Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive64

User requesting enforcement

Aregakn (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

• starts with this, and then reverts.
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13

The diffs contain evidences of disruptive editing, violation of 1RR rule, thought technically the majority of reverts were not violating the 3RR as well but the RVs from 9 to 11 do, permanent deletion of referenced information which might be considered edits not in good faith; the article was blocked due to edit-wars until the 3rd of June for a consensus to be reached and just after the ublock Brandmeister jumped into editing it in the same manner without having consensus. According to WP:TE it's a clear pattern of Tendentious Editing.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Besides the reverts as such, Bradmaster jumped again into edit-warring right after the temporary block was lifted from this article as well.

Is a featured article.

• Here he taged some controversial edits as minor and then adds a new section, which includes five claims all supported by the same business newspaper which had only reprinted what Azeri side had been reporting. Ionidasz revert with a long edit summary
• Brandmeister revets back having again violated several remedies of AA2.

Brandmeister was first placed under restriction and then topic banned for 6 months because it was not sufficient [1] and he clearly knows the rules. Some attempts to discuss and warn were also made as described in the "Additional comments".

1. Several attempts were made on his talk-page to let him see his problematic behavior but he disregarded or system-gamed [2], [3]. The many calls for discussion and consensus on the articles' talk-pages were disregarded as well.
2. Although quite active on other WP projects for the last days, he refuses to discuss issues on the subject articles when they are blocked showing no interest in positive contribution.
3. Together with the previous bans and his current behavior it is more than obvious Brandmeister's goals are different from contributing information and are strongly tendentious towards the picky articles of AA2.

Grandmaster and Brandmeister are together with a bunch of editors (about 24 more) involved in quite a huge-scandalous Arbitration request on Ru.WP including canvassing and harassment of editors (also active on En.WP) in real life. I'd like to exclude any of those being able to participate in any formal processes (besides those concerning them directly) against any of the members of the group until the final decision of ArbCom. The notification of it has been made on the ArbCom talk on En.WP. Aregakn (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If what the IP user said is true, he could participate in discussions and other activities by his IP anyway, as he did interestingly notice the AE. This only confirms that Brandmeister was/is not interested in consensus and discussions and the content of Wikipedia but has other goals. I'd also like to request all the IPs that Brandmeister used be checked and the result of this AE to be on those too. I'll add the latter to the sanction request. Aregakn (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban: Formally placed on 1RR, then topic banned for 6 months. The editor showed clear pattern of Disruptive and Tendentious Editing with refusal of Consensus.

Additional note for the requested action: If what the IP presented is right, I would like to ask the result of this AE to be enforced on all the IPs (including the IP presenting himself as Brandmeister) Brandmeister used to log in with, or a direction how it can be achieved given. Aregakn (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User informed. Aregakn (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would note that since June 9 I have no access to my account, probably because it is compromised now. I have already wrote to stewards and Wikipedia functionaries about that. Regarding the request, I follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, the Karabakh Khanate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in particular suffered from repeated and obvious source distortion: at least three registered users and some IPs have been modifying the lead text to push systemic bias and I was ultimately forced to request a semi-protection. As for Khojaly Massacre, there was no "jumping again into edit-warring" there and I explained that to Aregakn on my talk page. There is no policy, which prohibits editing after protection has expired. As for Nagorno-Karabakh War, I would encourage Aregakn to discuss the sources at talk, this venue is not for dispute resolution. 213.154.5.92 (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, many of reverts were on SPA IPs, which were used to edit war in this article. Some of reverts by IPs were accompanied by incivil comments, accusing others of vandalism, etc. Eventually the article was semi-protected to stop the IP disruption. Grandmaster 04:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that it's misleading to say that Brandmeister was reverting IPs, when 9 out of the 13 reverts in that article were reverts against registered users and that only the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th were against IPs. Note that on Khojaly, that the main user with whom he was reverting was sanctioned, but not Brandmeister. I can provide further examples of disruption, if the above are deemed insufficient.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

To resolve this request, we need to determine whether Brandmeister's account is indeed compromised, as is being claimed by the IP above. If yes, it should probably be blocked on these grounds, and the request is moot. I'm asking a checkuser whether they can help determine this.  Sandstein  21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandmeister's account has not performed any checkuser-logged action since 18:34 UTC on 9 June 2010. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. after the date the IP claims the account was compromised? Grandmaster 05:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the unclear status of Brandmeister's account at this time, this request is suspended. It can be submitted again as soon as Brandmeister (under that or any other account or IP) resumes making controversial edits in the topic area; in that case the diffs submitted here should be considered as though they were recent edits.  Sandstein  06:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated : topic ban same topic ban extended for 6 months

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

Violation:[4][5] [6] [7]

• Gilabrand was topic banned from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this edit she removes that Jerusalem is a disputed city. This is a clear violation against her topic ban as the status of Jerusalem is a huge part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as Palestinians claim the east part of Jerusalem and Israel do not accept this and have annexed it, while this is not recognized by most countries who keep their embassys in Tel Aviv. Clearly the edit is within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

• In these edits, she removes: [8]"Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, on the back of oppression, slaughter and exile of the Palestinian people, it has been grown and exported by Israeli producers, who stole the land. Selling produce from an occupied country is illegal under international law," [9]"Palestine, now illegally occupied by Israel" and "Palestine's occupied land".

• Ads "According to Arab historian Walid Khalidi" about a section about "clearing upper Galilee of its Arab population."[10]

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

Not applicable

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

Up to admin. But keep in mind that she has been blocked many times before for violating this:[11]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Since ARBPIA "rules" are very vague (broadly construed/interpreted), is it possible that every article pertaining to Israel/Israelis could be considered as being part of the I/P conflict in one way or another? I ask this because some major world entities (Hamas, Iran, Syria etc) consider all of Israel to be "occupied Palestine" (and consider anything Israeli-related to be politically motivated -- one can even find Hamas' positions on nightclubs in Tel Aviv)...Also keep in mind that every aspect of daily Israeli life is impacted in one way or another by the IP conflict.. Anyhow, it would be useful for editors to know the answers to these questions. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim Song/T. Canens - so effectively any and all articles relating to Israel, since most, if not all, could be construed in some way to be touched by the IP conflict (fruits, vegetables, night clubs, jewish places of worship etc)...especially if an editor decides to go "fishing".. Ok.. Just wanted clarification. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 00:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, many times bans are being interperted too broadly and by that only esclating the drama they were also intended to stop. As for the OP SD, during the last months he reported almost every breach, or what was viewed to him as breach of ARBPIA by editors with different attidue than the one he have through the I-P issue, to the ArbCom and on other boards. I truely wonder, and didn't check, if it's ok by Wiki policies or that it may be considered as WP:HOUND. --Gilisa (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perdito, I usually watch closely the ArbCom noticeboard, yet you don't excpect no editor to be updated with all or even most decisions made by the ArbCom if they were not at least part of the reason for which the desicion was made. --Gilisa (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Perdito, but no offense was taken because I wasn't defending myself. My point was that Gilabrand alleged violations of the topic ban are to be scrutinized within the scope of reasonable interpertation of the extent of the topic ban. The situation now is that admins themselvs are not sure whether it was a violation or not. In such cases I would say that the topic ban interpertation shouldn't be stretched too broadly, espcially as there was no disruptive editing by her. In fact she removed highly biased edits made by other IP editors on articles that are not connected to the I-P topic by default. For instance, Jaffa Orange was one of Israel's known agricultural products in the 60's and 70's -it doesn't have any connection to the I-P articles and I wouldn't excpect the article to include information about the I-P conflict, but it does, because some editors think that Jaffa Oranges are yet another symbole to the occupation of what they call "occupied Palestine". The removal of these highly biased and provocative political editings (evidently, Israel is Israel and not "occupied Palesitne" and sections about how Israeli have to kill palestianians to take their Jaffa oranges or something twisted like that are not belong into the article I guess) from a non political article is by no mean violation of the topic ban. I think that it's pretty reasonable that if one who is under topic ban terms in the I-P subject edit article on mathmatics and then one enter a phrase on how Israeli mathmatician who responsable for one mathmatical breakthrow is also murder of Palestinain children and the Israeli air force have used his assistance to calculate the course of its bombs, then he can remove it like he can remove anything else which is without connection to the subject of the article itself, it should be considered as an edit within the mathmatics realm. The same rule goes for article which do have something or more to do with Israel, but realy not with the I-P conflict. Not any, or most, articles that are about Israelis or connected with Israel (Israeli products, companies and etc) have anything to do with the I-P conflict. It's true that many times it's pushed to these articles, but yet it doesn't make them subject for the topic ban just because someone made I-P edits in there. IMO, one should have the ability to clean articles from unrelated edits when the article not falling within the topic ban terms, even if the disruptive edits themselvs do. That is, the topic ban apply only to article by definition falining under the banned topic and in other articles the banned editor is free to edit without limitations. Appologize for the spelling.. --Gilisa (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, in a situation where we have long-running POV edit wars over food, snakes and many other seemingly unrelated and uncontroversial subjects, it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to draw the sort of dividing line you are suggesting. RolandR (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is part of Gilsa's point. Edit wars are happening over things like national parks and tourism. Can't even have the name Jeruselum in an article without someone trying to add a sometimes out of place lines about the conflict. That is probably best for other editors' AEs or specific talk pages though.Cptnono (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR, we can draw the line on the basis of signficance and common sense. While Gaza blocked or Quasam rockets are by no doubt part of the I-P topic and one who can't see it can't represent the reasonable common editor, Jaffa oranges don't seem part of it to many (count me as well). One have to made OR to push it into the I-P arena. Falafel or humus are different stories and the warring about these goes strongly and in high profile outside wikipedia as well, although it's pretty ridiclous fight as I see it.--Gilisa (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, n the face of it, these are ridiculous fights. The point is that they continue to happen. You were asking about the scope of a topic ban, and I was noting that this should probably also cover such articles, at least for edits reflecting the POV dispute. I'm not suggesting that Gilabrand or Nishidani, for example, should be banned from writing about the proportion of lemon juice to garlic in hummus, or the markings of the Palestine viper. But the arguments about the origin of hummus, and the geographic location of the viper, should certainly be included in a ban. So I am suggesting that it isn't as clear cut as you would like it to be, we can't just say that some articles are covered and others are not. The issue is the content of the edits, not their location. I/P topic-banned editors are not barred from edits relating to politics in the countries where they live; but there are many issues where a ban should prevent them from contributing. Similarly with your example above of a (hypothetical?) mathematician, although the article itself should not be covered by a topic ban, the specific edit you suggest might be; it would certainly be advisable for the editor in question to leave the problematic edit for another editor to deal with. RolandR (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with most of what you wrote but not with all. The mathematician (hypothetical, yes) in my example is not the subject of the article, i.e., the article is not about him. Let's take Heisenberg uncertainty principle as yet another hypothetical example. Heisenberg was most certainly a Nazi physicist, yet in the article on the uncertainty principle itself I would expect no elaboration on his Nazi background to be included and certainly not ranting that the uncertainty principle is a Nazi principle. So let's assume that there is editor who is banned from editing on the Nazi movement or on WWII, if he remove such editis I would not consider it violation of the ban under any terms simply because as I see it the broad interpertation given to admins when enforcing community or ArbCom bans only purpose is to keep banned wise guys behind the right side of the border. They should not come to the topic, but it shouldn't be brought to them as well without the slightest reasonable justification. Also, if we return to articles about food and agricultural products, mostly and naturaly these are not being frequently edited or instead they are being edited regulary by the same very few editors who have them on their watch list -so, when one make disruptive edit there (and changing the name of Israel to "occupied palestine" is disruptive) it could stay there unnoticed for months and years (I have examples from different topics) and while for his/her own sake I would suggest banned editor to leave it to other editor, I don't consider edits in articles outside the banned topic per se as violation of the topic ban. --Gilisa (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's take another, possibly more relevant, example. Robert Aumann is an Israeli mathematician, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics for his work on games theory. He is also a member of Professors for a Strong Israel, and has used his mathematical views to support his political views. All of this is obviously relevant in the article on Aumann himself, and Gilabrand should not edit this. Your question is whether, if another editor inserts this material in an article on, say, games theory, Gilabrand should be able to remove this. You say yes. I say that, irrespective of the value of the edits (which could well be unacceptable), she should not do so, and this would be a breach of the topic ban. The original edit, however POV or undue, is not obvious vandalism, and the topic ban should apply. This would be even more so if such material was inserted in an article about the Nobel Prize for economics, since Aumann's views, and their political implications, proved a highly controversial public issue at the time. I am not arguing that such edits are necessarily valid, simply that they should not be exempt from the topic ban. The potential for edit-warring is clear; and this surely is the reason for the ban. RolandR (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You put the disagreements between us very well. I must say that regardless my personall views, I would never consider removal of clearly unrelevant content from one article as POV, regardless if I agree with the superflous content or not. Games Theory article have nothing to do with Aumann own opinnions unless it lead to notable event. Say, if according to the Games Theory one state decided to declare war against another, following Aumann advise. Topic Ban is most relevant, as you mentioned many times, where there is a problem of inserting POV into articles. It doesn't apply in the cases we discussed. I can't see how removal of not in place content is baypassing the topic ban. And calling Israel "occupied Palestine" in one section title may not seem vandalism to you, but to me it's not very far from that. And anyway, it's disruptive.--Gilisa (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be useful to remind everybody here that there is a precedent in which it was decided that all such edits fall under the WP:ARBPIA sanctions. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 07:45 15.06.2010

Gilisa, my comment wasn't directed at anybody in particular and I'm sorry if you took offense. This case just reminded me of the previous one and I thought I should bring it up for consistency. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08:34 15.06.2010

[13] and [14] appear to be pretty straightforward violations. Unomi (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 157 link to the article about tourisem in Israel, which is far from being classical, or at all, I-P related article. The fact one article is directly or not related to Israel does not automaticaly make it subject to the I-P restrictions. The Hi Tec industry of Israel is also affected by the I-P conflict, yet it's not prat of the I-P topic when comes to WP. Diff 156 link to the Palmach article which was edited by Gilabrand (content, clean up, pharsing, refs) with most of her edits, if not all, don't regard to the part Palmach played in the I-P conflict but to its structure and so forth. I would advise her to stay away from any editing have something to do with the military history of Israel as long as she's under ban restrictions, though. --Gilisa (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilisa, You are not addressing the issues in your comments. In the Tourism of Israel article she removed a sentence that Jerusalem is disputed, that is a direct violation against her topic ban. In the Pamach article she added a sentence changing a fact that: "the objective of the operation was to clear upper Galilee of its Arab population." - she changed it to a statement/POV from one person, that is also a direct violation against her topic ban. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SD, the sentence stating that Jerusalem is disputed because of the I-P conflict does not belong into this article which by itself is not part of the I-P. It may belong in the article of Jerusalem herself, in one of the sections about ploitics. --Gilisa (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilisa, even good edits are to be avoided when under topic restrictions, these weren't clear cases of vandalism - but they touched on some of the central topics of the I/P arena. Military history is only one part of the ongoing I/P conflict. Unomi (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her edits on the Palamach article were nothing close to vandalism from the much I seen, and further discussion about their quality is unwanted, I think, because this is not the right forum. She may go wrong with her evaluation of the Palmach article but even if so, I'm not under the immpression she systematicaly violating her topic ban or acted out of bad faith. Therefore I find it possible to avoid severe punishment. --Gilisa (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that her edits were vandalism, I was alluding to the diffs that I did not bring up - the jaffa and especially bombing edits, which could reasonably be argued as vandalism fighting activities. The 2 diffs I brought up were not obvious vandalism fighting activities. Unomi (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is another frivolous effort by SupremeDeliciousness in his continued attempt to silence all editors that are not on his side. It is clear that there is only one problematic edit here on the Tourism article, and the edit on Palmach is not controversial at all. If only SD were so objective and also pursued like-minded editors on their topic bans, I would AGF, but here there is none. I was hoping that this battleground mentality was a thing of the past, but SD refuses to let it go. Incredible to see how much spare time some editors have in pursuing 'adversaries' instead of actually contributing to the project.--Shuki (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Palmach edit is a routine matter of providing attribution. In the other edit still at issue, it is not unreasonable that an article on tourism in Israel would provide the reader with information on places of interest that are reachable only from Israel and under Israel control, whether or not that is the permanent status. Agreeing with Shuki, I think this filing is part of a vendetta by S.D., whose long history of hostility to Israel and Israelis, and battleground approach, is a matter of record. It strikes me as a ludicrous example of the "pot calling the kettle black". Gilabrand is a gifted and diligent editor with a multi-year record of outstanding contributions to Wikipedia deserving of appreciation. Let not this enforcement request turn into another instance of "no good deed goes unpunished." At most what is needed is gentle advice to tread carefully, but I think even that is too much, as it would reward S.D. for a frivolous filing that wastes everybody's time, and would encourage repeat performances. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider decision in light of mitigating factors just posted above. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another successful effort to silence those who are perceived as being sympathetic to Israel. SD's AE is a transparent attempt to muzzle any voice that disagrees with his. Gilabrand's edits are by in large constructive and have added immeasurably to wikipedia both in terms of quality and quantity. The sanction is harsh and extreme and I ask that it be re-considered. Please don't reward frivolous complaints and personal vendettas with censorship.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Again? T. Canens (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR: Topic bans are generally taken to include an exception for reverts of obvious vandalism, copyvio, and BLP violations. This is a revert of obvious vandalism, so is exempt. I'd be interested, however, in what defense Gilabrand can provide for the edit brought up by SD.

I realised this almost immediately, and self-reverted before you commented. RolandR (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsaum75: "Broadly" means that if there's any doubt as to whether an article/section/paragraph/item/whatever falls within the topic ban, it should be avoided. T. Canens (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is my view that two of the subsequent edits SD brought up fall within the vandalism exception as well. [15] and [16] are the only edits I'm concerned with.

@Nsaum75: If the paragraph is about how the fruit tastes or looks, etc., I don't think it's going to be a problem. Of course, someone who wants to play it safe can avoid all Israel-related matters, but it's not required. T. Canens (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only comments I'm interested in are whether the two edits I listed above fall within the scope of the topic ban and, if they do fall within the topic ban, what sanction should be imposed. I should note that given the history here, if sanctions are imposed the default will be quite severe. If there are any potential mitigating factors related to Gilabrand or circumstances of the edits, they should be brought up now. Any comments about the OP is off-topic for this AE thread. If you have a problem, file another AE request. T. Canens (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request has merit. The user had been notified, has edited after notification, but has failed to respond to this thread. I therefore construe the silence to imply that no defense or mitigating factors are present. I find that [17] and [18] violate the user's ban from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic. This being her 5th topic ban violation, and the last block being one month, Gilabrand is blocked for three months, and the six-month topic ban is reset to begin anew upon the expiration or lifting of the block. Given her apparent inability to distinguish between edits that violate her topic ban and edits that do not, Gilabrand is urged to voluntarily avoid all content and discussions related to Israel for the duration of her topic ban, to reduce the likelihood of further violations. T. Canens (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above assessment, and, given that the request has been processed and additional comments are no longer required, am collapsing this thread. Editors are reminded that it is unhelpful to speculate about the motives for an AE request, or to criticize the sanction at issue: as long as the sanction is not lifted or successfully appealed, it will be enforced without regard as to who requests enforcement or why, and the only question that needs to be discussed in an AE thread is whether or not the sanction was violated and, if yes, what the appropriate enforcement action is.  Sandstein  20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated :

• In application of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Nableezy was banned on April 16, 2010, from editing articles which (or whose edited parts) are broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, for two months. Reverts of vandalism were not excluded from the ban. [emphasis added]

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

Violations:

1. April 17: List of military occupations, add regarding compliance w/the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace.
2. April 21: Robert Fisk, edit to article on Lebanon-based journalist who was one of the first to visit scene of Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinian and Lebanese Muslims as Israeli troops surrounded the camps, and who has also reported on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
3. April 22: Anabta, rvv to article on Palestinian town in the West Bank which was occupied by Israel in 1967.
4. May 24: Azzun, undid revision regarding a Palestinian town in the West Bank that prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War had a total land area of 24,496 dunams, but which today has 9,130 dunams.
5. May 25: Ayyubid dynasty, rv in article on Muslim dynasty which conquered Palestine from the Kingdom of Jerusalem
6. May 25: Seljuq dynasty, rv in article about Muslim dynasty that controlled present-day Israel and Palestine.
7. May 27: Richard Goldstone, ce to article about head of the UN Gaza Conflict fact-finding mission on the Gaza War between Israel and the Palestinian Hamas.
8. June 10: Helen Thomas, edit to article on Arab journalist who resigned on June 7 (edit being three days after her resignation) due to major controversy engendered by her statements that Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine .... Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land..... [The Jews in Israel should] go home ... Poland. Germany. And America and everywhere else. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries? See?".

"Broad" ban

Clearly, these edits are to articles/text squarely within his broad topic ban related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of note is what admin Tim Song pointed out in regard to another editor banned from the I-P conflict (where, as distinct from here, the ban didn't even by its terms mention that it was to be "broadly construed").

Sysop Tim Song (aka T. Canens), responding to a question as to whether "every article pertaining to Israel/Israelis could be considered as being part of the I/P conflict in one way or another? ... every aspect of daily Israeli life is impacted in one way or another by the IP conflict.", responded (hours ago, in the report directly above this one): "'Broadly' means that if there's any doubt as to whether an article/section/paragraph/item/whatever falls within the topic ban, it should be avoided." Obviously, even-handed application of this interpretation to all individuals subject to the AI and PI bans mandates the same result here. We can't have different rules applied to people on opposite sides of the same precise issue, who are subject to the same topic bans. That's precisely the sort of thing that has led to bad press regarding wikipedia of late, charging that POV has led to wikipedia being broken when the IP conflict is at issue. That's not good for the project.

Topics may be "broadly construed" to give wide latitude to enforcement and to prevent gaming. For example, a topic ban regarding a particular person might also be construed as a ban on editing articles about institutions which that person is a prominent member, subjects that the person has commented on or written about, or even places that the person has lived. Since how "broadly construed" the topic ban is may be up to interpretation, the onus is on the user under the topic ban to avoid impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety. [emphasis added]

Similarly, construing "broadly" in an unrelated matter, sysop Bigtimepeace wrote "Broadly construed" means precisely that and y'all need to err on the side of caution in a major way."[19] And in another unrelated matter construing the meaning of the phrase, sysop Tznkai wrote: "When topic bans are "broadly construed" I think that means all ambiguity goes towards violation".[20]

The number of editors (including sysop Malik Shabazz) who based their support for Nableezy's ban violations on a mis-reading and/or misapplication of Wikipedia:Topic ban, and even a mis-reading of the breadth of the ban (asserting that it was limited to the I-P conflict, which it is not ... and then saying they still have the same position, despite the basis for it having been completely incorrect) causes me some concern as to what is going on.

Vandalism reverts banned

Importantly, the ban itself stated clearly that reverts of vandalism were not excluded from Nableezy's ban.

Those who took positions that Nableezy should escape punishment for ban violations that are vandalism reverts have no basis for their views in a plain reading of the ban. The ban unequivocally states that included in what Nableezy is banned from doing are vandalism reverts. Nothing could be clearer. This calls to mind the arbitrators' strongly worded comments regarding similar poorly founded arguments as why a prior Nableezy topic ban should not be enforced according to its clearly stated language. To now not enforce the ban on the basis that some reverts are only vandalism reverts is not only contrary to the plain language of the ban, but it makes an utter mockery of bans and this entire process. It also encourages a lack of respect for bans, and is the sort of un-ven application of the process that leads to concerns among editors and others.

And reflecting the raw "FUCK YOU, BLOCKERS" attitude of Nableezy, when he was informed of his block by his blocker, with a link to the details that made clear that "Reverts of vandalism ... are not excluded from this ban", what did he respond? He responded "I am going to revert vandalism where I see it (though I will restrict myself to blatant vandalism) and if an admin wants to block me for that they can." And guess what? He did just that -- he was a man of his word. Perhaps some sysops think its fine for Nableezy to, in the face of a clear directive, say that he will not obey his block, and then act on his words. Nableezy himself said -- if an admin wants to block me for that they can. For the sysops on this page to not mete out the appropriate punishment for clear, willing, intentional, Fuck-You violations of bans would be a failure on their part to uphold their obligations as sysops.

The number of editors (including sysop tariqabjotu) who based their apologist support for Nableezy's ban violations on a mis-reading and/or misapplication of this aspect of the ban causes me some concern.

Nableezy-specific circumstances

It is eye-catching that Nableezy has committed such multiple such violations: a) starting the day after his ban was instituted; b) in -- while a minority -- a substantial percentage of his articles edited under the Nableezy name during his ban; and c) after being on the receiving end of admin action so many times.

Note as well, as was noted by admin Sandstein at the most recent admin action regarding Nableezy, Nableezy's problematic record as reflected at least in part here and here.

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

Not applicable

Enforcement action requested

(block, topic ban, or other sanction)

Up to admin. But please keep in mind that Nableezy has been blocked many times before for violating this: [21]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Diff

1. did not notice that one line out of 23 removed by vandalism was about the MFO. Sorry for that.
2. The whole of the Roberst Fisk article is not within the P/I conflict, and the section that I touched does not mention the conflict at all. This is not part of the topic ban.
3. The vandalism I reverted had nothing to do with the P/I conflict, this is like saying that somebody cant touch the Tel Aviv article
4. Really? The text added to the article was a straight copyvio of http://tearsgaza.ahlamontada.net/montada-f38/topic-t372.htm, and was in a foreign language. No reasonable person can find fault with this edit. I'll not comment on whether or not certain people are reasonable.
5. it takes a special person to say that an article on an empire that fell in the 13th century is related to the Arab Israeli conflict. And even if somebody was to make the inane leap that any group that ever ruled any part of Palestine is part of the A/I conflict topic area (I suppose this means I can't edit the article on the Roman Empire either), the edit I made had nothing to do with either Arabs or Jews (there was no such thing as an Israeli at the time), so I fail to see how this is part of my topic ban
6. again, an empire that fell in the 14th century. Pretending this is a topic ban vio is stupid. I would say silly, but this crosses the line into stupid.
7. The whole of the Richard Goldstone article is not in the A/I conflict area, the section dealing with the UN mission on Gaza is. I did not touch any area that was at all related to the topic area.
8. The whole of the Helen Thomas article is not in the A/I conflict area, the section dealing with this latest kerfuffle is. I did not touch any area that was at all related to the topic area.

A day before my topic ban is to expire, Epeefleche has chosen to continue his mission of seeing that I do not edit here. The only edit that comes close is my reversion of vandalism on the occupation page as there is indeed one line out of many that can be said to be included in the topic ban. Had I noticed that single line I would not have reverted it. I do remember editing that page and checking that I was not reverting the section that had to do with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but I did not think to check if there was any mention of Sinai. nableezy - 21:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My mission? I admit I raised complaints about your editing at least twice. I believe that each time, once by arbitrators' comments, and once by sysop block, the comments I raised were confirmed as being valid. Why would you seek to bully editors into not bringing legitimate complaints to the fore?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from commenting in this section. And your first AE request against me was closed as inactionable, the second one, a repeat of the first, was overturned. And would you care to let us all know whose topic ban you were inquiring about here? But tell us in your own section. nableezy - 22:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, the area of conflict defined in the ARBPIA case is the whole of the Arab-Israeli conflict, so the MFO in Sinai would fall under that. That was an honest oversight on my part, nearly two months ago. So there is one edit here that could be "actionable", though what action it merits is up to yall. nableezy - 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq, are you saying that the Richard Goldstone article, of which less than 15% touches on the conflict, is as a whole part of the A/I topic area? nableezy - 01:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RolandR Of the eight edits listed above by Epeefleche, three(nos 1, 2 & 3) are obvious reversion of vandalism; one (no 4) consists of the removal of a large chunk of non-English text from an article; two (nos 5 & 6) do not appear to relate to the Israel/Palestine conflict, however broadly defined; one (no 7) is the addition of a missing, and clearly non-contrentious, word to an admittedly highly contested article; and one (no 8) is only very tenuously related to the area covered by the ban. It seems top me that this is an extremely poor case, entirely without merit. I am concerned that it is brought the day before Nableezy's topic ban is due to end, although most of these edits were made many weeks ago. And I note that this ban was imposed on the basis of a report which even the closing editoe described as "largely frivolous", and which led to the reporting editor being warned "that they may be made subject to sanctions if they file more largely inactionable enforcement requests".

This too seems a frivolous and inactionable request, and I recommend that Epeefleche withdraw it. RolandR (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you missed the fact that the ban states clearly, using up in fact much of the language in the actual ban, that reverts of vandalism are not excluded from the ban. That also covers of course what you indicate are helpful edits -- the purpose of the ban as it clearly states is not to limit him to helpful edits, but to ban him quite clearly from any edits, including "helpful" ones, such as vandalism reverts. Also, that the ban related to the Arab-Israel conflict, not as you (and admin PhilKnight, below) assert incorrectly to the P-I conflict. I believe that covers all of your above comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz Epeefleche seems to have misread Sandstein's statement concerning nableezy's topic ban, which was limited to "articles which (or whose edited parts) are broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" (bold emphasis added). Editing an article about an ancient dynasty that controlled Palestine doesn't fall within the scope of the topic ban because it is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (a modern conflict). Editing Helen Thomas to change her ethnicity doesn't fall within the scope of the topic ban because the edited part is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. So what's left of Epeefleche's complaint? A single violation that took place two months ago. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read it carefully, Malik. Note the use of the phrase "broadly" (emphasis added). The edits fall within the topic ban. I find your suggestion that adding the word "Arab" does not fall within the "Arab-Israel" topic ban, and that Thomas's comment that is precisely about the Arab-Israeli conflict, which was so noteworthy that Obama commented on it and Thomas resigned as a direct result of reactions to it, makes me wonder where you are coming from in general. The ban construed broadly does not allow the editor to edit articles about people famous in part or in whole because of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to just edit around the words that speak directly to the conflict. We've just had a slew of blocks that demonstrate that not to be the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Helen Thomas has a long and storied career wholly unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict and edits that are not related to the conflict are not within the topic ban. Same with Goldstone. And the idea that an empire that fell more than 500 years prior to the Arab-Israeli conflict is within the topic ban is just ludicrous. nableezy - 22:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That long and storied career came to a screeching halt as a result of her comments on the P-I conflict. Which comments Obama and others commented on. That's how notable they were. And your edits followed by three days her resignation because of her P-I conflict statements. As to Goldstone -- there are 4.76 million ghits relating to Goldstone and his Gaza report. Perhaps thou doth protest too much -- your comments may mislead the uninformed, or give POV editors something to grasp onto, but they are not supported (as I expect, given you knowledge in the area, you know) in the least by the evidence.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I did not touch anything about how her career ended or why. The whole of that page is not within the topic ban, the sections dealing with the conflict are. Same with Goldstone. The overwhelming majority of that page deals with his life before the Gaza report. I did not touch any section dealing with the conflict, the rest of that page is not within the topic ban. Your understanding of what is or is not included in topic bans has been shown to be incorrect in the past, no shame in that, but continuing to make nonsense accusations does you no favors. nableezy - 22:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were banned from editing "articles which (or whose edited parts) are broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Had your ban been to "articles whose edited parts" broadly relate to the conflict that would have been a very different ban. Your ban, though, relates to "articles ... broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". These articles fall squarely within that. The fact that you edit a different section is of no nevermind -- as with reversions of vandalism, you were being broadly banned -- by the terms of the ban -- from editing the article. You weren't being asked to revert vandalism, or edit around parts of the article that say "A-I conflict", or just edit the word "Arab" -- the ban by its very terms mandated that you simply stay away from articles broadly related to the conflict. You failed to do that.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the articles are not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, there are sections within them that are and I stayed away from that. But seeing as you dont have a say in what exactly is a topic ban or not, Ill stop now. nableezy - 22:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are making believe that your ban was only to sections of articles that relate to the conflict. But that's not true. Your ban, by its very terms, is to articles that--construed broadly--relate to the conflict (as well as to sections of articles that relate to the conflict). Your suggestion that despite the 4.76 million ghits Goldstone does not relate to the conflict is one that no NPOV, informed editor can be expected to agree with.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not making believe. Articles that are in large part broadly related to the A/I conflict are covered in the topic ban. That would include some biographies, such as for instance Yasser Arafat or Ariel Sharon, even the sections that deal with their early lives. But other articles that only have limited content related to the topic area but largely fall out of the topic area are not in whole part of the topic ban. What you are saying is that the whole of the Bill Clinton article is out because of Oslo. Or, even further, that the editing sections dealing with the early history of Bethlehem would be out. nableezy - 22:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that the Goldstone article is within the broadly construed ban because of the 4.76 million ghits. Just as if, say, you were under a Holocaust-related-articles (broadly construed) ban, I would suggest that a Hitler article would be off-limits, despite the fact that much of his article relates to other matters. As sysops have mentioned in such situations, wikipedia has millions of articles. Well-intentioned editors bent on avoiding disruption should quite easily be able to find other articles to edit during their ban that do not bump up against such "broadly construed" bans.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, yeah, Hitler:Holocaust is not the greatest analogy to Goldstone:I/P. Needless to say, the number of google hits about a report somebody issued does not determine whether that person's biography is within the topic ban. But, if you havent noticed, and such you pay such attention to sysops, each sysop that has commented has said this is not actionable. nableezy - 23:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Goldstone article, which I largely wrote, Nableezy's edit was to add a single word that I had omitted from a sentence that I wrote. This edit was not contentious in any way and fixed a trivial error in my own editing. The section that he edited concerned Goldstone's youth in South Africa. Since the edit in question was (a) innocuous, (b) indisputably beneficial and (c) had nothing whatsoever to do with the I-P conflict, bringing it up here seems to me to be - at the very least - misconceived. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Topic ban indicates that the fact that your ban is to be "broadly construed" is meant to prevent you from engaging in gaming. As the guideline says, "a topic ban regarding a particular person might also be construed as a ban on editing articles about institutions which that person is a prominent member" (such as Goldstone-Goldstone Gaza Report, in reverse), and "subjects that the person has commented on or written about" (as in the journalist who wrote about the Arab-Israeli conflict, in reverse). Furthermore, as the guideline clearly states: "Since how "broadly construed" the topic ban is may be up to interpretation, the onus is on the user under the topic ban to avoid impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety."--Epeefleche (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im not gaming, not a single admin has agreed with your interpretations. The game being played here is your claiming that the last 7 edits are related to the topic ban, no matter how broad you wish to pretend that ban is. You havent even attempted to justify including edits to an empire that collapsed hundreds of years ago as part of the A/I conflict. This is typical of your contributions to this page. And, as the lack of anything actionable in your diffs is seen, I see no need to continue going back and forth with you. You are here asking for me to blocked for removing a link to a sexual act in a BLP, for adding a missing word, and for restoring the ethnicity of a writer. If you want to even pretend that you do this in good faith you can try, but it is plainly obvious that for all but one of your diffs there is not topic ban vio. nableezy - 00:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were banned from reverting vandalism. Even now, in your above edit, you defend yourself on the basis that you were reverting vandalism. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Topic ban put the onus on you, the editor subject to the broad topic ban, to avoid impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety. And yet you are engaging in wikilawyering/gaming arguments to the effect that Goldstone of the Goldstone Gaza report, with millions of ghits (and corresponding notability for that report on the A-I conflict) is not, broadly construed, related to the A-I conflict. And how a writer "on the A-I conflict" is not related to the A-I conflict -- despite the fact that [[Wikipedia:Topic ban] states that broadly construed topic bans cover the connection between a subject and a person who "has commented on or written about" the subject.

As far as I'm concerned, the confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear" And "[A]ll pages ... which relate" seems to make the scope inclusive and clear.[22]

"When someone is given a topic ban in a particular area, they are meant to move away from that topic area...If... an editor shows an inability to move away from a topic area, then sanctions should be enforced".[23]

--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt sanctioned under WB/JS so I dont know why you keep bringing that up, and Sandstein's topic ban is not the same as the WB/JS ones. And Goldstone is not simply "Goldstone of the Goldstone Gaza report", anybody who looks at the article for two seconds can see that. And Fisk is also more than a writer on the conflict, he covered the Troubles for many years and covers a great many other topics. And the same is true for Thomas. I am not defending my reversions because they were reverts of vandalism, I have said those reverts fall outside of the topic ban, and apparently each admin who has commented agrees with that. The only confusion in this entire request is coming from you, the only hair splitting is coming from you. Those articles are outside of the A/I topic area, though there are sections within them that are in that topic area. I have not edited those sections, in compliance with my topic ban. nableezy - 01:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply repeating the same sort of behavior that the arbs brought you to task for in the above block quotes (and which you evidenced in your Fuck You--I intend to flout your ban and I dare you to go ahead and block me you spineless sysops reaction to your ban), regarding similarly misleading arguments you made with regard to your topic ban-related edits in that matter. Editors can click on the refs to read the arbs' full reactions to your comments w/regard to your edits in the face of that topic ban. Your edits here are to articles clearly within the topic ban "broadly construed", as a reading of Wikipedia:Topic ban makes evident. The admin reactions here have included admins who adopted their positions mistakenly believing that the ban was to the I-P conflict, and mistakenly believing that it did not cover reverts of vandalism, so perhaps the initial knee-jerk reactions were not all highly considered, and didn't reflect a reading of Wikipedia:Topic ban. Furthermore, despite an effort by Sandstein to close discussion off before it had even begun--an astounding mere 38 minutes after it was opened (what is that about? Even AfDs accept comments for 7 days -- what possible rationale would he have in seeking to railroad a close here before editors had an opportunity to comment?), as you know this was just opened hours ago -- perhaps others, including other sysops, will weigh in. Everything else that you say has similarly been replied to.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a no brainer coming off the very recent open/close to Gilabrand, but I blame A) the original admin who only gave Nableezy a weird partial topic ban. Instead of encouraging Nableezy to take a time off, it let him continue on the talk pages and the many slips mentioned above came much easier than if Nableezy would have been on a total 'time off' from the subject, B) SupremeDeliciousness' recent flurry of AE activity. Reasonable people would give others a bit of flexibility, but SD looking for ways to silence opposing editors only motivates his 'opponents' to do the same. If Breein and Gilabrand are going to be held to such a zero tolerance standard, then it is not surprising that this wakes up others to demand the admins here be perfectly balanced and of course C) the editor himself for not being able to resist editing related articles. --Shuki (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very peculiar the workings and inconsistencies of admins here. On one recent AE regarding userspace here, he says that I believe that this interpretation, which would allow the sanction at issue here, is more plausible, in part because the remedy lists "bans from editing any page or set of pages" (and not just "articles") among the possible remedies. On top of that, only a few hours ago, Sandstein warned Editors are reminded that it is unhelpful to speculate about the motives for an AE request, or to criticize the sanction at issue: when Nableezy himself did the same thing above. --Shuki (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally baffling me. I'm not sadistic looking for punishment here, I think that Nableezy has a lot to contribute if he really wanted to. Perhaps he should be mentored instead of topic banned, but that does not seem to matter here.

But even more peculiar and inconsistent, is Sandstein recently here blocking an editor for merely commenting on an AE related to I-P, not editing the article space, hence interpreting the AE very, very broadly, as opposed to the comments below. --Shuki (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just knew I was going to chime in on any request regarding Nableezy. There was a conversation on his talk page regarding the block where he said he as going to revert vandalism anyways. A couple editors reccomended that since he had access to the talk page he simply bring it up there and that he stay out of the main space on these articles. He reverted anyways. He thumbed his nose at the topic ban so principle dictates that something should be done. However, even I can see the reason in reverting vandalism and doubt any additional sanctions would accomplish anything. Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except ... the ban, in its ultimate wisdom, took pains to clarify that it applied to Nableezy reverting vandalism. He was quite clearly banned from doing so. He quite clearly violated that ban.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is why it is so frustrating. He basically gave the middle finger to the admin who wrote up his enforcement. I have noticed on Wikipedia that admins rarely admonish or work on principle though. His edits didn't hurt the project exactly but him continuing to work in the mainspace didn't help the battle mentality in a topic area that is already emotionally charged. I have basically come to the conclusion that it has to be way over the line for anything to get done. There was an edit where he changed "holy land" to "Palestine" that jumped out at me as a problem but I assumed that alone would not have been enough to raise anyone's eyebrow but mine.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, I imagine, is where POV can play a large role wrt ones interpretation of what constitutes vandalism, and Sandstein wished to ensure that there were no such creative outlets. I very much doubt that reverting a page blanking was desired to be in violation of the spirit of the sanction. Unomi (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right on there. Sandstein was the enforcing admin (right?) and if he is saying close this request then that should be that. I don't buy into the notion that Epeefleche did anything wrong by making this request though. And a "hey don't change 'holy land' to 'Palestine' if you are topic banned in the future" might be in order. If I recall correctly, it was long standing and an IP had changed it. Probably that vandalism gray area.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sand was the enforcing admin. But once the ban is put in place, that does not afford him a superior position in enforcing violations of the clear words of the ban. The sysop community is required to apply wikipedia rules to the language of the wikipedia ban once it is put in writing. There seems to be some lack of focus on what the words "broadly construed" mean in this context, as stated in Wikipedia guidelines and by various sysops in other matters. Here, there is no vandalism gray area -- reverts in that area are clearly ban violations. And "broadly construed" requires any ambiguous circumstances to be considered within the ban, as the guideline states.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You prety much expressed the frustration I was talking about in your recent addition up above. Don't you know Nableezy can do whatever he wants? He has been brought here so many times. And each time there is some reason even if there is some battling mentality from those bringing it up. Fortunately for him, he was right. And realistically it is the principle of it since the only disruption was editors being shocked that he had the balls to do it. And any block would be recinded anyways since the admin would be bombarded afterward with novels discussing how fine of an editor he is and how it is the other guys who were wrong. Screw it. This AE will only lead to trouble. At least we have something to point to next time editors feel there was some sort of double standard.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree with this AE filing against Nableezy. However, I would like to state that AE is broken. The "administrators" who hand down "decisions" here are just as much at fault for the "disruption" on Wikipedia as the editors they are supposedly "bringing down justice" upon. By virtue of their continued involvement in these AEs, they are no longer "uninvolved" parties, but pawns to be used by warring factions against each other. What make this situation even more sad and depressing, is that very few seem to recognize it. I do not have a solution for this ongoing problem, but its plain to see that the system is broken. I guess someone could "punish" me for stating such an opinion, but, that would only make more evident the cancer that has metastasized in AE. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 01:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a number of the comments we have seen here -- ranging from a sysop effort to close discussion before even 40 minutes had elapsed, to inconsistent application of the same rules to different editors hours apart, to ignoring the plain language of the ban that it applied to reverts of vandalism, to "misunderstanding" of the scope of the ban being the AI conflict (which, once corrected, did not lead to an adjustment of position to -- oh yeah, well then its clearly a ban), ignoring by sysops of Nableezy's middle finger directed at them as he promised to violate his block and dared them to block him, all lead to a sense that the application of this process by certain individuals is broken. This is starting to less resemble an NPOV application of uniform rules in an even-handed fashion, and look more like ... something else.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read it all, but if I got the gist right and she is banned from editing in the I-P subject and she did edit in Helen Tomas article then this is a clear breach from her topic ban. Helen Tomas is high profile activist very well known for her opposing to the Gaza blocked and recently there were edit wars directly connected with her (see the TP of the article of the raid on the Gaza flotilla) and with the I-P subject. Yesterday Gilbrand was blocked for three month and her topic ban was reset for a less clear breach from her topic ban. The same standards should be applied here. --Gilisa (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The WP:ARBPIA restrictions concern the Palestine - Israel conflict, not the whole of the Middle East, so this report doesn't appear to be actionable. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the Arab-Israeli conflict, a somewhat broader issue, but Malik Shabazz is correct. Without admin objection, I will close this as not actionable.  Sandstein  21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was misreading WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict. Anyway, I agree this should be closed. PhilKnight (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these articles are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (esp. broadly defined), as explained by the Epeefleche. However, the nature of the edits to these articles (correcting a typo, removing vandalism, removing unnecessary Arabic text, etc.) are so minor and uncontroversial that I see no point in applying a block. -- tariqabjotu 01:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it productive to dig into a user's contribution history trying to discover edits from a month ago that arguably violated a topic ban; violations should be brought up in a timely manner or not at all. In this case, the only recent edit, [24], does not appear to fall within the topic ban (Helen Thomas, unlike, say, Hamas, is not so inextricably intertwined with the A-I conflict that any edit to the article is related to A-I conflict per se.) I therefore concur that a block is inappropriate here, without reaching the question whether the remaining edits fall within the ban.

I emphatically disagree, though, with the view that the fact that the edits are "good" can be a reason not to impose sanctions for a topic ban violation. Bans are bans. If the edits are "bad", that's a good reason to enhance the sanctions. That the edits are "good" simply means that no enhancement should be made; it does not mean that no sanctions should be imposed at all. T. Canens (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not actionable, then. I agree with Tim Song with respect to "bad"/"good" edits.  Sandstein  06:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_editing_restriction_.28existing_disputes.29

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

[101] Violates both the MYOB sanction and the Cold Fusion sanction. The "edit then self revert" nonsense that Abd made up is not valid or an excuse.

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

NA

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

Indefinite block. Time to cut the cord.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Until Abd is willing to follow his sanctions, he should not be permitted the leniency of editing.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

[102]

Comment by Epeefleche

Seems to me that Hipo is correct, and there is a violation here. As to the appropriate penalty, I defer to others.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For the uninitiated amongst us, could somebody enlighten me as to what the initialism "MYOB" represents? AGK 10:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mind your own business Unomi (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be a straightforward case. Unless another uninvolved admin objects, I'm going to block for a week. T. Canens (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with blocking for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And done. T. Canens (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Grandmaster 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

1. [103] 1st rv
2. [104] 2nd rv
3. [105] 3rd rv

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

1. [106] Andranikpasha was placed on 1rv per week revert parole by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

admins' discretion

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Andranikpasha was placed on indefinite 1rv per week parole for edit warring on AA articles. Last time he was blocked for 1 month for violation of his parole: [107] However he continues edit warring, this time on Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox, where he resumed his old edit war about the source, which was discussed at WP:BLPN and resolved as a no WP:BLP issue: [108] He ignored my proposal to take the issue to WP:BLPN again, and made 3 rvs in violation of his restriction. Grandmaster 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 comments. 1st, I'm not under any revert restriction, the info at WP:RESTRICT is inaccurate. It listed all parties to the first AA case as being under indefinite rv restriction, while in fact that restriction was for 1 year only and expired 2 years ago. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies for details. I have no history of blocks and revert limitations since then. And 2nd, if there are any BLP concerns, they should be discussed at the relevant board and a consensus for removal of the quote should be reached. As I noted above, Andranikpasha ignored my proposal to take the issue to WP:BLPN, and edit warred to remove info without any consensus. Also, the result of the previous discussion at BLP board was that there was no BLP violation in the article. Andranikpasha chose to ignore the opinion of other editors, and regardless of content issues, he is not allowed to make more than 1 rv per week, unless he reverts vandalism. Grandmaster 08:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[109]

As for me, it is a clear case of BLP violation, and it is also an unsignificant quote (by a less significant person) which obviously attacks a living person. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" WP:BLP, and three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Andranikpasha (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question here, is Cox an Armenian? If she is not, this sentence would clearly be a violation of BLP and 1rr or not, users should not be blocked when they have real BLP concerns. There should be a clarification that she is not an Armenian, if she is not. Since any reader reading such a quote will wrongly assume something which is not true. Also, the applicant made two revert to the article and according to this, he has a 1rr restriction for an unlimited duration. Ionidasz (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, she's not an Armenian. That's why propagandists try to attack her bio by any way. Andranikpasha (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous block, if another similar block exist, because of an edit relating to BLP issues, all this should be brought before the committee. He removed a quotation which claims her an Armenian nationalist, when she is not even an Armenian. Grandmaster claims this was discussed previously, no matter discussed or not, this information obviously mislead readers, as I am sure that Grandmaster himself has no evidence that Cox is even Armenian. Ionidasz (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Epeefleche

I agree that BLP violations are to be reverted on sight, and do not count towards RR restrictions. Can you help explain to me why this particular statement is a controversial BLP violation? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like an unambiguous violation. I'm inclined to block for three months, escalating from the last one-month block, unless another uninvolved admin objects. T. Canens (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I've blocked Andranikpasha for three months. T. Canens (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

  Cs32en Talk to me  19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

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

[110] First revert (of this edit, June 17, 00:34). Among a number of other changes, Epeefleche changed an information sourced to Der Spiegel, writing: "Der Spiegel opined that [...]". Note that the article is not an opinion piece, and that it is not attributed to the journal itself, but to its authors.

[111] Second revert (of this edit, June 17, 18:30). Cites BLP concerns, although the information cannot be in any way reasonably be construed as disparaging or libellous. It also does not infringe on the privacy of the persons.

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

Not applicable. 1 RR warning at the top of the article's talk page.

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

24 hour block.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have restored the previous version of the text after Epeefleche's first revert. Epeefleche does not cite BLP concerns in his first edit.

• Epeefleche argues that Der Spiegel failed to provide a source. Of course, Der Spiegel, as a reliable source, vouches for the accuracy of the information. On the other hand, if Der Spiegel had referred to another source (e.g. "According to Mr. XY, the persons hold friendly views towards Israel."), then Der Spiegel would actually not vouch for the accuracy of the information itself, but only for the fact that XY holds this view. Epeefleches demand that reliable sources would need to provide further sources is unreasonable, because this third source would of course need to provide a fourth source, so we would end up in an infinite loop.
• Epeefleche has not shown how the information would be controversial. This would need to be demonstrated with reliable sources, disagreements between Wikipedia editors do not make an information controversial.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• An analysis published by the BBC states: "And the two foreign observers who have been appointed are seen as friends of Israel." BBC: Israel Gaza probe criticised by Turkey and Palestinians  Cs32en Talk to me  11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[112]

• First, I agree with the statements by others so far to the effect that there was no violation.

Second, I might as well make a point that the others didn't even see need to get to. As I would hope nom already knows, wp:BLP is not limited, as he would have others believe, to statements that are "disparaging or libelous" or "infringe on ... privacy". Where did that come from? Did nom just make that up?

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

And later, similarly, it instructs us (emphasis added, here) to "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". This is certainly contentious material. It is certainly poorly sourced. All for reasons I alluded to in my edit summary and on the talk page.

Those reasons included my observations that Der Spiegel failed to indicate the source for the statement. Failed even indicate to that there is a source. And, it speaks not to a fact, but as to the views of persons (as though they are known by Der Spiegel, and specifically that their current views at the time of the writing/reading are known). Given the circumstances, it of course a highly controversial statement, as it calls into question the persons' objectivity -- given their supposed views. As this is a BLP issue, and a highly controversial one, its a BLP violation. Per wp:blp, I removed it, as indeed I or others should have done post-haste earlier. I also offered that others should feel free to discuss it further (without reverting, under the blp rules.

As wp:blp further makes clear, this applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Nom's misleading statement asserting that it need be libelous or disparaging is simply flat-out wrong.

I wonder if it might perhaps not be better in the future for nom to read the actual language of the guidance alluded to by the editor whose edit he dislikes, and whose editing rights he seeks to chill, rather than concoct new language of his own and pass it off as the guidance.

That might have the additional salutary effect of preventing him from introducing BLP violations into articles, as he has done here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom -- I remain concerned with your having mis-stated what wp:blp says.

As to your more recent comments, which fail to address the points the rest of us have made -- you are correct that I did not cite BLP concerns in my first edit. Rather, at that point I was trying to make the existing language "work" by editing it. But upon my attention being drawn to it a second time, I saw just how unworkable it was from a BLP perspective. I re-read wp:blp, and acted as the guidance directed. Had I been better, I would have immediately seen the problem when I first looked at the phrase.

Reliable sources, when they are doing their work properly -- even in Germany -- indicate who their sources are or the nature of their source in situations such as this. Even if the source is "an unnamed government official", or "a professor who speaks only on a promise of anonymity". Here we have nothing of the sort. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. It is a poorly sourced accusation.

Worse yet, it's an accusation as to the persons' states of mind. Who can know that? They can. But we have no quote of them saying it. Or they could have said that their state of mind is x. Nor do we have that. Where something is true and notable, as well as controversial, you need better sourcing than that. Yet, what we have here is the German paper making an assertion as to their state of mind being known (by whom? how? by the Der Spiegel writer? by their mother? by a fortune teller?) to be x. Simply stated, this isn't only poor sourcing, it is rather embarrassing journalism from the German paper. Try reading the NY Times or the Washington Post one day, on an article relating to this conflict, and see how statements such as this are handled. That's what RSs do, when they are sourcing properly.

Your last point is ridiculous. You write: "Epeefleche has not shown how the information would be controversial." Ummmm .... let's see. These people were appointed to a commission in which the hope would be that they would be "honest brokers". These accusations by the German paper charge that the honest brokers' state of mind is already inclined one way, which is other than what one would hope for from an honest broker. You didn't think that through? Or you're still slapping your hands on your thighs as you think of the absurdity of what you wrote, wondering if you can mislead anyone with it.

You have to re-read wp:blp. The material is ipso facto controversial, under res ipsa loquitur. As the guidance makes clear, the onus is on you to support the controversial BLP addition, something you've failed to do.

In short, you have a German paper stating as fact what the state of mind of these people is known to be. Without saying who knows it. Or how they know it. And the German paper fails to give us any clues in that regard. If it's so well-known, show me an RS that says they said their state of mind is x. Otherwise, its a BLP violation for you to insist on casting aspersions on the character/thought process of these people with a source-less bald statement by the Germans.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify why these edits are reverts by identifying the previous versions to which Epeefleche reverted? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the generally difficult editing situation at the article, and editors are often trying to evade a narrower interpretation of "revert", a broad interpretation is being applied at this article. Help:Reverting explains that "reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors". Any narrower interpretation of what constitutes a revert would be meaningless, as it could easily be gamed by more experienced editors.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

In my opinion, the first edit is simply an edit, not a revert. Epeefleche seems to be copy-editing and following WP:Words to avoid. He attributed the view that the observers are considered to be pro-Israel to Der Spiegel, which is appropriate in my view; a statement of fact in Wikipedia's editorial voice that the observers are "known" to be pro-Israel raises a WP:REDFLAG to me, and it should be sourced to something more substantial than a single newspaper article.

The second edit is more "iffy". Stating as fact, in the editorial voice, that a living person has "exceptionally friendly views towards Israel" may be a BLP issue. It seems like gaming the system that Epeefleche decided to remove the sentence rather than revert to his previous version (attributing the opinion to Der Spiegel). Still, I don't see two reverts here, only one. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied the interpretation of revert that has generally been applied to the article. It's not necessarily the best interpretation. For example, I would distinguish between changes that push towards a particular viewpoint and changes that aim at finding a consensus between different viewpoints. In this case, it may be appropriate to use an inline citation ("According to Der Spiegel, [...]"), per Wikipedia:BLP#Challenged or likely to be challenged. We cannot write "Der Spiegel opined [...]", however, as this is not an opinion, but a piece of information about the assessment of third parties with regard to both persons.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that "According to Der Spiegel" is better than "Der Spiegel opined", but that seems like word-smithing to me. In my opinion, Epeefleche was correcting a POV problem by attributing the view to Der Spiegel, although (as you say) not in the best possible way. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Der Spiegel opined" would imply that this would be Der Spiegel's opinion. We do not have any information about the opinion of Der Spiegel on this issue, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now think the last point (that we don't know this is Der Spiegel's opinon) is correct. We don't know that it is Der Spiegel's opinion. Nor do we have any clue whose opinion it is. Or whether they are notable. Or whether there is any reason to believe that they know the thoughts of these people. Which is precisely why it is a BLP violation for my German friend to seek to push Der Spiegel's unsourced commentary as to the state of mind of these people into the article as fact (or even as some unknown person's opinion). wp:blp makes very clear what we should do with such poorly sourced aspersions -- they don't belong in wikipedia articles. If it's true, get a good source. If its true, that should be easy enough.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trimble is a member of a pro-Israel faction in the U.K.'s House of Lords, and Watkin has converted to Judaism several years ago. Not a definite proof by itself, of course, but an indication that the information given by Der Spiegel is not in any way far fetched.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Not anything approaching proof. Ever hear about Dan Burros? Bobby Fischer? The founder of Revolution Muslim? Etc., etc., etc. We don't put in "not far-fetched" controversial material into BPS, unless they have good support. This does not.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is sourced to a reliable source, and there are no indications that the information would be wrong. Furthermore, the information does not cast any negative light on the individuals (it may put into question Israel's wisdom to choose these two individuals for that specific task, of course), so an increased threshold for inclusion is not warranted. Having a friendly view of Israel is not a crime, as you would probably agree.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard about Dan Burros, or the founder of Revolution Muslim. I've heard about Bobby Fischer, though. None of these people converted to Judaism or launched a pro-Israeli group, so you might want to explain how they are, in your view, related to the issue at hand.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, now you have. Want to read about an entire anti-Israel highly religious Jewish sect? Read about Neturei karta. Your equating Jewish with pro-Israel strikes me as a somewhat sheltered view. Do you by analogy think it might be a bit boorish -- at best, if I were to say that since one is a German, it's an indication that "it is not in any way far fetched" for me to say that the person is a Nazi, or that Der Spiegel says his is known to be a Nazi .... though Der Spiegel fails to say who knows the person to be a Nazi, or even whether they themselves know the person to be a Nazi, or whether their plumber is the one of that view? Of course that would be utterly absurd. I'm sure there are people who conflate German with Nazi, but those people don't belong editing articles on that mistaken basis. Nor does your conflating Jewish with pro-Israel (or Arab with pro-Hamas, or Black with being a good basketball player) belong here. Your comment conflating Jewish with pro-Israeli is, at best, shallow and uninformed. At worst, it's more than that. I'm sure you are a great person, but the comment is far from appropriate, and reflects little understanding. As to why that comment is poorly sourced on its face, I've already explained. It's the sort of phrase the wiki "by whom" tag would apply to if the statement were not relative to living people, raising BLP concerns. Since it does raise BLP concerns, it's improper, and any further efforts by you to include the BLP violation will be an (additional) BLP violation on your part.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to your insinuations here. This is not the appropriate place to discuss them. I'm asking you to tone your language, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the right place for this? Even if there were in fact two reverts, WP:General sanctions says "Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". (emphasis mine)
Is an editor with no prior blocks who made two reverts repeatedly or seriously violating policy? This looks like abuse of process to me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was placed under 1RR by NW. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the article is placed under 1RR. My question is whether Arbitration Enforcement is the right place to deal with a single instance of a possible 1RR violation by an editor with a clean record who has not repeatedly or seriously violated policy. I think you're setting a bad precedent here, but that's up to you. I just want to know what the correct procedures are for future reference. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree with my comment below? PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question is procedural, it doesn't matter if he did or didn't actually violate 1RR. Is this board the place for serious stuff and repeat offenders or just any run of the mill violation of policy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Elonka placed a page under 0RR, ArbCom endorsed this was a legitimate use of discretionary sanctions, so I don't think a significant precedent is being set here. Also, I think any breach of a 0RR / 1RR restriction can be reported here. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cs32en, Malik Shabazz is correct. In order for these two edits to count as reverts, you must provide diffs of the action(s) they are reverts of. If such diffs are not provided, this request is not actionable.  Sandstein  21:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a somewhat borderline case, both in regards to whether 2 reverts were made, and whether there is a BLP exemption regarding the second edit. Overall I don't think a block is appropriate in this instance. PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree with PhilKnight. The argument that the first edit was a revert is borderline at best, and coupled with the legitimate BLP concerns, I don't think a block is warranted. T. Canens (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the request, I have to partially disagree with the above comments.

• The first edit was technically a revert in that it undid the prior insertion of the text by Cs32en "Both observers are known to be particularly friendly towards Israel", changing it to the text "'Der Spiegel' opined that the observers are [sic] positive views towards Israel." However, since the edit also changed much other text, I am inclined to assume good faith in this borderline case and assume that the edit was not intended as a revert. (That's because very strictly speaking, every edit to an existing page is a revert in that it undoes somebody else's work. At some point we have to draw a line.)
• The second edit removed the same text by Cs32en, claiming a WP:BLP exception. However, I am of the opinion that the removal of this text cannot be justified with WP:BLP, since the text was correctly attributed to Der Spiegel, a reliable source. Contrary to what Epeefleche seems to believe, no Wikipedia policy requires that the Spiegel article cites its own sources for this assertion. By attributing it to Der Spiegel through a footnote, Wikipedia is transparent about reproducing a statement made by Der Spiegel's journalists. Whether this attribution should also be made clear in the text itself, as in "According to Der Spiegel, both observers..." is a matter for editorial discussion and does not justify a revert in violation of a 1RR restriction.

Consequently, I am not issuing a block at this time and am closing this request, but agree that this is a borderline case and that a block will almost certainly ensue in the case of a repeat performance.  Sandstein  09:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Physchim62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

 

1. [113] This edit was made before the sanctions notice, but it is provided as context for the next diff. The editor is seen dehumanizing one side in the conflict.
   
2. [114] The editor supports the earlier comment (after the ARBPIA notice), and repeats the insults.

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

 

1. [115] Warning by Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
   
2. [116] Warning/request by Zuchinni one (talk · contribs)
3. Additionally, the page has a notice at the top warning all editors about ARBPIA (brought to my attention here)

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

Topic ban or final warning (see comments)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I apologize in advance for making a request two days after the last relevant edit (AFAIK), and for making it at a time when this page is flooded with ARBPIA-related requests. However, I believe that these comments are so far out of line that they had to be reported when noticed. Even in the highly controversial I–P area, regular editors are not used to this kind of vitriol, and I fear that turning a blind eye to such comments will invite more of them in the future, turning the already problematic I–P articles into an area that no regular Wikipedian can reasonably work at. Since the editor in question is not new on Wikipedia by any means, I believe that he should have known better, but concede that he does not seem to edit I–P articles often and therefore a warning would suffice provided he retracts the comments.

Additional diffs provided by editors here of inappropriate behavior on the same topic area (but happened before the ARBPIA notice): [117] (personal attack), [118] (implying that Israel is an insane country)

Diff showing that while the user does not wish to repeat his comments, he stands by them completely and makes a further slur against Israelis: [119]

Replies to Cs32en

It is incorrect to say that dehumanizing a group of real-life individuals is not a violation of Wikipedia policy; if the editor was dehumanizing only the soldiers involved in the flotilla, then it's a BLP violation, as it refers to a very small group of individuals. In case the editor was dehumanizing all IDF soldiers (as at least one of the diffs implies), then he was additionally making a personal attack against other Wikipedia editors, such as myself, who are either in regular or reserve service with the IDF. Finally, making defamatory comments such as these against any group constitutes libel, therefore automatically against policy (including WP:LIBEL).

Replies to Andrensath

If Physchim62 does not retract his comments, the logical sanction is (IMO) a topic ban from all articles having to do with the IDF for as much as determined necessary to prevent further inappropriate behavior (the sanction should be preventative, not punitive). At the very least, it should cover the time in which the Gaza flotilla still makes news, which is likely to be several months (at least) considering a number of other planned Gaza flotillas. I believe such a sanction would have a positive effect on Wikipedia as a whole, because this editor usually makes constructive edits to other topic areas, and therefore his time and energy is probably better spent there.

Replies to Physchim62

Since the flotilla incident, on the Israeli side (i.e. "one side in the conflict"), involved that small group of Israeli soldiers that you were referring to, I believe that my statement about "dehumanizing one side of the conflict" is accurate. In any case, even had it not been accurate, leveling the statements that you have against only that group constitutes libel and a violation of BLP, not to mention a great insult to a great many people.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

What we have here is deliberate misrepresentation of my edits. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to accuse me of "antisemitism", the usual cheap slur against anyone who dares criticise the actions of the Israeli government, and Epeefleche (talk · contribs) has obliged. It can't be long before someone tries to use this edit as "evidence" for my "antisemitism", so I'll save you all the trouble of looking for the diff!

The deliberate misrepresentation starts with the original complaint by Ynhockey (talk · contribs). I am "seen to be deliberately dehumanizing one side in the conflict;" and then "repeating the insult." No mention that the second diff comes from a conversation on my user talk page in which I try to justify the original words. At the risk of digging myself an even deeper hole, I will clarify that my comments were directed against a small group of IDF "soldiers" who were onboard the Mavi Marmara, and ask editors:

What do you call people who deliberately leave wounded prisoners to bleed to death under the Mediterranean sun while actively and callously preventing them from receiving medical attention that was available?

The second round of deliberate misrepresentation comes from Gilisa (talk · contribs), and I apologize in advance for the length of my reply, but s/he has made so many groundless accusations and simple slurs that it takes a while to go through them all!

• Yes, I removed sourced statements about the IHH here, citing WP:UNDUE; WP:UNDUE is meant for exactly such situations, where information can be sourced but is irrelevant to the article in question. I could have cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well, but that takes longer to type; in any case, I explained my position on the article talk page, and have not engaged in edit warring over the matter. No mention from Gilisa of the allegations of previous war crimes by the IDF, which I would also consider as "WP:UNDUE" in the Gaza flotilla raid article [120][121].
• This edit was unnecessarily provocative. I apologise. However, as for the substantive issue of the ITIC report:
• It is not WP:OR to point out that the conclusion that Erdogan knew about "planned violence" before the flotilla set sail is not in the original report. On the other hand, you can see this enormous time-consuming exercise in WP:OR laid on by certain editors to "prove" that a video distributed by Cihan News Agency does not actually show IDF soldiers kicking and shooting an activist, as the RS claims. I concede that Gilisa themselves does not seem to have participated in the "analysis" of the Cihan video. However, s/he did contribute to this discussion about File:Peace activists throwing an Israeli soldier over board.jpg, concluding that it was OK to use dispite the obvious difficulty in figuring out what's going on from the image alone; and also making nice little comments about "global jihad organisations" (implying that that would make it OK to let them bleed to death under the Mediterranean sun?)
• The piece I described as a "sick joke" (and also "not important to the article") was the We con the world video, put togther by a managing editor for a leading Israeli newspaper, for which the Israeli government had to apologise (see this news report from The Guardian). I assume that I must now have the same "political views" as the Israeli government... However, the comparison was made with the Kurdish Freedom Flotilla, an alleged attempt by a group of Israeli students to send a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to (land-locked) Kurdistan, an "initiative" which another editor compared to trying to levitate the Pentagon!
• Conduct problems are in the eye of the beholder: I consider that the two editors that Gilisa names have conduct problems, but not so serious as to engage in time-wasting WikiDrama over them
• Ben Yishay's account of the boarding has been contradicted many, many times by later reports. Gilisa fails to mention that I was happy to accept a compromise paragraph which links to the account, but which does not include the contradicted details within the Wikipedia article. As above, it is not WP:OR to point out logical contradictions between accounts on an article talk page.

@Andrensath, I'd rather refrain from publically attacking individual editors over and above what is necessary to refute the allegations made against me; I don't think that such attacks are a constructive approach to improving the article.
Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physchim62, I will answer in short as I don't have much time to get into details right now. However, if requested I'll make the efforts to provide additional diffs. First, I didn't fail in nothing, I'm not following all or even most of your edits and I don't know exactly what you did and when in regard to your one (or more?) non representative edit which you cited to argue your editing style is unbiased. I can refer only to cases where your edits were not comptibale with wikipedia guidelines, and there were far too many of these. Many times you interfer to get to consensus on talk pages by making irrelevant arguments and ignoring constructive discussion, for instance, and if you want me to prove it I'll look and find the diffs, you called one Israeli newspaper, listed in the RS list of WP, "liar"-without giving any creditable argument beside your personal opinion. You also wrote that the IDF reports are generally "spins". These two are only very few among many. If you argue you didn't used these words in the context I argue you did, then I will have to spend some time and to bring here the diffs.--Gilisa (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will also like to add that in your last edit before this AE was opened [122], it become evident that you keep with the line you took about one or two weeks ago, according which there is no need for consensus on adding content to “see also” sections, although there is clear dispute there and kind of edit warring over some editors will to have the SS Exodus, a ship that deliever holocaust refugees from Europe to Israel right after WWII and was boarded by the British Mandat soldiers, to be included in while others (including me) oppose this idea. We all were advised on the article TP that editing without consensus is in violation of WP:BRD. You argued in this edit of yours that editors who doesn't want the SS Exodus to be in the "See also" section have double standards and that you didn't see any valid argument for not including it. This, inspite maybe dozens of comments by many different editors were made on the TP during the last weeks, you certainly was involved in the discussion and there were many at least noteworthy arguments for why it shouldn't be included. So, while AGF can cover your intentions, we still have a problem with your understanding of what consensus is all about and where it's needed, and that’s very disruptive-and seem as a problem you have in the I-P area only. --Gilisa (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you accused me in your reply here for "deliberate misrepresentation" of your edits. Well, I don't think I misrepresenting you and certainly not on purpose. --Gilisa (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above comments speak for themselves, particularly the last one. I shall reply in greater length in due course, but I feel that we have identified a couple of disruptive editors, and I ask admins to act accordingly. Physchim62 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouuuhhh! Wheeee! We've got the big guns coming out now! Let me just summarise the personal attacks I've had in the last 36 hours or so (and I mean attacks against my person, not against some small group of people protected by anonymity by an organisation already accused of "war crimes" and a government which has been accused of "state terrorism" and "kidnapping", among other things):

• Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) claims that I made a reference to Israelis drinking the blood of their victims, when I actually said precisely the opposite
• Complainant Ynhockey claims that my comments constitue libel; how I can libel unidentifiable people I do not know, but no doubt this will be taught to me
• ברוקולי (talk · contribs) (who prefers to style themself "Broccoli" on this page) suggests that a six-month topic ban would be appropriate if I do not "refact" my comments; still no mention of any comments by Pro-IDF editors which might be considered offensive by others
• Ynhockey comes in again to say that a simple commitment not to repeat the comment in question is not sufficient, and the fact that I "stand by them" is deserving of sanction

Maybe that last diff is the most telling of them all. I am not up against this show trial for any comment I made on the talk page, or any hypothetical offense that might have caused: I am on show trial for having dared criticise the actions of the Israeli government, and the objective is not simply to silence me for as long as possible but also to send out a chilling effect to anyone else who might dare to criticise the Israeli government in the future.

These so-called "editors" do not give a monkey's about Wikipedia. They couldn't care less about striving towards a neutral presentation of the information we have at our disposal. All they care about is abusing this project as a vehicle to promote their political views. Anyone who stands in their way must be persecuted, because the promotion of their political view is, to them, infinitely more important than this project to create a neutral encyclopedia. A person who tries to point out that other points of view are possible, and are held, is a person who is particularly dangerous, and one who should be singled out for special persecution. There's no patent on the methods, they've been known since Machiavelli at the very least, but let us not pretend that this farce has any other purpose than promoting one political viewpoint at the expense of proper coverage of another. Physchim62 (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the comments by Psychim62 deserve sanction, but the accusation by said editor that similar remarks were made about the IHH is worrying. If he can provide proof of editors making those remarks, I would suggest only a 1-2 day topic-ban. I would also be interested in the length of a topic-ban Ynhockey would push for, if one is applied. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What remarks about the IHH worrying you and by who they were made? This instance [123] of removal of notable sourced info regarding to the IHH ("WP:UNDUE" according to Physchim62) is very worrying to me.--Gilisa (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was not stating that any such remarks were made about the IHH, merely commenting that the accusation they were made worried me, and inviting Physchim62 to provide proof of them. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what relevance that diff has to my previous comment, but feel free to add it to your comment below. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Physchim62, please *stop digging*. The fact you criticised the Israeli government has nothing to do with the AE request, and if I thought it did I'd be arguing *against* sanctioning you. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 01:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be taken into consideration that the editor has not insulted other editors nor any particular individuals. Also, the first edit that has been reported actually precedes the warnings that have been mentioned in the complaint, and the second is an edit on his talk page, not in article or article talk space. Having said this, the language that is being used in the edits does not help to resolve existing controversies related to the article. Physchim62 should be advised to refrain from using such language.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that severe incivility generally directed is permissible? Racist comments? Anti-semitic comments? If so, are you making that up? Or can you point me to a guidance? Also, I'm not sure what your point is about the harsh insults being on his talk page and not in an article, or article space. Are you suggesting that wikipedia allows such statement in talk page space? If so, are you making that up? Or can you point us to a guidance. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any racist or antisemitic comments. Please point them out. RolandR (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to first make a short reply to Cs32en: Physchim remarks about IDF soldiers are nothing different than similar remarks on US soldiers, they are very offensive to many Israeli editors, especially when made on such a sensitive article. If I'm correct, and I can't find the diff now but I will look further if requested, on 12 July, he also wrote that dogs should be offended when calling them "murder dogs"[124]. In any case, here are few additional remarks made by Physchim62 that may demonstrate better the need for signficant topic ban:

Implying me(?) and Israel (the country) are not sane [125]

He objected to mention the Israeli allegations (but not only Israeli and not published only by Israeli media) according which Erodgan knew before the flotilla went its way there are violent activists on it. Instead of discussing it to the matter of fact he chose to answer in away seem to me as violating WP:SOP and to WP:OR[126]

Continuously expressing his political opinion as a reason for why an edit is not acceptable: (“sick jock”)[127]

And just an instance of what may seem as conduct problem when he reply to Zuchinni who request him to change his rude attitude through him[128] and in his reply to No More Mr Nice Guy [129].

Calling a RS journalist article "propoganda" [130] as excuse to not include it into the article, stating that the journalist couldn't see what he claimed to have seen [131] and taking another source unrelated statement (not refering to Ben Yishay's report) "in contrast with previous reports" as indication Ben Yishay's report is not reliable [132].

I think he's a great contributor in other fields, but should be banned from editing in the I-P area and for two months at least considering previous warnings and his nature as an editor on the I-P as was very briefly exemplified here. --Gilisa (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infact, if I may reply to the OP of this AE, my first reply here where I compared the offensive effect of Phychim62 comments on IDF soldiers on Israelis to that American citizens, and others, may feel when the U.S army soldiers are being called "dogs" in insulting manner, I was a bit soft. In Israel the military service is mandatory as we always have someone in the "neigborhood" (and now even in the "city") to fight with and Israel is a small country. So, in principle, almost every Israeli was an IDF soldier or at least relatives who served in the IDF. --Gilisa (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an earlier case, still live on this page, a couple of editors complained about a remark on a user talk page describing a living person as a "chimpanzee impersonator", and then apologising to the chimpanzees. This, it seems to me, is a far more egregious comment than the one at issue here. The editor in question, who has been blocked several times, in contrast to Physchim's clean record, was given a warning not to repeat such comments. Under the circumstances, any more serious sanction against Physchim would seem excessive and unfair. RolandR (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland, my last comment on this AE, but what about WP:NOTTHEM? I can't see how one editor behavior justify the other one behavior, what more it's not related to any of the diffs here. I agree, as well as this thread OP, that Physchim62 contributions in chimestry relatd articles and so forth are great ones, he's a pro, and there, where most of his activity seem to be focused untill June, his record is clean and no one suggesting blocking him from edit in these areas. However, the concern become clear when one weight his editings in other areas comparing to his behavior in I-P related issues. Clean record give no immunity, certainly not for an editor that was warnned twice before specifically on the I-P topic.--Gilisa (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His comment re "the IDF ... drinking the victim's blood" is beyond the pale. His intro to it does not fool anyone who is NPOV. If I were to say, "I don't think anyone has accused Editor X of __ing his sister up her __", and fill in the blanks with certain words, I would not be excused by the intro. This is way out of line. Too far to be dismissed with a slap on the wrist.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete distortion of Physchim's words. In fact, he criticised a single-purpose IP account for making this comment. Are you suggesting that someone should be sanctioned for quoting comments in order to denounce them?RolandR (talk)

re: Ynhockey's statements, I'm not sure about the "Even in the highly controversial I–P area, regular editors are not used to this kind of vitriol" :) I completely agree with "turning a blind eye to such comments will invite more of them in the future, turning the already problematic I–P articles into an area that no regular Wikipedian can reasonably work at." Anyone foolish enough to try to edit I-P conflict related articles for an extended period will have encountered these kind of WP:NOT issues where editors express their opinions about the real world and/or other editors as if they matter and will probably have not complied with WP:NOT many times themselves. It ranges from polite expressions of personal opinion thru passive agressive (a wiki fav) to attacks, rants, vitriol and general nonsense. I don't think polite expressions of personal opinion about the real world are really any less irrelevant, disruptive and annoying than the vitriol personally but maybe that's just me. Setting aside the details of this particularly bit of drama, something should be done to discourage these shenanigans in general. Something simple, fast, and near zero tolerance/zero redtape based like one warning followed by a short block (e.g. 24hrs) if the warning is ignored might help. Just enough to stop the editor in their tracks, give them and everyone else a break. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this diff [133] is relevant to the discussion at hand and speaks volumes of Physchim62's mindset when editing Israel-Arab articles. In response to a vitriolic rant by an IP user, instead of informing the user of Wikipedia guidelines concerning inflammatory remarks, he actually encourages the IP user and makes a crude reference to Israelis drinking the blood of their victims.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a shocking diff! For this admins are talking one week. Others have got much more for much less! Stellarkid (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totaly agree. It's by far the shortest topic ban proposal I ever seen. Certainly when the evidence are so undeniable, the editor was warrned and refuse to take responsibility (instead, he blame others for taking his words out of context and doing so on purpose). --Gilisa (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that the remarks were inappropriate. This needs to be clear to the editor. I made some bad comments months ago but thought at least some of them were acceptable. I received a sanction to basically not do it anymore or face some stiff consequences. Been doing pretty well at toning down since. Let the editor know that he might find it acceptable but the community does not and if it happens again it will be dealt with. Good form on his part at admitting one of the recent edits was unnecessarily provocative. It was probably the least problematic but it is a start. And since my proposal would be fairly tame any continued behavior like this should get some harsh results.Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Physchim62 realizes the inappropriateness and severity of the language he used, as this edit clearly shows. I see no reason to believe that a warning or a short topic ban will help in this situation. I believe that Physchim62 should refact "murderous dogs" comment. If he refuses I believe that a topic ban of 6 months would be the right thing to do. Broccoli (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Stellarkid (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested topic ban length is much too short, espcially if considering that Physchim62 refused to admit his edits were inappropriate and accused two editors (including me) for misrepresenting him on purpose in his comment here.--Gilisa (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, a six month topic ban isn't short at all. The 1-2 days I initially proposed would be a short ban. Several months is not. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 06:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrensath, Six month??? The proposed length is one week, as you can see below. It's very brief one, I think. --Gilisa (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that a six month ban would be appropriate under the described circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought you (Gilisa) were referring to Broccoli's proposed ban length, not that of the neutral admins. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 07:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrensath, I've never seen one week topic ban proposal, certainly not in such case, where there are ampel evidence for much severe sanction (at least one month). Let's see what we have: Very experinecd editor that was warrned twice, made many disruptive and offensive edits in the I-P area, instead of taking responsibility he argued that he was delibertly misrepresented and refused to admit his edits were inappropriate when one of this AE involved admins personally asked him to do so. So, one week? realy? --Gilisa (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrensath, my proposal is at least one month, although initialy I proposed two months as the minimum length. I don't think three or four months are too much, but topic ban may achieve its goal even with shorter period, though not too much shorter. I encourgh the involved admins to reconsider the ban severity given Physchim62's behavior both before and after this AE was made. I think that there is enough in the diffs provided to demonstrate his behavior before the AE was made by me and by at least two other editors, to ban him for at least one month. I can't see how less than that can reflect any adequate reference to his behavior and to consist preventive measure, espcially if one take into account his repeated pattern of behavior after the AE was made. --Gilisa (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The case has been made adequately well that the remarks were inappropriate for the encyclopedia, within the topic area covered by the discretionary sanctions section of ARBPIA, and that the editor still feels that they were behaving well in making them.

I believe that a one-week topic ban on Palestine-Israeli topics (article+article talk) would be an appropriate and adequate preventive measure to prevent a repeat of the comments and establish that the behavior was in fact inappropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a one-week topic ban would be a reasonable course of action. PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a topic ban is appropriate for battleground-like conduct. It is not acceptable to use Wikipedia as a venue in which to pursue real-life conflicts, such as as by referring to soldiers of a party to the conflict as "murderous dogs". I am particularly disappointed that Physchim62 not only continues to believe that such conduct is appropriate, but (after Georgewilliamherbert's and PhilKnight's opinions above) uses this very forum to continue his battleground-like conduct, by stating: "I am on show trial for having dared criticise the actions of the Israeli government, and the objective is not simply to silence me for as long as possible but also to send out a chilling effect to anyone else who might dare to criticise the Israeli government in the future." This makes clear, to me, that Physchim62 needs a longer break than one week from editing this topic. Consequently, under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, Physchim62 (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict for one month. The topic ban covers all pages, parts of pages and discussions related to that conflict, broadly understood.  Sandstein  10:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]