Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:25, 13 December 2011

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Jonchapple

Jonchapple blocked for six weeks by HJ Mitchell for edit warring. AGK [•] 10:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Jonchapple

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Domer48_'fenian' 21:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jonchapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration Enforcement Topic Ban

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

7 December 2011 Editor is Topic Banned from "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland..." as of 11:41, 20 October 2011
6 October 2011 While adding the fact tags are questionable considering their ban, removing the text is violating their ban.
6 December 2011 Again, this has been a matter of some dispute and is also subject to the Topic Ban.

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

Warned on20 October 2011 by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) explicit warning on flags
Warned on20 October 2011 by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs)
Warned on 29 October 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
Warned on 14 October 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: This editor was given a topic ban on 20 October 2011 for violating the terms of their Arbitration enforced probation. They were explicitly warned about the issue of flags and some of the diff's used during the Arbitration which imposed the topic ban were on exactly the same article here here. Having been topic banned, they were then blocked by Arbitration for 3 weeks for violating the ban and imposed by Mkativerata here. Despite this block, they then launch a personal attack on me describing me as a sympathisers of terror. Regardless of the fact that they have been already warned by Arbitration for another personal attack on me, I actually let this go despite the scurrilous nature of the attack. Now having be warned, blocked and "Topic Banned" from all articles related to The Troubles, they again violated their ban. Regardless of who makes an edit on a Troubles related article, this editor has no business on these subjects! They are Banned. I also want that personal attack removed.

Reply to Bretonbanquet: They were given explicit warnings on flags! They are topic banned, and have no business reverting anyone on any article that is covered by their ban. They were blocked for violating their topic ban already, and were explicitly warned about personal attacks. They have ignored all and every warning.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another diff as I consider it a violation of their ban. Adding fact-tags only to remove the text is plain gaming of the ban and the fact-tags.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

Discussion concerning Jonchapple

Statement by Jonchapple

Ed, I reverted an IP-hopping vandal. Bretonbanquet above or somebody else would have done exactly the same if I hadn't've got there first, because the edit added an incorrect piece of pointy vandalism that directly contravened both Wikipedia consensus and the bare facts. And if you really think I'm making "no effort to curtial my inappropriate edits", we must really be looking at a different list of contributions. I see a set of useful, contructive, good-faith edits that are helping to make this project a more accurate resource. I don't know what else I can say. JonC ^Talk 22:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple

Can an article about a racing driver be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland..? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the racing driver article per se but the addition/reversion of Irish/British flags that is covered by the sanctions. Mo ainm~Talk 22:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even when he's simply reverting vandalism by a popped-up-out-of-nowhere IP? The edit he reverted looks extremely dubious to say the least. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't vandalism it is a long running content dispute that is ongoing and I'm surprised that he even made the revert knowing full well that flags were covered in his topic ban. As regard to it being an IP hopping vandal I don't know if they are or not but they made two edits which certainly wouldn't be construed as vandalism. Mo ainm~Talk 22:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute has been dormant for five weeks after no sources were found by anyone to back up one side of the argument. Given the discussion on the talk page and the lack of edit summary, I'd say it was vandalism. A total of two edits, one of which just happens to be extremely contentious? Hmmm... At best, it's disruptive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I was the last one to enter the UK flag icon before the IP edited it to the Irish one I feel that if Jonchapple hadnt undone it myself or Bretonbanquet would have . I had edited the discussion page[[2]] with up-to-date facts before I became aware of this . If this is consistent with the Troubles ruling , maybe in Jonchapple's case it is , it is also about the motor racing issue. There is no evidence to show that Carroll has ever been Irish in a sporting sense and that the remit of flags in motor racing infoboxes is based on sporting nationality - Northern Irish isnt a motor racing nationality and as Carroll isnt Irish the editor has just undone a comment with-out an edit summary and without a discussion ot the talk page . The IP made no effort to engage , discuss or explain their edit , the undoing of which would seem appropriate for an article on motor racing .Murry1975 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jonchapple

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

The recent practice at AE has been to consider revert warring on British versus Irish nationality for people born in Northern Ireland as being covered by Troubles enforcement. In fact Jonchapple was blocked for a week on 28 October for this revert in which he disputed the nationality of a golfer named Rory McIlroy. His new edits at Adam Carroll represent more of the same. Nothing has changed, he was blocked before for the same thing, and he seems to be making no effort to curtail his inappropriate edits. I suggest doubling the previous block, which was for three weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Ed, I agree this is more of the same from Jonchapple and support a 6 week block. However, given that this user will then have been blocked for 9 weeks of his 13 week (3 month) topic ban for violating it I'd suggest resetting the ban from the date of his future unblock (ie a new 3 month topic ban to run from Jan 18 2012)--Cailil ^talk 23:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Jonchapple for six weeks. If he wasn't aware that edit-warring over nationalities like that was considered to be within the scope of WP:TROUBLES, he might have had a defence, but considering Ed clearly warned him about it (and this is very similar conduct to that which got him blocked last time), that is not applicable. The suggestion resetting the topic ban is not an unreasonable one and I'll leave this open for discussion of that proposal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the block, the two edits are blatant violations of the TBAN, it wasn't vandalism that was added, typical POV pushing in this topic space (large chunk of Unionist vs Nationalist language in the first diff and "province" vs "country" of Northern Ireland in the second). I support resetting the topic ban to 3 months from this date. --WGFinley (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YehudaTelAviv64

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

Request concerning YehudaTelAviv64

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: YehudaTelAviv64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

@Wgfinley. The "harassment" referred to is this one thread at his talk page. Though admittedly the rhetoric should have been toned down, I still strongly suspect this editor is a return of a banned editor (as explained in the diff), though I am holding off for now on any official SPI because I do not have solid evidence tying it to any specific editor.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [3]

Discussion concerning YehudaTelAviv64

Statement by YehudaTelAviv64

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

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

Re: Wgfinley

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

Re: Brewcrewer

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

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

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

Re: EdJohnston

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning YehudaTelAviv64

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

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

Statment by Shrike

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

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

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

Comment by Malik Shabazz

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

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

Conduct of EdJohnston

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

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

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

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

Result concerning YehudaTelAviv64

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest waiting to see what AGK recommends before closing this. On the evidence given above (before AGK made his comment) we should be considering either a short topic ban or no action. If YTA64 wants to write to Arbcom to get them to define a revert, he is welcome to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --WGFinley (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VanishedUser314159

IP blocked one year. A named party of two Arbcom cases abused the Right To Vanish, evading both an AE block and a topic ban by actively editing on fringe topics during his ban. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning VanishedUser314159

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Professor marginalia (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: VanishedUser314159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist limited to one account

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

8 Dec 2011 Maybe just the most ironic edit. Has been editing from this IP since indef block in Mar 2011 for socking to evade sanctions, more persistently since about Oct 2011
15 Dec 2010 Confirms he edited with the IP before his block

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

Not necessary. He knows he can't do this.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It's a shame it's come to this, but this is a mess. With all the courtesy blanking on his behalf, the misuse of the Right to Vanish, socking, and block evasions - I had to say something. I always found him to be a real asset at wikipedia and I don't have any opinion about the arbitration cases he was party in-I didn't follow them. It was only because in a discussion with him yesterday, I recognized the IP as VanishedUser314159 and looked him up that I learned he was currently blocked. But to continue editing he should come out in the open, seek his block be removed and edit under his user account.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

Discussion concerning VanishedUser314159

Statement by 128.59.171.194

I know that as an IP my abilities to edit on Wikipedia are limited. I encourage any administrator who thinks it appropriate to block this IP if you feel the contributions have been in any way disruptive. I do not have access to VanishedUser314159's account, nor do I have any desire to create a user account. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VanishedUser314159

Comments by others about the request concerning VanishedUser314159

Result concerning VanishedUser314159

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

VanishedUser314159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In December 2010, VanishedUser314159 added the signature of a named account under a talk comment left by this IP. In January 2011 the vanished user offered to take a one-year wikibreak, but it does not appear that he was serious. The IP geolocates to Columbia University. I've notified Jpgordon, who placed the indefinite block on VanishedUser314159 in March 2011, to see if he wants to comment. The IP is very active on fringe topics since March 2011, which goes against past advice by Arbcom. It also violates a one-year topic ban from fringe science imposed here at AE in January 2011, still visible in Archive81. Unless the user volunteers to seek unblock under his main account we may need to treat this as evasion of an AE block and shut down the IP for a long period. It does not appear necessary to go to Arbcom for advice since they have expressed themselves clearly in the past. We should consider imposing a one-year block. We can give the user the address of arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if he is hoping that the Committee has changed its mind about allowing him to use multiple identities. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That diff is pretty clear proof it is him, it appears a block defense has been lined up as the IP added the Shared IP Edu template.[16] Since the IP went right on editing after responding here and the IP is clearly associated with the banned user and I don't see any other substantive edits from this IP indicating it is truly shared it would seem a long term block is in order.--WGFinley (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs) is blocked for one year for evading the AE block of User:VanishedUser314159 and the AE topic ban from pseudoscience and fringe science imposed in January 2011. This sanction is being logged in WP:ARBPS and in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone35

Someone35 (talk · contribs) banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces for one year, expiry 10 Dec 2012 --WGFinley (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Someone35

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Someone35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

2 December 2011 See below
19:39, 6 December 2011 See below for explanation
19:15, 7 December 2011 Hounding
10:04, 9 December 2011 Hounding, disruptive editing
9 December 2011 Accusing others of being paid to edit Wikipedia

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

Notified of the case on 24 August 2011‎
Topic banned following the user calling me an "antisemite"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Someone35, after having his or her indefinite topic ban for calling another user (me) an antisemite without any evidence reduced to a 3 month topic ban on appeal has continued with the same immature behavior that demonstrates why the user should restricted from the topic area. In the first diff above the user personalizes a dispute at a talk page by asking an inane question to me. In the second diff the user continues with this pattern, asking if I am employed. In the the third diff, the user tendentiously follows my contributions to an article he or she had never edited to make a personal attack, claiming that I am not editing article to "contribute" to them but rather to "agitate people against Israel". That the user has no idea what they are talking about on the issue under discussion does not seem to faze him or her. In the fourth edit, the user again hounds my contributions to ask an extremely inappropriate question, asking how much I am paid to edit here. The meaning of that diff is made clear in the final diff, in which the user again makes the absurd accusation that I was paid to be involved in a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem.

This is not daycare, and we should not have to deal with children running around making a nuisance of themselves. The user's disruption has escalated from a minor annoyance to active disruption, and I request that his or her indefinite topic ban be reimposed. When the user can demonstrate that he or she has the required maturity to edit in the topic area the ban can be rescinded, but I think it is clear that after the 3 month ban that this child still is not fit to edit in the topic area.

It is very obvious who the user was referring to in the edit on his talk page, and the comments below are disingenuous to say the least. Compare this with this and you can see that the claim that he was not referring to a specific user falls flat. This is similar to the behavior that occurred prior to the user's last topic ban, where the user claimed that because he or she called me an antisemite in Hebrew but not English it should not count. See the past thread here (collapsed section, the extension of the ban occurred during an appeal of a block). nableezy - 16:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Someone35

Statement by Someone35

I'll reply to each edit:

1. How is this a violation of any guideline?

2. Was there anything offensive in this question?

3. Am I not allowed to involve in a discussion about a place that I know well? I even visited there a few months ago so I am knowledgeable in that article.

4. That edit was underlined for a purpose...

5. Did I mention you there? See who's wikihounding (or stalking) others...

Reply to Nableezy's statement:

I already apologized for that, look for it if you want.
In my opinion that question wasn't inane, also you didn't even answer me, you just removed it.
That's because you haven't answered me, you could at least say that you are not interested in telling me that...
Again, I am knowledgeable about Hiriya and I agreed with his position.
That was underlined for a purpose
Where did I mention you in the last diff? Also, the meaning of the userbox you put in the bottom of your userpage is also clear and you can get arrested for supporting terrorist organizations...

Since mostly children read Wikipedia (usually to copy their HW from there), you SHOULD have children editing here in order to make Wikipedia more open to children.

Also, Nableezy is the only user who seems to be disrupted by my edits and that's the 3rd or 4th time he reports me.

Response to WGFinley: Nableezy is the only editor who complains about me. Once I saw asad's warning I removed the problematic sentences. But I went out for about 3 hours so I only saw it after Nableezy complained here.-- Someone35 16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact he's the only one that complains about you change the fact that you asked him if he has a job and accused him of being paid to edit WP? --WGFinley (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't accused him. I haven't even mentioned him in that edit. I asked him once oafishly (that's the word google translate gave me, I'm not sure it's accurate, I never heard of this word before) if he has a job since he seems to edit a lot on Wikipedia. As far as I know, asking somebody if he has a job isn't against any Wikipedia policy.-- Someone35 16:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you really outta stop burying yourself with these self-destructive comments. Have you not taken to heart what you have learned in your mentoring course? -asad (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentences you asked me to remove in order not to get myself in trouble, but I only saw your warning after Nableezy reported me-- Someone35 16:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Nableezy's second comment: There other people who are not you that make POV pushing edits and are getting paid for editing Wikipedia...-- Someone35 16:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the admins: Then give me a one year interaction ban with Nableezy, since I don't engage in edit wars with other users, or make problematic edits in Israeli Palestinian conflict articles (I am not edit warring or violating any rule there). Also, again, I removed the sentences Nableezy complains about in the moment I saw asad's warning, but apparently it was too late and Nableezy already wrote the report here.-- Someone35 06:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Someone35

Comment by Malik Shabazz

@WGFinley We shouldn't continue to add a little more time and send them back out to cause issues when their TBAN expires. Precisely. So why add a little more time and send Someone35 back out when his (proposed year-long) topic ban expires? Why not reinstate his indefinite topic ban? Hasn't he made good use of the WP:ROPE he was given? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Demiurge1000

I'm Someone35's mentor (agreed after his initial topic ban) so unfortunately I'm partly responsible for this, as I only noticed and replied to all this on Friday morning. The mentoring work that we've done so far clearly hasn't successfully dealt with the issue that Someone35 has extremely strong views about certain groups whose stated aim is to destroy his country, that he (wrongly) associates opposing viewpoints on Wikipedia with those groups, and that he not only focuses his feelings about this on Nableezy as an individual, but also doesn't restrain himself from expressing those feelings on Wikipedia. (In retrospect, probably the first part of the mentoring should have been "let's talk about Nableezy and your feelings about Nableezy", but instead I took a more conventional approach.)

The comments made are indefensible; there's no world in which one asks a on-wiki opponent "do you have a job?" just out of curiosity, and secondly I don't see how Someone35 or anyone else can expect the comments about paid editing to be interpreted as other than referring to Nableezy.

I would prefer WGFinley's suggestion of a year long topic ban rather than an indefinite one, though the only argument I have in support of that is that for a teenager, a year is a very long time.

An alternative suggestion would be an indefinite one-way interaction action ban to stay away from Nableezy, to include not editing any articles where Nableezy already edits. I do feel that if adhered to, this would prevent the expression of personal animosity that is the focus of the problem here. I'm aware that one-way interaction bans are generally frowned upon because of the potential for provocation in the other direction, but Nableezy has been very restrained in dealing with this, so I don't believe that would be an issue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MichaelNetzer

Someone35's interaction with Nableezy is unfortunate, and exhibits an immaturity that should not be tolerated. It does seem, however, that it's not driven by subject or content issues, rather by a personal one with an editor who is himself controversial when it comes to this topic area, as it's not the first time conflicts have risen around him. A topic ban may not be a focused enough solution, wherein a long interaction ban would more likely address the root of the problematic behavior. If within or after such a ban, Someone35 continues to behave this way towards Nableezy, then there would be good reason to widen the scope of the ban to include the topic. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, it's part of the nature of the topic area that there is hardly an editor in it of which some other editor would not say that they are controversial or have been the source of conflict. ← ZScarpia 19:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to single out anyone in the overall context of this topic area, and I appreciate it being hot for most everyone. Only to say that it is specifically a personal issue in this case, which has roots in the interaction between both editors. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that Demiurge thinks it goes a bit further than a personal issue. Having said that, I have no view on what the best solution would be. ← ZScarpia 20:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that, ZScarpia. Demiurge suggests a one way interaction ban as an alternative solution saying: "I do feel that if adhered to, this would prevent the expression of personal animosity that is the focus of the problem here." True that SO35's young age plays a factor as well, but it does seem to focus on a personal animosity. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Someone35

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

Of Nableezy's submitted diffs 2 is a pretty blatant personal attack and 4 and 5 are battleground fodder. Previous ban was 3 months, I believe a year off of P-I is in order as this isn't even a month since the last TBAN expired. We shouldn't continue to add a little more time and send them back out to cause issues when their TBAN expires. --WGFinley (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik -I might be so inclined to support that but wouldn't make that call solo, would like some other opinions. --WGFinley (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the case for reinstating the editor's I/P topic ban is strong. I suggest that the indefinite topic ban be reimposed, with the option for review of the ban after one year and then every three months thereafter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Demiurge1000 and MichaelNetzer: A review of Someone35's last two appearances at AE does not inspire confidence about his ability to edit neutrally on Israeli/Palestinian topics. The problems with his editing shown here in August and here in September indicate that it's not just a question of interpersonal conflict with Nableezy. It's clear to me that Someone35 could not live up to the hopes that people had for his reform when his ban was commuted to three months back in September. If anyone thinks that Someone35 has a good grasp of what is going on here, read over the five points that begin his statement, above. Asad112 has responded above that Someone35 is burying himself with self-destructive comments. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the appeal of Someone35's mentor, I'm inclined to go with one year as pretty ample and don't want to make this too complicated. So I will make it a year TBAN and wrap this up. --WGFinley (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate

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

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

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

Sanction being appealed: Block logged at

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

Administrator imposing the sanction: Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

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

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

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

Response to WG on block appeal

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

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

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

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

Statement by WGFinley

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jordgette

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

Statement by (involved editor 2)

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

Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cptnono

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

Request concerning Cptnono

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

11 December 2011‎ Revert of this edit

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notified

Discussion concerning Cptnono

Statement by Cptnono

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

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

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

Would you mind amending it to "more cautious" instead or "warned" (Common vernacular not aligning with use on Wikipedia)? I can still edit the articles as long as I don't touch his, right?Cptnono (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono

Comment by Zero0000

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

Comment by Mkativerata

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

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

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

Comment by Malik Shabazz

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

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

Statement by Broccolo

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

Comment by MichaelNetzer

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

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

Comment by Gatoclass

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

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

Nishidani

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

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

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

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

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

Oops by asad

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

Plot Spoiler

I think we're setting a very dangerous precedent by closing this without even a figurative slap on the wrist for Nableezy's quite ugly conduct. In the future, other editors will now have a strong basis for uncivil conduct and personal attacks against admins on AE, without sanction (lest we be playing favorites). This is without even getting into the fact that Nableezy and his gang are now openly trying to intimidate this admin into complete silence on the Administrators' noticeboard. Very ugly precedents indeed... Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that excusing Nableezy's behavior exclusively, because he's an "effective spokesman" for one side of the I/P space is a dangerous precedent that displays a particular prejudice and effectively nullifies most WP behavioral guidelines. It is an astonishing excuse to give for such blatant violations of the most basic tenets of WP policy. An editor from the other side who behaves this way and pours so much poison into the editing environment would have been out of here long ago. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous ? His gang ? Intimidate ? Your comment is unhelpful and misguided. What is happening at AN is about potential non-compliance with WP:ADMINACCT, a mandatory policy, amongst other important things. There is a perceived problem. There are differences of opinion. It's adversely affecting the functioning of AE. We have already lost one admin who did a fine job in my view. It's important to resolve the issues to everyone's satisfaction including WGFinley. Ugly and uncivil conduct ? This is ugly and uncivil conduct. You could try to help to make things better here. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or this. nableezy - 16:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't concede that Nableezy's conduct wasn't shockingly out of line with all decorum and accepted behavior here... then it just brings all the more clarity to your role here. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shockingly out of line with all decorum and accepted behavior here? For calling an admin out for repeatedly making false statements and refusing to justify his actions? I think we must edit different websites. nableezy - 16:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of WGFinley

Take it to WGFinley's talk page, open an RFC, ask ArbCom, or do any number of other things. Don't clutter up this page. NW (Talk) 15:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

That you are using the section for uninvolved administrators to further whatever your agenda is against Nableezy for the second time on a request not concerning Nableezy is frankly disgusting and insulting. Nableezy is not the only user who has an issue with your conduct or your attitude. In fact going by your talk page and the several hundreds of words by other editors, the issue is not even limited to your conduct on AE or P-I issues. That should tell you all you need to know. If I were Nableezy and faced with your refusal to admit when you are wrong or your obvious bias in the JJG (and this) case, then I too would be more than a little pissed off and my tone would be, understandably, no different to his. ~~I'm sure you'll have plenty of admin friends ready to endorse your view without all the facts, just as it is no surprise that meatpuppets like Broccolo turn up to stick the knife in Nableezy.~~ You talk of loosing admins "who have the temerity to work AE", do you not see how your own filibustering in the JJG case, keeping it open so long when there was consensus for action was connected to Tim resigning? And that's on top of the hounding by the subject of this very request[21]. You need to recuse yourself and strike your ridiculous proposals from this request and take a good hard look at your attitude. If you have issues with Nableezy and want to work them out then take them to his/your talk page rather than using this AE to win. — ₪₪ ch1902 ₪₪ 12:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"meatpuppets" like me contributed almost 140,000 edits to he.wiki, abour 850 articles, and 20 or so FA's. When you try to insult someone, please try to check the facts and not being like Haaretz. I could have been insulted by your rude comment, but this requires me to take you seriously. As you yourself does exactly what you complain on, I do not. I consider you nothing more than GMG. Broccolo (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's interesting that until you edited here you had 6 edits in the last 2 years. How is it that a non-active user know who I am and knows exactly how to get to this discussion? Broccolo (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is exactly why I rarely speak up and get involved in battles; accusations abound and nothing but bad faith. I am more than aware of P-I conflict from when it spills over to Commons (where I do most of my work) as it did recently with JJG, SD, Biosketch, Nableezy, Chesdovi, etc. I assume we're all familiar with those names. I am no article writer, I admit, instead I give my volunteer time to where I have skills I can offer and that is in vectorizing images used in articles. I used to contribute to the Graphic Lab here until I realised most image action is by way of Commons so I moved there. Maybe in your opinion that is worthless, it doesn't really bother me. I know you from Commons, and I know of you from en.wiki ~~and my statement of meatpuppetry is based on your contributions here, not he.wiki. I won't go on because it will only make me the subject of more attacks, and I can't be dealing with that.~~ There's a saying "the spectator sees more of the game", well I've seen plenty of the game you all play and it doesn't interest me. I thought I could post something to make people see sense, but I should have known that I would get burnt for it, so with that I'm back off my to less than stellar contributions elsewhere. — ₪₪ ch1902 ₪₪ 14:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in this discussion, but there is another AE related to me and WGFinley is posting in the uninvolved administrators section even though he is heavily involved in the edits under scrutiny. Also, he has accused me of making a "revert" even though it is clearly not a revert. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly an issue with admins here being accused of being in the pocket of the other side. I raised this issue as part of my attemped ARBPIA3 case. It took Cptnono less than 24 hours to start hounding T Canens again after the closing of my request. The fact that his attack on T Canens after Epeefleche's block for POV-motivated harrassment of CCI was widely opposed did not deter Cptnono. Even if Arbcom were too spineless to do something about this, there really needs to be some measure taken against this sort of behaviour.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior isn't limited to WGFinley. I've been involved in multiple AEs and EdJohnston has commented on each of them, even though he is not an uninvolved administrator. For example, my current AE. He also invented a new definition for "revert" that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's definition. This administrator has no regard for Wikipedia policies and thinks that he can do whatever he wants. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley's comments on the aggressive and disrespectful tone that Nableezy uses with editors and admins he disagrees with, visible in his responses here, are justified, as is his effort to confront and address it in this, and previous AE requests. Nableezy's lack of patience and hostility around the I/P space is way above what should be tolerated by all standards of WP Civility. Though everyone involved is entitled to their POV angles, it needs to be stressed to Nableezy that his conduct of intimidation, derision and threats against people who are offended with his consistent uncivil one-sided assaults, is not conducive to a healthy editing environment. Most editors and admins prefer not to respond to him with the same type of aggression, though it's often the only way to get his attention in order to convey to him the severity of his behavior. Addressing the issue of tone and attitude needed for a healthy collaborative environment is paramount for achieving a more efficient and harmonious editing space. WGFinley's motion here has been long needed so that Nableezy might understand that its his own behavior that is the root cause which turns nearly every disagreement with him into a battleground. More often than not, these instances make it to AE on a technicality and fail to address the primary behavioral cause. It's time to try to address the disruptive and nearly poisonous atmosphere that Nableezy's conduct causes and encourages in this space. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, you may be right about Nableezy, but that does not give WGFinley free rein to ignore Wikipedia policies. It would be bad enough for a regular editor to chose to ignore Wikipedia policies, but WGFinley is an administrator, and is held to a higher standard:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anywhere that WGFinley's behavior was disrespectful to anyone, YTA64. From what I've seen in his responses to Nab's confrontational and arguably uncivil assertions to him does not seem to violate Wikipedia policies and performing his duties to the best of his abilities. The problem here is very severe and the root cause rarely brought to surface. Technical issues are asserted aggressively and disrespectfully to mask frustration over disagreements. It's a very difficult thing for an admin to address and most prefer to stay away from it. It seems to me that WGF is following policy above and beyond the norm in order to do what an administrator is meant to in such a case. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment by Devil's Advocate

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

The comment above was responding to an apparent error with Cptnono's explanation for his edits. I had made the response directly to Cptnono, but he moved my comments with the following edit summary:

yes, I must have made a mistake by reading the incendiary comments made by Gingirch three days before the interview with the Israeli press. Do me a favor and keep your comments in your own section and read the news before it "broke"

I can find nothing to suggest Gingrich had made these comments before the interview with the Jewish Channel, which is an American channel. Since Cptnono is presenting this to explain how he was not purposefully editing articles Nableezy has recently edited I think it is a point in need of clarification.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cptnono

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would disagree that it is a problem that might can be addressed by page protection. The fact that three editors joined the edit war after the sock issue was resolved[22][23][24] and that there was an edit war after a few days of discussion involving several different editors[25][26][27] (some diffs excluded) is indicative of a very battleground approach to the matter, which I think we need to look at more closely than we are. NW (Talk) 21:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I conceded above I see some merit to there being need for clarification (I still think this is the last venue for that and not the first) but you have hit on what I was getting to about this article. All these folks know not to do this but yet they persisted just the same with continuous reverts. --WGFinley (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of Nableezy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving For Closure

If I'm reading the consensus correctly:

Cptnono did not violate his interaction ban, but should be warned about editing on articles where Nableezy has edited.
This is not a WP:BOOMERANG but Nableezy should be warned to "tone it down" (suggestions on better wording appreciated).
All editors who got into the edit war are admonished for doing so and disrupting the article.

Do I have it correct? I will agree to all these points. --WGFinley (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wgfinley

See my comment in the result subsection. NW (Talk) 22:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Wgfinley

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: asad (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wgfinley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ADMINACCT

WGFinley has seemingly lost sight of his of his duties as an Administrator on Wikipedia. As to why I feel this has happened, I will not speculate it was do to his preference towards a certain POV, unwillingness to admit a mistake or even flat out arrogance, because I quite frankly see that as irrelevant. This all stems from his adjudication of the User:Jiujitsuguy case. In quick summary, Jiujitsuguy violated WP:Consensus (in particular WP:Legality of Israeli settlements), by removing reference to Katzrin being an Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights. Jiujitsuguy later self-reverted. Something is important to note here: that although the complaint was originally filed for JJGs removal of a consensus statement, more diffs were added which shows that Jiujitsuguy deliberately abused sources to push a certain POV. This was especially concerning considering JJGs recent expiration of a topic-ban of, which he received largely for misrepresenting sources.

I am not going to copy the text verbatim, but it is clear to see from JJGs most recent A/E case he distorted sources to push a POV that Mount Hermon is in Israel. Both User:EdJohnston and User:Timotheus Canens both seemed to agree that there was an issue with JJGs sources and were willing to discuss the matter. But WGFinley was not interested at all. WGF was asked multiple times to please address the issue of JJG misrepresenting sources, he either did not, or claimed that he already did. I still, until this very second, have no idea where he purportedly addressed the issues.

JJG source misrepresentation diffs:

13 Nov 2011 Claims Mt. Hermon is in Israel by using the Fodor's Travel Guide source and the quote he cites in the ref, "Mt Hermon, famous as Israel’s highest mountain," but leaves out, "at 9,230 feet above sea level -- is actually in Syrian territory." The full quote should read (with the strikethroughs being what JJG omitted), "Mt. Hermon -- famous as Israel's highest mountain, ~~at 9,230 feet above sea level -- is actually in Syrian territory.~~" (see the source here)
13 Nov 2011 Uses this source to claim Mt. Hermon is in Israel, although the source clearly writes, "Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. The Hermon Ski Resort is in Israel's Golan Heights."

Besides the multiple requests on the A/E thread, WGF was asked on his talk page to explain the issue:

30 Nov 2011 Asked by User:Malik Shabazz to address JJG misrepresenting sources after prematurely closing the A/E thread without seeing T. Canens latest post calling for a topic-ban
30 Nov 2011 User:Gatoclass brought to WGF's attention that the issue in A/E was misuse of sources
1 Dec 2011 Matter brought to attention, again by User:Nableezy with request for an explantion
1 Dec 2011 Asked by myself to, again, address the issue of misrepresentation of sources

WGF's confusion of the matter was further illustrated by claiming that JJG had "self-reverted" himself at Mount Hermon, which he never did (see Mount Hermon's history):

30 Nov 2011

This was the only other time WGF even brought up JJG and Mount Hermon in the same post. Neither of the diffs refer to him addressing misrepresentation of sources at all, whatsoever:

30 Nov 2011

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Lets pretend for a second that we want to accept WGF's position that Nableezy was uncivil and, therefore, WGF wouldn't want to respond to someone who was acting to so "uncivil" towards him. Fine. But what is the excuse for the other three editors who posed the same question? WP:ADMIN clearly states, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." WGF can't just say he has responded to something he didn't even respond to push the issue aside. He should be accountable for his actions, he can't use ambiguity to disguise bad judgement calls he has made as an admin. He seems to have an issue with editors questioning decisions he makes, as is evidenced by the amount of "discussion closed" hats he places on his talk page.

But what has become even more hard to bear in this whole debate is the fact that some admins are only catching the tail-end of the situation and noticing Nableezy's perceived "incivility", without even understanding the context of the situation. By doing that, some admins seem willing to sacrifice one "uncivil" editor to better the so-called "Project", but not look at the larger issue of POV-pushing and falsification of sources. Being an admin on A/E is not about personal vendettas or tallying up blocks and bans, it is about using tools in a proper way to make the encyclopedia experience more reliable for the average person trying to get information on a topic based on a simple Google search. This admin, in particular, has decided that a more important issue for A/E is the is an editors perceived incivility, but not one editors manipulation of sources that degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. I find that extremely distasteful.

I don't think WGF's adminship should be recalled, but I do think he should not be allowed to adjudicate anything further relating to ARBPIA. He should also be reminded, that he should be required to give a clear response when serious questions (like falsification of sources) are asked to him.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Wgfinley

Statement by Wgfinley

Comments by others about the request concerning Wgfinley

Comment by Zero0000

I do not support any actual sanction against WGFinley. However, I wish to record that several times I have been quite startled by the apparent animosity that WGFinley shows towards Nableezy, very little of which seems to be justified by the circumstances, and by the lack of logic displayed by WGFinley when discussing matters related to Nableezy. The AE process should not only be dispassionate, but should appear dispassionate to a disinterested reader. That is not the case here. I think WGFinley should voluntarily retire from AE cases involving Nableezy. Zero^talk 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shuki

The best defense is a good offense We see 'friend' Nableezy about to get an indef, so best thing to do is attack the admin. Nice. --Shuki (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... it does seem transparent. It's also amusing that once Nableezy put up his initial unadvised tirade, Asad undid Nableezy's edit [53], then after he was reverted (by me), brushed it off as an accident [54]. All seems a bit too coincidental... Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nableezy

Re Shuki, I dont think I am about to be "indef'd" for anything, so I dont see what that comment adds.

But to the substance. I think that WGF has demonstrated that he lacks the competence to be administering the topic area. I do not know what can be done about this short of him either voluntarily agreeing to refrain from doing so or an RFC and arbitration case to force him to do so. I dont know that AE is a venue where this can be addressed. But WGF has repeatedly made false statements on AE, and has repeatedly refused to provide any explanation for those clearly false statements. I have asked him several times to this comment. He has steadfastly refused to do so. The comment he made is simply untrue, and in his refusal to acknowledge that he, in my opinion, forfeited the right to act as an admin in this area. But again, I dont know that AE is equipped to deal with incompetence by supposed uninvolved admins. nableezy - 22:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wgfinley

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

I disagreed with WGFinley's position in the matter cited, but I am not seeing anything actionable here. At the very least, the linked policy is not a remedy that this page is empowered to enforce—"Arbitration Enforcement is not the place for anything other than enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling". This is the purview of WP:AN or WP:A/R/C. I would highly discourage any reporting to those pages, because I don't think that there is merit to this request, but that is your decision. NW (Talk) 22:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boothello

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

Request concerning Boothello

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hipocrite (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Boothello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Case_amendments

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[59]

Discussion concerning Boothello

Statement by Boothello

Comments by others about the request concerning Boothello

Comment by Mathsci

The problems here have been around for a while, since the WP:ARBR&I case was closed. I was contemplating filing an SPI report, related to the account of David.Kane (talk · contribs), renamed Ephery (talk · contribs). This account has been inactive since April. Since a request has just been made here, it makes more sense to post the report here. Like all SPI reports, there is no certainty that I am correct.

Boothello is a single-purpose account editing solely in the area covered by WP:ARBR&I. His editing started not long after the case was closed. It is editing in one area but he usually makes only a few low-level edits a week. He intially edited logged off from a Brookline IP 24.60.23.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which had been used by another user with a completely different editing profile, This has never been adequately explained by Boothello. His MO on wikipedia is indistinguishable from that of David.Kane/Ephery, indefinitely topic-banned from the same set of articles. He recently edited logged off by mistake from an IP address 71.232.157.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which locates to within a radius of 1 or 2 km of the registered private address of the now defunct website User:Ephery/EphBlog. In this recent diff [60], Boothello inadvertently displayed an intimate knowledge of the mode of editing of Race and intelligence during the period in Spring 2010, a long while before his current account was registered. That is inconsistent with his previous statements on this noticeboard and more recently on his talk page[61] that, while editing as an IP, he was an "immature vandal"[62] but then reformed overnight to adopt an online persona indistinguishable from that of David.Kane.

I could be wrong of course, but his knowledge of WP:ARBR&I, of wikipedia editors only active during his "immature vandal" phase, his knowledge of editing of articles covered by the ban, his lobbying tactics, his edit warring on race and intelligence. his wikilawyering on Talk:Race and intelligence and elsewhere, in addition to the actual location of his IP, provide a strong case that this could be sockpuppetry by David.Kane. Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Boothello

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 511: / Line 511: @@
 ===Comment by Devil's Advocate===
 :I think you made a mistake there. It appears the "clarify" tag was added to the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=464914038 on Palestinian Arabic] before Gingrich's comments. He made the comments on Friday and your edit appears to have been made right after 12:00 A.M. Friday, which I think would be well before the interview aired.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 01:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
+::The comment above was responding to an apparent error with Cptnono's explanation for his edits. I had made the response directly to Cptnono, but he moved my comments with the following edit summary:
+::{{quote|text=yes, I must have made a mistake by reading the incendiary comments made by Gingirch three days before the interview with the Israeli press. Do me a favor and keep your comments in your own section and read the news before it "broke"}}
+::I can find nothing to suggest Gingrich had made these comments before the interview with the Jewish Channel, which is an American channel. Since Cptnono is presenting this to explain how he was not purposefully editing articles Nableezy has recently edited I think it is a point in need of clarification.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning Cptnono===
 <!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards