Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:51, 24 December 2010

WP:AE

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	343	344	345

Gilabrand

Gilabrand blocked for three months; previous sanction set to expire 00:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC), or two months after being unblocked, whichever comes first

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 Gilabrand

User requesting enforcement: Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: [1]

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

[2] Gilabrand is "required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert".

2-3 days ago a user in these edits removes: [3]

"Under Israeli law, West Bank settlements must meet specific criteria to be legal. In 2009, there were approximately 100 small communities that did not meet these criteria and are referred to as illegal outposts."

"Among the legal leading scholars who dispute this view is" "Schwebel, a judge of International Court of Justice and Professor of International Law at Johns Hopkins University makes three distinctions specific to the Israeli situation that show the territories were seized in self-defense and thus Israel has more title to them than the previous holders. Professor Julius Stone also writes that ”Israel's presence in all these [disputed] areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.”"

"Israel maintains that a temporary use of land and buildings for various purposes is permissible under a plea of military necessity and that the settlements fulfilled security needs."

"In 1967, Theodor Meron, legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stated in a legal opinion to Adi Yafeh, the Political Secretary of the Prime Minister, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

"The legal opinion, forwarded to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, was not made public at the time, and the Labor cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements anyway; this action paved the way for future settlement growth. In 2007, Meron stated that "I believe that I would have given the same opinion today.""

"The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the power of the Civil Administration and the Military Commander in the occupied territories is limited by the entrenched customary rules of public international law as codified in the Hague Regulations and Geneva Convention IV."

"International law has long recognised that there are crimes of such severity they should be considered "international crimes." Such crimes have been established in treaties such as the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions. .... The following are Israel's primary issues of concern [ie with the rules of the ICC]: - The inclusion of settlement activity as a "war crime" is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law."

2-3 days later after these texts have been removed from the article, Gilabrand reverts all these things and re ads them to the article:[4]. And as can been seen at the talkpage, she did not discuss her reverts within 30 minutes after the reverts as she is obligated to do, she did not discuss them at all:[5] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

She has had many topic bans and blocks:[6] So she has been warned. Her last block for violating the same thing was two weeks ago.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Admin can decide.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [7]

Discussion concerning Gilabrand

Statement by Gilabrand

Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand

Result concerning Gilabrand

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

Gilabrand was recently blocked for seven days for refusing to leave comments, as required. See this AE request from 3 December. It was noted there that she had declared on Nov. 4 she was refusing to follow the restriction:
I will NOT leave comments on talk pages unless I feel it is useful and contributes to improving the article. This is a sanction that goes against Wikipedia norms, since the person who complained about me retracted his statement. I will continue to edit as necessary, reverting tendentious edits and removing unneeded tags that are placed on articles out of some political agenda or spite. I will continue to copyedit as necessary, and add content and solid references to articles. I will NOT leave comments on talk pages unless I feel it is useful and contributes to improving the article. I will NOT take part in the ridiculous semantic debates that certain editors initiate to bring the state of the article to a standstill. I expect the above message to be struck from the page, as it has clearly been put there in error. Administrators with a chip on their shoulder should be dismissed from the project--Geewhiz (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a very clearcut case. I recommend that Gilabrand be asked to change her view on this. If not, a lengthy ban from I/P should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her blocks this year came almost entirely from failure to observe her earlier topic ban - last time she was topic banned she got five blocks. I doubt that placing another topic ban would be useful. I propose a one-month block, and think we should proceed straight to blocking in all future incidents involving this user, since restrictions are not useful if the user is not going to observe them. T. Canens (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor a three month block, given the block log. Looie496 (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked for three months, in line with Looie's suggestion. The violation here is indisputably, and this makes Gilabrand's seventh block this year for violating ArbCom sanctions (two different ones). For this sanction, she specifically said she has no intention of abiding by the restrictions placed against her. She seems to be going through with her threat, hardly going a week since her last block for violating the same restriction. I'm not sure how many second chances you think someone should get, but I certainly believe Gilabrand has received her fair share. The original restriction is set to expire on 1 May 2011 (UTC) or two months after being unblocked, whichever is earlier. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Nableezy

User requesting enforcement: mbz1 --Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: 08:56, 4 December 2010 "Nableezy is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for four months...All participants here are reminded that revert warring during an ongoing related discussion, except when a revert rule exemption apply, is unacceptable whether or not the revert warrior is also participating in the discussion."

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

[8] [9] [10] Edit warring on Egypt. Article Egypt is connected to Israeli Arab conflict. Please also see battleground behavior and the threat to wikihound me. This message was left at my talk page after I questioned the removal of the information on the article's talk page. Here the user is discussing in details Damour massacre. The Damour Massacre directly relates to the I-P topic area. It was an incident that involved Israel's allies, the Christian Falange and her enemies, the PLO. Moreover, the article is part of "Wiki project Palestine" as evidenced by the article's talk page, where this message is prominently displayed as the first message. It is difficult to miss.

Even now with AE still opened Nableezy is continues edit warring on Egypt, and Sean.hoyland is proxy editing for Nableezy. Please see this SPI report that Sean.hoyland filed "on behalf of User:Nableezy", who is topic-banned.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nableezy#Topic_ban

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Admin can decide.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [11] notified

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

The topics I discussed at ANI have nothing whatsoever to do with the Arab-Israeli topic area. Mbz1 should be sanctioned for tendentious hounding of my contributions. The topic of discussion at AN/I was Lanternix's editing on topics about internal Arab conflicts and the identification of Egyptians as Arabs. Not with anything related to Israel. Mbz1's hounding of my contributions led her to both involve herself in a topic that she knows nothing about as well as file this report. Israel was not at all involved in the Damour massacre, nor in the Karantina massacre. These are inter-Arab conflicts not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict area, in fact neither . The treatment of Copts in Egypt and by the Egyptian government has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Not everything that has something to do with the Palestinians, the Arabs, or the Middle East has something to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Mbz1 claims that the "Article Egypt is connected to Israeli Arab conflict." and as such my edits to that article are covered by the topic ban. There are portions of that article related to the topic, yes, but it is asinine to claim that the entire article is part of that topic area. Israel has existed for about 0.8% of the 8,000 years that are covered in that article. Further, nothing that I touched had anything to do with Israel much less with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Mbz1 further claims that the article Damour massacre "directly relates to the I-P topic area". This can only be said by somebody who had not even read the article. The word Israel appears once in the text of that article, and only that one time to say that "after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon" in the background section. This article is not in any way connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It was a confrontation between Lebanese and Palestinian Arabs that did not involve Israel. The argument offered here, that because Israel liked one side and didnt like the other is on its face ridiculous. That would prevent me from writing anything in the article Nelson Mandela because Israel had warm relations with the Apartheid South African government.

Finally, Mbz1 claims that I "threat[ened] to wikihound [her]". That was not a threat to wikihound you, it was a request that you not hound me. I should not have to deal with your nonsense outside of your usual stomping grounds. Following me around to annoy me even when I am not, or can not, contribute to the A/I topic area is not something that should be allowed.

To Tim, you request that I say why my AN/I filing was not a topic ban violation. Nothing that I reported had anything to do with Israel, which itself would cover more topics than are covered under the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. I am not banned from writing about any thing that talks about Arabs or Palestinians. I am banned from writing about or discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, broadly construed. No matter how broad you wish to make the net, articles that dont have anything to do with Israel or Zionism cannot be said to fall under that ban. Yes, there is a part of the article about Egypt that talks about the wars Egypt has fought with Israel. But you want to say because of that the entire article is part of the topic area? That I cant edit portions on the Fatimid conquest of Egypt, or the French invasion, or even the demographics of the country or the climate? My understanding has always been that articles that are themselves part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area are as a whole off-limits, even those parts not dealing with the conflict, and articles that are outside of the topic area, but have portions that discuss it, are only off-limits for the material that discusses the conflict. The only two articles in the group that I discussed at AN/I that have portions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area are Egypt and Arab Christians. I did not discuss any material that related to the conflict or even to Israel. The other article are wholly outside of the topic area. Also, as the header of this page says editors coming with unclean hands may be sanctioned, could I request that you take a closer look at Mbz1's involvement? I file an AN/I report dealing with articles that Mbz1 had never edited or as far as I know even commented about, and she involves herself in a dispute that I am in. She then further involves herself at the article talk page. Is it acceptable for editors with who a topic-banned editor had previously been in conflict with to follow that editor to other topics to annoy them? nableezy - 01:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And while we are here, how about looking and seeing if Tie Oh Cruise (talk · contribs) look to you to be a rather obvious sockpuppet. nableezy - 01:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, are you really saying that whether or not Gamal Abdel Nasser was an Arab is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? And yes, the edits by Lanternix there are tendentious bullshit. Nasser himself said he was an Arab, Lanternix wishes to deny him that identity. But none of that has anything to do with the Arab-Israeli topic area in any way. Please explain how it does. nableezy - 02:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not even editing material in the Nasser article. Do you agree that the article List of Arabs is not covered under the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? If so, can you please explain how whether an entry on that list is or is not an Arab is related to the topic area? This doesnt have anything to do with Israel, this isnt even an inter-Arab issue. That specific dispute is an inter-Egyptian one, in which some Egyptians are rather insistent that Egyptians are not Arabs. This is a dispute completely unrelated to the A/I conflict. The reason I singled out Nasser in the edit summary is because Nasser has a somewhat famous line that "an Arab is someone whose mother tongue is Arabic", he regularly called himself an Arab. nableezy - 04:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to discuss him in any realistic manner without mentioning the A-I conflict. Really? Let's try:

Me: Is Nasser an Arab?

L:No!

Me: Yes, and here are some sources calling him an Arab

L: No!

nableezy - 14:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

Statement by (not uninvolved) Mkativerata

It is said that "Article Egypt is connected to Israeli Arab conflict." How? The article is perhaps connected in a loose way, such that PIA-related edits on the article might be a breach of the topic ban. But these edits had nothing to do with PIA. The definition of the "area of conflict" in which Nableezy has been prohibited to edit is "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." On no interpretation could the article Egypt or the edits in question be considered related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least in one instance the user has edited not a particular section, but an entire article [12] and of course Egypt is connected to I/P conflict. For example the article states: "Three years after the 1967 Six Day War, during which Israel had invaded and occupied Sinai, Nasser died and was succeeded by Anwar Sadat." and "In 1973, Egypt, along with Syria, launched the October War, a surprise attack against the Israeli forces occupying the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. It was an attempt to regain part of the Sinai territory Israel had captured 6 years earlier.", In my understanding the article with such wording, if broadly interpreted, is related to to the Arab-Israeli conflict.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens, re the ANI diff: It is not at all clear to me that articles solely to do with the Lebanese Civil War (pre Israeli involvement), that have nothing to do with Israel apart from very tangential references, are within the ARBPIA area of conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info For example I was blocked for topic ban violation over this edit that has not a single word, not even a half word about Israel, Arabs, Palestine and was only about Wikipedia policies..--Mbz1 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info user:Gilabrand was blocked for her topic ban violation over this edit made at administrative noticeboard for edit warring. Please also note that in the same thread after Gila added her question (she got blocked for) Nableezy asked her "And why are you here? And arent you topic-banned?" that shows that Nableezy is well aware what broadly construed topic ban means --Mbz1 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Vassyana: if there are concerns about incivility in respect of the Egypt-related articles, that can be dealt with by intervention outside AE. Or if there is concern that ARBPIA disputes are spilling over into Lebanon and Egypt, Arbcom could be asked to expand the definition of the "area of conflict" to include intra-national disputes in Egypt and Lebanon. But on the "area of conflict" as currently defined, there really is no relationship between (a) Nableezy's edits and the articles to which they related, and (b) the "area of conflict", which requires a connexion with Israel. I'd urge admins to be quite careful not to assume a relationship with ARBPIA here. The evidence points clearly to the contrary. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by u n☯mi

Mbz1, I am curious about this query, why didn't you just ask User:Timotheus_Canens as he was the admin who imposed the sanction in the first place?

Regarding the evidence you present, just so I understand correctly, you want him sanctioned for editing Egypt and mentioning that another user had been edit warring on Damour massacre, is that correct? u n☯mi 21:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop hounding my contributions? I could ask questions anybody I feel like asking a question. Please read carefully what I said about Damour massacre.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through your contributions and Nableezys contributions, how else could I hope to get a feel for what transpired?

I am simply wondering why you didn't ask the admin who handed down the sanction.

As for Damour massacre, and I just want to make sure that I am not missing anything or misrepresenting what happened; You hold that Nableezy should be sanctioned for filing this ANI report where he mentions "Lanternix has also been edit-warring on issues related to conflicts between Muslims and Christians in the Middle East. For example, the article Damour massacre includes that this was retribution over the Karantina massacre. Lanternix has repeatedly edit-warred to remove sourced material on the death toll at Karantina and replacing it with a much lower number despite sources disagreeing with him". Is that correct? u n☯mi 22:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Supreme Deliciousness: There isn't one single edit here that involves the A-I conflict in any way. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by (not uninvolved) Lanternix: I am very surprised how some are arguing that this very lengthy contribution about Damour massacre does not constitute a violation of this topic ban imposed upon Nableezy!!! Moreover, another issue that seems to be overlooked here is this message left by Nableezy on a user talk page, which is obviously aimed at intimidating the user! I believe these are the two main issues here. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ ^[talk] 23:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sol: This is frivolous. The argument is that anything even vaguely connected to the conflict is a violation of the topic ban. The Damour Massacre occurred before Israel joined the war. By this reasoning, editors with A-I topic bans could not edit on the US even if it concerns a time when Israel didn't exist as the US later allies with Israel. The Egypt edits have nothing to do with this. If this is how broadly people want to interpret the scope of A-I Arbcom sanctions then the floodgates of meritless AE requests will open as every editor with a grudge hunts down possible violations (ie, anything that's ever touched the issue). Also, all of these articles would be under 1-RR per community consensus which would simplify this hearing as everyone involved can now be banned for violating it. Sol (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Mbz1

I did not hound Nab's contributions. I first learned about the dispute from this An/I post. I have AN/I on my watch list.
I did not take any part in edit warring in Egypt. I only posted two comments on talk page of the article, and gave advise to the editor how to source the material added to the article. I also made one comment on AN/I.
I did know about the massacres. I read about them in newspapers. I have not edited those articles, I did not comment on them either, but I see no reason why shouldn't I comment on one?
I provided two differences(Please see above for more explanations) of me being blocked for topic ban violation and user:Gilabrand being blocked for topic ban violation. Those were the differences I used to determent if Nab violated his topic ban, and the answer was "yes, he did". Besides he was also edit warring on the article.
My hands are absolutely clean. I've done nothing wrong neither by commenting on AN/I, nor by filing AE, nor by explaining to the editor how to source the material and urge them not edit warring, but rather seek a compromise.
I am not sure how one could claim that Damour massacre has nothing to do with Israeli-Arab conflict. It links to 1982 Lebanon War, and to other articles about the conflict. It talks a lot about PLO about Palestinian refugees, and so on, and so on and so on. Of course this article is directly connected to the conflict between Israel and Arabs.
I'd also like admins to notice a strong battleground behavior expressed by Nab in his statement here and in the comment he left at my talk page. He behaves as he owns not only one article, but the whole Wikipedia as well.
I have absolutely nothing personal against Nab, and when he was blocked a few days ago for a topic ban violation I raised my voice in his defense--Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, could you please explain why in your opinion this edit made by user:Gilabrand , no, not in the article, but on edit warring noticeboard about edit warring on Mahmoud Abbas was a topic ban violation, but your edits are not. Gila was blocked after you asked her: "And why are you here? And arent you topic-banned?", so you did believe she violated her ban, why then you say you did not violate yours?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ill answer here. In the comment Gilabrand was blocked for at AN3, she was discussing content covered by the topic area. The content she was discussing was an accusation that the sitting President of the PNA and chair of the PLO was knowingly involved in the Munich massacre. That content is directly related to the topic area and as such Gila was banned from discussing it. nableezy - 04:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the only thing she said was: "Is your problem that the name of the website has the word Jewish in it? Just asking". --Mbz1 (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. She was discussing content (the source used) directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. She was banned from doing so. Now you either understand this or you dont, but either way I dont intend to explain it further besides to say this: Gila was discussing content related to the topic area, my AN/I post was about content not related to the topic area. nableezy - 04:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was Damour massacre is directly related to the topic of your ban. Notice that Sabra and Shatila (spelling) links to it because Sabre and Shatila was considered revenge for Damour -- S& S linked directly to Sharon and the Palestinians, and I do agree that mentioning Nasser in your edit summary is too. Also please see an example (above) of me being blocked for a comment that had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict, and was only about wikipedia policies. Mbz1 (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@tariq, if you do not see topic ban violation in Nab's edit maybe you could say laud and clear that my block over this edit was unfair? Please notice I was not edit warring as Nab was, I made only one constructive comment about wikipedia policies, and got blocked for 48 hours! for this comment. My first block for topic ban violation was for this edit at Rothschild family. How Rothschild family article is connected to I/P conflict? And if a small revert in Rothschild family article made me blocked only because of the words Zionism and Israel, surely Nab's editing of Egypt is a topic ban violation too. I believe that topic ban should be implemented equally to everybody, and do not depend on administrators, who are active at the moment. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nasser was involved and played a leading role in nearly every war that Egypt had with Israel. His forces were trapped in the Falluja pocket during the war of 1948. He was president of Egypt for 3 of the 4 wars that Israel had with Egypt. The Suez War of 1956, the Six Day war of 1967 and the War of Attrition between 1969-70. He was instrumental in formulating Egypt's relationship with Israel for three decades. As for the Damour massacre. It was an act committed by the PLO, sworn enemies of Israel against Lebanon's Christians, who were considered Israel's ally in her fight against the PLO and Syria. The article's Talk page classifies the article in the context of Wiki Project Palestine. This is clearly within the Israel-Palestine topic area. It's not even borderline.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean.hoyland is proxy editing for Nableezy Please see this SPI report that Sean.hoyland filed "on behalf of User:Nableezy", who is topic-banned.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I filed an SPI report, some NoCal100 socks were blocked. Shocking stuff. The horror. The injustice of it and the profound harm I've caused to the project is terrible. I'll just carry on working on nice things like Fred Williams and Todros Geller and try to live with the shame. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha-ha. In my post above was absolutely nothing personal, but the rules are the rules and everybody should comply with them. I hope you agree with this?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't agree and I'm not sure which rules you are referring to. There is a rule about meatpuppetry and its role is to prevent the use of proxies to sway consensus. This is about identifying sockpuppets and filing reports to get them checked out and possibly blocked. I'm happy to file SPI reports on anyone's behalf if they ask me nicely and I was careful to leave subtle clues like saying "I'm available for SPI report filing too." just under the admin's message on Nableezy's page, saying that I was filing it on Nableezy's behalf as the very first statement, and being entirely open about it. If I'm breaking a rule someone needs to tell me what it is, how my filing SPI reports breaks the rule and how it impacts negatively on the project because I'm not planning to stop filing SPI reports unless I have a policy based reason to do so. Nableezy is allowed to report suspected socks to an admin to be checked out. I think he is allowed to tell me if he thinks that someone looks like a sockpuppet and I can have a look and file a report or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something more interesting to complain about you could contact The Annex Galleries in Santa Rosa and ask them why they are referring to a set of woodcuts by Todros Geller called Seven Palestinian motifs cut on wood as Seven Palestinian Martyrs Cut on Wood. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you considered simply asking NoCal100 to stop so that these situations don't arise in the first place ? No one seems to do that. Here's what looks like his latest sock, probably one of several. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, if the rules (topic ban in this case) prohibits Nab from doing something himself, it means that anybody else doing this for him is against the rules.

What made you to believe that I have any contact with NoCal100? I've never met NoCal100. I was not editing in this area when he/she was. The first time I have learned about NoCal100 was a few months ago, when Tiamut suggested running SPI on me and NoCal100.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it means that to you. I disagree because I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that there are constraints that prevent me from investigating a user that someone under a topic ban thinks might be a sockpuppet and filing a report if I find evidence that convinces me that it merits a report. If I'm breaking a rule it's a rule I haven't seen. Without evidence that I'm breaking a rule I have no reason to stop.

Sockpuppetry is against the rules. The name of a suspected sockpuppet is a valuable piece of information, valuable to the project. It's value doesn't depend on whether the person who spotted them first is under a topic ban.
It's not in the interests of the project to prevent people from filing an SPI report because someone has a topic ban. The purpose of a topic ban is to reduce disruption. Disruption isn't reduced by imposing constraints on me in such a way that my ability to file an SPI report depends on who saw the sockpuppet first, Nableezy or someone else.
It's not in the interests of the project for sockpuppets to profit from constraints imposed on people who are not under a restriction like a topic ban.
If I think someone is a sockpuppet I should have the freedom to do as I choose as I am not under any restrictions. If I don't think it's a sockpuppet I won't file a report.
It's in the interest of the project for the report to be filed if there is evidence of sockpuppetry.
Even if there were a rule that prevented someone from reporting a possible sockpuppet brought to their attention by someone under a topic ban, the rule is unenforceable. It's not possible to establish whether someone is filing a report because they have found a sockpuppet or because someone else told them about it off-wiki unless the reporting party decides to expose that information on-wiki. It's possible to communicate entirely off-wiki, there is nothing anyone can do about it and the unfortunate people who would need to decide whether such a rule had been broken have no access to the evidence required to establish non-compliance. There is no point having a rule if you can't tell whether people are complying with it.

I don't believe that you have any contact with NoCal100. I asked whether you had considered asking him to stop. Someone needs to ask him to stop and he is unlikely to listen to anyone except people he considers to be supporters of Israel. There have been ample opportunities for people he might take seriously to leave messages on the talk pages of his socks asking him to stop disrupting the project but no one ever does. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1, when you say, "if the rules (topic ban in this case) prohibits Nab from doing something himself," that is, of course, a very big if. Nableezy asked on his talk page whether he was still permitted to raise SPIs against editors involved in the AI area; no definitive answer was given. ← ZScarpia 14:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very strange point. I do not know whether the rules prohibit this, but if they don't, then why Nab did not file the SPI request himself? (please note that Mbz1 is blocked now, so she can't respond). I have no opinion of Sean.hoyland's action. - BorisG (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comments by umomi: You were blocked for inserting yourself in an AE discussion regarding possible wrongdoing within the topic area. u n☯mi 15:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you have shown that Nableezy edited anything that had to do with his actions, only that he is an Arab. Nor did he, as far as I can tell, edit the Damour article while under restrictions, he simply gave evidence of a pattern of edit warring of another editor. u n☯mi 15:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tijfo098

I agree with User:Tariqabjotu, this is hardly a violation of WP:ARBPIA, and it's also discussed at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Lanternix concurrently. Whether Nableezy should be topic banned from all ME articles is not something that can be decided by a single AE administrator. User:Lanternix is also POV pushing on these Egypt-related articles, in my opinion. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Damour article, there does seem to be some sort of sock or meat farm here involving User:Propaganda328 (blocked right now) and Laternix who edit in tandem in a typical pattern of disruptive editing; removing sourced content with deceptive or no edit summaries, for example [13] [14]. There are also a bunch of IP editors making similarly deceptive edits on the same content, probably using open proxies or some other way of editing from seemingly disparate IP addresses. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. These series of diffs looks more like deliberate trolling to me than a genuine content dispute. Perhaps the Lebanese civil war, even when not involving Israel, should be considered for community-based 1RR or something like that, so I've just added the ARBPIA banner to the talk page. However, Nableezy's last edit to the Darmour article seems to have been on Dec 3, and he was topic banned on Dec 4, so I don't see how that's a violation. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T. Canens, by your logic, Nableezy is also not allowed to edit Jimmy Carter at all because whether you say something nice or naughty about him in any respect may (strongly) depend on your view of the I-P conflict. So, if Nableezy reverts a hypothetical edit that removes Carter from List of Nobel laureates then he is violating his topic ban by saying something nice about Carter. Correction, if Nableezy just complains about such an edit on ANI, then he is already violating his topic ban. Oh, dear. This seems too broad of an interpretation of the "broadly construed" qualifier. I think a request for clarification should be address to the actual ArbCom on this matter. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum four days later

The filing editor, User:mbz1, was blocked for harassing another editor (first for a week, then extended to indef). The other AE thread started below by mbz1, against User:Supreme Deliciousness, was closed by User:Jehochman. [20] Tijfo098 (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

I don't particularly want to get involved with this case, but if the only charge here is that Nableezy violated his topic ban by restoring Nasser to the List of Arabs article, then the case is utterly frivolous given that Nasser unquestionably belongs on that list, and that merely asserting that he belongs on that list has absolutely nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. We are entitled to exercise a little common sense here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be fine if common sense was applied uniformly across the board, to editors on all sides. - BorisG (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are some counterintuitive results at AE does not mean we should not try to avoid them. I happen to think that Nableezy has probably been the victim of more unsound remedies over a longer period of time than probably any other AE participant. The breaches for which he has been sanctioned in the past have almost invariably been of the most trivial nature, while his generally sound record of editing in accordance with core policies has been ignored. The same cannot be said for many of his opponents, some of whom have been editing in systematic violation of core policy for years without ever managing to attract a substantial block or ban. There are some major deficiencies in the current implementation of our dispute resolution processes, and at some point they are going to have to be addressed. In the meantime, we have to continue doing what we can to try and ensure that we get those common sense outcomes that I'm sure most of us support. Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your general principles. As for Nableezy's record, I have an opposite opinion. But I guess we have to agree to disagree. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting here that the the other editor involved, Lanternix, appears to have a far worse record than Nableezy, having been blocked nine times for exactly the same disruptive behaviour that Nableezy complained about above. This editor appears to be on a mission to disparage Islam and to remove any suggestion that Egyptians are Arabs. To this end, s/he has also been edit-warring on, for example, Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians, Religion in Egypt, Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar and others. RolandR (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one small difference. The other editor involved has no topic ban.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Lanternix is up to, but regardless, his dispute with Nableezy appears to have nothing to do with the A-I conflict. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent complaints about User:Nableezy

FYI, a recent complaint about Nableezy has been filed here. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ ^[talk] 22:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you filed a retaliatory complaint about me following a complaint about you, right? nableezy - 22:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong.--λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ ^[talk] 22:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So you did not file that report in retaliation for this? Sort of how you did this in retaliation, in the words of an uninvolved admin, for this. That is interesting. nableezy - 22:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not work in retaliation. You can read the evidence provided in both cases to see that they have nothing to do with the accusation you are attempting to link them with. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ ^[talk] 22:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really???? So if I were to list 5 times in which after being reverted on one page you follow an editor to a completely unrelated topic to revert them would you be surprised? Or would you still say that you "do not work in retaliation"? nableezy - 22:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would still say that I do not work in retaliation. By the way, great effort to sway the readers from the main issue here! Did you or didn't you continue to violate your topic ban on Arab-Israeli conflict topics? And did you or didn't you make changes to Egypt in spite of the users' consensus on the talk page? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ ^[talk] 22:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is getting really funny. Consensus you say? One user agreed that some of what you included should be in the article, though even that user says that not all of it should. Another user says it should not be in there, another user raises a large number of problems, and another IP raises the same issues. Yet you claim to have consensus? Nobody except for you or mbz1 has said that my edits to Egypt fall in the ARBPIA topic area, in fact the one admin that has said anything about Egypt specifically has unequivocally said that they do not. So no, I have not violated my topic ban, and my edits to Egypt are not made "in spite of users' consensus". nableezy - 22:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you are due for being reported of violating the 3RR rule on Talk:Egypt. If I report you will you call this retaliation as well? Some sort of an attempt to humiliate your adversaries maybe? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ ^[talk] 22:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to file a report about your meatpuppeting for a banned user you are free to do so. But back to the less funny, but still very funny, part of this. So you say that if after being reverted by a user on one page, that if you follow that user to a completely different topic and revert them on a page you had never edited in the past, that is not retaliation? Do you know what the word retaliation means? nableezy - 22:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy

Awaiting Nableezy's comment. I'm particularly interested in an explanation why this edit is not a violation of the topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it violates the topic ban, I see edit warring over a controversial ethnic/religious conflict in a country heavily involved in the history and current circumstances of the Arab-Israeli conflict. All things considered, that is incredibly unwise to say the very least. Why any editor should go picking new fights of a similar nature less than a month after being sanctioned is mind-boggling.

Edits summaries like Undid revision 402417137 by Lanternix (talk) rv, you cant be serious that Nasser was not an Arab, the rest of that edit is tendentious bs and Undid revision 403032164 by Lanternix (talk) rv vandalism, keep it up are clearly uncivil. They also seem like violations of the broad topic ban (note the specific mention of Nasser). --Vassyana (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that denying Nasser as an Arab seems absurd, but that's neither here nor there. Nasser clearly falls under a broadly defined topic ban, from my point of view, as an unquestionably principal figure in the history of the conflict. In addition, editing about central figures sounds like common topic ban boundary playing to me. (The game is played thus: Edit as close to possible to a banned area without triggering the topic ban.) I also think if a repeated visitor to AE, or editor sanctioned by AE, is entering into similar patterns in neighboring topic areas that AE is a perfectly appropriate venue. There's nothing preventing us as admins from undertaking normal admin actions in response. If other admins disagree with my perception, so be it; I will defer to their judgment. Vassyana (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't think a sanction is necessary here by any means. It should suffice to offer a clear warning to avoid major figures in the I-P conflict and avoid repeating misconduct in other ethnic, religious, or national controversial topic areas. There's no need to make a capital case or high appeal of this. --Vassyana (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see a problem with what Nableezy has done here. I know admins here often take the view that if something is close to the area of conflict, it probably shouldn't be touched. However, I don't think we should block people because they get close to the area of the topic ban. A warning that Nableezy's playing with fire should suffice -- that is unless you actually want to topic ban Nableezy from all Middle East articles. But editing Egypt or articles about intra-Arab wars being a violation of an Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban... c'mon, people... -- tariqabjotu 04:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nasser is inextricably intertwined with the A-I conflict, such that it is impossible to discuss him in any realistic manner without mentioning the A-I conflict, and therefore is per se within the scope of the topic ban. Agree with Vassyana. T. Canens (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yes, I'll accept that Nableezy's edits to List of Arabs are violations of the topic ban, but I do not believe edits to Egypt and Damour massacre are. Whatever happens to Nableezy should be based on the fact that he edited List of Arabs and not that he edited the other two (as it appears the only problem Mbz1 has with his conduct there is that he edited those articles). -- tariqabjotu 13:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to be doing any action in response to this (although I doubt that's going to be the final result). The more I look at the edits to List of Arabs, the less I find them damning. Lanternix seems to be an established editor, but I can't for the life of me understand what s/he was doing. Anwar El Sadat? Mohamed ElBaradei? Nasser? Umm Kulthum? These are some of the most well-known Arabs of the twentieth century, and Lanternix provides no reason for removing them. I understand we are supposed to apply topic bans without considering the nature of the edits (unless they're vandalism), but the article is already at the edge of the topic ban. The edits Nableezy's edits were reverting were inexplicable and, until now, still unsubstantiated. This is not the behavior I believe the topic ban was intended to curtail. The incivility is a cause for concern, but that may warrant the lightest of blocks (two days at the most), given the context of a just-barely violation of the topic ban. But I'm not holding my breath for that, obviously. -- tariqabjotu 13:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been warning and keeping an eye on Lanternix (talk · contribs · email) and Voiceofplanet (talk · contribs · email). See: User talk:Voiceofplanet, User talk:Vassyana#Thank you and..., User talk:Lanternix#Warning, and this ANI thread about Lanternix. See also: Talk:Religion in Egypt#Recent reverts by User:Voiceofplanet. They'll get sorted one way or the other. --Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi

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

Request concerning Chesdovi

User requesting enforcement: Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions,

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

Chesdovis behavior yesterday and today has been troubling, disruptive and gaming the system.

Please take a look at some of his comments:

At Seven Arches Hotel he had added that Jordans annexation was illegal [21], and I pointed out that there was no source saying it was illegal, he reply's: "Why are there only sources calling Israels establishments in the occupied West Bank illegal? Wouldn't be the 'ole UN ganging up against the Jews again, would it?". He then goes to the Palestine refugee camps article and says: "West Bank camps are illegal settlements" "The 19 West Bank camps built under Jordan's illegal occupation should be described as illegal. Let's have some consistency here."

He returns to Seven Arches Hotel and says: "No. You don't understand. It is only illegal for Israelis to build in the West Bank, not invading Arabs.", then later ads with the edit summary "more ganging up against Israel by the Arab bloc" - "The Arab bloc is at it again..." while linking to a Haaretz news article that has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article.

At the Syria article he removes a summary of a quote by Israels defense minister that Israel provoked clashes before the Six day war: [22], previously anther pov editor edit warred to remove this well sourced notable information and there was discussion at the talkpage:[23], anyone can clearly see that there is absolutely no consensus to remove this text, Chesdovi is aware of this as he commented there, yet he has today once again removed it from the Six day war section claiming that its "NPOV, UNDUE violations. Use detailed quotes for relevant subjects", (Gaming the system) and then reverted himself with the edit summary: "self rv, 2 early", so he self rv to not violate the 1rr, while planing to once again forcibly edit war and remove this text when there is no consensus at the talkpage to remove it.

At the Syria talkpage he also had continued his personal commentary from above: "Hama bloodbath was legal" - "I was looking for quotes about the Hama massacre, but found out that no international outcry was heard after the Syrian massacres. The United Nations did not condemn Syria's actions, no investigations were called for, and no Arab leaders came forward to condemn Assad's actions. Doh!"

I would also like to ad that this kind of behavior is not new to Chesdovi: [24] [25][26][27]

Reply to No More Mr Nice Guy: No I explained my edit: [28][29], we have not added to the Israeli settlement articles that they are illegal yet we have sources representing the IC saying that they are illegal, yet Chesdovi did that to this article without a source, I have no problem with the edit if its sourced, but in that case then we must also ad to all Israeli settlement articles that they are illegal as a fact and not as a pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Chesdovi: What you are saying is not correct, I have not added to all settlement articles that they are "illegal", I explained my edit at the talkpage: "When we discussed and added the Israeli settlements illegality we had found reliable sources representing the international community, and even then we didn't say that they "were illegal" but that the IC view is that they were illegal, in this article we have no source showing the view from the international community, yet chesdovi added that the Jordanian annexation was "illegal" as a fact: [30]" [31]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edit many articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and I edited Ahava (company) before you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am 100% clear, I added exactly as I said that I had added. I brought it up at the talkpage:[32] and after your comment saying there was no sources:[33], I removed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Chesdovi is saying about me is incorrect, he is claiming I "took offence at the emphasis of the Jewish history" which is not the case and there is no evidence presented that I did. I have previously started an article about a synagogue Malmö Synagogue and uploaded an image about the Jewish quarter in Damascus:[34] and Jewish kids in Damascus: [35] The article is about a suburb in today's Damascus. There wasn't anything written in the article about todays suburb, it was all about its history: see for yorself[36] What I said at the talkpage was that it should be a general article about this suburb [37] and I also showed an image that showed that the article contained factually incorrect text:[38]. The article shouldn't be focused on one single thing while leaving out today's suburb. At Ancient underground quarry, just because something is written in what appears to be a reliable source, doesn't mean that we should cherry pick what that source says and then forget about the other overwhelmingly sources that say that the West bank is not in Israel. The source he wanted to use said that a location in the West Bank is "in Israel". This is something that is factually incorrect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Jerusalem: Israel vs. West Bank", ehh no.. as I showed you before with several reliable sources including UN source representing the worldview that East Jerusalem is regarded as part of the Palestinian territories:[39]. This doesn't mean that West Jerusalem is part of Israel, the ownership of West Jerusalem is not decided yet. Why do you think all countries even still today have they're embassy's in Tel Aviv instead of West Jerusalem? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mbz1 :Yes because according to the source The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology it did not start out as Jewish, Jews moved in there later, so therefore its false and cherry picking to refer to it as an "ancient Jewish city" in the first sentence of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with identifying a historian as Jewish? Isn't Bernard Jewish? The same section calls Shlomo Sand an "Israeli", so what is the problem? In this edit [40] I identify Silvio Berlusconi as "Italian", should I be banned for that to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ynhockey :What are you talking about? How is this [41] battleground mentality? The source The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology shows it did not start out as Jewish, Jews moved in there later, so therefore its false and cherry picking of history to refer to it as an "ancient Jewish city" in the first sentence of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An ancient towns ethnicity is usually referred to by its last inhabitants, while previous residents are mentioned in its history. Chesdovi (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about one single edit I made neutralizing its lead based on its diverse history, if anyone disagrees with me then this is not a problem, we can talk about this at the talkpage, but to bring that frivolous content edit here and call it "battleground behavior" is ridiculous.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tariqabjotu : You have misunderstood, I never called anyone "pro-Israeli" or "Jewish" in a pejorative fashion. User:Breein1007 edits was in support of the State of Israel, this is what I wanted to point out. I didn't mean anything insulting or bad against him about it. And how is it a "pejorative fashion" to call Bernard Lewis a Jewish historian? The same section called Shlomo Sand "Israeli", Here I call Silvio Berlusconi "Italian" [42] is this also a "pejorative fashion", you have misunderstood what I meant with those edits. I would also like to point out this comment by you:"I'm not particularly concerned how you feel about losing two of your pro-Israel allies." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Nsaum75: Nsaum75 is misrepresenting me, yes I pointed out there political positions because there was an editor who was blocked who had the same political position as them. And these two editors with the same political position wanted him unblocked. This is not degrading them, I was making other people who might want to unblock the blocked editor aware of that they share the same political position. All the comments I made at Zaatar, Hummus, Ani Medjools talkpage are all things that has already been brought up in a previous enforcement that Nsaum75 started:[43] and I was topic banned. I promised I would not say those kinds of things again, and I have not. Those comments I made where inappropriate and I apology's for them. In those comments I also did not call Jews or Israelis "thieves", and I didn't use Israelis or Jews as pejoratives. I also explained my comment at Ani Medjools talkpage at the enforcement, Ani Medjool used language that was going to get him banned or blocked, so I told him not to say those kinds of things. Should I be banned for the same thing twice? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting words in my mouth, I never said "Jews being thieves", I have not done any tenacious POV editing or the other things you accuse me of. I have explained all my edits.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said they had stolen, not that "they are thieves". Well the talkpage comments were tenacious, I meant that the article edits weren't tenacious POV editing after my topic ban. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nsaum75 keeps on adding the exact same things that was already brought up in the last enforcement, this is basically fishing. Yes I said Oren0 can not be considered neutral to the subject at the dispute at the Golan Heights article because of the things written at his userpage. The Golan Heights is occupied by Israel, the things written at his userpage shows him being supportive of Israel, so how could he be a neutral part or mediator if he supports one side? Would anyone ask User:Tiamut to mediate between a Palestinian and an Israeli? Both would have a conflict of interest, and this was my concern. And OrenO also closed the discussion in violation of Wikipedia guideline npov. Concerning the Mountain in GH discussion there was also a discussion at the Mount Paras article and Nsaum75 has only presented one diff where the situation and what I said is not presented correctly. We wanted to have the standardized names in English for the Mountains. The names used in Israeli and Jewish sources were almost all using the Hebrew names and not the standardized. This is why I said they weren't reliable for finding the standardized names in English, because Israeli and Jewish sources would most likely use the Hebrew names. Look for example here: [44] One Israeli source basically said that the Golan Heights is in Israel. So it is therefor written from an Israeli point of view instead of a world point of view and this was why I objected to it. See also this comment [45], the English sources, several of these CIA and Texas University maps, used other names then the Israeli or Jewish ones and therefor should be more reliable to represent the standardized names in English then sources from the country that occupies the Golan Heights which would most likely use the Israeli/Hebrew names. And the third part admin who was invited to close the discussion said the exact same thing as me, that Israeli sources would probably use the Hebrew names: [46] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[47]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban from Arab-Israeli conflict.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [48]

Discussion concerning Chesdovi

Statement by Chesdovi

"Troubling, disruptive and gaming the system"? If this is about adhering to WP:TALK, I am happy to accept any recomendations. About Syria, the only person who want's the POV violation in the article since my suggestion to remove it pending a solution at talk is SD. I am of the opinion that if something is violating polciy, albeit with illegit. "consensus", it be removed pending mitigation. None of my points made about the Dayan quote were addressed by SD. He is not willing to engage or edit in a helpful fashion. Just readding material after it has been removed pending further discussion is annoying. Chesdovi (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding tariqabjotu: If this is a problem, I am happy take a softer approach. It does take another to point this out, uno. Chesdovi (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my behavioual pattern noted by SD, this is just my style. Is there anything wrong about it? [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], etc... Chesdovi (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that comments made here were sincere and have led to creation of the relevant pages Kurdish villages destroyed during the Iraqi Arabization campaign and Kurdish villages depopulated by Turkey. Chesdovi (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also pleased to see that SD has seen to it that standards, once espoused herself, ("Israel and Jews have nothing to do with it. They have stolen our lands, now they steal our food and claim it as theyrse." [sic]), are now being monitored by her, Well done. The AE system seems to work. Chesdovi (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created Seven Arches Hotel three years ago. Four days ago, after doing work on International Law & Israeli settlements, it dawned on me that this hotel was built under the same conditions. Adding this fact to article was nearly immediately pounced on by SD, who not responding to my query at talk [56], removed the word illegal. She also added the "fact" tag for Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan? Yet SD has tirelessly campaigned for the word “illegal” to be included at all Israel settlements. There seems to have been no attempt on her part to find source disputing or corroborating the legality of Jordan’s settlements. I hope that by highlighting this POV issue regarding SD will go to explain why her accusation here should not be treated as coming from a non-neutral editor.

SD further says "Anyway we don't add "illegal" before everything Israel occupies in other articles". Presumably she means Israeli buildings over the green line. Since such buildings are often described as being in an Israeli settlement, the IC’s view, obviously and correctly does not need to be mentioned in each individual building page. Yet at Ahava, SD insists that the IC view is added to the page about an Israeli company, (when that is more correctly addressed in the Mitzpe Shalem page, being already linked to Israeli settlement) in order to push her agenda to give as much publicity to the political opinions about everything and anything linked to Israel. On this page, however, as there is no page about Jordanian settlements, it would be necessary to include such a assertion. Chesdovi (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, as NMNNG pointed out, how did you come to Seven Arches Hotel? Chesdovi (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read an article about it in Haaretz and googled it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Ahava, Cave of Ramban, Tomb of the Prophets_Haggai,_Zechariah_and_Malachi, Ancient_underground_quarry,_Jordan_Valley... ? You are free to follow me around as long as you don't hound me like Bali. Chesdovi (talk)

SD has updated and editied her User request after disscusion has ensued. Chesdovi (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being 100% clear with everyone. You did add that the IC viewed IS as illegal to many pages. Sure, it makes a difference how these facts are presented, that's precisely why I did not re-add your removal of the word illegal from Seven Arches Hotel. You did not, however, even attempt to use NPOV language as I did in many Golan Heights articles and you tagged the Jordanian occupation reference, which is very strange indeed. You can delete offensive words as much as you like, but don't go round reporting on others if they do the same thing. You removed the word illegal without attempting to initiate and wait for supporting sources, the same tactic you used at Turkish settlements in NC.Chesdovi (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across Cave of Ramban which had an ongoing dispute between you and SD in which you had asserted that East Jerusalem was in Israel, despite your being well aware (from previous other talk pages) that East Jerusalem is not considered part of Israel by anyone but Israel. I'm going to assume it's the same dispute . . . and yes, yes it is. Much like what you used to do with Golan Heights. If you keep making the same disputed changes across multiple pages then you're inviting someone to either follow you around or report you. You can't continue the same behavior at new venues and then plead you're a victim. It's tendentious. Please stop. Sol (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must note that I am now unavaiable for comment for a few hours or till tomorrow and request that no actions are taken before I have had time to digest and response comprehensivley. Chesdovi (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Vassyana, pls explain which comments are inflammatory. And what the difference is betweeen "frustrated expressions and/or insults" and my comments, none I hope were insulting. I have just read about trolling and hope that the bit that you feel applies to me is under the "Pestering" section. Is it? Chesdovi (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I don't think my acceptance of any recomendation here ahould be called "woefully insufficient". Chesdovi (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement SD’s critique of my actions are described as being “troubling, disruptive and gaming the system”. While my edits my indeed trouble SD, I dispute that I have been disruptive or endeavored on “gaming the system”. SD cites various comments I made at four different talk pages. Disruption can occur at talk pages, but I think the complaint is more to do with style rather than content. Vassyana has said my remarks were “inflammatory.” Originally questioning her view, I have now clarifying the meaning of the word (comments that are provocative and arouse passions and emotions) I concede that some can indeed be construed to this end. But they were not made in a vacuum. Precisely the fact the all occurred within 24 hours shows this. They were frustrated remarks all made in response to SD’s unilateral removal of the word “illegal” at SAH. It was for this reason too that I made, what I still view as acceptable, remarks about legality at Palestine refugee camps. Why did the removal of this word set me off? Because from past experience, I have tried to reword sentences at pages about Israeli settlements, leaving out the word “illegal”. This caused a major stir, upon which the word was re-added. My attempt to add the word “illegal” to Turkish settlements was then removed too. SD was involved in both instances and then subsequently crusaded to get a “final consensus” in order to have the offending word appear at each Israeli Settlement page. Before my “illegal” addition at SAH, I posted at talk. No response. As soon as I add it, SD comes along and removes it, requesting sources, to which I agree to. (bear in mind that the hotel’s construction was possibility illegal as, from the article it would seem that it violated Article VII of the Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement of 1949). Anyhow, that is why I went on what seems to have been documented here as a rampage, but all remarks are totally linked to SD provocation. I therefore cannot view my subsequent comments number of talk pages as being a normal case of trolling (if I understand what Vassyana is referring to).

The comments about "Hama bloodbath was legal" and at "Syrian Air Force" were also made in response to SD not responding to my earlier reamarks about the Dayan quote. They were made with a sense of frustration, unknowing that such expressions are not in order. I mean, I have not and would not insult someone intently. I think that as SD has been lambasted similarly in the past, she is taking every chance of reporting other instances from the “other side”. I may have been getting carried away, which regrettably does happen from time to time, but I was not aware that it would result in an AE post. In retrospect, I concede comments were politically charged, highly incivil? If I offended the UN (“Wouldn't be the 'ole UN ganging up against the Jews again”) or to the Arab bloc therein (“The Arab bloc is at it again” – highlighted to illustrate the possibility why the existence of the Arab bloc and not a Jewish bloc at the UN has precluded the labeling of Jordan’s settlements as illegal) , I apologise. I apologise to Jordan for claiming its occupation was illegal outright without clarifying that it was merely a position held by the Arab League for a matter of weeks. (Now clarified somewhat with the help of Harlan; SD could easily have tried clarified this, but chose to delete the reference). I am sorry to the “UN, Arab leaders and the international community” for assuming their silence on Hama meant they acquiesced to it. Basically I fell into SD’s trap. All what SD has documented above stemmed from her initial provocation. If she felt comments of mine were troubling, she should have mentioned it to me, rather than gathering up as much evidence as possible to get me blocked or banned as she not a couple of weeks ago. Her reaction to my edits was intransigence and lack of will to discuss and compromise. Allegations that I am gaming the system are silly. She can tell from my edits at IL & IS that I am ready to comprehensibly discuss all points she picks up on. No personal insults were ever made, and unless I have to be punished for responding to SD in this way, I don’t see why any sanctions are needed. I can see from the reaction here that there is no room for banter here, well not when SD is involved. Chesdovi (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about SD's previous actions: If we are discussing SD’s previous actions, let me add this [57]. SD added a tag with concerns that “Its about a suburb of Damascus and there is nothing here about todays suburb.” Does that warrant a POV tag? She presumably took offence at the emphasis of the Jewish history of the village (“which should be a minor subject”) under the guise that there was no modern material. I added the expand tag to placate her, but it was really unwarranted. At Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley, reliable sources specifically described the cave as “the largest cave ever found in Israel”. SD was having none of this, [58], calling the National Gepographic "factually incorrect". Also has in the past refused to recognise the current status of the West Bank, [59]. Chesdovi (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, I cannot accept your conclusion. Whatever I say, you would reject. You are free to focus on these remarks and my other sins, but I have already stated on more than one occasion here that I understand in retropesct that flurry of comments was not in order and am willing to brush up my act in future. If you are unwilling to accept that, so be it. Chesdovi (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem: Israel vs. West Bank
SD has non-neutral edits too: She has double standards when dealing with Jerusalem. Here she changes the Temple Mount from being in “Jerusalem, Israel” to “East Jerusalem, Palestinian territories” claiming Its not in Israel, the international community recognizes East Jerusalem as being part of the Palestinian territories. Yet when it came to Mahane Yehuda Market, in West Jerusalem, she removes “Israel” claiming that the Status of the city is not set yet. No country recognizes it as capital of Israel Meaning that Israel can never feature as the country Jerusalem is located in, but if site are located in eastern Jerusalem, she insists “Palestinian territories” or the West Bank Map is shown, and does not claim that the cities status is “not set yet”. Chesdovi (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SD is claiming that East Jerusalem is internationally recognised as belonging to Palestine, while West Jerusalem is not recognised as being part of Israel. Is this true? Chesdovi (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to you, yes, all of Jerusalem is not recognized as Israeli. According to the rest of the world accepting '67 borders? No, West Jerusalem is in Israel. Sol (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former is indeed correct: The international community, even after 1967, considered the status of the territory of the city of Jerusalem to be unresolved, meaning that it did not deem any part of the city of Jerusalem to be territory of Israel, including the western sector of Jerusalem, which had been under Israel’s control since 1948. Why does SD insist then on adding PT or WB map? Chesdovi (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you! That was exactly the source I was trying to get from you. I've sources contradicting it but this isn't the time or place to discuss so I'll take it elsewhere. Sol (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Chesdovi

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

The editor creating a battleground atmosphere here is SD, by reverting information he knows is factually correct rather than just tagging it for sources (here are just a few [60] [61] [62] sources supporting Chesdovi's edit, which took me less than 5 minutes to find). He did the same thing in another topic when following Chesdovi's contributions a couple of months ago. Such bad faith revert-for-the-sake-of-reverting are just one of things that create a battleground atmosphere in the topic area.

Also, perhaps SD could let us know how he came upon this somewhat obscure article? Following users you don't like just so you can make their editing experience unpleasant enough to get a reaction and then reporting them (repeatedly) also has the stench of a battleground.

If a bit of sarcasm is not acceptable, Chesdovi has indicated he will stop using it. I won't go into the kind of much more blatant uncivil behavior that gets a pass around here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comment by Sean.hoyland

Adding material in the I-P conflict topic area without sources isn't something to be encouraged and people removing it shouldn't be accused of "bad faith revert-for-the-sake-of-reverting". Nothing personal in Chesdovi's case, lots of people do it, but we all know the rules and adding unsourced material in this topic area is like lighting a fuse. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about a piped link to an article that already included sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's useful to talk about when citing sources isn't required in articles covered by discretionary sanctions or if verifiability can be provided via piped links to completely independent instances of content that aren't synchronized by any automated processes where the target at the end of the pipe that is assumed to provide WP:V compliance can be changed by anyone at anytime. Even social insects handle information more reliably than that. People can simply cite the sources like it says in the sanctions. It's easy. Here's an example of me removing something I know for a fact to be true, that I or someone else could have found sources for because there is a mismatch with the current sources. No one complained. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mbz1: SD came here with "unclean" hands.

At Gamla erases any reference to historical Jewish presence in the city :with edit summary "Jews moved in there later" Dec 19, 2010

The edit is unreferenced, has no basis in fact and its only :purpose is to further turn topic area into a battleground.

Let's see what the source say: "The city of Gamla is mentioned in Talmudic sources as a walled city dating back to the time of Joshua Bin-Nun" .

Here he dismisses the views of two editors for the following tendentious reason

NOTE: Both Epeefleche and No More Mr Nice Guy who here above have opposed the block are both pro-Israeli editors.” Oct 23, 2010

As if to say, if you are identified as having Israeli sympathies don’t bother commenting because your views are unwelcome and automatically tainted.

In the following edit,

Dec 12, 2010 SD changes "Jerusalem International Airport" (THE OFFICIAL ALTERNATE NAME) to "East Jerusalem International Airport." The edit is neither fact-based nor sourced and its only purpose is to further turn topic area into a battleground.

In this edit SD adds "The Jewish historian" introducing Bernard Lewis as a Jew, as if to say that if he's a Jew, he's biased and can not have an untained opinion

--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MalcolmMcDonald

I find it difficult to believe any action will be taken against this problem, particularly after seeing the battleground tactics already deployed.

In this case, I'd be fairly sure that Chesdovi is even factually wrong - there is nothing to indicate that Jordan's annexation was illegal. Even the partisan and non-reliable Jewish Virtual Library seems to grudgingly accept that it was uncontentious to all parties (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/legsess.html Sessions of the Arab League, Session 12-I, May 1950 "Iraq pressed a compromise position (later accepted) which viewed Jordan as the 'trustee' of the area" and Session 12-II, Resolution 321, 12 June 1950 "Acknowledges receipt of the information that East Palestine had been annexed by Jordan"). The UN never objected, unlike the near-unanimous and repeated condemnatory resolutions about the situation of the area post-1967.

However, it is plainly not worth attempting to contribute usefully at a topic that has been allowed to deteriorate so badly. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The illegality of the Israeli settlements, the Wall, and the associated administrative regime have been authoritatively established by the political and judicial organs of the UN and the contracting state parties to the Geneva Conventions. No similar authoritative declarations or opinions were ever expressed with respect to the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. On at least one occasion, I reverted an edit by Chesdovi regarding the illegality of the annexation of the West Bank by Transjordan and directed him to the existing discussions on the article talk page.[63]

I had provided a number of published sources, including the US State Department "Digest of International Law" and the State Department "Foreign Relations of the United States"-series which say that (i) the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan was a case of the legal acquisition of sovereignty over territory; (ii) that the law of nations recognized the inherent right of the non-Jewish communities of the former Palestine mandate, including Transjoran, to organize a state and operate a government as they saw fit in the territories occupied by the two communities after the mandate was terminated; and (iii) that the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan had been brought about through regional congresses and a plebiscite that reflected the freely expressed will of the two peoples. Here is a list of sources in my user space [64] and one of several discussions regarding the topic at Talk:Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan [65].

FYI, the Vaad Leumi and the Jewish Agency granted themselves all legislative, executive and judiciary powers over the Arabs in the territory they occupied.[66] That included quite a bit of territory that lay beyond the boundaries of the UN partition plan. The UN Security Council and UN Mediator subsequently accepted formal agreements between Jordan, Egypt, and Israel which established the permanent lines of demarcation and the de jure authority and exclusive competence under international law of those states to negotiate any future boundary changes between themselves. Jordan and Egypt subsequently recognized the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinians. Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank territory to the PLO when the union betweenthe East and West Banks was legally dissolved. Israel signed a peace treaty with Jordan that preserved the status of the territory that it had occupied in 1967. harlan (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only base myself on what I have read and the Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan which says the Arab League viewed Jordan's presence in the West Bak as illegal. Chesdovi (talk)

I'm not making a list of articles that suffer from POV, but that's another obvious one. No resolutions at the UN declare the annexation illegal, the Arab League eventually defined it as trusteeship, and if Nasser or Kassim thought it was illegal they never formally said so in any of the 3 references [67][68][69] given. If they had said it was illegal it would be under Sharia, not under any Internationally acceptable interpretation. A POV narrative has become the encyclopaedia's neutral voice. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Chesdovi - have you ever seen this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Harlan_wilkerson/Jordan_Recognition and have you or any other editor ever challenged it or produced a counter to it?

If you have seen the information there, have not challenged it, but persist in trying to edit in a fashion contrary to the evidence, then there must be serious questions over your conduct.

I have also dipped into your contribution record going years back, in Oct 2006 I found "The Dome of the Rock was built as a Masjid, but not a? as a mosque for exclusive Muslim worship ... the fact that the building was not meant for exclusive Muslim worship and that claims of exclusive Muslim rights for prayer at the edifice are therefore tenuous, should [be?] given prominence in the article" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dome_of_the_Rock/Archive_1#Shrine_2 and "... this discussion is not necessarily about who owns the land. We all know that the Jewish people own the Temple Mount. It’s transaction by King David is recorded in the Bible" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dome_of_the_Rock&diff=prev&oldid=81983028 which would make it appear that you've carried out pretty odious religious baiting over a period of more than 4 years. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information on the explicit and implicit recognition of the political union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan was already posted to the article talk page on Jordan's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem [70], before Chesdovi started editing the article about the illegal annexation/occupation. [71] harlan (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Petri Krohn

There is something really strange going on at Seven Arches Hotel. While most hotel articles tell how many stars a hotel has, in this article an IP editor – who seems to share Chesdovi's pov – is insisting the that the first sentence starts with a WP:COATRACK for an "illegal occupation" theory. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Pantherskin

It seems that Chesdovi has no clean hands here, althoug SD's description of what is happening at the Syria article is highly misleading given that there is anything but a consensus to include the quote; given that SDs editing in this section is highly biased; given that SD insists on including this quote without any disclaimer, depite the source making it clear that the quote is not seen as giving an unbiased summary of events by historians. Chesdovis excessive tagging, and edit-warring might violate the rules of Wikipedia, but the selecdtive use of sources as done by SD in this article is far more damaging to Wikipedia. Sadly though NPOV is not actively enforced here... Regarding the quote SD insists on including, without any qualifications. The same article he uses to cite the quote says "Historians took a cautious approach, noting that the conversations had not been a formal interview."; "Bruce Maddy-Weitzman, a senior researcher at the Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies in Tel Aviv, said he was troubled that the published conversations could overshadow other factors in the decision to strike Syria.", "He didn't intend to give a full, rounded interview, said Shabtai Teveth, a biographer of Dayan. Here he singles out the kibbutzim, which is not a very balanced picture". That shows pretty much that in at least this instance Chesdovi was in the right when it came to the content and SD blatantly violated NPOV.

Comment by Nsaum75

Above in SD's response to Tariqabjotu, he says he's never called anyone Pro-Israeli or Jewish in a degrading fashion. I beg to differ. On several occasions he's tried to label editors as Pro-Israeli in an attempt to have their viewpoints dismissed[72](see comment above NMMNG's comment). AND on least three or four occasions used pejoratives to refer to Israelis and members of the Jewish faith, describing them as “thieves.” He has also used this term on off Wikipedia forums as well. [73] [74] [75]. The issue was brought up again recently and he was asked to retract those comments[76]] but SD dismissed it saying "he had already recieved a topic ban for those types of comments".[77]. SD also dismissed the results of an RfC at the Golan Heights article in part because the closing admin was Jewish[78]. And then there was an instance where SD said sources written by Jews were not reliable for determining the English language name of a mountain in the Golan Heights[79]. An Israeli may not speak english as his native tongue, but almost half of the Jews on Earth live in the United States and speak english as their native language.

There was also this nice little comment he left for a now blocked/banned user, whom he often edited in concert with on articles[80].

I have more diffs as well. But what I see is a long pattern of editing not designed to improve an encyclopedia but more or less to push a personal POV and possibly personal dislike of certain nations, races, religions and nationalities into articles, but done in such a manner that it flies under the radar most of the time, just like the advice he gave to Ani Medjool where he stated how one has to use "doublethinking" to make edits and achive goals[81]. AE Sanctions can go both ways -- against the filer and the person being filed on. I would ask the admins to keep that in mind. Chesdovi has exhibited inappropriate behavior at times over a long span, but so has SD. I'm very reluctant to say it, but I'm concerned that SD may have a dislike for Jews, Israel, and Israelis that he is unable to separate from his editing, even though he may not use such direct terminology as often as in the past or he hides it using, in his words, "doublespeak" and "not saying what he means"...essentially gaming the system. His long-term edit history and comments (recent and past) shows a pattern, that unfortunately, should not be ignored. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 17:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to SD not banned twice. But your edit history afterward has shown you have not changed your way of tenacious POV editing and thinking, you've only learned to go about it a different way by gaming the system. And you never retracted the racist comments about Jews being thieves, something that should have been done when it was asked of you the very first time...even if you had been sanctioned for it previously and said you would not make those comments again...hateful comments should be retracted and struck out. But thats aside the point here. Your battlefield behavior, pov pushing and tenacious editing has not changed over the long term despite sanctions and warnings. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎}

Reply to SD 2 You did call them theives. You even created a now deleted article title "Israeli theft of arab food". I appreciate you now apologize for those racist comments, but you should have made the apology when you were repeatedly asked to apologize (or struck them at that time)...not now, when its been brought up at AE. It exemplifies my concerns that you have not changed and still operate under alterior motives, and only say/agree to things when your actions could potentially lead to punishment (to quote you: "you have to realize that to get somewhere on Wikipedia you have to use doublethinking. Do not always say what you truly believe"). Reactive behavior (such as apologizing right now, as opposed to when it was repeatedly requested earlier) does not encourage me to believe you've changed, especially the latest flurry of AE's youve posted.. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply [82] Looks to me like you're calling Jews and Israelis thieves. Who else "stole your lands"?? If Israel came into existance in 1948, then it couldnt have been Israelis who "stole your lands". And in your last response, you still don't see how your edits could be tenacious or POV.

My listing of your historical edits are not intended to be used in this AE, but rather to show your long, POV, tenacious, anti-jewish history and the fact that you may have learned to game the system, like when you said "there's not much WE can do, but you have to realize that to get somewhere on Wikipedia you have to use doublethinking. Do not always say what you truly believe, try to reach your goals in another way. " Even after sanctions and blocks, every article you edit turns into a battlefield and you still do not recognize how your viewpoints and edits may be POV, despite admins pointing it out. Chesdovi and pantherskin are not guiltfree in the least and have created battles, but I don't see an extensive history where they exhibit anti-semetic viewpoints and give suggestions on how to edit from an anti-semetic/anti-Israeli point of view without being caught. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by Nsaum75

I offer my sincerest apologies to Supreme Deliciousness if my concerns stated here are unfounded or cause personal distress to him; I did not come to the decision to raise the issue of antisemitism lightly, however the long term pattern of editing, commentary, and behavior causes me concern. In reading Chesdovi's & Pantherskin's AE, and the accusations being made, I decided that my concerns should be placed in the open for Administrators to decide if they may warrant any merit.

AGF is one of the pillars upon which WP is built. Without it all of us lose credibility and respect. The IP article area, an arena in which I have not been a regular contributor for quite some time, suffers from a failure of AGF on a massive scale. This is evidenced by related articles' dysfunctionality and the constant re-appearance of its members on this enforcement board. We are all human, and all suffer from shortcomings, and I think everyone here recognizes that. But at times, events occur that draw into question the Good Faith nature of editors actions.

I do not claim to be unbiased, and the person who claims such is no friend to themselves or others. However I felt I can offer a different viewpoint as an editor who is aware of the ongoing problems in the project, but not a "regular" who is "caught up" in the moment or has something personal at stake. The vast majority of my edits, contributions and photos, lay outside of the IP realm. In fact, although I have contributed hundreds of photos to the project, I now refuse to donate photos from the middle east because they may be considered contentious by some or because they may express a personal bias of mine that I am be unaware of.

Again, I offer my deepest apologies if my comments here have caused offense or distress to SD or others. I also ask for forgiveness if the issues that concern me turn out to be innocuous. However, given the gravity of my concerns and the complete failure of the editing process in IP articles, I felt they should be in the open for their merits be decided upon. I wouldn't be doing anyone, or the project, a favor if I ignored such concerns. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 16:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sol

Chesdovi is a good contributor. When it's his area of expertise he's excellent. But some of this is getting a bit silly. No one, or at least very few, editors in the topic area are politically "neutral" (whatever that would be here), that's fine, but sensitive issues need careful treatment, not more disruption. When Chesdovi added nine possible suggestions to the "Judaism and Violence" article (concerned with religiously mandated/attitudes toward violence) in quick succession, implying that editors were looking to make Judaism more violent than it is, I was not entirely amused (only partially, it is funny stuff although off base). When he started calling out specific editors and implying that Jewish theologians didn't care about events in which only Jews died, the intent was crystal clear. Something needs to happen. The last ban ~~over the "Judaism and bus stops" incident (which was, frankly, a very funny article)~~ didn't work so it really seems like something needs to happen. I don't have much love for either SD or Chesdovi's politics and that's just fine but we really don't need more trolling in an area already rife with partisan bickering. You are better than all this, Ches. Sol (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not to do with "implying that editors were looking to make Judaism more violent than it is", but rather to highlight the fact that if the certain violent passages in the Bible were being used to depict the Jewish religion in a "bad" light, editors should not be selective. There are many instances of violence in the Bible. Why have editors picked up on only the cases of Hebrew violence against gentiles? That is wrong. When I have a chance, I will push for inclusion of the 25,000 Jews violently killed duting the civil war and of eariler muderous acts commited by biblical personalites which religious Jews venerate. I was not banned over Judaism and bus stops as far as I recollect. That could well have been turned into a valid article. I must point out that with all the bickering between me and SD, neither of us have decended to personal insults and the use of profanities which had been the case with other editors. (SD is decent in this respect, like me!) Chesdovi (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. You are correct, it wasn't about "Judaism and Bus stops" but something else, my mistake!

As to the article, the point of it is neither to make Judaism look violent or "depict the Jewish religion in a "bad" light" but to cover Jewish religious doctrine/attitudes concerning violence. You're ignoring the spirit of the article in favor of attacking the article's editors as not caring about Jews and slandering Judaism. If you would like to include material on Judaism's teachings concerning Jewish-on-Jewish violence (which, like most violence, is largely prohibited although the halakhic concepts of din moser and din rodif are good starting points), feel free. Adding snippy talk page additions isn't making the article better or addressing your concerns. Sol (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment by Kanguole

User:Ynhockey, who has commented in the Result section, does not meet the definition of uninvolved for ARBPIA: see e.g. this AE request regarding Nableezy. Kanguole 00:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Chesdovi

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

These are the kinds of actions topic bans were made for. Chesdovi is being highly incivil and his politically charged comments are creating a battleground atmosphere that will only lead to more trouble in the area. If I were to throw out a period of time at this point, I'd say two months; Chesdovi hasn't been a particularly prolific disrupter in this area. -- tariqabjotu 14:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would put three months out there, along with a sharp warning that further inflammatory comments in any topic area will be rewarded with blocks. This is a big set of blatant trolling and bombthrowing. --Vassyana (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the comments are obviously inflammatory. Saying it's just your approach and you'll tone it down if it's a problem is woefully insufficient. That a response appropriate to some frustrated expressions and/or insults, not for a large series of absolutely over the top trolling. --Vassyana (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Chesdovi: You can't just say things like this that add nothing to the discussion but an argument. Talk pages are not discussion forums for you to win debate points. This and this seem like outright trolling to me. This and this just seem like stumping and stirring up trouble. This could be minor by itself but fits into a wider pattern of provocation. I also note this comment, which is deeply concerning in context. And that is all just within 24 hours of your last edit. --Vassyana (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Chesdovi: Your response does not leave me more hopeful. You place the blame on another editor. You do not seem to understand the problem with your comments. You make sarcastic apologies to the UN and so on. You indicate that it upset you so much that you could not help yourself. You seem to indicate that it is personally important to ensure "balanced" coverage. These are all indicators that you need to be separated from the topic area. --Vassyana (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that Chesdovi has crossed the line with many of his edits. On the whole, I support the proposed sanction, but believe that we must not act quickly and examine the behavior of both sides, as among the mutual mudslinging in the case, some actually legitimate concerns have been raised about the recent behavior of the editor who filed this request. There is a high degree of battleground mentality here, as demonstrated by edits such as this (brought up above). I feel that if we don't identify the deeper problem, we will be loaded with more cases like this soon. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SD's lengthy comment below about nsaum is a prime example of battleground mentality (seeing editors as "pro-Israeli" and "Jewish" in a pejorative fashion). Note that that makes SD's third AE request in maybe five days... there's clearly a problem. That being said, topic-banning Chesdovi can be done now while the sanction against SD can come in the coming days. -- tariqabjotu 16:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be acceptable, although I believe that for our own convenience, we should merge the Pantherskin case and this one in order to examine the behavior of the relevant editors before the case is closed. I don't believe there is any problem with sanctioning one of the editors (Chesdovi) as an interim and not final step in this case. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you. We should handle all of the problematic conduct in front of us. --Vassyana (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever decides to close this, please be in contact with me before making a final descision as I may have an important request. Chesdovi (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pantherskin

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

Request concerning Pantherskin

User requesting enforcement: Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions, edit warring

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

Pantherskin had previously edit warred to remove a summary of a quote from the Syria article. You can see him here edit warring, he removed it at least three times from the Golan Heights article and seven times from the Syria article: [83]

There was no consensus at the talkpage to remove it.

He was blocked for slow motion edit warring.

He then left Wikipedia for a couple of months, then he returned and without any new consensus or any new discussion once again reverts it and removes the Dayan summary:[84]

And now since his return he has once again continued to edit war and remove it again:[85] anyone can clearly see that there is no new consensus at the talkpage to remove it [86] so Pantherskin is continuing to forcibly remove it.

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

[87]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban from Syrian-Israeli conflict

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Reply to Mbz1, I did not "erase any reference to historical Jewish presence in the city", With this edit [88] I removed in the first sentence that its a Jewish city because the first source in the article shows that Gamla did not start out as a Jewish city. It is therefor incorrect to refer to it as a "Jewish city" in the first line of the article when Jews later moved in there.

So, according to you, I should go to Palmyra, and remove from the first line that it was an ancient Arab city in Syria, because it was first a Sumerian city, then a Solomonic one, then Greek/Roman, and only conquered by Arabs in the 7th century? Because it is incorrect to refer to it as an "Arab city" in the first line of the article when Arabs only later moved in there. I want to make sure I have this right. Two for the show (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the history of Palmyra, but if it was several different things then it shouldn't be called just "Arab" in the lead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [89] I added that Atarot Airport is located in East Jerusalem, I see now that I shouldn't have added "East" before "Jerusalem International Airport", that was a mistake.

Whats wrong with identifying a Jewish historian as Jewish? The same section calls Shlomo Sand an "Israeli", so what is the problem? In this edit [90] I identify Silvio Berlusconi as "Italian", should I be banned for that to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to call Berlusconi a Christian politician or Romney as a Mormon politician and see what happens. - BorisG (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Jew is also an ethnic background, not only religion. And its also the context of the text, the text is about a historian talking about the origins of Jews. So to point out that the background of the historian is also Jewish is relevant. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but I can't see how ethnic angle makes is more acceptable. If anything, it is even worse. Would you call Miliband a Jewish politician in the context of policy debate on relationship with Israel? - BorisG (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Miliband is, maybe if it fits in the context of the text, as I said above, the text was about a historian talking about the origins of Jews, so I believe it was relevant, I didn't mean anything derogatory about it, you have misunderstood me if that was what you thought. As I said above I also called Berluscioni "Italian", should I be banned from Italian related articles? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your persistent reference to context only highlights the problem more graphically. It implies that if a historian is Jewish, he is likely to have a particular POV (or explains his POV). This is called prejudice, to put it mildly. I hope admins will see it for what it is, even if you refuse to do so. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the editor who added in the same section that Shlomo Sand is an "Israeli", does he also have prejudice? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is common to mention nationality of someone (Egyptian hisotrian, British historian). It is much less common to mention someone's religion, much less ethnic origin (Muslim historian, Arab footballer, Christian scientist, Alawy politician). It is not always clear-cut because some (many) ethnic groups identify themselves as nations even if they don't have a state of their own. But I think it is only proper to call a politician Welsh if he idenfiies himself in this way. No such self-identification is necessary for the use of one's nationality (British, Israeli etc). I think you get the idea. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish Historian" gets 69,800 results on Google books.[91]. So my edit was in accordance with mainstream publications. If anyone feels that it was a problem then we could discuss this at the articles talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question what was the need to mention the religion of the historian. The only need was to show that he is Jewish, and that's why he cannot be trusted. SD has not changed, when he wrote: "In his userpage it says "This user supports the continued existence of a free and independent state of Israel." and "This user is a Jew." Therefore Oren0 can not be considered neutral to this subject, and another 3rd point of view should have been picked for the disputed/occupied argument". --Mbz1 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Pantherskin: What Pantherskin has done here below is to cherry pick a couple of sources that supports his pov, Moshe Dayans quote was published in 1997 and the source used is NYT [92] so its new information. And who stopped Pantherskin from adding other relevant information? This is not a reason to remove the summary of the Dayan quote. The quote is also brought up in several books: p 154 "Israeli security was the alleged reason for military action in Syrian Golan Heights, but conflict over resources and farmland were important issues in themselves. According to Moshe Dayan..." "Israel intentionally precipitated hostile exchanges with Syrian farmers in order to justify larger military adventures in the Heights", p 355 p 47

And there is no source presented by Pantherskin that contradicts what Dayan said. But there are also other sources talking about the same thing, see for example:p 43 [93][94]. He removed all the text about that Israel provoked the clashes, and turned it into a Syrian claim, this means nothing. This is a content dispute about something he doesn't like personally and he wants it removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYT is not reliable? UN observer Jan Muhren is not a credible source? The current affairs programme can be found online, also The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations by Sean F. McMahon is published by Routledge, what is wrong with it?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How come you didn't mention The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations? Article in Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs is by Sheldon L. Richman, he looks like a good source: [95]. Muhren was an UN observer, he was right there and saw everything with his own eyes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a balanced view according to you is to remove reliably sourced text that Israel provoked clashes and then ad text written by the Israeli ambassador to the United states saying that Syria sponsored Palestinian attacks, and text that: "Syrian artillery repeatedly bombed Israeli civilian communities" [96] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Oren isn't the Israeli ambassador to the US? If a source doesn't have a quote doesn't mean that they ignore it. And I have shown you several reliable sources that bring up the Dayan quote and other reliable sources talking about the exact same thing as Dayan. The only thing said in the NYT article is one researcher in Tel Aviv saying that other things involving Syria is not mentioned, (this can easily be added) and his biographer Shabati Tveteh claiming he is singling out kibbutzim. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[97]

Discussion concerning Pantherskin

Statement by Pantherskin

Please note that this a general overview article of Syria. What was previously in the article on Israel-Syria relations before the Six-day war was a single quote by Moshe Dayan. The quote was sourced to a NYT article that said "Historians took a cautious approach, noting that the conversations had not been a formal interview.". What means that this quote at best only gives a partial picture, and at worst is misleading. Nothing about these doubts about the quote in the article, and nothing about what is typically included in history books on this time period, i.e. the shelling of Israeli settlements, the incursions by Palestinian militants into Israel that were sponsored by Israel, and different interpretations of terms of the status of the demilitarized zone between Syria and Israel.

Only including this quote without any disclaimer thus violates NPOV. Even worse, only including this quote is giving a biased view of Syrian-Israeli history given that pretty much every history book that discusses this time period gives little attention if any to Moshe Dayan's quote or the substance of it (see for example [98] (page 51, [99] (page 192), [100] (page 88), [101] (page 58ff.), [102] (page 289) etc).

A few days ago I removed the quote and replaced it by a summary of this time period, taken from reputable sources (see [103] - the edit Supreme Deliciousness complains about). I invite every editor to check the neutrality. I tried my best, including Syria's defense that it cannot be held accountable for actions by others, and that Israeli was isolated in its view on the status of the demilitarized zone. Given that this is an overview article I also removed the Dayan quote, partly because of its dubious nature, partly because reliable sources make it clear that other events are seen as more important by historians. Nevertheless the short discussion on the status of the demilitarized zone and excursions by Israeli armored tractors summarizes the essence of the Dayan quote - according to the Israeli interpretation these excursions were legal, according to the Syrian interpretation they were provocations. The quote might suggest that the Syrians were right, but as historians are doubtful I left the quote out.

I do not wish this AE request to become another battleground for the usual pro/anti-Israel/Zionist whatever warriors, but I understand that this is what inevitably will happen. All I can say about this request is that I tried my best to improve the article and to bring this small section into compliance with NPOV. Supreme Deliciousness stand in the discussion on the talk page seemed to be that because this quote can be sourced it should be included, and that if there are doubts or opposing viewpoints someone else should work on finding them and including them. But that's not how good articles are written, because then - instead of looking at what good sources say about this time period - I would solely look at what sources say about this specific quote.

Reply to Supreme Deliciousness I find it hard to take this response serious as it rather proves my point. I did not cherry-picked my sources. I simply looked for academic books on the history of Syria/Israel and looked at what they write about this time period. One, to find out about events. Second, to learn how differents events should be weighted in an overview article. He comes with articles on very specific events, at least one from a a partisan source, none from anything resembling a serious and authorative source. The would be hardly be sufficient to establish events, and even if they would they would not tell us anything about how to weight these events in the larger context of things. Of course presenting these kinds of newspaper articles is a good way of using wikipedia policies to subvert WP:NPOV because hey it can be sourced and should thus be included. And seriously "something he doesn't like personally and he wants it removed"?? I made a case using sources, and that's what I get as an answer??

The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs is a highly partisan source, and the UN observer Jan Muhren is a credible source on himself, and nothing more. And I never said that the NYT is unreliable, I simply asked for taking the NYT serious by taking note that the NYT article says that this quote needs to be approached with caution. What is wrong is that you want certain claims in the article and try to find sources that support this claim.

You never presented this source at the talk page. All you did on the talk page was stonewalling, reverting, and saying this quote is sourced, thus it should not be removed and if there are POV problems others should fix it - but of course the quote has to stay there. WP:GAME to me, but of course that can be a very successful strategy when it comes to driving away those who want to present a balanced view of a time period.

This is getting tiresome. All I see from you is the same silly insistance on including a quote, despite the fact that most sources on this time period of Syrian-Israeli relations ignore this quote, or are emphasizing that it needs to be approached with caution. Even worse, you are making false claims such as that I inserted text written by the Isreali ambassador. The more I see of your battleground behavior and WP:GAMEs, the more clear it is that you should be topic banned from this area. It is utterly laughable when you accuse others of POV editing, when all you do is to insist on including a quote despite your source making it clear that this quote is somewhat misleading.

If you found all these good and reliable sources, why have the quote if we simply could say that the Israelis provoked the Syrians? ~~And why do you continue making false claims, such as that I used Michael Oren as a source when I did not (although he would be a high quality source given that he is respected scholar~~). My apologies, the book chapter was indeed written by Michael Oren - a historian and scholar who happened to become an Israeli ambassador. A high quality source.

Reply to George Al-Shami Highest caliber of POV-pushing. Unabashed extremist pro-Zionist stance. He will cook up some disingenuous argument. You are not even presenting a single diffs that somehow would support your claims!

Reply to MalcolmMcDonald And can you show a diff and explain why this diff violates NPOV? Or can you just throw mud in the hope that it sticks.

Some evidence for disruptive editing by Supreme Delicousness This recent edit by Supreme Deliciousness, [104] exemplifies what I see as disruptive editing. A book published by a scholarly publisher and written by Michael Oren, an academic historian, is suddenly not good enough to establish the historical fact that Syria supported Palestinian raids into Israel (note that this fact can also be found in countless other scholarly history books). Instead it needs to be attributed to Michael Oren personally, as if this is a controversial claim, and Michael Oren needs to be described as the Israeli ambassador, and not as the scholar he is. I have no idea what Supreme Delicousness motiviation for this edit is, but it looks pointy and disruptive.

This is a good example of the very serious POV introduced by Pantherskin - and the very problematical sources he insists on introducing. We all know what is said about ambassadors. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not serious. Either you are simply trying to provoke, or you just have no idea what you are talking about. Pantherskin (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Pantherskin

Comments by Mbz1: SD came here with "unclean" hands, and he has to be topic banned. Please see below:

At Gamla erases any reference to historical Jewish presence in the city :with edit summary "Jews moved in there later" Dec 19, 2010

The edit is unreferenced, has no basis in fact and its only :purpose is to further turn topic area into a battleground.

Let's see what the source say: "The city of Gamla is mentioned in Talmudic sources as a walled city dating back to the time of Joshua Bin-Nun" .

Here he dismisses the views of two editors for the following tendentious reason

NOTE: Both Epeefleche and No More Mr Nice Guy who here above have opposed the block are both pro-Israeli editors.” Oct 23, 2010

As if to say, if you are identified as having Israeli sympathies don’t bother commenting because your views are unwelcome and automatically tainted.

In the following edit,

Dec 12, 2010 SD changes "Jerusalem International Airport" (THE OFFICIAL ALTERNATE NAME) to "East Jerusalem International Airport." The edit is neither fact-based nor sourced and its only purpose is to further turn topic area into a battleground.

In this edit SD adds "The Jewish historian" introducing Bernard Lewis as a Jew, as if to say that if he's a Jew, he's biased and can not have an untained opinion--Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

Seems like a normal content dispute, and a rather trivial one at that. Not appropriate for AE, in my view. - BorisG (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in relation to Pantherskin, but I believe SD editing pattern that has lately became the same she was topic banned for a few months back should be looked at, and I believe sanctioning SD is in order.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Boris: Coming back from a 5-month break to start an edit war... That does not look good, especially for someone who came to the project to be constantly involved in editing ethnic conflicts (one of his first edits: [105]). Biophys (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Pantherskin explained above is perfectly logical even if his methods are not. Who leaves and comes back does not bother me. A number of people in this area have battleground mentality and Pantherskin is not an exception at all. SD is a typical example of this. BTW it takes (at least) two to edit war. When one partisan editor brings his opponent to AE, it does not look good either. Admins should look at conduct of all sides (or dismiss without action). - BorisG (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrign is not just reverting, its the spirit of what is happening, there is no agreement to remove the quote, so to keep on removing it despite no consensus is the origin of the edit warring. Thats why I opened this Enforcement, because I don't want to edit war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it takes two to tango. The important factor is not the "mentality", but what exactly someone is doing or contributing here. If one looks at the edit history of an editor who made only ~800 edits (for example), and most of them represent reverts, claims like this or that and contentious disputes, this is a serious matter for concern. One must contribute content, not conflicts.Biophys (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we have two POV warriers here. Arguably, more than two. I really have no interest researching their record to determine which of them is worse. All I am saying is that admins should take into account the record of both sides. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. A lot was said about problems in EE area, but these conflicts are worse. Just look at the statements below. SD: "Breein1007 who is Pro-Israeli". George Al-Shami: "his unabashed extremist pro-Zionist stance". ~~If I was an admin, I would topic-ban them all~~. (I do not argue for draconian sanctions, but these conflicts are ugly. I never called any editor "pro/anti-Chechen/Russian" while editing Chechen war subjects, but still was topic banned for this [106]) Biophys (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do too. Both SD and George Al-Shami's language is unacceptable.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure why Mbz1 was indefinitely blocked, but I certainly did not suggest to block him because he appears to be a good content contributor (unlike some others). If would be great if Vassyana could review his block as a part of the investigation and possibly change the duration of his block if this is reasonable.Biophys (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1 was blocked in what seems an unrelated matter to this. See the ANI thread and Mbz1's talkpage. u n☯mi 21:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nsaum75

Biophys brought up the argument of "content over conflict" in the immediate section prior. SD was topic banned from I-P related articles for 30 days (April 30 to May 30) of this past year.[107] During the 30 days he was banned he only made TWO types of contributions[108]. One type was to forum-shop over 10 admins in an attempt to find someone willing to re-read a battle-field laiden SPI case against a user he had been involved with numerous conflicts with (essentially carry on the battle). The second type was 10 edits to ONE article about Playstation 3 games. He made two edits to potential IP related articles, but self reverted so as not to violate his topic ban. Those edits can be viewed here..

In my opinion, an editor who is here to contribute constructively to an encyclopedia will find other areas to edit if they are banned. An editor who is here just to create conflict and push a POV, will just drop out until their ban is over, or go to AE/SPI and try to punish their opponents while they are "down for the count".

The closing admin needs to take into consideration the editing history of both Editors, not just the individual who this case was brought against. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 06:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about a bad faith comment by Nsaum75, There was a SPI based on behavior and no admin looked at it because it was very long, so I asked the closing admin if I was allowed to ask admin to look at it and he said that I could: [109]. Many admins declined to look at it so I just kept on asking several admins until it got attention. Your claim that I am here to "just to create conflict and push a POV" is absurd and not based on anything. I edit many articles that has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, I have also created several articles that has nothing to do with the A-I conflict, I can go into greater detail of this if any admin wants.

Nsaum75 is an editor who edits Wikipedia to push a pov: "The international community considers it part of Israel" When it is infact the opposite, that the international community do not consider it part of Israel.

Previously I opened a AE against Breein1007 who is Pro-Israeli. Nsaum knows breeins disruptive behavior:[110] he later removes that comment: [111] saying he "doesn't want to get involved". Then when an admin advocates a topic ban for Breein75: [112] directly after nsaum once again posts and pushes for me to be sanctioned, although I had not done anything wrong: [113]. This is the exact same thing he is doing now.

Nsaum 75 is constantly wikistalking me, shows up to articles right after I edit them, although he has never made any edit there before: List of LGBT Jews:[114][115] transport in Syria: [116][117] Ben-Gurion House: [118][119] Shebaa farms: [120][121] Gaza flotilla raid: [122][123] WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement: [124][125] Anti-Lebanon mountains [126][127] List of wine-producing regions [128][129]Israeli wine [130][131]Og [132][133] Second Temple of Jerusalem [134][135] Golan: [136] [137] Al-Araqeeb: [138][139]Arrack (drink) [140][141] Highway 87 (Israel):[142][143]. I opened a AfD. Nsaum75 then edits there, previously he never touched that article until I opened the AfD, [144].

At one time I started a thread about a sockpuppetér and his puppet at the ANI, I explained In the first sentence why I didn't notify him:[145], Nsaum then right away went to the discussion and pushes for me to be sanctioned: [146] (Why is Nsaum75 even getting involved in that discussion?) He also posts at another talkpage that I didn't notify despite me already saying why I didn't notify and despite that he already asked for me to be sanctioned at another board [147] Clearly forum shopping as also noticed by another user: [148]

He opened a clear straw man RfC: "Should the Golan Heights be referred to as a "disputed" territory or "illegally occupied" territory?". Basically gives two option, the Israeli view, then a view that clearly will not get support "illegally". Two other people reacted to this aswell: [149]

In a conversation at an article talkkpage, Nsaum75 removed a comment where he had said it is "not neutral", while at the same time adding that: "Are we going to try to game the system by interjecting trigger words like "non neutral" whenever something is said that we don't agree with?" [150]. This really says it all.

An obvious sockpuppet named "LibiBamizrach" shows up starts edit warring, pov pushing and begins to be generally disruptive at a wide variety of Arab-Israeli articles, anyone can clearly see that this is on old account just looking at his first edits at wikipedia. LibiBamizrach contacted Nsaum75 and said: "thx for the welcome": [151] but on LibiBamizrach talkpage there is no post from Nsaum75. Why is Nsaum75 sending of wiki messages to this "new" account outside of wikipedia? In this edit LibiBamizrach mentions how a "cleanstart" is interesting:[152]. Why is nsaum75 sending of-wiki messages about "cleanstart" to this "new" user who is obviously a reincarnation of on old disruptive pov editor who is continuing the same behavior? I opened a SPI against him, after Nsaum75 sent this sockpuppet off wiki messages to tell an admin that the new account is a "cleanstart", when infact its nothing but abuse of multiple accounts, right after the new puppet contacts an admin:[153], and right after the SPI I opened was deleted by the admin, I first thought it was Amoruso, but what I do know is that there is something very shady with what happened with him deleting the SPI and I asked the admin if LibiBamizrach has been notified of the ARBPIA sanction before and he did not reply to me. But later admin Sandstein saw through this fasad of "cleanstart" that Nsaum75 had told "LibiBamizrach" to present his puppet account as, and Sandstein blocked the account:[154], please read what Sandstein says: "it is also highly likely that you are a banned or blocked editor trying to evade your sanctions, or a veteran editor attempting to evade accountability for your actions with this or your other account. This means that your use of this account is an abuse of multiple accounts."

This is only some of the things Nsaum75 has done, there is more. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That long, and cherry picked response helps to exemplify mine and other concerns about long-term battlefield, pov-warrior, and disruptive behavior. I wikistalk no one, and its not a requirement to edit a page in order to watch it (i have many watched, unedited pages) and I also follow AfD listings. My edit history speaks for itself[155] as does yours.

I have also never been sanctioned or blocked, how about you?? However if you want to bring up wikistalking, perhaps you could address why you recently popped up to request file mover rights on the Commons only a day after I requested (and was successfully granted) file mover rights[156][157]

AND, Unlike my successful request, your request was denied because of admins concerns that you might have political motivations[158] and because you did not recognize your own POV[159]. You continued to argue how you don't make POV edits even after being denied filemover rights[160]

Anyhow, like I said, your long winded response only helps to exemplify your long-term battlefield, POV mentality here on WP. But like BorisG and others above said, you are not alone in exhibiting long-term, poor, non-productive behavior on WP. The same problem exists with several editors on the "Israeli" side as well. However most of them seem to recognize their hands are unclean, but in your responses here and elsewhere, I've not seen evidence that you realize any problem with your edits, actions or behavior...despite being sanctioned, blocked and warned by numerous admins -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 14:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of what I said is cherry picked, the diffs speaks for themselves. The problems at Commons started because of account Kàkhvelokákh, guess who that was? I don't remember exactly everything that happened there but it was about the description of images, and I also wanted to move some names, so its only natural that I would ask for it. All images I asked to be renamed have been renamed:[161]. Is this "political motivations" or "pov" names ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so... My edit history speaks for itself. I'm not the one who has sanctions and blocks as part of their edit history, been denied editor tools because of pov and disruptive editing and behavior nor do I make regular appearances here on AE. Why do you think that is?? I'm not perfect but...one has to ask that question.. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unclean hands is not the same as Tu quoque. This is the latter. Please file an AE against SD instead of parking material here. If you've got a case, bring it, but this is getting way off topic. Sol (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the information is part of the larger picture admins are dealing with here, especially the long-term behavioral issues that both sides of the filing present. Therefore, in my opinion, it is relevant, especially in light of the flurry of AE filings that have been going on recently amongst a small group of editors. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 07:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filing an AE request against SD would be tit for tat strategy. That is something employed by SD. No, do not do it, please.Biophys (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by George Al-Shami: Pantherskin is attempting to remove a properly sourced paragraph from the Arab-Israeli conflict section of the "Syria" article. I have seen nothing, but the highest caliber of POV-pushing by Pantherskin. To give an example of this; on some articles he does not delete sources from the New York Times provided they back his unabashed extremist pro-Zionist stance; however if that same publication prints something that contradicts or criticizes Israel he will cook up some disingenuous argument just to remove that source. This former behavior is in complete contradiction to the integrity of Wikipedia. A closer scrutiny of Pantherskin's edits will prove the former contention.George Al-Shami (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italic text

Comment by MalcolmMcDonald

A quick scan of Pantherskins contributions makes him look like a serial violator of NPOV. I found this at the NPOV board concerning the article on Syria and the section on the Six-Days War. Only those determined to insert POV into the article could defend what he's trying to do there. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Pantherskin

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

I am currently looking over all of the diffs provided. I am also looking at the article histories and discussions being referenced. There's a lot to review here, so please be patient with me. One thing I note is that there is a lot of personalized, insulting back and forth going on here. Bringing that here is an extremely unwise choice. A wise choice would be to take a breath, cool down, self-edit and apologize. --Vassyana (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironman1104

Blocked for 24 hours

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 Ironman1104

User requesting enforcement: O Fenian (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ironman1104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

[162] First revert, of this edit
[163] Second revert, within 24 hours of the first

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

[164] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: My objections have been made clear at Talk:Gordon Hamilton-Fairley#Balcombe Street Gang, Ironman1104 has not taken part in the discussion and carries on reverting. O Fenian (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [165]

Discussion concerning Ironman1104

Statement by Ironman1104

Comments by others about the request concerning Ironman1104

Result concerning Ironman1104

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

Blocked for 24 hours. An unambiguous 1RR violation on an article clearly within the area of conflict, with no engagement in an active talk page discussion. I note the editor has been explicitly warned in the past about a 1RR breach on this article. As it is the editor's first ever block, the 24 hour length is a bit lenient, but it will escalate rapidly for any subsequent offences. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I will watchlist the article - I'm worried that there could a slow-burn edit war developing over this. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, straightforward call and thanks for watchlisting. --Vassyana (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

User requesting enforcement has been indef blocked

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

User requesting enforcement: user:mbz1
User against whom enforcement is requested: Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated: ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions,
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Supreme Deliciousness has engaged in tendentious behavior over a long term pattern:

blocked three times [166] and topic banned

reverting sourced information without the use of edit summaries or any discussion on talk pages. [167][168] [169] He has also engaged in an editing pattern that is dismissive of Jewish or Israeli viewpoints and often attempts to downgrade the Jewish nexus with Israel.

Dismisses views of editors deemed “pro Israel”[170]
Unilaterally changes name of Jerusalem International Airport[171]
Saying that Jerusalem, please note not just East Jerusalem, but Jerusalem is not in Israel
Labels noted historian as “Jew”[172]. This diff speaks a volume and demonstrates that the user approach has never changed. Exactly as in the differences I provided above the user dismisses a view Jewish administrator and Jewish editors the same here. The user adds "Jewish" to the name of historian to demonstrate that this fact alone makes him not trustworthy because I see no other reason for that edit.
Removes all historical Jewish connections to the city of Gamla[173]
Rejects the opinion of a closing admin because he’s considers Jews not neutral[174]

Supreme Deliciousness has on at least five (5) occasions used pejoratives to refer to members of the Jewish faith, describing them as “thieves.”[175][176][177] as well as this gem on an off Wikipedia forum. "Wealth built on theft" (Off Wikipedia. Number 1 on article’s Talkback)

Here he denies ever using pejoratives against members of the Jewish faith when the body of evidence clearly shows the opposite.

Supreme Deliciousness while editing as (removed outing) has engaged in egregious canvassing efforts, contacting at least 22 editors in a single day to skew opinion on the Golan Heights article.
Supreme Deliciousness has turned the Israel-Arab topic area into a battleground by using various enforcement tools. He has hauled more than a score of editors to these boards and has in fact made over 300 posts to AE in the past year! An astonishing figure when compared with others in the topic area.[178]
Supreme Deliciousness is a Single Purpose Account evidenced byhis contributions during his previous topic ban

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Permanent block or Topic Ban
Please examine some of his comments in more detail

Pejoratives and tendentious editing: First let’s examine comments made by SupremeDeliciousness under his current account regarding those of the Jewish faith.

“I am helping the Jews to get rid of Arab foods and culture that has been falsly [Sic] incorporated with them” [179]
“The Israeli sections of the article must be removed including the image of "Commercially prepared za'atar from Israel", Why is this picture in the article about a food that is 100% Arab and 0% Israeli or jewish?[Sic] it comes from Arab countries. Israel and Jews have nothing to do with it. They have stolen our lands, now they steal our food and claim it as theyrse.[Sic]”[180]
“Your sources are only confirming the israeli culture theft of Arab foods. The way they stole our food, put an israeli flag on it and exported it to america making americans believe its "israeli food" . Disgusting!”[181]

Here he dismisses the views of two editors for the following tendentious reason,

"NOTE: Both Epeefleche and No More Mr Nice Guy who here above have opposed the block are both pro-Israeli editors."[182]

As if to say, if you are identified as having Israeli sympathies don’t bother commenting because your views are unwelcome and automatically tainted. In this telling exchange with now banned user:Ani Mejdool, Supreme Deliciousness encourages the banned user to use guile and subterfuge and evidences his real intentions on Wikipedia, Do not always say what you truly believe and “if you for example feel hatred for Israel, if you go around and show this, it will not be to your advantage, so if you want to fight Israel, the best thing to do is to not say anything about this and act "neutral", this will help you reach your goal better. It appears that and collaborative editing is the last thing on SupremeD’s mind. In the following edit, SupremeD changes “Jerusalem International Airport,” the airport’s official alternate designation, to “East Jerusalem International Airport.”[183] The edit is neither fact-based nor sourced. At the Gamla article SupremeD erases any reference to the historical Jewish presence in the city with edit summary “Jews moved in there later”[184] The edit is unreferenced, has no basis in fact and its only purpose is to further turn topic area into a battleground. At Khazars he prefaces famed historian and noted scholar Bernard Lewis with "The Jewish historian" introducing him as a Jew first and historian second, as if to say that if he's a Jew, he's biased and can not have untainted opinions on matters concerning Jewry.[185] SupremeD’s deviant views concerning Jews extend to off Wikipedia forums as well. See for example the first Talk back comment after Ynet article on Israel’s economy by commentator “Supreme Deliciousness” "Wealth built on theft" He made the following comment in connection with the food Tabbouleh

“Israel has nothing to do with this dish. WikiProject Israel must be removed. They are stealing Arab foods and claiming it as theirs.”

He removed any Jewish or Israeli connection to the condiment without offering any explanation either at Talk or in the edit summary. He made the following edits. He removed Hebrew word for Shawarma with no explanation. Removed the categories of Jewish cuisine and Israeli Cuisine again without explanation and did precisely the same thing for the article Hummus yet again without explanation.

He then makes the following edits: reverts sourced material with edit summary of “No Jew in Qamishli.” He then repeats the revert here with the edit summary of “Removed vandalism.” Canvassing:Now let’s examine egregious canvassing. He contacted no less than 22 different editors in one day in an effort to help skew the Golan Heights article in a manner consistent with his POV. Canvassing:'Now let’s examine egregious canvassing efforts made while editing under (remove outing). He contacted no less than 22 different editors in one day in an effort to help skew the Golan Heights article in a manner consistent with his POV.(removed outing) Under the banner of “Help!” he notes the following on various editors talk pages

“Hello, I don't know who I should speak to about this important matter. The Golan article has been taking over by Israelis and they have removed everything mentioning an occupation and changed it to "disputed" They have also removed the "the neutrality of this article is disputed" that was on top of the article while it is written in a completely pro-Israeli way. Please do something about this!”

Link to (removed outing)

On May 31, 2009 SupremeD made this edit[186] with the comment “removed my own previous post” and reverts comments made by (removed outing).

Comment to administrators: The purpose of this AE is mostly to make your life easier by putting all the evidences about SD that appear in a few different AEs together. SD removed a part of it claiming outing. Although there was no outing, I will not re-post it. Admins could see it in deleted contributions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness

Comments by NickCT

This is spurious and frivolous arbitration over stuff which is essentially content dispute. There's no obvious obvious policy violation. Mbz1 really ought to be warned against this kind of wikilawyering. NickCT (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After passing my eye over some of the arbitration engaged in in the recent past, I'll add "retaliatory" to the list of adjectives I used to describe this arbitration attempt by Mbz1. NickCT (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RolandR

This complaint is based in large part on edits over a year old; in some instances, over two years old. These cannot possibly be in breach of sanctions introduced later. This complaint seems like a massive abuse of the arbitration enforcement process. RolandR (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

The battleground approach of SD is obvious from two cases above and SD's statements in relation to those cases. This case is just adding some context which may be useful for admins. - BorisG (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Misarxist

Claim that [187] "Removes all historical Jewish connections to the city of Gamla" blatantly miss-represents an edit (commented "Jews moved in there later") which removes the misleading "jewish city" from the lead.

Similarly the "theft" comments are about Israeli appropriation of arabic food being given undue prominence (ie a hebrew name in the lead, which was eventually removed.)

Much of the rest of this request is similarly disengenous (ie stuff from literally years ago, off-site stuff). Given nominators recent behaviour on this page it's probably time to consider a ban from AE or the topic as a whole.--Misarxist 16:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MalcolmMcDonald.

Per NickCT, retaliatory trivia. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Broccoli

After Factomancer posted message at her talk page, in which he wrote that "Jimbo wales encourages Israeli manipulation of Wikipedia, hoping for more donations from the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs, and that Wikipedia is openly hostile to Palestinians." Supreme Deliciousness responded to it: Powerful and truthful words here above." Broccoli (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

The vast majority of everything here is old stuff that has already been brought up before and that I have explained, there are some other things here also, and I promise that there is an appropriate explanation, since it involves outing me I can explain this through mail to any admin who wants an explanation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take you up on that offer if you'd email me at your convenience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness

Request rejected. The original poster has been indefinitely blocked.[188] There was an incident of attempted outing. Moreover, the above looks like rehash of old issues, and it also looks like a retaliatory filing (see two reports above filed by SD). Under these circumstances we definitely should not entertain this report. Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atabəy

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

Request concerning User:Atabəy

User requesting enforcement: Kansas Bear (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

[189] 1st revert
[190] 2nd revert

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

[191] Warning by Kansas Bear (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Up to the discretion of admins.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: As seen here[192], User:Atabəy reaction stems directly from the deletion of articles Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre, Agdaban massacre. His/her reaction has been to tag spam articles Maraghar Massacre and Kirovabad pogrom. Any attempt at adding references are met with revertion and the statement, "De Waal used HRW reference in his book, HRW says it is alleged"[193],[194]. This is in direct violation of AA2, which limits any Armenian-Azerbaijan article to 1RR.

I would also like to point out that User:Atabəy was one of the original editors involved in AA2 and therefore was clearly aware of his violation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [195]

Discussion concerning User:Atabəy

Statement by User:Atabəy

User:Kansas Bear claims that he warned me over: here for allegedly saying "De Waal is from Armenian sources", and then called it a battleground mentality. Yet, What I said on the talk page is the following (precisely): "The primary source citing them was Armenian eyewitness used by Human Rights Watch, which was quoted in De Waal's book". I don't see how telling this fact is considered a battleground mentality, so obviously Kansas Bear was grossly misinterpreting my words on talk page and assuming bad faith in making the warning he indicated above.

The whole issue with this case stems from the fact, User:MarshallBagramyan, a participant of A-A ArbCom cases, has initiated a deletion of Agdaban massacre, Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre pages. All three pages relate to factually established massacres of Azerbaijanis by Armenian forces in the course of Nagorno-Karabakh War. The deletion was carried out by supportive administrator User:Buckshot06, who did so without following any formal procedures, as indicated by administrator here. Also per User:Buckshot06's own admission here, his deletion was based solely on his personal impression of User:MarshallBagramyan and no other procedural or objective reasoning.

After lengthy discussion at [196], and requests to deleting administrator to undo the deletion, I followed admin suggestion and filed this case at WP:DRV, which concluded in an overturn of deleting administrator's action.

Thus the intimidating actions of User:MarshallBagramyan and supportive editors constitute a WP:BATTLE, clearly aimed at initiating the removal of factually-supported articles describing massacres of one side, while defending other articles, without sufficient research or discussion. Reviewing administrators are welcome to look into history of my edits in Maraghar Massacre article under discussion to find out that I placed notability tag and actually contributed well researched sources to the article. Most of the sources, previously used were misquoted, as can be easily seen by thorough review of Google Books references. So I did correct them providing exact URLs of quoted pages and added even more references as can be seen in summary diff of my edits.

The editors disputing my edits or filing this case have not contributed any reference to this article, neither sufficiently participated in Talk:Maraghar Massacre page, providing any reference whatsoever. Reverting User:Takabeg and User:Kansas Bear also did not provide sufficient comments on their edits on the talk page. The former left no comments actually, while the latter kept airing his opinion of me rather than article subject. I welcome the reviewers to look into the talk page to see all the facts.

I would like to still thank User:Kansas Bear for his warning on my talk page. However, I am not sure if Arbitration enforcement request was appropriate immediately after warning me and without further post-warning incidence. This request made by him actually defeats the purpose of his warning.

Thank you for your consideration. Atabəy (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning User:Atabəy

In addition to Kansas Bear's complaint, I would like to bring to the attention of the administrators that Atabey's overall activities over the past few days have been a major cause for concern. I will try to provide the background in as concise a way as possible: last week, an administrator named Buckshot08 took the decision to delete three controversial articles relating to this conflict region (Nagorno-Karabakh), which, in his opinion, were too poorly sourced and of otherwise dubious quality.

In probable retaliation to his decision, Atabey and another editor, Tuscumbia, struck at the article in question as well as on the Kirovabad Pogrom page, adding the same three tags (neutrality, unreliable source, notability) and using the same exact arguments which were used against the aforementioned articles prior to their deletion by Buckshot. I believe that Atabey's as well as Tuscumbia's actions are, therefore, clear-cut violations of WP:POINT, i.e., they are being carried out in retaliation to Buckshot08's decisions. They have been editing tendentiously and Atabey himself has implicitly admitted that they are being done in reaction to Buckshot08's actions. These problems have been highlighted and are elaborated more fully on the article's talk page here.

It should be noted that Atabey has been permabanned from several articles in the same area for some time now for virtually the same reasons.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin, but am not familiar with how the A-A editing restrictions have been applied historically, so will sit this one out. However, from looking at Atabəy's recent contributions I think that sanctions would be fully justified. He or she is plainly edit warring in sensitive topics covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions and their allegations about Buckshot06 (talk · contribs)'s actions being anything but those of an uninvolved admin are totally unjustified. Nick-D (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to look into WP:DRV discussion here, where the general conclusion is that three articles were removed by admin User:Buckshot06 without following proper deletion procedure. All I was trying to do is to restore encyclopedia articles which were targeted for removal by User:MarshallBagramyan. If you think my concern, found to be a legitimate at both DRV and ANI, is worth sanctions based on reporting and commentaries of contributors who got Buckshot06 into this in first place, that is your decision to make, of course. But frankly that would be very unfair. User:MarshallBagramyan clearly misled Buckshot06 to hastily remove 3 massacre articles as he wished, did not contribute a single source or reference to any article discussed, but just reverted them as did User:Kansas Bear, and now they have a free pass to get me into restriction for trying to actually contribute and improve all mentioned articles, including the ones I tagged for notability?

I do have doubts that uninvolved admin would revert my edit like this without any single comment on the talk page regarding the subject of revert. But assuming good faith, I fully understand Buckshot06's reaction, he was misled and got into criticism he did not deserve, and we all got overly sensitive about this issue. Atabəy (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning User:Atabəy

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 218: / Line 218: @@
 :::::::Now this is getting really funny. Consensus you say? One user agreed that some of what you included should be in the article, though even that user says that not all of it should. Another user says it should not be in there, another user raises a large number of problems, and another IP raises the same issues. Yet you claim to have consensus? Nobody except for you or mbz1 has said that my edits to Egypt fall in the ARBPIA topic area, in fact the one admin that has said anything about Egypt specifically has unequivocally said that they do not. So no, I have not violated my topic ban, and my edits to Egypt are not made "in spite of users' consensus". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 22:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
 ::::::::By the way, you are due for being reported of violating the 3RR rule on [[Talk:Egypt]]. If I report you will you call this retaliation as well? Some sort of an attempt to humiliate your adversaries maybe? --[[User:Lanternix|<span style = "color: #000066; padding: 3px;">λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ</span>]][[User_talk:Lanternix|<sup style = "color: #666666;">[talk]</sup>]] 22:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::::If you would like to file a report about your meatpuppeting for a banned user you are free to do so. But back to the less funny, but still very funny, part of this. So you say that if after being reverted by a user on one page, that if you follow that user to a completely different topic and revert them on a page you had never edited in the past, that is not retaliation? Do you know what the word retaliation means? ~~
+:::::::::If you would like to file a report about your meatpuppeting for a banned user you are free to do so. But back to the less funny, but still very funny, part of this. So you say that if after being reverted by a user on one page, that if you follow that user to a completely different topic and revert them on a page you had never edited in the past, that is not retaliation? Do you know what the word retaliation means? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 22:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
 ===Result concerning Nableezy===

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