Withdrawn by filing party. --WGFinley (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 14:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, interaction ban Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 20 December 2011 Directly replying to a comment made by me, directly referencing me, and accusing me of filibustering Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Notified of interaction ban on 27 June 2011 [1] advised to take greater care to avoid Nableezy in accordance with your interaction ban on 14 December 2011 Additional comments by editor filing complaint The interaction ban specifies that Cptnono may not Reply to Nableezy in any discussion or Make reference to or comment on Nableezy, directly or indirectly, on any page. He did both in that comment. He directly replied to a comment made by me, and he directly references me by saying you guys can keep it up while directly replying to me, and indirectly accuses me of filibustering and potentially violating an interaction while violating the interaction ban. I realize what happened with the last request, but this straightforward and should not be open to the type of drama that occurred last time. Can yall please actually enforce the ban? apparently nothing to do with Nableezy? You serious? No other set of editors in that discussion has an interaction ban, who else was he referencing? Though I think an indef topic-ban is overkill, the comments are clearly a violation of the interaction ban. nableezy - 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Biosketch, you arent going to see me defending WGF's view, I dont agree with him and honestly I would rather he not involve himself in adminstering the topic area for reasons I have made abundantly clear in the past, regardless of what his view on this specific request is. However, you wrote that Cptnono's comments had apparently nothing to do with me. How can you make that comment in good faith? Directly replying to me, saying you guys can keep it up, referencing an interaction ban in a discussion where the only people who have an interaction ban are the two of us. I would love to reply to Cptnono, I would love to give an honest response to the claim that this conversation will be filled with filibustering from others and that he is someone who is not an idiot. But I am restricted from doing so. So I dont. nableezy - 16:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Before Agada's "contribution" is taken at face value, the first diff he presented was my replying to Kauffner, not Cptnono. The second diff was of a reply I made to GabrielF, again not Cptnono. I have not nor will I in the future reply or reference Cptnono. nableezy - 00:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] It boggles the mind that somebody could say that I responded to Cptnono, or that I replied under a section heading that he made. Cptnono made a comment in an RFC, Tiamut replied to that, Kauffner to that, Tiamut to that, Kauffner to that, me to that, GabrielF to that, and me to that. There are a. no section headings, and b. no replies to anything Cptnono was even discussing. I directly replied to a comment made by Kauffner and to a reply made to me. Thats it. nableezy - 05:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Similar technical ... nonsense. There is no level heading and just days ago it was judged not to be a violation when Cptnono reverted an edit that I reverted after several others had intervened, and that had been an actual revert of the same material, and you Michael were, unsurprisingly and inconsistently, arguing that it was not a violation. I replied to a different user making a completely different point, after multiple layers of discussion, under nothing that can be called a level heading. To pretend there is an equivalence here is simply dishonest. nableezy - 06:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Not exactly. In fact, not even a little bit. There is nowhere near the same distance. The previous complaint was on a revert of the exact edit that I made. I was not replying to Cptnono in any way, I was directly responding to an unrelated point made by a different editor. And most importantly, it was decided that the distance in the previous complaint made it so there was no violation. Just in case you have forgotten that. You dont know why there is an interaction ban between the two of us, so kindly stop acting as though this is an issue of collaboration. And if you are at all interested in collaboration, try not distorting the events at every discussion that has nothing to do with you. That might engender some collaborative good will. Just might. nableezy - 06:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Michael, you continue to distort the events. There is no level heading, I did not reply to Cptnono in any way, and Cptnono directly replied to me. Your attempts at distorting the events fail even the most basic test as anybody can look at the talk page. I replied to Kauffner and GabrielF. Cptnono replied to me. Therein lies the difference. In your silly attempt to have me banned at every enforcement thread only demonstrates just how much you are willing to distort what took place. I honestly do not know why you are allowed to comment here, your repeated bad faith attempts at having me banned on plainly specious charges should have been enough to earn you a ban from commenting at AE. Regardless, your distortions here are simply untrue. nableezy - 14:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] WGF, I did not comment on Cptnono's vote, technically or otherwise. I was responding, directly, to Kauffner, and then to GabrielF. Cptnono directly responded to me. Removing the interaction ban requires more than just your say so, that was imposed as an arbitration enforcement action and requires a consensus of admins to remove it. I strongly object to the notion that removing the ban is an acceptable way of enforcing it. The ban is not unenforceable, yall just need to actually try to enforce it. And honestly, given your initial reply to the past request for enforcment on a much more closely related set of edits as being contrived and vexatious, I question why you now think that it is plausible that a completely unrelated reply is a violation of that same ban. nableezy - 16:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] What pray tell has been the issue with my rhetoric on this page? Regarding the substance of your comment, I dont deny that the comment I made was under Cptnono's vote. I dont see how that changes that my comment was not a reply to Cptnono, or even about what Cptnono based his vote on. I replied to an unrelated point made by a different editor. In a discussion that I had already been a part of, which had spilled over from another page that I have also been involved in. A different user made a claim that a certain name was not preferred by a group of people. I pointed out to him that the very source that user had brought explicitly gave that name as a preferred name by that group of people. That had nothing to do with Cptnono, and nothing to do with his vote. I honestly dont see how, given the earlier request in which Cptnono reverted the exact edit I made with others reverting in between being judged as not a violation, and with you saying it was clearly not so to the point of suggesting I be banned for even raising the issue, you can claim that this is possibly a violation. I really do not understand how you can come to those two conclusions. Please read the comments. Tell me how they possibly relate to Cptnono in any way. And then read what Cptnono himself wrote here of a different situation: It has actually happened before where a "poll" was opened regarding an article on my watch list and I waited until someone else responded so I did not violate my topic ban. So Cptnono is of the opinion that if he waits until somebody else responds it is all right to then respond without it being a violation of an interaction ban. Here we have several responses, to the point that what was discussed had nothing to do with any comment by Cptnono. But yet somehow this becomes a violation. Please explain how you reconcile the past judgment of no violation for reverting the exact same edit but you are now of the opinion that commenting on a different issue is. Yes, a consensus at AE can overturn the interaction ban, or AGK himself can. You, however, cannot do that simply because you think interaction bans are bad. This ban was imposed due to repeated personal attacks and unfounded accusations, directed solely in one direction. It was imposed for a reason, and despite you thinking little of the idea of such bans, I have found it refreshing to be free from such interactions for the last months. nableezy - 01:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] You have not said what is wrong with my rhetoric, you have only said that there is a problem. What pray tell is neither hostile nor uncivil. If you want to say that my rhetoric is a problem, say what it is. Just saying it is a problem doesnt mean anything. And what you wrote was I'm of a mind to lift the interaction ban as unenforceable, not that you would be seeing other opinions or see if there was a consensus, but that you yourself would do so because you yourself thinks what is easily enforceable is unenforceable. nableezy - 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] The ban is over at this point, might as well consider this moot. In the hopes that the behavior that caused the ban to be requested and placed to begin with is not repeated, Id ask that you consider this request withdrawn. nableezy - 06:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Cptnono Statement by Cptnono Nableezy made a response to my comment. He inserted a comment under a level heading I made. Instead of running to AE I pointed it out there. I don;t mind a topic ban. I even asked for one a few months ago. But when an editor under a topic ban makes a direct response to a comment he is in violation. If Nableezy is not topic banned for blatantly being in violation himself then the process is broken. Nableezy made a response to me and I answered. You guys can call it as you want. I will point out that Nableezy has spent the last 2 weeks calling for enforcement on me. Our interaction ban runs out in less than two weeks. Shenanigans. Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] In response to WGF, I made a "Support comment/not-really-a-vote at the talk page. Nableeezy made two comments within that section.[2][3] I have bent over backwards to follow the topic ban when I see his name in a discussion. It has actually happened before where a "poll" was opened regarding an article on my watch list and I waited until someone else responded so I did not violate my topic ban. Nableezy spent the first week of our topic ban disregarding it and I ended up taking a self-imposed few week break from the topic area. And then he opened up an AE just a week or so ago just before the interaction ban is set to expire. If he says "I did not realize I was commenting in a part of the discussion under your name" I won't call him a liar. But he hasn't said that and I believe that he is seeing the end of the topic ban coming up in a week and taking a shot at extending it. My comment was not that malicious and disruption was pretty minimal until it came here (again).Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] For clarification: by "section" I mean "level heading". The comment was a comment within a "vote/whatever" I made. I saw that as a violation of the interaction ban. Me pointing it out was a violation on my part but I thought at the time that pointing it out was within reason. It was bad judgement on my part but I thought (incorrectly) that it would be acceptable under the circumstances. Maybe I should have just filed a request for clarification. My thought process was that that would have been even more disruptive and was trying to not be a jerk about it. Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I am surprised to see that this is still going open. I did make a blatant violation of my topic ban. I still feel that Nableezy was in violation and that is why I made the comment. I thought he was intentionally just saying "screw it" (he actually made a comment on my talk page ages ago saying that we should mutually ignore a topic ban). At one time I could have made an argument for Nableezy repeatedly violating this topic ban. I know this sound terrible but I actually saved diffs in a document for the first month of it. I deleted it awhile ago since the topic ban made me realize that just trying to stick it to the other guy is not the way to go. It really doesn't matter now (unless I do get an indef) since the topic ban is set to expire. I'm not filing anymore requests at AE against Nableezy even if we are not interaction banned since I am so sick and tired of bickering over silly stuff (who goes to half these articles about places in the middle of nowhere anyways). So @Devilsadvocate: You don't know what is and has been on my watchlist for years and why they have been there. You don't know what media I read and decide to look into more on Wikipedia. You need to spend less time assuming the worst and trying to poke holes in everyone's comments. It is not healthy here and I assume you do not need a lecture on how that will end up for you off of Wikipedia if you act this way at work or school or with your friends and family. @WGF: The topic ban is about to expire. I have full confidence I can not violate my topic ban over the next several days. The real test will be how we handle it when the ban is lifted (if its expiration is a possibility at this point) Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hi Cailil. I actually do edit in other areas just as frequently. I also do not have a history of topic bans here. I have some civility based blocks. I still don't think the single comment (although I misjudged its disruptiveness) would justify an indef. I don't even understand how I could return from it since I do edit in other topic areas already. Cptnono (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Also, Cailil, please do not lump me in with all of the activity below (not sure if that was your intent or not) unless we are doing ARBPIA3. I want nothing to do with those other discussions and won;t be jumping into the fray in 24hrs when my interaction ban expires. Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Final statement before we all know what is coming This is taking so long! Cailil has not responded to my comment regarding me already editing in other areas. I have formulated a dozen responses in my head to this but have been hesitant to really getting into it. So at the risk of digging my own grave: Multiple editors who I disagree with (we have admitted our biases) have expressed concerns over an indef. I assume they do this because they are looking at it as punitive. I actually do think that admins at AE have the responsibility to "punish" editors. Doing so sets the example that disruption is not OK , and we all know that AE is not ANI. It is a different beast and editors who mess up in the topic area need to have the hammer over their heads. That being said: An indef makes no sense in this case and for me as an individual editor since I have not had any topic bans before. Since I do contribute to a range of other articles already (I enjoy the ones on beer and soccer the most) it limits what I can "prove" to the community for my reinstatement in the topic area. I will not retract my previous statements based on this request for enforcement being based on shenanigans. But I do know that my judgement was off when I made the response that breeched the interaction ban. My judgement has been off before and that needs to be considered if we want to be fair. If it is time for me to get a topic ban then it is time for me to get a topic ban. I would prefer for the admins to respect the following argument: Most of my concerns in the topic area have been based on my squabbling with Nableezy. But that would be a cop out on my part. If I messed up bad enough to deserve an enforced break than so be it. I do request a punishment that is based solely on me (since asking for one based on the infraction is not going to happen) and that does not take into account admins frustration over editors as a whole unless we are doing ARBIA3. I think I deserve a week for my interaction ban violation but know that is not a possibility. I assume 6 months will be the response from an uninvolved admin, but that would be overkill. Just wanted to vent. let you guys know how I feel, and stave off my urge to appeal any ban too early. Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Check Cailil's talk page dude.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Stop poppin into my sections dangit! (Actually, thank you for the heads up).Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono Comment by Biosketch This is Cptnono's comment: I forgot to mention that as someone who is not an idiot I know that this conversation will be filled with filibustering and what can only be considered violations of interaction bans. I won't breach it myself but you guys can keep it up. Where is there any indication that he's "replying to a comment made by" you, "directly referencing" you, or accusing you of filibustering? Other than the unfortunate placement of the comment – in a discussion where Cptnono was already involved, it needs to be stressed – there's nothing here necessarily indicating that Cptnono was addressing Nableezy at all.—Biosketch (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] WGFinley, you're proposing to indef Cptnono because he placed his comment after Nableezy's, even though his comment had apparently nothing to do with Nableezy. Am I understanding right? (As an aside, it should be made standard practice that uninvolved Admins wait for the defendants in these cases to make their statement before rushing to reach conclusions.)—Biosketch (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Nableezy, I don't know who else he was referencing. Anyway, that doesn't seem to be what WGFinley took into consideration in proposing his indefinite topic ban. If he would at least have offered Cptnono the opportunity to explain this incident, he'd be in a better position to evaluate whether or not the interaction ban was breached. But he's proposing to indefinitely topic ban Cptnono because he commented after you, apprently regardless of the content of his comment. That just makes no sense at all.—Biosketch (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Nableezy, I appreciate that you're consistent with respect to WGFinley's conduct here. Still, when I said I don't know to whom Cptnono was addressing his remarks, that was an honest observation. If pressed to give an answer, I'd have to say he was talking to no one in particular. People do that when they're frustrated, or when they've been imbibing, and it's not out of the question that Cptnono was one of those two things at the time and making a comment to the audience generally. The point is, it should be Cptnono's privilege to reply here and speak his peace before conclusions are drawn.—Biosketch (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'd just like to point out that Cptnono said in his comment above my section here, "You guys can call it as you want." Who was he talking to? Was he addressing the remark to anyone in particular? No – it was a comment directed at all of us generally. By the same token, his remark at Talk:Arab citizens of Israel was also meant as a general observation directed at no one in particular.—Biosketch (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] WGFinley, under the circumstances, your close proposal seems the most sensible suggestion.—Biosketch (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment by MichaelNetzer Just like the previous complaint that wasn't considered a violation of the interaction ban, this one cannot be either. Cptnono didn't direct his words at Nableezy or anyone specific. He had already commented earlier and wanted to add an afterthought. The placement is unfortunate but doesn't suggest an interaction. Nableezy was also advised, btw, about excessive appearances here, which evidently hasn't been heeded. Cptnono should be heard before suggestions for such a severe sanction are made. --MichaelNetzer (talk) @WGF, AGK and other administrators considering this request: In light of Cptnono's explanation, it seems that, at least technically, Nableezy did initiate the interaction by replying under a level heading that Cptono started, thus giving rise to Cptnono's concern for a violation of iBan by Nableezy. Though Nableezy made no specific reference to Cptnono, the technical condition remains for the concern. As he states, Cptnono did not rush to file a complaint against Nableezy. This demonstrates a preferred discretion by all WP guidelines concerning complaints brought before AE admins. Cptnono instead replied in the same level thread that he himself started and made a comment about it, directed to the winds and not to anyone specific, especially not to Nableezy. The same technical condition that Nableezy violated is also prevalent in Cptnono's remark, being in the same level thread he started, under Nableezy's comment. Nableezy then rushed to file this complaint, showing none of the preferred discretionary behavior that Cptnono displayed, and disregarding previous advice given him about excessive appearances at AE. Administrators rushed to condemn Cptnono's technical violation before Cptnono even explained his action. It now appears that Nableezy clearly violated a similar technical placement of his comments under the level heading that Cptnono started. Revealing Nableezy's discretionary behavior as considerably more objectionable in that he is the one who rushed to file a complaint against Cptnono, while the latter showed more restraint and consideration. In light of Cptono's explanation, it would seem this complaint more represents a WP:Boomerang due to Nableezy's disregard for advice about excessive complaints, and rushing to file one against an editor who showed restraint, even though they both violated the same technicality of comment placement. Whatever sanctions are meted out against Cptnono, should be meted out in greater measure against Nableezy, based on his level of violations and disregard for advice given repeatedly in AE decisions. Even if one can say that Cptnono was also given advice to stay away from Nableezy, then we have a more equal balance of violations between the two editors, necessitating the same sanction be applied to both. Concerns voiced here repeatedly about the forgiving attitude of AE admins towards Nableezy, by many editors in the I-P space, reveal a severe leniency towards him that is not afforded to editors he complains about or who complain about him. Though this may not have been WGF and AGK's intent, in light of Cptnono's explanation, it seems necessary to either consider dismissing this complaint or alternately at least meting out equal sanctions against both editors, if not an even stricter one against Nableezy. Continued special favor for Nableezy and the hard hand applied to editors he complains about or complain about him, based on what at least one administrator voiced as favoring him because he is an effective spokesman for a cause, while offering no such lenience to effective spokesmen for a cause from the other side, will become a source of growing agitation in the I-P and AE spaces. Please take these facts into consideration and at least show you are considering the appearance of severe bias in these cases. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] @Nableezy: Boggles the mind? What boggles the mind is that your previous complaint against Cptnono relies on the same distance between your edits and Cptnono's as the distance between your comment and his level heading in the same comment thread in this complaint. Yet you are the one rushing to file complaints when Cptnono was far more considerate and forgiving about it. Your refusal to become more collaborative by rushing to demand sanctions against editors you are in conflict with, while attempting to blur the facts with convoluted reasoning, is what truly boggles the mind around here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] @Nableezy: As someone who must endure your distorted accusations and intimidating tone in the I-P space, and has bent over backwards to persuade you to become more collaborative instead of rushing to file complaints against editors here - if you have a complaint against my participation in these discussions ("try not distorting the events at every discussion that has nothing to do with you."), then either file a complaint about me and substantiate what you accuse me of, or please desist from making baseless inflammatory comments about me. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] @WGFinley: Please. Cptnono qualified his statement by specifying what he meant by "response to his comment": "Nableezy made a response to my comment. He inserted a comment under a level heading I made." The diffs, [4] and [5] appear under Cptnono's vote (please see the fifth vote down in the survey for the thread.) Cptnono's vote itself is not considered a violation of the ban, but it did develop into a thread that Nableezy participated in with comments (not voting) first, before Cptnono's response. Granted, Nableezy might not have paid enough attention that he was commenting in a discussion about Cptnono's vote. This gave rise to Cptnono's concern for an iBan violation by Nableezy, that he commented on in the diff Nableezy used as the basis for this complaint. Granted, that neither one of the two directed remarks towards the other or interacted with each other. And granted that both of them suffer the same technicality of being within the same thread. And also granted that Cptnono's comment is directly under Nableezy's, it is still true that he did not direct his comment to Nableezy and this was his own voting thread that Nableezy first participated in. Cptnono did not participate in any other discussions there that would infer a violation of the iBan with Nableezy. I do not personally see a violation of the ban in either case, but there is a shadow of suspicion that Nableezy first violated it by not paying attention that he was commenting on Cptnono's vote. This is a similar incident that Nableezy brought previously against Cptnono, where he was warned to be more careful. At best, Nableezy must now be also warned to be more careful and the complaint dismissed, as in the previous complaint. However, in light of both parties ostensibly being suspected of a violation, Cptnono DID NOT rush to file a complaint. The editor who rushed to file a complaint is Nableezy, who can himself be construed to have violated the ban in the same way Cptnono could. And Nableezy adds salt to a wound he inflicts himself by claiming that Cptnono directed his statements to him, when they were clearly directed to the winds in a sort of forgiving frustration at Nableezy's participation in a thread about his own vote. If Cptnono's comment is to considered a violation of the iBan, then Nableezy's must be also seen as such. Even more so because it was Cptnono's voting thread in which the comments were made. The violation which results in a severe behavior that disturbs the balance of their actions is that Nableezy is the one who rushed to file the complaint while Cptnono was more considerate and forgiving. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment by BorisG Well, I don't know if Cptnono's conduct amounts to a breach of IBan, but an indef is so preposterous that even filing party thinks it is too harsh. I would advice Cptnono to stay miles away from discussions where Nableezy is involved. - BorisG (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment by Nishidani Almost certainly a breach, but I concur with Boris that an indef. is way too strong. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment by The Devil's Advocate I expressed my concerns in the previous request regarding Cptnono that his explanation for why he was not following Nableezy's edits did not seem satisfactory. Here I noticed something similarly suspicious about his actions. He dated the offending comment provided above, but did not sign it. I cannot think of how that could be done accidentally. Seems more like Cptnono did not want people to realize it was his comment. Any claim that he was not referring to Nableezy seems to be a stretch as well. Nableezy was commenting on a threaded discussion started from Cptnono's vote, however Nableezy is clearly responding to another editor. What it does indicate is that Cptnono's comment about "what can only be considered violations of interaction bans" was a reference to these comments by Nableezy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] As far as sanctions, might I make a suggestion? Seems Cptnono has only ever been blocked for three days. Perhaps a longer block with a topic-ban for several months would be appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Ill reply here on the technical point. I am quite certain that the innocent explanation for the timestamp but no sig is the correct one. Depending on the number of tildes you input, you may get just the username (3 tildes), the username and timestamp (4 tildes), or just the timestamp (5 tildes). nableezy - 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps, but it does seem a tad too convenient to me that he would make such a mistake at the exact time when a comment being attributed to him would be a problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] DA, your view is consistent with your interest in conspiracy theories. Sorry for friendly trolling. - BorisG (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Actually, I just think Cptnono was probably not being completely honest about his actions in the previous case (he made a few erroneous statements about why he was editing certain articles Nableezy was editing) and that makes me question whether this was a "mistake" or a deliberate omission.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] @WG Cptnono has never received a topic ban at all. Going for an indef is not even something Nableezy has expressed support for so it seems that something shorter would be better. A long-term extension to the interaction ban would certainly seem to be necessary (I do not think it is a coincidence that these incidents have popped up in the last month of the interaction ban), a months-long topic ban, and possibly a block for a week or two. I agree that the editor is clearly in need of a firmer response, but that does not mean you have to go for the jugular right out of the gates.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I would suggest that if you go through with an indefinite topic ban that you also impose a longer-term interaction ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I looked through two years of Cptnono's edit history and once more found no indication whatsoever that he contributed to the article in this case until after Nableezy contributed to it. This is just like the previous case where Cptnono gave an erroneous justification for his sudden appearance at articles Nableezy had recently edited.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] @WG I understand your distaste for more ambiguous accusations of interaction ban violations, but there are many cases where an action is blatant and interaction bans serve a useful purpose in avoiding the punitive impression other sanctions tend to create as it does not stop anyone from editing the topic altogether. Those ambiguous cases seem to focus on whether one user is attempting to bait the other editor into violating an interaction ban without technically violating it as well. Nableezy's edit does not appear to be a technical violation, but I also think there was no intent to violate its spirit. Cptnono does not exactly have a distinctive signature and there were several comments by other editors between Cptnono's vote and Nableezy's response to Kauffner. It seems probable that Nableezy did not even notice. Even if he had, the comment does not appear to be in any way directed at or commenting on Cptnono. The comment could have easily been responding to a stand-alone statement by Kauffner without any change to Kauffner's comment or Nableezy's. Placement is the only issue there and I do not think that alone is a basis for claiming a violation. Once more I also think it is disconcerting that Cptnono was yet again only showing up at an article after Nableezy made a recent edit there. If he is following Nableezy to these articles and making edits in opposition to him then that is not nearly as ambiguous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment by Malik Shabazz I agree with others that an indefinite topic ban is too harsh in this instance. Perhaps a year-long ban with an opportunity to appeal in six months? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Plot Spoiler Indefinite ban... year ban...? Anything even more than a month seems pretty ridiculous for a weak violation of an interaction ban. This isn't a more pressing content or civility issue. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] AgadaUrbanit So we're talking about possible WP:IBAN violation between two editors. There is a Talk:Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Requested_move:_Arab_citizens_of_Israel_.E2.86.92_Israeli_Arabs initiated by 3d party. Both editors commented, casting !votes, presenting opposing views. So far so good. Not ideal though, considering their iban. Then editor X finds him/herself commenting within !vote comment of editor Y with whom she/he has an interaction ban, see γ and δ. Is X commenting on the Y !vote above? Do γ&δ constitute comments of editor X on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] To keep this readable I'll comment here if you don't mind, I think it's a great question. I think it points out one of the shortcomings of interaction bans. I can see both sides of the argument on this one. They're just voting so it shouldn't matter, right? But what if Y came to vote just because X did? How can you prove that? That's where interaction bans make little sense and are downright silly, a possible causality dilemma or, more precisely, a case of correlation does not imply causation. I'm not a fan of them but they've been accepted here as a means of dispute resolution--WGFinley (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] In arvo quaerere verum: The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Would X and Y agree with removal of their mutual iban? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] @ Closing admin: at this stage I'd say tban them both. Say what? We tried iban, it did not work out as expected. This appears to be a personal conflict and it should stop. Both editors were provided second chances and now they could try to contribute more constructively in other topics of Wikipedia. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment by Gatoclass It seems Cptnono concluded that since Nableezy had commented in a thread Cptnono started, then Nableezy was violating the spirit if not the letter of their mutual IBAN, which justified Cptnono in making a response. I don't believe Nableezy's comments constituted any sort of breach, and I don't think Cptnono's reasoning was sound in that regard, but in the circumstances I suppose Cptnono might be extended a degree of AGF. Cptnono is undisciplined and at times somewhat abrasive but in my admittedly limited experience, he has appeared to be at least capable of editing collaboratively in the topic area, which is more than I can say for a number of other contributors there. I am therefore inclined to agree with those above who have argued that an indefinite topic ban would be somewhat undue at this point. I would suggest an extension of the IBAN with Nableezy for another six months, assuming Nableezy assents, together perhaps with a topic ban of short duration. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment by Timotheus Canens I'm putting myself here instead of below because I think that with respect to Cptnono in particular, my impartiality might reasonably be questioned due to his personal criticism of me at several previous occasions. I may revisit this conclusion if we have a serious shortage of AE admins, but it does not look like we have one at the moment. I have been one of the earlier proponents of those indef bans with periodic appeals, but that idea did not seem to have gained much traction at that time. (I should point out that the subject of my first indef-with-appeals ban, which had been reduced to 3 months on appeal, was subsequently topic banned for another year after that 3-month ban expired.) As I perceive it, Cptnono has exhausted the patience of several AE admins (that certainly includes mine), so an indef topic ban is not unreasonable. However, I do get the feeling that it might have been a little on the extreme side. I'm frankly not sure what should be done here. In light of the expiration of the interaction ban, though, I suggest that it might not be a bad idea to simply take the easy way out and close this as withdrawn. T. Canens (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Cptnono This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Pretty blatant to me, Cptnono's comment is immediately under Nableezy's. I think it's time for an indefinite TBAN for Cptnono, who was just chided not to do this. Normally I would act on this right away but since I'm proposing indefinite I will let others chime in. --WGFinley (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] My suggestion for indefinite is based on facts. This is the 2nd interaction ban that Cptnono has had with Nableezy, the first one was lifted and then put back into place 6 months later. We have a fresh AE report that's not even a couple weeks old with clear instruction to avoid areas where Nableezy is editing and not even days after getting that warning Cptnono goes right back and does exactly that. The time consumed on AE and the disruptions caused in this article space are of detriment to the project and I think it is time to start giving long term TBANs for those who have previously been sanctioned multiple times. --WGFinley (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I support the topic ban being indefinite, not long-term. We cannot afford to infinitely tolerate problematic users. It was suggested above that we levy a one-year topic ban with no option to appeal before six months; I dislike such a configuration, first because, before anything, we must allow the user to appeal the ban immediately after it begins - in case we were mistaken (which can always happen) or overlooked important information (which is also possible). Moreover, I dislike the idea that we give long-term problematic contributors a "harsh sentence" then allow them to return; the aim is to protect the integrity of our articles. For that reason, I prefer that the subject be permanently excluded from the topic in question, and allowed to return only when they have demonstrated an ability to contribute constructively. With that thinking, an indefinite (not year-long or otherwise long-term) ban is the only solution. I regret that it comes to this, but Cptnono is clearly incapable of learning our lesson. AGK [•] 23:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I agree, there's a fundamental misunderstanding that indefinite means infinite, it doesn't. That's exactly where I'm coming from, no term with the person able to appeal at a later unspecified date. --WGFinley (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Support indefinite topic ban per AGK (as in, 'a ban or no definite duration', rather than 'a long-term restriction'). This can be removed when Cptnono shows the ability to be a constructive and collaborative contributer elsewhere in the 'pedia. When they relearn the tools of collegial editing then this can be reconsidered--Cailil talk 17:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Re: Cptnono Response Cptnono didn't provide any diffs regarding Nableezy "making a response" to him, I've asked him for some diffs on his talk page as I'm not seeing that in the article history at all. Nableezy has a few edits to the page going back more than a year and Cptnono only made two edits[6][7], both were after Nableezy voted and commented. --WGFinley (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I've reviewed this and I understand the points being made now. I think this is a great illustration of the silliness of interaction bans and how they just don't work. Nableezy voted, with a comment, then Cptnono voted, with a comment, then a lot of discussion started with Nableezy making multiple comments on discussion under Cptnono's vote. As far as the conversations here, they are pretty much emblematic of the problems in this topic space and AE. I really wish people could tone it down. Now as for what to do with this mess: technically Nableezy was there first but as I said before I don't think that should matter if there is no direct interaction. Technically Nableezy commented on Cptnono's vote but it wasn't directed at Cptnono's comment just under it. However, were I Cptnono I could construe a comment on my vote as interacting. But still Cptnono pretty much directly took it on with the diff Nableezy originally reported. I'm of a mind to lift the interaction ban as unenforceable, with warnings to both further disruption will lead to TBANs, really only way I can see making any sense of this. --WGFinley (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] @Nableezy Your comment is in discussion under his vote how can you possibly deny that? Thus if someone speaks up in support or opposition to his vote and then you speak up against that you are, vicariously, speaking in support or opposing his vote. But for the fact Cptnono made his vote and comment there's no discussion there for you to comment on, therefore you clearly commented on his vote. Also, if there's a consensus here at AE to remove the interaction ban, especially since it was AGK who made the ban, it can be removed. I also recall you were requested to tone down your rhetoric on this page, that clearly hasn't happened. --WGFinley (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] @Nableezy "What pray tell has been the issue with my rhetoric on this page?" - you do it in the same sentence you ask what you're doing wrong! Also, I've never indicated I was taking immediate individual action here, in fact my very first comment was saying I wanted other input, don't know how you're making the leap to me unilaterally removing AGK's IBAN, I suggested it and that was all. --WGFinley (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Move For Close This interaction ban expires in a few days, I don't see the need of going through a process to lift it. TBAN, after looking at all the extenuating circumstances, doesn't seem appropriate here for either side, clearly there is honest disagreement as to who interacted first and I think both sides have a valid argument that the other started it. Thus I'm disinclined to extend it as Gatoclass presented. I think Gato's suggestion has merit and seeks to find middle ground but, after a couple of weeks of calls needing to be made on murky actions regarding what is an IBAN violation I can't see extending something that is inadequate. So I would suggest closing this with no action other than a plea to both parties to cool it as in the next few days we will see if previous sanctions have done any good or if TBANs are next up for consideration. --WGFinley (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Disagree. Given the repeated violation (by many parties) of restrictions I see no reason to give anyone a free pass here. Indefinite topic bans should not be seen as a nuclear option - and Cptnono should not be an exception. A number of the recurring problems in articles covered by these rulings can and should be resolved by AE restricting the behaviour of accounts until they learn to collaborate. Using increasing blocks or short term bans does not help accounts who have a history of serial violation learn to edit constructively. Therefore if indeed certain accounts (with a history of restriction violation etc) are "good editors but for one poisonous interaction, or a hot-button mindset, in one toic area" let them show us by editting well elsewhere. Given the series of report from this area in the last few days this is the ony way forward I can see--Cailil talk 17:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Nableezy has asked this case be considered withdrawn, I will do so but this case should serve as a warning to Cptnono to avoid pushing the envelope, it's pretty clear any future disruption is going to result in a long term TBAN given his history. --WGFinley (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jiujitsuguy 02:32, 25 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, restriction on adding word "Palestinian" to any article, GAMING and tendentious editing

Nableezy is restricted from adding the word Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January.

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

• December 22, 2011 Adds word "Palestinian" to Jewish population by cities and city areas
• December 23, 2011 Adds word "Palestinian" to Palestinian Arabic
• December 21, 2011 Adds the word "Palestine" to Ecce Homo (church)
• December 30, 2011 Adds the word "Palestinian" in to Rachel's Tomb
• The Category: Resistance movements is added to one article about a pro-Israel organization, and Nableezy reverts,[8] demands sourcing on the talk page,[9] and when a list of sources are presented he demands specificity. [10]

Yet, around the same time, Nableezy adds the very same category to ten articles in the span of less than five minutes.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] All of these are anti-Israel organizations and most of them considered terrorist organizations by the West. It is impossible to find the sources and the articles in that span of time. It is clear that Nableezy is not interested in even checking for sources for his edits when it suits his POV. This type of behavior represents tendentious editing in the extreme.

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

• Nableezy is restricted from adding the word Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January. The restriction even applies to vandalism[21]
• List of Blocks[22]
• Log of Bans[23]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nableezy is an experienced editor who is well versed with the rules and no stranger to these boards. He knew that he was restricted from adding the word “Palestinian” into articles per the last and rather mild AE sanction (tailor made just for him). He also knows that his page is closely watched by his followers. So he cleverly makes an edit that contravenes the ban and self-reverts with an edit summary self-rv, somebody else revert this tho. That edit summary is akin to a call to arms or the sounding of the trumpets. In fact, someone heeded his call[24] and Nableezy thus accomplished his objective. He performs this game three times. The aim is quite simple; to get his version in without technically violating the restriction. The first time he did it, one can perhaps AGF and credit it to a one-time lapse. The problem is that the edit summary on the self-revert demonstrates that Nableezy is very calculating and knows precisely what he’s doing. The second problem is that he did it three times thus evidencing clear knowledge that he is under a restriction, hence the need for a quick self-revert. Thus, the multiple self-reverts on multiple occasions were merely a means to an end. The edits were purposeful with intent to circumvent the restriction and a rather brazen attempt at that.

Nableezy’s explanation of "forgetfulness" and "absent mindedness" rings hollow and is remarkably insulting to the intelligence of the community. He expects us to believe that on December 21 he had a bout with "absent-mindedness" and this "absent-mindedness" repeated itself on December 22 and yet again on December 23. Moreover, the restriction was imposed on Nableezy barely a week prior, not six months nor even three months prior but one week prior! Gentlemen, please further bear in mind we are not talking about a novice here but a rather sophisticated and experienced account.

So while Nableezy is under the microscope and his edits are being watched by friend and foe alike, one would think that he would be a bit more circumspect. But in an incredible display of supreme arrogance, he violates the sanction yet again with this edit and then quickly reverts with "dammit forgot again" There are three possible explanations for Nableezy’s inexplicable behavior. First, it represents a contemptuous display of defiance as if Nableezy is trying to tell us, "I am Nableezy and I can do whatever the hell I want, whenever I want to do it." Second, it represents sort of a desperate "Hail Mary" defense, as if he’s trying to tell us "you see? I’m so absent-minded that I even inserted the word when I was under the microscope; Silly me." The third and most remote possibility is that Nableezy suffers from acute memory lapses when it suits him. If anyone believes that latter possibility, I have exclusive rights to sell you the Golden Gate Bridge and the Taj Mahal and no CODs please.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

The edits and self-reverts were not, and are not evidence of, an attempt to evade the restriction. To begin with, one of the edits adds the word Palestine, not Palestinian, and it was out of concern that certain less than honest editors, among them the filing editor, would attempt to wikilawyer that into a violation that I self-reverted. The others are simply a result of absent-mindedness, not malice. This isnt a typical ban, I have to think about whether a word is added, not whether a subject is touched or an article is added, and at times I may forget. But as soon as I remember that I have such a restriction I self-revert. I am not prohibited from raising that the edit I initially reverted should be reverted on the talk page, so I make an equivalent note in an edit summary instead. If that is a problem then I will refrain from doing so. But the actual edits are simply from forgetting about the restriction. The self-reverts from remembering it. As far as the second paragraph of JJG "report", that has been discussed at length at Talk:Irgun.

At the risk of saying what should be left unsaid, I feel compelled to say this. Jiujitsuguy is among the very worst editors I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with. It has been established, several times, that he lies about sources to push a fringe political POV. Edits such as this should be themselves result in bans. Edits such as this should by themselves result in bans. Take a look at his act at here and at Talk:Katzrin where he attempts to place what is provable false material in an encyclopedia article. That alone should result in a ban. JJG has, since literally day 1 of editing here, been a serial violator of nearly every single content and conduct policy, from WP:V and WP:NPOV to WP:MEAT and more. He has been interested in one thing here, using Wikipedia as a propaganda instrument. You let him get away with lying about sources the last time. Exactly what is necessary to rid this most disruptive and bad-faithed "editors" from this supposed "encyclopedia"? nableezy - 22:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nish, no, I wouldnt try to make such an argument. I just had a momentarily loss of short-term memory. Something that is known to happen with people of my ilk. Had I recalled the restriction I would have just made an edit on the respective talk page, like I did here. I am not trying to avoid the restriction, hell I voluntarily agreed to it. nableezy - 23:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the concern with the edit-summaries, if it is a problem Ill ensure that any future self-reverts only say self-rv. It is just easier than opening a talk page section about the issue. If the restriction said that I could not even discuss such changes on talk pages then I could see the edit-summaries as an actual problem, but I am allowed to discuss the issues. It isnt as if I am going around asking editors to make certain reverts, I really dont see the difference between having the edit summary and having no edit summary and opening a talk page section. But the initial edits were due to forgetfulness, nothing else. I mean really, do yall actually think Im that stupid? That if I wanted to surreptitiously evade the ban by asking others to revert edits, I couldnt come up with a more clever way of doing it? I dont mean to sound arrogant, but really, come on. nableezy - 06:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, you dont understand my point. The slip up was the initial edit, and that led to the self-reversion. I am actually allowed to ask that people make the needed edit, I can do so on the talk page, just as I did at [Talk:Bethlehem. I made a comment in an edit summary instead of a talk page. I dont think that makes much of a difference. If told otherwise by an admin Ill just make the note on the talk page instead. But I can ask that others make the edit. There is no effective difference in writing it in the edit summary or in the talk page. The only ways that somebody would see it would be either checking my contributions or having the article in the watchlist. Either way that person would see that I say the edit should be made. It isnt as if I went to a favored user's page and asked that they make the necessary edit, as evidenced by the fact that my edit at Jewish population by cities and city areas had not been restored until JJG himself brought it to wider attention here. I am not claiming that my edit summaries were a lapse of any kind, I dont think there is anything wrong with them to begin with. The momentary lapse was making the edit in the first place, necessitating the self-revert. Had I simply remembered the sanction I would have done what I did at Bethlehem, request the edit be made on the talk page. I dont know where you get the idea that I am asking someone (specifically a person) to make an edit I am restricted from making, or, generally that I am restricted from asking editors in general to make an edit that I am restricted from making. You are incorrect on both counts. I wrote to any passing person that an edit should be made. I did not request that any one editor, or even a particular subset of editors, make an edit. So no, I was not asking someone to do anything. And yes, I am allowed to request edits that I am restricted from making be made. My ban does not include commenting on the subject, it is specific to adding a word to an article. I mistakenly did that a few times, and self-corrected each within a matter of minutes. I am not surprised, well a little bit considering the pettiness of it, that it has drawn attention, though I am surprised that anybody who is not a committed partisan (and honestly I would expect some of them to be shaking their heads at this) could see this as anything at all. I made a mistake and corrected it immediately. If my choice of venue for requesting the edit be reverted was wrong I will not do so again in the future and simply request the edit be reverted on the talk page instead. I am not however going to not request such edits be reverted. Look I just did it again, and again. I am allowed to discuss the issues and allowed to request that an edit be reverted. I am only restricted from actually performing the edit. I made a few mistakes in doing so, and corrected them as soon as I realized, without even being prompted to do so. I dont think this will even be an issue in the future, as I think I have been sufficiently reminded of the zeal of certain users in being able to, well, I leave that unsaid. nableezy - 07:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, that is a gross distortion of the events. What I advised you to do was not to self-revert an edit so that you could then revert a different edit. That does not resemble this in any way. And, if I am not mistaken, once you self-reverted that ended the dispute, and I thanked you for doing so. nableezy - 17:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, JJG, I expect people to believe me when I say that I simply forgot about the restriction as I made those reverts, and as soon as I remembered them I self-reverted. As I, unlike you, do not have an established history of lying here I think it is fair that I expect people to believe me when I say something. And to be clear, youre belief that I did this three times is demonstrably false. I made one edit that added the word Palestine, and self-reverted out of what may be over-cautiousness with regard to respecting the sanction. I made two edits that added the word Palestinian and self-reverted within minutes. You can continue distorting the events, and you may even get a less than careful admin who is not aware of your extensive history of willful distortions to believe you, but your claims remain false. nableezy - 20:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris and TDA, I object to the equivalence you are giving between JJG's report and the one I filed against him. JJG lied about sources. That is among the most serious offenses an editor can commit. You cannot seriously compare that to bringing a couple of quickly self-reverted edits here, in either substance or pettiness. You cannot seriously be claiming that my reporting an editor who repeatedly lied about sources is at all comparable to this. Boris, as far as your thoughts on how I would react to an "opposing editor" who self-reverted soon after an initial violation, I wouldnt raise it. In fact, I tell people they can self-revert an edit to avoid being brought here. In fact, even with an editor who repeatedly lies about sources, I give him the opportunity to self-revert rather than be reported. So, if I were asked about an "opposing editor" giving the same explanation, who had self-reverted both violations within minutes, I would accept it. nableezy - 02:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, I honestly do not understand how you can come to the conclusions that you do. You are inventing arguments and attributing them to me. I am not saying that I was just discussing the issue, I freely admit, and have done so several times above, that I was plainly call[ing] for other people to perform the action [I was] prohibited from taking. I already told you that. I can say an edit should be reverted. The sole issue here is that I did it in an edit summary and not the talk page. If that is a problem I apologize, I didnt think it could possibly be an issue. As far as bringing up the past incident, the relevance is that I raise that as evidence of JJG's general tendentiousness, which I think making this report is an indication of. He reported me for several edits that I self-reverted within minutes. This after he spent the last week trying to push into an encyclopedia article demonstrably false statements (see the RS/N and Katzrin talk page), and that after he had just gotten off by the skin of his knuckles here at that AE for repeatedly lying about sources. In my view, all of these things combine to show that the user's purpose remains what it has been since the day he got here, and this report itself is just a continuation of that. nableezy - 05:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I am saying you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with me doing this, nothing at all. And again, I am not telling someone, that implies I am asking an individual to do something. No, I am making a note that an edit should be reverted, and not alerting any specific editors over anything. As far as what the restriction was imposed to prevent, I doubt it was this type of nonsense. nableezy - 06:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, you can think whatever you like, but my restriction is specific to adding a word to articles. It does not say that I cannot ask others to add that word to articles. I am not "topic banned", I am "article banned", there is a difference. But since you are not an uninvolved admin, I cant say that I think it is a productive use of my time to explain this to you any further. Ill wait for comments from uninvolved admins before responding further. nableezy - 15:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I struggle to imagine that anything you have done in the topic area has been in good faith, but that is besides the point. You and a group of editors have been attempting to have me banned on the most trifling of charges, while you excuse editors lying about sources, making asinine accusations of antisemitism, or edit-war against consensus. There has not been any leniency for me, and this idea is horseshit. There havent been the sanctions handed out to me that you wish there were because they arent, despite the distortions of this group of editors, justified. You think I bring every little issue to AE? I waited days, and repeatedly asked the user in question to retract the accusation, prior to bringing the accusation of supporting genocide here. With Shuki I gave him repeated opportunities to self-revert instead of being reported, and when he did the matter ended. I have not brought JJG here despite his bad faith attempt at inserting what he knows to be false material into an article (Katzrin being the largest town in the Golan), though I could have. With you, I waited until you three times (!) reverted an edit that has consensus before bringing the issue here. I ignore a ton of crap that gets thrown my way, it is the egregious things that make its way here (with a couple of exceptions, exceptions based on long histories with particular users). You can pretend that I am the one abusing AE and violating WP policy, but anybody who actually goes through your contributions both here and within the topic area, starting with the ridiculous discussion at Alon Shvut, will quickly see that your words are better directed inward. This case remains about 1 edit that added Palestine, not Palestinian, that was quickly self-reverted and 2 edits that added Palestinian that were quickly self-reverted. Your distortion of the record is duly noted, however it does not change the facts here. nableezy - 22:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, if that is your judgment, I respect it. I am being honest though, I really did forget each time. But I do ask that you choose to make it a month topic ban instead of a block, there is some work I would like to put in elsewhere. nableezy - 23:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But as far as the level of rhetoric, I think I have been rather restrained. But I dont know how you honestly expect me to react to some of these things. nableezy - 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt suggesting that it should be anything. I was asking that you consider making it a ban instead. I still think this should be closed with no action. I made two mistakes, due to forgetting a not exactly common type of sanction, and corrected those mistakes within minutes, unprompted. I dont think that merits any sanction at all. But if given the choice, Id rather take the block. nableezy - 02:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Id like to respond to WGF, but I cant separate his decisions in the past JJG case where he refused to allow an editor be sanctioned for repeated lying about sources, an action based on a belief that was rebuked by ArbCom, his decision to close the complaint against MichaelNetzer below, and his past attempt to impose a sanction on me based on his indignation at my daring to question his incompetent closing of another case with this newest recommendation for an extended ban. Yes, I know, there is that tone again. nableezy - 02:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but this is absurd. WGF, please explain It was ignored in favor of edit warring. And that four month topic ban was replaced with a revert restriction, a restriction I never violated. Where did I edit-war? Ed, he quickly resumed adding the word 'Palestinian' to articles is a severe overstatement. I had two lapses, quickly corrected. WGFinley has repeatedly advocated for harsh sanctions on the basis of incomprehensible statements. You cant seriously say that 2 quickly self-reverted edits merits a long term ban. I forgot the restriction, and as soon as I hit save page remembered and self-reverted. How is this different than this, which didnt even have a self-rv? In an earlier case, mentioned repeatedly here, WGF excused a user who, despite a previous year ban for misrepresenting sources, misrepresented a source and removing consensus material because he self-reverted one of the edits after being reported. But here he argues that I should be indefinite ban for two edits of a truly trivial nature that were quickly self-reverted? You are allowing the chorus of disgruntled editors who wish to make a mockery of the content policies in the topic area, who insert propaganda and outright lies into articles at every turn, to, by sheer volume, make a quickly corrected error be a cause for a ban. Comparing the Netzer case below and the JJG case in the archive is a stark reminder of just how fucked up this place is. Lying about sources is excused. Adding the word Palestinian and quickly self-reverting, now that needs a firm response. nableezy - 04:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGF, I have asked that you substantiate your claim that the agreement I made with Ed was ignored in favor of edit warring. You neglect to do so. You are here, once again, advocating harsh sanctions on the basis of incomprehensible claims that do not stand up to any scrutiny. Youre claim that you have no aniums to me is plainly false, so much so that even the briefest looks at our past interactions, such as here, shows that. But I dont even care, that isnt the problem. The problem is that you make unsupported assertions, bizarre judgments, and refuse to back them up. So answer the question please. How exactly was the agreement ignored in favor of edit warring? nableezy - 06:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt surprising that WGF makes false claims with no evidence, his carelessness has been extensively discussed in the past, but the claims that I disrupt what is supposed to be an atmosphere of collaboration and that the agreement between Ed and myself was ignored in favor of edit warring are completely spurious and in my opinion further demonstrate that WGF lacks the competence to be administering any part of an "encyclopedia". His actions in this and several other threads (JJG, where he ignored repeated lying about sources and refused to allow him to be sanctioned; Cptnono, where he argued that my raising an interaction ban was something that should result in my being indef banned; Netzer, where he refuses to allow other admins to comment, closing a request on edit-warring against consensus by himself, despite his judgement to have been shown to be ill-formed in the past) demonstrate either gross incompetence or incredible partisanship. I have said he should not be involved as an admin both in cases against myself and in ones that I brought, even if he, momentarily at least, wanted to action a complaint I brought. I repeat that feeling now. I do not think WGFinly competent to be commenting here, his repeated and overzealous attempts to have me banned on the most spurrious of charges and his repeated excusing of such behavior as lying about sources should disqualify him. But if he is allowed to continue pretending that he is qualified to be commenting in that section, then he has to justify his comments. Again, WGF, justify the comment that the agreement was ignored in favor of edit warring. nableezy - 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to abide? Really? I made two edits, both due to lapses in memory, and quickly corrected them. How is that a "failure to abide"? How is this possibly being played up into a ban-worthy offense? I mean seriously? Yall ignore a user lying about sources, but my adding Palestinian, and then quickly, upon remembering the sanction, removing it, that should result in a ban? Unreal. nableezy - 15:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as the idea that I am using this page as a battleground, I call BS. Instead of trying to "battle" with editors in article space I bring issues here. That is what I thought was supposed to happen. You are arguing that I should be banned because I raise the misbehavior of others? Why? nableezy - 15:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I know, and honestly I dont care. The decision appears to have already been made, so I dont know why I should hold back. This is bullshit, from start to finish. I am brought here for having made 2 mistakes that were quickly self-reverted by myself with no editor asking that I do so. JJG was brought after refusing to self-revert, lying about sources, and WGF argued then that because he self-reverted 1 of the edits (incompetently ignoring the other edits) he should not be banned. He wrote then I don't see the particular offense here to merit AE. He put something in, the point was made to him he wasn't being accurate and after 30 minutes of reflection on it he self-reverted. That's the exact thing I would expect. He later tried to close the case on the basis of that self-revert, despite another admin recognizing the seriousness of the misconduct. After making those comments at that case, how exactly can I read his claim here that my self-reverted edits, self-reverted without "30 minutes of reflection" or anybody asking me to, should result in an indef ban? The only answers are either incompetence or partisanship. If my saying that makes me difficult to work with then fine. WGF being an incompetent tool, an incompetence further demonstrated by his bizarre and unsupported comment about me ignoring the sanction and edit-warring instead, makes it difficult for me to work here as well, but that complaint seems to fall on deaf ears. nableezy - 16:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are, hopefully, my final thoughts on this. I honestly cannot believe that this incredibly petty "violation" is being trumped up into a ban worthy offense. I forgot about a restriction and quickly self-reverted. You dont believe me? Fine, lets say I did this on purpose. Are those two edits actually worthy of a ban? Really? When the filing editor just got away with lying about sources? When a below case involving repeated edit-warring against consensus results in no action? Really? Ed, I trust your judgment, and it was only out of respect for you that I even agreed to the restriction. But you are allowing a clique of editors to distort the events of what happened into something sinister and, by sheer volume of their complaining, to remove one of the few roadblocks between them and their wet dream of making the topic area an arm of the Israeli MFA. This is truly unbelievable, as in I have trouble believing even a place as messed up as Wikipedia can make those two decisions. If you are going to ban me then get to the point already. But realize what you are doing. You are rewarding one of the worst users in the topic area, a serial liar who has repeatedly distorted sources, who has repeatedly put propaganda into articles (including this recently). And you are doing so on the most petty of violations. Its your call obviously, and by banning me you may well see a more collegial editing environment. But what you wont see are better articles. What you will see is people like JJG being able to continue using WP as a propaganda instrument unchecked, to continue lying about sources unchecked. I can see why WGF wants this, but I for the life of me cannot figure out how you are falling for it. I think it is due to some misplaced sense of respect for your fellow admins, regardless of their competence. But I wont speculate further. I am brought here for violating a restriction and then quickly self-reverting. If that violation merits a ban then fine. Do what you feel is required. But know what you are doing and why. nableezy - 16:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJG, if it were supreme arrogance I would not have immediately informed one of the admins that has recommended a long term ban that I had again forgotten. Believe it or not, but noticing a single addition of a word in a decent sized edit is not easy to do. nableezy - 00:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction that Nableezy accepted on adding 'Palestinian' is not like 1RR and 3RR where a self-revert remedies a violation. No such stipulation of self-revert was made by EdJohnston nor accepted by Nableezy. The self-revert cannot thus be said to remedy the violation. It's enough that he does it 3 times to constitute a violation that shows little respect for the sanction, and even more contempt for it by self-reverting and then calling for other editors to revert again. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This case is a symptom of a larger malady. Nableezy is not alone in sowing a contentious behavior in this area. The forgiving hand at AE that he's received has also empowered his friends to arms who've adopted his style. I came from a far more harmonious editing space and quickly found myself assaulted simply for engaging in good faith editing that unfortunately disagrees with how this group operates. It's not easy to stand by and watch how everything Wikipedia stands for is being trampled by a few editors abusing its policies. There is very little respect for facts or civility in this area and the abuse is largely coming from one side. Certainly not all of it, but the aggressive battleground behavior is very one sided. Being silent and forgiving about it is only making things worse. I shrug at one editor pointing fingers at others after the hostility they've dished out of late. I shudder at an editor taking the high moral ground about not hastening to AE every time Nableezy is called to the carpet for a violation. Nableezy has been empowered to get away with spreading intimidation and lording it over others as if he owns the encyclopedia. He jumped into a dispute he wasn't involved in, giving orders as if someone appointed him General, made an edit that had no consensus - and has now filed a complaint for reverts to restore the content to its pre-dispute state. This egregious abuse of policy, also evident in this case, will not stop unless AE begins to treat him equally, and the same judgments are meted out to him as they are to others. Maybe it's time to reconsider whether the leniency has been effective. The results so far, and the growing dissent of editors suffering at his hands, are undermining Nableezey's cause itself. Instead of being an effective spokesman for a cause, his methods are becoming a blemish. This case is only a symptom. But it is a rather clear one for a behavior pattern, and should be seen in the wider context of Nableezy's behavior. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Cautioning for great wisdom seems like a pillar of WP guidance whether for an editor or administrator. For lack of confidence in my own, I've not suggested what action needs to be taken in comments since participating here. I'd wish for a day that no editor would want to bring a case to AE, but instead try to work out disagreements on the field. I know that's not easy for everyone and that tempers flare under duress. I've seen the more collaborative side of Nableezy and I believe he'd like to have it be his dominant approach to editing. I also know that's not always easy for him as the near sole representative for his cause, though he does enjoy wide editor support. Your concern for swirling trouble seems to be of paramount importance. Until we learn how to eradicate storms, the best remedies are protective constructs that help everyone endure them. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this place were civil, a self-revert would cancel the error. NMMGG told me I had (inadvertently) made 2 reverts. I couldn't understand his point, and took his word for it, and selfbanned myself for a month, from article edits. That is how this should be done mainly, on talk pages, notifying an editor and seeing if he is amenable to reason. As to the diffs, Nableezy is worse than myself in the precise construal of what is said. He was told not to add 'Palestinian'. Some of them consist not of 'adding' the word Palestinian to any text, but restoring it to articles where it had been, vandalistically, subtracted'. Subtraction and addition are diametrically opposed processes. But I think Ed is the person to decide on this. Jiujituguy, this bit about Nableezy dropping hints to 'followers' is pure fantasy. User:Taivo, who followed the point made in Nableezy's edit summary is an awesome wikipedian, a professional linguist who knows exactly how to make the right call on a page dealing with languages, independently bookmarked, and he did as any one competent would do. Seeding tagteaming suspicions where they is no evidence for them is not a proper way to make a formal complaint. Nor is waiting 3 days to bring up old evidence and present Nableezy with a 'Christmas gift'. Gift in German means poison.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you slip up, you should, in my view, police yourself and we should all try to get used to it. It was 'subtraction' not 'adding'. Secondly, once one realizes the mistake, one should drop a note on any AE editor's page, explain it, and impose, irrerspective of the advice there, a self-ban. It saves admins a heck of a lot of time. The temptation for notoriously poor editors to play games and out someone is great here. This however, Nab, is not a mitigating factor. Just take a break, son, for a month or two. If the admins here really think it is more serious than that, they will extend the sanction themselves. I personally think Goffman could write, were he alive, a funny treatise on the mad rules we must adhere to if we join the wiki tribe. But rules are rules, and when in doubt, the guest is obliged to defer to the 'community's' (another word I hate) sensitivities by displays of good will in which one's own personal values (honour, regard for maintaining the highest standards) at times take second place. This is all intensely trivial, alas, and stinks to high heaven, but, at times, you concede nothing to enmity by complaint. To the contrary. Social order in democracies is not secured by police sanctions, but by the daily exercise of individual self-restraint.Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, with good reason, asked me not to argue on his behalf anywhere (I probably do more harm than good). I'll break that pact, because 3 months indefinite won't hurt Nableezy: he needs a rest, but it would injure the encyclopedia, and I am arguing for the good of the encyclopedia, not to save Nableezy's neck.

(a) To accuse Nableezy of a battleground mentality that must not be tolerated and therefore sanctioned is to say he is worse than 90% of the I/P editors, anons, socks and non-RS spouters who proliferate here. We all know it will always been treated by a majority of editors as a battleground. Unlike real warfare, virtual battles (chess being a palmary example) are rule-governed. The impression over time which Nableezy gives with his extremely fastidious insistence on rule-observance or respect for consensual arrangements is, to administrators, one of a distinctive warrior mentality. Unlike a large number of people he has brought here, Nableezy to my knowledge has no record of introducing contentious material, or false material, or extremely poorly sourced material to articles, something which cannot be said for most of the people he interacts with. Given his insistance on meticulous fidelity to rules, for whatever reason, he broke one, and a sanction is inevitable.

(b)I haven't said it before: you take the judge that happens to turn up and shouldn't whinge. But WGF, you did make a, to many, incomprehensible comment, and call, on the prior case over the Golan Heights, refused to justify, when several people noted it, what was an obvious misconstrual of the record, and the editor got off. Your page cites with approval Thomas Jefferson's dictum on laconic statements. I commend the dictum, but my impression is that, as with the M Netzer case, and others, if a thread develops and the issue gets to look more complicated than it is, you have a slight tendency to tire of having to review it, and, at least twice to my knowledge (probably less than the average admin's error rate) rushed to conclude what you haven't had the patience to examine. That played, I presume, some part in Nableezy's evident frustration recently. Unfortunately, he hasn't learnt to manage that. It's inevitable. I got permabanned for 8 reverts in 45 days. I thought it wrong, unjust, but just shut up. Not that I should be an example. But incidents like this happen not infrequently, and as a lawyer once told me: 'the law has nothing to do with justice, but the state of the evidence at hand'.

(c) With Nableezy indeffed, this place (AE(AI) may be, yes, quieter. I very much doubt that the articles will improve, and this is what worries me. Experience suggests the contrary. I don't know how many pages Nableezy monitors - must be several hundred - ten times more than I can manage to control and see that they aren't regularly jerryrigged with nonsense. I think he's done more to make bad editing harder in the I/P area than anyone else since wiki's inception, and that is why his presence arouses intense dislike. I don't note that to suggest he be given a free pass. But rather to caution against an excessive sanction for a brief set of peccadillos, reverted, which did not damage the encyclopedia. There's something offensive in that trivia (I take it however to be sanctionable) being reported, of all people, by Jiujitsuguy, who is a paragon of tendentious editing, and like a dozen here, has set his sights on ridding this place of Nableezy.

Ed Johnson has everyone's confidence, and, on review, he has seen reason to go beyond the 1 month he originally thought appropriate. I think he is probably right. Three months seems however, the limit. You don't get editors of Nableezy's calibre very often in this area. He has a problem with emotive language, true. He has a respect for the precise observance of rules that few of us can equal. He will always be a nuisance, but far more for the invasive POV warriors who care little for the NPOV pillar, than for admins. Sorry for the TL:DR. Nableezy will perhaps read it with anger. The rest yawning.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am torn on this question. On one hand I want to assume good faith that Nableezy self-reverted because of an honest failure to remember the restriction or confusion over it. On the other hand the fact he has done this three days in a row, self-reverted within a minute or less of making the edit, and on two occasions in his self-revert calls for someone else to make the revert (something he should surely know is no different from reverting the change himself) leads me to suspect JJG may be correct about Nableezy's intent. At the same time I can see how Nableezy might see several of these cases as legitimate exceptions to the restriction, especially the edit to Palestinian Arabic that I think probably qualifies as vandalism. Such a muddled case makes me wonder if the restriction has much chance of being enforceable. There is a broader issue, however, in the way JJG and Nableezy are both apparently attempting to use this request to pursue a personal vendetta by raising frivolous concerns (the Irgun cat where Nab reverted a sock) or issues that have already been decided on (the Mount Hermon case that was already ended).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy No, I do not think you are stupid. I think you are more than intelligent enough to understand that asking someone to make an edit you are not allowed to make is a clear-cut violation of the restriction and not an effort at discussing the issue. Obviously you wanted someone to see your comment about the material needing to be reverted and act according to your wishes. Maybe you could argue that it was a slip-up in the heat of the moment, but again you did it more than once in a very short period of time. That doesn't make such a defense very convincing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for Heaven's sake! JJG took his little squabble down to the AE case from Nableezy directly beneath this one and now they're duking it out there too.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, the problem is not with the case you presented against JJG, I think you were right. However, bringing it up here where it has no relevance at all after it has already been concluded and complaining that the admins should "get rid of" JJG is not the way to challenge this request. In fact, by immediately resorting to such tactics you are only making yourself look worse. By the same token trying to say that you were just discussing the issue when you plainly called for other people to perform the action you were prohibited from taking is not helping you look better. The examples you give of you discussing are not working for you either, because in two you are making purely technical comments that would not really involve adding the word Palestinian, but simply changing Palestine to Palestinian. The other discussion is you talking about the problematic editing of a user making one of the changes you briefly reverted after other editors have been reverting the editor. None of them shows you simply telling other people to perform a revert in your stead. I do not think the restriction was imposed with the understanding that you could just ask someone else to make the same edit you are restricted from making, though Ed's clarification would be helpful.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am objecting to the idea you have put forward that telling someone to make a revert in your stead so you can avoid a violation is the same as discussing the issue on the talk page. Honestly, I think the actual reverts and self-reverts could be reasonably construed as innocent mistakes or confusion and in one case I think the revert could even have been exempt from the restriction, but insisting that you can just tell other people to make the edits you are prohibited from making yourself does not make you seem so innocent. If another situation like the one the restriction was imposed for should arise it seems like you would be of the impression that you can just tell other people to revert in your place and not be doing the very thing the restriction was imposed to prevent.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone to revert obvious vandalism is one thing, but telling someone to revert a more ambiguous edit is not. Your expressed belief that telling people to revert edits in your place in order to avoid violating a restriction is ok is a serious problem. Just because the few cases involved have been plausible exemptions or unclear does not mean that your position is respectful of the restriction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed It should be noted that he in fact did this three days in a row and on two of those occasions he requested that another editor revert the edit for him, something he apparently believes is completely legitimate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG Seriously, you should take the advice some editors are giving and excuse yourself from these cases with Nableezy. Your reference of the Cptnono case above just goes to show the bizarre hoops you seem to jump through when it comes to Nab. There you did initially agree with AGK about an indef, but the moment someone suggested Nableezy might have technically violated the interaction ban as well you do a complete 180 and insist that not only should there be no action taken against a blatant violation of the interaction ban by Cptnono, contradicting AGK's suggestion, you suggest lifting the interaction ban. Now, you are taking that same insistence on an indef by AGK and citing it here to push for an indef against Nableezy. This after having already pushed for such an indef in a previous case involving Cptnono's interaction ban with Nableezy because you found it frivolous only to back down after several admins told you that would be incredibly harsh, including the other admin you mention to support this latest suggestion of an indef. My advice to you is that you, in the immortal words of Zach Galifianakis, better check yourself before you wreck yourself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JJG Your latest diff is stretching it. If anything this indicates that the restriction was unenforceable as a revert like that would easily result in accidentally violating the restriction without a person realizing it, while otherwise being a legitimate revert. For me it is far more conceivable that this instance was just a mistake. As far as Nableezy previously repeating this violation three times in three days, his calls for other editors to perform the prohibited reverts, or the way he has acted on this AE case, I believe the first issue should be treated with a little more leniency given the restriction would probably have been difficult to follow anyway. The other two issues with Nableezy's conduct are still, in my opinion, legitimate cause for imposing sanctions on him. Not sure if that would really change the resulting sanctions, but endorsing the use of this kind of restriction in the future would probably be a bad idea.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to even contemplate Nableezy's innocent and naive 'slip' of an edit since he just a few days ago, kindly warned me on my talk page, actually threatened to take me to AE, about a problematic edit of mine in which he even brought up his four month topic ban from exactly a year ago where he was caught gaming the system by self-reverting among other things to prove I was in the wrong, which I accepted. So any reasonable contributor to this project would step back and be careful when under the magnifying glass, the same one he uses for others. I would advise Nableezy to take the initiative and precaution and self impose a topic ban but Nableezy (and most of us) seems to understand that he'll just get a free pass once again, a little slap on the wrist, and 'advised' about some behaviour or something. --Shuki (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, you're making a joke out of AE with your inconsistent handling of penalties and breaking your back with this new AGF. And please tell, 1) what does it matter who reported Nableezy's three reckless infractions? 2) What exactly do you have something against JJG? Actually, I think you are quite consistent at handing out bans to many others reported by Nableezy while giving Nableezy a free pass on most, if not all cases. I know that Nableezy is jumping for joy on your latest comment, even saying that he (SPA) would be able to finally work on other things if you make it a ban, not a block. LOL --Shuki (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One would think that being under the magnifying glass would make the editor in question take a step back, be careful, and basically take a low profile. Since the AE was filed, Nableezy has not let up at all. I guess he knows that he's going to get off once again with a little shake of the finger, maybe even that short month ban on IP so he can work on Egyptian articles in the meantime. --Shuki (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this, I did not believe my eyes. Nableezy is a known warrier for the cause, but he is usually impeccable with respect to various rules. And here after the recent restriction, he is under a magnifying glass, and then this. He is restricted from using one word, and he adds precisely this word several times. Puzzling. Now comes an explanation; it is all forgetfulness. OK. But then there are these edit summaries. I just imagine what he would say if one of his usual opponents profesed innocence in this way... I would say like this. Edit summaries by themselves are ok. But edit summaries in the self-revert are problematic, because the self-revert is supposed to be an act of contrition. And then this combative defence. This whole thing has a bad smell. But then, as always, I AGF.

I would also say that I don't like that the report is made by JJG. Perhaps JJG and Nableezy should try to step back from this sustained confrontation, especially here on AE. Maybe impose a ban on reporting on AE page? - BorisG (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least they should probably be banned from commenting about each other on AE and filing requests on each other at AE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say indef tban would be an overreaction in this case. Pattern? Well, wait until there is something more serious than this, edit war or something. Surely if there is a pattern, then there is every chance it will happen soon. If not, even better. As for this minor violation, block him for a week or something. - BorisG (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support EdJohnston's suggestion of a one-month block for Nableezy. I too think Nableezy needs a break from editing, the fact that he has forgotten an (albeit voluntary) restriction after only a few days is an indication to me that he has burnout.

WGFinley, as I have said, I think you should be recusing yourself from cases involving Nableezy given your apparent animus toward him, remarked upon by several editors over the last few weeks. In response to your comment about previous sanctions, I have pointed out that all of Nableezy's past sanctions are for minor technical breaches of revert restrictions etc., and none for the real problem in the topic area, which is POV pushing. The same cannot be said of his opponents. The central problem involving Nableezy for a long period now has been an apparently neverending stream of Israeli nationalist editors who are constantly trying to push the POV that certain territories including East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank are "in Israel" (a demonstrable falsehood). That is the problem that ultimately needs to be addressed on this board, not the problem of "Nableezy" whose only offence has been to try and defend core policies with regard to these issues. Gatoclass (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the central problem is Israeli nationalist POV pushing. So Palestinian nationalist POV pushing does not occur? Or is fine? - BorisG (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worthwhile emphasizing that this was a voluntary restriction agreed to by Nableezy. He wasn't obliged to agree to it, and may well have escaped sanction altogether, or at least been sanctioned alongside a gaggle of other editors per EdJohnston's comment, had he not done so. A voluntary restriction does not have quite the same strength as a mandatory restriction - particularly given that no alternative sanction had been clearly proposed as an alternative - and I think it likely it slipped Nableezy's mind for that very reason. While a sanction may therefore be considered appropriate, I think the nature and unusual circumstances of the restriction ought to be considered mitigating factors when imposing it. Gatoclass (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my original comment supporting a ban for Nableezy due to the fact that I unfortunately missed some evidence. I now see that Nableezy reverted all three of these edits, within a minute of making them. While it certainly seems odd that he would forget about this restriction on three separate occasions, the fact that he immediately self-reverted means that he effectively complied with his restriction. I don't find Juijitsuguy's interpretation of Nableezy's actions persuasive given that N. could have achieved the same result just by leaving a note on the talk page, which would likewise turn up on watchlists. There is little if any justification in my view for a sanction in these circumstances; certainly not a lengthy one. Gatoclass (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gatoclass. We're in danger of losing perspective here. This should be about what is best for content. For example, the first diff in this report shows Nableezy finding a factual error that has been in an article since 2009. His restriction happened to mean that he couldn't fix it at that time but his actions resulted in it being fixed. Nableezy highlighting the issue also allowed me to search for similar factual errors in several articles and fix them. They are the kind of errors, deliberate falsehoods, that are routinely introduced by nationalists who are often frustratingly shameless in their disregard for policy. Once Wikipedia starts blocking editors on sight for advocating or introducing deliberate falsehoods like these which are a clear demonstration that an editor isn't capable of editing in the topic area, the topic area will be a far more stable and productive environment. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the second diff, that is Nableezy reverting an IP, Special:Contributions/108.162.98.101, who has been repeatedly warned and blocked for vandalizing an article by removing the word Palestinian. Trying to erase all things Palestinian is a common sport for the extremist element that edit in the topic area. Punishing Nableezy for this edit and a self-revert appears to be counterproductive and bureaucratic. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston. The introduction of this page says clearly: who comes with unclean hands .... Then while you state this one sentence about requestor Jiujitsuguy: It is disquieting that User:Jiujitsuguy is the one submitting this complaint, [...], you did not see a reason to derive results from that statement. Yet then your reasoning continues about Nableezy, including: so much trouble swirls around Nableezy. From there, you end up supporting ... indefinite topic ban. You did not contemplate that the swirl was put there by others? Jiujitsuguy for starters, and why not take a look at User:MichaelNetzer (who is present here, as the first Commenter in this section: Well, in another recent AE his hands were not checked on cleanness for administrative reasons -- but you have every right to do that check from here), and this, needing protection against apparent target of coordinated IP/sock attack. I myself saw the effect of my edit, after which the indirect accusations (or trolling) by another editor stopped without further ado. With all this, I am not convinced that the "level of rhetoric" (?) and "evident battleground attitude" of Nableezy (which to me did not stand out as such) is dissenting with the other comments in the thread they are in. I think it is misleading that the same "battleground" is visited by multiple others, thereby keeping low both their "trouble swirls" statistics and your attention.
Rounding up: By zooming in on a single editor and their single ARB remedy, the overview is lost and, most importantly, the result is negligible: just one less editor for now, and no behavior is altered re I/P. So (using words from User:Gatoclass's comment here): no improvement against POV pushing by Israeli nationalists. It should be Arbitration's concern that these issues are not handled at that overview level. -DePiep (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. There is a broader overview with regards to this case that goes beyond just one editor. As I noted in my comments, other editors have been using the AE page as a battleground. There is also the question of WG's behavior with regards to Nableezy on AE, which seems to be the main cause for Nableezy's frustration above. Mind you, while other admins have commented Nableezy appears to only have an issue with WG's behavior and WG's behavior in the JJG case saw ArbCom step in to correct WG's perception there, though no action was taken on the actual case, so he cannot claim that it is some tactic employed, or to be employed, unfairly against all admins. On a further note, it doesn't seem anyone is terribly concerned about the way JJG brought up a rather frivolous issue (Nab reverting a sock who inserted a category at Irgun) to pad his request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from top to this place to keep structure. Corrected sectiontitle. -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Someone above said, and someone else agreed: "The central problem involving Nableezy for a long period now has been an apparently neverending stream of Israeli nationalist editors who are constantly trying to push the POV that certain territories including East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank are "in Israel" (a demonstrable falsehood). That is the problem that ultimately needs to be addressed on this board, not the problem of "Nableezy" whose only offence has been to try and defend core policies with regard to these issues."

Clearly this statement is in itself an example of the "central problem" with respect to Nableezy. Editors like Nableezy and the person who said this believe that Palestinian nationalism, not "Israeli nationalism" is the correct political position that reflects Wikipedia's 'core principles'. Clearly if one is able to rid Wikipedia of those pesky Israeli nationalists, then the "true" Palestinian nationalist position will be able to be fully expressed. This is the position that Nableezy and his supporters take, and they are more than willing to fight after fight to rid Wikipedia of the opposite POV, constantly pushing the envelope of acceptability with these kinds of games, rather than actually collaborate with editors who do not share their view. This is precisely what the Arabs and Palestinians do in real life, refusing to acknowledge the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, colluding with other Arab nations and the Western-named terrorist groups for the eradication of the state of Israel. Wikipedia is a microcosm of this, except that at Wikipedia, the "Palestinian state" viewpoint is dominant and the Israeli viewpoint (generally called 'Zionist' here at Wiki) struggles mightily to be heard as can be seen in the quote above. Nableezy and a few others dictate policy. I salute the Israel supporters on Wiki, who constantly take a beating at the hands of Nableezy and others of "his ilk." This is permitted by the basically democratic (read: mob-rule) nature of Wikipedia, and supported by those editors and administrators who believe their pro-Palestinian "anti-Zionist" position is the correct, unbiased one. If history (at Wiki) is any answer, we can expect more excuses for Nableezy and the Palestinian nationalists and more hard knocks for the Israeli "nationalists" here at Wikipedia. The facts, the atmosphere, and Wikipedia's reputation are what really suffers. 172.190.235.61 (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dajudem. Nice of you to join us on an AOL IP. nableezy - 17:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notified the IP and logged to prevent future embarrassment. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be that WGFinley simply cannot think straight when it comes to Nableezy. Every casual visitor to these pages will see it very clearly. This is bad for everyone. WGFinley should recuse himself. Zero^talk 02:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I recommend that this be closed with a one-month block of Nableezy. He agreed not to add the word 'Palestinian' to articles and he should be able to stick to this bargain. The diffs show him adding, and then removing the word Palestinian (less than a minute later) on two successive days, December 22 and 23. This does not look to me like a lapse of memory. It is disquieting that User:Jiujitsuguy is the one submitting this complaint, since in my opinion he is on thin ice regarding sanctions. Nonetheless Nableezy should follow what he has agreed to. The level of rhetoric that Nableezy uses against others in his response is painful to see and I invite other admins to see whether they think further action should be taken based on his evident battleground attitude. I continue to be concerned that so much trouble swirls around Nableezy though great wisdom may be needed to decide what to do about that. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: You suggested this should be a one-month topic ban instead of a one-month block. I would consider recommending a *three-month* topic ban instead. You are one of a handful of editors who I suspect may wind up with long topic bans in the next few months one way or another. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially think this is your call Ed as you issued the previous warning. However, if you are going TBAN (which is what should be considered in my opinion) I don't think three months is sufficient given Nableezy's history of TBANs. --WGFinley (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WGF: If it were just your call, what sanction would you recommend, and what rationale would you give? It seems to me that bans are often given out (a) if there is a blatant event for which no real defense can be given, or (b) the editor exhausts people's patience. I think Nableezy is getting close to the second, but whatever standard we apply to him we should be willing to apply to others. That's why I'm asking for the rationale. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of cases on this page and it seems to me, as suggested by AGK and Cailil in cases above, it's time the indefinite TBAN comes out for repeat offenders instead of being seen as some sort of death sentence and it's because of cases like this. You took an action and gave a narrow restriction to avoid a behavior and give Nableezy a chance. It was ignored in favor of edit warring. Nableezy has a history of second chances and already had a 4 month TBAN this year. I think it's time to make clear this topic space and AE are not a battleground and those who choose to make it one and disrupt what is supposed to be an atmosphere of collaboration are not entitled to unlimited chances to remediate their behavior. --WGFinley (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My December 15 negotiation with Nableezy led to a deal which broke down quickly, since he quickly resumed adding the word 'Palestinian' to articles. I'm prepared to support a topic ban anywhere between 3 months and indefinite. With any luck some more admins will comment on what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, Nableezy's failure to abide by a consentual restriction (ban on adding Palestinian) coupled with the longer term issues in this topic area, as well as the repeated use of this page by Nableezy in a battleground fashion are indeed grounds for an indefinite ban from all articles and discussions (including discussion of other editors involved in this dispute) of Palestinian & Israeli topics. Per my above comment re Cptnono, if Nableezy is indeed a good editor but for one hot-button issue, and/or series of interactions, then Nableezy can show us by demonstrating collaborative & collegial editing elsewhere. This restriction can be reviewed after 3-6 months as it is a ban of 'no definite duration', rather than 'a long-term restriction'--Cailil ^talk 15:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Gato - I haven't had any animus against Nableezy, he has fabricated the perception of bias with his constant torrent of criticism he hurls my way. Recusing myself in cases concerning him would just create an example of how to get rid of admins you don't want to deal with. I've taken no individual action against him and kept my comments to his action and the case that's at hand, he hasn't done likewise at any juncture. I have a thick skin, I can deal with the insults, but I have not been biased in my treatment or assessment of his actions. In fact in this case I deferred to Ed and he asked me what I thought. --WGFinley (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Your criticism of Wgfinley's comments is not helping your case. Any admin could have asked WGF to reopen the Netzer case if they disagreed, and no one did. Your further statements give the impression that you are in battle mode 24/7. You seem to be going out of your way to prove that you are hard to work with. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree that Nableezy needs a break from this area. A 3-6 months topic ban is reasonable. Considering the self reverts in mitigation, an indef topic ban is a little on the harsh side, but I can go along with it if that is the consensus. The original sanction was a little unusual and could possibly be drafted more elegantly, but that's beside the point.
2. I think the MichaelNetzer case was closed prematurely. It seems to have been closed on a truncated "no documented warning, therefore no sanctions" analysis. But serious consideration should have been given to whether we should find that MN has been constructively warned given his history of participation at AE and the warning box at the top of Talk:Jerusalem. In addition, the diffs show a prima facie case of edit warring, which is blockable even without discretionary sanctions; this aspect seems to have been overlooked as well.
3. I agree that WGF need not recuse from cases involving Nableezy. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the MichaelNetzer case, hopefully that will let us stick to this case. Nableezy's prior TBAN was 4 months, the offense is minor but the AE conduct and gross incivility is not. I think the TBAN should be indefinite, 6 at a minimum. With that, unless a fellow uninvolved admin has anything else to ask me, this is my final comment on this case. --WGFinley (talk) 01:03, 29 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.

Users who are submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 23:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC);Nishidani (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MichaelNetzer (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

• Edit warring against consensus at Jerusalem

1. 17:53, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "Restored meaning of name in lede. No consensus achieved for this change. See talk page.")
2. 01:13, 23 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 467092211 by Zero0000 (talk)Discussion and procedure is still ongoing. Lede should remain as was before dispute. Please do not make these changes until consensus is achieved.")
3. 08:16, 25 December 2011 (edit summary: "Restored opening sentence to long-standing community consensus. See talk page and please wait for clear consensus before changing again.")

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

The user has been a regular participant here so is obviously aware of the ARBPIA case

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

MichaelNetzer, after long discussions at Talk:Jerusalem and WP:DRN, threatened to revert against consensus. MichaelNetzer is alone arguing that a folk etymology be retained as though it were factual. He has threatened to revert against consensus, and has made good on his threat, having reverted the same material 3 times, which has been added by 5 different users at this point.. He has also refused to self-revert, claiming that his argument is superior and despite the overwhelming rejection of that argument his consent is required to remove the material from the lead. No one editor should be allowed to hold an article hostage, and when that editor threatens to do so, and then makes good on his threat, he should be restricted from continuing to do so.

As far as "protocol" demanding the user be officially notified of the case, that wikilawyer-esque objection was heard, and rejected, in the past. The purpose of the notification is to ensure a user is aware of the case. In the last month or so MichaelNetzer has been a constant presence on this board and is obviously aware of the case. nableezy - 19:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJG, Im glad you are amazed that I might momentarily and absent-mindedly forget something and then remember it but can remember other issues after thinking them. I am likewise amazed that you do not remember that thread as your were rather involved in it. But I dont think you are forgetting, there is another word that I would use for your feigned ignorance over that issue. nableezy - 20:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it necessary to reply to Michael, as his response is filled with the same distortions that characterize his contributions at Talk:Jerusalem and WP:DRN. He writes I asked for an answer to this [WP:NOTDICT] and none was given. That is untrue, a reply was given (here). He writes I have never threatened to revert against consensus. His words in this diff were

If an editor changes the lede, based on arguments made here and in the talk page, motivated by prejudices against nationalism ("These are the prejudices I bring to edits."), lack of knowledge of facts ("In fact the phrase was alien to my ear, until my eye caught it some years ago on this page") and bias towards "holy writ" ("Very biblical. 'Abode of Peace' is holy writ, and guess who's enjoying the infallibility associated with some office!"), in order to supersede WP policy and scholarly sources that support the lede as it is, then I will revert it

He wrote I have never claimed my argument was "superior" nor would I presume to be a judge of myself. He wrote, in reply to my saying that his belief that consensus has not been achieved based on his feeling that his argument is stronger is not acceptable, that I have a stronger argument and you are wrong. Here he shows the same willingness to distort the record that led him to revert the same material over and over again. This is both tendentious and disruptive. It needs to stop, either by his agreement or through some administrative sanction. nableezy - 20:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I am talking about. The arguments that are made routinely twist plain English. Michael, it isnt that you just claim your argument is stronger, it is you also say that CONSENSUS says the quality is the more important factor and on that basis there is no consensus. Next, you continue with this absurd accusation of a prejudice against a Hebrew association. Nobody is removing the Hebrew from the lead, nobody is even placing the Hebrew after any other language in the first sentence,and there is a link to an explanation of the meaning in the first sentence. What we have done is remove a folk etymology, an error of fact in an encyclopedia article when translating a word. There is no dispute that al-quds means the Holy in Arabic, so this game of claiming that there is no balance and that a Hebrew translation must balance an Arabic one fails. But even then, several people have offered to remove the translation of the Arabic, even though it isnt necessary, just to satisfy that ill-founded demand for "balance". But no, your argument is stronger, and that determines consensus. And yet you claim you arent taking the article hostage. nableezy - 06:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that MN's 5-year-old account with a completely clean record is a mitigating factor is a red-herring, because he had not been editing in the topic area during this period. MN's contributions, from literally day one, in the topic area do not show a a history ... of trying to work with people. See his contributions at WT:WESTBANK and Talk:Alon Shvut, where you can see the same tendency of distorting the plain English of WP guidelines and comments of others. As far as his having his having such a history on the Jerusalem article, this is, again, simply untrue. MN attempted, several times, to push into the article a map that shows occupied Palestinian and Syrian territory and as being "in Israel", and he did this when there was a relatively wide ranging agreement to use a different map. He continually claimed that saying that occupied territory being "in Israel" is not "political", and he routinely made outrageous charges of others being on a political crusade. When he was told that such charges have a distinct flavor to them (given the context of the word crusade), he simply brushed that aside and continued making these types of attacks. Michael has routinely distorted what others have written, he has routinely attempted to push in to articles an extreme minority view as though it were fact, and he has routinely distorted several policies and guidelines while doing so. He most decidedly does not have a history of trying to work with others, he regularly instigates hostility with others, such as when he made several outrageous attacks on Nishidani, claiming he is so prejudiced that he should not be allowed to edit. And Ed, MN did bold I will revert it, see this diff. nableezy - 15:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as 6 months being harsh as a first topic ban, that may be true. However my very first topic ban, a result of edit-warring in the lead of the article Gaza War (against a sock of a banned user, who also initiated the report) resulted in a 6 month topic ban, later reduced to 4 month article ban and 2 month topic-wide ban. See here. That was, besides 2 short blocks on unrelated articles, my first ban of any sort. And it has been used, repeatedly, to argue for excessively lengthy bans for any misbehavior on my side. nableezy - 16:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Long before I came to this area, the first sentence in Jerusalem included the meanings "Abode of Peace" and "The Holy Sanctuary" for the names in Hebrew and Arabic respectively. The Etymology section covers the pre-Hebrew meaning "Foundation of (the god) Shalem", with an uncontested scholarly source that was also there before I came.

The same source also states immediately afterward "The popular meaning of Jerusalem, "the city of peace" comes from the Hebrew word "shalom", meaning peace, harmony and wholeness."

I did not fabricate this source, nor insert it into the article. "Abode of Peace" is supported by 5 (five) reliable scholarly sources in the article.

The etymology is factual. How can some editors claim it is not supported by sources when it appears in the article with Five scholarly reliable sources? What else is needed to prove this meaning is factual?

These additional supportive sources that are not in the article show 'Abode of Peace' is the most popular and recognized meaning of the name Jerusalem. They are only supportive sources, but in that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the lede is intended for "a good definition and description" of the topic, 'Adobe of Peace' is factually and extensively supported by sources for inclusion.

On that basis I asked to explain why it should be removed and no answer other than "folk etymology" was given. Yet WP policy clearly states:

"An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns."

I asked for an answer to this and none was given. This pillar policy for the lede was disregarded as if it doesn't exist. Some editors are trying to remove, by force, a long standing community consensus definition in one of the most sensitive articles in the I-P space.

I did not threaten to revert against consensus". Anyone reading what I said there can see that.

I have never threatened to revert against consensus.

I have never claimed my argument was "superior" nor would I presume to be a judge of myself. I pointed to WP:Consensus: "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." That's all I said about quality of an argument.

I have adhered to Wikipedia guidelines diligently throughout the discussions. I only reverted the article to the state it was in before the dispute, until consensus is achieved.

The "overwhelming rejection" of my argument has been exaggerated beyond compare. In this diff, it was said to be "a dozen voices". Some time later in this diff, it became "14-15 people". My latest count shows 7 against 4. Where are the 14-15? Why was this said?

I adhere to the following guideline on achieving consensus:

"This does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); it is not based on majority voting either. It means, rather, that the decision-making process involves an active effort to reach a solution that addresses as far as possible all legitimate concerns raised by interested editors."

I have not seen the slightest attempt to have the most minimal concerns about this addressed.

These are the discussions: Talk:Jerusalem * DR Noticeboard * Talk:Nish * Talk:WGFinley.

They need to be read fully to understand this case. Nothing said here by anyone, including myself, can be taken at face value. To me, they show the process to remove the Hebrew meaning is ill conceived and violates WP policy on the most fundamental levels. No consensus has been achieved to warrant it. I'm willing to be convinced but not this way. Not in this tone. Not with this incivility. Not with this disregard for everything Wikipedia stands for.

I will not respond to the venom spilled here, it speaks for itself. I only ask the case be reviewed thoroughly. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

• Nableezy: There is a world of difference between saying "my argument is stronger" and "my argument is superior". A world of difference in tone and presumptuousness. I have never used the word "superior" in this context. Why is it alright for you to imply your argument is stronger but not for someone else?
• Zero: What expert opinion? Nishidani's? He said he never heard of the phrase "until my eye caught it some years ago on this page." Yet this phrase has been around for nearly 2000 years and saturates sources. It is mentioned nearly everywhere the meaning of the name is referenced. This is expert?
• I have never accused others of wikilawyering and tendentious arguments because I respect WP guidelines about this being a serious accusation. My only fault is in trying to argue in good faith. When looking at the volume of words Nishidani pours on the discussions (evidenced by the length of his opening statement compared to mine), one wonders why Nishidani's verbosity does not cause these editors "misery" as does mine. Is their misery only due to hearing someone disagree with them?
• I did not open the discussions on Nishidani's talk page nor on WGFinley's. I reserve the right to answer when someone else starts a discussion and accuses me as Nishidani and Nableezy did. To imply that I was responsible for them is a grave falsity.
• I have not argued on grounds of politics. Only on relevant cultural status of the city. Nishidani attempted to drag the discussion into politics nearly 10 times and continues to falsely accuse me of politicizing when it is he who does so. I argued repeatedly for the meanings pertaining to the two cultures presiding over the city.
• There was never a consensus for the change Nableezy made when he did it, which removes the Hebrew meaning and leaves the Arabic. AgadaUrbanit, who supports the previous status quo, correctly points to the severe POV imbalance favoring only one meaning in the lead.
• The editors have said my sources are poor and unacceptable, yet Zero admits they are acceptable and uncontested in Etymology. How can they be acceptable in the Etymology section and suddenly become poor and unacceptable in the lede? Especially when the lede is more concerned with broad definitions and not linguistics? These are the types of argumentative runarounds that have been applied here.
• None of these editors have posted sources supporting their claim of "minority meaning". I was the only one who posted "extensive" sources showing 'Abode of Peace' as the common recognized meaning for Jerusalem. Peter cohen, in his excitement to eviscerate me and find relief for his "misery" states Nishidani posted extensive sources. He did not. The sources he posted are only relative to linguistics and distort the picture as if they are "commonly recognized". They are not. Common recognition is mostly supported by my extensive sources. Nishidani's argument is mostly based on his personal previous lack of knowledge of it.
• In this diff that Nableezy opened the complaint with, and this explanation of it, I've stated why there appears to be a prejudice against this Hebrew language association in this case, driven by Nishidani's declared prejudices against "nationalism" and selective "holy writ", pushing to remove only one meaning for the Hebrew name of this seminal article in I/P area. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem is a a city rich with history and conflict, unique and cherished by prominent cultures for their lot in it. Even scholars who decry the violence over it, and have no favor for Israel, recognize its meaning 'Abode of Peace'. Removing the Hebrew meaning and leaving the Arabic, defies all encyclopedic integrity. Removing both meanings from the lede gravely compromises the article's introduction in that both the Hebrew and Arabic meanings, as they appeared by long-standing community consensus, define what the city is most commonly recognized for. They are both "holy writ" and one cannot make an argument that only one such "holy writ" should be prejudiced. There was never a properly achieved consensus for removal of this information. Arguments were ignored by editors on one side who seemed more than happy to win a fight instead of showing concern for neutrality. I acted only to defend the integrity of Wikipedia information against this POV push. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy: What you have done is disregard WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:Consensus, WP:Reliable sources and WP:civility as observed here and repeatedly. Had you and others tried to address my concerns, as I did yours by producing 9 maps in order to satisfy your every objection, in a drawn out process which is the proper way to achieve consensus on such sensitive disputes, we would not have this problem. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDA: You are misinformed and appear to repeat others' arguments without checking facts. I am not insisting on any changes. I am only insisting on maintaining long-standing community consensus until a proper agreement is arrived at for changes that others want to make. I declined "compromises" that removed well sourced information on questionable grounds and were not compromises at all. I proposed this compromise based on Nishidani's and Jayen's concerns, which was rejected by Nishidani. I have repeatedly stated that I would support a reasonable compromise. Your comment did imply your agreement that 'Abode of Peace" is one of the primary meanings of Jerusalem. You now reverse your position. Please study the facts before making such allegations. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani's opening statement, full of links, is framed in a way to distort the contexts everything was said in. His presentation is an egregious misreading of the case. They can only be understood by reading the discussions themselves. These are the links again: Talk:Jerusalem * DR Noticeboard * Talk:Nish * Talk:WGFinley.

To close my comments: The way this dispute started reveals the battleground tone and incivility from the first words Nishidani addressed me with. Many of his first comments are laden with personal remarks about my understanding and abilities rather than simply arguing content. This set the tone for everything to follow and nothing I said would matter anymore. I asked Nishidani repeatedly to stop making such remarks, to no avail. Here are only a few of them:

• ("devastating incomprehension") * ("What on earth do you mean by 'earlier incarnations'? That is meaningless.") * {"You do not understand the simplest issues of historical linguistics") * ("You do not understand the issues") * ("trying to edit on an area you know little about") * ("your opinion on a technical issue you are totally unfamiliar with.") * ("your comprehensive lack of understanding") * ("Just back off") * ("you should move on to blogging elsewhere").

For all of Nishidani's self-professed superiority in linguistics, it turned out that much of his argument was based on his lack of previous knowledge of the term, which has been around for 2 millennia and prevalent everywhere in sources. To assault my knowledge on that basis reveals a serious behavioral issue. All my sources were dismissed categorically in the beginning, without sound reason for their context, yet the primary ones are in the article itself and have never been contested there. Something started out very wrong here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy: Read everything I've said to see that I did not ever base my view of consensus on "quality of argument" alone, as you say. It was only one of my points, next to "majority does not..." and "...addressing all concerns". It is hard to AGF when you state such falsities, while the record clearly shows otherwise. Either read more carefully or desist from egregious misrepresentations. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq: You disregard everything else in this dispute and base your appraisal of me on a few select comments. Read how this started and how it continued and you might understand my statement to Nishidani better. I don't think you will, seeing how you're going to extreme lengths to support his uncivil behavior from the start. It is not that "some people" like that meaning, as your weasel definition states. Scholarly sources support it as the common meaning. There's a world of difference between your one-sided approach to "mediation" and "dismissal" of sources - and between the whole body of facts. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nableezy as if he answered my question about linguistics vs. definition are again misleading distortions. His answer suggests I throw out linguistics when no such thing was implied. There exists a linguistic basis for the common meaning "Abode of Peace" which is dismissed here as "wrong" or "folk". What matters for the encyclopedia is support in scholarly sources, which exists abundantly. The few that say it is entirely "wrong" are themselves the minority. There is a natural dispute for such an ancient name but the meaning has been cemented in modern culture and for 2 millennia. It is referenced by most sources. It is being denied by these editors against all evidence. This entire case, most everything they are saying, is one distortion of the facts after the other. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

On re-opening the case and T.Canens' comment:

WGFinley did the right thing by re-opening the case. He's been right and fair in his arbitration.

The record shows I entered into the discussion in good faith and conducted myself with civility and patience in the face of enormous hostility, which persists to this moment. If my conduct is to be considered below expected standards, what should be said about the behavior towards me?

I do not apologize for defending the integrity of due process on Wikipedia, nor for the patience and goodwill I tried to convey to editors who disregarded the most basic tenets of good collaboration, and presume to rule the encyclopedia in their contempt for editors who disagree with them.

I regret the disruption but did not cause it. The battleground agitation in the I-P space began long before I came here, and will continue long after.

My reverts were proper and in good faith because the edit-war was instigated by trying to remove well-sourced sensitive information in a sensitive article, without achieving agreement. Due process was not upheld and a long-held community consensus was violated without considering the most minimal concerns raised. I was attacked vehemently from the very beginning for daring to suggest there should be consideration for why the information has been in the article, long before I arrived.

Though I do not apologize for what I've done, I've learned the futility of trying to uphold the values and guidelines Wikipedia stands for, in such a situation.

Administrators will do what they deem proper. It will be the right thing by each administrator's view, and it will be acceptable.

My presence in the topic area is not critical to the encyclopedia.

The future of Wikipedia, should things continue this way, is.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Ed. I think in that thread I am responsible for the bolding, and Michael should not be held responsible for the emphasis I gave the text. Apologies Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• I appreciate AgadaUrbanit's comment on long protracted discussions on talk pages. I've allowed myself to be led into a few for lack of familiarity with Dispute Resolution processes. In becoming more familiar with these of late, I found the same thing repeating itself there. They show I was not alone in verbosity, though I take responsibility for mine. I understand it's been nonconstructive and will not engage in it any longer.

• The comment quoted by Ed, which I did not myself make bold in the original text as Nishidani states above, is not representative of my attitude or demeanor in the discussions. As 99% of the discussion shows, this was said in frustration of not having been heard, and in reply to a statement made that implied a severe prejudice behind refusal to consider my points. I might have misunderstood that statement, regret having said it and apologize to Nishidani for it. Characterizations of me do not properly reflect how I've conducted myself in the overwhelming majority of edits and exchanges.

• I reverted the edit in question believing it was made without achieving consensus, and even under the consensus that was claimed, the edit violated that also. I did not believe they constituted an edit war and would not have made them if I thought they did. I now understand the distinction and would not repeat the action.

• Everything I did was in order to uphold due process and policy. I was wrong in some of it and will not repeat the mistakes made due to being relatively new to this area. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

I am aware of at least two other people who were talking about filing an AE on this subject. No doubt they will reveal themselves here.

Of far more interest to me than the three reverts which Nableezy has identified is the tendency of MN to argue ad nauseam and the tendentiousness of what he says while he is arguing. Both are exampled at Talk:Jerusalem#Abode_of_Peace which just goes on and on and on with one person arguing against several. Nishidani has produced in that thread an extensive number of references from reliable etymological sources yet MN insists on giving undue weight to an ill-founded folk-etymology by having it in the first sentence. Then when I make my one edit on the subject which has a perfectly clear explanation, he tries to engage me in an equally tendentious argument on my talk page, accusing me of edit-warring and asks me to self-revert, as if he wasn't edit-warring. After all, he could not revert me himself because he had already used his 1RR for the day in that very edit war.

I decided to archive that thread. After all I have seen him at work in various tl;dr threads at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank)#Dispute_on_exceptions_6C_and_D and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Alon_Shvut where he is equally long-winded and equally tendentious in Wiki-lawyering about the meaning of some perfectly clearly written text in a guideline which was created at Arbcom's instigation to try and stop this sort of nonsense.

Dear admins, please remember that tendentious editing is one of the grounds under which sanctions can be applied and put us all out of our misery.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGF, (and any admin looking at closure as unwarned,) if I started acting up on I/P or Shakespeare matters and was brought here, would you close the case becauss I had not been warned formally?--Peter cohen (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a pretty clear-cut case of edit-warring. In one case just over 31 hours elapse between reverts by Netzer with the last instance seeing just 55 hours elapse before Netzer reverted again. Maybe not close enough to still be considered a violation of 1RR, but still clearly repeatedly reverting to the exact same version each time in a very short period.

A broader issue concerning this case is that I have seen a similar dispute arise over the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article. That case was the reverse where an editor insisted on the lede "unfairly" excluding an Arab name for the topic in the lede, similar to how this case focuses on "unfairly" excluding the Hebrew meaning of the topic's name in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero You are correct that I do not support his position. It seems like many other editors I am just another person who tried to point out what the facts on the matter are, that they did not support the specific change Netzer wanted, suggested a middle ground to resolve the dispute, only to have Netzer insist on the exact same change he has been insisting on for some time. He seems to be quite insistent on rejecting all compromises or perhaps just thinks compromise means everyone taking his position. Maybe there is a legitimate concern as it relates to inclusion of different translations when it is relevant to a dispute over territory, but edit-warring and stonewalling are not the way to go about resolving it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael No, I never "implied" that I supported your specific contention that "Abode of Peace" is the most common meaning. I suggested that "city of peace" may be a possible translation, though not considered the most likely. My comment even specifically said that there was nothing in the source directly backing your desired wording. You interpreting that as support of your specific position and presenting it as supporting your position without even asking me if I did support your position is insulting.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG If you look through Netzer's edit history prior to his contributions in the I/P topic area, you may notice that pretty much all of his edits were in articles where he had a clear conflict of interest whether it was his own Wikipedia article, some fringe theory for which he is an enthusiast, various people who he apparently is familiar with on a personal level, or a comic book character he created. Now, I think someone is perfectly capable of objectively writing an article about something they have a personal investment in (it seems on his own article there have been some successful efforts with him towards reaching a NPOV), but I also think editing regularly in such areas with little to no activity elsewhere without anyone pursuing action against you should not be counted in someone's favor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelNetzer is one of the most disruptive editors to come to the I-P area in recent months. He came with a profound ignorance of the subject combined with a pathological inability to admit that anyone else might be right. His style is to endlessly weave and duck, repeating his opinions over and over (and over and over), falsely claiming support from other editors for his views when in fact he hardly gets any support. He has hardly a clue about what a reliable source is. All the time he is accusing everyone of malicious motives while being mortally offended if anyone dare suggest he is not an angel from heaven. This business of the lede of Jerusalem could have been solved in 30 minutes to the satisfaction of all parties if MichaelNetzer wasn't around, but thanks to him it has turned into a monumental waste of time with no end in sight. This isn't the first time his contribution has been of this nature; he should have been topic-banned for his earlier strenuous attempt to break Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) by repeatedly violating it while posting reams of sophistry about it. (Sorry for not adding diffs, it is 2am in my part of the world so that will have to wait until tomorrow). Zero^talk 14:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the lack of an ARBIA warning, the purpose of such a warning is to make sure that the receiver is aware of the arbitration ruling and the consequences of breaking it. Since MichaelNetzer has repeatedly commented on other cases on this very page, it is completely impossible that he was unaware of what was going on. It has been recognized for many years on all dispute resolution pages that sufficiently experienced editors don't need to be warned. Zero^talk 01:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, MichaelNetzer's comments here are deceptive and cannot be understood by anyone who hasn't watched the whole saga. Key points:

1. Nobody has argued that "Abode of Peace" and similar don't belong in the article, and nobody has tried to remove it. Nor does anyone deny that it is popular and there are sources which support it. The problem is that the consensus of specialist experts is that the real meaning is something else.
2. The only real issue is the first sentence of the article. MichaelNetzer wants it to say "Abode of Peace" with no qualification and no alternatives (a clear violation of WP:NPOV as well as misleading). He has refused to accept any other possibilities, which included (a) putting "Abode of Peace" as a popular interpretation alongside the scientific interpretation, (b) leaving the question of the meaning for later in the article. Either (a) or (b) would be acceptable to the great majority of people who commented.
3. MichaelNetzer claims that three other editors support him. This is a fine illustration of MichaelNetzer's style. Of those claimed in support, JN466 does not support MichaelNetzer's position but supports one of the alternatives that MichaelNetzer refuses to accept. Piz d'Es-Cha supports leaving the subject out of the lede, which MichaelNetzer also refuses. The Devil's Advocate has not supported MichaelNetzer's version of the lede either, as far as I can determine (correct me if I'm wrong). This is what counts as "consensus" in MichaelNetzer's view.

Zero^talk 02:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is a larger one than a simple IR editwarring infraction- It's behavioural.

Background (Content issue, which is not in discussion here, but the behaviour associated with it by one editor)

Open any Hebrew dictionary and under יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim you get the meaning, ‘Jerusalem’, not anything else (‘abode of peace’ etc,.) (Karl Feyerabend, A complete Hebrew-English pocket-dictionary to the Old Testament, Langenscheidt nd. p.135 col.1)

• (1) The general etymology given as probable by semitic specialists for this urban toponym is: ‘Foundation of (the god) Shalem’, as the very source, there on the page version Michael defends, writes. Popular, rabbinic, or folk or false etymologies abound; there are several. Google and the results are that ‘abode of peace’ is not the most popular. Michael has threatened to revert, however, anyone who alters this, because of an ostensible historic consensus.
• (2) Almost all city articles I have examined, in the Near East and the world, do not have a meaning or etymology in the lead. Jerusalem is anomalous, and old lead was, also, wrong in glossing the city’s name to mean ‘abode of peace’ when the source, Stephen Binz, says the meaning originally was 'Foundation of Shalem'.
• (3) 23 days ago I raised the problem. Three weeks over several pages of arguing have produced an industrial quantity of argument, with Michael virtually alone in insisting that the false meaning ‘abode of peace’ be retained. Compromises have been suggested, and accepted. He has accepted none. Almost 20 people have commented on aspects of the discussion. As Zero says, commonsense and respect for process would have resolved this in 30 minutes, without three weeks of indeterminate and exhausting wikilawyering.
• (4) After it was apparent Michael has a very unsure grasp of linguistics and appeared incapable of understanding anything technical, I suggested several times he desist from arguing on an issue he misunderstands. He takes that as a personal attack.

• (a)From the outset Michael admitted clearly his support for a false or folk meaning reflected political interests. He insists on abode of peace because

The Hebrew meaning is significant for the lead because of its history relevant to the city's current situation.

He repeated this (also dubious as WP:Recentism) a week later, he dismissed Christian folk meanings on similar political ground:

There is no Christian political presence nor territorial issue such as with the Arabic to warrant introducing such a Christian meaning there. (on both points he is drastically wrong, by the way, and confuses Arabic with Muslim Arabs, ignoring Christian Arabs, etc.).

He was reminded that these two remarks violate a pillar of wikipedia (WP:NPOV)

• He refuses compromises by third parties (WP:Negotiation), having successively rejected mediations by *User:Oncenawhile, User:FormerIP, User:Jayen466 and User:FCSundae the last three at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

• User:Oncenawhile suggested a compromise here, here and again here. I accepted that, and it was compatible with Zero000’s position. Michael refused to budge. 10 days had passed, 7 of intensive analysis, and Michael was alone against a compromise position supported by 3.(12 December)

• The problem is not simply IR. At Alon Shvut, Michael began to try to change longstanding consensus and policy, by wikilawyering Judea and Samaria, in order to establish a precedent for the unrestricted use of those terms in the West Bank. The argument was exhaustive, he appealed to at IPCOL here, and when that fails to produce the desired result, he went to Naming conventions (West Bank)raise objections here. He hoped indeed that an ARBPIA3 be formally convoked to reexamine the whole issue.

• Michael consistently dismisses the views of those who disagree with him as politically motivated, with a couple of editors who declare strong biases and appear to be using Wikipedia to advance a political agenda on their user pages. He appears to identify (implicitly) me as a member of some cohort commanded by Nableezy, which, empowered by AE leniency, overlords and intimates nice people, threatens editing in the I/P area, and must be dealt with.

• WP:RS

He hasn’t the faintest notion of what RS means. He thinks a book’s inclusion in a major library’s holdings, thereby qualifies it as RS; he thinks that the time stamp for a book’s inclusion into a library’s stacks indicates it was both published by the library and RS by virtue of its place of residence. He argues repeatedly that a Pakistani high school teacher’s Islamic-oriented book can trump modern linguistics because it repeats a meme that happens to be erroneous; he thinks a quaint, outdated, self-published book (68 copies) by an LA mystagogue picked up by an occult books specialist when the copyright expired is RS for semitic philology. When each source is examined and picked apart comprehensively, he goes on undaunted and keeps plastering it, with minimal changes lower down on the page and elsewhere on admin pages with minor alterations as in accordance with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

• WP:CONSENSUS

He cites it but no one can understand why he appears not to have read it, since he argues that a lone hold-out impedes the unanimity required, unanimity meaning everyone changes sides and accepts his unique position.

• Wikipedia:No personal attacks

He constantly misconstrues simple sentences, and makes insidious inferences from his flawed interpretation of them. Thus he wrote an extraordinarily bitter tirade challenging my bona fides. Indeed, he said my putative prejudices were a threat to what he thought was the core of Judaism itself, if that is what he means by the extraordinary suggestion my presence and prejudices on this area of wikipedia threaten to erase most knowledge of a civilization entrenched in collective nationalism. At the outset he hinted he reads me as, well, anti-semitic, which is what his remark Nishidani, I find your tone unpleasant and combative, as is your visible contempt for Hebrew associations in many discussions,’ implies. It didn’t help with his rabbit-out-of-the-hat misprision about my putative ‘disdain for "holy writ".’ Users Johnuniq and NSH001 either gently asked him to reflect on his complete misinterpretation of my remarks, or apologize. Nothing doing. I don't mind insults. But Michael's use of them shows he has a problem.

Michael interprets editorial disagreements as a form of personal attack I have suffered repeated insults and character assaults by you since we began interacting . . Maybe you know in your heart that I'm right about this, but I can't otherwise understand your unwarranted frustration at me.

• Wikipedia:forum shopping

He went to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard here. A lengthy recycling of the same poorly substantiated arguments there involved several more, independent observers and their responses. The result was Michael refused the several compromises, similar to Oncenawhile’s offered by respectively Jayen, FCSundae and FormerIP. He then went to User:Wgfinley’s page and tried to restart the argument there, to my page, and to Peter cohen’s page.

• I told Michael to desist from his attacks. User:TransporterMan ended the thread there with a warning to behave. I can see no edit there by anyone else than Michael which could be described as aggressive.

• Stacking the vote tally to create the impression of rough parity, and therefore a lack of consensus.

He stacks his vote score by listing people who effectively voted against him. When informed of the errors, he refuses, except for one instance where he noted my protest that one vote for the consensual majority position was improper, to change his own tally.

He added User:Jayen466 to his support list on the basis of Jayen’s first comment here. After discussion, Jayen modified his initial view towards a compromise here, where he writes “So you could say 'Foundation of Shalem'(?), often interpreted as 'abode of peace'", or something of that ilk.” and then approved of my suggestions for compromise, saying in his edit summary ‘sounds good’ here He also added User:AgadaUrbanit, who removed his name from it, declaring himself neutral. The support of two others is doubtful. The list really should have only Michael and perhaps one other on it, against 7 supporters for an edit which will remove the anomaly and error in the lead. I.e. the solution 30 minutes of commonsense could have agreed to. This fiction of a disputed consensus was what enabled him to edit war in the three reverts Nableezy outlined above.

• Michael has developed a WP:Battleground mentality that transforms efficient editing into a nightmare of dealing with attrition based on trivia, misunderstanding, and unfounded suspicions of personal or cultural or religious or ethnic enmity.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jiujitsuguy.

Thisthis and this all show Michael thoroughly familiar with the ARBPIA issues, since he has minutely examined and challenged them, and participated on many pages where these protocols were discussed. Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael now writes:'I did not threaten to revert against consensus". Anyone reading what I said there can see that.'

If an editor changes the lede, based on arguments made here and in the talk page, motivated by prejudices against nationalism, lack of knowledge of facts ' and bias towards "holy writ" , in order to supersede WP policy and scholarly sources that support the lede as it is, then I will revert it. (bias towards holy writ(!!) must mean its opposite:'bias against holy writ). That editorial opposition to nationalism in wikipedia must be subject to automatic reverts reveals Michael's clear position as a nationalist POV editor.

Any attempt to change the lede based on your sordid prejudices will be met with the staunchest opposition.

how is the mention of the Hebrew different from the mention of the Arabic in the lede? Unless you can address that, without basing it on etymology, my core point about notability stands, and forbids its removal from the lede.

A majority opinion existed when he made these remarks, whose tone was peremptory in asserting frequently he would revert unless his unique personal conditions were satisfied.(WP:OWN). Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, this is not the place to repeat content arguments. Arbs needn't be required to wade through the massive archives of sheer chat and equivocation. The central fact is that a simple solution was readily available and that even though about 20 people watched, advised, commented or voted in what was the thankless task of following these huge meanderings, you refused to listen. You challenged virtually everyone to the bitter end, which is unfortunately this. (ps. 'abode of peace' googles low or middle in the ranks of common 'meanings'. What one community thinks familiar, another may ignore (that's why we have WP:NPOV). I occasionally heard as a boy 'Visio pacis'/vision of peace,etc., (which was the predominant etymology for Jerusalem in Western civilization for almost one and a half millenia,) and encountered the scholarly etymologies as a young man at University).Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you still complain of my 'prejudices against nationalism', Michael, and appear to have identified your own position as one of defending 'the entrenched nationalism of a civilization', you'd better read policies like Civil POV pushing and its warnings against 'nationalist issues'. Our differences are summed up there. I don't think editors with a mission to entrench nationalism should be editing here.Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGF. Actually Agada, bless him, screwed up, but in that charming third-dimensional chessmatch manner we peon connoisseurs enjoy analysing. The point that persuades you was something I raised in discussing this with Nableezy 10 days ago, where I wrote:

Given his clean sheet (my presumption, I haven't checked) any serious ban is out of the question and should not be called for. I would suggest that you offer him the option of asking for a third opinion, and/or going to WP:RS to see if he can muster any support for his extremely isolated and idiosyncratic interpretations of a very simple, straightforward issue. He certainly should not have reverted a consensus reconfirmed after almost three weeks in which he has failed to persuade anyone he has had the better in what has been an endless succession of repetitive arguments.

I believed that at the time and hoped MN would mollify his intransigence on reading this. He didn't. Perhaps Michael persisted after that date (21 Dec) in forum shopping and further reverting because he assumed from what I wrote that whatever happened if he crossed the red line, his record would save him from a serious ban. That is just one of several possibilities, though. The fact is that he kept up his exasperating behaviour, and was supported in this by AgadaUrbanit, who did not act as a neutral party trying to mediate. I won’t go into details, but AU’s version of events is all summed up in his aside (‘However something went wrong’) between the 9th of December and the 21st of December. When I read that I mentally posted an Oscar to AU, who is wellknown for his antic sense of wry but highly purposive playfulness. He has never been 'neutral' and did not step in to mediate. To the contrary, he himself acted against consensus (his edit summary is a joy to read), and only very lately in the piece stepped forward when Michael's persistence became startingly dangerous to MN's reputation here.

Michael reverted three times. The third time I restored the consensus version. AgadaUrbanit reverted me, i.e. supported Michael’s defiance of the consensus immediately 08:38, 25 December 2011‎, intervening for the first time on that date, 3 weeks after extensive discussion on 4 distinct pages. Within 7 minutes, Michael gave me a formal warning for edit warring and disruptive behaviour and, an hour later, added Agada’s name to the (otherwise mostly fictitious) list of people supporting him.

Much happened (something went wrong?) but a full day later, Agada suddenly decided to remove his name from Michael’s list and classify himself as neutral. In that same edit, while supporting Michael’s view, he accepted finally a compromise others had been suggesting to Michael for over two weeks.

I have hesitated to say anything here. I therefore must correct the impression people are liable o have that this is vindictive. I don’t believe in longterm bans. I think people ought simply to be told, when they show egregious POV behaviour like this, to write an article that treats of an issue dear to the hearts of the ‘other side’. If Michael undertook to write an article on ‘Fatalities among navvies/labourers on Israeli construction sites’ to NPOV, then as far as I’m concerned, no sanction at all would be necessary. Once it was completed, and reviewed as satisfactory, comprehensive and neutral, he could come back. That is the kind of sanction I would apply to everyone from ‘every side’ who has failed to respect NPOV, and who brings to the encyclopedia an undue interest in only one ‘angle of incidence’.

I have reviewed User:MichaelNetzer's talk page as well as the ARBPIA logs[25] and it appears that he was never issued an ARBPIA warning (unless I missed something). If this is indeed the case, protocol would mandate the issuance of such a warning to the account before a sanction (if any is warranted) could be imposed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cut and pasted the relevant section from the page:

• Standard discretionary sanctions

6) All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. (Emphasis added by me) Passed 14 to 0 by motion, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: I find it amazing Nableezy that you can remember an event that occurred over two years ago within seconds of my post but you are “absent minded” or had a “momentary loss of memory” when it comes to your own sanction that was imposed barely a week prior. Keep burying yourself.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered Nishidani at an unrelated article (SAQ), and occasionally scan his talk page, but have not been involved with any P-I issues. I was amazed to see a claim on his talk page that Nishidani had made a statement that "is enough to block users from editing areas relating to their prejudice" (i.e. Nishidani should not edit P-I topics due to a prejudice) (01:42, 20 December 2011 by MichaelNetzer). I have no idea what perspective Nishidani has on P-I matters, so while I was skeptical of the claim that he had a blatant prejudice I am sufficiently open minded to consider that he might have a problem, so I investigated the background to MichaelNetzer's comment. I then responded and engaged in a discussion that leads me to believe that MichaelNetzer should not be editing any controversial topics, and that he has violated ARBPIA#4 (AGF, NPOV, CIVIL, NPA).

My reasons for these conclusions are that MichaelNetzer has grossly misinterpreted some comments made by Nishidani, and maintained those gross misinterpretations with no hint of compromise even after the errors were explained. Following the diffs is too confusing, so I will merely outline the issues which can be seen in the wall of text at User talk:Nishidani#Notes (permalink): Nishidani made a comment at DRN that included: "I'm a pagan, so I have no horse in the race. I dislike or rather have deep suspicions about feelings of nationalism, esp. collective, that rise above the love of a landscape, food, and language. These are the prejudices I bring to edits." (diff). MichaelNetzer responded (link above) with a claim that this statement shows Nishidani has a prejudice [and should not edit P-I topics]. I responded that "Nishidani of course is saying he has no prejudices other than that NPOV should be observed". MichaelNetzer's reply switched to '"I'm a pagan, so I have no horse in the race" means the editor has a "pagan horse" in the race'. That interpretation is simply absurd so I realized that it would not be fruitful to further explain the meaning of Nishidani's clear statement, so I switched to the more substantive issue of how to interact with an editor (Nishidani) who disputes an edit (Jerusalem means "abode of peace")—my attempts failed.

While the gross misinterpretations made by MichaelNetzer at Nishidani's talk could be overlooked as just another event at Wikipedia, they demonstrate that it is not possible to rely on MichaelNetzer's judgment about what a source says—when a couple of obvious errors are visible, it is likely there are many more.

Regarding the content issue of whether the word "Jerusalem" means "Abode of Peace": I gather that no one disputes that there are many sources containing that claim—the point is, that scholarly sources show the claim is not correct, it is only that some people like to refer to the city as "Abode of Peace". Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about whether sanctions should be applied here or what they should be. I would say that I find Michael's position regarding the content issue to be fairly absurd, and he is also a little too trigger-happy with personal attacks.

What matters is that the article is improved by excising the folk etymology from the first sentence. No other editor appears to support its retention.

As an aside, perhaps Wikipedia could benefit from a specific guideline regarding folk etymologies. As an aside to the aside, this is a good example of where "verifiability not truth" does not make sense. Folk etymologies are usually very easy to verify. Genuine etymologies are harder, but they have the merit of being closer to "truth". --FormerIP (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So an admin reopens this, quite probably through my edit. But I am not allowed to post a single word here without a diff. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So a six-month topic ban is proposed. In other cases, on this page, indefs are proposed for long-term editors (and for much smaller violations). We hear a lot from admins that term bans are ineffective and indefs are the way to go. Can we have some clarity of the overall approach please? - BorisG (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope my comment here is appropriate. I've been involved lately in discussions on Jerusalem, trying to separate fighting parties. I am not sure that Michael reverted a "consensus" version as submitter claims. It is really important in the topic area of Jerusalem to preserve balance between religious and ethnic groups involved in the subject.

• edit by Oncenawhile, 9 December 2011, edit summary: "removing abode of peace from lede, as per talk. Nishidani, will you amend the etymology section?"
• After the discussion of this edit revert, it was suggested by user:Oncenawhile to remove both Hebrew and Arabic translations of the name, see diff:

Hi all, can I suggest the following for a compromise proposal for the lede: Jerusalem (Template:Lang-he-n (audio)^ⓘ, Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym; Arabic: القُدس (audio)^ⓘ, al-Quds)

• However something went wrong and next edit trying to fix the first sentence was not balanced: edit by Nableezy, , 21 December 2011, edit summary: "inaccurate, consensus to remove this on talk page and DR/N" The wording introduced was not hammered on the article talk page.
• I've noted on the talk page that the wording is not balanced, see diff and waited couple of days. There were no objections, Michael specifically "Generally agreed", see diff. So I went ahead, see diff and changed the article per Oncenawhile's suggestion.
• The wording was immediately(within 16 mins) balanced even more, see diff. Who could disagree that "one transliteraation is plenty" ( for Hebrew, when Arabic language has only one )? With that, on downside, this change was not discussed by submitter of this request on talk page either.

Previously, Michael demonstrated a great flexibility in handling a long standing issue of Jerusalem location map, see talk. Submitter of this request claimed "consensus" prematurely, see diff. With that Michael managed to achieve an agreement with submitter of this request on question of map, so I am not sure why the submitter still pushing this enforcement request. Maybe it is related to this submitter's comment on Michael during previous AE request. I think we're lucky to have Michael as a contributor. With that Michael should realize that wall of texts on article's talk page is not a purpose of Wikipedia. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:ARBPIA requires the user receive a warning, the report template includes a space for the warning diff as well. Per the decision (emphasis mine):

MichaelNetzer wasn't previously warned, warning and closing the case. --WGFinley (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given questions I am reopening this AE report to discuss more, I won't be doing it. This is my final comment on this matter.

To me the process of sanctions concerning AE is very important, if we sanction users who haven't been warned without giving them an opportunity to remediate their behavior we are setting a very dangerous precedent. I am not and have not justified any conduct by Michael as my warning shows but I still feel he is entitled his chance to listen to the warning and remediate his behavior. This case should be closed but it won't be me who will do it. --WGFinley (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have explained the reason for my view that the original close was premature in my comment in the Nableezy case. Two aspects of this matter require more in-depth attention than what has been given to it thus far.
  • First, I'm of the view that MichaelNetzer has been, at a minimum, constructively warned of ARBPIA sanctions prior to this report and may consequently be sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions. There is no requirement in ARBPIA that the warning be particularly directed to the editor, or given by an administrator, or logged (or even loggable); all that is required is "an initial warning". My view is that MN's history of participation at AE, especially when considered in conjunction with the ARBPIA banner on Talk:Jerusalem ("WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"), compels the conclusion that he has been constructively warned and no additional warning is necessary. This reading is consistent with the reading of the discretionary sanctions provision that allowed for article-level 1RR: the edit notice advertising the 1RR was considered sufficient warning to allow for imposition of a block as a discretionary sanction. (See this request for clarification.)

    If there is ever a case where finding constructive warning is appropriate, this is that case. We have here an editor who's clearly familiar with the discretionary sanctions provisions by virtue of his repeated participation in this noticeboard. To require yet another warning before sanctions can be imposed in such a case is, at a minimum, counterintuitive, and we should try to interpret the remedies in a way that avoids such a counterintuitive result whenever possible.

    Turning to the actual conduct, I'm of the view that the complaint has merit. I have reviewed the discussions at WP:DRN and Talk:Jerusalem, and frankly MN's conduct in those discussions is well below the expected standards of behavior, to say nothing about the revert warring. His style of discussion made him...extremely difficult to work with, to put it charitably. Johnuniq and FormerIP's comments are well taken.

    I propose a six-month topic ban.

  • Second, a simple edit warring block should have been considered even assuming that another warning is required. As I'm of the view that another warning is unnecessary, I'll not comment on this aspect at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a question for Tim - are you proposing a topic ban from I/P generally, or Jerusalem related topics, or something narrower (etylomological edits/discussions in articles under WP:ARBPIA)?--Cailil ^talk 15:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm actually thinking of the broadest topic ban available to us - my personal inclination is a broad Middle East topic ban; failing that, an I/P-and-Jerusalem ban will work too (I added the Jerusalem part just to be extra clear; my view is that any edit to Jerusalem will fall within a straight I/P ban, but it never hurts to make it clearer). We have a pretty bad case of inability to collaborate here, and I frankly don't want him to be anywhere near this topic area. T. Canens (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • I agree that MN should be considered to have been constructivey warned and concur with Ed that edit warring in the lede of Jerusalem is an incendiary act. However, WGF has a point: a 6 month ban from the whole Arab-Israel topic is harsh considering that MN has no record, that any disruption here is related to a single issue. I'd be on board for a Jerusalem topic ban and a Arab-Isreali topic wide probation for 6 months. If that gets violated harsher sanction would be inevitable--Cailil ^talk 16:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • Works for me. T. Canens (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that a person like Michael Netzer who has edited extensively at WP:Arbitration enforcement regarding Arab-Israeli topics (64 edits altogether) should be considered to be aware that ARBPIA carries discretionary sanctions. A six-month topic ban sounds correct. I was especially influenced by his firm declarations at WP:DRN about the lead of Jerusalem: "Any attempt to change the lede based on your sordid prejudices will be met with the staunchest opposition". Translations of names and alternate-language terminologies for place names are often at the center of ethnic disputes at Wikipedia. These are the kind of disputes that discretionary sanctions are intended to address. Michael Netzer's uncompromising persistence, and his use of phrases like "I will revert it" (in bold type) does not sound like an open-minded search for consensus. Fighting over the lead of Jersusalem is like grabbing the third rail of mideast disputes. His persistence seems to reveal a lack of common sense. If MN returns to general editing of I/P topics you can probably expect a lot more talk comments from him like the unhelpful and stubborn ones you seen now in the DRN thread. You would then be expecting regular editors who want to work in the I/P area to calmly and patiently search for consensus with a person who displays that attitude. There is a limit to what they should have to put up with. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC). Corrected my comment -- MN did not use bold face in the original. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I changed my mind and am going to weigh in one more time on this. First, I found AgadaUrbanit's comment above as the most insightful from someone who has been working on the article. MichaelNetzer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history on the article of trying to work with people, he has a 5-year-old account with a completely clean record: no blocks, no bans and no formal ARBPIA warning before this AE report. I find a P-I TBAN to be extremely harsh for someone who has no prior history. Finally, I think we see something rare here on AE and that is some contrition: "I was wrong in some of it and will not repeat the mistakes made due to being relatively new to this area." I think his formal warning and admonition I delivered is sufficient but if others feel some sort of TBAN is required I think 30 days on Jerusalem would be the most appropriate for his tendentious editing there. --WGFinley (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also as to Tim's point that this is the perfect case where someone didn't need a warning I feel this ignores half of what the purpose of a warning is. Per WP:AC/DS the warning is not just to make someone aware problematic editing in the topic area is subject to sanction, it's to specifically tell that editor his current actions could lead him to sanction and counsel on how to avoid sanction. It's an opportunity for someone to remediate their behavior before sanction, outside of blatant and gross disregard for WP policies I feel every editor should get that opportunity. --WGFinley (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Winterbliss (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

AA2, ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct

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

• Ethno-nationalistic battleground conduct:

1. [26], denying validity of neutral sources on grounds of their supposed ethnic origin, line 73.
2. [27], denying validity of neutral sources on grounds of their supposed ethnic origin. N.B. User:Tuscumbia was topic-banned for six months by User:Sandstein [28] because of a similar violation [29].

• Revert war on Murovdag page:

1. [30], First revert on Murovdag page
2. [31], Second revert on Murovdag page
3. [32], Third revert on Murovdag page
4. [33], Fourth revert on Murovdag page

• Revert wars on other pages:

1. [34] First revert on Gülablı article on 27 Sept.
2. [35] Second revert on Gülablı article on 27 Sept.
3. [36] Third revert on Gülablı article on 28 Sept.
4. [37] First revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 30 Sept.
5. [38] Second revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 30 Sept.
6. [39] Third revert on 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 3 Oct.
7. [40] Fourth revert 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing article on 3 Oct.

• Unfounded accusations on sockpuppetry Wikipedia:NPA.

1. [41], unfounded accusations on sockpuppetry running counter to evidence
2. [42], unfounded accusations on sockpuppetry running counter to evidence, line 47, accusing User:George Spurlin of sockpuppetry

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

1. Warned on [43] by Stifle (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on [44] by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)
3. Arbitration Enforcement topic Ban for 6 Months [45] by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
4. Blocked for violation of Arbitration Enforcement Topic Ban [46] ] by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
5. Blocked for edit warring [47] by Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (talk · contribs)
6. Warned on Dec 27, 2011 on [48], line 81, by Anomie (talk · contribs): "Reach a consensus before using {{edit protected}}. Protected edit requests are not a vehicle for continuing your edit war."

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editing record of User:Tuscumbia shows that he has been topic banned several times. His most recent six-month topic ban expired in mid-summer 2011. Since then User:Tuscumbia returned to an editing behavior that is highly unwelcome and needlessly combative. Since the end of the ban User:Tuscumbia demonstrates continued disregard of those Wikipedia rules for which he was banned.

A special concern is Tuscumbia's battleground attitude regarding sources. Tuscumbia has been warned and topic banned by User:Sandstein [49] for specifically choosing to exclude sources based on his or her ethnicity, as evidenced by [50]. He still continues to use racism in his arguments regarding sources: [51], [52]. Tuscumbia recent speak [53], line 73: "Neutral sources"? Are you kidding? Bournoutian, Cheterian, Gilanentz? Come on... These are Armenian authors who are likely to indicate the Armenian names in their writings rather than the correct names." As a note: George Bournoutian is a world-renowned peer-reviewed Western USA-based academic with impeccable reputation. Gilanentz is a medieval (!) author. Cheterian is French. In addtion to these 3 authors whom Tuscumbia is demonizing as "Armenians" User:George Spurlin also mentioned the following sources: John F. R. Wright, Nicholas Holding, and Karl Derouen [54]. Tuscumbia pretended he did not notice these other NPOV sources and focused on his supposedly "Armenian" targets. As pointed out by User:Sandstein when enforcing a topic ban on Tuscumbia [55]: entering into conflicts about either editors or sources on the basis of any ethnic, national or other background, rather than on the basis of their individual reliability or the strength of their arguments, is entirely at odds with WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#BATTLE, as well as strongly morally objectionable. User:Tuscumbia is continuously found in various revert wars. The most recent example is the Murovdag page. This and other examples are shown above. Winterbliss (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been CU-checked in an SPI just recently. In fact that was my first encounter with Tuscumbia who accused me and a group of other editors of being socks by filing an SPI report. I was active in Russian Wikipedia for a long time and know rules, regulations and techniques of WP editing relatively well. It still takes me while to file a report like that though. As a confirmation, I type this sentence in Russian: Я хорошо знаком с правилами Вкипедии и технической стороной редактирования текстов в режиме Вики. Please look into the matter and essence of Tuscumbia's continued misconduct. Suspecting someone to be a sock or meat is not an excuse for violation of rules of WP editing or disregarding Tuscumbia's battleground attitude. Here is the opinion of an independent editor Lothar von Richthofen who commented on Tuscumbia's misuse of SPIs: "Checkuser is not for fishing. If you can present actual evidence other then "they make edits that I don't like and it makes me mad so I want to harass them with SPIs on the offhand chance that they will turn up to be the same people", then maybe a new Checkuser might be in order. Otherwise, your invocation of phantom sockpuppeteers is borderline disruptive"→ [56] Winterbliss (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[57]

Actually, there is no statement to be made as I expected one of the new suspicious accounts to report me on one of the boards. That's the main intent why these accounts are generated. This account Winterbliss by itself is a part of the suspicious group of new users who don't act like new unexperienced editors and seem to know their ways around the most controversial articles. The simultaneous appearance of the accounts Dehr, InTheRevolution, Winterbliss, Sprutt, Zimmarod, Hablabar, George Spurlin, shortly after blocking of the following sockpuppet accounts: Bars77, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, Szeget, 2492BC, Repin3, Oxi42 is not coincidental. Their contribution histories suggest that they are generated to make just a few or several minor edits like typo fixing, removal of names, adding commas, etc to build a contribution history and seem genuine; and in between reverting controversial articles pertaining to the subject of AA2. The main purpose is to assist the established users on their side to avoid santions or being reported, and more importantly, drag the established users from the other side into reports such as this one with an intent to get them sanctioned. Note that they are there to sacrifice themselves to sanctions and pull the established users along with them, thus clearing the path for their established peers. This is a long term practice by these users and many have gone into indefinite blocks (Please see rich archives of similar sock accounts for Hetoum I, Meowy, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon/Archive, Andranikpasha, Paligun, Capasitor, Aram-van and many more which can be found in SPI archives. However, neither administrator enforcement is able to stop these sock masters from generating newer sock accounts as range blocks of IPs are often discouraged. At times, new accounts like that of Winterbliss may also act as meatpuppets using people at different locations or proxy IPs. It's a well established fact that the user Meowy, Ararat arev, for example, edited from various locations. It is also likely that you will often witness them try to fool administrators by lame compliments to themselves such as this one where Aram-van compliments himself by using this sock account 2492BC and then responds to himself as Aram-van. Little do they know that they are to be disclosed soon as yet another sockpuppet.

• Now, responding to the "ethno-nationalistic battleground" claims.

1. [58] does not state anything claimed by the reporting party. It just states what I just reiterated above in this report.
2. [59], this is actually a valid response to User:MarshallBagramyan, who discredited three neutral authors of Jewish, Swedish and Persian heritage, giving the credibility over them to the Armenian author Bournoutian. In other words, an Armenian Wikipedia user adds POV information to the article supported by an Armenian-American author, and when the article was NPOV-ed by adding arguments by three non-Armenian authors (who are also non-Azeri), MarshallBagramyan started this discussion. By the way, he had been indefinitely sanctioned for making derogatory statements on authors based on their ethnicity, place of their publication, etc. Discussion with George Spurlin on Murovdag is of the same content.

• Murovdag article. Yes, I made all those reverts. So? What's your point, Winterbliss? It is perfectly explained on the talk page of the article why the reverts to the stable version have been made. Even the admin reverted it back to the stable version. Ironically, User:George Spurlin made the same reverts ([60], [61], [62], [63], [64] as the sockpuppet Oxi42 of sockmaster Xebulon: [65], [66].

• Gülablı article. Yes, I did make all those reverts as well, but did you forget to mention the discussion on the talk page of the article and how users Fedayee, Takabeg, MarshallBagramyan engaged in the same war [67], [68], [69]? Or are you just being selective?

• On sockpuppetry statements such as this [70]. Please see my response above. An intelligent person, understanding how accounts come and go in Wikipedia, will confirm that these accounts do act suspiciously and the pattern of editing behavior suggests their activity is coordinated. An experienced admin involved in AA2 and SPIs that got many of similar socks and their masters blocked will tell you how often and likely these sockpuppets operate. So, whether these accounts are technically found related or not at some point is not that important. What's important is that these accounts acts the same way, edit with the same pattern and revert in the same articles.

• What are those diffs for warnings? Did you forget to post a warning by my kindergarten teacher three decades ago for spilling the juice on the floor? Yes, there had been warnings and bans which have been taken care of. Unlike your peers, I had continued to edit on various subjects, because I am not a casual editor like you who's brought here to edit war and subsequently drag established users into arbitrations.

The bottom line is that reverting is not a crime, as long as it's a blind reverting without commenting and engaging in conversations. Many of the socks are usually used for that. I have not violated a WP:3RR, neither did I make unsubstantiated edits. The user George Spurlin whose only edits are an engagement in edit/revert wars (other minor tweaks are for display) was even requested not to use the edit-protected article request, he had made as a vehicle for for edit warring. Note that the reporting party lied in section 6 of Diff of notifications above claiming the admin is warning me. The admin is in fact warning the George Spurlin account who had filed the edit protected request. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashot Arzumanian, please read the whole discussion and see in what context the reference was made to an author of Armenian heritage. Very simple. User A (MarshallBagramyan) was adding information to the article, in favor of Armenian version of historiography written by Armenian-American author (unsupported by any neutral source), while User B was adding the counter arguments by neutral authors of Swedish, Jewish, American and Persian heritage which do not promote the Azerbaijani version of historiography and as already as stated here, both the arguments of User A were retained in the article and views by non-Azeri neutral authors were included. When the issue is controversial, the preference is to use neutral sources. I hope this clarifies.

Moreover though, since you have been "busy", is it really coincidental you appeared on this page to comment? Or was it the suspicious new user George Spurlin, who became pretty active right around December 11, 2011 when you ceased your activity, that inspired you? After all, Ashot, it's an established fact that you have previously used sock accounts. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallBagramyan, I'm sorry but your statement has no base whatsoever. First of all, I can produce dozens of diffs where you revert other new users or IP without that "patience" you're pretend to advocate here. Secondly, was this not you proposing to avoid using sources based on the ethnicity and place of publication? Or this one where you denigrade an author? In fact, this section on the article talk page shows evidence how you mistreat Azerbaijani authors while favoring the Armenian ones (of the same credibility). Last but not least, I'd like to show MarshallBagramyan's insincere intent here where he first bashed an author claiming he has "a discernible affiliation with Azerbaijan, such as Charles van der Leeuw" and then said something quite different: "...even the two non-Azerbaijani government affiliated sources, van der Leeuw and Bolukbasi, make use of the word allegedly...". Gaming the system and admins, Marshall? Anyone?

Anyway, Marshall and others, you may try to come onto me in this kind of baseless reports by numbers, but your arguments hold no content. Hence the use of potential socks. After all, all accounts who edit warred on AA2 pages in coordination such as User:Vandorenfm, User:Gorzaim, User:Bars77 and so forth, lately, turned out to be socks. So, this new wave of socks mentioned above in my statement as well as this report is most likely coordinated off-Wiki. Your off Wiki coordination with a professional sock master Meowy is indisputable. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashot Arzumanian, just a simple fact that after a long absence you appear on this page to be a part of quantitive attack against me indicates two things: either you're in a constant off-Wiki coordination with the filing suspicious user and others who have been trying to get me blocked, or you're using one of sockpuppet accounts yourself and have been all aware about the ongoing revert war by George Spurlin (the account that became active the day you decreased your activity).

MarshallBagramyan, I'm not a part of any Russian Wiki group busted by Russian administrators that you have been promoting in all forums and never wanted to be. You, on the other hand have been in an off Wiki coordination and have been known to use proven sock accounts.

The Devil's Advocate, thank you for seeing what I have been seeing in disguise. These new sock accounts are well aware of the Wikipedia rules and go-arounds. They are a repetitive pattern which come and go, which I don't expect to decrease. The archives for the above mentioned socks and their masters clearly indicate they are nowhere near to stop.

EdJohnston, I had actually filed two SPIs suspecting Meowy's and Hetoum I's possible sock accounts which were found unrelated. However, I do believe they use many techniques to avoid SPIs. For instance, we know Meowy travelled and used various IPs for his sock accounts in the past. At one point in time, his IP 93.97.143.19 was not found related to the sock master first, but with the insistence of another editor, the same IP was found related to Meowy. The George Spurlin account did file an SPI on himself, but what's the point? He could have travelled from his regular location of User:Ashot Arzumanyan, as I allege, to another where he used the alternative account User:George Spurlin. One thing is clear. The new editors who come to Wikipedia with a genuine intent to contribute, do not appear to make minor tweaks to build themselves a contribution history and create a fake user page to seem like regular editor and then edit-war. Many of them such as Dehr, InTheRevolution, Winterbliss, Sprutt, Zimmarod, Hablabar come and go in a suspicious pattern. They might as well be friends of blocked users living on another continent, who would log in and edit/revert/remove on their behalf spending only 2-3 minutes a day. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, don't mislead administrators. The off-Wiki coordination charge is not currently against Kafka Liz but against you and the link I posted above proves that you are in off-Wiki coordination with blocked sock master Meowy, the fact that speaks for itself. As for the Winterbliss comment, as I mentioned above, the reason the new suspicious accounts are brought to edit war and drag established users into arbitration is that when and if administrators decide to sanction both the reporting party and the reported party, the established editor loses because he loses his only established account and ability to edit while the loss of a sock does not matter. Do you understand that? Tuscumbia (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my short interaction with Tuscumbia he showed zero effort to listen and reach a consensus. It was like talking to a wall. He definitely needs a break from editing, all that nationalistic anger can't be good for his health. --George Spurlin (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I usually edit at a very specific hour for my time zone. How many of the sockpuppets and their masters have done the same? This accusations are really getting old. What happened to the AGF? --George Spurlin (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objections to be checked. As a matter of fact, I requested to be checked, but was turned down. And yes, I created the userpage to stop it from being red, but had no desire to add more. My first encounter with Winterbliss was when he notified me about this report. --George Spurlin (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to report Tuscumbia myself, but nowadays I am very busy out of WP, so this is a good chance to share a serious concern on this editor. One of his topic bans was for this comment: "Armenian authors ... are naturally biased ... because they dismiss any reference to anything good Turkish/Turkic." [71] However he recently came up with very identical statement: "... you, as usually go on giving credibility to the historian of Armenian heritage who is more likely to write in favor of Armenian majority, than those three (of Persian, Jewish, Swedish, etc heritage) who have no affiliation to Azerbaijan and thus wouldn't fake the demographic information in favor of Azerbaijani majority" [72]. I can't see any improvement though almost a year has passed. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 16:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not acceptable to criticize sources on the basis of the alleged ethnic heritage of their authors. People cannot influence where they are born, and it is fallacious to assume that they hold certain opinions or are more or less reliable simply because of who their parents are. Advancing such opinions is misusing Wikipedia as a vehicle for ethnic conflict (see WP:BATTLE). Instead, all sources and authors should be evaluated only on the basis of their reliability as set forth in WP:RS. This is very simple, and Tuscumbia was made aware of this by Sandstain. However his last comment demonstrates that he is reluctant to change his views, therefore the issue needs to be addressed by admins. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that really matter who the filer is? The filer's identity issue really needs to be addressed since the his/her history of contributions is suspicious at least. But I agree with Marshal that this doesn't diminish the evidence brought forward. I am ready to refile the report on behalf of myself if this technical formality is the case.

And per Tuscumbia's unfounded allegations regarding me. Any checkuser can confirm that I logged in WP almost everyday from my regular locations once I opened my browser. The checkuser can also confirm that I always follow my watchlist.

PS: I have no problem with being checked if it is necessary. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 06:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've shared similar concerns about Tuscumbia and it should be noted that I had reported him earlier to the Arbitration page in October; for some inexplicable reason, the complaint was never followed up on, even though I re-listed it twice on this page (see, e.g., here). I don't want to dwell on that report but I would just like to address Tuscumbia's point on the alleged sockpuppets: regardless of how many of them spring up, he, as an established editor, should exercise restraint and be patient when working with other editors, even if they are suspected socks. Report them if you have enough evidence, but there is nothing compelling you to make those immediate reverts and thus no reason for you to be sucked into these edit wars that they initiate.

I must reiterate, furthermore, that never have I used the ethnicity of an author to exclude them as a source. If one goes back to the discussion page of the article Tuscumbia keeps making reference to, they will notice how much I emphasize that the article must rely on the works of peer-reviewed scholars and academics, and not political scientists and individuals who are not experts in the fields they are working on.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "coming on to you" Tuscumbia. In all the cases you cite to support your argument, nowhere do I mention ethnicity as a reason for exclusion. I take in other factors into account, such as the conditions they are writing in, their scholarly credentials, their level expertise in a given field, etc. And let us not pretend that sockpuppeting and off-Wiki coordination is a one-way street on these articles. I hardly need to remind you and everyone else here about that, let alone the massive off-Wiki coordination that was taking place on the Russian Wikipedia before that ring was busted by an editor and dealt with by administrators. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscumbia, perhaps you should stop trotting out that false canard of off-Wiki coordination when you know full well that Kafka Liz's interaction with Meowy was personal in nature; the fact that the former has offered to disclose the details of that communication should be enough to dissuade you.

Ed, regardless of who or what Winterbliss is, does that still mitigate the merit of the evidence he has brought forth? As I noted above, I, too, had filed a complaint here two months ago (the link is found in my first comment) and that was promptly ignored, even after I re-listed it two times. The invasion of sockpuppets is disconcerting but I think we shouldn't allow it to detract from evaluating the material presented. Nevertheless, I would it desirable if Winterbliss at least subject himself to at a CU.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like the sockpuppetry allegations against the filer have some merit. Winterbliss is unusually familiar with the process. See this in light of this. Also, see these violations of WP:CANVASS: [73] [74].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Devil's Advocate: you are an account banned recently by Wgfinley. See above. You are not supposed to be on AE pages and posting comments. Your comment about WP:CANVASS is not accepted. I was obligated to notify George Spurlin and MarshallBagramian because their names are mentioned in the case. Winterbliss (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who has been topic-banned from one topic area is perfectly free to comment on AE cases involving other topic areas.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear part of the evidence is that Winterbliss filed an SPI within a month of registering accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet that was similarly accused of being sockpuppetsaccused of meatpuppetry by banned account User:Vandorenfm.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that and this is not true. I filed an SPI on Verman1 and he has never been SPI reported by the account called Vandorenfm. Yet another manipulation by Devil's Advocate. Winterbliss (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did accuse Twilight Chill/Brandmeister of being a sockpuppet in that report, though it seems I mistook a comment from the Vandorenfm account as implying sockpuppetry, when it was in fact just noting that they are the same users.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winter, according to SUL you registered at the Russian wiki after registering here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devil, this is a manipulation on your part. I never edited in Russian wiki as Winterbliss and had a totally different user ID. But if someone is in English Wikipedia and happens to visit Russian pages globally from his/her English account, he/she leaves a trace by automatically creating a phantom account. The same is true with Wikipedia Commons and other wiki outfits. You are trying to misrepresent this trace as a separate account disregarding that there are no edits there at all. Absurd. Please try your devil-advocate skills/manipulations somewhere else. Or perhaps you are Tuscumbia's sock/meatpuppet? Winterbliss (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you have contributed to the Russian Wikipedia and so I checked to see if you had. When you mention contributions you have made with another account it would be good to provide the name of that account so any interested admin can check your claims.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the CU inquiry only determined that you are not User:Meowy. It did not determine that you are not a sock.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WG Winterbliss has said he has a separate account for the Russian Wikipedia. Should he provide the name of that account an admin can check to see if it matches up. As for what other account Winter may be linked to, it seems Vandorenfm/Xebulon is the most likely candidate if Winterbliss is a sockpuppet account. Winterbliss has made a revert to Caucasian Albania, an article that had been a favored target of both the Vandorenfm and Xebulon accounts. In an SPI Winterbliss filed, not only is the editor who filed an AE request against Vandorenfm named as a sock with no supporting evidence, there are numerous references to the Amaras monastery article that Winter has no history of editing, but that Xebulon does. Vandorenfm, Xebulon, and Winterbliss all demonstrate this focus on Armenian monasteries in their edit histories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With my old Russian account Brindz (before I moved to the USA) I made a total of 35 edits on Armenian monasteries :)):)))) Winterbliss (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Since there has been so much sockpuppetry in the area of Armenia-Azerbaijan, I would be tempted to disregard complaints by editors who don't have a track record of useful contributions. User:George Spurlin seems to be too new to be submitting a complaint like this one. I'm afraid that the page at User:George Spurlin looks like a typical sock user page ('Hi, I'm George.'). This appears to be noninformative content added simply to keep the user page from showing up as a red link. Forgive my skepticism. WP:SOCK forbids socks from editing project space, which is where AE is located. I would withdraw my objection if you are willing to identify yourself to a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Ed I could hear this quacking a mile away. Although just to correct Ed, User:Winterbliss submitted this and has a "typical sock user page" and talk page. Winterbliss's account was created November 2011 and has around 90 edits. George Spurlin's account was created in May 2011 and has around 90 edits. While I don't know if these two are socks of one another, as Ed says the Armenia-Azerbaijan sock drawer is full to overflowing.
  Recommend closing and sending this to SPI--Cailil ^talk 21:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We appear to have a new pair of socks for the sock drawer and I would agree to SPI but to which accounts? Both George Spurlin (talk · contribs) and Winterbliss (talk · contribs) have few edits, went right to the conflict area and have already been on SPI and AE. I'd go with TBAN on both, indefinite, they are free to build some standing editing outside of the conflict area and demonstrate they aren't socks. --WGFinley (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I would concur that if Winterbliss' reason for lack of edits yet extensive DR knowledge is an account on WP-RU then yes, he should disclose that account. --WGFinley (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is with pleasure that I disclose my old WP-RU account. It was Участник:Brindz (before I moved to the USA). I hope this will stop groundless accusations in sockpuppetry, "drawers," etc. You can learn from my Участник:Brindz page I was majored in chemistry, and I recently published an article about Crocodile Fat. I was postponing publishing it because was carried away by battleground conduct of Tuscumbia and Verman1. You can also see that I edited an article on Biodiesel before filing this AE report and being confronted by sockpupptry accusations. As Участник:Brindz I also extensively edited pages on Armenian monasteries and Armenia too. Winterbliss (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

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

1. 22:35, December 22, 2011 He accused a discussion participant, DIREKTOR (talk · contribs), of committing personal attacks and trolling and insisted on him getting blocked and on continuing the protection of the article being discussed.
2. 07:33, December 23, 2011 After his report failed he went to the admin that originally protected the article and asked him to extend the protection, but this request also failed.
3. 16:59, December 23, 2011 He then attempted to get AniMate (talk · contribs), an admin who commented in the incident report against DIREKTOR, blocked for what Fkp has called "blatant lying" via Jimmy Wales' talkpage.
4. 04:43, December 27, 2011‎ He attempted to get another participant, Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs), blocked on the basis that he is a sockpuppet. This also failed.
5. 05:50, December 28, 2011 He then asked the admin who closed the SP investigation to "reconsider".

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

1. 05:52, April 16, 2011 Warning
2. 09:24, June 2, 2011 "1 revert per 48 hours" for 6 months restriction

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It is evident that FkpCascais is gaming the system and does not wish to participate in a proper discussion, but get users who disagree with him blocked by any means necessary and coerce admins. This is just the latest episode, but Fkp has a history of using whatever evasive techniques possible in order to dismiss sources and sourced information: he misquotes policies, seeks further protection, and flat out ignores sources. When all this failed he went on this spree you see above.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[75]

This is actually ironic, as I was the one insisting on discussion and consensus building, and the one who analised and found flaws in sources, while it were the others that sabotaged discussion and restarted the edit-war immediatelly after the protection was lifted. Whoever reads the reports and checks what really happend will see what is really going on. In my view it seems great that the issue was brought here, as there was a number of disruptive episodes that were ignored to the other side. I am available for any clarifications. FkpCascais (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am user who didn't participated in entire process, neither on article, nor on talk page. Well, reporting user failed to state that edit warring did restarted after page protection ended. So, it looks like FkpCascais suspicion was well founded, as user is question (DIREKTOR) didnt want to find consensus, but just waited for protection to end. Following that, his move to protect the page until agreement was the best possible Wikipedia guideline practice, while this report may (amd probably is) bad faith, as PRODUCER is under dispute with him in this content dispute, while FkpCascais didnt edit article in question since 19 December... But he is trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines, what may be quite a problem to some. And PRODUCER is the one who is trying to block users with whom is in dispute. This report is one, and this comment other obvious example. This only looks like a WP:BOOMERANG to me. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) User:WhiteWriter, while you've not participated in that particular discussion, please avoid trying to present yourself as anything like a "neutral" party. You are FkpCascais' "ally" and friend, and always come put in favor of his position. As I said on ANI, I do not pretend to be neutral here as I am engaged in a content dispute with FkpCascais, but nevertheless, I believe the disruption that is taking place there is a real issue that needs to be reviewed and addressed by objective, neutral users. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A consensus was achieved between the other users in the dispute who properly engaged the sources and policies. Fkp spent more effort "lobbying" to get the article protected with his preferred version intact and using source evasion tactics than he did properly engaging in discussion. As for your suggestion that I'm acting on bad faith: I first brought this up at the ANI incidents page due to the concern of other individuals and this was done after discussions were wrapped up. Only after an admin recommended that this is be taken to AE and after it was evident that no one wished to get involved in a Balkans incident was this report made. So enough with trying to make it appear I have it out for Fkp. Further more, I don't know what point your trying to make with that archives link other than a misleading one. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely untrue that a consensus was achieved. People who had one opinion always were on consensus while people of another opinion did not agree to the biased views imposed on the article. The article is filed with tenacious editing and my sources which I have backed up have continually been removed due to POV of the edit warring parties, Producer and Direktor. What bothers me the most is that even after I had provided sources by scanning pages, these users disregard that. Producer for example outright says that he does not believe this and that... it's become very difficult to deal with these users who simply do not want to negotiate anything that is different from what they believe. Especially with Direktor, who often threatens when one dares change something - his continual threats are seen all over the Yugoslav Partisans talk page. (LAz17 (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Nonsense, a version that all participants agreed on including myself, DIREKTOR, and Peacemaker27 was made. Do not try to create this image that we all unanimously agree on everything because that is simply not the case. I would like admins to note that LAz17 was indefinitely blocked for his tenacious editing by breaching his topic ban with the article in question and was later arbitrarily unblocked for no apparent reason. [76][77] I would like to point out for the record that while he was blocked he evaded his block with a sockpuppet, GibbonGiboo (talk · contribs), posing as "neutral" party who came "came to the page by accident" in order to sway the matter to his advantage through numbers and even admitted the matter on his talkpage. [78] In addition to this he had the shear tenacity to refer to me, sneakingly through a file he links in his apparent appeal, as "PRODUCER ustaska govnarcina" = "PRODUCER the Ustase shithead". [79] Now to top it all off he is spreading misinformation to the events that occurred. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you purpously forget to tell that you, DIREKTOR and Peacekeeper share the same POV... LAz17 may be a young editor but he clearly had his reasons on article content. BTW, perhaps admins should check yours and DIREKTOR´s block logs to have a clearer view. FkpCascais (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we do not, and constantly repeating that we do, does not make it any truer. Fkp, do you really believe LAz17's tenacious editing, violation of his topic ban, sockpuppeteering (GibbonGiboo (talk · contribs)), and personal attacks ("PRODUCER the Ustase shithead") are to be ignored on a whim because of his age and because he had "his reasons"? Frankly I'm astounded at your suggestion that his actions were justified. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked, and recently have been unblocked.

I did not do tenacious editing. You and Direktor did. Direktor did it in the past, but I was not allowed to address it due to bans. Finally the bans have been lifted so I look forward to mediation to resolve the issue after the holidays are over. Some weird things happen on wikipedia, like how Direktor and you are allowed to edit war without being punished. But so be it, mediation will hopefully solve the disagreements. (LAz17 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

The problem PRODUCER is that by LAz17 being blocked and unexperienced doesn´t make you necessarilly right about everything. FkpCascais (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais, I'm going to request mediation for the article on January 10th. By then the holidays will pass and Producer/Direktor will not be able be able to simply reject sources that are not to their liking, like they have been doing up till now. Not sure about you, but I have been threatened by them a lot in that talk page, much more than you have. It's quite aggravating. (LAz17 (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

I beleave that any step towards conflict resolution which includes supervision from some uninvolved admin is welcomed. FkpCascais (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for going into some detail.

FkpCascais' statement is more of a retaliatory "counter-attack" in-line with his WP:BATTLE perceptions, rather than a proper response, and as usual concerns itself primarily with the behavior of others rather than that of himself. It does however provide some context on the serious problem that, in my opinion, needs to be addressed in some way. Namely, his perception of discussion is that it is a "battleground" where he need only achieve numerical superiority in order to prevail, and where sources can be opposed on any nonsense imaginary grounds as long as this is so. The user obviously and without doubt holds that his feelings and opinions should be taken into account as "counterweights" to sources. His goal is to have allies (like the Serbian User:WhiteWriter), who, even when he lacks any semblance of a coherent argument, might drown out any source-based opposition on the talkpage, and which might help him justify the removal of referenced text through his many WP:EDIT WARS. I am not afraid to say that FkpCascais is an exceedingly disruptive, textbook WP:POV-PUSHER of the most obvious order, as defined on WP:NPOVD and WP:ADVOCACY. His activities on Wikipedia prominently include Serbian football - and the preservation of the good name of the World War II Serbian nationalist Chetnik movement.

The usual modus operandi is the user will

• 1) oppose sourced information on the basis of opinion. If its negative info on the Chetniks, FkpCascais will oppose it. If there is a source, he will attack the author (on the basis of his "assessments"). If people don't buy that, he'll simply claim (without backing) that the sources is "misrepresented". If there are several sources, he will quote WP:UNDUE (again without any backing). He might proclaim the sourced fact is "outrageous" or "exceptional" (because he thinks so), and he might demand more sources until he is personally satisfied, which of course, has never ever happened yet. I can go on and on like this, there's a lot more. Even when all his objections are rejected, and the sources are overwhelming, he will not agree to add whatever they support, he will simply go away for a while to start the conflict anew with a different baseless objections from the arsenal above.
• Then he will typically 2) remove this information from the article (without exception edit-warring against any opposition); at the same time
• 3) he and maybe one or two of his friends will oppose the sourced info on the talkpage supporting his actions (a couple users is enough on these obscure articles). The user can then proclaim that the sourced information is "non-consensus" (on the basis of his own thoughts, feelings, and opinions), and voilà - sources are ignored on our project. When the user cannot swing enough pals to join him (which he continuously tries to do), he of course continues to edit-war and oppose sources. And even when that fails - there's a contingency: he desperately tries to get the opposing users blocked so the numbers on the talkpage are back in his favor (even with the most absurd tactics, such as posting an SPI case where he admits that User:Peacemaker67 acts like an entirely different person, but that this is all part of his "plan" and so forth :)). His perception of discussion is textbook WP:BATTLE.

The sheer WP:DISRUPTION these tactics have caused on many Balkans articles is difficult to explain. FkpCascais is a phenomenon onto himself. Prominent examples are available all over Talk:Chetniks and Talk:Yugoslav Partisans. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, right. The steps you describe are actually your own attitude, thus you know them so well. Also, curious enough is the fact that all neutral participants ended up mostly disagreing with you, like User:Fainites, User:Sunray, User:Nuujinn or User:Jean-Jacques Georges and I am counting only the ones who are long-established and non-involved. Yes, we are all "evil Chetniks", right, disturbing the poor innocent direktor who does nothing less than edits of this kind, where he ignores discussion, restarts an edit war, removes sourced info about ethnic composition, replaces it by a new section named "Croatian Partisans", and adds an accusation of "ethnic cleansing" to Chetniks without even having a source saying it... Very "neutral"... Outragius is the fact that you managed to remove all other users from the discussions by all other means than demonstrating to be right. So now it is only me and Nuujinn left, and I am the first and next to be eliminated, right? But, I am doing everything under policies, so needs some extra efforts and all the imagination and manipulation of events as possible.

Once I see you using my hobbie football as excuse, It really means I can edit in peace and that I am doing a good job. Perhaps you should better prepare yourself, as immediatelly after I find some more time after hollydays I will challenge all disputed edits that you managed to insert into the article, and I´ll definitelly ask for a neutral third party to be present (RfC, RfM, or any other WP mean of solving disputes), as I refuse myself to keep on continuosly being ganged-up by you. FkpCascais (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR's description of your behavior is absolutely spot on. You attack reliable sources with whatever baseless and invalid accusations you can come up with and simply brush them off because they do not pass your personal arbitrary standards: [80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87] (Note these are only some examples from the past month) In addition to this, you regard and treat Wikipedia as a battleground of sorts and even use the terminology that someone on an actual battleground uses: [88] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those same concerns about your sources are shared by other neutral users, as seen in this discussion (Nuujinn has informed that he is on hollydays, so they are probably counting as this time as the ideal for this unfounded accusations against me). If you are all so sure of yourself, why all this effort of avoiding resolution disputes? You have a wrong approach into this important historical articles, as you disregard what actual scholars say, but you try to source your own missconceptions first. You are adding conflicting nationalistic content into articles, not me. You just have a biased view on the issue, and you think that by finding a couple of weak sources you can make and expand your own OR in WP... Anyone has the right to oppose it by citing adequate policies and flaws, and if you don´t like it, well, that is not my problem. If calling another user to bring sources is "offensive" to you, well, what should I think of DIREKTOR´s 80 counted reverts at Chetniks article? Accept arbitration, instead of loosing all the time trying to eliminate me and the others opposing you. In other words, if I am so bad and wrong as you claim, why is that I am the one asking for neutral arbitration of some kind, while you are doing all the possible to avoid it? Don´t answer to me, as I know the answers. FkpCascais (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't know if I see enough here for a sanction for disruption. FkpCascais does seem to be flailing quite a bit going to AN/I, two admins and SPI to get action against someone without much evidence of anything. I'd lean more towards an admonishment unless other admins think there's enough here for a TBAN. --WGFinley (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In recent months, there has been a substantial increase in the volume of commentary on enforcement requests. Much of this commentary is not by uninvolved editors and administrators, but individuals unconnected with the enforcement request in hand yet involved in the related subject area. When my term on the Arbitration Committee begins on 1 January 2012, I hope to discuss with my colleagues whether the enforcement process is operating to the satisfaction of the administrators who contribute here; from the astonishingly low number who choose to play an enforcement role, I suspect it isn't. I know from my own time on this noticeboard that it is frustrating to read excessive comments by users who are not the complainant or respondent but who edit the related topic or article, and I therefore propose we prohibit such participation in future. A minority of such comments are useful, and I don't want to tar all contributors to contentious topics with the same brush, but I think we can agree that most input of this type is not helpful.

I am receptive to a partial prohibition, for instance only on comments that do not point out factual errors in the submission or an administrator's observation (which may be fairest), but I think a complete limitation would be easier to enforce. (The terms of the prohibition would have to be elucidated clearly: some low benchmark of non-routine edits per month to an article or talk page on the topic may be easiest). Do any other editors think this would be a sensible change to our practices? I have opened this discussion here because the talk page for this noticeboard redirects to the talk for the main arbitration requests page, the scope of which is too broad for this issue, and because I know the other administrators who watch this page are guaranteed to see my proposal if I post it here. If my proposal would not make this an easier place to contribute, then I'm fine with that, but I am keen to address the hostile environment that this page creates - and I think reducing the obligatory debates that enforcement threads create would be a productive first move. AGK [•] 00:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome this. It seems that it is very easy for certain editors to game the system by using extensive use of hard to follow edits in their section and in replies to others, and often recently (and seemingly tolerated) comments in the admin section as well. It was very obvious that most admins and others could not keep up the pace in such cases. How's about adding some requirement limiting one's comments to their sub-section for starters (with authority of anyone to move editor's comments back to their sub-section). Allowing people to reply in order in sub-sections is convenient for the flow of the discussion but encourages a discussion if you know what I mean. Another suggestion is limiting each editor to 500 - 1000 words and not allow endless replies and counter replies. --Shuki (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very same question is discussed here: Comments by other editors on WP:AE cases. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there has been an increase per request (non-involved editors, not total words). Regardless, I think any change should be specific to the I-P cases since that is the ongoing problem (the system may not be in shambles for editors seeking remedies in other topic areas)Cptnono (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in other discussions I think the proposal is good and I support it.If people think its too extreme the other option would be to create are two different section for involved and uninvolved.The section of the involved should be hated.--Shrike (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that some users tend to just drop by with a predictable bunch of accusations, usually either reliant on ancient diffs irrelevant to the current dispute, or with no supporting evidence whatever. Over time, one can learn to ignore the more tendentious commentators and focus on the useful ones, but the sheer length of discussion in some cases might I suppose be daunting to a less experienced administrator.

Regardless, I couldn't support an outright ban on comments from users not directly involved in a given dispute, because I think the arguments of some editors who fall into this category can be extremely worthwhile. I suppose it might be possible to allow uninvolved admins to redact material they deem irrelevant to the current case, or to remove accusations unsupported by evidence, but then, I dislike anything that smacks of censorship, and disputes arising from redactions might end up making the whole idea more trouble than it is worth. Arguably there may also be an element of catharsis involved in these cases, where users get to blow off a little steam and head back to the topic area feeling a little calmer. So while the notion may sound agreeable in theory - who wouldn't like to read less in these cases? - in practice I have doubts about its efficacy. Given that cases are often open for quite a while, one usually has time to stay up to speed with all the new comments in any event. Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the discussion Che linked above, I think there should be a closer look at the specific behaviors creating this problem and the general topic area or particular editors who are contributing to the toxic atmosphere most.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with Gatoclass. While this is a good-faithed proposal, it is also misguided.

First, not all comments by "involved" editors are junk. In fact, "involved" editors tend to have the most thorough and detailed - although often biased - knowledge of particular disputes. Yes, I know reading some of these comments can be a big pain in the butt, but I just don't see how an "uninvolved" admin can come to any sort of reasonable conclusion regarding an issue without being at least minimally familiar with the issues at hand. And that means reading and checking what "involved" parties have to say.

Second, even if a particular "involved" editor is not the subject of an AE request themselves they very often fall into a broader category of... let's call it 'stakeholder' or 'interested party'. Editors often collaborate with one another, and a sanction against one particular editor may affect the work of others. Hence, it is natural that, as 'interested parties', other "involved" editors express their opinion. In fact, this kind of practice, is part and parcel of any kind of adjudicating process in the real world.

Third, the proposal is pretty much unenforceable. As someone else pointed out somewhere else, all you're gonna get is that instead of people bickering over some particular issue, they're going to start to bicker over whether or not they are "involved" or "uninvolved" and no explicit standard or threshold is going to prevent that. I've certainly seen plenty of editors and admins make claims of "uninvolvedness" over the years, despite the fact that in my own subjective opinion they were very clearly "involved".

Fourth, "uninvolved", by Wikipedia's definition, does not mean "unbiased", nor does "involved" imply "biased". Not only there's no "if and only if" here, there's no "if" and there's no "only if". As an example you can have an admin or an editor who has gotten into arguments with a subject of an AE request OVER OTHER ISSUES - hence, technically, "uninvolved" - come to AE to pursue personal grudges. I have never been able to understand why this kind of pursuit of personal conflicts is seen as "ok" by Wikipedia's standards (its definition of "uninvolved"), while having people who are knowledgeable about a particular issue is seen as problematic.

Fifth, here, the proposal does in fact sound like an attempt at censorship or at least at silencing some voices simply because they are perceived by some admins as "irritating" (read: they force admins to actually work a little before coming to a conclusion). I'm sorry, but just because some editors tend to annoy admins with their comments and "that it is frustrating to read excessive comments" is no reason to start silencing people. In fact, dealing with such comments is part of the job description and part of what an administrator who chooses to be active at AE signs up for. The purpose of AE is to help solve problems not to make banning people easy and arbitrary by making life easy for admins.

So, um Oppose. Volunteer Marek  18:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<- I think part of the problem is that the stakes are too high. There is often an opportunity to remove a perceived opponent/problem from the topic area for a lengthy period. Some editors are therefore willing to invest a lot of time and words in trying to achieve that objective (despite it having no effect on what reliable sources have to say and no effect on everyone's obligations to comply with mandatory policy no matter what their personal opinions are on an issue). Since bans are potentially lengthy, admins may take too long to process cases and the whole process can become self-sustaining and ant mill-like. I think lengthy and indefinite bans should be reserved for the really egregious cases where someone is clearly incapable of following policy or just doesn't care about it. They are usually obvious when they come up and they often don't even make it here because the editor is simply blocked by an admin. Routine cases of editors not complying with policy and the sanctions could be dealt with quickly using temporary preventative topic bans for fixed periods like a month. The objective should be to make editors and therefore content better by quickly addressing misbehavior, not to reduce admin burden. If an editor does something wrong they could be topic banned for a month. If they do it again when they come back they get another month and so on until they learn that not following the rules gets them quickly topic banned for a month everytime. When editors are not getting the message that they must comply with policy they should be topic banned quickly and for long enough to stop them causing disruption over a particular discussion/issue. I don't see why the cases couldn't be dealt with quickly like edit warring/1RR reports so that the admin burden isn't too high and editors don't feel the urge to make extensive comments. Unfortunately the sanctions (Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Editors_counseled) talk in terms of what editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are "counseled" and "may wish" to do when they should explicitly spell out that editing privileges within the topic area will be revoked if an editor cannot edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that cases brought to AE are not always straightforward and obvious. Sometimes there is a need for detail and longer explanations and opinions from others involved can provide insight that uninvolved editors would not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True occasionally but policy violations are almost always obvious because anyone familiar with the topic area will have seen them hundreds of times before. People keep making the same patently invalid edits to articles and patently invalid arguments on talk pages. I think part of the complexity and inertia in these cases comes from admins having to factor in previous "bad behavior" and previous sanctions. I don't think they should do that. I think everyone should have a clean slate after they have completed one or any number of one month topic bans. If they mess up again they just get another topic ban. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've identified the fundamental problem with this proposal Sean - in a process where a user can face an indefinite topic ban for the slightest technical infraction, the stakes are simply too high to be disallowing evidence. If, on the other hand, there was a set and limited penalty for certain kinds of infractions, like breaches of 1RR for example, it really wouldn't matter a lot whether someone was unfairly sanctioned, because they'd be returning to editing in a relatively short time anyway. In that circumstance, I think it would be acceptable to have a total ban on comments from parties not directly involved - but not otherwise. It's partly for this reason, BTW, that I started developing a "lightweight" process for dealing with common problems, which can be read here. I've been intending to push ahead with development of this process for some weeks now, but unfortunately haven't been able to find the time. If you or anyone else would like to comment on the proposal, feel free to do so, on the associated talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two users can present the evidence themselves why they need a cheering team?Most of the comments say eventually the same thing and in 99% of the time is pretty obvious what party the involved user is going to support.--Shrike (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to allow outside comments with strict limits: Have a page with sections worked on by one or more editors who all agree to work together (one editor can only participate in one section). The idea would be to workshop a "perfect" statement of their case, within some predefined maximum size. There would be a defined period (three days?) allowed for this; after the period, some "do not change" box would be applied. The AE page would have a link to the statement. Corrections of fact would be a problem—perhaps don't allow them. The world is not perfect, and AE cannot be perfect either. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why so many people are pushing for stricter limitations on all editors without regard to the fact that some cases are more complicated than others, when it is obvious to me that this is an issue of bad behavior from certain editors. Forcing everyone to work within a restricted environment where they will effectively have to prove in one paragraph why a mountain of evidence, as some cases often involve, does not amount to a violation worthy of sanction would give all the power to the filing editor and force more work on the admins as they would be forced to suss out whether there are other facts not mentioned in the case. Some may very well tire of going out to look for that and be quicker to hand out sanctions, thus meaning the initial case will be lopsided in favor of the filing editor. I believe that there are legitimate concerns about behavior on AE, but they concern specific behavior that is generally already frowned-upon or prohibited in AE and other areas for requesting administrative action. Why not consider ways to more strictly enforce those existing standards rather than create new standards that will serve as an impediment to all editors?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to limit the input from involved editors when a dispute is taken to AE. I'm aware that involved editors can sometimes offer useful insight into disputes, but I think that it usually does more harm than good. Too often AE threads turn into a messy, uncontrolled rehash of the original dispute due to the heavy involvement of other editors from the dispute's origin. A lot of the time these editors become involved just to support their friends or to push for sanctions against the editors they dislike, without offering any new insights on whether the complaint itself is valid. This is a problem in more topic areas than just Palestine and Israel articles.

Ultimately it should be the job of the filer of the complaint to adequately provide the necessary background and diffs, and the subject of the complaint to attempt to justify or explain them. That should be enough information for admins to make a decision. I do not have a strong opinion on whether all involved editor comments should be disallowed from AE, or whether they should somehow be limited, but I would not be against a total prohibition. Overall I support the proposal.

If implemented, I think that some measure should also be taken to prevent subsequent editors from filing the same complaint (based on the same set of diffs) about an individual if the first one failed. I imagine that this could be an unfortunate result of this proposal if multiple involved editors are disallowed from participating in one thread. Instead of a single AE thread bogged down with comments from a dozen involved editors, AE would instead be bogged down by a dozen different complaints about the same set of diffs. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps introduce a form of proactive clerking instead of an outright ban? And/or forbid free-form discussions between parties, e.g. like arbcom /Evidence are structured? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could support the latter. Although users are supposed to comment only in their own sections, it's a guideline that's honoured more in the breach than the observance at AE. Free form discussion tends to lead to more bickering and to more clutter IMO, if the rule was enforced it would I think it would go some way toward reducing the noise level. Gatoclass (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't people commenting in other sections. The problem is editors showing up here way too often and then bickering back and forth. Funny enough, they are bickering within their own sections which has got to make it more confusing to any admin trying to close it. This whole thing is blown out of proportion. Some editors comment here too much for things such as actual filing, presenting cases, defending themselves/defending themselves from BOOMERRANG, and so on. I think people commenting on the accused gets less space then the accuser bickering with them. We should be advised to watch ourselves and when we fail we should get the bounce. And this whole discussion has to be some sort of joke since I am now doing what I boohoo about. Happy New Year. Off to get hammered in the streets. Love you guys.Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

vacio 09:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Verman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

AA2: edit warring and turning Wikipedia into battleground

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

Agdam Mosque

1. 10 Dec Revert 1
2. 14 Dec Revert 2
3. 19 Dec Revert 3
4. 28 Dec Revert 4
5. 29 Dec Revert 5

Daşkəsən

1. 4 Dec Revert 1
2. 5 Dec Revert 2
3. 13 Dec Revert 3
4. 29 Dec Revert 4

Other pages

• User is/has been also edit warring in the articles Tsitsernavank Monastery and Gandzasar monastery.

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

1. Warned on 29 March by Sandstein (talk · contribs) (for criticizing sources based on ethnic origin of their authors)
2. Warned on 22 Dec by Wgfinley (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Dear Arbcom members, for some weeks I really did my best to reach consensus on several topics with Verman1. Unfortunately this user seriously fails to stick to the talkpage. Again and again he simply neglects what has been discussed and continues a reverting war. During discussions I have several times warned him for this disruptive behavior (some examples are this or this). The talkpage of this user is full of warnings from various users (including users involved in edit warring with Verman1). Only a couple of days ago WGFinley severely warned and remembered them about AA2 sanctions (see diff above).

I request any kind of sanction (topic ban, block, revert limitation) that can stop Verman1 from continuing this kind of disruptive behavioral. vacio 09:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just would like to add to my earlier comments that the edit war in the article Agdam Mosque is specially a bad. First because Verman1 is trying to push the statement that Today the mosque is being used as a cowshed referring to sources published in 2010 or before. Second because it is violating the arguments we agreed on in the TP, This kind of edit warring is very harmful since it aims to – or results in the – use of WP for nationalist or ethnic accusations. --vacio 12:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [89]

Vacio's comment above shows present mis-behavior of Verman1 who returned to same pages for which he was banned and turned them again into a nationalist battleground: Gandzasar Monastery and Tzitzernavank Monastery specifically. But the fact is that he is guilty of yet another major misconduct which went unnoticed for some time. Verman1 was topic banned for six months [[90]]. In order to evade sanctions, User:Verman1 deleted notification on sanctions → see here [[91]], after which he continued routinely editing restricted pages on Armenia and Azerbaijan [[92]], [[93]], [[94]], etc, etc, etc. Winterbliss (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very curious for me how did you get to know almost all participants of Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict area, their past performance and activities during a month? Your talkpage and userpage is empty, but you are editing like an experienced user and aware of Wikipedia rules.--Verman1 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for ED:Isn't those violation you brought are several month old and considered stale because of it.Several editors were warned against bringing stale diffs.Could you please clarify this issue.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in this AE request. There was reasonable discussion in talkpages, we were trying to get into consensus by any means, but seemingly Vacio decided to interrupt the discussion and get rid of me "easily". Should be noted that Vacio himself got warning ([95]) during his disruptive edits on these articles, but he again tries to emphasize ethnic background of the sources in articles nevertheless ([96]). During discussions, instead of focusing on subjects, he continuously made accusations on me and threatened with reporting. --Verman1 (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Verman1, please be careful with your words. Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) did not warn me for "disruptive edits", but for a comment. Seraphimblade thought that I denounced sources merely based on the ethnic origin of their authors, which I tried to explain him, wasn't really true (see the link on my talkpage).

And frankly, I am not here to "get rid" of you. If you showed willingness to refrain from edit warring, I would definitely not start a request against you. --vacio 19:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To vacio: Could you please clarify where I made "ethnic and nationalist accusations"? --Verman1 (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of my Topic ban evasion is in here. --Verman1 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Verman1 made a number of edits in mid-2011 that were in violation of his six-month topic ban. The ban was imposed by HJ Mitchell on 9 April 2011 and expired on 9 October 2011. He was banned from the topic of the AA dispute on both articles and talk. At least five edits between April and October appear to be in violation of the ban.

• Verman1 made a talk comment from 5 September 2011 that refers to Caucasian Albania, a well-known subject of dispute between advocates of Azerbaijan and Armenia on Wikipedia.

• A rape incident was reported in Thomas De Waal's book which was said to take place on 20 February 1988. Verman1 added this to the Nagorno-Karabakh article on 21 September, during the period when his topic ban was still in effect, when he was supposed to be abstaining from AA matters.

• He discussed AA matters at User talk:Golbez on 22 September.

• He made an edit at Nagorno-Karabakh war regarding the rape incident mentioned above, added to the article by Verman1 on 22 September.

• He made an edit at Battle of Kalbajar made on 5 October (this is a battle which took place during the Nagorno-Karabakh War).

There seems to be a continuing slow edit war at Askeran clash. The book (De Waal) which serves as a source does not seem to make the rapes be the cause of the Askeran clash, according to other editors at Talk:Askeran clash. Verman1 has been warring to insert mention of the rape incident in that article, though he did not do so during the period of his topic ban. He inserted mention of the incident on 19 November and also later on 3 and 11 December.

Since Verman1 violated his previous topic ban, I suggest that the case be closed by imposing a new topic ban, starting now, that will run for the full six months of the original. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. --WGFinley (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]