Request concerning Athenean[edit]

User requesting enforcement

— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Decorum

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

• I'm not including October in the report but only November, so you can review the frequency of reverts of my edits on Albanian-Greek topics:

1. [11]

[12][13][14][15][16](partial)[17] [18] [19][20][21][22] [23] [24][25] These are the vast majority of my edits that are related to Albanian-Greek issues in November(not including vandal reverts etc.). In Krokodeilos Kladas he hadn't made even one edit, until I made an edit, which he reverted.

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

Warning by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): [26]

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

Interaction ban with ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since the beginning of my interaction ban Athenean has been following and reverting a large number of edits I have made in Albanian-Greek topics. Aware that I can't even reply to any of his reverts sometimes he doesn't even explain the reverts:

• John Shea? You absolutely must be joking removing not only the part, whose source he didn't like, but also the above irrelevant sentences that I had added any without explanation

regarding their source, which isn't John Shea

• They are by now assimilated, and identify as Greeks, and Vickers' figures are extreme anyway
• per talkpage explanation the explanation was Is this some kind of joke?...Nonsense regarding the CIA Factbook saying that Greece doesn't collect data on ethnicity. The rest of his comment is off-topic.
• The Ukrainian Quarerly? An index? Nope he reverted every edit, even a cn tag I added on an unreferenced sentence and like in the other reverts he didn't say why the two sources weren't reliable.
• I was allowed to make this report by TCanens who initially sanctioned me with an interaction ban[27]. The only time Athenean self-reverted himself after reverting me was some hours after TCanens allowed me to make this report[28]. I didn't report him them and unfortunately he continued reverting many of my edits on Albanian-Greek topics.
• how exactly is this notable enough to go in the lede? On Methana I added on the lead that this town of Greece is Albanian-speaking. Athenean removed it considering it non-notable enough. However, a couple of months ago when I had removed from the lead that village in Albania is partly Greek speaking he considered that sufficiently interesting to go in the lede and reverted me. The fact that a town in Greece is Albanian-speaking isn't notable, but the opposite is sufficiently interesting. Knowing that I can't even point out to the double standars used he makes reverts like this one and now in his explanation he knowingly tries to show a dialect spoken in a whole region according the Himariote Greek dialect sources as a dialect spoken in just two villages.
• [29] Athenean's saying that he's apparently Turkish because I added the name in the Ottoman Turkish form as the author. The author includes him in the list of Albanian mulkiyelis, so I don't understand how someone can't notice that, unless he reverts without verifying the sources.
• I updated the number of reverts(which now are about 15 without counting the fact that some are reverts of 2-3 edits in a row like in Berat/Kladas or that I'm editing less frequently) and they are a significant percentage of my edits in Greek-Albanian topics in November(Athenean shouldn't try to increase my number of edits in Albanian-Greek topics by saying that articles like Thimi Mitko are related to both Albania and Greece and that vandalism reverts about Bulgarians in Kastoria are also related to these two countries). He also says that users not from the Balkans made similar edits to his, without of couse mentioning that that user eventually removed parts I considered tendetious himself [30]. I also don't understand why he asks for me to be sanctioned for using reliable online sources that can be found and verified by anyone on google books and not offline ones. Using sources that a user doesn't consider correct or doesn't even try to verify isn't a reason for sanctions and WP:AE is for formal sanctions. I also find his replies incosistent because he said If it to be imposed as a restriction, I would ask that some sort of editing restriction against using shoddy sourcing by ZjarriRrethues be put into effect as well and after I said that he can't ask for users to be sanctioned because of his opinions about the sources they use, he said when it looks like it is about to be dismissed, he digs deeper and deeper, playing the victim and making yet more false statements.. I am not calling for him to be sanctioned for his articlespace edits.

Discussion concerning Athenean[edit]

Statement by Athenean[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Athenean[edit]

Statement by Athenean[edit]

I find this report frivolous and filed in bad faith, for the reasons below:

• All of the above mentioned articles, with the exception of Krokodeilos Kladas, are on my watchlist, and have been so for a long time, well before the edits by Zjarri which I reverted (most if not all were watchlisted by me before Zjarri ever edited wikipedia). This can be easily verified by looking at the edit history of those articles - I have edited them before Zjarri did. Though I do check zjarri's contribs every once in a while, most of the time Zjarri's changes simply show up on my watchlist, there is absolutely no stalking as he seems to imply.

• Importantly, the claim that the above diffs are reverts of "the vast majority of my edits that are related to Albanian-Greek issues in November" is patently false. A quick look at Zjarri's contribs log for the month of November shows: 4 edits to Konitsa, 2 to Filiates, 3 to Paramythia, 3 to Margariti, 1 to Ali Pasha, 2 to Albanian Nationalism, 13 to Stratioti, 2 to Epirus (region), 2 to Korce, 5 to Moscopole, 1 to Metoq, 2 to Kostas Botsaris, 1 to Vergina, 1 to Pella, 1 to Athens (about Albanians [31]), 4 to Greater Albania, 2 to Arta, Greece, 4 to Ioannina, 1 to Pashalik of Yanina, 3 to Berat, 4 to Greek nationalism, 4 to Aromanians, 3 to Thimi Mitko, 2 to Ancient Macedonians, 1 to Thomas Flanginis, 1 to Balanos Vasilopoulos, 1 to Kastoria Prefecture, 2 to Krokodeilos Kladas, all of which can easily be considered "Greek-Albanian topics". Add to that several edits to Albanians [32] [33] and Skanderbeg [34] pertaining to Greece or Greeks, and that's well over 80. Thus, the edits that I reverted are not the the vast majority of his edits to Albanian-Greek issues in November, but rather a small fraction. There were numerous occasions in the last month where I would have been well within my rights to revert Zjarii, but chose not to, for a number of reasons. This latest attempt by Zjarri to deceive the community regarding my edits is all the more odious considering that making false statements in AE requests was one of the reasons Zjarri was sanctioned with the interaction ban in the first place [35]. This shows Zjarri has learned nothing from his interaction ban, nor understood the reasons for it.

• In his haste to compile this report, Zjarri included the same diff twice (the first two diffs in his report are identical), and it is from October, though he claims I'm not including October in the report but only November.

• In the above report, I'm thus counting 11 reverts by me, in the period of one month. That's approximately one every 3 days, hardly taking advantage of Zjarri's interaction ban on my part. If anything, I am reverting Zjarri less frequently these days than before he was sanctioned with the interaction ban: In July of 2010, I reverted ZR a total of 15 times (diffs omitted for brevity, though I can produce them on request). Similarly for previous months prior to July. If we look at the period of August 29-September 29, immediately prior to Zjarri's interaction ban, for example, I reverted Zjarri 9 times: [36], [37] (partial rv of this [38]), [39] (rv of this [40]), [41], [42] (partial rv of this [43]), [44], [45] (rv of this [46], though it is also an rv of several intermediate edits of other editors), [47] (partial rv, removal of "of Albanian origin", which ZjarriRrethues had added previously [48]), [49]. In other words, about the same frequency consistently. I am not reverting Zjarri more frequently these days compared to prior to his interaction ban, and am being extra careful to do so only when I feel it's absolutely necessary. This is because I knew he was itching to game his interaction ban to file yet another AE report against me [50] for some time now (the diff from T. Canens follows a discussion between him and Zjarri in IRC).

• Regarding the reverts themselves, I stand by them, as I feel they are solidly grounded in wiki policy which is explained by me either in the edit summaries or in the article talkpage. These were reverts of edits I considered tendentious, using shoddy sources, or else "creative misinterpretation" of non-shoddy sources on the part of Zjarri.
  • [51]: I actually reverted because I found "isolated mountain village", which was added by User:Alexikoua [52] rather odd-sounding, particularly for the lede. I felt that the lede was stylistically better in its previous version, that is all.
  • [53] W.W. Tarn is considered heavily outdated and thoroughly unreliable as a source, for obvious reasons, and to anyone with an even cursory familiarity with the subject.
  • [54]: John Shea is yet another unreliable source, a Balkan polemicist with no academic credentials, again something well known to anyone familiar with the subject. Edits such as this and the above are thus either the result of either incompetence or tendentiousness. I admit I was quite annoyed when I reverted, and my removal of Mackenzie was probably a mistake. I have no problem whatsoever restoring Mackenzie, which seems reliable enough even though it is just a snippet. I will however not restore Shea under any circumstances and stand by that removal.
  • [55]: Yet another instance of using a partisan source.
  • [56]: Source falsification, the person is Turkish, as the name makes obvious.
  • [57]: Completely off-topic addition. The number of Albanian migrants in Greece is never mentioned in irrelevant as far as Greater Albania is concerned, and is moreover far from unknown. There are plenty of estimates, some quite accurate, and Zjarri knows this full well, which is why I was annoyed in my talkpage posting.
  • [58]: I felt Zjarri was clearly misinterpreting this source.
  • [59]: Misuse of a source: Zjarri introduces a figure of 700,000 as if it's sourced to the source he provides, even though the figure comes from activist organizations, not the claimed source.
  • [60]: Same here. He is either misunderstanding or misquoting the source.
  • [61]: Shoddy sourcing: The Ukrainian Quarterly is not a reliable source for such a claim, nor is using a book's index as a source (the second source). That is not how we source things around here. As should by now be obvious, Zjarri has a history of backing his claims with shoddy sourcing, something with which I admit I have lost my patience after so many months of the same thing.
  • [62]: Follows naturally from my previous rationale.
  • [63]: Utterly inane, WP:LAME edit, as made clear by the discussion in the talkpage [64]. Kostas Botsaris fought in the Greek War of Independence and was a member of the Greek Parliament for crying out loud. How can anyone not revert something like that when they see it?
  • [65]: The NPOV and OR tags placed by Zjarri on this article have been removed many times, by many users, some of them not from the Balkans [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]. My revert is the last in a long line of tag removals by other editors, I felt I was enforcing community consensus. The article is solidly sourced, and no valid rationale has been presented on the talkpage for the tags, only WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments. Yet, the tags are continuously re-added by Zjarri, even though there is zero community consensus for them [73] [74] [75] [76] [77], a clear case of long term edit-warring. It is interesting to note that ZjarriRrethues has something of an obsession with this article, having been at it since March of 2010, within a week of his joining wikipedia [78].
  • [79]: I find the edit by Zjarri tendentious, and against the spirirt of WP:LEDE. We typically include in the lede things that attest to the notability of the article's subject, and this is not one of them. Arvanitic communities are quite common throughout Greece. Mind you, I have absolutely no problem with the content itself, I just don't feel that placement in the lede is warranted. Regarding the Greek-speaking village in Albania mentioned here [80], the reason the Greek dialect is mentioned in the lede is due to the fact that it is a unique, archaic dialect (see Himariote Greek dialect) spoken only there and in one neighboring village. It is notable, and makes the village notable, if only for that reason. Such a rationale does not apply to the case of Methana.

To sum up, I only reverted Zjarri when I felt it was absolutely necessary and well-grounded in wiki policy. There is absolutely no gratuitous, spiteful reverting, or inappropariate taking advantage of his interaction ban on my part, nor is there going to be.

• Zjarri is omitting the month of October in his report, the first month of his interaction ban: This is not out of lazyness: I reverted him even fewer times in October than November, thus further weakening his case.

• A bit of background: Zjarri was sanctioned with a 3-month, single-sided interaction ban against me beginning September 30th, 2010. This was the result of a frivolous, non-actionable AE report filed by him against me, in which he made false claims and had crossed into WP:HOUND territory in his eagerness to get me sanctioned (at one point digging up diffs from 3+ years ago, my first in wikipedia). He has previously broken this interaction ban twice, getting sanctioned the first time [81] and warned the second. Barely 3 weeks into his ban, Zjarri was already itching to have another go at me at AE, as evidenced here [82]. This was quite soon after the imposition of his ban, during which period I barely had time to revert him at all. This shows this user never understood the reason behind his interaction ban, but merely saw it as another tool to try and get me sanctioned. He is now gaming the interaction ban to portray himself as a victim in the hope of getting me sanctioned. It's incredible, it's as if nothing's changed with this user. I can empathize with Zjarri that he is occasionally frustrated by his inability to revert me, but I feel this report is frivolous and hence a blockable violation of his interaction ban. Athenean (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mkativerata

I can certainly live with having to discuss reverts on the talkpage more often, however, I prefer that it not be imposed as a "restriction" but rather on an honor system basis. As an indicator, I have generally abided by a voluntary 1R rule since September, even though the 1R restriction I was under expired two months ago. If it to be imposed as a restriction, I would ask that some sort of editing restriction against using shoddy sourcing by ZjarriRrethues be put into effect as well, as after all my admitted brusqueness was largely due to frustration at persistent tendentious editing by ZjarriRrethues, which has been going on for months now. By the way, by "frivolous" I meant non-actionable, as in the claims of this report do not add up, the (n+1)th such AE report by ZjarriRrethues. Athenean (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to T. Canens

I see three new diffs [83] [84] [85], which I have now addressed. I stand by my actions and believe I was acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia.

Further comments

Incidentally, this brings up my total to 14 reverts of Zjarri in November, still not a significant increase compared to before his interaction ban, and nowhere near the vast majority of his edits on Greek-Albanian topics in November. The pattern here is the same as his previous report: A largely non-actionable report is filed, and when it looks like it is about to be dismissed, he digs deeper and deeper, playing the victim even more and making yet more false statements [86] (I am not calling for him to be sanctioned for his articlespace edits), [87] (I didn't revert him 15 times in November, and it's still not a "significant percentage" of his edits to Greek-Albanian topics), [88] (Thimi Mitko lived in Greece), [89] (he is not editing less frequently), [90] (as the article makes clear the two towns next to Himarë, Dhërmi and Palasë, speak a semi-northern dialect, which is sourced). It is plainly obvious he really wants to see me sanctioned at any cost, and simply won't let go no matter what. This is exactly the kind of behavior that resulted in his interaction ban in the first place. Athenean (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Athenean[edit]

@Athenean: I have a question about one of your reverts. You explain this as saying Shea is an unreliable source. Why remove the material sourced to Mackenzie? There may be a good answer but it's a point specifically raised by the AE filer. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered here. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things concern me here. Having had a detailed look, Athenean's reverts appear generally to be justifiable, at least those diffs the bases of which can be understood by an outside observer unfamiliar with the conflict. But brusque edit summaries and talk page contributions aren't helping matters. I'd like to see fuller contemporaneous justifications for the reverts and perhaps a sensible editing restriction could deliver that (eg a requirement to post a 50-word justification for each revert on the relevant talk page). The removal of the Mackenzie-sourced material indicates a lack of care that could have been avoided had proper justification been given. On the other hand, I don't see any basis to think that Athenean has been hounding Zjarri or gaming the interaction ban, even in light of the admonition at the earlier AE.. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the direction of this AE: having expressed my view above that the reverts generally appeared justified, the filer has followed it up by including new complaints, and doing so without edit summaries. It does not support the view that this is a well-founded "good faith" request. At this point I'm leaning towards the view that this is an unhelpful and groundless request warranting sanction (WP:BOOMERANG). But Timotheus Canens will have something to say and I'll wait for him to say it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sanctions against Athenean on the basis of the diffs are warranted. On reflection, my vaguely suggested editing restriction above is not going to help matters at the moment. I expect that Athenean understands that better explanations for reverts would help take the heat out of the conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close this out following T. Canens comment below. No action taken against the respondent or the filer. No change to existing sanctions. Informal cautions have been given in respect of the filer's conduct of this request and the respondent's explanations for reverts. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting Athenean's response to the diffs added in these edits. T. Canens (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to [91], in the one-month period immediately preceding the interaction ban, ZR has made ~525 edits. In the following two-month period, they have made ~825 edits; considering, however, that the interaction ban necessarily prevented them from reverting Athenean or participating in discussions in which Athenean has participated, that does not sound to me like a substantial decrease in activity. Nor is the number of reverts per month a substantial increase from before the interaction ban. Whether or not they are otherwise sanctionable, the evidence presented so far appears to fall well short of substantiating the claim that Athenean is gaming the interaction ban in order to gain an unfair advantage in content disputes. Since that's the only question for which ZR is allowed to file a complaint, I think this request should be closed without action unless an uninvolved administrator wishes to impose sanctions sua sponte on Athenean based on the contents of those diffs. I voice no opinion on whether any sanction is appropriate. I'll get to the frivolity question later. T. Canens (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be frivolous, a request needs to be more than not actionable. It needs to have no colorable basis in fact whatsoever. I think it is possible for a reasonable person in ZR's position to find Athenean's reverts troubling, especially when viewed in isolation; I would imagine that the effect of a revert that one is not permitted to undo is far more strongly felt than a revert that could be readily undone, resulting in greater subject weight being attached to those reverts even when, as the objective evidence indicate, there is no actual attempt to exploit the interaction ban. I therefore do not think it appropriate to consider the original request frivolous or in bad faith. T. Canens (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I agree with Mkativerata that the practice of silently expanding requests without noting in edit summary or on the page that the request has been expanded, when an uninvolved administrator has already commented on the original request, is highly inappropriate. T. Canens (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning The Four Deuces[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Martin (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned, Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. [92] I am highly offended by User:The Four Deuces's edit comment "Reverse pro-fascist edits" when he made a blind revert of my good faith edits. By "pro-fascist" he must be referring to me as the sources Griffin is RS and Renton is actually a Marxist. Fascism is commonly associated with Nazism, and accusing me of being "pro-fascist" is tantamount to accusing me of harbouring Nazi sympathies. This is a egregious violation of WP:DIGWUREN

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

1. Formally placed on notice [93]
2. [94] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If TFD had offered an apology as suggested by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling then it might have been the end of the matter, but evidently he does not understand the offensiveness of his comment. Instead he offers an unapologetic "I do not refer to editors, only to edits." Edits do not happen in a vacuum, editors make edits, and he states himself "Some edits present a POV, which this one obviously does", in other words I hold a pro-fascist viewpoint. Not only does this remain deeply offensive but this is disruptive to any good faith attempt to edit an already difficult article in a neutral fashion, as I have attempted to do. As TFD appears to be unapologetic it is highly likey he will continue to characterise anyone he disagrees with as harbouring pro-fascist sympathies. This is unacceptable. --Martin (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD explanation is misleading (I note he still hasn't offered an apology). Let's examine the edits I actually made which TFD claims were "pro-fascist" in detail:

1. Removed a cite to the statement "Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right", nowhere in the source does Griffin call fascism "far right", he calls it "ultra-nationalist". Given that there are five other cites it was pointless having a sixth that failed verification in any case.
2. Expanded "Fascism is normally described as "extreme right"" with "however the left-right terminology fails to describe the "spectral-syncretic" aspect of the ideology", since the single cite used for this sentence is called A Spectral-Syncretic Approach to Fascism by Rodger Eatwell.
3. Expanded "There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right" with "conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational", since the cite used for this sentence The Palingenetic Core of Fascism by Rodger Griffin says "the ideology of a particular form of fascism has often been synthesized from a bewildering range of ideas, both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational."
4. Added the paragraph "Fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s as an intellectual movement that absorbed and synthesised socialism and nationalism and created a new ideology of "a socialism without the proletariat"", because the current article reads like Fascism was invented in 1933. Even Britannica [95] indicates that the intellectual origins of Fascism were related to the 19th Century French intellectuals such as Joseph de Maistre, Charles Maurras, and Georges Sorel. Note that whatever criticism Renton has of Sternhell, nowhere in his book does he actually refute the 19th century origins of the ideology.

TFD claim "The rest of what I reversed represents "the fascist view of itself" which was inserted into the article as factual rather than as an opinion" is clearly at odds with the actual edits. All my edits were sourced to existing RS, unless he is claiming that Eatwell, Griffin and Sternhell hold a fascist view point, he is clearly referring to me as holding "the fascist view". Now TFD may believe I had misinterpreted the sources and he could have discussed this on talk in a collegiate manner, but to blindly revert everything and characterise my edits as "pro-fascist" is unacceptable. It was this kind of behaviour of characterising other editors as holding pro-fascist viewpoints and Nazi sympathies that lead to the original WP:DIGWUREN case. --Martin (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Will Beback: Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned makes no limitation with regard to applicable topic area and is adjunct to the EE wide discretionary sanction. --Martin (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata: Given the significant involvement of fascists in Eastern Europe during WW2 and that this region, including the Soviet Union, generally describe the Nazis as "German–Fascist Aggressors" (thus making no distinction between Nazis and fascists), there is no less a link than there is between Communist terrorism and Eastern Europe. But I am not going to wiki-lawyer over AE's jurisdiction. Fascism is an ideology I find abhorrent. TFD's claim that my edits were pro-fascist is grossly uncivil and deeply offensive. TFD's previously characterised myself and others as "far right", which is also offensive. Someone needs to make TFD understand that his edit comments are unacceptable and that he should apologise, as the majority who have commented here have concurred. Whether it was posted here or at ANI, nothing precludes an admin from taking regular action as opposed to AE enforcement action. But if the admins think it is preferrable that I take this to ArbCom for what may potentially result in summary ban, then so be it. --Martin (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[96]

Discussion concerning The Four Deuces[edit]

Statement by The Four Deuces[edit]

I do not refer to editors, only to edits. Some edits present a POV, which this one obviously does. Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has said I must be referring to him. I will post a note on the article talk page so that other editors familiar with the article may comment. TFD (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what I reversed began, "Fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s...." and is sourced to Renton.[97] But what Renton actually wrote was "[Zeev Sternhell] has argued that fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s and 1890s".[98] He then writes that Sternhell and others "are then free to emphasize what they perceive to be the essentially non-destructive nature of fascism. The historians suggest that it is time to rescue fascist Italy from stigma.... [T]hey fail to generate a non-fascist understanding of fascism. Their readers are led to the conclusion that the fascist view of itself is the most important factor in the definition of the ideology." The rest of what I reversed represents "the fascist view of itself" which was inserted into the article as factual rather than as an opinion. TFD (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Martintg and Sander Saeda: Do you not see any difference between, "Fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s" and ""[Zeev Sternhell] has argued that fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s"? TFD (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning The Four Deuces[edit]

TFD is a frequent thorn in my side, including filing procedural actions against me. Indeed, that's why I noticed this. However, I do try to be fair. Given that I have not read the policy involved that may require a block, would it be acceptable to allow an admin to remove the history comment and extract a promise that TFD will not do something like this again? Everyone's always trying to block others. TFD got me banned for a few days. Don't we have better things to do? In my opinion, one history comment like the present one does not look to me, not having read the policy, to be a reason to block someone. Would Martin accept an apology and the administrative removal of the history comment in exchange for dropping the block request? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martintg failed the mention that the article in question is Fascism. I agree with TFD that the edit reverted presented a positive point-of-view on the topic of the article. I do not know if that alone would have been reason enough to revert them. However, Martintg himself seems to be saying that Wikipedia should favor an anti-fascist POV, lest it be accused of "harbouring Nazi sympathies". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary may not have used the best form of words, but in the context of the article it is no major issue. The editor raising this against a three year old Arbcom ruling seems a little over sensitive. I've seen far worse handled on the talk page without running to enforcement. Further given this block history its obvious that the filing editor is no stranger to controversy; The lady doth protest too much, methinks. --Snowded ^TALK 04:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Fascism is commonly associated with Nazism, and accusing me of being "pro-fascist" is tantamount to accusing me of harbouring Nazi sympathies.' Really? Can I suggest that anyone involving themselves in topics of this kind should really be aware of the distinctive features of Fascism and Naziism, and not automatically assume they are one and the same? Even though I often agree with TFD, I still find him a little awkward sometimes, but then I'm sure he feels the same about me. I'm sure his political opponents have stronger views, but we are discussing politics here, not Pokomon characters, so maybe a little less feigned 'sensitivity' might be in order? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in cases like these, if someone takes offence (and it was certainly a careless use of words, regardless of the article topic), then an apology for having caused inadvertent offence is entirely in order, and no one loses face. I keep seeing cases on this page where apologising - even when it can be understood that nothing bad was intended - seems to be a phenomenal strain for people. The thing is, it can serve really well to improve the standing of the editor and the overall editing atmosphere.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, TFD has a habit of doing this sort of thing repeatedly. He regularly ascribes views to those that disagree with him that they do not possess. He more or less accuses them of having extremist or fringe or worse (as in this case) views, which is completely unsupported by, well, anything. Here is a recent example [99]. I asked him to redact it and explained that no, I do not have extremist political views (I resent the fact that I even have to say this) but he did not redact the edits. There are also other instances, some older, like this one [100] where he's making up some stuff about "far-right Russian bias" (he did redact that one after being told to do so). There's also other examples but honestly, I don't have time atm to go digging for more diffs. These should be enough to establish evidence of a pattern. It also shows that TFD's claim that I do not refer to editors, only to edits is generally false.

And seriously, calling edits based on the work of a Marxist historian, Dave Renton, "pro-fascist" just takes the cake.

Also, regardless of what the distinctions between Nazis or Fascism are, and what the subject of the article is, calling another editor's edits "pro-fascist" is simply insulting. No way to weasel out of that one. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But socialist is not the same as Marxist, let alone fascist, except perhaps on Wikipedia. Let me see: Renton said that socialism and nationalism were merged to produce fascism, ergo he is pro-fascist? His book is published by Pluto Press. TFD says that the view needs to be attributed to Zeev Sternhell, who Renton cites. Sternhell doesn't seem like pro-fascist to me based on his Wikipedia biography, unless there's some hidden argument here that Zionists are pro-fascist. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On its face, the edit summary states that the edits were "pro-fascist." Using such strong language in an edit summary is extraordinarily ill-advised, to say the least. TFD was well aware of the likelihood that such an edit summary woul;d be brought here - he is a regular at making complaints about others on this and other noticeboards. Collect (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like point out that we do have to put up with a hell of a lot of crap just maintaining the articles on Fascism, Nazism and other related subjects. There is constant ill-informed editing and POV pushing, some of it egregious but some of it quite subtle. Occasionally this actually is by those seeking to rehabilitate Fascism or Nazism but more commonly by those with other objectives (e.g. seeking to taint other ideologies by asserted association). It is not surprising that those working hard to prevent these articles sliding into a complete mess of POV sometimes make mistakes, possibly out of sheer exhaustion, or let their annoyance show. I guess what I am saying is that TFD shouldn't have said what he said, but he is one of the good guys here and there is no way he deserves to be blocked over this. He should apologise and that should be an end to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree about TFD being one of the "good guys", but I understand what you mean. However, rules apply equally to everybody - and this is just the latest incident in a long thread of similar problems. What makes it worse is that TFD apparently doesn't even realize that his comments are often highly insulting to the others - and never apologizes, just justifies himself with weirder and weirder reasons. --Sander Säde 20:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted)...

Even under a broad interpretation, is Fascism related to Eastern Europe any more than to other parts of Europe? I don't think so.   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Marting: (8) refers to "the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee", not discretionary sanctions through arbitration enforcement. Discretionary sanctions, empowere by (12), are limited to the "area of conflict". I'm struggling to see AE's jurisdiction here. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As much as I find the suggestion by TFD that an edit (not the editor, but the edit) can have a POV to be puzzling, I think that editors Legit, Vsev, and Will hit it on the head. An apology would to my mind be the best course, rather than a block, and closure so people can address more productive pursuits.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The continuation of the EE topic. Adequate people vs nationalists. I think action should be taken against Lvivske, not TFD. Artem Karimov (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • It does not matter if this is Martintg, Lvivske, TFD or anyone else. User X makes comments like this, he claims edits by user Y to be "extremist" or "pro-fascist", exactly as he did previously with regard to other people in the same article [101] (and who knows how many other articles), and he tells that he did everything correctly in his statement, hence he does not own an apology. Is that OK? If so, no action required.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning The Four Deuces[edit]

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

Time to bring this to an end. In my view this AE request falls outside the scope of discretionary sanctions in Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions (note: this is not a binding view. Other admins in other cases may disagree.). That of course does not stop general action being taken to prevent disruption of the project (as if this was an ANI report). In that respect, TFD is formally warned that such edit summaries are unacceptable.[102] Even if the "edit vs editor" distinction is made in good faith, it is a distinction that will be lost on many other editors who will understandably be offended by the edit summary. In light of the lack of evidence that this is a significant ongoing problem as opposed to one or two isolated edit summaries, a block would be inappropriate. But any further such edit summaries may attract sanctions, the nature of the sanctions depending on whether the action falls within the area of conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discretionary sanctions authorization states that:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

There is no explicit requirement that the failure to "adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" needs to be related to the area of conflict; a literal reading suggests that the fact that this editor works in the area of conflict is sufficient for the discretionary sanctions to apply. I seem to remember at least one arb interpreting the provisions this way, though I couldn't provide a diff at the moment. I have no opinion so far on whether the literal reading is appropriate, either. T. Canens (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That literal interpretation seems ugly to me: eg just editing in an area of conflict can tar you across the project. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since people are not supposed to "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" anywhere in this project... T. Canens (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course although applying, say ARBPIA discretionary sanctions for, say, engaging in an edit-war on Sesame Street can't be what ARBCOM had in mind. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. A reading this broad is probably absurd. Hard cases make bad law, I suppose. T. Canens (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, perhaps one day this question will become ripe for a request for clarification from Arbcom. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm inclined to agree. I also think this request is out of scope, in that fascism is too far detached from Eastern Europe that editors there can't be expected to realise that that DIGWUREN sanctions apply. Finally, I don't think the edit summary is egregious enough to warrant anything more than a caution, unless the editor makes a habit of using such edit summaries and does so on a regualr basis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Lvivske[edit]

User requesting enforcement

MathFacts (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, WP:Advocacy, WP:Battleground Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

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

Coordinated reverts with misleading, offensive or no edit summaries in Roman Shukhevych:

1. [103] Revert by Lvivske, changed alegnance of Shukhevych from "Ukrainian National Government" to "Ukraine"
2. [104] Revert by Lvivske, removed information of the annulment of the award of Hero title from the template (but not from the text), changed alegnance to "Ukraine", offense towards Donetsk court in edit summary.
3. [105] Revert by Galassi, false, misleading edit summary.

Coordinated reverts in Holodomor:

1. [106] by Galassi
2. [107] by Galassi
3. [108] by Lvivske

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

1. [109] Warning by Toddst1 (talk · contribs) (for personal attacks)
2. [110] Warning by Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (for edit warring in Jewish Bolshevism)
3. [111] Warning by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) (for misleading edit summaries)
4. [112] Warning by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. [113] Warning by MathFacts (talk · contribs)

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

1. Lvivske: Block or topic ban from articles related to Soviet Union
2. Galassi: Warning against edit-warring and coordinated reverts. Compulsory participation in discussions, enforced by an administrator may be sufficient.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This request concerns two users, Lvivske and Galassi. I am not sure if this case fall under the previous arbitration restrictions concerning Eastern Europe, but I see no better place to report this issue. User Lvivske removes from article about Roman Shukhevych notice that the award of Hero of Ukraine to Roman Shukhevych has been annulled in the court [114], the edit is accompanied with offenses towards Donetsk court "donetsk court means jack"[sic]. He also changes the allegnance of this Nazi collaborator from "Ukrainian National Government", a pro-Nazi puppet state to "Ukraine". It is known that at the time the only internationally-recognized Ukrainian state was Ukrainian SSR and Roman Shukhevych fought against this entity. Labelling his allegnance as "Ukraine" thus creates confusion. That said the reverts in my impression violate Wikipedia's policies WP:Advocacy, WP:Battleground and WP:NPOV. I placed an edit-warring notice to his talk page [115] but after about 10 minutes I was reverted again by user Galassi [116] with an edit summary that the court decision was not binding (this is a false edit summary because all sources agree that the Hero of Ukraine award was annulled).

I asked why he reverted me on his talk page [117] but it seems he is not interested to respond.

The edit history of other articles show that users Lvivske and Galassi participate in coordinated edit wars (for example, in article Holodomor [118]). That's why I do not want participate in this edit war any longer and rely on the community to decide. MathFacts (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Lvivske noticed this report before I completed it. He then notified Galassi [119]

Discussion concerning Lvivske[edit]

Statement by Lvivske[edit]

There are so many problems with this...where to begin...first, edit summaries should suffice, you don't have to warn me of being block for "edit warring" after one revert. You could use the talk page, you know. Next, the award was not stripped, it was annulled by a Donetsk court which had no binding power, it was favor done for Yanukovych, it means nothing - it should be in the body of the bio but doesn't change any facts. Finally, "Ukraine" is a short form since the other form goes over. Considering he won the "Hero of Ukraine" award for his allegiance to this "Ukraine", and his allegiance was to a government/potential state called "Ukraine", the name "Ukraine" should suffice given that it links to the 1941 state, not Ukraine itself. I really don't see the beef here or why you are trying to pull Galassi into this for fixing a good faith edit on your part that was misinformed. PS: Claiming that Galassi and I take place in coordinated edit-wars is just silly and without base. Him and I have fought against eachother at times, there is no cronyism going on, we just watch the same articles (and with the Holodomor article, one of the guys we've been at dispute with is TFD, a few disputes above this one)--Львівське (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Lvivske[edit]

• I've had my own disagreements with Lvivske, but the current charges are frivolous, if not retaliatory.--Galassi (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mathfacts' comments indicate that he is himself pushing a particular (Soviet) POV and that his coming here is part of a content dispute.Faustian (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it a Soviet POV that the Hero of Ukraine award to Shukhevych ‎was annulled? The sources are already in article, so deleting this information from template is vandalism.--MathFacts (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment in your compliant, "He also changes the allegnance of this Nazi collaborator from "Ukrainian National Government", a pro-Nazi puppet state to "Ukraine". It is known that at the time the only internationally-recognized Ukrainian state was Ukrainian SSR and Roman Shukhevych fought against this entity." strongly suggests your own pro-Soviet POV in this matter.Faustian (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Lvivske[edit]

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

• This all seems to pertain to a slow-burning edit war over a Ukranian Army officer. While it would seem to fit within the scope of DIGWUREN, I don't see any evidence of egregious or persistent disruption that would warrant action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. There's certainly no evidence for the basis of the report, being allegations of tag-team edit-warring. I'm closing this out as "no action". Consider pursuing the usual dispute resolution options for disputes on the inclusion of the material in the relevant articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Shuki[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Mkativerata (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions and Topic ban

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

1. [165] Wading into an AE discussion concerning the area of conflict that does not concern Shuki at all.
2. [166] Dittos

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

Not relevant.

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

Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The topic ban covered all discussions related to the area of conflict. Clearly that should cover weighing into AE requests concerning the area of conflict, especially where they do not concern Shuki personally.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[167]

Discussion concerning Shuki[edit]

Statement by Shuki[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki[edit]

Shuki has just been blocked for 6 months for abusive sockpuppetry in the topic area. I think that makes this request moot. nableezy - 23:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does (although Shuki seems to be under the misapprehension that he is blocked because of this AE rather than the socking). In any event, this can be closed out. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shuki[edit]

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

Overtaken by events, it seems. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuki. T. Canens (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Nableezy[edit]

User requesting enforcement

Jiujitsuguy

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

The 1948 Palestinian exodus is currently under a 1r restriction per recent enforcement action and warning of same is amply noted on the article[168]. Nableezy, an experienced editor whose rap sheet on Wikipedia evidences recidivist tendencies has now violated the 1r restriction by making two reverts in rapid succession, reverting myself as well as another editor.

Alternatively, he engaged in WP:GAMING by using his reverts in a tactical manner to circumvent the spirit of the 1rr.

I am amending this claim again to add a charge that Nableezy has engaged in additional Uncivil conduct by referring to my goodfaith edit (reasons for which I articulated at Talk) as a "Bullshit edit," in his comments below. It seems that he can not utter a retort without spewing vulgarities about edits effectuated by others.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now, adding insult to injury, he belittles my "newly found sensitivites"[169]

I needn't remind any admin reviewing this case that Nableezy has a history of engaging in uncivil conduct. Indeed, he had been recently blocked for this and is currently under an interaction ban with 3 editors due to incivility. It is ineresting that he couldn't even contain himself during this AE when he is under admin scrutiny

• [170] @ 17:44 Dec 2

• [171] @ 18:49 Dec 2

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

Block or topic ban

Additional comments by user bringing request

Though the reverts relate to two different edits they are both within the same article and are still deemed reverts per Philknight[172] and an experienced editor like Nableezy should know better. He will undoubtedly claim ignorance and engage in extensive wikilawyering as he always does but I’m sure that those entrusted with upholding and dispensing equal justice will see through his shenanigans once and for all. It appears that Nableezy has withstood many AE’s brought against him while others in the topic area who do not share his view have been subjected to overly harsh topic bans. I hope that in light of Nableezy’s prior record, a sanction, consistent with those recently issued against Shuki and Wikifan (whose records are far better) is issued.

It has been brought to my attention that Nableezy reverted User: Hmbr and after I made an edit, he undid his revert of Hmbr so that he could "save" his 1rr for me and accordingly, reverted me. If ever there was an example of gaming, it's this and it is contrary to the spirit of 1rr. Nableezy is a sophisticated user, well-versed in the intricacies of Wikipedia's rules and regulations and so his actions here should be viewed with some suspicion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens, Philknight,HMitchel. I didn't violate 1r, I didn't game, I discussed my single revert on Talk, I was never accused of being uncivil and I think my record is a bit better than Nableezy's. May I ask why I would be given a sanction equal to Nableezy?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

@HMitchel. I wasn't trying to use AE "to gain the upper hand." I recognized what I thought was a violation of the letter if not the spirit of the new 1rr restriction and so I filed an AE. Am I now being sanctioned for bringing a violation to the attention of the community?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens. It wasn't me who engaged in the "self-revert a revert so that I can revert again" tactic. I recognize that I am not an angel but I don't believe that my conduct rose to the level of Nableezy's. I believe that equal sanctions here for unequal offenses seems inequitable. I ask all admins who commented to reconsider--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@HJMitchell, I've always respected your opinions though I've not always agreed with them. However, I take issue with this comment "It seems to me that both the filer and the respondent are attempting to game the system and are certainly attempting to use AE as a weapon to gain the upper hand" that you made. In the past week or so, Nableezy filed at least two AEs. One against Shuki that resulted in a six-month topic ban adverse to Shuki, with no sanction applied to the filer, Nableezy. And the second against Cptnono resulting in a 3hr block against Cptnono, again with no sanction to Nableezy. It seems illogical that Nableezy can file as many actions as he please with impunity but suddenly, when someone files an action against him, the filer becomes the object of scorn. Something is very wrong here unless I'm missing something. Please consider this appeal before applying a sanction against me. Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@HJMitchell. Please note that I attempted to engage in amicable relations with Nableezy and I tried to put aside our personal and political differences. Please see this exchange where, following the issuance of a 1rr restriction against him, I offered to voluntarily restrict myself to 1rr in articles where both he and I edit so as not to gain an unfair advantage against him. That is anti-gaming. Also, in the same thread, see how I attempted to resolve a dispute (in a gentlemanly fashion) that ultimately resolved in his favor and the edit that he was objecting to was removed--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

[173]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

I self-reverted one revert, so I have made exactly one revert on this article, part of which was rewording the line to appease those editors who had a problem with saying something has been widely called ethnic cleansing when the source says Abu Sitta is a leading expert on the nakbah and what is nowadays widely described as the "ethnic cleansing" it involved. I also added sources for the statement among which was a leading historian saying that what took place was ethnic cleansing. So in sum, I made exactly 1 revert, rewording the sentence to comply with the objections posted by others on the talk page, expanding on the material in the body to comply with other objections posted on the talk page, and Jiujitsuguy defines that as "gaming". Lets take a look at this charge, because it is an interesting one.

Jiujitsuguy has since Nov 29th made all of three edits to the article along with 2 edits to the article talk page. Those three edits, one on the 29th, one yesterday, and one today, were all removing this line. Those edits are all the edits he has ever made to this article. The two edits he has made to the talk page are as follows: yesterday he says he doesnt understand why the term "ethnic cleansing" is placed in quotes in the sources, and uses that absurd reason to remove the line. Today, he again asks this question and again removes the line from the article. Prior to him repeating the question, an answer was given and additional sources were provided for the statement. Yet Jiujitsuguy plays WP:IDHT and repeats the same silly question as though it absolves him of providing a real reason for removing the content.

There are users here that are simply playing a game, using whatever thread they can pull from a policy, guideline, or essay they think supports their immediate goal of removing content that makes a certain place look less than perfect. They do this while knowingly and purposely ignoring NPOV, and they do it spectacularly well. The arguments so far advanced for completely removing this sentence was that contained a "word to avoid" or that it was not expanded upon in the body. Instead of changing a single word or adding material to the body, multiple editors remove the sentence under the guise of following this style guideline or that essay.

Yes, I self-reverted a different edit so that I could use the revert here. That is not gaming, that is the opposite of gaming. I dont intend on waiting for 24 hours so that I am allowed to revert an <redacted> edit made without even a wave at Wikipedia policy, I dont intend to play that game. Ask Jiujitsuguy to explain how either of the two edits he made to the talk page justifies the 3 reverts he has made, 2 of them within 28 hours. As of this point, I have made a single revert on that page. I dont intend to make any more, and each of the editors here who oppose the edit has yet to see fit to respond to my replies on the talk page, which as of right now nobody has responded to in the past 3 hours. Yet they somehow are able to spend time here making several comments. I wonder why that is. nableezy - 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say that above having already read Mkativerata's comments. I respectfully disagree. nableezy - 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To accommodate Jiujitsuguy's newly found sensitivities, I've redacted a single word in my initial response. nableezy - 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im not trying to "game" around anything. We are allowed 1 revert per day. If you want to say that I cannot choose which revert to make, that once one is made then thats is fine. Ill respect that in the future. I felt when I made my self-revert though that set the number of reverts that I had made to 0. "Gaming" is a reference to playing policies against one another, trying to subvert their intent. That is not what I am doing, it is what the users making such inane arguments that having a "word to avoid" justifies the removal of an entire sentence rather than removing or replacing that single word. nableezy - 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, if it is not acceptable I wont do it. If you would like, I'll restore the article to where it had been at the time of Jiu's revert. nableezy - 23:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand how self-reverting to perform a different revert can be characterized as gaming. It is entirely transparent, and Jiujitsuguy certainly seems to take advantage of what a 1RR "entitles" him to on a regular basis, see for example the 28 hour revert cycle on this article [174], [175], or the recent edit history of 1982 Lebanon War, or Preemptive war, or really any article Jiujitsuguy edits. nableezy - 03:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of admins have been calling my use of a self-revert to be an example of "gaming". I've already said why I dont feel this to be the case, but if yall see it that way then so be it. But a bit of advice, if I might be so bold to assume you might listen. If you dont want this to be looked at as a game, try to make this more than an exercise in counting. Jiujitsuguy makes a revert on the 1st and makes a comment, note not an actual reason, at the talk page. He waits 28 hours so that he may perform another revert, making the same comment at the talk page without so much as acknowledging the response to his initial comment. If this isnt a game, the rules shouldnt allow for these nominal gestures of making a comment and then waiting for 24 hours to do the exact same thing. For some reason that I have yet to comprehend, you all seem to think that the number of reverts a person makes determines whether or not that person is a "disruption". Its as if you believe that because you must remain "uninvolved" that you cannot actually look at the content of the reverts. You follow a simple formula, if the revert was not removing the word "fuck" inserted by a vandal or an obvious BLP issue it counts as 1 strike. The strike count is reset after 24 hours. If you have 2 strikes at any point you are a "disruption" and will be sanctioned. Honestly, do the rules I describe resemble anything more than a game?

I dont want to play this game, which is why I simply self-reverted a different revert so that I could perform this revert. I think the idea that waiting 24 hours makes a "bad" revert into a "good" one incredibly stupid. I knew there was more than a decent chance that we would end up here when I made the edit. I object to the idea that I purposely gamed the 1RR. This will sound arrogant, in fact it is arrogant, but I really am much smarter than that. If I wanted to game around the restriction I would be much more clever in doing so, I wouldnt simply make a self-revert then label a different revert as a 1 revert.

One more request, can yall please try to resolve these issues more quickly? nableezy - 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]

Comment by (involved) Mkativerata

Didn't nableezy very quickly self-revert one of the reverts? This self-revert reverted this revert --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He undid the self-revert for reasons best known to him. Look at the revision history. There is a clear violation--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he reverted himself why are we here? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and perhaps I'm making your case for you, is the suggestion that nableezy, after seeing your revert, self-reverted his earlier revert of a less controversial edit, so that he would able to revert your more controversial edit withing 1RR? In other words, there's no 1RR violation, but the case could be framed as an charge of gaming 1RR (which I have no views on yet as nableezy hasn't commented). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears so. He's using his reverts in a tactical manner. He first reverted Hmbr and when he saw my edit, he viewed that as the greater of two evils so he undid his last revert so he could revert me. It's quite devious behavior and in my opinion wholly contrary to the spirit of the 1RR--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make it clear because the request as filed focuses on a 1RR violation, which I don't think is the issue:

• [176] 04:44 (my time): Nableezy reverts the removal of a category by User:Hmbr.
• [177] 05:17: Jiujitsuguy reverts the addition of material he/she finds contentious.
• [178] 05:43: Nableezy has a sudden change of heart about the category and self-reverts his/her earlier revert with no reason given in an edit summary.
• [179] 05:49: Nableezy reverts Jiujitsuguy presumably believing his earlier self-revert allowed for it under 1RR.

The issue seems to be whether Nableezy was gaming 1RR. But of course there could be a good explanation - it seems to me that Jiujitsuguy's edit removed the basis for Nableezy's revert (removing the material in the article that supported the category). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@George: I take your point and it is difficult to read too much into it before Nableezy responds. But prima facie, I would think that self-reverting oneself to use a revert in a "more deserving" circumstance (a) would be gaming; and (b) treating 1RR as an entitlement to one revert, promoting a battleground mentality. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could equally plausibly be argued that Jujitsuguy waited to make his contentious edit (for the third time in four days) until after Nableezy had made a revert, in order to prevent him from reverting this. This unfounded allegation would have as much validity as Jjg'sown speculations about Nableezy's motives. RolandR (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@George and RolandR: I am very mindful of this. Hence my comment above that the two reverts actually seem related. Nableezy justified the category restoration on the basis of sourced material in the article. Jiujitsuguy then, it seems, removed that sourced material. There may have been a high degree of opportunism there. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy restored the material that justifies the category with his v2 revert, so that excuse doesn't seem to work. It's pretty obvious he undid one revert so he could do another. Now the only remaining question is whether that's legitimate or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that there could be an element of fault lying with the filer of this request, for deliberately pulling the rug out from under Nableezy's first revert while Nableezy was barred from responding because of 1RR. Obviously I have the requisite degree of cynicism to start actively editing in this area. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point: hmbr's deletion of the "ethnic cleansing" category was incorrectly done as the article had material justifying its presence in the cat. Once the cat was restored the supporting information was removed, making the category inclusion nonsensical and thus rightly deleted. If your previous revert is rendered moot by another edit, can you undo your outdated revision and restore the supporting information necessary? Guess not. Sol (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that is mere speculation without any evidence supporting it. Nableezy's actions are supported by diffs. Like I said above, the only question is whether what he did is legitimate or not. Admins should keep in mind that their decision here will set a precedent that others will follow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The filer's actions need to be scrutinised. As I see it J's revert was based on the view that there was "No consensus for contentious, problematic edit" (edit summary). It is disruptive for editors involved in active talk page discussions to, at the same time, be involved in reverting on the article due their self-proclaimed view of where the consensus lies. It's tendentious and to be quite frank I'm seeing prima facie cases for sanctions on both sides of this. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there has been a discussion going for a day or so, with 3 editors wanting to include something and 3 editors objecting, it is not legitimate to think that there is no consensus to include at that point? Consider me enlightened. The way I understood things work here is that if an edit is challenged with legitimate policy based concerns it stays out of the article pending reasonable discussion. This sort of thing happens all the time. I think it's called BRD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BRD doesn't justify editors involved in the discussion pre-empting the discussion by reverting at the same time based on their self-proclamations of consensus. Especially not in a highly disputed area of conflict like PIA. When a discussion is open, editors should stick to the discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the way I understand it is that the edit stays out of the article pending discussion. The onus is on the editors who want to include material. Someone "pre-empted the discussion" by restoring it after it was objected to and removed the first time. Anyway, I'll wait and see what other admins think. This might be another precedent. It's something that happens very very often. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it's something that in my view needs to be stopped. In addition to my and Nableezy's concerns is reverting with "per talk" edit summaries, which is classic trench edit warfare.[180] If the reviewing admin would prefer that the issues raised in respect of Jiujitsuguy be handled in a separate AE I would be happy to open one. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, the editor referred to by NoMoreMrNiceGuy as having pre-empted the discussion by restoring the text is me. I restored similar text after looking at his deletion of what was there previously as a pending changes review. The way things looked to me was that a properly sourced statement had been removed for specious, even nonsensical, reasons. For example, using NoMoreMrNiceGuy's reasoning, if a source said something like Spanish is widely spoken as a first language in the United States we would have to omit reference to the word widely and represent the statement as Spanish is spoken as a first language in the United States in Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said the editor who restored it the first time. That wasn't you. And as I said in my reply to you below, I'm very much open to my actions and arguments being scrutinized. If I am told by an uninvolved admin that I misunderstand policy or that my arguments are not valid, I will correct my editing accordingly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata, Nableezy just took me to AE on a very similar revert issue so he should stop belittling others. He should know that my punishment was supposed to calm things down, but he is apparently still on the warpath. You trying to justify his very poor judgement is unbecoming of an admin like yourself. Why get yourself burnt? Nableezy is claiming that Jiujitsuguy is using whatever thread they can pull from a policy, guideline, or essay they think supports their immediate goal of removing content. I laugh. What did he do to me? On two reverts the book was thrown at me. Nableezy knows the rules better than most of his and should have merely relaxed. Shuki 6 month ban, Wikifan 8 month ban. Who's next? --Shuki (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, aren't you topic-banned? I'm not justifying Nableezy's actions - I think he has done wrong here and more so than the uninvolved admin does. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Amatulic: I agree that a number of editors are out to "get" Nableezy and have him removed from the area of conflict. However, that doesn't change the fact that these AEs may on occasion throw up real, actionable, violations of policies and norms. I think we need a clear view one way or the other on whether Nableezy's actions are acceptable - a warning to avoid actions that other involved editors may perceive to be violations leaves us hanging a bit. Nableezy's statement and my own comments above also raise questions about the filer's own actions which I think warrant interrogation. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I agree with what HJMitchell is proposing.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jiujitsuguy and Mbz1: In my view, the sanctionable conduct is the ongoing reversion of material from the article during an active discussion about its retention. Expected standards of behaviour go beyond formal compliance with reversion rules and extend to seeking consensus instead of engaging in tendentious editing to pre-empt and disrupt consensus-building processes. If there is a discussion on whether to include certain content, discuss and don't revert. Although I agree it would be useful to whoever closes this out to make it quite clear why sanctions will be imposed on Jiujitsuguy. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion about what it is said that J did wrong. It is more than an issue with one edit:

• Revert 1: [181] J removes an entire sentence because of a problem with one word in the sentence. Inappropriate use of a reversion as a weapon. No message left on the talk page.
• Revert 2: [182] a "per talk" revert. At the time J's only contribution to the talk page debate was this, one minute earlier. The BRD cycle is broken here by engaging in multiple reverts during an ongoing discussion.
• Revert 3: [183]. Reverting based on a self-proclaimation of a consensus in an ongoing discussion. Tendentious edit-warring. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Amatulic - with respect I think that is a whitewash of what is going on this article. Nableezy states "We are allowed 1 revert per day". Wrong. That is part of the mentality causing so many problems. On the other hand, the evidence I've pointed to above shows a clear pattern of tendentious editing and edit warring by Jiujitsuguy. This is trench warfare and it needs firm sanctions in response. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by George

It appears that Nableezy self-reverted their first revert 6 minutes prior to making the second revert? ← George ^talk 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He self-reverted and then undid the self-revert. Look at the revision history--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing where he ever undid his self-revert. It looks like he reverted, self reverted, reverted a different edit, then made an unrelated edit. I don't think that counts as violating 1RR. ← George ^talk 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that Nableezy decided that Jiujitsuguy's edit was more deserving of his revert than was re-adding the Ethnic cleansing category, but I'm not sure if that counts as gaming. That seems like a bit of a stretch, but I'm curious to hear administrator's views on the matter. ← George ^talk 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata - My concern is that the reverse could become a gaming tactic as well. Wait until an editor reverts a (relatively minor) change by someone else, "spending" their 1RR coin, then follow up with a more controversial edit of your own, knowing that they would be unable to revert you. I'm not saying Jiujitsuguy did that here, but if WP:GAME is interpreted the way you're describing, I'm concerned that we might see more of that in the future. ← George ^talk 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZScarpia

I came to the article through a pending change notification of an edit by NoMoreMrNiceGuy in my watchlist. As the change was clearly not vandalism I permitted it. I thought that the edit was an illegitimate removal of a sourced statement, however, so I re-added text similar to that removed, but slightly lower down in the Lead. My re-wording was an attempt to more closely reflect what the source had said. I think that the article history and the talk page contents will both show that NoMoreMrNiceGuy and Jiujitsuguy both removed a validly sourced statement for illegitimate reasons while baselessly claiming to have consensus.     ←   ZScarpia   20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if an admin or two would read the talk page discussion (it's the last section) and let us know what they think of the behavior and adherence to policy of everyone involved. As long as we're here already, let's learn something. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment by RolandR

Jujitsuguy's summary of Nableezy's edits is seriously misleading by omitting the intervening self-revert[184] at 18.43. By submitting such a seriously distorted case and omitting evidence apparently fatal to his claim, Jjg is underhandedly gaming the system. This submission should be speedily rejected. RolandR (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my claim to include a charge of WP:GAMING. I didn't see the intervening revert until it was brought to my attention and that is why I have amended the claim--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shuki

Amatulić, please be fair and do a similar investigation for the number of AEs Nableezy has pulled against his opponents. I welcome you to AE, but be careful before having mercy on this editor. I'm sure you can see for yourself Nableezy's bans and blacks, including 1RR before the general 1RR was in place. I've lost count of his multiple 24+20 minute reverts. You are right, enough is enough of this battleground and remorseless mentality. --Shuki (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in, and monitored, this page for several months now. I've already observed the activities of the involved parties, and wrote my comments accordingly. I am not advocating mercy; rather, I am assuming good faith as required, giving them credit for knowing their own history and consequences of past actions, and trying to work within the restrictions they are currently under. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mbz1

Phil, what are you going to ban Jiujitsuguy for? And how about agreeing with Timotheus Canens? And why only one month for Nableezy? Aren't topic bans supposed to be escalated as you've done with Wikifan?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a copy of the message I posted to Tim's talk page: "Hi Tim, Sorry for posting here, but I am not sure you'd pay attention to my post on AE.You topic banned wikifan for 8 months because of editor's prior history. Now you said this, but IMO it is not exactly correct statement about Jiujitsuguy. He has not nearly as bad prior history of topic bans as Nableezy does. Nableezy has at least 6 month topic ban for I/P related articles. As much as I could see Jiujitsuguy has never been banned for the whole topic. Besides what exactly Jiujitsuguy done to deserve to be banned. He filed a valid AE request, and that's it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)"--Mbz1 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol don't draw me into this please. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jiujitsuguy violating npov

Jiujitsuguy is constantly violating npov with his edits within the Arab-Israeli conflict, here are just some examples: Claims the Mount Hermon ski resort in the Golan Heights is "in Israel": [185]. Refers to Syrian soldiers in Golan Heights as "during the years that Gamla was under Syrian military occupation". he uses this as an argument to use a map of Israel for a place that is internationally recognized as in Syria. Ads a map of Israel for a Cave in East Jerusalem:[186][187][188][189]"Undid revision 398232226 by activist editor". Claims Gamla in the Golan Heights is "owned" by Israel:[190]. Removes that Rachels Tomb is in the West Bank and ads that its "owned" by Israel:[191]. Claims Mount Hermon which is 100% in Syria and Lebanon and no part of it is in Israel, is "in Israel" and says: "Part of the Hermon lies in Israel and in fact, it is a magnet for tourists w/ ski resorts & lodges, while the Syrian Hermon lies in waste". Claims that territories that Israel occupied in the Six day war is "Israels territories":[192] This is clearly someone who has severely failed to adhere to a neutral pov, and is inserting his personal pov into articles, instead of a neutral pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not to do with POV, rather fact v. fiction. The Golan is in Israel. To state otherwise is a lie. Chesdovi (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is in violation of npov: [193] and it is based on your own personal believes. If you cant follow npov and instead resort to adding your personal pov into articles like Jiujitsuguy, then you should refrain from editing within the topic area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Between 48-67 the West Bank was "in" Jordan: [194] even though the IC did not recognise Jordans annexation. The same goes for areas now controlled by Nothern Cyprus. The villages are in the Turkish republic. Pages discussing the legal disputes can go into to various viewpoints. Places in EJ & the GH, annexed by Israel, are viewed as in Israel like any other places on the planet, even if this move is not recognised. Chesdovi (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Golan Heights issue needs an ArbCom ruling like the West Bank/Samaria issue. We've seen fights on every possible article about whether or not it's part of Israel. I'd be perfectly happy if Israel got the Golan Heights in a peace agreement but until that happens and the world recognizes it, pushing Golan as Israeli sovereign territory is putting the perspective of one county above all the others. We've been over this many times in many talk pages; you don't have to change your personal opinions but recognize that they aren't what WP reflects. Sol (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I have now found an article written by Jiujitsuguy where he says some pretty disturbing things, including "Islamofacist influence on Wikipedia" and refers to Wikipedia editors as "hordes of Jihadists and like-minded anti-Semites." This is clearly not someone who should be editing within the topic area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A now-deleted version of your userpage at one time stated opinions such as "This user knows Israel has no right to exist" along with several very anti-Israeli comments & flags; in addition, you have made some unsettling comments in the past on non-political food articles [195],[196][197]. Would you say that those comments are much different from those which you are attributing to Jiujitsuguy? --nsaum75^{!Dígame¡‎} 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already received a topic ban for those kinds of comments I made at talkpages and for the comments at my userpage. I also removed the things from my userpage a year and a half ago.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves me correct an Admin, not you, removed the items from your userpage citing WP:SOAP. True, your topic ban has since expired. But you clearly espoused such opinions & viewpoints at one time, and you have continued to argue against the inclusion of photos from Israel in non-political food articles by saying that it is not neutral to have photos from Israel in articles about Arab food. So how are those article and userpage comments different than statements that you are attributing to Jiujitsuguy from outside wikipedia? --nsaum75^{!Dígame¡‎} 17:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My topic ban was not for supporting inclusion or exclusion of photos from countries, admin said "the most compelling and disturbing behavior adduced here is nearly a year old. (The June 2009 edit seems to hit the high watermark for bad behavior)." It was certain types of comments I made, and I said that I would not say those kinds of things again, and I have not. Jujitsuguy has on the other hand not received a topic ban for his problematic behavior. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then when you say "This is clearly not someone who should be editing within the topic area." do you mean a short-term ban or an indefinite ban? Because I still see little difference in the comments you have made and the ones that you say Jujitsuguy has made. --nsaum75^{!Dígame¡‎} 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received my punishment for what I did, and I learnt my lesson, Jiujitsuguy has not recived anything for what he have done, and his probleamtic behaviour continues. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SupremeDeliciousness. Let me explain the difference between you and I. I expressed genuine remorse for making stupid and immature comments that were made on an off wiki forum. The contrition came after I was reinstated which means that I didn’t have to say it because I was already reinstated. The reason why I expressed regret was because I genuinely meant it. You on the other hand made vile racist statements referring to people of Jewish faith as "culture thieves" and land grabbers and you made these comments on Wikipedia. What’s even more disturbing is that you stated, while appealing your topic ban, that you would not repeat such offensive words on Wikipedia again but you never offered an apology for those hurtful, overtly racist views nor offered a retraction. You merely stated that from a tactical position, it wasn’t in your interest to repeat those views if you wanted to continue to edit. I asked you, as many as four times to retract those abhorrent statements and you refused which only means that you still subscribe to them. And that my friend is the difference between you and I. I recognize my shortcomings and try to improve myself whereas you’ve never demonstrated such a proclivity--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not only talking about those comments that you made of wiki, Im talking about your problematic pov edits at Wikipedia as I have shown above in diffs. I have never seen an apology from you. Also the things you are saying here about me are inaccurate, I never said "people of Jewish faith as "culture thieves"". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs speak for themselves and incidentally, aside from reverting edits with edit summaries like "remove Israeli POV," what content have you ever added to Wikipedia?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sean.hoyland

Setting aside the technicalities of 1RR policy/gaming, I don't think it is the case that 'Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy have been at each other's throats for quite a while now'. Jujitsuguy was given the opportunity of a fresh start after his unblocking following the investigation into his off-wiki activities and publications (with my help). I think peace has largely prevailed between Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy since then and Jujitsuguy has refocused his efforts on trying to get Supreme blocked/topic banned (apparently requiring some use of double standards on his part User_talk:PhilKnight#Shuki given statements he has made off wiki). It's disappointing that Jujitsuguy has decided to revert to his previous belligerent approach towards Nableezy. What seems pretty pointless about this incident is that the content will almost certainly eventually say what Jujitsuguy and others are working hard to prevent it from saying simply because that will be the inevitable result of applying the rules that govern content decisions to the information present in reliable sources. Contrary to popular belief in some circles, blocking editors does not erase information in reliable sources. One set of editors are adding sourced content, the other set are removing the content together with the sources. They seem like quite different types of behavior to me. The discussion on the talk page should be allowed to take it's course without being disrupted so perhaps protecting the article and forcing everyone to resolve the issues through discussion might work better. I'd also encourage admins to take a look at the discussions and compare the natures of the arguments being used. It's a pity that everyone didn't just stop editing and talk about it rather than start another report-fest. This case is different from Shuki's. That was an example of someone simply refusing to abide by the result of a centralized consensus decision that will result in changes to a large number of articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tiamut

Amatulic is correct in pointing out that there have been many reports filed against Nableezy with the hopes of making some stick. This should not be one of them.

Nableezy has said above he did not intend to game the system. He has also stated that if undoing a revert to make another revert is unacceptable, he will not do it again (even offering to restore the page to where it was before his interventions). He has taken great pains to follow the numerous restrictions under which he is permitted to edit. A sanction now would be punitive and serve no purpose. Tiamut^talk 09:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass[edit]

While I am tempted to add some commentary on the behaviour of the respective parties in this dispute, I think I will refrain on this occasion. However, I must take issue with tariqabjotu's comment about users "who seem to always be in the vicinity of battleground disputes". That strikes me as guilt by association. Just because two (or more) users find themselves commonly engaged in disputation, doesn't necessarily mean that both are equally to blame for it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma, perhaps you should leave this AE request to more uninvolved admins since you yourself had a war of words with Nableezy not so long ago. Gatoclass (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on,Gatoclass. It was not a content dispute.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite irrelevant. The two were recently involved in an unfriendly exchange, which calls into question Enigma's impartiality here. There are plenty of uninvolved admins here capable of adjudicating this case. Gatoclass (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I initially declined to comment on the merits of this case, talk of escalating sanctions prompts me to reconsider. Firstly, I agree that Nableezy's self-revert constitutes gaming the system, and in a way that I think indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (in that he couldn't even wait 24 hours to make his next revert). His recent flurry of initiated cases against other users also indicates that his levels of frustration have currently reached breaking point. So I accept that he might benefit from a brief break from the fray.

On the other hand, I am concerned that some administrators have apparently chosen to completely ignore the evidence of tendentious editing on Jiujitsu's part presented by Supreme Deliciousness. It does appear to me that on this board the actual goals of the project are frequently lost sight of. The goal of this project is not to teach people to be nice to one another, or to enforce rules about 1RR, it's to build an encyclopedia. Tendentious editing is far more harmful to this project than petty breaches of such restrictions. When users insert demonstrable falsehoods into articles such as that the Sinai or the Golan Heights are "in Israel" or "Israel's territory" that should ring very loud alarm bells. So I must repudiate any notion that Nableezy deserves a longer sanction than Jiujitsu; if anything, the opposite is the case. Moreover, one must consider not only the offence, but the provocation. Gatoclass (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To that I will add that I endorse Amatulic's most recent comment. We need to keep a sense of perspective. I think at most, we should be looking at a month long topic ban for an offence like this, in keeping with PhilKnight's original suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

If reverting/restoring while discussion is ongoing is an ARBPIA enforceable violation, could you guys state that clearly somewhere so editors could be pointed to the ruling? It would also be helpful if you let us know what state the article should be left in once discussion is open. Should contested material be left out of the article pending the conclusion of the discussion, or is the version that is in place when discussion is open kept, or what? These things need to be made clear, since this situation happens very often indeed.

It would also be helpful if admins let us know to what extent prior behavior and prior sanctions come into effect when determining enforcement here. I noticed the two admins who commented in the previous request saying prior behavior (in that case over a year old) should be taken into account have yet to make a statement. I await their opinions on this case. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you won't get any hard and fast answers to your first question. If disruption were to occur, I assume that each editor's behaviour would be examined to determine the extent to which they were contributing and whether their actions were justified. If an editor was removing obvious vandalism or something that looked like a BLP issue, their behaviour would likely look clean. If an edit war was kicking off, the editors who prolonged it would tend to look like the guilty parties. In general, in such a case, it would probably be best to leave the article in whatever state it had arrived at and turn to the talk page. It wouldn't improve the appearance of your behaviour if you've been trying to insert invalidly sourced text, or, conversely, completely remove validly sourced text without good reasons. In the latter case, unproven claims that the statement being removed is "controversial" would hopefully not add up to anything of a defence. When it comes to taking ARBPIA issues to the Arbitration Enforcements Requests page, I've gained the very strong impression that it's not a good idea to do it if it might look as though you have any degree of responsibility for causing the issue you're reporting. I would say that it would look better if you've made a reasonable effort to resolve the issue before turning to Arbitration Enforcement. For 1RR violations that might include giving the culprit an opportunity to revert themselves first.     ←   ZScarpia   20:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. I think the admins can and should let editors know when reverts are legitimate. I have no problem with them saying that when discussion is open reverting is not allowed (obviously with exceptions for vandalism/BLP). That's fine. Let us know what state the article should be left in, and you have a clear rule everyone can follow. That would cut down the edit wars significantly. Right now it seems JJG is going to get punished basically for bringing an actionable report to AE, since what he did is very common. There were at least 6 other editors reverting while discussion was open, including you and me, and I think we all know that sort of thing happens here all the time. Looking at my watchlist, I can give you examples for 3 articles where people are reverting while discussion is open, and that's just from the past few hours. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is no single clear rule governing the situation you're asking about? In any case, no admin would be able to give you a definite answer over how such a situation would go because other admins might interpret things differently. On the subject of Jujitsuguy, as any editor who's been following the ARPIA area should have realised, an editor bringing a case here risks having their own part in the issue judged; if it looks as though they haven't behaved reasonably themselves, they stand a good chance of being sanctioned too.     ←   ZScarpia   22:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Nice of you to acknowledge I had valid objections. On the talk page you called my concerns a charade. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for replying here. The charade was pretending that your concerns merited the complete removal of the sentence, which is what you did. The charade was saying WTA applied after the "WTA" had already been removed, which it had been at the time you removed the rest of the sentence. Your concerns were valid, but not to the extent that the sentence should have been completely removed. A slight rewording, at most, was necessary, but you used easily solvable style issues to justify the complete removal of the content. nableezy - 00:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a reading of the actual discussion doesn't support what you're claiming above. You dismissed my concerns completely, in your usual friendly manner. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage everybody to read the discussion. Especially where I write WP:WTA does not justify completely removing the content, if you have a problem with the word "widely" you could have removed that. I will be happy to expand on this material in the body, rendering moot your other wikilawyer-esque objection. And then they can see the edit where I address both issues in my revert of Jiujitsuguy. And then maybe even see me asking if anybody has any objection to the current edit. And then maybe they will see that none of the people who removed the content has bothered to respond to that question. But since I have your attention here, and I may not be allowed to engage you on this subject in the very near future, are there any problems with the edits I made, or did I address all of your policy or guideline concerns? nableezy - 01:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You dismissed my objections, saying they are not grounded in policy. You did so in an unpleasant manner, as usual. After making sure I'm reminded why I don't like talking to you, you made some changes to the article. Now apparently you want me to go back there and what? Say "thank you"?

NoMoreMrNiceGuy, I thought that your stated reasons for completely removing the text were completely worthless and it certainly looked to me as though you were making a pretty poor attempt at rationalising the removal of a statement you simply didn't like. Even new editors here would probably realise quickly that they can't completely delete sourced statements just because, without presenting evidence, they deem a statement contentious (nor could they do the opposite, reinsert an unsourced statement just because they deemed it obviously true). Unlike Nableezy, I don't believe that the use of the word "widely" by a source is covered by the WTA rule. If a reliable source says that something is called something widely, I think that it is legitimate to say that in the article. I think that there was a good case for moving the "ethnic cleansing" statement into the body of the article. In fact, I'm not keen on pinning labels on things and would rather just let the facts speak for themselves, but I thought that the reasons you gave for your deletion were so poor that I felt bound to reverse you.     ←   ZScarpia   01:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you several times already, if an uninvolved admin tells me I did something wrong, I will certainly take that to heart. You couldn't be considered uninvolved by any stretch of the imagination. To the point, I presented several objections and per BRD I reverted for discussion. I just had another look at BRD and it says nothing about not reverting "sourced statements" or anything similar. It says Bold->Revert->Discuss. I was reverting to the version before the bold edit, per my understanding of BRD. I think you felt bound to reverse me based on our prior interactions, but maybe I'm just being cynical. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which previous interactions do you have in mind? If I was going to start pursuing vendettas, why would I choose you?     ←   ZScarpia   03:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows why people do stuff. Is it not a fact you never edited the article before I did? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

I think (in fact it is obvious) that both editors are making numerous valuable contributions in this area and therefore the proposed lentghy topic ban is detrimental to wikipedia. Esteemed admins below surely don't need to be reminded that our common goal is to build a solid encyclopedia, not to create a gentlemens club. We need to find a solution that does not damage wikipedia. I think that this small violation should result in no action (ok maybe a very short ban, of, say, 24 hours), however both users should be banned from using AE for a set time. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Mbz1

Why everybody here believes that Jiujitsuguy has been on nableezy throat? No he has been not, just the opposite. Please see what he wrote to nableezy: "Third, I do not wish to gain any advantage over you during your 1R restriction and I will attempt to voluntarily restrain myself to 1R in articles that you and I have disagreement, for the duration of your restriction"--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Petri Krohn

I find Nableezy's actions reasonalble and Jiujitsuguy's actions unreasonalble. In fact, an argument can be made that Jiujitsuguy's removal of the sourced content constitutes vandalism – thus restoring it does not count as an revert per WP:3RR. At the very least I suspect it was done in bad faith in an effort to undermine Nableezy's actions.

I am also worried by the current trend to see 1RR restrictions more restricting than they are or should be – as exemplified by the resent WP:AE request against User:SlimVirgin. The current atmosphere makes any reasonable editing or use of the WP:BRD cycle almost impossible. The aim of the game is for editors to negotiate on the content. This is exactly what Nableezy was doing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the talk page, I think you are on to something. Whether or not it's gaming the system as done, the material is well-sourced (straight from the Guardian) and the opposing editors made no effort to amend the offending material to meet their (pretty weak)policy complaints but continued to delete something after BRD. So the editor who actually made the article more informative is punished more for a technicality then the editor(s) who removed the information on flimsy grounds? I'm not pushing for complete amnesty (I really don't know much on the RR policy) but it seems the rules are getting removed from the aim. Sol (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy[edit]

I observe that Nableezy cases have appeared here rather frequently, almost as if someone has an objective to create a case for every archive of this page:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive49#Nableezy - topic banned for 4 months
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#nableezy - no action taken, declined to enforce
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive53#Nableezy - no action required
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive59#Nableezy - no action taken, not actionable
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive60#Nableezy - topic banned for 2 months
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive64#Nableezy - no action taken, not actionable
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Nableezy - no action taken, not actionable
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive67#Result_concerning_No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy_and_Jiujitsuguy - not a case about Nableezy, but worth observing that Jujitsuguy indef blocked based on evidence provided by Nableezy. Perhaps there's a grudge here.
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive69#Nableezy - Nableezy warned, no further action
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72#Nableezy - no action required

Perhaps I missed some. In any case, of all those Nableezy cases above, only a couple resulted in any significant action. The rest are not actionable or no action was required.

This observation leads me to believe that a group of editors have been trying to use this Enforcement page as a tool against Nableezy at any opportunity, where any good-faith action on Nableezy's part that can be interpreted as a violation is reported here as a violation. The impression given by the list above is as if there's some coordinated effort to use this enforcement page as a weapon.

Enough, I say.

At the most, given the statements made by involved editors above, Nableezy should be warned about using self-reverts to make a more desired revert. Whether or not Nableezy believes that is gaming the 1RR restriction, the fact remains that it appears as gaming by others.

I would also warn other editors to refrain from making frivolous accusations on this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is ridiculous. It seems to me that both the filer and the respondent are attempting to game the system and are certainly attempting to use AE as a weapon to gain the upper hand in this long-running content dispute. I would suggest a 0RR restriction or topic ban for both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This "self-revert a revert so that I can revert again" tactic is not acceptable. T. Canens (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with HJ Mitchell - this is ridiculous. I suggest a 1-month topic for Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a longer ban is needed - neither party has a clean history here. 3 months, at a minimum, I'd say. T. Canens (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, I'm ok with 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's a tad excessive in the context of this specific report, but I'm OK with it too. I'm also OK with banning the involved parties from AE for a while, although others may think that's excessive. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy have been at each other's throats for quite a while now, but I'm not sure I understand why Jiujitsuguy is getting as stiff a sanction as Nableezy. As T.Canens said, self-reverting a revert to do another revert is blatant gaming of the system. 1RR is not put in place so that editors can feel entitled to various reverts, and then decide whether or not to "spend" them in various places. Enigma^msg 02:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reverting while discussing is not quite as bad as reverting without discussing, but neither is acceptable. All reverts must cease when a related discussion is active. T. Canens (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure what you're referring to. Do you mean the 1948 exodus page? Enigma^msg 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • See Mkativerata's comment above. I agree with their analysis. T. Canens (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with lengthy topic bans for both. At what point do we stop giving second... er... fifth chances to people who seem to always be in the vicinity of battleground disputes? -- tariqabjotu 07:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• @Enigmaman, it seems the JJG intentionally waited until Nableezy had made a revert (on a page restricted to 1RR) to make an edit he knew Nableezy would revert. That's just as bad as Nableezy's self-revert one revert so he can make another tactic imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Nableezy has no self-control; that he has to make certain reverts? Anyway, given Nableezy's more serious sanction history and the behaviour noted here, I think he should be the one to receive the stricter punishment. Similar to when the NBA issues double technicals to when two are fighting, I don't believe that just issuing a blanket punishment to all parties is an equitable solution. Enigma^msg 16:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both have been at each others' throats for many months, both have attempted to game the system and the filer is now attempting to use AE as a weapon to gain an advantage in their dispute, so both should face sanctions. Whether one is topic-banned for longer than the other, I'm not bothered, but, if both are topic banned, the levels of disruption in the topic area will be reduced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with topic-banning both, but I do think the lengths should not be the same. Enigma^msg 16:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm inclined to agree with you. JJG left me a note to the effect that he hadn't intended to game the system by waiting until Nableezy had already made a revert. I'm inclined to AGF for now, though I wouldn't oppose sanctions against JJG. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent comments above this section by Sol and BorisG, I stand by my original view that a warning is sufficient for both. The encyclopedia is not improved by topic-banning constructive editors who happen to have disagreements, and also not by banning one on a technicality in which he was trying to make improvements. AGF applies to both parties here. Maybe Nableezy wasn't consciously gaming 1RR in spite of how it looks. Maybe Jiujitsuguy isn't gaming the AE forum in spite of how it looks. AGF, guys. I propose that the 1RR restriction apply not to individuals, but to the topics that Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy work together in, which seems to be mostly P-I stuff (hasn't this been done already? I thought PhilKnight went through these articles). Then there would be no issue with one editor who isn't under 1RR to gain the upper hand over another who is. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That has been done. Every article in the I/P topic area is under 1RR, so it's not a case of one editor being under such a restriction and another not. I agree with Mkativerata that sanctions are required. We have a 1RR restriction and it hasn't stopped the tendentious editing and the general battleground mentality, so now other measures are required in the name of preventing further disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several points:

• Once a related discussion is open, the page should remain as is, whether or not the disputed content is in there. That is, act as if it has been fully protected. Only in cases of egregious BLP violations or situations of comparable gravity should any revert be done once the discussion started.
• I agree with HJ Mitchell that the topic-wide 1RR restriction has been so far unable to control the battleground behavior, and stronger measures are required to contain the disruption. This should come as no surprise, given my recent comments in several recent AE threads related to this topic area.
• This does mean that we may be compelled to impose seemingly draconian sanctions, but we are not left with much choice here. The alternative would be to ask arbcom to open ARBPIA3, which, if the more recent cases are any indication, is likely to result in a series of indefinite topic bans. I seriously doubt that anyone wants to go down that path.
• Nableezy's history is indeed more problematic than JJG's. Their most recent area-wide topic ban was for two months. I'll agree to a four-month ban for Nableezy and three months for JJG, in the hopes that we can reach some agreement here. T. Canens (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. Hopefully three and four months respectively will cool tempers and allow these editors to remain on opposite sides of the street from one another and, if not, we can revisit it in four months. I also concur that ArbCom are unlikely to do anything that would be perceived as less draconian than this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the imposition of a topic wide 1RR hasn't resolved the problems, and I'm ok with the 4 month ban for Nableezy, and 3 month ban for Jujitsuguy. PhilKnight (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This can now be closed, I think. Based on the discussion above, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:

• Nableezy (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for four months.
• Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for three months.
• All participants here are reminded that revert warring during an ongoing related discussion, except when a revert rule exemption apply, is unacceptable whether or not the revert warrior is also participating in the discussion. T. Canens (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]