Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive104

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

1. Dec 7 adds redundant info about occupation – revert 1
2. Dec 7 adds redundant info about occupation – revert 2

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

1. Warned on 1 December 2011 by Biossketch, followed by EdJohnston, followed by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#YehudaTelAviv64 closed three days ago, followed by User talk:EdJohnston#YehudaTelAviv64, followed by Wgfinely (I may be missing a few)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In response to the comments below: My understanding of policy is that adding info is considered a revert because it changes the status quo. If this is incorrect, this can be speedily closed. However, I would like to point out the clear misuse WP:BRD policy at Talk:Golan Heights#revert explanation regarding this very complaint. He is claiming that BRD allows to him to re-add information that was reverted with an explanation on the talk page.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgfinley. The "harassment" referred to is this one thread at his talk page. Though admittedly the rhetoric should have been toned down, I still strongly suspect this editor is a return of a banned editor (as explained in the diff), though I am holding off for now on any official SPI because I do not have solid evidence tying it to any specific editor.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

This is Wikipedia:Harassment. The first diff is clearly not a revert. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Brewcrewer earlier posted personal attacks on my talk page and I reported it here. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wgfinley

• I think that you may need to consult Help:Reverting. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You are using a made up definition for "revert". Clearly, the first diff is not a revert. See Wikipedia:Reverting. You are a rogue, corrupt administrator. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brewcrewer

• You said, "...clear misuse WP:BRD policy..." -- BRD isn't policy. From WP:BRD:

"BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." and "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."

YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: EdJohnston

• I would like an explanation for how the first link can possibly be considered a revert. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia Definition of Revert

• On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors. -- Help:Reverting

YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You appear to have some new definition for 'revert' for the purpose of this AE that has no basis in Wikipedia policies. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this edit, Brewcrewer removed a reply I posted in his section. He simply erased it and did not move it to another section. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does the first dif revert? It looks like the second dif is the only revert here - not a violation. Jd2718 (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is part of ongoing harassment by Brewcrewer -- [2]. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. The Wikipedia Definition of Revert is: "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors." YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though user was warned not use editing summaries to attack other users he clearly does so.

1. Calling other editor troll and failing to assume good faith by called the admin "biased".[3]
2. Calling editor "deranged" [4]

The editor removes admin warning [5] clearly shows battleground behavior.--Shrike (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to another editor as deranged should be grounds for a temporary, if not permanent, vacation from the project. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "deranged" as in "disorderly" -- the edits were made by a confused editor. WGFinley commented on those edits here on EdJohnston's talk page. On a side note, those two admins (WGFinley and EdJohnston) have been heavily involved and should not be commenting in the uninvolved administrators section. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Deranged" isn't the worst of it. In the context of everything else that's been going on here, User:YehudaTelAviv64 had no compunctions about referring to the attitude of the same Admin who pardoned him the last time he was brought to AE as "small-minded" and "pig-headed." An extended vacation sounds like the right idea.—Biosketch (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your abuse of the term 'revert', I fear I have no choice but to request a Wikipedia:Administrators#Arbitration Committee review using the Arbitration Committee mailing list. You very clearly invented a new definition for "revert" and that is not acceptable for a Wikipedia administrator. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See EdJohnston's response here where he claims that this edit was a "revert". Wikipedia's definition of "revert" is:

Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

EdJohnston is inventing new Wikipedia policies and threatening to block users who do not fall in line with his power trip. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update EdJohnston has still not explained how the first diff can be considered a 'revert'. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all need to take a step back for a moment. Looking over Yehuda's edit history I see no reason to conclude this editor has had any prior involvement on Wikipedia. If he has it does not appear to have been significant since it does not appear that he demonstrates any particular familiarity with policy, process, or editing. My opinion on that question was already expressed with regards to a previous AE request on Yehuda.

On the question of harassment, I do not think it is a frivolous accusation on Yehuda's part. Two separate requests have been filed against Yehuda referring to this allegation of sockpuppetry without any actual evidence presented (neither of the editors in question have initiated an investigation on SPI either), and the accusation was hardly presented in a respectful or civil manner. Yehuda's user page indicates that his name is in fact Yehuda and that he is from Tel Aviv. The name "YehudaTelAviv" being referred to as "too Jewish" to be that of a legitimate contributor to the IP articles would be about as insulting as citing the name "Newyorkbrad" as "too English" to be that of a legitimate contributor to an article on the Troubles. That brewcrewer made that comment in connection with his sockpuppet allegations that have been repeated in two separate AE requests does raise serious concern about harassment. Given that, Yehuda's increasing hostility should be understood as a reaction to that kind of treatment rather than reflective of the editor's overall behavior. My opinion is that WP:BITE applies in this case.

Now, as to the question of a 1RR violation, I do not think it would be appropriate to say Yehuda has violated this provision. Removing material, in and of itself, should not be considered a revert unless said removal substantially alters the article in a way consistent with a previous version. That, in my opinion, does not appear to have been the case as the claim of redundancy would seemingly have merit, though I believe it is more an issue of wording in the infobox that could have been rectified with a rewrite rather than a removal. Yehuda adding information should definitely not be considered a revert for any reason since in that case it appears this was more or less a question of placement regarding material that was already in the article and when brew said the added info was redundant Yehuda removed the redundancy. That this removal of redundant wording was done immediately after the revert would mean they should be considered as one edit and it was an edit that seemed to be an effort to accommodate the concerns brew raised. While the article on BRD suggests you not claim to be engaging in a bold, revert, discuss cycle when the discussion is in the edit summary, in this case the issue was sufficiently minor and limited to one revert of a revert that it should be regarded as fulfilling the spirit of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from un☯mi

It seems that the accounts in question:

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

Dimension31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Have not been used in an overlapping way - Dimension31 was discontinued when YTA64 was taken into use.

Was Dimension31 under sanctions or threat of same?

Is there evidence that they were taken into use to give unfair advantage? The earliest edit of the YTA64 account to Golan Heights talk page seems to be this one where I can see no evidence of Dimension31 on the talk page at all.

Did you contact the user to ask for clarification before blocking? un☯mi 00:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re: YehudaTelAviv64 I do consider the first diff a revert, there has been several days of wrangling over this language [6][7][8][9][10] These diffs pretty much outlined the current edit war. I have already protected the article due to the warring, I believe an article ban of 7 days would be in order for Yehuda. I will take a look at the harassment allegation. --WGFinley (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:brew crewer I agree these sock accusations are a bit strong [11][12] but not unprecedented in this topic area. I don't see anything actionable though but a warning may be in order. --WGFinley (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The two edits cited in the above reports appear to technically be two reverts in 24 hours. Oftentimes we will cut some slack for new editors or look at the context. In YTA64 we have a new editor (probably not a sock, but with the same aggressiveness and resistance to feedback that we associate with socks) who wants to go right up to the edge of what is allowed. For people who work on the edge, we often cite WP:GAME as a reason to distrust them. Also, he misuses the term 'vandalism' and cites people for harassment when they are only giving a routine notice of a report to AE. I suggest that our patience might be running out and ask for suggestions. He's received plenty of advice and but is taking none of it, so I doubt that a further warning will be of any use. So far he get a zero for collaboration. The traditional next step for editors who push POV on I/P articles and can't be reasoned with is to consider a three-month topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Technical (checkuser) evidence would suggest that YTA64 actually has been active on Wikipedia before, on a different account, but I am still following up on that, he has not abusively used his previous account, and he did not formerly edit within this topic area so the other account may be unrelated. AGK [•] 10:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Interim update: Issue still pending. AGK [•] 20:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest waiting to see what AGK recommends before closing this. On the evidence given above (before AGK made his comment) we should be considering either a short topic ban or no action. If YTA64 wants to write to Arbcom to get them to define a revert, he is welcome to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. --WGFinley (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Still pending - Arbcom-l's response rate is frankly abysmal. AGK [•] 18:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have finished my investigation, and YTA64 is  Confirmed as being the same user as Dimension31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), another frequent editor of Golan Heights. I have blocked both accounts indefinitely, and indefinitely prohibited (per the discretionary sanctions ruling in ARBPIA) the user from editing any page relating to I/P. AGK [•] 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

nableezy - 14:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC) 14:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 15 December 2011 Distortion of cited sources
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_people&diff=prev&oldid=465998268 15 December 2011 Revert, continued distortion of sources
3. 15 December 2011 2nd revert, continued distortion of sources

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

Though not required, I informed the IP of the 1RR here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user claims to be editing according to the sources, yet, in just one example (here), he takes a source that says Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture. and changes the article from saying are an Arab people with origins in Palestine. to are an Arab people with origins in the Levant and Arabia. The rest of the diff is filled with similar distortions. The following are both reverts, with the second violating the 1RR. Looking at past edits by the IP, such as this, or this, doesnt leave me with an impression that anything other than a long block is called for.

The IP has been blocked for 31 hours, but given the severity of the actions (serious distortion of the cited sources) I suggest something a bit longer. nableezy - 14:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

An egregrious example of a commonplace editwarrior technique, What happens in these cases is that an editor who disagrees with the source employed, does not check it (p.221), but simply rewrites the passage in order to make the source accord with his private opinion, or that of an ideology he subscribes to. The effect is to retain the source (thus evading charges of RS removal), while controverting its conclusion with a piece of WP:OR His edit sdummary runs:'(Not all Palestinain Arabs have origins in the Levant; most have ARAB heritage which is foreign to the region, unlike the Jews who are indigenous)'. The result is chaos.

There are numerous IP editors and sockpuppets who play this game. I don't think their aim is to distort the text, as much as to provoke editors, like Nableezy, either into using up their revert quota on that page, or to start an edit war which will lead to AE, and make the plaintiff look bad by the frequency of his requests that this kind of chronic abuse be dealt with.

The only way to get rid of this gaming, which is a tactic to provoke serious editors into making frequent complaints here, is to adopt some policy modification to handle it. Specifically, where an editor changes the text to alter what the source says, it is ipso facto vandalistic, and must be reverted automatically as vandalism, and the vandalic act registered on the editor's page. If it is repeated, the vandal gets a life ban. Ban this chap, and another dozen will pop in to take over the job. One by one sanctions are futile in handling a Matrix like proliferation of identities who essentially employ the same set of tactics. This is not so much a behavioural problem, so much as consequence of defects in wiki policy which invite hackers to game the efficiency of the project's collaborators.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The IP has been blocked by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and I would advise a trip to RfPP (by all means citing this diff) if problems like this keep cropping up. However, I would advise that you warn vandals and report them to AIV, rather than relying solely on the 1RR restriction when you have made more than one revert (though obviously reverts of inherently disruptive edits do not count towards the 1RR limit). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, PP is the best response to this type of behavior. I would request this report not be closed just yet as I am having some technical evidence checked. --WGFinley (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked the account, by WGF's request. This anonymous user is  Confirmed as User:Epf, who I have just blocked indefinitely. I will leave the issue of levying discretionary sanctions to you guys. AGK [•] 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 19:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 17:55, 13 December 2011 Malicious lie about my actions with an implicit accusation of antisemitism, further explanation below
2. 18:41, 13 December 2011 Hounding, dishonestly claiming the material is not supported by the cited sources
3. 16:55, 13 December 2011 Hounding

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

1. Notified of the case on 13 October 2011

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I repeatedly, though harshly, requested that the user either show me citing a source calling for genocide or retract the claim. The user has refused and continues to repeat it, though now it has morphed into my using a source that supports a person who made a statement that MEMRI translated a certain way. No matter what one thinks of me, I should not have to put up with such blatantly dishonest and disgusting attacks on my character. This lie remains at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the user continues to make further absurd charges, with no justification.

I admit I lost my temper, though I feel that in the face of such inflammatory attacks that my response was justified. However, I recognize that I should have simply come straight here. Given the past few weeks, and the repeated appearance of uninformed comments from a collection of users such as MichaleNetzer and AgadaUrbanit, seeking to use any report as an excuse to ban me, I neglected to do so, hoping that I might convince the user to retract such a malevolent lie. Obviously I failed to do so, and in doing so I admit I exceeded the standards of behavior expected of us. But, again, I cant say that I feel my response was unjustified.

In the 2nd and 3rd diffs, following disputes at Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestinian people, the user hounded my contributions to make two reverts of my edits on articles he had not edited in the past. He claimed he was not hounding me, but he admits he was unaware the issue at Nazateth was under discussion, and further that he made the reverts because he thought it was that camp vs. the other camp. If he had no idea that the issue was under discussion then he clearly did not have the article in his watchlist. The obvious conclusion, made more obvious by the revert at MEMRI, is that he hounded my contribution history to aggressively seek out confrontation.

The reply by the user is just further evidence of his willingness to maliciously lie about my actions. The source in question is a report by the Office of the Mayor of London. Anybody can look at it (here). To claim that I used or endorsed a source that advocates for the destruction of every Jew based on my restoring that source to the article is a malicious lie, a lie repeated here. Such accusation should be treated seriously, and I request that the user be given an extended ban for repeatedly and willfully lying about other users actions in a brazen attempt to paint them as antisemites. nableezy - 19:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, I realize this. I realize that just the volume of complaints, both by and against, involving me will understandably lead to that impression. I dont know what you would have me do though. Im open to suggestions. nableezy - 03:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary WGF, my statement was meant to indicate that instead of losing my temper I should have taken the issue straight here. That rather than lash out at the editor who made the outrageous attack, I should have calmed down and simply reported the issue. Quite the opposite of things don't immediately need to go to AE. nableezy - 15:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Really? Even after being brought up on this noticeboard for reporting every editor, who does not agree with his persistently pushed POV, this is still going on... Anyway:

• Nableezy endorsed a source that endorses someone who advocated for the destruction of all Jews while refusing to verify the incriminating quote.
  

If any further clarification is needed, I will be more than happy to reply. As for the hounding accusations, getting involved in a couple of new articles he is incidentally involved in, is not hounding; however, directly threatening me to "take greater interest in me and my edits" unless I ceased to cross his path – that's pretty damn serious. Please keep in mind that I may be absent for a while because I am not in a place with steady internet connection and am busy for most of my days. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... now the counter-attack as a thread to Nab's original post. Gotta hand it to him for the "last word" tactic. I urge anyone overseeing this to check all the links I provided before concluding. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I wouldn't even be in these exhausting threads if not for Nableezy thwarting my edits and sources. He already tried calling me a liar after bringing a source, one of the authors of which is a member of BADIL, an organization that awarded a monetary prize to an openly anti-Semitic cartoon. I am not here for wars, I am here to be an honest editor, but hey... Nableezy is doing everything he can to silence editors that do not adhere to his POV, so I'm probably too late to defend myself anyway. Justice, anyone? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Know what? I am withdrawing the remark that says that Nab's source itself called for genocide. His source merely discussed Qaradawi, who was quoted by MEMRI to have called for genocide. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have already retracted my remark, and the discussion is not exactly one sided. Therefore, one admin determining a topic ban is way too hasty and I am requesting a second opinion on this. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand my wrongdoings and promise to exercise greater caution, can I please get a chance here? Maybe in the form of a one and only warning instead of an indefinite topic ban? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A short remark to HJ Mitchell: yes, I see now that my behavior got way out of hand, I should not have taken the WP:BAIT. However, you seem to have overlooked a couple of details: I rephrased myself upon realizing the horrible wording of my original claim, and reduced it to "Nableezy endorsed a source (Mayor's office) that supports a person (al Qaradawi) who was quoted to have incited a crowd with calls to kill Jews". So, although the whole situation got very ugly and I did my share of (unintentional) wrongdoings, I never intended to accuse the Mayor's office of anti-Semitism, let alone accuse Nableezy of being anti-Semitic. I already apologized for the misunderstanding and I still hope for someone to review the topic ban. Finally, I was not hounding/wikistalking anyone, I was trying to legitimately weigh in on some articles, which incidentally had Nableezy in the discussion as well; Nableezy actually threatened to hound me if I didn't quit editing the same articles he does... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, I just noticed that Nableezy specified that I was notified of the policy that is specific to this case back in October. That notification was specific to an unrelated 1RR case way before this whole story began, hope that can be noted. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy. Seeking perfect justice in the world, let alone wikipedia, is a sure track to martyrdom, and I think several editors see this as your Achilles heel, and are tempted to work on it. The worst effect on you is that emotion makes you lard your reports with too many adjectives. Hearfourmewesique. From certain edits, I gather you are not quite at home in English, let alone logic. No one goes around accusing Ken Livingstone of antisemitism, or hinting he would back another holocaust of Jews, because of that document on Yusuf al-Qaradawi he underwrote. You can't get away with it here either. It's called smearing people with guilt by association. Those of us who read I/P material come across motherlodes of violent abusive statements by Israeli figures, but to my knowledge we don't go round flourishing this in the faces of colleagues here, or jamming every tidbit into articles. Palestinians have been called by Israeli public figures in high office,(reliable sources are available for each remark and who said it) cockroaches, scorpions, sandniggers, aliens from outer space, cancerd, a nation of monkeys, wasps, crocodiles, mosquitoes, grasshoppers to be crushed underfoot, moles, lice, vermin, ants, snakes, beasts and asses, leeches, subhumans, below minerals on the evolutionary chain, local bacteria (strictly speaking, that was used of Gazans), pigs and scum, to be neutered like eunuchs if they protest the occupation, or suspended in formaldehyde. All of the eminent people who have gone on record for these views are received by eminent foreigners on their trips abroad, and accorded the red carpet treatment in the White House. Just as Yusuf al-Qaradawi was received by Livingstone. So could you just withdraw your remark? It is a smear by association. Websites dedicated to this and trash disinformatsiya abound, and we should not touch that stuff with a tenfoot pool, nor endeavour to drag the bullshit of spindoctors and public mindbenders into our work or relations here, as you patently did.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, can you please cite just one source where someone who's gone on record for these views is accorded the red carpet treatment in the White house? You may be right but I don't recall such a thing offhand. Please show just one source for such a claim meant to absolve a similar behavior from the other side. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On condition this doesn't become a thread, okay? If you wish to reply, discuss it on your talk page. I'm reluctant to have this material in the public purview like the net.

Baylis Thomas How Israel was won: a concise history of the Arab-Israeli conflict Lexington Books 1999 p.241 n.123

Shamir, Begin, Dayan, Barak and others got the redcarpet, though they said such things, even though I was using that metaphorically. Let's leave it at that.Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you dont mind if I respond here. You are right, and this was why I did not bring it here immediately. But this attack is outrageous, more than the usual bullshit that I am willing to deal with. An editor repeatedly lied and claimed that I supported using a source that calls for genocide. You dont need a justice system that comes anywhere near perfect for such malevolent lies to result in action. nableezy - 20:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to blog here, Nab. But I owe it to a suggestion of yours that I read Yehuda Elkana, whose scientific work you admire. He went through the lot, racist victimization, enslavement, Auschwitz, etc., and came out with that equilibrium of toughminded objectivity, inured to slurs, or the cheapshot hacks in the grubstret commentariat who get upset with his remarks on these sorts of issues. We could do worse than follow his example. Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if everyone replies here then I will too. I already explained that Nableezy supported a source that is an appraisal piece for someone who was quoted to say the following: "Oh Allah, Take This Oppressive, Jewish, Zionist Band Of People; Oh Allah, Do Not Spare A Single One Of Them; Oh Allah, Count Their Numbers, And Kill Them, Down To The Very Last One." OK, so the direct source did not say it but its main subject did. I will then retract the statement accusing the source of calling for the destruction of all Jews, however, it should be made clear that its primary subject of discussion, Dr. Al-Qaradawi, was quoted to have said the above atrocious statement, and that was my original intent. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hearfour . You are not listening to anyone. My instincts were to call for an outright ban because I don't think we should tolerate either antisemites, or antisemite-screamers here. I've been trying to get you to step back, and no result. All you need do is apologize. or withdraw the remark

Your second example however only proves the point. You are smearing by very strained logic of guilt by association even at several removes. (a)Nableezy cites a source. (a)One of the author turns out to belong to a Palestinian organization, BADIL (c) this organization once gave a monetary prize to a cartoonist for an antisemitic poster. Ergo, the source is defective, (and perhaps Nableezy is antisemitic?) Use that chain of guilt through several links and no source is reliable and everyone using them is criminal. Since you repeat the error after your mistake was pointed out, I don't think you should be editing an area as difficult at the I/P one. If you are very young, there may be some excuse for lenience however.Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I will quote you on saying "All you need do is apologize. or withdraw the remark". Please look in my section above. I sincerely hope this can put the whole chapter behind us. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're almost there. . . and the halfway gesture is appreciated, at least by me. I've apologized directly to quite a few people (some of whom I dislike) here because I made mistakes. It's a matter of personal honour to do so, and costs nothing. Nableezy has a right, over which I have trampled here, and indeed has policy on his side. How about just saying something along the lines of 'my remarks were inappropriate, and if the insinuation you see there is there, then I'm sorry.' I hope this doesn't sound like waterboarding, but, cripes, there's no loss of honour in just, now and then, saying the simplest word in the language (sorry). I'm sorry I ever got into this thread. Nab may never forgive me for depriving him of a natural right to vindicate his own honour. Nishidani (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Hearfourmewesique is not quite aware of what he has himself written - and apparently is unable to read it even when given the opportunity. I can find no other explanation for his initial comment in this request.

While I think that the request itself has merit, I also think that it should be considered whether he can be considered competent overall to contribute in this particular area of wikipedia in a manner that achieves good use of our limited editor resources. un☯mi 20:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Know what? I am withdrawing the remark that says that Nab's source itself called for genocide. His source merely discussed Qaradawi, who was quoted by MEMRI to have called for genocide.
• "Moreover, if the complaint is closed without sanctions on my editing priviliges, I am willing to issue a serious apology to Nableezy for the seeming (although unintentional) insinuation."

Oh yeah, he totally gets it. The level of sincerity is unmistakable. un☯mi 01:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the good faith, I'm truly touched. Would you apologize just to get a "f@^k you" back? Wouldn't you try to at least foresee some good coming back at you, considering that I've been lynched, decapitated and disemboweled on this board, all within less than one day? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably my final thought here. You actually had to get to page 11 out of 21 (halfway through the entire document) to find something not directly pertaining to Qaradawi, in a document called "Qaradawi Dossier" that is summarized in its own headline paragraph as "A reply to the dossier against the Mayor’s meeting with Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi", just to make a WP:POINT that I misrepresented the source. While I did apologize and do regret the harsh wording towards Nableezy and the inadvertent inaccuracy in my apparently false accusation, that fact still remains. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this i don't even.. but I am glad that you apologized for your apparently false accusation. un☯mi 14:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the following comment you made: "The source was used[...]to support examples of people criticizing [MEMRI] in general, it was not used in the specific context of al-Qaradawi, and contains a number of examples that are not related to him at all ( See page 11 )." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute about the sources rests on whether al-Qaradawi's words were translated correctly by MEMRI. Two sources that Nableezy wanted restored take a position that his words were distorted. This position has not been widely ratified in other sources. Going by the sources in his biography, Yusuf al-Qaradawi certainly raises serious apprehension, as not someone who should be defended or whitewashed in sources used about the conflict.

It's easy to imagine how Nableezy might react if an editor tried to bring a source, and they can certainly be found, for a notable figure trying to whitewash Meir Kahane's extremism, even though Kahane never even hinted at supporting mass genocide of Palestinians, as al-Qarawdawi is purported to have with Israelis.

Hearfourmewesique's unease with these sources that try to absolve al-Qarawdawi is understandable though his wording may not have been concise as to the chain of sources he pointed to. Just looking at his biography, it's clear that an Israeli doesn't even need this particular MEMRI report to be offended by an effort to saint-ify al-Qarawdawi, in the same way that Nableezy doesn't need any special source to reject the same about a personality like Kahane. That's how NPOV would necessitate approaching these sources.

Yet Nableezy takes peculiar over the top offense at Hearfourmewesique's understandable rejection of sources that try to whitewash a way too controversial extreme figure as being moderate and somehow becoming the sainted subject of reliable sources. Hearfourmewesique's suggestion that Nableezy supports a source that supports what al-Qarawdawi represents, is not so far off the mark.

This complaint seems like another one of Nableezy's "Go after your opponents and pulverize them" battleground behavior in Wikipedia.

When will enough finally become enough and how much time do so many people need to spend on putting out the fires of Nableezy's rage? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is my point exactly. NuclearWarfare has gone ahead and imposed an indefinite topic ban on me as a single admin without any other admin comments in that section, is that acceptable? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look right and another admin's input seems needed. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reality distortion field is strong in this one.

1. The source was used like this to support examples of people criticizing [MEMRI] in general, it was not used in the specific context of al-Qaradawi, and contains a number of examples that are not related to him at all ( See page 11 ).

2. Nableezy's understandably took offence at the claim ( now amended ) that he defends "sources" by a religious nutjob who calls for boycotting companies that sell to/buy from Israel, as well as the destruction of every Jew. That (arguably) personal attack and fine bit of well-poisoning is the rationale for opening this enforcement request.

I can't help but wonder if your specious framing stems from a legitimate impairment or just the hope to find such in others. un☯mi 01:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the context but the effect of the sources is the same nonetheless. The Mayor of London's press release is subtitled on the cover "A reply to the dossier against the Mayor’s meeting with Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi". And really now, the dispute remains as I stated about MEMRI while these two sources engage in saint-ifying al-Qaradawi by way of discrediting MEMRI's critcism of him. The rest of my framing, be it specious or otherwise, reflects what this complaint is about and I'm not the first to say such a thing about its filer. You should also know that as a comic book writer and artist, I specialize in distorted reality fields. But the only way to become proficient in them is to first be able to identify reality succinctly.

A self-analysis of my own character wouldn't likely be acceptable to you anyway, so I'll ask you instead if you're in the habit of dishing out impairment notices around here, or are you just happy to see me? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually happy to see you, I think you have the hallmarks of a fine contributor. Please consider my 'direct' remarks to you an indication that I believe that you have the capacity to be a real asset to the project, you just need to understand that the means is the end in process, and hopefully realize that no one can defend the indefensible, .

The dispute on MEMRI had no actual relevance to the dispute on the talk page of the article that precipitated the casting of aspersions that Hearfourmewesique engaged in. From the discussion it seems clear that he was simply trying to distract from the low quality of the sources he was trying to introduce. un☯mi 02:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern and do not deny the problems you refer to in this case. It only seems that due to the severity of both sides' behavior, and seeing the ax falling hard on only one, a little pull towards the other side was also needed. It's good to see EdJohnston's and HJ Mitchell's reprimands striving for just that. I appreciate both the 'direct' candor and kind words. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have written on my talk page, I am willing to issue a sincere apology as I understand that my comments were insinuating something I did not wish to, and it indeed is crossing the line. Can other admins please comment so that I can at least have a discussion, instead of one admin deciding to shut me off? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to stay out of this (as I have in the I don't know, 20? 40? it's hard to keep track, previous cases where Nableezy either reported someone or was himself reported), but things here have moved from the realm of absurd deep into the territory of farce.

Hearfourmewesique was reported for violating NPA and HOUND. We have already established here on multiple occasions that civility is not enforced unless you say something like "you can suck my balls" to another editor. In this very report, we have an editor telling another editor that "I gather you are not quite at home in English, let alone logic", and another one saying "I can't help but wonder if your specious framing stems from a legitimate impairment or just the hope to find such in others" and not a peep from anyone. And this is AE, so you can imagine what goes on on regular talk pages.
Hearfourmewesique retracted his personal attack, which is usually enough for an editor who doesn't have a very long history of NPA related sanctions. Hounding was not established. Now he's getting an indefinite topic ban? Seriously? Seriously??

I get that some editors here have a support network that leaps into action whenever they get in trouble or when they report someone else and can influence the more neutral admins either by their sheer numbers and if that doesn't work by concentrated attacks and threats. Hearfourmewesique doesn't have that. Fine. At least try to pretend you have some kind of normal practice you apply to all editors equally because this is rapidly reaching the point of going too far. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for chipping in under here. There's no support group, and of its putative members, none ever gets near the amount of tracking, IP/sock attention, and pure tendentious challenges that Nableezy does. I've said elsewhere we should all stay out of AE (and if possible A/I) and leave it for the parties in causa and admins. I've made an exception twice recently, because of my reading of N's exasperation. Nableezy should be held to the same rules as everyone else, but no one else gets anywhere near the flack he cops. I think his desire for minute legal redress exaggerated. But there's no policy that will stop those stalking him with edit challenges that are patently provocative or vicious. Basta.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishi, I've noticed at Talk:Jerusalem#Renaming_Palestine_by_Hadrian you were warned on WP:1RR violation. You acknowledged the error like a real samurai and the discussion continued, without unneeded WP:DRAMA. Marvelous. どうもありがとう AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most people here that this was a pretty outrageous personal attack. However I disagree with admins about the sanction. In fact I do not recall ever seing an indef topic ban for a single NPA violation. Is this about prevention? Is an indef topic ban the only way to prevent attacks by this user? Sanctions are not meant to measure the outrage. A stern warning would probably go a long way in preventing similar abuse. Unless there is a persistent pattern of behaviour I may have missed. Please give this guy a chance. He has clearly admitted his wrong and promised not to repeat it. - BorisG (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second BorisG and NMMNG. In my opinion, indef topic ban is over the top a bit in the case where WP:TROUT looks more appropriate. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need more civility in the topic, from all sides, and nobody is a saint here, some toxic remarks do flood the system. Agree with opinions above, indef topic ban is over-reaction, even considering editor's previous AE history. We should also consider that the editor did expressed a regret and promised to fix his ways. If we see additional stumblings, especially in civility area, let's indef him. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I checked the links. My impression is that Hearfourmewesique is certainly not acting in good faith and is here more to push a POV than edit according to our policies. I would recommend an indefinite topic ban. Other thoughts? NW (Talk) 20:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I'm just going to go ahead and log the topic ban. This can be closed by any administrator who doesn't think there are any "unclean hands" issues to deal with. NW (Talk) 01:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This report, combined with the previous one at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99#Hearfourmewesique, gives me no reason to question the topic ban on Hearfourmewesique that has already been enacted by NuclearWarfare. Don't see the need to sanction anyone else, but If Nableezy expects to write about similar problems in the future, a less angry tone would be welcome. Admins also had concerns about his tone in a previous complaint about Cptnono. If you have a strong case, you should be able to present it calmly. Closing this request about Hearfourmewesique. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec, apologies for reopening, Ed, but I think what I have to say needs to be said). I agree with with NW. The only thing I would say is that we might be willing to review the topic ban after a few months, and that I probably would have imposed a medium-term topic ban of definite duration, but indefinite does not seem unreasonable to me. Hearfourmewesique, your conduct in this instance has been abhorrent, lacking in good faith or any assumption thereof, and so far detached from Wikipedia's ideal of collaborative editing to improve an encyclopaedia that you have shocked two experienced AE admins to the point where you have earned yourself an indefinite topic ban (something not given out lightly). That you would accuse Nableezy (whom I will address in a moment) of endorsing a source simply because he went and found a working link to replace a dead one is, in itself, one of the worst assumptions of bad faith I have seen recently. However, I was shocked, upon investigation, to discover that the source you accuse of "endors[ing] someone who advocated for the destruction of all Jews" was in fact a report by an official working for the Mayor of London explaining why Ken Livingstone would be engaging with representatives of all significant faith communities, regardless of how distasteful their views may be. Hardly a ringing endorsement (not to mention wildly off-topic). To claim that the source itself endorses killing Jews takes novel synthesis to a whole new level, but to then claim that Nableezy endorses that view really is pushing it. Add to that that you referred to the author of the report (a presumably living person) as a "religious nutjob", and your apparent wikistalking of Nableezy by turning up at articles where he is active, seemingly with the intent of provoking a confrontation, and quite frankly, you're lucky that indefinite topic ban wasn't an indefinite block.

  Nableezy, I hope you will allow me to impart some advice as a completely neutral admin. Your appearances at this noticeboard—almost always as the complainant or the defendant—are becoming tiring. That you have more edits to this noticeboard than administrators who have been active here (dealing with every reported violation of arbitration rulings, not just ARBPIA) should be a cause for grave concern to you, and I would strongly urge you to make your appearances here less frequent. There is an extent to which one can argue that you are trying to use the system legitimately to deal with misconduct by other editors, but when those reports come as with the volume and frequency of yours, one begins to wonder if your presence in the topic area isn't part of the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty clear WP:POINT violation here from Hearfourmewesique, I agree with the indefinite as the user can request a review. I agree completely with HJ Mitchell's comments directed at Nableezy though I would point out Nableezy acknowledged harsh replies and loss of temper. That's a start, realizing things don't immediately need to go to AE would be the next step. --WGFinley (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@BorisG, NMMNG and ElComandanteChe: The action against Hearfour is about more than a single personal attack. You will probably get a more clear picture of Hearfourmewesique's approach to I/P editing if you review the previous request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99#Hearfourmewesique. After reading that I would be asking myself if this editor can possible be a constructive contributor to the topic. The present request should be closed soon unless an obvious error can be pointed out. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 22:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned and Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

1. 15/9 Accuses another editor of lying
2. 2/11 Incivil edit summary
3. 16/11 Incivil edit summary
4. 17/11 Incivil edit summary
5. 17/11 Incivil comments directed at Greyhood
6. 19/11 Incivil comments; calls Greyood lame
7. 22/11 Incivil edit summary
8. 24/11 Incivil comments; admits that he is not assuming good faith of other editors, specifically Greyhood
9. 25/11 Incivil comments; not discussing content but attacking editors (Greyhood)
10. 27/11 Does not assume good faith of other editors
11. 27/11 Incivil comments
12. 27/11 Incivil comments/personal attack on Greyhood
13. 27/11 not assuming good faith on the part of other editors
14. 7/12 not assuming good faith on the part of Greyhood
15. 10/12 reverting edits of sockpuppets back into article with non-descriptive edit summary
16. 11/12 Personal attack on Greyhood - Greyhood, now you look like a plain @#$%^, sorry
17. 11/12 After being asked to refrain from engaging in personal attacks, Gritzko states outright to Greyhood "I am attacking you as a person."
18. 11/12 Calls Greyhood a "fanboy"
19. 11/12 Calls discussing problems with content "ridiculous arguments"
20. 14/12 Personal attack on Greyhood

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

EE topics are already difficult enough to edit, without having editors who are here to engage in advocacy attacking long-standing editors. Greyhood needs to be commended for keeping cool under attacks like the above, but he should not have to put up with them at all.

That Gritzko has chosen to use this request to again engage in personal attacks against Greyhood is telling as to the behaviour of the editor, and how difficult it is to be able to edit in these areas. To call another editor a "crazy guy" right here at AE, is telling, and I would suggest that a full topic ban be placed on Gritzko; perhaps a Russian politics topic ban, if not an outright Russia topic ban. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13]

Well, I'll sign under everything I said. If the guy argues at length that BLP applies to political parties [14] and then goes on a loooong crusade against a really trivial and factual sentence "However, recent events and polls show that popularity of Putin is on the decline." at Vladimir Putin (that one was removed and restored maybe ten times), removes a quote by Gorbachev saying that the guy is an "opposition politician" and "most hated politician" in Russia (rubbish), and so on and so forth -- then what kind of discussion is possible? I saw him removing maybe a dozen of high-quality citations of top periodicals because -- you know why? Because they "tend to give excessive attention to actions of the marginal Russian political opposition with dismal ratings". So, basically, we have a crazy guy with an agenda and lots of energy. Gritzko (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a brief look at the diffs provided by Russavia, Gritzko is incivil, but Greyhood shows a pretty persistent pattern of tendentious editing, which is a far more serious matter and needs to be looked into. - BorisG (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that User:Mkativerata's point is important, any editor should be warned first, and only subsequently sanctions could be enforced. I'm not sure that WP:DIGWUREN topic area covers also Russian domestic politics, but that is an irrelevant question. This request could be closed with User:Gritzko officially warned by an AE administrator as a bottom line result. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that Gritzko has ever received a DIGWUREN warning. So unless anyone can show me that DIGWUREN sanctions have ever been brought to Gritzko's attention, I'm thinking this can be dealt with by formal notification of DIGWUREN only. This kind of incivility would go unsanctioned in many parts of the project so I'm disinclined to impose any sanctions here especially without warning. I'm also assuming by the way (as everyone else here seems to implicitly) that editing disputes about Russian domestic politics are within the DIGWUREN topic area. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was not warned that I can see, warning and closing. --WGFinley (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction and Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. [15] Restores removed label in violation of WP:LABEL
2. [16] Less than 24 hours later removes sentence from lead because he doesn't like consensus wording. I assume this is a revert since he was editing the same sentence here, concurrently with the previous diff.

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

1. Notified of case here.
2. Blocked for 1RR on the same article here.
3. Received a 3 month topic ban a couple of weeks later. [17] for his talk page conduct, which unfortunately hasn't improved.
4. Blocked for 1RR on the same article last month

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor suffers from a severe case of IDHT and is very difficult to work with. He probably hits a good 7-8 of the 14 examples at WP:TENDENTIOUS.

This is a discussion where several editors agreed on the wording in the lead, and not a single editor supported talknic's argument. I suggest reading the two sections below that one for a typical example of the kind of talk page behavior that got him TBANed last time. Here he brings up the same issue again. And here it comes up again. In all 3 cases, several quite experienced editors agreed on the wording. Talknic, seeing he's not convincing anyone just went ahead and removed the whole sentence.

@WGF, Ed: I wouldn't have brought the technical 1RR here if that was the only problem. Please read some of the talk page discussions I linked to above, or practically any section in the last 4-5 archives of Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. You'll see what I mean. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talnic's long and meandering reply here and the examples he links to are a very good illustration of the problems other people face when trying to work with this editor. Notice how many times he accuses others of violating wikipedia policy "by consensus". He is unable to get even a single editor to support either the changes he wants to make or his objections to changes others make. He does not understand policy properly and refuses to listen to anyone who tries to explain it to him. He is now back at the article throwing accusations around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Preparing a reply: please allow response before taking action... thx talknic (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) "Restores removed label in violation of WP:LABEL" - WP:LABEL was not the reason for GabrielF's revert. He did not say it was a 'controversial' point. [18] //"controversial" needs to be sourced - see WP:WEASEL //

So I gave a Secondary Source, for the word "controversial" [19], as required per WP:VERIFY and requested by GabrielF. No More Mr Nice Guy is mistaken

• 2) "Less than 24 hours later removes sentence from lead because he doesn't like consensus wording"

This is another of No More Mr Nice Guy's numerous false accusations (my reply 14:57, 3 Dec). The reason for removal was clearly stated; violation of WP policies by consensus [20]. My edit gave both victims of the conflict equal WEIGHT and equal POV

• 3)I had previously asked for a verifiable source [21] Shows the CN removed by NMMNG. Previously removed by AndresHerutJaim, prior to which No More Mr Nice Guy reverted [22]- reason in Talk [23] The numerous editors giving consensus did not cite ANY sources what so ever [24]. I cited Secondary Sources, which No More Mr Nice Guy falsely claimed were Primary sources. Again consensus was reached to violate WP:VERIFY

After my taking WP:NPOV in respect to consequences of the war in the Lede to the Talk Page[25], consensus was again reached to violate WP:NPOV

• 4) "Here he brings up the same issue again." The discussion I joined the discussion at 16:52, 26 September 2011 which was in fact BEFORE the addition of material for the fate of the Jewish populationat 20:39, 29 September 2011 , which pushed the Paragraph into contravening WP:WEIGHT & WP:NPOV. So again, No More Mr Nice Guy's accusation is false.

"And here it comes up again" [26]. With the additional WP:NPOV material, it is not actually the same issue " In all 3 cases, several quite experienced editors agreed on the wording." They agreed to violate WP:NPOV WP:VERIFY & WP:WEIGHT, whilst falsely accused me of using Primary Sources when they were in fact Secondary Sources. ... talknic (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The source I provided for the statement reverted by GabrielF // "Benny Morris, the controversial Israeli historian..." // Is a statement for a book by a most "respected and controversial" Israeli historian.

The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews| Benny Morris | I.B.Tauris | 2003 | Page 300

"Benny Morris is a world renowned author and professor of Middle East History at Ben-Gurion University. His pioneering revisionist work on the Palestinian exodus from Israel in the late 1940's has made him one of the most respected and controversial historians working there today."

• Oh, Merry Xmas every one ... talknic (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been premature results before my chance to respond I feel justified in addressing those results:

• WGFinley - "The first diff is definitely a revert " It is the addition of a source requested for //Benny Morris, the controversial Israeli historian// GabrielF even put it quotes on the revert [27] //"controversial" needs to be sourced - see WP:WEASEL // Not WP:LABEL

'such sweeping changes' = two small changes, one giving the required Secondary Source for "Benny Morris, the controversial Israeli historian" which was called for by GabrielF, the other to remove information in breach by consensus of WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV, my edit gave both victims equal WEIGHT and equal POV ... talknic (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• EdJohnston - See reply to WGFinley.

"He has also been topic banned for three months in the past" T. Canens read only one discussion. Comment on sanctions by T. Canens "I haven't got the time to read through the discussions yet, but I did take a quick look at the edit summaries they are using. Looks like a broader sanction may be needed here." T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite being reasonably requested, No More Mr Nice Guy and AnonMoos refused to use edit summaries at all in discussions with me in that period ... I used the edit summaries to remind myself of what had taken place. If it said 'false accusation' you will find a false accusation. 'Please address the issue' you will find the issue was not addressed. Where 'asked again for personal comments to stop', you will find a stream of personal comments etc ... talknic (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WGFinley "it doesn't qualify as a reliable source as it's promotional material from a back cover of a book" This [28] is from the promotional blurb in a book. has an ISBN. After going to the ISBN page[29], the reader then has to go further to a copy of the book [30] only to find the citation is actually part of the books own publicity spiel It is there by consensus of the same group of people
• I note also there's not one word about continual consensus to breach WP:NPOV WP:VERIFY WP:WEIGHT Which makes one big smelly joke of Wikipedia and it's policies
• I bid you anon... I have enough ... talknic (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is quite simply bizarre. EdJohnson - "In a comment made while this AE request was open, Talknic seems to be hurling acronyms at random.."

No EdJohnson they are not at random, they're very specific violations of WP:VERIFY WP:NPOV WP:WEIGHT by consensus, documented in the very same Talk page [31]

Allowing violations of policy by consensus to pass without comment or notice, could be seen to dovetail nicely with No More Mr Nice Guy's remark -- "to put this in terms you will more easily relate to, the people scrutinizing my actions will be my fellow flat worlders"[32], and give weight to The Devil's Advocate's comment of 19:31, 24 December 2011. Enforcing sanctions against those who violate by consensus would prove otherwise ...talknic (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WGFinley - "I had a chance to go through the archives on 1948 Arab-Israeli War a bit and they are quite telling, I agree with your take Ed.. I see several editors trying to work with Talknic and they eventually get worn down and give up." 'trying to work with' = trying to prevent information being added at every turn. Time and again, at the ever moving goal posts I have attempted compromise only to find the goal posts move yet again. Example [33] ... talknic (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is a classic example of No More Mr Nice Guy's tactics He begins by misrepresenting my suggestion. At no point did I suggest labeling people and organizations as "terrorist".. He even goes as far as to attempt to coerce me into violating WP policy. (swiftly withdrawn on my denunciation)

You will note at least 4 instances where I attempted to compromise, based on his ever moving goal posts. Finally he had concede. His closing remark "Oh well. Nobody can accuse me of not trying" When in fact he tried by every means to prevent information being published. You will also note I even agreed to include similar information on other groups as he suggested. He has never taken up the offer ... talknic (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HERE Another classic example of No More Mr Nice Guy's moving goal posts, obfuscation and desperately trying to defend the indefensible. He was defeated by consensus, resulting in an informative RS, mathematically correct statement replacing what can only be described as weasel worded nonsense ... talknic (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HERE Another example of No More Mr Nice Guy's tactics "As usual you're using primary sources and your personal opinion on what they mean." No More Mr Nice Guy 08:54, 22 March 2011

My reply "The existing uses the exact same source. I can find no objection by yourself to the existing. The editor has misrepresented the evidence in the existing exact same source, by taking items out of order, truncating and misquoting. All of which are listed above. In the changes, I have taken the existing, ordered it and cited it un-truncated (suggesting it be referenced), corrected the misquoted "Arab inhabitants".

As you have not previously objected to the source you cannot claim now that it is invalid and as you have not previously objected to the dialogue, can you please show me where, in the guidelines, that additional material from the cited source cannot be added in accordance with editorial policies. Thx. BTW Citing NON-existent policy guidelines is a reportable offence" talknic 06:07, 23 March 2011 ... talknic (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time and again, it is only on my edits that No More Mr Nice Guy shows interest in the quality of the editing, the lack of sources, the misrepresentations, the primary sources. He has never asked for a CN. On all but one occasion he simply does a wholesale revert. Even reverting to un-sourced versions in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, by consensus what's more

Recent example After I supplied a Secondary Source for my edit, (the previous was unsourced and did not reflect the Armistice Agreements it referred to. No More Mr Nice Guy had no previous objection to it what so ever! No More Mr Nice Guy reverts to an un-sourced version of a contentious issue, claiming consensus. Consensus to leave unsourced information which does not accurately reflect the Armistices it mentions

No More Mr Nice Guy "I changed the wording to "former Mandate Palestine". I believe that was the term most editors supported in a previous discussion we had." However no such discussion ever took place on the template wording. The discussion was in fact for another section. [34] none of the 'consensus' makers provided any sources what so ever and the article has been left, by consensus, with a statement which is not supported by the Secondary Source!!!

In his recent edit No More Mr Nice Guy says "Casus - still not sure what it means. " It is a part of the template!!! Not even knowing what it meant, he deleted a reliably Secondary Sourced statement ... talknic (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge the responding editors to look closely at No More Mr Nice Guy's rationale for removing the information at 'casus' my recent edit "I removed the text from the "casus" part. I'm not sure what this is supposed to be. Causes? Casus belli? In either case the description there wasn't correct so I removed it" In fact I changed the description so that it WAS correct according to the pre-existing source.

At 13:48, 14 December 2011 [35] at casus, it said the following: "Safeguard the security and right to self-determination of inhabitants of Israel in an independent state" Giving the source as UN Doc. S/745, reprinted in 3 UN SCOR, Supp. for May 1948, at 83–88

At 23:44, 14 December 2011 [36], I corrected the statement to ACCURATELY reflect the information in the pre-existing source.

He even says "Causes? Casus belli?" (an editor with no online dictionary? Amazing!) ... talknic (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley - You provide this link [37] and said "is pretty bad form and indicative the fight is preferred to harmonious collaboration."

• Frederico1234 - says "The first statement about where the fighting took place is true whether the source supports it or not" This is in complete violation of WP policy, which tells us the source MUST support the statement.

My reply "The first part of the statement did not accurately reflect any UNSC resolution, any Ceasefire or Armistice Agreement and; Secondary Sources must accurately reflect the documents they cite and; the first part of the statement is not supported by the given source." Which is entirely in keeping with WP policy. Please tell everyone, how this is "pretty bad form".

• Frederico1234 - says "The source could be changed" I point him to where I had previously been attempting to do so and each time the CN was removed, leaving a statement not supported by the source. How it is "bad form and indicative the fight is preferred to harmonious collaboration?" when I made more than one effort to collaborate by asking for the source to be changed via the appropriate action, placing CNs.

Is it not WP policy that a Reliable Secondary Sources must accurately reflect the documents they refer to? Because that is precisely what I then suggested to Frederico1234 "find a reliable Secondary Source accurately reflecting any UNSC resolution, Ceasefire or Armistice agreement saying "former territory of the British Mandate". Completely within WP policy for me to make such a request. In fact it is WP policy that they must

• I then point to the fact that the statement, as it stood un-verified by consensus, could lead people to think it includes Transjordan, referring to No More Mr Nice Guy who gave this reason for reverting [38], "lead correctly summarizes article using consensus wording" british mandate is wikilinked in previous sentence so they likelihood that someone would be confused about what it includes is low"

A) 'consensus' was to contravene WP policy by retaining information not reflected in the source and; B) The Wikilink No More Mr Nice Guy provided British Mandate has a map which actually INCLUDES TRANSJORDAN!!! It's not my doing that No More Mr Nice Guy disproved his little theory and immediately shows there IS likelihood that someone would be confused about what the challenged phrase includes

C) How on earth you reach a conclusion that I show "pretty bad form and indicative the fight is preferred to harmonious collaboration" is quite bizarre ... talknic (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first one does not appear to be a revert. As one can see by going to the previous diff, GabrielF's revert of an IP editor contained the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by 82.45.198.134 (talk): "controversial" needs to be sourced - see WP:WEASEL. (TW)" suggesting that Talknic's actions were in fact satisfying a concern about citing a contentious statement. Benny Morris is certainly a controversial historian and I doubt many people, including Morris himself, would suggest his work is not controversial. When an editor removes material for lacking a source it is not a revert to put the material back in with a source.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG&Ed How can you call the first diff a revert? Talknic did not restore the material without a citation, the only reason given by the editor who previously reverted the change, but instead provided a citation to back up a label that anyone who knows anything about the New Historians would understand is a legitimate characterization.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wg, I think that argument is using the letter of policy to run roughshod over its spirit and leaving policy mangled in the treads. An editor reverted a change while raising just one specific policy objection, and Talknic clearly and unequivocally satisfied that one objection. The principle of edit-warring policy is that articles should not see any editor abuse the editing process in a way that impedes the consensus-building process. When an editor removes something and says it needs a source, adding the material back in with an authoritative source is not impeding the consensus-building process in any way. Rather, that is a rather stellar example of how the process is supposed to work. In fact, the nature of the source provided clearly suggests that WP:LABEL was also fully satisfied, despite NMMNG's concerns. Talknic's source is the author bio on one of Benny Morris' own books clearly saying he is a "controversial historian" suggesting this is not something that would be even remotely contentious to include. Counting this as a revert would set a bad precedent for frivolous administrative action in the future.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LABEL was not satisfied. It specifically says "When using controversial, give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about". That didn't happen. Also, we avoid labeling every historian in IP articles because, let's face it, many of them are "controversial".

Anyway, even if it was a legitimate edit, 1RR still applies. That's exactly the spirit of the policy. Don't make more than one revert in 24 hours, no matter what those reverts are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source clearly satisfied that point as well. His "revisionist" work on the Nakba is what makes him controversial. Your point about many historians being controversial is a reasonable one, though. However, that does not make Talknic's change a revert. Edit-warring policy defines a revert as an edit "that reverses the actions of other editors" and even that narrow definition applied in an overly technical manner does not really apply here. The other editor in this case clearly said that his action was based on the lack of a source. Adding a source to that material as explicitly requested in the edit summary is not reversing that editor's action but building on it in the way the consensus-building process expects. Had Talknic restored the material without a citation then it would have been a revert as it would just repeat the offense the other editor's action was undoing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, you ,misunderstand the 1RR rule entirely. This rule is there to prevent edit wars. It is not the best instrument (as it essentially impedes and even prevents improvement of articles by editors who would like to make dozens of edits in one day. However this is considered necessary in this contentious area to prevent edit wars. Under this rule ANY revert is a revert, regardless contentious or not. As WP:3RR says, a revert may be a removal of one word. The point, especially in cases of 1RR, is that if one is allowed to make 2 reverts, others who disagree are prevented from this, so there is no equality. For this reason, 1RR applies to all edits, with some clear exceptions (reverting vandalism, or gross BLP violations, or illegal material). The edits do not need to be contentius to qualify under 1RR rule, although the sanction will, I am sure, depend on what kind of reverts they are. In the current case, both reverts are contentious. I am not saying they against policy, or bad faith edits, or anyhow wrong of and by themselves. But they are violations of 1RR, clear cut. - BorisG (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear, I am saying the first diff is not a revert.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG GabrielF took out uncited material and Talknic put in cited material. Talknic cannot be said to have reversed GabrielF's action as GabrielF's action was based on the lack of a citation. So it cannot be called a revert to reinsert the material with a citation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on broader nature of dispute

Looking over this article and roughly the past year or so of edits leads me to the following conclusions:

1. This article is packed to the brim with POV-pushing, poorly-cited material that works together to push a synthesis position that the 1948 war was about the Arabs wanting to kill all the innocent Jews and those who supported them were motivated by anti-Semitism, omitting or glossing over the more nuanced geopolitical and personal motivations of the parties involved.
2. Talknic has been consistently editing in a manner that seeks to offset this blatant bias towards an extreme pro-Israel position and has made some constructive progress, together with several missteps.
3. No More Mr. Nice Guy, despite repeatedly getting involved in edit-warring with regards to Talknic, has not been subjected to any sanctions for any of his tendentious editing practices even as he is the one consistently bringing up the other party for sanctions. The evidence is so substantial for this it is only really necessary that one comb through the revision history of this article and look at any instance where Talknic and NMMNG's edits occur within a short time frame of each other.

Under these circumstances, I am baffled at how this situation has been allowed to persist where only one side of the dispute is subjected to increasingly severe sanctions, while the other gets off scot-free every time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talknic, whatever the hairsplitting technicalities, NMMGG has a good case. It's patently useless putting adjectives like 'controversial' before mentions of established and distinguished scholars, historians, unless they are exceptionally controversial like David Irving, who was widely recognized as a considerable historian, and then became extremely controversial. Morris's work, as does that of most good historians, engenders controversy. This does not make him controversial. The second diff shows an edit that is indefensible, for removing sound and easily verifiable content. If you disliked the word 'trigger', you could have asked for a better source on the verb. But the source also contains statistics that standard works on the history of Egypt also use. See Joel Beinin's book, for example. Reverting content that is either easily verifiable or well sourced, is not permissible. I did a large part of the Jews of Egypt page, and this is the only reason, familiarity with one of the details expunged, for my commenting here. Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani - as you've addressed me here....

The sentence was removed because of the violation by consensus of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Furthermore consensus is: not to include such added finer details in the Lede. My edit left both victims equally represented. Both wikilinked to finer detail.

"Reverting content that is either easily verifiable or well sourced, is not permissible." Your advice seems a touch hypocritical. Violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV are not permissible and; the record shows almost without exception edits made by me, even with WP:RS & WP:VERIFIABLE Secondary Sources, have been reverted wholesale by NMMNG, without taking anything to the Talk pages. Never once using an appropriate CN. At times reverting to versions that, by consensus of course, contravene WP:RS / WP:NPOV / WP:WEIGHT

" did a large part of the Jews of Egypt page..." then you KNOW the information is Wikilinked ... talknic (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes undue weight or NPOV is not often clear, and has to be proven. I regard a huge number of articles here as suffering from those problems, but I don't try to fix any by sheer elision of good sources. The only thing I care about, in the hairsplitting nonsense that proliferates here, is that good RS are not erased by anyone, unless they can be improved. Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani -- The Paragraph was HEAVILY weighted towards the Jewish victims who were not even in the war zone, while only Wikilinking to the Palestinians, who were in and from the war zone. Look at it[39]. After all the dialogue in Talk about keeping the Lede of articles simple and short, an unbalanced wad of information is added addressing only consequences for the Jewish victims, pushing the paragraph into being in contravention of WP:WEIGHT.

Whereas, I left both victims Wikilinked, which is where detail is gone into and; is in fact gone into from the same source [40]

"good RS are not erased by anyone, unless they can be improved. " NMMNG Reverts good RS Secondary Sources when they're mine in a flash. He simply does a wholesale revert, with an M/O of forcing the issue into Talk for interminable obfuscation via ever moving goal posts. Little concern that often his reverts are to statements contravening WP policies (by consensus of course) ... talknic (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, using a Holocaust denier as an example of the only time it is legitimate to say someone's work is controversial is a tad excessive. Of course, good point or not, that is a matter for discussing elsewhere. Here there is a very clear issue of whether reinserting material with a source when it was only removed for lacking a source counts as a revert. The notion that this is how reverts will be defined should be extremely troublesome to anyone interested in the betterment of Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'as an example of the only time it is legitimate to say...' Please, I never wrote or implied that.Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is someone's work need not be that controverisal to be called controversial in an article. However, please take this question to the article's talk page if you want to continue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The first diff is definitely a revert but the case for another one after that is a stretch. However, as someone previously sanctioned talknic appears to be tempting fate; it's bad form to make such sweeping changes on a long standing article with dozens of references and over 162 citations on a 63 year old conflict. Prudence would dictate further discussion of changes. --WGFinley (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TDA It's clearly a revert, there's nothing wrong with that, it's just that you only get one a day. --WGFinley (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a technical violation of the WP:1RR rule. If the editor was in no trouble before, this might be allowed to pass with a warning, but there is a background to consider. The first edit restores the word 'controversial', recently removed, and the second edit is clearly removing some text. Both of these could be good faith changes, but there are not supposed to be two such changes within 24 hours.
• The background is not encouraging. Talknic got notified of the ARBPIA sanctions last April as the result of a 1RR complaint over 1948 Arab–Israeli War. (Anybody see a pattern?) In lieu of a block, he was notified. He declined to self-revert because he insisted he had not committed a violation. Then he was in trouble over the same article in November when he was given a 48-hour AE block. He has also been topic banned for three months in the past. In AE discussions User:Talknic never admits to the slightest problem with his edits. Under these conditions even a technical violation is too much, and I suggest a one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TDA An anon added the "controversial" line, GabrielF reverted it about an hour later and Talknic put it back the next day but within 24 hours, a violation. He included a source, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source as it's promotional material from a back cover of a book, so it's still a revert. Since this was already put in and removed the revert was used for the day, Talknic should have gone to the talk page and said "Hey, I think this should be in the article and here's my source." this is how revert edit wars are prevented via WP:1RR and why the community placed said restriction on P-I articles. --WGFinley (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if a block works for me, it seems it's time for Talknic to go back on a TBAN, since it was 3 months prior I would go for 6 months this time around. While this revert is technical, propping up the back cover of a book as a "source" shows pretty extreme length to make one's point. Couple that with an utter refusal to recognize his/her behavior is tendentious, removes sourced material from the article and then acknowledges this AE but instead goes back to the article's talk page to argue some more [41][42] is pretty bad form and indicative the fight is preferred to harmonious collaboration. --WGFinley (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk pages at User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy and User talk:Talknic to get an overview of what they've been involved in. I concentrated on the period since 2 August when Talknic's last topic ban expired. Anyone with enough patience can also look at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War which contains many posts by these two editors in the period since 27 October. I do not see that *anybody* on the article talk page has supported Talknic's proposals since 27 October, yet has continued to edit the article. This leads me to agree with User:Wgfinley that a new six-month topic ban of Talknic is the best plan. If Talknic seemed to have the slightest understanding of the problems that people see with his edits, a different result might have been considered. The diff provided above by NMMNG hints at why nobody winds up agreeing with Talknic. Talknic's harsh criticism of his opponents and his lack of AGF regarding them is also on display in that diff. 'Tendentious' may seem like a strong word but 'persistent and oblivious' can easily be justified. In a comment made while this AE request was open, Talknic seems to be hurling acronyms at random and lacks the ability to reflect on his own behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a chance to go through the archives on 1948 Arab-Israeli War a bit and they are quite telling, I agree with your take Ed.. I see several editors trying to work with Talknic and they eventually get worn down and give up. Appears the 6 month TBAN is in order. --WGFinley (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing. User:Talknic is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces for six months, for reasons given in the Result section of this AE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Editors reminded

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

1. 19:42, 5 December 2011 inserts information about Joe Biden cited to LifeSiteNews, which is consistently rejected at RSN; information about Rudy Giuliani cited to anti-Giuliani press release
2. 13:03, 20 December 2011 inserts information about Nancy Pelosi cited to anti-Pelosi press releases; information on Joe Biden cited to LifeSiteNews, which is consistently rejected at RSN
3. 12:18, 23 December 2011 inserts information about Kathleen Sebelius cited to an anti-Sebelius press release from an organization which campaigns against Sebelius
4. 10:14, 24 December 2011 inserts information about Kathleen Sebelius cited to an anti-Sebelius press release from an organization which campaigns against Sebelius
5. 12:16, 25 December 2011 inserts information about Kathleen Sebelius cited to an anti-Sebelius press release from an organization which campaigns against Sebelius
6. 09:12, 27 December 2011 inserts extensive section about Nancy Pelosi sourced almost entirely to anti-Pelosi press releases

Inserting claims about living people cited to these totally unsuitable sources is a BLP violation, contradicting the ArbCom sanction which states that editors are to obey all regular site policies. Note that Esoglou falsely claims in the citation template that the press release is a news story in the National Catholic Register; following the link shows that it's actually an Operation Rescue press release from Christian Newswire, a right-wing press release service.

The recent BLP violations are the proximate cause of this report, but the user also has a persistent and ongoing problem with original research in abortion-related articles that goes back as far as I've worked with him, and I would be remiss in not mentioning it. A selection:

1. 11:23, 23 January 2011 in a paragraph about the punishment for abortion imposed in early Christianity, inserts information about the punishment for other sins, cited to sources that don't mention abortion, in an attempt to prove that abortion was worse than other sins
2. 09:49, 24 January 2011 in a paragraph about the punishment for abortion imposed in early Christianity, inserts information about the punishment for other sins, cited to sources that don't mention abortion, in an attempt to prove that abortion was worse than other sins; inserts information about ancient Greece and Rome, cited to sources that do not mention Christianity, in an attempt to provide "context" for Christian views on abortion
3. 09:50, 24 January 2011 inserts information about ancient Greece and Rome into an article on early Christianity and abortion, saying that it provides context; sources do not mention Christianity
4. 11:16, 2 February 2011 in a paragraph about the punishment for abortion imposed in early Christianity, inserts information about the punishment for other sins, cited to sources that don't mention abortion, in an attempt to prove that abortion was worse than other sins
5. 12:15, 2 February 2011 in a paragraph about the punishment for abortion imposed in early Christianity, inserts information about the punishment for other sins, cited to sources that don't mention abortion, in an attempt to prove that abortion was worse than other sins (later rephrased to absolutely no effect)
6. 22:44, 19 April 2011 inserts his own interpretation of a primary-source document, dismissing the cited secondary source as "some writers have interpreted" (same content, but even more blatant OR phrasing to be found in edit of 11 September listed below)
7. 13:12, 7 June 2011 inserts information about ancient Greek and Roman philosophy into an article on early Christianity and abortion, saying that it is necessary to give context; sources do not mention Christianity; tries to synthesize further with "in spite of"
8. 20:32, 7 June 2011 inserts information about ancient Greek and Roman philosophy into an article on early Christianity and abortion, saying that it is necessary to give context; sources do not mention Christianity; tries to synthesize further with "in spite of"
9. 21:43, 9 June 2011 inserts information about ancient Roman philosophy/law into an article on early Christianity and abortion; sources do not say that this affected Christian thought or practice
10. 07:51, 11 September 2011 I can best illustrate by quoting from Esoglou's edit: "The authors of one book have interpreted this as 'Pius IX declared all direct abortions homicide',[cited to book on bioethics], but the document merely declared that those who procured an effective abortion incurred excommunication reserved to bishops or ordinaries.[cited to primary source bull]"
11. 20:30, 15 November 2011 inserts a phrase claiming that Catholic opinion on abortion differs from the official church view chiefly with regard to legalization; none of the cited sources in the section being summarized make any mention of any difference between views on morality and views on legality
12. 15:33, 13 November 2011 inserts a sentence saying that "automatic excommunication" "remains" in force as an explanation for why pro-choice Mexican politicians were said to be excommunicated in 2007; cited source is the canon law about having an abortion and hasn't been revised in decades, and for all these reasons obviously makes no reference to these politicians
13. 17:24, 18 November 2011 inserts a sentence saying that "automatic excommunication" "remains" in force as an explanation for why pro-choice Mexican politicians were said to be excommunicated in 2007; cited source is the canon law about having an abortion and hasn't been revised in decades, and for all these reasons obviously makes no reference to these politicians
14. 10:41, 4 December 2011 inserts information which he claims is the cause of several specific listed incidents relating to politicians and abortion, cited to a source which mentions neither politicians (in the specific or in the general) nor abortion
15. 19:42, 5 December 2011 bizarre original analysis of the Latin grammar of a paragraph in canon law - which paragraph incidentally, at this time in the article history, is only connected to the subject by a self-published source from an anti-abortion organization, but that's more of an RS issue
16. 22:24, 20 December 2011 engages in original analysis of sources by writing about what they don't say, using the fact that sources don't mention bishops X and Y citing a paragraph in canon law as grounds for suggesting that they don't think that it applies
17. 11:55, 21 December 2011 engages in original analysis of sources by writing about what they don't say; for example, uses the fact that sources don't mention certain Catholic authorities citing a particular canon as grounds for writing that they don't believe it applies. Even worse, writes that Cardinal Egan did not order certain politicians to be barred from communion over their pro-choice leanings; not only does the source not say this, the source actually writes about Egan and these politicians to illustrate the idea that the Roman Catholic Church attitude to pro-choice politicians and communion is harsher than in the past, in contrast to Esoglou's spin which wishes to portray the incident as an act of leniency
18. 12:18, 23 December 2011 more writing about what sources don't say (second-to-last added paragraph)
19. 10:18, 24 December 2011 more writing about what sources don't say

This editor has also had, and continues to have, problems with RS, with plagiarism, and with NPOV (incl. WEIGHT). Those issues, while serious, are (in my opinion, though others may well disagree) sliiiightly less prevalent in his edits than original research, and if they weren't accompanied by the BLP and persistent OR issues miiiight not deserve sanction on their own, but I can provide diffs of those as well if people would like.

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

No warnings from administrators required by the sanction, but I've warned the user about the BLP violations on the article talk page and on his talk page, as well as explaining in my edit summaries removing the content why it was objectionable. He's also been warned about the original research and the other stuff, and I can dig up those warnings too if you'd like.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Esoglou claims that he didn't add an anti-Sebelius press release. I don't know whether this is intentional deception that goes along with his falsely claiming that it's a news story from the National Catholic Register, or if he got the citations from somewhere else and copy-pasted them in. If the former, he's deliberately adding sources that violate WP:BLP. If the latter, he obviously hasn't read the sources he himself is citing, because the press release has the name of the press release service in bold letters at the top. Adding sources without reading them, and then repeatedly restoring them—still without reading them—after they are challenged, demonstrates a fundamental WP:COMPETENCY issue that should preclude him from editing in a heavily sanctioned topic area. The continual addition of original research, and repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the subject thereof, likewise demonstrates a lack of interest in site policies that some might let slide elsewhere, but that violate sanction 3 of the abortion arb case.

Reply to Bbb23: I refer you to the essay on civil POV pushing. Esoglou actually fits an enormous number of the signs listed: editing largely in this topic, tag-bombing the article with frivolous citation requests, using weasel words when he doesn't personally agree with what the sources say, trying to insert information from partisan organizations, etc. The essay goes on to explain (and I seem to remember MastCell making a similar comment, but damned if I remember where) that civility is easy to police and POV pushing is harder to police, because admins have a lot to do and it isn't always easy to look back and see if an editor's contributions actually match reliable sources. It would be disappointing if, after the months and months of the arbitration case which tried to clean up content problems in the abortion topic area, admins decided that chronic POV-pushing didn't really matter because some editors are snarky and we just can't have that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to The Devil's Advocate: Re the content fork, yes, I forked out the content because it was overwhelming an article that ideally shouldn't be about mostly United States events in mostly the last decade, and Esoglou continued adding original research and poor sources at the new article. (And re BLP...it's not media response, it's a press release from an organization that consistently and fervently campaigns against Sebelius being included among a couple of articles condemning or neutrally reporting the comments in an attempt to claim that reception was partly positive. Perhaps those sources were inadequate, but in that case, one must find real sources that reported the event positively, not press releases, since one is writing about...reception in the media, not among anti-Sebelius organizations. Esoglou, as you can see, later dropped the pretense of documenting media response and just used it to source claims about Sebelius.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to EdJohnston: those two are the articles where the BLP violations have occurred, but, as I show in my diff list, Esoglou's tendentious editing extends across a number of articles and over more than the past couple of weeks. (With regard to asking other editors to comment, though, a lot of those articles are chiefly edited by users with similar POV-pushing tendencies who in several cases have subsequently been topic-banned. I'd encourage a more comprehensive look into the article histories, rather than sitting back and giving these users who like making Wikipedia a forum for pushing their political views another venue in which to do so.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[43]

Do I have respond to each of these points? Perhaps its enough to refer to this and this. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I first got involved in this article on December 25, first at WP:BLPN, and then at the article itself. I don't know anything about the history of Esoglou in other articles, or even in this article itself. I looked at the article and the issues as they existed on the 25th. It became apparent to me that there were problems with the article, an inherently controversial article, and with the two editors' styles. On the surface at least, Esoglou's style is civil and dignified, whereas Roscelese's style is hard-hitting and intimidating. I thought I might be able to help as a third party. As such, I became involved in discussions on the article's Talk page and took it upon myself to edit the article directly as it was, in my view, poorly worded, and I also wanted to make sure it was source-compliant. At first, that went well, but, as of today, it exploded with Roscelese going ballistic as to the content and the sources. I made a few comments, but I didn't have the time to address all of her comments (she's quite prolific) and said so. Essentially, she told me if I didn't have the time to address her concerns or to justify my actions, I should butt out. I commented at BLPN and, until now, butted out.

In terms of the content of the article, in my view, there are two central issues: whether there are indeed any BLP violations, as Roscelese claims, and whether the sources are reliable in support of the assertions (some sources may be reliable in some contexts but not in others). I remember there was one source Roscelese objected to, and I removed it - it wasn't really necessary anyway. I still don't get a lot of what Roscelese is saying. A BLP violation generally is something negative that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Even assuming for argument's sake that the sources aren't good enough, what is being said about these BLPs that is negative? That a particular politican is Catholic, or that they are pro-choice, or that they've been challenged by the Church? I don't really see the violation. As for the sources, why is a Catholic press source unreliable to say that such-and-such a bishop said that such-and-such a politician shouldn't receive communion? Why would that be problematic?

So, on both issues, I don't get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not appear to be directly cited to back up any claim about Sebelius, but is instead backing up a claim about the nature of press coverage regarding the comments about her. While it is worded in a rather hostile manner, it is also balanced with several strongly sympathetic sources about Sebelius. All of these sources were being used to back up the contention about mixed media coverage. Now, on the more general note there is a rather odd circumstance here. The very first diff provided does seem inappropriate as the substantial information about politicians was irrelevant to the actual subject of the article. As a result it appears the filing editor in this case created a fork to deal specifically with this issue and it quickly became a place for the two of them to continue their edit war. Just a look at the article's edit history says it all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles where the dispute has occurred

• Catholic Church and abortion
• Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication

Recent BLPN discussion

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication.

This AE request cites an 'Editors reminded' clause of the Arbcom case as the 'Sanction or remedy to be enforced.' I checked the talk pages of the two articles above too see if anyone else had been participating in the discussion about these matters. The names of User:Bbb23 and User:TransporterMan appear there, and User:Collect participated at BLPN. I'm notifying those three people to see if they want to comment here. If anyone wants to notify others, they are welcome to do so provided you pick a date and try to include everyone who has edited the article or talk page since that date.

I have not had time to form an opinion about this AE request. But it seems to have two parts: (a) a complaint of misusing a press release as a source for a claim about Kathleen Sebelius, (b) a claim of long-term tendentious editing by Esoglou. The first part is the issue that was recently discussed at BLPN. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AC/DS does require a warning (bold emphasis mine):

As the editor hasn't been previously been warned concerning this case I will issue the warning (there is clearly enough evidence) but no further sanctions can be made at this time. --WGFinley (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject September 11 attacks, imposed at

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning The Devil's Advocate, logged at

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of blocks.2C bans.2C and restrictions

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[44]

Requests for enforcement are to be made and ruled on to prevent someone acting in breach of policy in a topic area from continuing to act in breach of policy. Any request should not be punitive i.e. seeking to tack on additional sanctions after an admin has already issued sanctions for the action. In other words, an editor should not be brought up repeatedly and sanctioned repeatedly for the exact same edits. On November 30th I was topic-banned from the 9-11 topic area. Before that I was blocked by User:EdJohnston due to a judgment that I was edit-warring. Each time the same series of edits were presented as the bulk of the case. In fact, User:Jordgette appears to have simply copy-pasted part of the edit-warring notice to the AE request. User:Wgfinley, the admin who issued the topic ban, gave an initial argument pertaining solely to those edits for which I had already been blocked. His argument also contained numerous factual errors that I pointed out to him on his talk page. After that he changed his arguments in the discussions on his talk page, though never admitting to the error or providing a new reason on AE. Even then WG's arguments all seemed to focus on those edits for which I had already been blocked.

In addition to the punitive nature of the topic ban, WG's argument to have "acted per the AE report" presents another issue with the sanction. The AE report itself is full of distortions, omissions, and uncivil remarks that plainly misrepresented the nature of the dispute. Some simple issues are:

1. The edits for which I had already been blocked were presented as being nothing more than the removal of information, with one edit being cited twice as though it were a separate offense, even though the editor filing the report knew I had moved all the information to another article already, expressing my opinion it was where the material more rightly belonged.
2. One of the few edits I made after the block that was presented as evidence of the need for enforcement was me shortening a caption by removing wording that appeared to be nothing more than the fair-use rationale from the image's page. Jordgette argued on AE that the change was pushing the controlled demolition POV, an argument I still find bizarre.
3. Jordgette made numerous uncivil comments in the AE report about me "feigning" impartiality and "hiding behind" WP:AGF adding the comment "enjoy yourselves on this one" after citing my insistence that the previous edit-warring block was wrong.

A more complicated distortion concerned one of the arguments presented several times and one that WG gave as part of the reason for the topic ban and that was this idea that I was not discussing my changes first despite being asked to do so. Jordgette provided a long list of comments to prove the contention, but neglected that one was only accusing me of acting against consensus. Four of the comments cited were responses to a section I started on the talk page asking an editor to explain why he had reverted changes I had made since he did not provide an explanation. After the last comment the editor made on that section I started another section on the talk page and then an RFC to get consensus for two of my changes. To present those comments to suggest I have not sought consensus on changes or worked collaboratively with other editors is a blatant and obvious distortion as they are evidence that I was doing the exact opposite. Another comment involved discussion over a change I noted several times was to address a grammatical error, something they ultimately acknowledged needed to be fixed. That edit being disputed was actually the one that led to the AE request and again demonstrated the opposite of what Jordgette was claiming about my desire to get consensus. Adding insult to injury Jordgette took a comment I made out of its proper context to state "yet he refuses because he doesn't 'need the approval of your group'" when my comment was actually in the context of me saying I would consider it more acceptable to need approval for any change were it not for several unhelpful comments they had made in response to my efforts at getting them to explain their reasons for disagreeing with my changes. In context, the comment was my objection to a revert that undid an uncontroversial contribution I made to the article with an edit summary seemingly implying I needed to get consensus for any rewriting or restructuring of the article. The context was obviously not beyond Jordgette when adding it to the report.

That the AE report contained so many blatant distortions and was rife with incivility should have gotten it declined right off the bat, even if it had not been mostly a proposal for punitive action over edits for which I had already been blocked. Absent those pre-block edits that report would likely have been dismissed as frivolous and without merit. I am requesting that this topic ban be lifted as a wrongful sanction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that in WG's statement below he has essentially recited the distortions from the AE report that I mention above verbatim, even after I explicitly pointed out how these were distortions. Despite what he might believe, WP:NOTTHEM does not mean the only legitimate appeal is a plea for clemency, but instead that appeals challenging the legitimacy of the ban should only address how the sanction violated policy. That WG indicated his decision was informed by the AE report means distortions in the AE report that go to the very core of the arguments for the ban are very much a legitimate point to bring up in an appeal. Citing NOTTHEM to suggest otherwise is a clear-cut case of wikilawyering. Notably WG has not addressed the very first issue I raised above about his argument and the AE report focusing on edits for which I had already been blocked.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordgette I am raising legitimate issues about the AE report that WG said served as the basis for the topic ban. Simply saying there were distortions would be unhelpful without explaining the extent and severity of the distortion. That you completely altered the meaning of my comment in the request for a topic ban and WG repeated that distorted wording here to defend the topic ban means it is certainly of significant relevance to the overall legitimacy of the topic ban. My argument for the legitimacy of the action interpreted as a violation of the topic ban was favoring the spirit over the letter, but what I am saying here is explicitly covered by both.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since WG claims I continued my supposedly "tendentious editing habits" after the block I figure I should just provide a complete listing of all the edits I made to the article after the block. Here they are: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. On the last diff I gave the following explanations on the article talk page: [51] [52]. I doubt any objective individual could look at those edits together and conclude they represent tendentious behavior.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@NW I am not sure what exactly you are calling a mistake, but if it is about the topic ban being issued over edits for which I had already been blocked it seems that it was not a mistake. On several occasions I brought up that most of the edits were ones for which I had already been blocked. WG clearly seemed to eventually understand that this was the case, but in spite of that he still insisted on the topic ban based almost entirely, if not entirely, on those edits. An admin should certainly be aware that such a sanction might be a violation of policy. Should the mistake be about the AE report, the only possible mistake would be on WG's part in not adequately evaluating the merits of the case. I do not think there was any "mistake" on Jordgette's part as some of the distortions are so blatant that the only reasonable conclusion is that the distortions were intentional. For an admin to miss such obvious distortions does not seem to be a minor mistake.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO My comments on your talk page were not really intended to be a discussion about improvements to the article. It was more of a general discussion about my editing philosophy and my perspective on the subject. There was never any specific intention that it lead to some definitive end. As such the "unproductive" nature of it does not really deal with this situation. When I have initiated discussion regarding changes to the article the results have generally been productive, even if it is at times difficult to get anything out of the process.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WG, I have requested admins to look at this already, especially since one of the admins who raised concerns about the way I presented the case has not been on since I laid out more evidence and reasoning in response to his concerns. Seems one of the admins who commented below also may not have understood I was appealing a topic ban imposed in a separate case after my edit-warring block had expired. The "it will expire soon anyway" argument does not prevent me from asking an admin to review it in the hopes of being vindicated, especially under circumstances like I just mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a need for me to spell out exactly what distortions were contained in the AE report. Here are the most blatant distortions:

Distortion - The following comments by Tom Harrison were cited as evidence of me being "asked numerous times to discuss significant changes to this article and find consensus first" (to quote the AE report) and not doing so: [53] [54] [55] [56]

Reality - All of the above comments came from a section I started on the article talk page asking Tom Harrison to explain why he reverted certain material. One of the comments from that exchange Jordgette left out in the AE report was this one: [57]. There Tom specifically said I should get consensus for addressing two issues I raised and my response was to start a new section on the talk page to discuss it. One of the issues was addressed as a result of that discussion. With regards to the other issue where I found more resistance my response was to start an RfC. That sequence of events clearly suggests those comments cited in the AE report were evidence that even when an editor was refusing to discuss his own actions I responded positively to requests for getting consensus. You will further note that even though I never got a real explanation from Tom on his revert, I made no effort whatsoever to reinstate those changes.

Distortion - Another comment included as evidence of me being asked to discuss changes first was this one: [58]

Reality - That comment was made due to the first two changes I made after the block (two of the post-block changes cited as evidence in the AE report and the changes that were the initial reason for the report). The first edit did make some changes that were understandably, though wrongly, perceived as tendentious (see my explanation for those changes here: [59]). Tom's comment was specifically a response to the second edit I made restoring the other changes that were reverted (here is Tom's partial revert of that second edit: [60]). I repeatedly noted that I was correcting a grammatical error and Jordgette ultimately accepts that there was a grammatical error in need of correcting, though all the same failing to assume that my efforts to correct said error were being done in good faith. I made several subsequent changes to the relevant material to address lingering issues I had with the wording that received no objections. Once more, the context of the situation demonstrates that I am more than capable of editing in a collaborative manner contrary to the AE report's claims.

Distortion - The AE report follows up that list of comments with the claim "he refuses because he doesn't 'need the approval of your group'" quoting a comment I made on the AE report.

Reality - Here is the quote in context:

Now, the insistence that I need the approval of your group, because that is what we are really talking about here as you and people of your shared opinion frequent the article most, for any change would be more acceptable if you would not say things like "snore" when reverting my comments on your talk page about the need for you to explain your reasons for reverting changes or refer to my pleas for discussion as "chaff" as Tom did.

One thing you might notice from the bolded comments is that I explicitly indicated I was not refusing the condition that I get approval for certain changes. I objected to the idea that I needed it for any change made to the article, perhaps it would have been better to have said "every" as that was more reflective of my objection. Even then, I did not say I refused such a condition, but that Jordgette and Tom's behavior with regards to my efforts at discussion did not make it a particularly acceptable demand.

In WG's statement below he literally copy-pastes the part of the AE report including all these distortions into his own remarks defending the topic ban. He claims, apparently based on that part of the report, that I am "disruptive" and not going to "work collaboratively to achieve consensus" so the distortions are obviously germane to any dispute of the topic ban and are not simply efforts to blame other people. The evidence here is as plain as day and there are plenty more distortions to be found in the AE report WG cited as justifying the topic ban. So, I would ask that any admin insisting there was no real wrongdoing in this case to actually explain to me why these blatant distortions in the AE report that WG cites explicitly to defend the topic ban are not sufficient grounds for lifting the topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some admins apparently want me to more clearly explain my behavior in editing the article so I will. Rather than re-argue about discussion over the edits for which I was blocked by EdJohnston I will direct anyone to look at my arguments in that case, as well as my unblock request, and subsequent comments on my user talk page.

I will here try to offer a clear explanation of my actions after that block expired. In the second unblock request I made on the edit-warring block I committed myself to discussing and getting approval for major or controversial changes. The admin declined my request because I insisted I was not edit-warring or pushing a POV. Looking back I did not fully adhere to the rather stringent conditions I had imposed on myself in that request (that of not making any changes at all to substantive content without approval), but when the block expired the first edits I made still did not make any changes that could be perceived in any way as tendentious. When making a change to correct a grammatical I did make some minor changes that were seen as tendentious, though as I explained on the article talk page I was not introducing any original wording but just copying wording from the source or wording from earlier in the same sentence. After I made those edits I went to the talk page and initiated discussion on other changes.

Those edits to the article were reverted in their entirety, even as the editor doing so acknowledged that there were uncontroversial changes included. I reinserted the various uncontroversial changes elsewhere in the article, as well as the correction of the grammatical error in the conspiracy theory paragraph, and commented on the talk page to explain my frustration with the constant and unnecessary reverting of uncontroversial changes as well as explaining my changes to the conspiracy theory paragraph. Another editor objected to my reinsertion of the grammatical fix, believing it was POV-pushing, and reverted it but after some discussion they understood that there was a grammatical error in need of fixing. That particular instance of me reinserting the grammatical fix is what seemingly caused the filing editor to go to AE, while we were still having a discussion about it.

I made some minor changes to the article right after the case was filed shortening a few captions and retooling the wording in the grammatical fix. One of the captions was shortened by removing a sentence that, by all appearances, was just a repeat of the fair-use justification provided on the image's page. That change was reverted, but there was no discussion on the article talk page as it was immediately taken to the AE request and tacked on to the case as evidence of POV-pushing. All discussion of that change was in the AE report, though even there no effort was made by the editor who reverted it to explain why this was perceived as POV-pushing. Several more changes I made after that were similarly uncontroversial and minor but did not get challenged.

As this was going on, the efforts I made at getting either of the two main editors on the article to respond to the discussions I started immediately after coming off my block were going unanswered. One editor's reaction was to direct me to the AE report where he made a comment referring to my requests for discussion as "chaff" i.e. nonsense. Despite that I once more asked the editor to respond and finally got a response. Despite repeatedly making good faith requests for explanation I got largely flippant responses. Again, in spite of this, I initiated discussion on some of the issues including an RfC (I did and still have interest in discussion over those other issues). One result of the first discussion was an editor providing an updated citation, as the existing one was no longer going to the correct page, and me putting it in the article.

One week into the AE discussion I made some more changes over the space of two days that were completely consistent with my pledge in the second unblock request. These changes involved refactoring of paragraphs to improve the flow of the article without having any effect on meaning, improving wording or clarifying wording in several areas, and removing outdated or unnecessary citations. For some of those changes I created two separate discussions for editors to raise any objections. Just like several other changes the first reaction of these editors was not to discuss them in the article page but to object on the AE report to me making any changes to the article at all without asking them first, even when they expressed no opposition to the actual edits being made.

An editor then reverted all of those changes saying in the edit summary that I should get consensus first. I informed the editor on his talk page that reverting due to consensus was not a legitimate reason, imploring him to express his objection on the article talk page in either of the sections I started on those edits or to start a new section for discussion. After a day of no action I started a section on the talk page for him to explain the revert and once more asked him on his talk page to explain his objections to the change. Not getting a response for over two days I asked him again to explain his objections to the changes. When I saw him comment on the aforementioned RfC on the talk page I asked him once more if he would respond to the section I started on the talk page asking him to explain what objections he had to the changes that he reverted. At no point did my repeated requests for discussion get a response.

Ever since I came off the block I made every effort to discuss major or contentious changes with the other editors on the article and pursuing normal dispute resolution. Accusing me of not being able to work collaboratively with other editors is getting the situation reversed. I made numerous efforts to get the opinions of these editors about any and all major changes, but many times they were not willing to provide explanation even when I was only asking them to explain why they reverted changes, something they are generally expected to do when using the undo function.

Despite all the frustration these editors have caused me I have never once refused discussion on any point or given them the silent treatment when they expressed a concern. Many times I have had discussion with them that did result in collaborative editing even in the incendiary atmosphere these editors have created. I am not claiming my behavior was perfect (on a few occasions I made some abrasive comments), but it was far from disruptive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My TBAN was based on the Prior AE report. The report contained examples of TDA's tendentious editing leading up to an AN3 Report and subsequent block. After the block he continued his tendentious editing habits, to quote the report, ignoring calls to build consensus before making substantive changes [61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69], yet he refuses because he doesn't "need the approval of your group" [70] and continued to make extensive changes to the article.

I posted a suggestion for a TBAN after evaluating the report, I let that stand for 12 days for comment, seeing none I closed per my suggestion on 30 Nov.

An extensive exchange on my talk page ensued where I even offered to reconsider the TBAN at a later time, instead he chose to continue pursuing his approach of appeal by completely ignoring WP:NOTTHEM and violating his TBAN[71] which was upheld here on AE until it expired. I think it is premature to reduce the TBAN at this time, the complaint itself seems to do nothing to acknowledge any culpability for these actions but blames others for "distortions and incivility". It would appear TDA would go back and start disrupting the space again as he has provided no assurance he will seek to work collaboratively to achieve consensus. --WGFinley (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordgette: He's appealing his TBAN so he is free to bring up the issues that led to his TBAN without violating it. --WGFinley (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this? There appears to be no support to overturn and the TBAN expires in 3 days anyway. --WGFinley (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, topic bans are meant not to be punitive, but to prevent disruption. To that end, I have no comment at this time. I may soon find myself returning my attention to a single editor unilaterally and continuously altering a Featured Article on a controversial topic as he sees fit, while filling the discussion page with walls of text in protest, and the endless wikilawyering and filiblustering. But for now I prefer to improve articles. -Jordgette [talk] 05:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused WG...Is TDA's statement above not yet another violation of his topic ban? Most of it regards perceived injustices he suffered on the 7 World Trade Center talk page ("my comment was actually in the context of me saying I would consider it more acceptable to need approval for any change were it not for several unhelpful comments they had made in response to my efforts at getting them to explain their reasons for disagreeing with my changes...." etc.). I'm unclear on this boundary. -Jordgette [talk] 07:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to comment on this because a benefit of the topic ban is not having to deal with TDA's tedious logorrhea, but Wgfinley did the right thing. The constant nuisance of dealing with TDA wears people down; it would be far easier to leave the topic area and let him do what he wants, but it doesn't do to reward that kind of thing. The topic ban has at least been some respite, which I appreciate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to second Tom's comments above. A recent discussion at my own talkpage with The Devils Advocate was unproductive and his commentary there became increasingly frustrating. Mainstream articles on difficult topics are generally better if advocates for non-mainstream views are kept at bay. Tedious talkpage rantings usually undermine cooperative efforts for real article improvements.MONGO 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. This appeal is going nowhere, this discussion could be closed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• If there is no one supporting this request, I'm inclined to close it shortly as declined. NW (Talk) 04:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, I would be disinclined to overturn the block because I do not think it was such an egregious mistake as to warrant immediate overturning. As another admin once said, "AE is not here to micromanage sanctions". I would not be opposed to an appeal in 3 months after evidence of constructive editing in other topic areas. But I'll leave this open for others to comment if they wish. NW (Talk) 04:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to change the status quo. The request is legalistic and not addressing the underlying problems that the tban was imposed for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 14:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, interaction ban

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

1. 20 December 2011 Directly replying to a comment made by me, directly referencing me, and accusing me of filibustering

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

1. Notified of interaction ban on 27 June 2011
2. [72] advised to take greater care to avoid Nableezy in accordance with your interaction ban on 14 December 2011

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The interaction ban specifies that Cptnono may not Reply to Nableezy in any discussion or Make reference to or comment on Nableezy, directly or indirectly, on any page. He did both in that comment. He directly replied to a comment made by me, and he directly references me by saying you guys can keep it up while directly replying to me, and indirectly accuses me of filibustering and potentially violating an interaction while violating the interaction ban. I realize what happened with the last request, but this straightforward and should not be open to the type of drama that occurred last time. Can yall please actually enforce the ban?

apparently nothing to do with Nableezy? You serious? No other set of editors in that discussion has an interaction ban, who else was he referencing? Though I think an indef topic-ban is overkill, the comments are clearly a violation of the interaction ban. nableezy - 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biosketch, you arent going to see me defending WGF's view, I dont agree with him and honestly I would rather he not involve himself in adminstering the topic area for reasons I have made abundantly clear in the past, regardless of what his view on this specific request is. However, you wrote that Cptnono's comments had apparently nothing to do with me. How can you make that comment in good faith? Directly replying to me, saying you guys can keep it up, referencing an interaction ban in a discussion where the only people who have an interaction ban are the two of us. I would love to reply to Cptnono, I would love to give an honest response to the claim that this conversation will be filled with filibustering from others and that he is someone who is not an idiot. But I am restricted from doing so. So I dont. nableezy - 16:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before Agada's "contribution" is taken at face value, the first diff he presented was my replying to Kauffner, not Cptnono. The second diff was of a reply I made to GabrielF, again not Cptnono. I have not nor will I in the future reply or reference Cptnono. nableezy - 00:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It boggles the mind that somebody could say that I responded to Cptnono, or that I replied under a section heading that he made. Cptnono made a comment in an RFC, Tiamut replied to that, Kauffner to that, Tiamut to that, Kauffner to that, me to that, GabrielF to that, and me to that. There are a. no section headings, and b. no replies to anything Cptnono was even discussing. I directly replied to a comment made by Kauffner and to a reply made to me. Thats it. nableezy - 05:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar technical ... nonsense. There is no level heading and just days ago it was judged not to be a violation when Cptnono reverted an edit that I reverted after several others had intervened, and that had been an actual revert of the same material, and you Michael were, unsurprisingly and inconsistently, arguing that it was not a violation. I replied to a different user making a completely different point, after multiple layers of discussion, under nothing that can be called a level heading. To pretend there is an equivalence here is simply dishonest. nableezy - 06:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. In fact, not even a little bit. There is nowhere near the same distance. The previous complaint was on a revert of the exact edit that I made. I was not replying to Cptnono in any way, I was directly responding to an unrelated point made by a different editor. And most importantly, it was decided that the distance in the previous complaint made it so there was no violation. Just in case you have forgotten that. You dont know why there is an interaction ban between the two of us, so kindly stop acting as though this is an issue of collaboration. And if you are at all interested in collaboration, try not distorting the events at every discussion that has nothing to do with you. That might engender some collaborative good will. Just might. nableezy - 06:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you continue to distort the events. There is no level heading, I did not reply to Cptnono in any way, and Cptnono directly replied to me. Your attempts at distorting the events fail even the most basic test as anybody can look at the talk page. I replied to Kauffner and GabrielF. Cptnono replied to me. Therein lies the difference. In your silly attempt to have me banned at every enforcement thread only demonstrates just how much you are willing to distort what took place. I honestly do not know why you are allowed to comment here, your repeated bad faith attempts at having me banned on plainly specious charges should have been enough to earn you a ban from commenting at AE. Regardless, your distortions here are simply untrue. nableezy - 14:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGF, I did not comment on Cptnono's vote, technically or otherwise. I was responding, directly, to Kauffner, and then to GabrielF. Cptnono directly responded to me. Removing the interaction ban requires more than just your say so, that was imposed as an arbitration enforcement action and requires a consensus of admins to remove it. I strongly object to the notion that removing the ban is an acceptable way of enforcing it. The ban is not unenforceable, yall just need to actually try to enforce it. And honestly, given your initial reply to the past request for enforcment on a much more closely related set of edits as being contrived and vexatious, I question why you now think that it is plausible that a completely unrelated reply is a violation of that same ban. nableezy - 16:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What pray tell has been the issue with my rhetoric on this page? Regarding the substance of your comment, I dont deny that the comment I made was under Cptnono's vote. I dont see how that changes that my comment was not a reply to Cptnono, or even about what Cptnono based his vote on. I replied to an unrelated point made by a different editor. In a discussion that I had already been a part of, which had spilled over from another page that I have also been involved in. A different user made a claim that a certain name was not preferred by a group of people. I pointed out to him that the very source that user had brought explicitly gave that name as a preferred name by that group of people. That had nothing to do with Cptnono, and nothing to do with his vote. I honestly dont see how, given the earlier request in which Cptnono reverted the exact edit I made with others reverting in between being judged as not a violation, and with you saying it was clearly not so to the point of suggesting I be banned for even raising the issue, you can claim that this is possibly a violation. I really do not understand how you can come to those two conclusions. Please read the comments. Tell me how they possibly relate to Cptnono in any way. And then read what Cptnono himself wrote here of a different situation: It has actually happened before where a "poll" was opened regarding an article on my watch list and I waited until someone else responded so I did not violate my topic ban. So Cptnono is of the opinion that if he waits until somebody else responds it is all right to then respond without it being a violation of an interaction ban. Here we have several responses, to the point that what was discussed had nothing to do with any comment by Cptnono. But yet somehow this becomes a violation. Please explain how you reconcile the past judgment of no violation for reverting the exact same edit but you are now of the opinion that commenting on a different issue is.

Yes, a consensus at AE can overturn the interaction ban, or AGK himself can. You, however, cannot do that simply because you think interaction bans are bad. This ban was imposed due to repeated personal attacks and unfounded accusations, directed solely in one direction. It was imposed for a reason, and despite you thinking little of the idea of such bans, I have found it refreshing to be free from such interactions for the last months. nableezy - 01:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not said what is wrong with my rhetoric, you have only said that there is a problem. What pray tell is neither hostile nor uncivil. If you want to say that my rhetoric is a problem, say what it is. Just saying it is a problem doesnt mean anything. And what you wrote was I'm of a mind to lift the interaction ban as unenforceable, not that you would be seeing other opinions or see if there was a consensus, but that you yourself would do so because you yourself thinks what is easily enforceable is unenforceable. nableezy - 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ban is over at this point, might as well consider this moot. In the hopes that the behavior that caused the ban to be requested and placed to begin with is not repeated, Id ask that you consider this request withdrawn. nableezy - 06:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Nableezy made a response to my comment. He inserted a comment under a level heading I made. Instead of running to AE I pointed it out there. I don;t mind a topic ban. I even asked for one a few months ago. But when an editor under a topic ban makes a direct response to a comment he is in violation. If Nableezy is not topic banned for blatantly being in violation himself then the process is broken. Nableezy made a response to me and I answered. You guys can call it as you want. I will point out that Nableezy has spent the last 2 weeks calling for enforcement on me. Our interaction ban runs out in less than two weeks. Shenanigans. Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to WGF, I made a "Support comment/not-really-a-vote at the talk page. Nableeezy made two comments within that section.[73][74] I have bent over backwards to follow the topic ban when I see his name in a discussion. It has actually happened before where a "poll" was opened regarding an article on my watch list and I waited until someone else responded so I did not violate my topic ban. Nableezy spent the first week of our topic ban disregarding it and I ended up taking a self-imposed few week break from the topic area. And then he opened up an AE just a week or so ago just before the interaction ban is set to expire. If he says "I did not realize I was commenting in a part of the discussion under your name" I won't call him a liar. But he hasn't said that and I believe that he is seeing the end of the topic ban coming up in a week and taking a shot at extending it. My comment was not that malicious and disruption was pretty minimal until it came here (again).Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification: by "section" I mean "level heading". The comment was a comment within a "vote/whatever" I made. I saw that as a violation of the interaction ban. Me pointing it out was a violation on my part but I thought at the time that pointing it out was within reason. It was bad judgement on my part but I thought (incorrectly) that it would be acceptable under the circumstances. Maybe I should have just filed a request for clarification. My thought process was that that would have been even more disruptive and was trying to not be a jerk about it. Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see that this is still going open. I did make a blatant violation of my topic ban. I still feel that Nableezy was in violation and that is why I made the comment. I thought he was intentionally just saying "screw it" (he actually made a comment on my talk page ages ago saying that we should mutually ignore a topic ban). At one time I could have made an argument for Nableezy repeatedly violating this topic ban. I know this sound terrible but I actually saved diffs in a document for the first month of it. I deleted it awhile ago since the topic ban made me realize that just trying to stick it to the other guy is not the way to go. It really doesn't matter now (unless I do get an indef) since the topic ban is set to expire. I'm not filing anymore requests at AE against Nableezy even if we are not interaction banned since I am so sick and tired of bickering over silly stuff (who goes to half these articles about places in the middle of nowhere anyways).

So @Devilsadvocate: You don't know what is and has been on my watchlist for years and why they have been there. You don't know what media I read and decide to look into more on Wikipedia. You need to spend less time assuming the worst and trying to poke holes in everyone's comments. It is not healthy here and I assume you do not need a lecture on how that will end up for you off of Wikipedia if you act this way at work or school or with your friends and family. @WGF: The topic ban is about to expire. I have full confidence I can not violate my topic ban over the next several days. The real test will be how we handle it when the ban is lifted (if its expiration is a possibility at this point) Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cailil. I actually do edit in other areas just as frequently. I also do not have a history of topic bans here. I have some civility based blocks. I still don't think the single comment (although I misjudged its disruptiveness) would justify an indef. I don't even understand how I could return from it since I do edit in other topic areas already. Cptnono (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cailil, please do not lump me in with all of the activity below (not sure if that was your intent or not) unless we are doing ARBPIA3. I want nothing to do with those other discussions and won;t be jumping into the fray in 24hrs when my interaction ban expires. Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is taking so long! Cailil has not responded to my comment regarding me already editing in other areas. I have formulated a dozen responses in my head to this but have been hesitant to really getting into it. So at the risk of digging my own grave:

• Multiple editors who I disagree with (we have admitted our biases) have expressed concerns over an indef. I assume they do this because they are looking at it as punitive. I actually do think that admins at AE have the responsibility to "punish" editors. Doing so sets the example that disruption is not OK , and we all know that AE is not ANI. It is a different beast and editors who mess up in the topic area need to have the hammer over their heads.

That being said:

• An indef makes no sense in this case and for me as an individual editor since I have not had any topic bans before. Since I do contribute to a range of other articles already (I enjoy the ones on beer and soccer the most) it limits what I can "prove" to the community for my reinstatement in the topic area.

I will not retract my previous statements based on this request for enforcement being based on shenanigans. But I do know that my judgement was off when I made the response that breeched the interaction ban. My judgement has been off before and that needs to be considered if we want to be fair. If it is time for me to get a topic ban then it is time for me to get a topic ban. I would prefer for the admins to respect the following argument: Most of my concerns in the topic area have been based on my squabbling with Nableezy. But that would be a cop out on my part. If I messed up bad enough to deserve an enforced break than so be it. I do request a punishment that is based solely on me (since asking for one based on the infraction is not going to happen) and that does not take into account admins frustration over editors as a whole unless we are doing ARBIA3. I think I deserve a week for my interaction ban violation but know that is not a possibility. I assume 6 months will be the response from an uninvolved admin, but that would be overkill. Just wanted to vent. let you guys know how I feel, and stave off my urge to appeal any ban too early. Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check Cailil's talk page dude.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop poppin into my sections dangit! (Actually, thank you for the heads up).Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is Cptnono's comment:

I forgot to mention that as someone who is not an idiot I know that this conversation will be filled with filibustering and what can only be considered violations of interaction bans. I won't breach it myself but you guys can keep it up.

Where is there any indication that he's "replying to a comment made by" you, "directly referencing" you, or accusing you of filibustering? Other than the unfortunate placement of the comment – in a discussion where Cptnono was already involved, it needs to be stressed – there's nothing here necessarily indicating that Cptnono was addressing Nableezy at all.—Biosketch (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley, you're proposing to indef Cptnono because he placed his comment after Nableezy's, even though his comment had apparently nothing to do with Nableezy. Am I understanding right?

(As an aside, it should be made standard practice that uninvolved Admins wait for the defendants in these cases to make their statement before rushing to reach conclusions.)—Biosketch (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I don't know who else he was referencing. Anyway, that doesn't seem to be what WGFinley took into consideration in proposing his indefinite topic ban. If he would at least have offered Cptnono the opportunity to explain this incident, he'd be in a better position to evaluate whether or not the interaction ban was breached. But he's proposing to indefinitely topic ban Cptnono because he commented after you, apprently regardless of the content of his comment. That just makes no sense at all.—Biosketch (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I appreciate that you're consistent with respect to WGFinley's conduct here. Still, when I said I don't know to whom Cptnono was addressing his remarks, that was an honest observation. If pressed to give an answer, I'd have to say he was talking to no one in particular. People do that when they're frustrated, or when they've been imbibing, and it's not out of the question that Cptnono was one of those two things at the time and making a comment to the audience generally. The point is, it should be Cptnono's privilege to reply here and speak his peace before conclusions are drawn.—Biosketch (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that Cptnono said in his comment above my section here, "You guys can call it as you want." Who was he talking to? Was he addressing the remark to anyone in particular? No – it was a comment directed at all of us generally. By the same token, his remark at Talk:Arab citizens of Israel was also meant as a general observation directed at no one in particular.—Biosketch (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley, under the circumstances, your close proposal seems the most sensible suggestion.—Biosketch (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the previous complaint that wasn't considered a violation of the interaction ban, this one cannot be either. Cptnono didn't direct his words at Nableezy or anyone specific. He had already commented earlier and wanted to add an afterthought. The placement is unfortunate but doesn't suggest an interaction. Nableezy was also advised, btw, about excessive appearances here, which evidently hasn't been heeded. Cptnono should be heard before suggestions for such a severe sanction are made. --MichaelNetzer (talk)

@WGF, AGK and other administrators considering this request:

1. In light of Cptnono's explanation, it seems that, at least technically, Nableezy did initiate the interaction by replying under a level heading that Cptono started, thus giving rise to Cptnono's concern for a violation of iBan by Nableezy. Though Nableezy made no specific reference to Cptnono, the technical condition remains for the concern.
2. As he states, Cptnono did not rush to file a complaint against Nableezy. This demonstrates a preferred discretion by all WP guidelines concerning complaints brought before AE admins.
3. Cptnono instead replied in the same level thread that he himself started and made a comment about it, directed to the winds and not to anyone specific, especially not to Nableezy. The same technical condition that Nableezy violated is also prevalent in Cptnono's remark, being in the same level thread he started, under Nableezy's comment.
4. Nableezy then rushed to file this complaint, showing none of the preferred discretionary behavior that Cptnono displayed, and disregarding previous advice given him about excessive appearances at AE.
5. Administrators rushed to condemn Cptnono's technical violation before Cptnono even explained his action.
6. It now appears that Nableezy clearly violated a similar technical placement of his comments under the level heading that Cptnono started. Revealing Nableezy's discretionary behavior as considerably more objectionable in that he is the one who rushed to file a complaint against Cptnono, while the latter showed more restraint and consideration.

In light of Cptono's explanation, it would seem this complaint more represents a WP:Boomerang due to Nableezy's disregard for advice about excessive complaints, and rushing to file one against an editor who showed restraint, even though they both violated the same technicality of comment placement.

1. Whatever sanctions are meted out against Cptnono, should be meted out in greater measure against Nableezy, based on his level of violations and disregard for advice given repeatedly in AE decisions.
2. Even if one can say that Cptnono was also given advice to stay away from Nableezy, then we have a more equal balance of violations between the two editors, necessitating the same sanction be applied to both.

Concerns voiced here repeatedly about the forgiving attitude of AE admins towards Nableezy, by many editors in the I-P space, reveal a severe leniency towards him that is not afforded to editors he complains about or who complain about him.

1. Though this may not have been WGF and AGK's intent, in light of Cptnono's explanation, it seems necessary to either consider dismissing this complaint or alternately at least meting out equal sanctions against both editors, if not an even stricter one against Nableezy.
2. Continued special favor for Nableezy and the hard hand applied to editors he complains about or complain about him, based on what at least one administrator voiced as favoring him because he is an effective spokesman for a cause, while offering no such lenience to effective spokesmen for a cause from the other side, will become a source of growing agitation in the I-P and AE spaces.

Please take these facts into consideration and at least show you are considering the appearance of severe bias in these cases.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Boggles the mind? What boggles the mind is that your previous complaint against Cptnono relies on the same distance between your edits and Cptnono's as the distance between your comment and his level heading in the same comment thread in this complaint. Yet you are the one rushing to file complaints when Cptnono was far more considerate and forgiving about it. Your refusal to become more collaborative by rushing to demand sanctions against editors you are in conflict with, while attempting to blur the facts with convoluted reasoning, is what truly boggles the mind around here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: As someone who must endure your distorted accusations and intimidating tone in the I-P space, and has bent over backwards to persuade you to become more collaborative instead of rushing to file complaints against editors here - if you have a complaint against my participation in these discussions ("try not distorting the events at every discussion that has nothing to do with you."), then either file a complaint about me and substantiate what you accuse me of, or please desist from making baseless inflammatory comments about me. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: Please. Cptnono qualified his statement by specifying what he meant by "response to his comment":

"Nableezy made a response to my comment. He inserted a comment under a level heading I made."

The diffs, [75] and [76] appear under Cptnono's vote (please see the fifth vote down in the survey for the thread.) Cptnono's vote itself is not considered a violation of the ban, but it did develop into a thread that Nableezy participated in with comments (not voting) first, before Cptnono's response. Granted, Nableezy might not have paid enough attention that he was commenting in a discussion about Cptnono's vote. This gave rise to Cptnono's concern for an iBan violation by Nableezy, that he commented on in the diff Nableezy used as the basis for this complaint.

Granted, that neither one of the two directed remarks towards the other or interacted with each other. And granted that both of them suffer the same technicality of being within the same thread. And also granted that Cptnono's comment is directly under Nableezy's, it is still true that he did not direct his comment to Nableezy and this was his own voting thread that Nableezy first participated in. Cptnono did not participate in any other discussions there that would infer a violation of the iBan with Nableezy.

I do not personally see a violation of the ban in either case, but there is a shadow of suspicion that Nableezy first violated it by not paying attention that he was commenting on Cptnono's vote. This is a similar incident that Nableezy brought previously against Cptnono, where he was warned to be more careful. At best, Nableezy must now be also warned to be more careful and the complaint dismissed, as in the previous complaint.

However, in light of both parties ostensibly being suspected of a violation, Cptnono DID NOT rush to file a complaint. The editor who rushed to file a complaint is Nableezy, who can himself be construed to have violated the ban in the same way Cptnono could. And Nableezy adds salt to a wound he inflicts himself by claiming that Cptnono directed his statements to him, when they were clearly directed to the winds in a sort of forgiving frustration at Nableezy's participation in a thread about his own vote.

If Cptnono's comment is to considered a violation of the iBan, then Nableezy's must be also seen as such. Even more so because it was Cptnono's voting thread in which the comments were made.

The violation which results in a severe behavior that disturbs the balance of their actions is that Nableezy is the one who rushed to file the complaint while Cptnono was more considerate and forgiving. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if Cptnono's conduct amounts to a breach of IBan, but an indef is so preposterous that even filing party thinks it is too harsh. I would advice Cptnono to stay miles away from discussions where Nableezy is involved. - BorisG (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly a breach, but I concur with Boris that an indef. is way too strong. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed my concerns in the previous request regarding Cptnono that his explanation for why he was not following Nableezy's edits did not seem satisfactory. Here I noticed something similarly suspicious about his actions. He dated the offending comment provided above, but did not sign it. I cannot think of how that could be done accidentally. Seems more like Cptnono did not want people to realize it was his comment. Any claim that he was not referring to Nableezy seems to be a stretch as well. Nableezy was commenting on a threaded discussion started from Cptnono's vote, however Nableezy is clearly responding to another editor. What it does indicate is that Cptnono's comment about "what can only be considered violations of interaction bans" was a reference to these comments by Nableezy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as sanctions, might I make a suggestion? Seems Cptnono has only ever been blocked for three days. Perhaps a longer block with a topic-ban for several months would be appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ill reply here on the technical point. I am quite certain that the innocent explanation for the timestamp but no sig is the correct one. Depending on the number of tildes you input, you may get just the username (3 tildes), the username and timestamp (4 tildes), or just the timestamp (5 tildes). nableezy - 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it does seem a tad too convenient to me that he would make such a mistake at the exact time when a comment being attributed to him would be a problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DA, your view is consistent with your interest in conspiracy theories. Sorry for friendly trolling. - BorisG (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just think Cptnono was probably not being completely honest about his actions in the previous case (he made a few erroneous statements about why he was editing certain articles Nableezy was editing) and that makes me question whether this was a "mistake" or a deliberate omission.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG Cptnono has never received a topic ban at all. Going for an indef is not even something Nableezy has expressed support for so it seems that something shorter would be better. A long-term extension to the interaction ban would certainly seem to be necessary (I do not think it is a coincidence that these incidents have popped up in the last month of the interaction ban), a months-long topic ban, and possibly a block for a week or two. I agree that the editor is clearly in need of a firmer response, but that does not mean you have to go for the jugular right out of the gates.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if you go through with an indefinite topic ban that you also impose a longer-term interaction ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through two years of Cptnono's edit history and once more found no indication whatsoever that he contributed to the article in this case until after Nableezy contributed to it. This is just like the previous case where Cptnono gave an erroneous justification for his sudden appearance at articles Nableezy had recently edited.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG I understand your distaste for more ambiguous accusations of interaction ban violations, but there are many cases where an action is blatant and interaction bans serve a useful purpose in avoiding the punitive impression other sanctions tend to create as it does not stop anyone from editing the topic altogether. Those ambiguous cases seem to focus on whether one user is attempting to bait the other editor into violating an interaction ban without technically violating it as well. Nableezy's edit does not appear to be a technical violation, but I also think there was no intent to violate its spirit. Cptnono does not exactly have a distinctive signature and there were several comments by other editors between Cptnono's vote and Nableezy's response to Kauffner. It seems probable that Nableezy did not even notice. Even if he had, the comment does not appear to be in any way directed at or commenting on Cptnono. The comment could have easily been responding to a stand-alone statement by Kauffner without any change to Kauffner's comment or Nableezy's. Placement is the only issue there and I do not think that alone is a basis for claiming a violation.

Once more I also think it is disconcerting that Cptnono was yet again only showing up at an article after Nableezy made a recent edit there. If he is following Nableezy to these articles and making edits in opposition to him then that is not nearly as ambiguous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with others that an indefinite topic ban is too harsh in this instance. Perhaps a year-long ban with an opportunity to appeal in six months? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite ban... year ban...? Anything even more than a month seems pretty ridiculous for a weak violation of an interaction ban. This isn't a more pressing content or civility issue. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we're talking about possible WP:IBAN violation between two editors.

1. There is a Talk:Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Requested_move:_Arab_citizens_of_Israel_.E2.86.92_Israeli_Arabs initiated by 3d party. Both editors commented, casting !votes, presenting opposing views. So far so good. Not ideal though, considering their iban.
2. Then editor X finds him/herself commenting within !vote comment of editor Y with whom she/he has an interaction ban, see γ and δ.

Is X commenting on the Y !vote above? Do γ&δ constitute comments of editor X on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To keep this readable I'll comment here if you don't mind, I think it's a great question. I think it points out one of the shortcomings of interaction bans. I can see both sides of the argument on this one. They're just voting so it shouldn't matter, right? But what if Y came to vote just because X did? How can you prove that? That's where interaction bans make little sense and are downright silly, a possible causality dilemma or, more precisely, a case of correlation does not imply causation. I'm not a fan of them but they've been accepted here as a means of dispute resolution--WGFinley (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In arvo quaerere verum: The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Would X and Y agree with removal of their mutual iban? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Closing admin: at this stage I'd say tban them both. Say what? We tried iban, it did not work out as expected. This appears to be a personal conflict and it should stop. Both editors were provided second chances and now they could try to contribute more constructively in other topics of Wikipedia. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Cptnono concluded that since Nableezy had commented in a thread Cptnono started, then Nableezy was violating the spirit if not the letter of their mutual IBAN, which justified Cptnono in making a response. I don't believe Nableezy's comments constituted any sort of breach, and I don't think Cptnono's reasoning was sound in that regard, but in the circumstances I suppose Cptnono might be extended a degree of AGF. Cptnono is undisciplined and at times somewhat abrasive but in my admittedly limited experience, he has appeared to be at least capable of editing collaboratively in the topic area, which is more than I can say for a number of other contributors there. I am therefore inclined to agree with those above who have argued that an indefinite topic ban would be somewhat undue at this point. I would suggest an extension of the IBAN with Nableezy for another six months, assuming Nableezy assents, together perhaps with a topic ban of short duration. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting myself here instead of below because I think that with respect to Cptnono in particular, my impartiality might reasonably be questioned due to his personal criticism of me at several previous occasions. I may revisit this conclusion if we have a serious shortage of AE admins, but it does not look like we have one at the moment.

I have been one of the earlier proponents of those indef bans with periodic appeals, but that idea did not seem to have gained much traction at that time. (I should point out that the subject of my first indef-with-appeals ban, which had been reduced to 3 months on appeal, was subsequently topic banned for another year after that 3-month ban expired.) As I perceive it, Cptnono has exhausted the patience of several AE admins (that certainly includes mine), so an indef topic ban is not unreasonable. However, I do get the feeling that it might have been a little on the extreme side. I'm frankly not sure what should be done here. In light of the expiration of the interaction ban, though, I suggest that it might not be a bad idea to simply take the easy way out and close this as withdrawn. T. Canens (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pretty blatant to me, Cptnono's comment is immediately under Nableezy's. I think it's time for an indefinite TBAN for Cptnono, who was just chided not to do this. Normally I would act on this right away but since I'm proposing indefinite I will let others chime in. --WGFinley (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion for indefinite is based on facts. This is the 2nd interaction ban that Cptnono has had with Nableezy, the first one was lifted and then put back into place 6 months later. We have a fresh AE report that's not even a couple weeks old with clear instruction to avoid areas where Nableezy is editing and not even days after getting that warning Cptnono goes right back and does exactly that. The time consumed on AE and the disruptions caused in this article space are of detriment to the project and I think it is time to start giving long term TBANs for those who have previously been sanctioned multiple times. --WGFinley (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the topic ban being indefinite, not long-term. We cannot afford to infinitely tolerate problematic users. It was suggested above that we levy a one-year topic ban with no option to appeal before six months; I dislike such a configuration, first because, before anything, we must allow the user to appeal the ban immediately after it begins - in case we were mistaken (which can always happen) or overlooked important information (which is also possible). Moreover, I dislike the idea that we give long-term problematic contributors a "harsh sentence" then allow them to return; the aim is to protect the integrity of our articles. For that reason, I prefer that the subject be permanently excluded from the topic in question, and allowed to return only when they have demonstrated an ability to contribute constructively. With that thinking, an indefinite (not year-long or otherwise long-term) ban is the only solution. I regret that it comes to this, but Cptnono is clearly incapable of learning our lesson. AGK [•] 23:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, there's a fundamental misunderstanding that indefinite means infinite, it doesn't. That's exactly where I'm coming from, no term with the person able to appeal at a later unspecified date. --WGFinley (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite topic ban per AGK (as in, 'a ban or no definite duration', rather than 'a long-term restriction'). This can be removed when Cptnono shows the ability to be a constructive and collaborative contributer elsewhere in the 'pedia. When they relearn the tools of collegial editing then this can be reconsidered--Cailil ^talk 17:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono didn't provide any diffs regarding Nableezy "making a response" to him, I've asked him for some diffs on his talk page as I'm not seeing that in the article history at all. Nableezy has a few edits to the page going back more than a year and Cptnono only made two edits[77][78], both were after Nableezy voted and commented. --WGFinley (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed this and I understand the points being made now. I think this is a great illustration of the silliness of interaction bans and how they just don't work. Nableezy voted, with a comment, then Cptnono voted, with a comment, then a lot of discussion started with Nableezy making multiple comments on discussion under Cptnono's vote. As far as the conversations here, they are pretty much emblematic of the problems in this topic space and AE. I really wish people could tone it down.

Now as for what to do with this mess: technically Nableezy was there first but as I said before I don't think that should matter if there is no direct interaction. Technically Nableezy commented on Cptnono's vote but it wasn't directed at Cptnono's comment just under it. However, were I Cptnono I could construe a comment on my vote as interacting. But still Cptnono pretty much directly took it on with the diff Nableezy originally reported. I'm of a mind to lift the interaction ban as unenforceable, with warnings to both further disruption will lead to TBANs, really only way I can see making any sense of this. --WGFinley (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy Your comment is in discussion under his vote how can you possibly deny that? Thus if someone speaks up in support or opposition to his vote and then you speak up against that you are, vicariously, speaking in support or opposing his vote. But for the fact Cptnono made his vote and comment there's no discussion there for you to comment on, therefore you clearly commented on his vote.

Also, if there's a consensus here at AE to remove the interaction ban, especially since it was AGK who made the ban, it can be removed. I also recall you were requested to tone down your rhetoric on this page, that clearly hasn't happened. --WGFinley (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy "What pray tell has been the issue with my rhetoric on this page?" - you do it in the same sentence you ask what you're doing wrong! Also, I've never indicated I was taking immediate individual action here, in fact my very first comment was saying I wanted other input, don't know how you're making the leap to me unilaterally removing AGK's IBAN, I suggested it and that was all. --WGFinley (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This interaction ban expires in a few days, I don't see the need of going through a process to lift it. TBAN, after looking at all the extenuating circumstances, doesn't seem appropriate here for either side, clearly there is honest disagreement as to who interacted first and I think both sides have a valid argument that the other started it. Thus I'm disinclined to extend it as Gatoclass presented. I think Gato's suggestion has merit and seeks to find middle ground but, after a couple of weeks of calls needing to be made on murky actions regarding what is an IBAN violation I can't see extending something that is inadequate.

So I would suggest closing this with no action other than a plea to both parties to cool it as in the next few days we will see if previous sanctions have done any good or if TBANs are next up for consideration. --WGFinley (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Given the repeated violation (by many parties) of restrictions I see no reason to give anyone a free pass here. Indefinite topic bans should not be seen as a nuclear option - and Cptnono should not be an exception. A number of the recurring problems in articles covered by these rulings can and should be resolved by AE restricting the behaviour of accounts until they learn to collaborate. Using increasing blocks or short term bans does not help accounts who have a history of serial violation learn to edit constructively. Therefore if indeed certain accounts (with a history of restriction violation etc) are "good editors but for one poisonous interaction, or a hot-button mindset, in one toic area" let them show us by editting well elsewhere. Given the series of report from this area in the last few days this is the ony way forward I can see--Cailil ^talk 17:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy has asked this case be considered withdrawn, I will do so but this case should serve as a warning to Cptnono to avoid pushing the envelope, it's pretty clear any future disruption is going to result in a long term TBAN given his history. --WGFinley (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]