin should take responsibility for her own actions, whatever her personal conspiracy theories might happen to be.

My topic ban was by mutual consent, unlike those of others sanctioned by WP:ARBR&I. It covers editing articles on this topic or their talk pages, broadly construed, but not process pages. I have no interest in how articles in the area of the topic ban are edited. I have, however, been monitoring violations of topic bans (for example the multiple antisemitic sockpuppets of Mikemikev (talk · contribs): Juden Raus, Suarneduj, RLShinyblingstone, Oo Yun, etc). I removed this edit by Mikemikev from this page. [47] Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, possibly aided now by third parties, have continually tried to push the limits of their topic bans. In this latest instance Ferahgo the Assassin has made namespace edits directly related to her topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Jayen466: I would have agreed that the sanction was a poor decision if the book had been a clearly inappropriate, coatracky addition to the Further reading section of Osborn's biography. If the book had had two or three passing mentions of Osborn, then Ferahgo should have been quite entitled to remove it, her topic ban on race and intelligence notwithstanding. However, looking at the book in google books, it does discuss Osborn, incl. Osborn's support for Grant's views on the superiority of the "Nordic" race, in detail. Osborn's name occurs on 100 pages of the book. In my view, this makes it an appropriate addition to the Further reading section, making Ferahgo's removal not justifiable on the grounds of WP:Undue, and bringing it within the scope of the topic ban. As such, I believe MastCell's block was justified. One might argue that 72 hours was long for what appears to be a first-time offence of the topic ban, but I agree with MastCell that the topic ban was violated. --JN466 11:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment about Jayen466's comments on the book I have expressed no opinion here on appropriate sanctions, if any. Jayen466 correctly analyzes here and below why the book is an appropriate further reading reference for the article most in dispute here, and would serve well soon as a reference in a footnote attached to revised article text. I had the book at hand yesterday, when it was due at my local public library, and I will have it in hand again by Monday, when I circulate it from the academic library at my workplace. The book is meticulously researched and professionally edited and points to many useful sources for wikipedians to use to edit other articles. As I selected the Wikipedia articles to which to add further reading references to that book, I looked at the book's index, following selected page references to read them in context, and looked for Wikipedia articles that didn't already cite the book (per WP:FURTHERREADING) and that appeared to need more sources added. I didn't add the book to many articles about persons or organizations that were mentioned off-hand in the book, but I tried, proceeding alphabetically, to add the book to articles for which other editors may be able to use the book for editing article text, and in any case for which readers of Wikipedia could gain additional information about article topics if they refer to the book. That's all. I'll be doing more of that with more books on more articles, often timed according to when I need to accelerate reading a book before I return it to a local library. It would be a funny view of core Wikipedia policy if adding reliable sources to articles becomes regarded as disfavored editing behavior. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum: Ferahgo appears to be correct in stating that the block was not preceded by any warning, as required by Wikipedia:AC/DS#Warnings:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Accordingly, the correct thing to do would be to lift the block, and convert it into a warning. --JN466 12:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That is not correct. Ferahgo the Assassin received an official warning when NuclearWarfare imposed her topic ban on October 7.[48] No further warning is required. The topic ban was logged at Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Her edit, whatever justification other users might give for its possible validity, violates that topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Being advised of a topic ban is not the same as a warning for problematic editing. On the other hand, Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Enforcement_of_topic-bans_by_block does state that violations of a topic ban may result in a block, without prior warning. I suppose once a topic ban has been made, we are no longer in the realm of discretionary sanctions, and my argument above that a warning should have been given first looks like it was wrong. I agree that the topic ban was violated. --JN466 14:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Again completely incorrect. As MastCell and others have written, this is black and white—there are no "ifs" and "buts". Since Jayen466 is himself under an indefinite topic ban per WP:ARBSCI, I'm surprised that he is so unclear about these matters. Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • What is completely incorrect? I thought I had just agreed with you that the topic ban was violated, and that according to the arbitration remedy no prior warning was required. --JN466 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Thanks for clarifying that and apologies for any misunderstanding. Mathsci (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • That's alright, thanks. --JN466 07:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment about the book. Counting google hits in a book is like counting google hits on a web search. You can't just look at the headline number. I've had a look through the book as available on google scholar. It really isn't about Osborn. Osborn was a close associate of Madison Grant, and worked with him on a eugenicist project, so it's not surprising that he gets quite a few mentions. However, in this book he appears as a supporting actor, with his own life barely examined, except where it crosses paths with Grant, and at least half the time even when the subject turns to Eugenics (a good deal of the search results come out of Osborn's tenure as head of the American Natural history museum), many of those results are his name in a list of others who were also eugenicists. There is a patch of mentions (on average once every eight pages) in the last half of the book when it really deals with eugenics, but nothing solid. There is practically no mention of Osborn's view of race and intelligence, and certainly no analysis of it. There's not even a chapter dedicated to him. It's true that WP:FURTHER is simply too vague about what should go into further reading. This book's citation as further reading is rather like citing Queen Victoria's biography as further reading on the life of William Gladstone. You might glean something, but really not a great deal compared to other works, and I would see deletion as entirely reasonable. (In trying to fathom WeijiBaikeBianji's methods, to me it looks like he's found this book on the internet, and decided to recommend it as a source to several pages by adding it to further reading.) "Further reading" should not be any book somehow connected with the subject.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did look at the book pages mentioning both Osborn and race, e.g. [49], [50], [51], [52] etc. and respectfully disagree with the notion that Osborn is but a minor figure in the book -- he is not. Note [53]. --JN466 14:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say he was minor (I used "supporting" quite deliberately), rather that the book really isn't about him, at least not enough to merit inclusion as "further reading". Yes, the book has a picture of him, and the picture subtitle refers to his work as head of the natural history museum, not as a eugenicist (that came later). What is your understanding of the criteria for "Further Reading"? Mine is that it is most like the rather better developed criteria for external links (as reflected in discussions) - which this book would fail for lack of substance and possible coatracking. The book is really no more than a life of Madison Grant, even though its title suggests more than that. In any case, I think it's a struggle to see this as a clear-cut violation of a topic ban. Bans and blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive, and we have a clear promise to avoid this kind of thing again, with an unforced admission of misunderstanding the full nature of the article topic in question. I would recommend WP:ROPE here. If Ferahgo is on the make, then harsh sanctions next time.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess you'd argue that the book would fail WP:ELNO 13 if it were an external link. That's something one could debate, though personally I think the book contains enough material about Osborn to add value for the reader. I'm not unsympathetic to the view that a warning, or a shorter block, might have been enough here. --JN466 15:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ferahgo has asked for a warning. I would take this as an act of good faith - that she accepts the community would have every right to take stronger action in such circumstances now the situation has been made clearer. On a side issue, someone really needs to look at WP:FURTHER. I looked at it myself because of the books added by WBB to creativity. They're both on topic, but very new (i.e. I suspect unread by the person adding, given the apparent ignorance their previous edits on the topic showed if those were good faith edits) and in one case a particularly novel angle that is explicitly going into new territory on the subject.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Professor marginalia I have no opinion about whether the block might be lifted and a warning issued instead. But Ferahgo the Assassin's revert of WeijiBaikeBianji's edit was her very first edit to the Henry Fairfield Osborn article. It is more likely that she is continuing to monitor WeijiBaikeBianji's edits than it is he was deliberately baiting her to violate her topic ban when adding the "further reference" to two dozen articles she's never even edited. Henry Fairfield Osborn was one of the two chief architects and promoters of the American Eugenics Society-the other was his nephew. Eugenics and the superiority of European genes, including intellectual genes, was a significant aspect of his life's work. It was largely due to his influence and esteem in the scientific community that eugenics and biological superiority was "legitimized" in the early 20th century as science. So I think more clear eyed research of topics and less "paranoia" and "palace intrigue" would go a long way in sorting out legitimate editorial differences of opinion in the articles. And there would be a whole lot less disruption if editors would apply simple common sense to comply with existing sanctions rather than constantly pettifogging over their fine print for legal loopholes. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Professor marginalia correctly sums up the rationale for the edit. He also points to what should be done to ensure a more productive editing environment on many articles. I of course have no access at all to the watchlist of any editor. I am sorry that some editors are offended by efforts to add reliable sources to articles, but that is Wikipedia policy, so we all have to live with what the best sources say as we build an encyclopedia.

-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a nice misrepresentation. No one is objecting to the addition of reliable sources to the main body of the text - indeed, it would be great if you did that rather than litter article pages with sourcing suggestions for other editors (rather than use the talkpages). Whatever Further Reading is for, it is not meant as a dumping ground for unread sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another editor has restored the text to the "further reading" section.[54] The issue here is whether or not Ferahgo the Assassin has violated her topic ban, and the admins who evaluated the case concluded she had. If there are other issues with WeijiBaikeBianji's editing in race and intelligence related topics, any changes to them must be left handled to editors who aren't currently topic banned. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• comment I endorse HJ Mitchell's shortening of the block.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment on guidelines. WP:FURTHER was recently modified (although not as a result of this incident but because of a dispute at WP:SCICITE) to recommend annotating the further reading list in confusing cases. This incident might have been a good opportunity to put that in practice. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result of the appeal by Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]

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

• Added to AE page Courcelles 08:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• My reading of the above discussion is that the block was just and there was a violation of the topic ban, however, 72 hours may have been a little harsh for a first violation (and first entry in the editor's block log). Accordingly, I have reduced the block duration to 24 hours from the time the original block was imposed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HJ Mitchell, in the above discussion, do you see a clear consensus to reduce the block duration? PhilKnight (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was about to respond above at length, but I'll just do so here briefly. Long story short, I recognize that block length is a gray area. I don't have any objection to HJ Mitchell's reduction to 24 hours, so long as we're all agreed that this was a clear violation of the topic ban. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unacceptable. Now, MastCell says that he doesn't have a problem with it, so I will not be seeking comment by the Arbitration Committee. HJ Mitchell, take care to note that AE blocks are not to be modified without clear community consensus. You cannot just arbitrarily reduce block length because you feel it is inappropriate. NW (Talk) 23:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's cool. The topic-ban violation was black-and-white, but block length is a gray area, so I don't feel especially dogmatic about 72 hours. MastCell ^Talk 23:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On one hand, HJM - please keep in mind that AE sanctions are applied only in topic areas historically subject to a great deal of disruption, and are intentionally held to a different standard than our other actions because the community wants the disruption to stop so everyone can get back to producing an encyclopedia. I think that you should have waited for this discussion before acting. On another hand, until I saw this section I had decided to recommend that the block be lifted (not reversed), as I think that FTA probably gets it a little better now. On the gripping hand - motion to close this thread as resolved satisfactorily enough? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with much of what 2over0 has said, and in particular, we can close this thread now. PhilKnight (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Shuki[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Nableezy 17:35, 27 November 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

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. [55] See below for explanation
2. [56] Same

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

1. [57] Notified of case

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

Indefinite ban from editing material on Israeli settlements and international law
or
Topic ban on all articles about Israeli settlements

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A very long discussion took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues about whether and how to incorporate the well-sourced fact that Israeli settlements are considered illegal under international law. Shuki was a part of this discussion and so is obviously aware of it. An uninvolved admin, LessHeard vanU, closed the discussion saying that a specific wording has consensus to be included and further has consensus to be included in the lead of developed articles on settlements. LHvU later clarified the point (here) emphasizing that in articles where the illegality of these settlements is expanded on in the body there is consensus for it to be included in the lead of the articles. I added the line to 3 articles a few days ago ([58], [59], [60]). The line was, unsurprisingly, removed by 3 editors who argued against its inclusion in the very discussion closed by the uninvolved admin with a note that there is consensus for its inclusion ([61], [62], [63]). There was some confusion about the close, so a request was made to the admin to clarify (that clarification is linked above). After LHvU clarified that in these articles the wording under discussion has consensus to be included in the lead of the articles, I re-added the line to 2 articles ([64], [65]) with a note on the talk page saying why and referencing the centralized discussion ([66], [67]). Shuki then removes the edits ([68], [69]) claiming, in his single comment to the talk page explaining his reverts, that there is "no consensus" ([70]). This despite the clarification from the uninvolved admin that there is specific consensus for including that line in the lead of such articles.

The close from the admin included the following:

It is my impression that there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct.

Shuki is very clearly one of those editors who holds "the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted" and further he "attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary". This request is meant to see if this "disruptive conduct" will be allowed to continue unabated.

I have no doubt that as with most AE threads I am involved in we will see a large number of those who support Shuki or simply dislike me making rambling comments that are of little relevance to the issue. I hope they will be given the consideration they deserve and be ignored.

Shuki claims, in their response, that the admin did not "close" the discussion and that there was no finding for consensus for placement. In the clarification linked above LHvU wrote the following (emphasis in original):

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

I do not see how an editor can in good faith claim that there was no finding for consensus for placement in the lead or for specific wording when the plain English quoted here shows that there is for both. nableezy - 18:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I am sure was the intent, a number of users have made a simple request into something that I doubt many sane admins would like to deal with. I beg an admin to please disregard the noise by Jaakobou and Jiujitsuguy and actually look at what happened here. An uninvolved admin says there is consensus for this material to be in the lead of these articles. If a few users want to argue over the semantic differences between "Like other Israeli settlements in the (West Bank/East Jerusalem/Golan Heights), X is regarded as illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this" and "Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, X is considered illegal under international law, though Israeli disputes this" thats fine, but it is inane argument to make for removing the wording. If Shuki or Jaakobou would rather use the former sentence they could have replaced it and there would be no issue here. Instead Shuki removed the lines, claiming there is "no consensus" period. The question here is whether or not a block of users can ignore what consensus is and filibuster any attempt to add material that has consensus. No amount of pedantry can escape that Shuki did not simply modify the phrasing but instead completely removed it. My question is whether or not this will "be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct." Can these users simply say NO NO NO and remove any material they do not like, or is there some penalty for such behavior? nableezy - 07:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the proposed interaction bans, I think they are unnecessary. Cla68 is right, I cant dispute that, but there is a cause and effect here. The more nonsense that I deal with, the more of an asshole I become. I admit I havent really thought about how new people would react to seeing some of the discussions that the regulars have, but that is partially due to the fact that most of the "new" names we see are just old faces with new names. But Cla68 is right, and I will make an honest effort to be more collegial. I dont know how an interaction ban would work, we all edit the same articles. Would it be a race to see who gets to an article first and any editor who arrives later would be violating the ban? The workings of such a ban are impractical, and I think the issue can be satisfactorily dealt with by blocks and bans for future issues with personal attacks or incivility. Though I do think that restricting editors from making comments in AE requests that do not concern them is a marvelous idea. nableezy - 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curious to know where Cla68 came from out of nowhere, but even more your sudden attempt at tobah. Gatoclass thinks I have battleground mentality but ignores that it takes two to tango, including your 24hour+20minute revert on Maale Adumim. Your provocative use of AE is anti-'collegial', so drop that misleading attitude, people see through it easily. --Shuki (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He inappropriately reverted to Nableezy's version at Ariel. I can only assume he came here because he was miffed that I changed it and notified him of the error. I could be wrong about that and he does bring up a point. Some of the back and forth between editors is heated and that is a problem. I don't think my comment was nearly as bad as he makes it out to be but overall I agree that we need to follow the decorum bit of the arbitration decision closer.Cptnono (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont know what "tobah" is supposed to mean. My use of AE is meant to stop editors from engaging in disruptive editing. Yes, I reverted at Ma'ale Adumim. However, unlike you, I have consensus for my revert. My last comment was sincere, I will make a greater effort to be collegial. That will be much easier if editors who disruptively edit against consensus and without regard for the policies of this website are not allowed to continue doing so. nableezy - 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[71]

Discussion concerning Shuki[edit]

Statement by Shuki[edit]

The principle of this AE is that Nableezy is making false accusations and misrepresenting my opinion that he assumes even though I have never claimed what he is accusing me. I certainly do not deny that there was an effort to build consensus and did take part, but I do question that there was in fact consensus and the admin did not in fact close that but opening it up for more discussion. There was also no consensus on placement and that was also supposed to be done by consensus at that central location. Nableezy is not just being bold here but unwilling to continue this consensus building for fear that it might unravel as others are exposed to it (if they can manage to follow it) instead ramming it through. He himself admits that he was reverted by three editors, who in fact, did not really take part in that confusing and hard to follow discussion. Nableezy also chose to make these changes on Shabbat when he knows that there will be virtually no opposition. This is a frivolous and false AE.

It is incredible nerve and anti-AGF that he ends this AE attack by preempting the opposition and discrediting of anyone who might come here in support of me (it will take time, Shabbat will only be over on the West Coast in several hours and we cannot assume everyone runs to their PCs to get updated on WP). He even demands that they be ignored, very considerate and showing his intentions to shut up others. --Shuki (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shuki, are you saying there's a rough consensus for the legality wording to be in the main body of the article, but whether it should be in the lede should be decided on a case-by-case basis? Or are you saying there's no consensus whatsoever? PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The legality wording that had some support is not the WP:SOAP violation text Nableezy was pushing into the lead. There is no consensus for that "like all Israeli settlements" version and Nableezy disingenuously presents his version as the one that was discussed when that is not the case. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not a bad argument but it's not what Shuki is saying. Shuki's contesting the legitimacy of Proposal 2's consensus and seems to accept Nableezy's wording as some derivative of it (there's little material difference although employing the verbatim line makes a hell of a lot more sense, but whatever). If that were the argument then it would have been simple enough to say "This is not the proper wording of Prop 2" in the edit summary/copy paste it in. Sol (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have brought up Nableezy's repeated insertion of the incorrect wording at the centralized discussion.[72] although I suppose editors might want to discuss it here as well. Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The entire tendentious edit that Nableezy proposes, in the context of content, scope, wording and placement are still points of contention and hotly contested. It is clear that he is using (abusing is the more appropriate term) this AE as a means to intimidate, to instill fear and to force his POV, by hook or by crook, on to the reluctant majority.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An uninvolved admin has said there was consensus for the inclusion of this material in the lead of the articles. No amount of lawyering can escape that and efforts to do so betray, well Ill leave the rest of that sentence untyped. nableezy - 07:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. You are fabricating words which were not specifically said. No uninvolved admin said there was a consensus or even a "basis" for consensus for pushing the soapbox "Like all Israeli settlements" into the lead. The editors who quickly disagreed here are a reality and it is disruptive to see you ignore this fact. Fabricating a "consensus" to propose a sanction against another editor is a clear example of WP:GAME. Also, repeating that same bullshit argument even though it was rebuffed as a false statement is a form of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, so stop making bullshit arguments. The version the LHvU said there was consensus for is The international community considers Israeli settlements in [WB/EJ/GH] illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this. If you want to argue that the addition of "Like all Israeli settlements" makes this a "fabrication" you can do that, but it is a manifestly absurd thing to say that verges on being purposefully deceitful. nableezy - 15:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again you are fabricating new interpretations to what LHvU actually said. (1) There was no agreement for your soapbox text. (2) The version noted by LHvU as a basis for a future consensus is quite different than yours. (3) Six editors disagree with your insertion of soapbox into leads. (4) You are repeating the same bogus argument over and over again to justify bad conduct and gaming. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you write is not true and the fact that you continue to write untruths can only mean that you are doing so intentionally. LHvU wrote the following:

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles.

That is, he found there to be consensus for including the line The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this. to the lead of the articles. You are making a pedantic dispute that Shuki did not even raise as the basis for this massive amount of wikilawyering that you have been engaged in. Stop making such purposefully dishonest arguments. nableezy - 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again you are fabricating new interpretations to what LHvU actually said. (1) There was no agreement for your soapbox text. i.e. It just happens to not be the statement that was selected in the discussions -- Sean.hoyland, 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (2) The version noted by LHvU as a "basis" (why are you ignoring that word in your diff?) for a future consensus is quite different than yours. (3) Six editors disagree with your insertion of soapbox into leads. (4) You are repeating the same bogus argument over and over again to justify bad conduct and gaming. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are again misrepresenting clear words. I will quote again:

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

Why are ignoring that LHvU repeatedly said that there is consensus for "proposal 2" in the lead of the article? Can you really have missed the now 4 times this line has been quoted, or are you just playing dumb? Consensus is not determined by numbers, it is determined by strength of argument and consistency with the policies of this website. Or, again quoting this same admin

[C]onsensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition.

Your purposefully misleading statement not withstanding, this is a simple problem. A set of editors, yourself included, have long attempted to remove any mention of the illegality of these colonies. When an uninvolved admin says there is consensus to include this fact in the lead of the articles, editors from this set have ignored that and disruptively removed it. No amount of wikilawyering changes these indisputable facts. nableezy - 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phil, NO, there is certainly no final consensus on wording or placement either and Nableezy and SupremeDeliciousness are being ultrabold in inserting it before the final wording has been accepted by consensus . Nableezy is also being uncollegiate in continually discrediting anyone who opposes his POV. Nableezy continues to misrepresent the voices of any editors not in his POV by accusing them of long removing any mention of illegality when in fact the struggle has always been to prevent him from simply applying boilerplate generalization without specific WP:V. I suppose that you and Nableezy actually read what LessHeard wrote and also the conclusion that is certainly not final or decisive and quite open ended. Look at the first comment from Cptnono who mentions this and Cptnono was very much part of wanting to build consensus and also not totally 'on my side'. I suggest you read WP:CONS and especially various lines like Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. You might notice that virtually any opposing voice in this 'consensus building' was merely minimized or ridiculed. The line that is assumed to consensus is exactly the original line that SD and Nableezy were ramming into articles and also does not remain neutral and minimizes Israel opposition to mere wimpy 'but Israel disputes this'. You will notice that the 'consensus' building does not include a wide variety of editors due to heavy layering, and very hard to follow chit chat from editors who were online a lot virtually preventing anyone 'uninvolved' from being able to understand what was going on. You might remember an RfC that Nableezy posted about the term settlement and that was very easy to follow. Phil, I also remind you of your recent 1RR implementation that was done after an orderly and clear survey. This one was a mess and did not build consensus. --Shuki (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is going to be good. The unequal severity of this proposed topic ban, based on two reverts and a 'comment'(?!) above shows me to be the main danger on WP in this area. You can only measure this claim by seeing the Israel-Arab area calm down drastically after I am gone, or not. Ho hum... --Shuki (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki[edit]

Comment by Cptnono

The whole reason the centralized discussion was proposed was due to editors (including Nableezy) edit warring and then opening up separate discussions. Seeing the exact same thing happening is disheartening. Yes, the admin did say there was consensus. He did not close it out which I could see leading to some confusion. I do not understand how the admin could see consensus for placement and I am not the only one. Supreme Deliciousness has been just as adamant as Nableezy in getting this line in and he opened up a discussion on placement after the admin's conclusion. I think Supreme Deliciousness should be applauded (didn't expect to hear that did you?) for his restraint over the last couple of days and think Nableezy should have acted similarly. I told you guys we needed to discuss implementation : ( Cptnono (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up: I have said my piece and am going to excuse myself from the remainder of the conversation since it looks like it is going to get out of hand. My closing thoughts on it are that this AE should not be a ruling on if there was consensus or not since that is better left at the centralized discussion (not separate pages, BTW). However, Shuki being confused about the consensus is perfectly valid since multiple editors are.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ T. Canens: They are substantially different. I know it looks like little but we went through all of that discussion for a reason. One version states that hands down that it is illegal. The other clarifies and does not take sides. I'm not saying give anyone a pass on this but it needs to be made clear that Nableezy should not have inserted material that did not have consensus.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LVHU: Proposal 2 specifically said "1)... Many of these articles can be found at Category:Israeli settlements. This proposal does not detail use in articles that merely discuss settlements." so simply being related is not sufficient per consensus. However, such discussion might be better at the centralized discussion.Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An interaction bad is completely unnecessary. I made the comment "stop going out of your way to cause trouble" and that is sufficient? I did not pile on the accusations here like some editors. I tried to be civil. I started the discussion that is what got us here in the first place. I just got nailed for being rude to editors and have been attempting to make it better. A topic ban won;t be helping that situation especially since I have not had anytime to prove myself. Have there been any comments since the recent AE that I have made in this topic area (I have actually stopped swearing across the project) besides the one mentioned that seemed out of line? The one mentioned isn't even that bad, IMO. He was starting a conflict and that shouldn't even be in dispute. So besides "going out of your way" (which seems a little mean) is there anything else? I even made it clear that Shuki made mistakes here. Should we have an interaction ban? Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have expanded on this at PKs talk page but he does not appear to be swayed. I would appreciate it if my request was looked into before another admin closes this. I have not commented on what I feel is appropriate action for Shuki or Nableezy but me getting lumped into the interaction bans is a big deal to me.Cptnono (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@T. Canens, have you reviewed my comments in question and believe I crossed the line? I was practically begging Nableezy and the other editors involveded to use the centralized discussion. The single comment that might come across mean should not be sufficient. Add I think it is well balanced by perfectly reasonable comments even while others may be being less then polite: [73]one in question[74][75][76][77]Cptnono (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Mkativerata

I consider myself involved in respect of settlement disputes because I participated in an RfC about them once. I think Shuki's actions here have been disruptive. LHvU's close of that discussion - especially after the clarification - was quite clear. Nableezy's insertion of material was consistent with the close. If any further clarification needed to be sought, that could have been done without reverting. But I'm concerned that editors disappointed with the consensus are trying to obfuscate it by claiming it is not clear. That can't be allowed to happen. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't just Shuki who reverted. I also reverted the edit as did user:Brewcrewer. Nableezy is the one here who is acting unilaterally without consensus.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All that means is I was feeling generous and did not request that you and brew likewise be topic banned for disruptively editing against consensus. nableezy - 23:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The very fact that it was your edits that were being reverted by three different editors means that it was in fact you who was acting in a disruptive manner without consensus. You've been around long enough to know how to play in the sandbox and you are now, quite frankly, operating disruptively by acting without consensus against the majority and by filing repeated AE actions that require lengthy responses to defend against frivolous claims.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uhh no. An uninvolved admin specifically says that there is consensus to include that specific line in the lead of those articles. Consensus does not mean unanimous consent, it does not mean that a set of users can filibuster and demand that their position be accepted. nableezy - 23:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. You are fabricating words which were not specifically said. No uninvolved admin said there was a consensus or even a "basis" for consensus for pushing the soapbox "Like all Israeli settlements" into the lead. The editors who quickly disagreed here are, on the other hand, a reality. Fabricating a "consensus" to propose a sanction against another editor is a clear example of WP:GAME. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Shuki had a problem with that part of the sentence, he or she could have raised it for discussion or, at the most, amended the sentence. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Nab had a problem with the status quo, rather than inserting a hotly contested edit that was reverted by three editors (in the lede no less), he could have used the Talk page or discussed the issue further in a centralized location.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Nableezy had consensus, as determined by the admin who closed the discussion, on his side. Ignoring consensus on the basis that it is "not clear" is tendentious editing. Like it or not, the closing admin's decision needs to be accepted as final. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So one editor ignoring three others is under a consensus? You think that is logical? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More obfuscation. The consensus was determined by LHvU on the relevant discussion page. It is not determined by however many editors reverted Nableezy. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your tone does not make your argument stronger. (a) off course it matters what the community thinks and matters how many editors find Nableezy's version wrong. (b) there was never a consensus for the soapbox version Nableezy keeps introducing and LHvU doesn't even mention it. I know its fun to say "x determined y" when we're talking about z... but it's a bullshit argument. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that was the case Shuki should have amended z to match y, not revert it entirely. Without discussion, it was disruptive and tendentious. In any case, you are inventing your own reasons for Shuki's actions, that are very different for the reasons Shuki has given. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pushing a non-consensus soapbox version into the lead was the problem, not the act of reverting it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are repeating false statements despite having been shown that your statement is false. When will an admin finally step up and ban you from this place? nableezy - 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@sanctions - aside from the matter about the length of the ban, might it also be worthwhile considering whether the ban should be limited to settlement articles instead of the PIA conflict generally? Settlement articles seem to be a discrete area of WP conflict and this issue doesn't go outside that area. Just a thought. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by RolandR

It seems to me that LHvU's finding was clear and unequivocal: "I am of the opinion that the wording per Proposal 2; "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." has consensus, and secondly that there is consensus for it to be included in all relevant articles". LHvU further noted that "consensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition". It is clear that some editors dispute this finding; but they cannot claim that this was not the outcome of the discussion.

LHvU also noted that "It is my impression that there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct". We are now seeing the truth of this comment; it is surely time for this recommendation to be acted on. RolandR (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are also misrepresnting my actions and LessHeard. If you read the line you posted, it is actually about those who do not want to note the legality of the settlements. He is commenting on those who want to strike this from the articles, like Nableezy has on the Ariel article. --Shuki (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Sean.hoyland

I would like to appeal to any admins examining this case to review the evidence carefully, particulary the statements by uninvolved admin LessHeard vanU in the centralised discussion. We've reached a critical stage in the process and it's taken years of edit wars, blocks and lengthy discussions to reach this point. It's critical because what happens next in terms of implementation will probably decide whether we can resolve the issue once and for all and move on or whether we will face more slow burn edit wars, blocks, and fragmented, uncoordinated arguments in a large number of articles. It happens to be Shuki in this AE report. It could have been someone else being reported for either adding or removing the content so whatever is decided here there needs to be clarity so that editors know whether their actions are legitimate and consistent with the centralized discussion or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For context and a sanity check, I have added a compiliation of sources discussing the legality issue to the IPCOLL page. Some sources are from the discussions that LessHeard vanU reviewed that resulted in the consensus he identified, some are already in use in various articles and some are new sources that I've found. The sources are intended as a resource for people (including admins here at AE) who want to compare LessHeard vanU's findings with the sources and assess the legitimacy of editor's statements and actions. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

This is a case of content dispute plain and simple and Nableezy is attempting to force the issue here, at AE, rather than dispute resolution. He does not have consensus for the contentious language he wishes to shove down our throats and he certainly does not have consensus for inserting this type of tendentious editing in the lede. Indeed, in both articles he cites to, he was the lone editor who was reverted by three different editors, indicating that 1) he is in the minority and 2) that this is still an issue that is the subject of discourse. There is simply nothing actionable here. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There very clearly is something actionable here. That you, brewcrewer and Shuki dislike what there is consensus for does not change that there is consensus. At the very least, the clarification by LHvU on what he saw consensus for, and consensus not meaning how many people shout NO as loud as they can, is for including the language you dislike in the pleace you dislike (the lead). It is incredibly disheartening that even after going through this process we still have to deal with crap like a few users not liking the outcome of the discussion and attempting to enforce their view in spite of it. The following things are indisputably true. A centralized discussion took place, with you, Shuki and brewcrewer all being involved. That discussion was closed by an uninvolved admin. That admin said there is consensus for including the line and for placing it in the lead of articles. Are any of those things under dispute? That users disagree with that close does not entitle them to ignore it, much like how if an AfD closes with a delete consensus (regardless of the headcount), a user who disputes that consensus cannot simply recreate the article. nableezy - 22:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being disingenuous about it won't magically create a consensus when there is non. I'd do the same edits as Shuki did in a heartbeat. That you are still provocatively pushing the words "Like all Israeli settlements", "illegal", and "colony" to the first paragraph of articles relating Israel is a sad reflection on this project's ability to handle disruptive conduct. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC) +c 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An uninvolved admin specifically says there is consensus to include that line in the lead of those articles. I actually wish you had been the one to make these reverts as I think Wikipedia would be much better off if you were banned as opposed to Shuki. nableezy - 23:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just in this short conversation, 6 editors: Cptnono, Mbz1, Brewcrewer, Jiujitsuguy, Shuki, Jaakobou disagree with your disingenuous representation of a so-called consensus. Don't let any facts confuse you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An uninvolved admin closed the discussion saying there is consensus for inclusion of that line in the lead, including the line I will briefly note that consensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition. Dont let any actual facts confuse you. nableezy - 00:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. You are fabricating words which were not specifically said. No uninvolved admin said there was a consensus or even a "basis" for consensus for pushing the soapbox "Like all Israeli settlements" into the lead. The editors who quickly disagreed here are, on the other hand, a reality. Fabricating a "consensus" to propose a sanction against another editor is a clear example of WP:GAME. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are purposely distorting what has happened here. You want to argue that my exact sentence was not what the admin said there was consensus for? Fine, Ill add the exact sentence the admin says there was consensus for, lets see what happens then. nableezy - 07:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now it is 7 editors who disagree with Nableezy on this discussion. This, according to Nableezy, shows that I am "purposely distorting what has happened". 1 Nableezy : 0 World. Will Nableezy ever let facts confuse him or will he still insist someone determined there was a consensus for his WP:SOAP violating version in the lead when no such thing has happened? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No amount of wikilawyering can escape the fact that an uninvolved admin specifically says there is consensus for that material. Consensus is not a vote, and no matter how many me toos, nearly all of whom voiced already voiced their complaints at the discussion that an uninvolved admin says there was consensus, you get the fact remains that an uninvolved admin says there is consensus for this material. nableezy - 15:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No uninvolved admin approved your soapbox "like all other" text and you are repeating the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your argument is on its face inane. That you repeat it does not do you any favors. There very clearly is an uninvolved admin who says the material belongs in the lead. If you wish to argue that 3 of the 20 words did not have consensus fine, but it does not excuse the complete removal of material for which there is consensus to include. That you persist in calling something that can be sourced to 100+ sources "SOAP" only serves to illustrate the illogical nature of your argument. nableezy - 17:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Jiujitsuguy are false, its not a content dispute, the issue was discussed, consensus is based on arguments, not votes. An uninvolved admin looked at it, and since those who want to have the worldview of the illegality of Israeli settlements kept out of Wikipedia articles did not bring any good arguments, and those who want to have the worldview of the illegality of Israeli settlements in Wikipedia articles brought good arguments, the consensus was to have the information, but Jiujitsuguy, shuki do not accept the consensus, so now they just say "no" and edit war against the consensus.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Mbz1

I read a closure by LessHeard vanU and found it extremely confusing. The request is not actionable. The editors should continue trying reaching the consensus, but not on AE, on the articles talk pages.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Six or even 3 months topic ban for two edits even assuming they were wrong is way, way too much. I hear about battleground behavior, but Nableezy and others are displaying the same kind of behavior. It takes at least two users to create a battleground. How many times Nableezy filed AE that were closed with no actions taken. The proposed sanctions are absolutely disproportional. I believe an interaction ban between Nableezy and Shuki will do the job.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Jaakobou

Nableezy has been topic banned a total of 7.5 months and blocked on numerous occasions for continuous incivility, edit-warring and this "illegal" issue: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 4 months - lowered to 2: [78]
• 2 months more: [79]
• 1.5 months more: [80]

Personally, I support the presented edits performed by Shuki 100% and point out that Nableezy is violating both Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles of misuse of the project for advocacy and furtherance of outside conflicts as well as continuous effort on gaming the system. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)+clarify/punctuate+diff 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

p.s. there is a worrying modus operandi where Nableezy tag-teams his efforts to have fellow editors sanctioned when there is disagreement on content. The number of editors who quickly respond here goes to show exactly who wants to make a controversial political advocacy type of addition against consensus (e.g. Nableezy, Supreme Deliciousness, to be seen). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But wait... there's more. 2 of Nableezy's 10 or so sanctions/2 of Shuki's 4 sanctions were related to this dispute: [81]and [82] This one[83] was even Nableezy bringing SHuki here. Both of you guys need to stop reverting. I totally feel Shuki's frustration of courseCptnono (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:IRONY =) Sol (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Sol

So is the consensus confirmation valid or not? That seems to be the real question. I'm amazed the proposal has managed to survive despite the Atlas-crushing mountain of pettifoggery in the discussion, so nice work, those who labored on. Sol (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shuki made reverts on two different pages. Who say he can't? Queen Nableezy? Adding "like all Israeli settlements" to articles without a source that specifically uses this terminology AND specifically cites the name of the place in question, is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. SPA accounts like Nableezy's are a disgrace to Wikipedia. No wonder the academic world regards this site as a bunch of crap.--Yespleazy (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its nice to know I have gone to being 50 different wimpy guys to being a Queen. Ill leave your fantasy intact and not disrupt your imagination with what actually happened. nableezy - 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

I suggest everyone read the close by LessHeard vanU Nableezy linked to above [84]. I find it to be very well thought out, clearly worded, and I wish every admin would articulate their thoughts like this.
I don't see how anyone can claim that his close supports the wording Shuki removed from the article. Where exactly does he say "like all Israeli settlements X is illegal" is apropriate? On the contrary, he says he is of the opinion that "(subject) is a settlement of disputed legality..." etc. (or variations thereof)" is what should be included in the lede. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly concur. Here you can see the two versions the closing admin suggested, side-by-side, implemented at the Psagot article. I ended up switching back to the version that included the sentence in the lead, because the admin later clarified their statement that the "disputed legality" phrasing should be used "only in those instances where there appeared to be an introductory paragraph and a main section (or two)." In this case, the article in question (Psagot) has four sections, but the first diff I linked could be viewed as a model of the two options. ← George ^talk 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um sorry, the version which LHvU says has consensus is "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." most certainly not No More's "of disputed ilegality". All Nab has added is "like all". Which simply clears up a potential point of confusion. Entirely blanking the statement for which their is consensus on the grounds that the phrasing is slightly more explicit on one point not covered in LHvU's summary is most certainly disruptive.--Misarxist 14:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I copied the part in quotation marks including the "of disputed legality" (including the italics) right from the diff I provided above. Did you read it all the way through? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And LHvU said that applied only to articles with a lead and a single section after that. He said for articles with developed bodies the entire line should go into the lead. Ive quoted the clarification where this is made clear. This is simply more lawyering in an attempt to obfuscate a clear close. nableezy - 15:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(ec)That's correct, the wording No More argues for is in a "suggestion that may satisfy the agreed need to include the form of words that has consensus into articles where there has been a perceived issue" [emph. added] and that perceived issue is the one mentioned in: "Whilst there is agreement of the use of the wording in articles both of multi section length, and single section/stub standard, there is not yet any agreement on how to incorporate it in an article that has a lede paragraph, and then a body which is generally only one section." [emph. added] Hence there is consensus for the longer articles.--Misarxist 15:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I doubt calling something that begins with "I anticipate that there needs to be further discussion on a couple of points I will raise, so I am not prepared to say that my review is definitive; but that it should be regarded as a basis for a consensus of the agreed text between the various parties to the editing of articles relating to certain settlements in Israeli occupied territories." a "clear close" that supports you adding OR to what LHvU said, is more than wishful thinking on your part. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OR???? Really? Ive given somthing like 20 sources that support the wording I used. And yes, the close was clear. Especially after the linked and quoted clarification, which you distort by saying the text LHvU said there was consensus for was "of disputed legality". nableezy - 15:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. Hopefully, LHvU will stop by and clarify what he meant. I see no purpose in continuing to discuss this with you, so I'll bow out now. Feel free to get your last word in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You disagree? You think the following is not crystal clear?

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

In case that is too difficult to comprehend, "proposal 2" says The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this. LHvU clearly wrote that line has consensus to be in the lead of such articles. Asking for further clarification to something that even a child can understand is simply disruptive stalling. nableezy - 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If LHvU says "relating to certain settlements" then how is it possible to use the expression "Like 'all' settlements"? -- 172.190.32.76 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (observer)Reply[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass[edit]

I concur with Sean Hoyland's and RolandR's statements above. This dispute has dragged on for many months now, generating an endless number of cases, debates and discussions, and all because Shuki can't abide to have the highly notable information that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law in his precious Israeli settlement articles. After a recent discussion reached consensus that it was appropriate to include the information, Nableezy is now being reverted on the grounds that he didn't employ the precise wording recommended in that debate, even though the meaning of Nableezy's text is virtually identical. So what's next? Nableezy adopts the precise wording, only to have a new round of objections on the basis that he dared put it in the lede and not in the body of the article. Or that he put it in the lede of an article with only one section instead of an article with multiple sections. And so on.

I consider this to be a classic example of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on Shuki's part and I think it's time the community did something about it. The alternative is to have yet another interminable debate which will have to attempt to dot every "i" and "t" of precisely what wording is permitted to be used and where so that there are no possible loopholes left for Shuki to exploit. But we shouldn't need to do this. AE was created precisely in order to circumvent this kind of behaviour and I think Shuki has caused enough disruption already.

BTW, I recommend that adjudicators read Sean's compilation of sources to confirm just how well established and uncontroversial are the facts that Nableezy has long been prevented from adding to these articles. Gatoclass (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one prevented the legality issue from being added and it is disingenuous to present matters as if that were the case. The issue of contest was Nableezy's "Like all other" soapbox in the lead and/or first paragraph of every Israel related article he touches -- the main reason he was banned for 7.5 months in the past year. Solidarity with your ideological partner aside, Gatoclass, your argument does not relate to the diffs in question. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The recommended text was The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the territories) illegal under international law. How exactly does this differ in substance with Nableezy's edit? I submit to you that it does not. This is not a valid objection at all, it's just wikilawyering. Gatoclass (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gatoclass, it is of no wonder that you are insensitive to subtleties about Israel ( per "it does not [differ]" ) but clearly, as 6 established editors quickly noted, Nableezy's version is not under consensus. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is one untruth followed by another. But we'll see, Ill add the exact wording to the lead and then we can see if the "Like all Israeli settlements" really was the issue. nableezy - 17:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jaak, it's not soap. It's a statement that complies with policy. As you can see from the compilation of sources here, saying "Like 'all' settlements" is supported by the sources. See the BBC sources at the top and others. It just happens to not be the statement that was selected in the discussions. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTICE:

It just happens to not be the statement that was selected in the discussions. - Sean.hoyland, 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Even Sean.hoyland -- someone with a similar world-view to Nableezy -- agrees that the version deemed as basis for future agreement is not the one Nableezy is pushing as the so-called "consensus". Sean.hoyland, no surprise, excuses this but there is clearly disagreement to Nableezy's insertion in the lead -- and no admin (except the highly involved Gatoclass) supported his WP:SOAP version either.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pedantry is not a virtue Jaakobou, there is no real difference between the versions. And Sean does not say the version was deemed a "basis", he says it was the one "selected". Next time you misrepresent a person's views you may want to try to do it somewhere other than directly below where they express their views. nableezy - 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The uninvolved admin whom you keep misrepresenting used the word "basis" and 6 editors note that your soapbox text is unacceptable in leads. Next time, apply basic thought before you attack me for something I have not said. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The uninvolved admin wrote the following (and this has been quoted no less than 3 times on this page):

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

Try to argue around that as much as you like, there very clearly was a judgment made that there is consensus for the inclusion of The international community considers Israeli settlements in [WB/EJ/GH] illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this. in the lead of the articles. That you persist in misrepresenting the clear words quoted is only one more reason why you should be banned. nableezy - 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jaak...I don't have a 'world view' by the way but feel free to carry on thinking that I do. It makes no difference to the rule based decision procedures used to generate article content. I'm not excusing anything. These are all distractions. At some point the content policies of this project have to be enforced and this issue about the the legality statements has to be resolved once and for all. That's what matters, the content not the individuals. If editors want to sacrifice themselves for their cause by disrupting this process then admins should oblige them with a topic ban so that the process can continue in a orderly way in accordance with policy as far as I'm concerned. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize if you feel there's a misrepresentation Sean. However, when you defend soapboxing and policy violations of a certain world-view and when I find myself explaining that there's nothing offensive in describing a prominent left-wing journalist as Israeli left-wing and the response is "he isn't an elephant or a table" it adds up to create a certain image. That said, I agree with you that it would do well for the project to resolve the settlements legality issue -- hopefully in a collegiate manner rather than through gaming. I would support removal of the more disruptive editors in the I-P area, regardless of their world-view. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are over thinking it.

• If countless sources said "The international community does not consider Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, and the Israeli government agrees." that would be the statement that I would be supporting (along with many other people no doubt). It's about what the sources say.
• I don't know what soapboxing or policy violations you are referring to specifically but saying that all of the Israeli settlements outside of Israel are regarded as illegal under international law isn't soapboxing and in a normal topic area no one would bat an eyelid if someone added an entirely uncontroversial statement like that supported by countless sources to an article. They would be glad that someone else was helping them build the article. That's why I edit in this topic area, because it's broken. I support editors who try to get articles to say what the sources say. It's that simple.
• If you make a statement like "where does Levy say that he's not in the Israeli left? (hint: he doesn't)." you are employing an absence of evidence to generate a unverified conclusion hence my retort "Maybe in the same place that he says that he isn't an elephant or a table". This was intended to highlight the invalidity of your conclusion by suggesting that you may also be able to conclude that he is an elephant or a table by using the same absence of evidence contradicting those conclusions. I'm a geoscientist not a propagandist. When people use logic like that in my world, bad things happen. Here it's just a verification failed policy violation but it's still wrong. Again, it's about what the sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Could some one please point the readers to the specific international law that all of these settlements are "considered" in violation of? I would appreciate that clarification. 172.190.32.76 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, I oppose interaction bans on principle as I think they are impractical. I don't see how Shuki and Nableezy could work on the same articles without communicating with one another, and while they are obviously frustrated with one another I haven't seen any evidence of gross incivility. Perhaps as a compromise a time-limited interaction ban, to allow tensions to decrease? Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my humble opinion, there's a problem with every I-P report on this board resulting in a hostile debate. I'm not a 100% sure what is the best way to resolve this. I think interactions bans are worth trying. Otherwise, we could ban some editors from commenting on reports that aren't about them. But anyway, I agree with Cla68 comments, and don't think we can allow the situation to continue. PhilKnight (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what do you suggest for this specifically? I made an effort to not bombard this AE but when another editor throws in an accusation when they did something 10x worse it is tough to ignore. Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Heads-Up About Nableezy's Use of This Issue[edit]

I just wanted to let people know that Nableezy is taking it as a forgone conclusion that Shuki will be topic-banned for 6 months and is using that as a threat to get people to self-revert edits that he disagrees with. I don't have the experience with Wikipedia that many of you do, but I suspect that is inappropriate behavior for this site. Please take a look at my talk page. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by LessHeard vanU[edit]

I would note that the only wording I found consensus for was that specifically provided under proposal 2. Any variation of that, by addition or subtraction, needs to find consensus, either generally or in the specific situation. This would include content immediately prior to or preceeding those words, where they effect the meaning of the agreed text.
I also found consensus for those words (but only those words) to be included in all relevant articles (that is, those articles relating to Israeli settlements in the occupied lands). I also further found agreement for the inclusion of the text in the lede of multi section articles, and for it in stub or very short articles where it was the only such mention. Only in some articles, those which had a brief introduction and then a body of one or two sections, was there disagreement on how it was to be incorporated - but not if. I devised a suggestion which allowed the inclusion of the consensus text, by placing it in the body, and satisfied WP:LEDE by using a more concise variant in the opening paragraph.
I trust this clarifies my thinking. I regret that my style of commentary gave the impression that consensus had not been achieved in the substantive issues; in my view it had. I stand by my comments that my view is not definitive - but only in so far that the wiki editing method allows consensus to change upon presentation of better or different interpretation of policy that deprecates that existing - and might usefully continue to be reviewed and discussed; this does not mean that it may be disregarded, however. If parties would like specific comments upon specific points, or interpretation of what I said and meant (not always easy, not even for me!) then please present them in list form. I shall place this page on my watchlist. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you still continue to not be decisive? Your first paragraph is fine, but then you backtrack in the second. I stand by my comments that my view is not definitive. I stand my by recent comments as well, given AGF, I hope that you are not insinuating that I have disregarded your comments. --Shuki (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am decisive - I refuse to let my determination stultify further efforts between editors. I recognise my decisions can be overturned by a new consensus, is all. As for whether you have disregarded my comments, I have no opinion since I have no interest; that matter is for others to discuss. My view on what has consensus is, I trust, clear. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You certainly were decisive. I have already expressed that I do not agree completely with your conclusion but it was a step in the right direction. You showed some fortitude (I would use another term if editors had not been so against my previous language) making a decision. You obviously realize how touchy the topic area is from your closing statement. That is for discussions off this AE, though. Your view on consensus is already being implemented (George did one, Supreme Deliciousness did one, and I reluctantly did one). That has spurred some further discussion and I still hope there will be some changes. We are on the right track but discussion on what (if anything else at all) is to take place with the wording should be at the centralized discussion.Cptnono (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Cla68[edit]

If the responding admins would look at this talk page thread, you'll see a series of personal attacks by Nableezy and Cptnono on each other and other editors. I notice that Brewcrewer was also involved in that discussion. A few months ago, when I warned another editor involved in the I/P articles, IronDuke, about personal attacks, Brewcrewer appeared to imply that I was involved in white supremecy forums off-wiki (at least, that's how I interpreted his remark). If I were a new editor, I would find the hostile discourse that these editors employ with each other in discussing this topic extremely off-putting and distasteful. Actually, I find it off-putting and distasteful even though I'm not a new editor. Cla68 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was no personal attack. I was practically begging Nableezy to see the centralized discussion. You on the other hand readded the line that did not have consensus.[85] (which I replaced with the version the admin saw consensus in regardless of my feelings on it, by the way) So maybe a ban for you is appropriate or should we chalk it up to being new in the topic area?Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Stop going out of your way to start trouble." Do you guys talk to each other like this so much that you no longer even recognize it as personal attack? Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He was causing trouble. There was confusion on the consensus (and we would later be reminded that he was also adding a line that did not have consensus) and instead of seeking resolution at the centralized discussion he was opening up three individual discussions. That is starting trouble pure and simple. I understand that saying "going out of your way" might have sounded slightly mean but it was far from a personal attack. But do you want to clarify why you added the line that did not have consensus? An admin made it clear below that that was not acceptable and you did it within 20 minutes of that. Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel the same way. Did you notice when I made sure to inform Shuki on the consensus?[86] I am shocked that you would attempt to say that I did anything wrong here. This is compounded by the fact that I was the one who started the centralized discussion that led to consensus (whether I think it was the best conclusion or not). I'm not the trouble maker here. And you have still failed to explain why you mae a revert to a line that did not have consensus.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are reinforcing my point that you and the other main editors of this topic have gotten locked into an adversarial method of communicating with each other. When questioned on it, the editors involved immediately start attacking the accuser and anyone else involved while minimizing their own contributing actions. Is this the norm for that topic area? Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have I called you a jerk or anything like that? No. You made an accusation that specifically named me and I denied it. You still have not explained why you made a revert to a line that did not have consensus. Anyone of us "regulars" would have been at AE for it. Did I bring you here? No. I fixed the edit and informed you on the talk page. Of course I am going to be a little ticked off when you do that then name me as being in error. So do you have an explanation or not?Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cla, your engagement with said debate is welcome, but with respect, in a protracted debate such as this people are inevitably going to get a little testy. What you interpret as "a series of personal attacks" I see as a group of editors trying hard to remain civil in very trying circumstances. Please let's not escalate this dispute any further than is necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you. There is no reason for editors to be communicating with each other that way on an article talk page. If they are getting that visibly and disturbingly testy with each other, then they need to take break from the topic and/or each other. Cla68 (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it cooled down after that. SO can you now explain why you made that revert? Seriously, that was much more egregious and you have still failed to answer. I didn't open an AE because I thought it would be counterproductive but now I am wondering why you would not fess up to your mistake there.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cla, when you mention that you "warned" me for personal attacks, you left a few key details out. The most important of these, of course, is that you were (and apparently still are) meatpuppeting for banned editors User:Gnetwerker and User:Herschelkrustofsky. I had hoped you'd been admonished about this already, or perhaps you decided to ignore it. I think I've been pretty patient about your behavior; I haven't sought any kind of block or ban for what is unambiguously a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, but my patience won't last forever. I have the right to remove any and all comments you make about me or edits against me on behalf of banned editors, though I would rather not do so. I'd rather you acknowledged what you're doing is wrong, or at least promise to cease the disruption.

Oh, and in case that's not already wrong enough, the article in question, Leo Frank, is not in the IP area, and the editor you were championing, User: Machn is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer who made racist and antisemitic statements ("Mr. Ebonics" and "Jew pervert," to take two charming examples). I wouldn't go so far as to say that your going to bat for this editor makes you a white supremacist, rather, I'd say you were pursuing agendas unhelpful to Wikipedia, and should stop immediately. IronDuke 17:58, 29 November 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.

• I am in substantial agreement with Mkativerata's comment above. Once an uninvolved administrator has determined the consensus of a discussion, it needs to be followed if our consensus-based editing model is worth anything. If there are disagreement with the closure, the closing administrator may be requested to reconsider, or review may be requested at an appropriate venue such as the administrators' noticeboard. But until that closure is actually modified, it is binding.

  According to LHvU's clarification: "I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles."

  There are claims that Nableezy's version (e.g., "Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Ma'ale Adumim is considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.") differs from the wording LHvU refers to ("The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this."), but so far I am able to perceive zero substantive difference between the two.

  In short, this is going into WP:IDHT territory. The consensus has been determined by an uninvolved administrator, yet the user claims that "nothing is settled" and that the closure is "confusing" when it is abundantly clear. I think that this request is actionable, and given the history, including four separate sanctions, I propose a six-month topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Cptnono: Fair enough. It's a subtle difference, but now that you pointed it out I can certainly see it. As the objection has been made clear, I expect Nableezy to either conform their future edits to the consensus wording as determined by LHvU, or obtain consensus for their new version. If they do neither, an AE request will likely be looked upon favorably.

    This, however, does not affect the proper disposition of the request at hand. The claim that "nothing [is] settled" is absurd in light of LHvU's closure of that discussion. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • With the subject of the request at hand having been addressed, I think we might wish to look a bit closely at the comments above. I think it is apparent that the topic-wide 1RR restriction recently implemented did not sufficiently contain the battleground behavior. The discussion between Nableezy and Jaakobou under #Statement by Shuki, for example, is filled with personal attacks ("fabricating consensus", "purposefully deceitful"). Jaakobou's list of Nableezy's history of sanctions is entirely unhelpful; presumably most admins here are aware of it already (and the history of the filer, of course, has very little, if any, to do with the proper sanctions imposed by AE); the use of <big> tags to surround the "7.5 months" figure is worse. Gilabrand (talk · contribs)'s comment here is also highly problematic ("Queen", "disgrace"). I propose that we also impose interaction bans between Jaakobou and Nableezy, and between Gilabrand and Nableezy, so that we may hopefully curb this battleground behavior. T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Mkativerata: I did consider a limited topic ban, but given the battleground behavior prevalent in this topic area recently, I think it preferable to force a complete disengagement followed by gradual return on appeal if good work in other topic areas can be demonstrated, rather than risk the conflict spilling over into other parts of this topic area. T. Canens (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I agree that the two edits by Shuki that are cited by the submitter of this AE represent WP:IDHT regarding LHvU's summing up of the discussion. I support T. Canens' recommendation of a 6-month topic ban of Shuki from I-P articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Firstly, I'd like to thank LessHeard vanU for closing the original discussion, and for commenting here. I substantially agree with above comments by T. Canens and EdJohnston, and I also agree with Sean.hoyland's comment - it has taken a lot of time and effort to get this far in establishing a consensus, and while that consensus may change in the future, we shouldn't simply ignore it. The only area of disagreement I have is that I consider 6 months to be a little on the long side. I would have thought a 3-month topic ban would be sufficient given that Shuki merely removed the wording from the lede, and left the text in the main body of the article. PhilKnight (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Also, I agree with the interaction bans, and would add if they don't work, stronger measure will obviously be required. PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Regarding the above comments by Cla68, I agree completely, and there should also be an interaction ban between Cptnono and Nableezy. PhilKnight (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, I would not interpret Shuki's action as leaving "the text in the main body", as I think it's more plausible that they simply reverted Nableezy. The history here - 4 separate sanctions in a single year (or really, since April, so it's more like 7 months) - also supports a stronger sanction. As always, if there is evidence of good work in other areas, we can lift the ban early on appeal.

The recent deterioration in behavior, however, really needs to be restrained, with seemingly draconian sanctions if necessary, before it becomes uncontrollable and requires yet another arbcom case, which I think no one here wants to see.

In the same spirit, I agree with the additional interaction ban PhilKnight proposed, and I add that if the interaction bans don't work out well, then pretty much the only choice open to us is lengthy topic bans from the whole area.

Finally, I draw people's attention to AGK's comment in this old AE thread, which I find to be particularly on point:

Interjecting criticism of the conduct of other editors into consensus-building discussions is a wholly unhelpful practice....Talk page discussions are exclusively for discussion of the content of an article and for building an editorial consensus on disputed content matters. Any editors who do not abide by this ethos in their contributions to article talk pages are, in the first case, damaging genuine attempts to build consensus, and in the second, liable to be blocked or sanctioned.

T. Canens (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi T. Canens, based on this comment by Shuki, I agree with your assessment, and support a 6 month topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I think it's time to close this. Based on the discussion above, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:

• In general:
  • All participants here are reminded that they should conform their future edits in this respect to the consensus wording as determined by LHvU, until and unless consensus for a different wording is established. Failure to do so may lead to sanctions, including but not limited to blocks and topic bans.
  • All participants here are further reminded that it is unacceptable to interject criticisms of other editors into talk page discussions. Concerns about editorial conduct should be brought to dispute resolution processes, or WP:ANI, or WP:AE, as appropriate. Failure to do so may result in sanctions.
• Topic ban:
  • Shuki (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for 6 months.
• Interaction bans
  • Jaakobou (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs) are admonished for personal attacks and ad hominem comments; they are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with Nableezy (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia.
  • Nableezy (talk · contribs) is admonished for personal attacks; they are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with Jaakobou (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia.
  • The scope of the interaction bans above is defined in WP:IBAN.
  • If either party to an interaction ban imposed above believes that the other has violated the interaction ban, they may not react to this except by the means of a single report at WP:AE. They are permitted to edit the other party's talk page for the sole purpose of informing them of the existence of the report. The other party will be permitted to respond to the report on WP:AE, but neither party may add anything further to the report after the reported party responds.

T. Canens (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]