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

Request concerning YehudaTelAviv64

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning YehudaTelAviv64

Statement by YehudaTelAviv64

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

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

Re: Wgfinley

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

Re: Brewcrewer

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

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

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

Re: EdJohnston

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning YehudaTelAviv64

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

• This is part of ongoing harassment by Brewcrewer -- [4]. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. The Wikipedia Definition of Revert is: "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors." YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by Shrike

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

1. Calling other editor troll and failing to assume good faith by called the admin "biased".[5]
2. Calling editor "deranged" [6]

The editor removes admin warning [7] clearly shows battleground behavior.--Shrike (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

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

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

Conduct of EdJohnston

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

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

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

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

Result concerning YehudaTelAviv64

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

Re: YehudaTelAviv64 I do consider the first diff a revert, there has been several days of wrangling over this language [8][9][10][11][12] These diffs pretty much outlined the current edit war. I have already protected the article due to the warring, I believe an article ban of 7 days would be in order for Yehuda. I will take a look at the harassment allegation. --WGFinley (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:brew crewer I agree these sock accusations are a bit strong [13][14] but not unprecedented in this topic area. I don't see anything actionable though but a warning may be in order. --WGFinley (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user

The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Block logged at

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

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

User is blocked and can't send notice, I acknowledge the appeal. --WGFinley (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

The policy on topic bans indicates there are exemptions to topic bans where the editor is addressing a legitimate concern about the ban. I believed the concerns I was raising fell under such an exemption. Other than the concerns obvious from my comment, like the editor who pushed for the topic ban apparently using it to game consensus to revert uncontroversial changes on the disputed article, I provided several more concerns on my talk page. My understanding is that one reason a topic ban provides for exemptions in the case of notifying admins about violations of interaction bans is because a violation on the part of one individual inherently invites a violation by the other individual. In other words, one editor should not be baiting another individual into violating a ban and an editor under a topic ban should raise concerns about such baiting to an admin. Here I went to the admin who had specifically imposed the topic ban, indicating I had no intention of violating the topic ban. Given all of this, I believe this was not worthy of a block. Even if one argues that it was a violation, the circumstances were sufficiently ambiguous under the policy that the imposition of any block seems inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While my block has expired I still have every intention of pushing this appeal. As it pertains to Zero's argument I am not suggesting that I was not commenting on an editor's actions in the topic area, but that the specific concerns I had about those actions fell under an exemption. As I say below, the actions of the editor who filed the request leading to the topic ban had numerous issues with it that were relevant to the topic ban. See the last sentence or two of the comment on WG's talk page to get what I was concerned about. I believe this question needs some clarification as an editor concerned about WP:GAME relating to the editor who files an AE report should be able to notify an informed admin about this without fearing a block.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I would ask that EdJohnston not present himself as an uninvolved admin in this case since his involvement in the dispute about the block on my talk page clearly falls under one of the criteria listed in the procedural notes at the top of this appeal. I have e-mailed him twice about his being an involved admin, but the first time he insisted he wasn't and he has yet to respond to the second e-mail I sent yesterday morning where I specifically quoted the criteria above.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to WG on block appeal

While I understand the concern about a comment about a user's conduct becoming a discussion, this would be true for any exemption. Mentioning an editor's actions in violation of an interaction ban, for instance, may cause the other editor to respond in a way that leads to further violations, but the point is where the comment is made. An admin can hardly argue that he would not be able to control what is occurring on his own talk page. That is why I made the comment there. Perhaps it would have been better to send an e-mail, something I considered, but when using e-mail there is a concern about it being perceived as an inappropriate effort to lobby in secret.

I further feel I had to mention why the action was of concern and that required some specificity. To be clear, it was not a general concern about an editor continuing to make contributions to the article, but the attempt to undo uncontroversial contributions of mine that had been standing for weeks and the way that attempt was being portrayed. The editor who filed the request leading to my topic ban was using the topic ban resulting from that request to revert changes of mine and give them the illusion of real consensus by implying that it was a compromise being put up for discussion, even though the editor knew the person who was being reverted was not going to be able to provide input on the "compromise" over those edits. Since the topic ban ten days ago this proposal has been the editor's only action on the article.

That, from my perspective, is quite a serious concern about the ban. Editors using AE to game the system is certainly a problem and goes straight to the question of whether the request was made in good faith in the first place. One impression I got from the proposal was that the editor was being vindictive and attempting to hound me by undoing as many of my contributions as possible until I stopped contributing to the article altogether. It should be added that this specifically concerned an issue I raised with WG about the topic ban being extended to talk pages as it seems unlikely the editor making this proposal would have done so knowing I could quickly chime in to point out all the deceptive language being used.

Finally, despite what WG says, I have no real animosity towards any of the editors contributing to the article. On several occasions I have sought the opinions of these editors on changes to the article and have specifically sought to accommodate their concerns. Sometimes I have found them cooperative, and other times I have found them to be the opposite. After the edit-warring block issued by EdJohnston it appears the latter response has become more common.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WGFinley

TDA states he was just inquiring about his ban, I think that's clearly not the case as shown in what he wrote on my talk page.[17]

TDA was given a 30 day TBAN for 9/11 articles (log) resulting from a previous AE Request. My notification to him is very clear to him about the terms including, "...any discussion of that topic on other pages. While he may have been speaking about the ban to complain about it he went on about the conduct of another user, how they were making changes to the article and this was wrong because he was banned.

This is a common reaction of TBAN users but as we had previously discussed his TBAN in excruciating great detail there was no ambiguity he was under a TBAN. If the other user he was referring to responded it would just make the article talk page out of my talk page and clearly that's what TBAN's are intended to prevent - further disturbance on the article. I've tried very hard to encourage TDA to work collaboratively but he can't seem to put aside the animosity he has against other users, and one user in particular, in order to edit harmoniously.--WGFinley (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WG's wikilink on "excruciatingly great detail" of discussion on the ban is referring to this discussion. That discussion did not concern what qualifies as an exemption, however.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jordgette

Am I expected to defend myself for posting in my userspace a draft of suggested changes to an article,[18] and asking for community input,[19] without making a single actual revert or edit to the article in question since November 21? No thank you; I will use that time to improve an article instead. But if it would make you feel better, I'll ask someone else to move over those changes once discussion is closed. (Or maybe that's still "gaming consensus"...I'll take my chances.) -Jordgette [talk] 01:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

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

• The Devil's Advocate is *not* appealing his recent one-month topic ban from 9/11 articles, he is appealing the one week block that was issued by WGFinley for making this edit at WG's talk. The language of WP:TBAN permits restricting the banned editor from raising the issues anywhere on Wikipedia, including on user talk pages. Finley used this specific wording to impose the ban:

This is to inform you that, as the result of this Arbitration Enforcement request you are hereby banned from editing all articles which relate to the September 11 attacks, broadly interpreted, as well as their talk pages, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban is through 30 December 2011.

TDA violated the restriction by using Finley's talk to complain about actions of the other party in the edit war, User:Jordgette. WGF's action appears routine to me, since this is how topic bans are supposed to work. On his user talk TDA is contesting at length the accepted theory of topic bans. He argues that the admins are wrong in trying to prevent him from from discussing the other party's editing of the 9/11 articles since his own topic ban was imposed. I recommend declining this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a topic ban violation to me. If he just argued about his block that would be one thing, but he mostly argued about the editing of others. Decline appeal. Zero^talk 07:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• TDA's action (the comment to WGFinley [20]) is clearly a breach of the ban. The block is a obvious, as the ban clearly states "any discussion of that topic [ September 11 attacks ] on other pages." On the basis that this appeal is about said block I'm declining it.
  Additionally TDA's comments about Ed are not appropriate - Ed has not violated WP:INVOLVED because, "warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'."--Cailil ^talk 20:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Cptnono

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 11 December 2011‎ Revert of this edit

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

1. Notified of interaction ban by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The notice of the interaction ban specified that the user may not Undo any edit by Nableezy to any page except your own user or user talk pages (by any means, including the rollback function). This is the first time Cptnono has ever edited the article Irgun. The user has also followed me to Palestinian Arabic having never edited that page before either. The same is true for the article Palestinian people. The user had also never edited that article in the past. I have avoided Cptnono with complete diligence, ensuring my compliance with the interaction ban, a ban that was placed due to the Ctpnonos tendentious hounding and repeated hurling of vexatious and unsupported accusations against me. I find it unbelievable that the last three articles edited by Cptnono were all edited for the very first time by the user, shortly after I edited them, and that Cptnono has some other way of explaining how he arrived at those articles besides by hounding my contributions. The diff listed is a straight forward violation of the ban, and the edits to Palestinian people and Palestinian Arabic are arguably also violations as they show that Cptnono continues with his tendentious hounding of my edits. I request the interaction ban be enforced and the user blocked.

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? Cptnono has followed me around from article to article, with all of his latest edits being on pages that I have recently been editing, and with none of them on pages the user has ever edited in the past. That I brought up your incompetence in the thread on Jiujitsuguy after you repeatedly either ignored the evidence or deliberately misrepresented it has not one bit to do with this issue. Cptnono has an interaction ban with me. One of the restrictions is not making any reverts of edits made by me. The edit listed above is a revert of an edit made by me. Even you should be able to add those things together and arrive at Cptnono violated the interaction ban. nableezy - 03:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And WGF, if you want to play all hard about reverts, how about noticing the editors who have not said one word on the talk page while reverting, such as Cptnono, AndresHerutJaim, and *cough, sock, cough* JungerMan Chips Ahoy!. I havent even made a revert that counts as a revert on that page, and you want to topic ban me? nableezy - 04:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata: Im not looking for a battle, I expressly wish to not have to deal with somebody such as Cptnono at all. But he actively seeks me out. The last time this happened he repeatedly directed absurd accusations at me without ever providing even a whiff of any evidence, while hounding me from article to article drunkenly daring others to revert him. So I requested, and received, an interaction ban. Ive ignored several violations of it, but here we have as a set of edits the recurrence of the old pattern of following me around, seemingly just to annoy me. Cptnono, until the last days, had never edited Irgun, Palestinian people, or Palestinian Arabic. I have been editing each within the last week. It isnt really surprising that the user has revived this old sport of trying to keep tabs on me, but is annoying, and at least one of the recent edits is a straightforward violation of the interaction ban. nableezy - 04:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, could you please explain to me what an interaction ban is? Is Cptnono's edit a revert of my edit? If not, why not? Because others were also reverting the edit? What of the following of my contributions to multiple article that he has never edited in the past? Is that not a user actively seeking out an interaction where interaction is banned? nableezy - 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WGF, and I am still dismayed that an admin who has repeatedly distorted evidence and refused to answer questions about factually incorrect claims made still considers himself qualified to comment at AE. If forced to choose which behavior is more objectionable, my "tone" or your repeated willful distortion of evidence, I would have to say that yours is. nableezy - 20:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You arent entitled to demand that people accept your poorly formed judgment, based on repeated willful distortions of evidence, in complete silence, and you are not entitled to both demand that I only discuss the case at AE and then complain that I then discussed the case at AE. My question to Ed was not incivil or condescending, I am sincerely asking Ed what his view on the limits of the interaction ban is. I said please because I was attempting to be respectful, not condescending. When I write you have no idea what you are talking about it is because you repeatedly demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. You have repeatedly made outright fabrications on the content of diffs, and repeatedly refused to answer questions about why you made such obviously untrue comments. This raises serious questions of competence. You approach AE as though you can determine who is being "disruptive" by whose name you see most often. You seemingly forget that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and when you repeatedly ignore such blatantly dishonest actions as lying about sources and equate a users tone with that, you show that you do in fact have no idea what you are talking about. Your claim that my past bans have had no impact on my editing is demonstrably false. All of my topic bans, all of them, have been due to issues with reverting. I have had no such issues in quite a long time, with the exceptions of my reverting socks of banned editors, a detail that while you may think unimportant most admins actually notice. This was a prima facie violation of an interaction ban. If competent uninvolved admins feel that it is not actually a violation then so be it, but you are attempting to place a topic ban without being able to show a single instance of my disrupting the P-I article space. You are attempting to ban me purely out of spite, because I have asked you to address several issues that raise serious questions about your competence to be acting as an administrator at AE. You have so far refused to address any of those issues, and now, in a charming bit of irony, attempting to use AE vexatiously to silence [an] opponent. I am not obligated to accept your decisions as though were edicts from upon high, and I did not demand any further action, nor is it disruptive for me to raise such issues. You repeatedly ignored evidence of a user lying about sources. I dont think I am being disruptive when I raise that at the lone place you said it may be raised. nableezy - 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enigmaman, you say I continue[d] to press the issue in a diff that predates the one where I supposedly refus[e] to respect the process here. WGF asked that I only discuss the issue at AE, and now is complaining that I discussed the issue at AE. I accepted the process, I simply wanted to make a comment that the process involved several admins ignoring, for whatever reason, be it nefarious or not, that an editor repeatedly lied about sources. What I wrote was I dont care anymore, it isnt worth wasting my time with an obvious sock. I just want to have it written down here that several admins have ignored repeated willful distortion of sources to push a fringe POV into an article. I think that is a pretty clear acceptance of the process, though one in which I voice my frustration with the fact that it was allowed to be manipulated by an admins bizarre and unsupported comments regarding the evidence. nableezy - 04:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And further, I challenge the assertion that there have been spurious AE filings by myself. All of them, including this one, bring prima facie violations of either a specific ban or the discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 04:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am purposely ignoring the comments of the usual people with the usual views as they arent at all relevant. I will address one however. Michael, if one were to compare your comments to me and my comments to you they would quickly see that there is indeed one party who routinely makes obscene, absurd, often derisive comments to the other. It isnt me though. Despite my lowly Arab background, I have been quite restrained when dealing with your particular brand of policy twisting to disruptively push a settler-centric POV across a range of pages. How that is at all relevant is however left to the imagination of the reader. This thread was about a violation of an interaction ban. It has unsurprisingly been distorted into something else by the very same admin who ignored and enabled a user lying about sourced, and in turn a collection of users unsurprising in its makeup are are here cheerleading. WGF does not like the fact that I have raised serious questions about his competence, so he concocts this attempt to silence me, rather than actually address the issue of his repeatedly making things up out of thin air and ignoring, if not outright lying about, evidence of a user lying about sources. That you dislike that I prevent you from repeatedly pushing a settler POV into articles or that I prevent you from claiming occupied territory as Israel's is not cause for a ban. And while it is not surprising that you are again involving yourself in this attempt to see me banned, it is also unimportant. The issue here remains what it was when I brought this here. If competent uninvolved admins say there was no violation then so be it. Currently there are two such admins who say there is no ban (Ed and Wordsmith) and I am fine with that judgment. I would like them to clarify why there was no violation, and under what circumstances a revert of an edit made by one editor in an interaction ban against the other may be performed. But this attempt to turn this into a case for my banning fails on several levels. The first is that there is 0 evidence, none at all, of my disrupting anything anywhere. I have raised questions of WGF's actions, if he wishes to be an admin he is obligated to answer those questions. He refused to do so on his talk page, and he complains that I asked those questions here when he directed me to discuss the issues here. That is transparent attempt at silencing dissent, and one that raises even more questions of competence. nableezy - 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Calil, there has been no evidence brought that I am attempting to "game the system". You raise past topic bans as evidence of a failure to adjust actions, but that is simply untrue. All of my past topic bans were the result of issues with reverting, and I have had no such issues in quite some time. The "case for boomerang" is simply an admin upset that I call him on his actions and he refuses to both address the issues and further refuses to even be questioned. nableezy - 15:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put the comments about the past AE case into context, I invite everybody to look at the timeline here. Also, if this is to be the people of Wikipedia vs Nableezy I would appreciate a new request where I do not have the burden of defending myself in this clusterfuck of a section as well as having the enviable task of defending myself against an "uninvolved admin" playing the role of both prosecutor and judge. I am more than happy to address every single point that WGF or anybody else would like to raise, a courtesy that unfortunately was not extended to me by WGF. nableezy - 01:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed, I recognize that AE is not as you a say a precision machine and further I agree that my presentation of the issues was not optimal. And I will say that I think the few admins that deal with arbitration enforcement do, for the most part, a fine job. There are a few admins that I think are either overly harsh or overly lenient, but all in all most do a fine job doing a very difficult task, and all of you should be thanked for taking on such a task. I admittedly have a sharp tongue, but I dont think I have ever questioned an admins competence to be standing here in judgment prior to this event. It isnt simply the failure to respond, it is the failure to admit a wrong, to refuse to acknowledge a mistake, that is what causes my outrage. WGF wrote something that was flat out untrue, and despite repeated, and initially respectful and civil, attempts to raise the issue, he refused to acknowledge even reading the diff in question. I repeatedly attempted to get him to explain his comment, he still has not, first refusing to do so at his talk page and saying he will only discuss the issue on AE, and now citing my attempt to discuss the issue on AE as disrupting AE. How else do you expect me to react? An admin who refuses to justify his comments, who has made demonstrably false claims on AE, who has refused to explain why he made such claims, is now actively campaigning for sanctions against me. And doing so on the basis of my bringing what was a prima facie violation of an interaction ban. The same admin who equated the repeated deliberate distortion of sources to insert factual errors into an encyclopedia article to Nableezy's tone. Please, and I ask this sincerely, how should I react to that? nableezy - 03:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I wasnt questioning the judgment on the interaction ban being violated or not, if that is the case consider me informed of the standard, what I wrote about WGF's behavior was in regard to the JJG issue and how that relates to this most recent call for a long-term ban. nableezy - 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Cptnono

Statement by Cptnono

I only looked at the edit summary between Supreme Deliciousness and Jujitsuguy. I did not realize that so many people were involved, including Nableezy. So my bad for continuing an edit war. And I went to Palestinian People after seeing the comment by Newt Gingirch on CNN. Cptnono (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had more coffee this morning I want to expand on my statement. I was under the impression that the interaction ban was put in place partially to limit disruption at AE. This is a whole lot of needless drama. Nableezy and Gatoclass assume I was intentionally reverting an edit made by Nableezy. I did not know at the time that he was involved at the article since I was checking a diff I saw between two editors I have had many interactions with. Although Nableezy might think it is all about him, I am actually interested in the Palestinian people and the fringe (some would certainly call it racist) debate over if the Palestinians are their actually a unique subset within the Arab population (for the record I do not see how they cannot be). The Newt Gingrich comment of an "invented people" reminded me of the issue. The line I tagged with the clarify template was because I was confused by the line. I was also under the impression that Tiamut was the primary author of the Palestinian People article and considered making the edit I made a year ago but decided against it to not ruffle her feathers. It is not always about Nableezy. The interaction ban is already being ignored right now but I am not going to make it worse by commenting on what I think the admins should do.Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty obvious what is going to happen here. I am fairly confident that most uninvolved editors (along with the admins here) would not consider my revert of Supreme Deliciousness as an intentional revert of Nableezy. There could be the question of me hounding him but I think my explanation is sufficient (it is easy for me to assume it is sufficient since I know I was not). I could argue that Nableezy is hounding me with this AE (there is an interaction ban) but I don't care to get involved with that discussion. If this is at AN now then you guys can handle that. It should not have gotten to this point but I doubt anyone is surprised. I don't have any topic bans in the area (some civility blocks are there, though) so close this out and continue the constant and disruptive back and forth at AN. In regards to this case: I should have thought to look at any edit made in the topic area since there is a chance Nableezy is involved. I should not have made a revert without looking at the history. If I would have it would have been clear that there was previous drama and the talk page would have been better. Nableezy won't be getting a boomerrang. We all know it even if some of us think he deserves it. So I am happy to end this with me saying "my bad", you guys can hash it out at AN.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono

Comment by Zero0000

I don't see "unless someone else has reverted the same edit in the meanwhile" in Cptnono's interaction ban. Indeed, under such an interpretation it is hard to see how an interaction ban could have any effect since there is always someone else around to throw the first punch. Cptnono's edit is a prima facie interaction ban violation. If it is judged to not be a violation, then the interaction ban should be clarified and all parties made aware of the change. Punishing Nableezy for making a report on a perfectly reasonable interpretation would be quite outrageous. More generally, while it is reasonable to be frustrated and annoyed at the level of dispute in this area, taking it out on those who bring disputes to the proper authorities (which this board is supposed to be) is not an appropriate way of dealing with it. All that does is make the serial violators more bold. Zero^talk 03:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mkativerata

(I'm an admin who has declared himself involved in respect of ARBPIA) I think Nableezy might have picked the wrong battle construing the interaction ban a bit widely here. But the suggestion to "solve" the issue by handing out multiple topic bans would be a gross misjudgement. I think this should be closed as "no action". When multiple editors have contributed to an edit-war but none of them have done anything egregious on their own, locking the article is the sensible solution (and I see that's been done), not punitive action. These kind of edit wars really aren't that bad. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: I've struck "picked the wrong battle"; I mean it in a colloquial rather than a perjorative ("battleground") sense. I think this episode is yet another demonstration of the futility of interaction bans, more than anything. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley: with respect, the fact that much of the "evidence" in support in of your proposed topic ban is perceived "incivility" towards you, and the subsequent gross overreaction of proposing a 12 month topic ban, suggests that you are not in a good position to be acting here. You either need to have a thicker skin or walk away. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

First, I'm laughing to myself that you think a self-revert is a 1RR violation. But moreso, I'm laughing that Cptnono, who added Category:Resistance movements, didn't notice that it was already there (having been restored by AndresHerutJaim). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, then, Wgfinley. I'm still laughing at Cptnono (and all of us—including myself—who reverted afterward) for missing the fact that the category was already on the page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Broccolo

Per WGFinley, Cptnono has never reverted Nableezy, and as Nableezy said he and Cptnono are under interaction ban. With this frivolous AE Nableezy violated his interaction ban with Cptnono. Could you please enforce the ban by sanctioning the filer? Broccolo (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MichaelNetzer

During my short time in the I/P area, I'd likely be considered someone who'd be happy to see a sanction against Nableezy in this case. We've had heated exchanges where I've tried to get across the folly of aggressive editing. I've repeatedly stressed that reporting to AE is not a method I choose for solving disputes. Over the last few days, and through a mutual effort to resolve an extended disagreement, I was gratified to see a better collaborative spirit developing between us. Like Mkativerata, I believe this request for action against Cptono is misplaced and unnecessary. But I also agree with him that a TBAN, especially multiple ones, could be an overkill. I'd certainly prefer to see a less trigger happy finger when it comes to filing such requests. However, I'm of a mind that a more creative approach is necessary to help ease tensions. I'm not sure how to convey this need other than by setting an example. If I could, I'd place a reverse interaction ban on both editors so they can only edit together, on one specific article, within a topic other than I/P - and would only lift the ban when they become sufficiently cooperative. I know that's a bit of a stretch and only suggest it rhetorically, to help stress the need for a change in attitude here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: We may foreseeably have a proper venue for those issues between us, but I don't believe this is the one, so I won't answer your misrepresentations here. For the purposes of this report, I believe you need to tone down the aggressive approach in situations you don't agree with. It only makes things difficult for yourself and everyone else around you. It will also inevitably all boomerang anyway, with even more force than before. Please take that to heart. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

Whether or not it counts as a revert if you revert the same content as the other party in your interaction ban that someone restored in an intermediate edit is a question that may need clarification. However, when you are under an interaction ban with someone, you are obviously asking for trouble when you start editing the same pages the other party has recently edited, and especially when you start reverting the same content. So whether or not one thinks Cptnono has technically violated his ban, I think it pretty clear he has violated the ban in spirit. Whether that is grounds for sanction an uninvolved admin can decide, but I would certainly think a warning at the very least to avoid such behaviour in future would be appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith's comment is about the most sensible I've seen in this case yet. I suggest that Cptnono be advised to take more care not to edit in a way that could be interpreted as wikihounding and to leave it at that. Someone may also want to start a discussion about the revert-with-intermediate-edits issue in the meantime. Other than that, I think we should all take The Wordsmith's advice and find something a bit more wholesome to do at this time of year. Gatoclass (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

Reluctantly again, since I think only admins and the parties directly concerned should comment here. 'I am still dismayed at Nableezy's conduct on AE.' What does conduct mean here? Contextually it suggests unacceptable behaviour. All I see is a report requesting deliberation, and possibly action. If Nableezy's conduct is thought disconcerting, it should be explained exactly in what this consists. Does it mean there is a quota for filing reports? Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'How many admins who have the temerity to work AE do we need to lose before this nonsense stops'.(WGFinley)

Um. If admins complain of their workload, I think a little familiarity with articles, and the extraordinary lengths editors must go to write articles in the I/P area, will suggest that the labourers are obliged to exercise an infinitely greater degree of patience to edit there. It is far far harder to work as peons than as overseers, and if the foreman complain of fatigue, they should do so with an eye to what the workers in the field have to cope with. I read the above as a request not to play the unionist, but shut up, because people up top in administration shouldn't have too much paperwork on their tables, and dislike the disruption of their time when the hoi polloi wish the rules to be clarified on site disputes. The list you draw up shows Nableezy, just one person, making requests for rule observance. It can only make sense if you list the large number of editors on the other side who have draw him into arbitration. Aside from the chronic assaults on his page, he does get stick from an extensive number of editors who share the same POV, whereas the same is not true of them. I say this with no prejudice against the latter, who have as much right to appeal as Nableezy.Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'The only way to deal with an account that's been topic banned 6 times and tries to game the system in order to "defeat" the "other side" would be an indefinite topic ban.'

These casual remarks suggests vague impressionism rather than informed deliberation. There are several editors more reliable than myself who have the same impression in recent times, that administrative judgement in here shows signs of frustration at the frequent recourse to requests for oversight, or evinces even personal dislike of the kind that leads some to disregard clear evidence in cases in order to close a case with 'no action taken', rather than manifesting patient coolheadedness. A significant number of editors have long worked overtime to rid wikipedia of Nableezy, who is very particular about process, and the strict adherence to policy in an area where it is customarily under constant challenge. Those who have complained are not paragon's of neutrality, but partisans of a (legitimate) POV. That his every move is watched, his page defaced, his work undone by I/P editors and dozens of socks, is known. That is no reason to make exceptions in his case, but I don't see much evidence here that he is the problematical character a loose scan of diffs leads some admins to think. For one thing, he has no record for larding articles with misleading, false or provocatively onesided material, which can't be said for many of those who find his presence disagreeable. To attribute to him a battlefield mentality intent on simply wasting time to 'defeat the other side' is patent nonsense. He is a policy wonk, and in the I/P area policy is under constant challenge.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops by asad

Concerning this, I hit rollback on my mobile phone browser on accident. Sorry folks. -asad (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of WGFinley

• I have continued this conversation at WGFinley's talk page. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Devil's Advocate

I think you made a mistake there. It appears the "clarify" tag was added to the article on Palestinian Arabic before Gingrich's comments. He made the comments on Friday and your edit appears to have been made right after 12:00 A.M. Friday, which I think would be well before the interview aired.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cptnono

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

This is a pretty contrived and vexatious request from Nableezy and given his conduct on a recent AE filing we he refused to accept the decision and continue the discussion after it was closed I think it's time for a ban from WP:AE again as well as another TBAN.

There's no "I got here first, now you can't edit" in an interaction ban and Nableezy knows it. There's a 4 day lapse between Nableezy's edit and Cptnono's and this revert by Brewcrewer which was reverted by DePiep which was reverted by JJG which was reverted by SD which was reverted by Malik which was reverted again by Malik in violation of 1RR (though of himself and I expect there's an explanation) which was reverted by AndresHerutJaim which was finally reverted by Cptnono as Nableezy outlined. Of course then DePiep needed to revert that which was then reverted by JungerMan who in turn was reverted by Malik again until I brought an end to this nonsense by protecting the page.. So, in making this report Nableezy ignored the 7 previous reversions prior to Cptnono.

@Malik - It was meant to be humorous slightly, I just have to cover all bases with this crew lest someone point out a 1RR violation was missed and not noted. You know how it goes here. --WGFinley (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stated writing a remedy but I believe long term TBANs of multiple parties are in order here and will wait for others to weigh in. Some of these folks are fresh off of TBANs and are revert warring the placement of a category in an article. --WGFinley (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WGF: I agree that there is no violation of Cptnono's interaction ban with Nableezy here. Malik self-reverted one of his edits, so if we exclude him, nobody edited more than once at Irgun. It is unclear why anyone's editing of Irgun would be the occasion for topic bans. The reverts by several people at Irgun suggest a lack of good judgment even though 1RR was not broken. It would be hard to formalize a new restriction like 'use common sense before reverting anything on a hot-button article when several people have already reverted it'. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the number of owners of previous TBANs here thought it was okay to get in a revert war, they all know they shouldn't be and this is the exact kind of nonsense that continues to cause disruption, AE filings, etc, etc. --WGFinley (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could see the logic of issuing bans for those previously under a TBAN, based on poor judgment exhibited on a hot-button article. But you'd need to state the criterion for your action clearly. Also be aware that, if the rule is generalized, you might start getting more AE submissions since there is more than one hot-button article. EdJohnston (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to put some up but after further consideration I think there is a case to be made (per Gatoclass) about this needing to be clarified on AE. So while I would be inclined to not take any action except warn all those concerned this is unacceptable I am still dismayed at Nableezy's conduct on AE. --WGFinley (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a remedy of trouts all around. Seriously, everyone needs to go outside and enjoy some sunshine (unless it is raining, in which case I would strongly suggest bringing along an umbrella). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I the only one who thinks that Nableezy could have been acting in good faith? I've been taking an extended break from AE until recently so perhaps I've been out of this place for too long, but I can see why one would be suspicious of Cptnono turning up to continue an edit war that was started by Nableezy (with whom he has an interaction ban). I don't know if there is enough evidence to suggest that Cptnono was there to aggravate Nableezy, but I don't see this AE complaint as inherently disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought I was missing something that everyone seemed to get. I agree with HJ's post, and am more concerned about the number of editors who chose to revert while discussion was going on at Talk:Irgun. NW (Talk) 15:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As below, agree this is not a conclusive breach of an interaction ban but it isn't a vexatious report either - I can see how Nableezy interpreted this as a breach of that ban (but disagree with him). I think NW's point about more general "slow" editwarring is important - this could be dealt with via page based probation (as Ed notes this shows a "lack of good judgement") but I don't see the need for high level personalized action against Cptnono, or Nableezy or anyone else in this instance--Cailil ^talk 16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would disagree that it is a problem that might can be addressed by page protection. The fact that three editors joined the edit war after the sock issue was resolved[22][23][24] and that there was an edit war after a few days of discussion involving several different editors[25][26][27] (some diffs excluded) is indicative of a very battleground approach to the matter, which I think we need to look at more closely than we are. NW (Talk) 21:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I conceded above I see some merit to there being need for clarification (I still think this is the last venue for that and not the first) but you have hit on what I was getting to about this article. All these folks know not to do this but yet they persisted just the same with continuous reverts. --WGFinley (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of Nableezy

Not sure there was any doubt on this but, here we go. At the risk of a firestorm (although the previous 3 week AE request seems to constitute one already) this appears to be a clear boomerang.

1. Despite a recent AE report being closed Nableezy chose to continue commenting and thus disrupted AE by refusing to accept the decision and demanding further action.[28] He doesn't respect the process here and will continue commenting as long as he likes.
2. This led to a disruption of AE by another user commenting[29] with Nableezy replying[30] followed by some back and forth with Nableezy having the last word [31][32].
3. Nableezy displayed similar conduct on my talk page where I asked him on multiple occasions to use AE for the venue of discussion.
4. By my count Nableezy has been banned entirely from the topic 6 times [33][34] [35][36][37][38] not including an article ban [39] and three ban modifications[40][41][42]. They appear to have had no impact.
5. He's been subject to multiple sanctions as a result of AE reports [43][44][45][46][47][48][49] or AN3 reports. [50][51] Nableezy knows the process on AE.
6. Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? - clearly uncivil
7. Ed, could you please explain to me what an interaction ban is? - clearly condescendingly uncivil.
8. You simply do not know what you are talking about. an an insinuation of off-wiki canvassing with absolutely no evidence.
9. Finally, his practice of "file AE first, ask questions later". He could have asked an admin for an opinion on this, including the admin who put the interaction ban in place. Instead it's run off to AE and try to use it vexatiously to silence another opponent.

How many admins who have the temerity to work AE do we need to lose before this nonsense stops? Every comment he makes to someone who dares disagree with him is dripping with venom. Many admins simply just give up and determine it's not worth the headache and quit participating here (don't' think i need to name names).

Given the totality of this conduct, and a ton of other conduct (interaction bans, blocks for violating bans, etc) I haven't even cited, it is clear Nableezy believes Wikipedia is a battleground for despite all these actions and sanctions Nableezy continues to disrupt AE and the P-I article space. I submit a ban from submitting or commenting cases not concerning him on AE is in order along with a topic ban from P-I for 1 year which is the source of this conduct. --WGFinley (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, something needs to be done about the repeated filings of spurious AEs against those who disagree with him. [52] indicates a refusal to respect the process here. Then we have this, where he continues to press the issue. Enigma^msg 04:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to deal with an account that's been topic banned 6 times and tries to game the system in order to "defeat" the "other side" would be an indefinite topic ban. Such behaviour would demonstrate a failure to get the point about changing their attitude to others and to wikipedia's policies with sanctions of a definite duration. This measure prevents disruption and can be lifted when the account shows that they have adjusted their behaviour appropriately.
At least on a prima facie basis it is not unreasonable to consider WP:BOOMERANG here wrt Nableezy. However, as I haven't had an in-depth look at their edits yet (but will later) I wont declare support or oppose at this point, but I'm considering the point--Cailil ^talk 15:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having examined this I do think it would be harsh, and maybe even rash, to impose either a 12 month or indefinite sanction on Nableezy. Thus I would oppose such action at this time, as I'm inclined to agree with HJ and NW above.
Nableezy needs to tone it down - the general last wordiness of their approach here has not been helpful. Broadly speaking, their rhetoric has been borderline and while I empathize WGF, I don't agree that this is grounds for the use of an ArbCom remedy of such magnitude. I do think this is inappropriate, but not within the remit of ARBPIA and is perhaps better for AN etc--Cailil ^talk 16:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the question of venue but I think this is precisely the venue to address the issue at hand, save ARBPIA3 which I was initially opposed to but now thinking is inevitable. This page clearly states if one comes here with unclean hands or disrupts AE they are making themselves subject to sanction themselves. --WGFinley (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see this evidence as justifying a ban of Nableezy. Nableezy first got upset with WGFinley due to the Jiujitsuguy case, so far as I can tell. That case was not optimally argued from Nableezy's side though close study of his diffs revealed there was some merit to his assertions. There are some ways that the JJG case might have been handled better. It would be best if Nableezy would recognize that AE is not a precision machine, can't understand everyone's points perfectly, and should be expected to approach truth only in a long-term fashion. If someone is truly a bad actor, their case will be reviewed more than once since they will make return appearances at AE. Nableezy is one of the more effective spokesmen for the Palestinian side of certain disputes and he has also done a lot of content work. Nableezy's recent outrage about some admins failing to respond to him certainly seems over the top. In the AE system, failure to take action is not appealable and people should be willing to live with that.
• Anyone who wants to review Nableezy's record in more detail is welcome to view the large dump of data collected by his opponents in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive102#Nableezy, which enumerates all the AE cases he filed in the last two years. Some of the reasoning by editors in that case could also be applied here. The case was closed on 25 November with no action against Nableezy, though I notice that WGF did argue for sanctions even at that time. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Not every detail of every complaint may be fully analyzed or responded to. Your complaint of an interaction ban violation was not terribly convincing since your revert was so far back in the history. People may respond to edits that they see on their watchlists, and some editors have very large watchlists. Deliberate WP:HOUNDING is usually conspicuous. Interaction bans are inherently more vague than stuff like 1RR violations which are easy to check. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, the issue has been moved to the administrators' noticeboard [55] -asad (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Boothello

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Case_amendments

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

1. 01:13, 13 December 2011 Dishonest edit summary - not actually worried about it appearing twice, rather, just acting as an article gatekeeper to prevent improvement
2. 21:03, 13 November 2011 Varnish
3. 03:49, 27 October 2011 Varnish
4. 21:06, 30 October 2011 Varnish

Pretty much all of this editors mainspace contributions are varnish on the reputation of scientific racists.

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

1. Warned on 02:12, 6 May 2011‎ by Aprock (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This single purpose account is continuing the behavior that other accounts were banned for in August 2010 - consistent violations of NPOV. Further, while it's obvious that this is not the users first account (second edit shows facility with templates beyond what any new user has - [56], and fourth edit already knows what "OR" is - without having edited a talk page, ever.), the user is evasive about their prior history [57], even though their IP is in the public domain and has only one edit - [58], though it is in exactly the same metropolitan area as now topic banned David.Kane (who, shockingly enough, stopped editing with any regularity just 3 weeks after this SPA showed up!)

We don't need POV pushing SPA's in the space. Solve this.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Boothello

Statement by Boothello

Comments by others about the request concerning Boothello

Result concerning Boothello

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