Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Volunteer Marek

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Boothello (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Addition of Boothello as a user against whom enforcement is requested: Boothello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also been notified that the allegation by Volunteer Marek that his editing activity with respect to race and intelligence is single purpose and point of view is being investigated as a part of this request.[1] User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Decorum

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

Note: I'm aware that these diffs are spread over a long period, and that some of the older ones (especially the first one) ordinarily could be considered stale. However, what I'm trying to demonstrate is that Volunteer Marek's incivility and assumptions of bad faith have been an ongoing problem since he became involved in these articles around a month ago, and I think the only way to demonstrate this is with diffs spread over a long period.

April 14 Incivility: "Stay the hell off my talk page. You're not welcome here."
April 25 More incivility: "This "stability" argument is about the dumbest argument I've encountered on Wikipedia (not just here but in some other contexts as well)."
April 24 "Yes, the usual three involved editors, all with accounts which all became operational in October or November 2010, shortly after the Race and Intelligent ArbCom case closed, tag teaming on this and other articles." This comment is a way for Volunteer Marek to say that all of the editors who disagree with him on these articles are actually sockpuppets, without actually saying it.
April 26 "mustihussain, what would another arbitration case do? After it closes and bans and blocks are handed out, we'd just get a fresh crop of SPA accounts that pop up and pretend to be new to these articles, while the watchers loose interest." Another backhanded accusations that I and the other editors disagreeing with Marek are socks, without saying it directly or providing any evidence.
April 26 Volunteer Marek creates an acronym to use as a personal attack against the people who disagree with him: "YAR/IRSPA (Yet Another Race/Intelligence Recent SPA)" (This was his entire response to user:QuintupleTwist)
May 3 "Let me guess, next step is to claim "no consensus" because a bunch of created-right-after-end-of-Arb-Com-case-on-Race-and-Intelligence single purpose accounts will object no matter what." Volunteer Marek posted this comment while unreverting a revert of a contentious change he'd made, without trying to discuss it first. This was his justification for doing that: that the opinions of the editors who disagree with his changes don't matter because of who we are.
May 3 Referring to his previous comment, when his changes were reverted a second time: "And did I call it right, or did I call it right?", while linking to the diff of the revert. Note that contrary to Volunteer Marek's claim, the person who reverted him (User:SightWatcher) is not a single-purpose account. The majority of Sightwatcher's participation is in articles about books and movies: [2]
May 5, May 5 Both of these whole comments are uncivil, but one good example from the second diff is him referring to my own point as "nonsense" and saying "cut the nonsense". Also note in the first diff his again lumping of Sightwatcher into the group that he calls "created-right-after-end-of-Arb-Com-case-on-Race-and-Intelligence single purpose accounts", even though the majority of Sightwatcher's participation is outside this topic area.

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

Warned on August 8 by Sandstein (talk · contribs) about making attacks against other editors unsupported by evidence (at the time Volunteer Marek was known as Radeksz, but that username now redirects to his current user page). This warning was an enforcement action for a separate arbitration case, but it was for the same type of behavior at issue here. On August 10, Sandstein blocked him for continuing this behavior.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It might be helpful for admins to read some of the discussions that Volunteer Marek has been involved in on the talk page of the race and intelligence article. Apart from his incivility, there has been a lot of discussion there about his disregard for the WP:BRD process. When he makes a change to the article with which others disagree, and which is reverted, instead of waiting to discuss it with other editors he immediately reinstates it. For example: [3] and then [4], or [5] and then [6] Volunteer Marek explained in diff #6 above why he does not think he needs to engage in discussion with the editors who disagree with him before reinstating his changes: he disregards our opinions because we haven't been registered for long enough. When I linked him to WP:REVERTING to try and show him that it goes against normal BRD process for him to reinstate changes that have been reverted without waiting for discussion, his response was that he ignores this essay because it was "written by what looks like a clueless naive 12 year old."

By constantly harping on the fact that I (and a few other editors who disagree with him) registered within a few months after the R&I arbitration case, and saying that this discounts our opinions and entitles him to reinstate his changes if we revert them, Volunteer Marek is implying that he thinks we're sockpuppets. If we weren't sockpuppets, how long we've been registered wouldn't be a valid reason for him to do this. Marek could start an SPI if he really believes this, but he's never done so. Instead, he's responded by belittling the editors who disagree with him, and reinstating his changes when we revert them. This makes working collaboratively with him almost impossible.

As linked above, in August Sandstein warned and then blocked Volunteer Marek aka Radeskz for similar behavior. Quoting Sandstein's explanation for the block: "As Russavia's statement correctly notes, the request is additionally disruptive in that it makes veiled allegations of what sounds like serious misconduct on the part of Russavia ("I'm pretty sure something else is going on here which I do not care to discuss on Wiki") without offering any (onwiki) evidence. This is a serious problem given that the Committee, at WP:EEML#Improper coordination and WP:EEML#Radeksz, found that Radeksz has previously been engaged in similar misconduct, and that I yesterday warned Radeksz not to make serious allegations against others without useful evidence." Volunteer Marek's veiled accusation that everyone who disagrees with him on these articles are sockpuppets seems to be a continuation of the same behavior for which Sandstein blocked him.

Response to Marek

Two main points for now:

Part of Marek's argument here seems to be "my conduct was fine because I was right as far as content is concerned," and that there was no reason to remove the content that he added except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to address content disputes here. But if we're going to discuss content, it needs to be pointed out that most of the content added by Marek was eventually opposed by the majority of editors who have been involved in the article for a lot longer than me or Marek. In the example he mentioned involving the Pioneer Fund, the content he added was opposed by Maunus [7] VsevelodKrolikov, [8] and Victor Chmara [9] Admins can see from reading these diffs what the reasons were for removing this material, and that it was not just because of "no consensus." As Maunus and Victor Chmara explained, the problem is that all of these researchers have many different affiliations, and it isn't neutral to single out the Pioneer Fund and mention none of their other affiliations. Marek has not made any attempt to respond to this argument. His characterizing the reasons for removing this material as IDONTLIKEIT, and ignoring the actual reasons that were given, is a good example of the attitude that makes working collaboratively with him difficult.

Marek does not seem consistent about whether or not can assume good faith about the newish editors that he listed. For the purpose of this report, he says he doesn't know whether we're editing in good faith or not. However, in diff #4 he referred to a "crop of SPA accounts that pop up and pretend to be new to these articles" - what does it mean for us to "pretend" to be new if he isn't claiming that we're trying to conceal earlier involvement under different names? More importantly, in diffs #3 and #6 he used the fact that we registered somewhat recently as a justification to discount our opinions and to unrevert any time one of us reverts him. If treating an editor this way because of how long they've been registered isn't an assumption of bad faith, then it's WP:BITE behavior, which is just as bad.

Response to Piotrus

In light of the history of this topic area, I can somewhat understand suspicion about new editors. That said, if submitting to an SPI is necessary to clear my name, then that's fine. My status as an "SPA" is due mostly due to the fact that this relates to my area of study at university, and it's a topic area that clearly could benefit from improvement. I was not aware at first that SPAs are frowned upon here and I'm still not entirely sure why they are. But given that they are, I recently received some advice from Maunus to try and edit in other topics a bit, which I intend to follow if time and interest permits. As for my knowledge about the history of this topic area and policy in general, these things are not difficult to learn by reading and researching page histories, user contributions, block logs, and the many DR processes that have taken place in this topic area, including (obviously) the big R&I arbitration case. Learning how to lay out an AE thread is pretty easy when you read the page on it and then look at the formatting and procedure for prior threads.

Even so, I do not believe my editing to be tendentious. This is my area of study, but I am not socially or politically invested in the topic. I have been very careful to remain calm and civil, and I've never reverted anything more than twice in a 24-hour period. As I pointed out previously, my standpoint regarding Marek's insertion of the PF line was supported by several other seasoned, respected, non SPA-editors. If anyone can offer me specific advice for how to improve my editing or conduct, rather than just nebulous accusations of POV-pushing or tendentiousness, I will certainly listen.

Additional comments

Since there seems to be some suspicion about my level of experience with Wikipedia in general, I should mention that I lurked here (and sometimes edited) for a long time before creating this account. I’m a reformed former vandal. I was previously active as the IP 24.60.23.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and since July 2009 I used to mess around on various articles making edits that should have been in the sandbox. I didn't want to get into this because of possible outing issues, but the majority of my Wikipedia knowledge comes from a college class wherein the professor was encouraging us to learn how to use Wikipedia kind of similar to these projects WP:SUP but with less direct involvement. So I registered an account and stopped vandalizing, although until last month my roommate still occasionally used this IP for less than stellar edits. Last month I asked him to stop, so there should be no more vandalism from this IP from now on.

If anyone does not believe that this IP is me, there are a few edits from it such as [10] and [11] where I meant to post from my account but forgot to log in. I did not first become active at Wikipedia in November 2010. As can be seen from the IP's contributions, I have been here since July 2009. November 2010 is when I registered an account, stopped vandalizing, and began trying to actually improve articles here. It's more than a little frustrating that this change of heart is causing more suspicion, not less. I would like to edit the topic area I know best. I am a psychology student and a radio producer in Boston, and I'd like to keep Wikipedia separate from real life. It's frankly a bit ridiculous that accusations are being leveled at me because I know how to use proper formatting etc. As I said before, if you want to start an SPI, please feel free.

Comments on Volunteer Marek's content editing

I hoped this AE thread would be a fairly brief matter of getting Volunteer Marek warned for incivility. But now that it's turning into something more complicated, and Fred Bauder wants to look into whether POV-pushing has been happening, I think we also need to discuss Volunteer Marek's content editing patterns.

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] These are five edits on five different articles, in which Marek has added the same accusation against the Pioneer Fund to every article he's participated in that mentions it. I don't have any reason to doubt that the sources support this material, but adding the exact same accusation of racism to five different articles is borderline soapboxing. Additionally, although on the J. Philippe Rushton article this information is presented as criticism of Rushton (it's mentioned in the same sentence that Rushton is the fund's current president), several of these sources don't mention Rushton, or mention him only in passing without criticizing him. Using a source as criticism of a living person, when the source does not actually criticize that person, smacks of WP:SYNTHESIS. I explained this in more detail on the talk page here. With this in mind, I tried removing the sources that don't mention Rushton and changed the material to match the remaining sources that actually are criticizing him, but as usual Marek immediately reinstated his material.

Marek has also added similar accusations of racism against individuals rather than institutions. [17] [18] As can be seen from their articles, Hans Eysenck and Corrado Gini are known for a lot more than racism and eugenics, but the most negative information available about them is the only information that Marek thinks is worth mentioning. In Eysenck's case, at least one other (uninvolved) person has complained to Marek about this in his user talk: [19] [20]

But when there is well-sourced information defending these individuals or institutions? Marek removed that. [21] [22] I think the second edit is especially telling because this information had previously been in the article for months, and Marek's rationale for removing it was completely nonsensical. The source for the information that he removed is Ullica Segerstrale, who is a very well-respected academic, and nobody considers her "crazy."

No doubt Marek could come up with an individual justification for some of these edits, but what matters is the overall pattern, and the pattern is not hard to see. The apparent purpose of Marek's involvement in this topic area is to add accusations of racism against individuals and institutions that support viewpoints he doesn't like. Also sometimes to remove sourced content that defends them or makes accusations against people with whom he agrees. The material that he adds is usually supported by the sources, but the sources are also always polemical, and as Fred Bauder pointed out, his argument for including it is generally just "it's in the book."

Marek's editing looks like a mirror image of Miradre, who tried to add material defending these individuals and sometimes removed well-sourced criticism of them. The main differences are that Miradre was more civil than Marek, he was an SPA, and as Tijfo098 pointed out Miradre also made some unequivocally useful contributions in this topic area. Ultimately, Miradre's editing was judged to be tendentious enough that he was warned for it. [23] If AE ends up concluding that Miradre's behavior warranted a warning but that Marek's doesn't, it is going to cast some doubt on whether AE can neutrally enforce policy without showing favoritism toward individuals based on what their viewpoint is.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[24]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Sigh. Boothello has been engaged in tendentious editing related to Race and Intelligence. He has repeatedly removed well-sourced content from these article based solely on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT grounds:

removing sourced content, falsely pretending that discussion on talk has resolved the issue (subsequent RfC did - against Boothello
removing reliably sourced content under pretense of "no consensus", along with this [25] and this, this constitutes slow motion edit-warring.
Canvassing [26] [27]. The phrasing Edits like this [28] which I reverted, and other edits on articles in this topic area like these [29] [30] (which I brought up on the talk and tried to explain what's a problem with them) would benefit from having another set of eyes on them. is pretty much an indirect, and somewhat sneaky way of asking these users for tag-team reverts. Note that while User:SightWatcher was not canvassed on-Wiki as far as I can see, he did in fact show up soon after and make this revert [31].
removing relevant and well sourced info
removing sourced content based on original research presented at talk and "I don't like it"
[32] [33] [34] removing sourced content, despite numerous sources provided on talk [35]. Here is the RfC where every uninvolved editor disagreed with Boothello [36].
removing sourced content.
misleading edit summary. Note that Boothello calls an assertion unsourced, removes some texts, re-inserts the assertion way down in the article and then sources it. This looks more like removing text and trying to hide it within an article.
weaseling and pov pushing. Note that the inserted statement, AFAIK, is also untrue. Horowitz didn't defend the book itself, just the right to publish it.
removing reliably sourced content under false pretenses with a misleading edit summary. Boothello removes two paragraphs claiming that "Eugenics.org" is a self published source. This is true, but there's three or four other sources in those two paragraphs. More over - these are reviews of the book so using the actual reviews (i.e. "self-published" in a book by a particular author) makes sense.
POV pushing, poisoning the well - an attempt to suggest that the only people who have disagreed with a piece of racist research have been "Marxists".
removing sourced content per IDON'TLIKEIT. This time the pretext is that this is an image - correct thing to do would've been to expand article text, as the image is clearly relevant and caption well sourced.

(placeholder for more diffs)

Out of the specific accusations provided above:

1. I get to decide which comments stay on my talk page and which don't. In this particular instance, I had just told this particular editor that I did not wish to have any interaction with him [37]. He then came and posted on my talk page. I removed it. To put it quite simply, since this is the "Race and Intelligence" topic area, there's some people that I simply do not wish to interact with because of the views they hold. I can't completely avoid that on article talk pages, but there is no reason why I need to provide my own talk page as another forum for their views.

2. Is not a personal attack directed at anyone in particular, but simply my view on this whole "stability" argument (and it is a dumb argument - I can find half a dozen Wikipedia pages that have been "stable" for a long time but which are total junk)

3-6. This is about me stating the easily verifiable fact that virtually all accounts, including Boothello, on the so-called "herediterian" side of this dispute have been started soon after the conclusion of the Race & Intelligence case, and pretty much all of them stick to editing articles related to Race and Race issues (notwithstanding a few "legitimizing" edits in other topics made once in a while to justify their presence). I will address that in a bit more detail below, but for now, just note that nowhere did I state that these guys are sock puppets. That's just Boothello's imagination - but I am not responsible for that. Honestly, I have no idea whether these are sock puppets, meat puppets or "clean starters" or even folks who just accidentally happened to start their account just as the R&I case was concluding.

Please also note, that my comments here, though I was not explicit about it at the time, were also motivated by the fact that I was aware that Boothello has been canvassing some of these very accounts to intervene on the article on his behalf [38], [39]. It was soon after these canvassing posts were left on these users' pages that SightWatcher showed up.

7. This has been the tactic employed by the above accounts. When an edit they don't like is made, even if it is well cited to a reliable source, one of them removes it citing "no consensus". If someone else restores the edit, then they cycle through and revert always claiming "no consensus". No matter what is said, what kind of argument is made, what kind of sources are provided it's always "no consenus". There isn't a chance at all that they will agree to any kind of edit that is critical of the herediterian view which holds that Blacks are just naturally, genetically, dumber than Whites on these articles. So there's always "no consensus", even if the text being added is cited to very reliable sources.

8. Note that Boothello was actually the first person to use the designation "nonsense" in a bad faith misrepresentation of my edits. I stated that he should not remove text cited to reliable sources. He replied "oh so you're saying that you can add any old nonsense to the article you want". See the problem with that line of argument? He then said that I was saying that "all herediterians have connections with the Pioneer Fund" (a racist organization). This is false - what I said was that all the people listed in the lede had connections with the Pioneer Fund, which they did (and the source specifically discussed their affiliation with the organization). So he was misrepresenting what I was saying. For like a third or fourth time in the row. My patience was running thin, true - but there's no incivility in my post. (I also suggest reading the first diff provided here, which describes the situation quite well I think)

Response to "additional comments"

All this shows is that after somebody removed well sourced text without discussion and for what looked like IDON'TLIKEIT reasons I restored it. Let me stress again that this was sourced text, faithful to the source. The actual problem is with editors who continuously remove sourced text, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:TE.

WP:REVERTING is in fact an essay, and one which I disagree with. Here's another essay I disagree with: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert. This essay I find pretty pointless: Wikipedia:About essay searching. On the other hand, here is an essay I find particularly relevant to this discussion: Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (#1 check, #2 check, #3 sort of check, #4 check, #5 really big check, #6 even bigger check, #7 let others decide if that's a check, #8 ok, not really a check, #9 check, #10 well that'd be this very report). Also see WP:SFoD (that's one of mine)

The final part of Boothello's statement is nothing but poisoning the well and is completely irrelevant here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R/I Case and new SPA accounts

The Race and Intelligence Arbitration Case ended at the end of August, 2010 [40]

Boothello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (filer) - account created Nov 8, 2010. 164 edits [41]. 99% of them related to race and intelligence.
SightWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - account created Oct 12, 2010. 439 edits [42]. First 15 edits not related to Race and Intelliegence, but then jumps in head first. True, about 200 of the edits are non-Race and Intelligence related. But the nature of the edits which are speaks for itself and folks can draw their own conclusions.
Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - account created Oct 10, 2010. 5968 edits [43]. I can't find a single edit which is not Race/Intelligence related.
174.97.236.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - first edit March 11, 2011, but this being an IP it's impossible to say when the person became active. All edits related to Race and Intelligence.
QuintupleTwist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - first edit January 2011. All but 9 edits related to Race/Intelligence.
71.65.235.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - first edit Dec 10, 2010. 50+ edits. All of them on Race/Intelligence [44]

There are also several other users/accounts which had also been created shortly after the ArbCom R/I case and which have edited pretty much R/I articles but since they are not mentioned in this report above I do not think it's necessary to bring them into this.

Of the above, Boothello and Miradre were in fact created soon after the conclusion of the ArbCom case and do edit exclusively on Race/Intelligence topics. SightWatcher was also created soon after the conclusion of the ArbCom case. He actually edits in two areas - films and Race/Intelligence, but his connection to this particular topic area is well known. The other two users are of more recent vintage but are also focused exclusively on R/I topics with the same POV as others.

Hence my characterization above was pretty much correct. Note, again, I did not say that any of these were sock puppets. I'm not a checkuser so I have no way of knowing. They could be. They could be meat puppets. They could be new recruits resulting from the ArbCom case itself. They could be "clean starters" - users who had not been sanctioned but who abandoned their old accounts to have a "clean start" (perfectly within policy ... unless same old conflicts arise). I guess there is a chance that one account was just accidentally created at this particular time. But the probability that all of these, or even just those 3, accounts were created just as the R/I case closed simply by coincidence is very very low. (If the probability of a single new account appearing at this particular time is, say, 25% (which would be HUGE - more like 5%), then the probability that all three appeared at this particular time would be only 1.56%). It is what it is and there's no sense of Boothello trying to shoot the messenger here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see this discussion [45] and specifically these comments by Shell Kinney [46] [47] as they relate to the incidence of meat puppetry in this area. In fact, Shell stated in regard to some of the known meat-puppets in this area: They've not been blocked because we want to give them a chance to become editors in their own right... but if they continue with their disputes or other issues in the topic area, they will be banned from the topic area as well. Best I can make out from the discussion, this statement applies to SightWatcher in particular - who obviously "continues with the disputes or other issues in the topic area" - but probably also other editors of that kind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fred All books and sources have a POV, that's never been (nor should it be) a criteria for inclusion. The criteria is whether or not a source is reliable, which here, it is. Also, it's pretty common knowledge within the field that the people listed in the text are all associated with the Pioneer Fund. For each individual a half dozen sources - many "less POV" then this one you're objecting to - could be found. The source I used in particular had the advantage of discussing ALL of these individuals in one place simultaneously. So by using it I was making sure that nobody tries to accuse me of violating WP:SYNTH.

I would also like to point out that I was quite amenable to different wording and, of course, to the inclusion of other non-PF names into the text. At the same time, there is a group of researchers who are associated with an organization that has been often been labeled as "racist", this is an article on "Race and Intelligence", some of the editors involved often try to pass of the works of these researchers as reliable or outright promote them on Wikipedia - for all these reasons, the association of these individuals with PF is a very important piece of info.

But this is something to be discussed on the talk page of the article not here. The new SPA accounts which took over right where the editors who got banned in the R&I case left off have been shown lots and lots of patience. Some of them have admitted to having edited before, while others were shown to be meat puppets of banned editors (see the AN/I thread I linked to above, as well as Shell's comment). I do think that if articles in this area are ever going to be cleaned up, or at least, cleaned up before they end up making Wikipedia look like a laughing stock and a forum for scientific racism, then, yes, a bit of boldness is needed. Allow me to point out that boldness, and being critical, is not the same as incivility which is the basis for this report, but which I did not engage in.

Oh yeah, I might as well point out that technically, I was never notified of the R&I discretionary sanctions, but, you know what, I'm not gonna Wikilawyer that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Boothello's second statement

All the diffs provided by Bh (by Maunus, Vsevolod and Victor) came later on, long after I made any edits to the article. Furthermore Maunus is speaking in general - that PF shouldn't be overemphasized - not that that particular mention of PF was incorrect.

WP:AGF and WP:BITE are not supposed to be a cover for suspicious behavior. There is in fact a history of meat-puppetry in this topic area [48] and WP:DUCK applies.

And to the third

I see that I'm gonna have to waste more of my time responding to Boothello's spurious accusations. Let's see...

[106] [107] [108] [109] [110] These are five edits on five different articles, in which Marek has added the same accusation against the Pioneer Fund to every article he's participated in that mentions it. I don't have any reason to doubt that the sources support this material, but adding the exact same accusation of racism to five different articles is borderline soapboxing. - yes I added roughly the same information to five different articles. Yes, in each case it was highly relevant and important to the topic. Yes, the sources most certainly support the material. No, this is not soapboxing, Boothello does not seem to know what soapboxing is.
several of these sources don't mention Rushton, or mention him only in passing without criticizing him. Using a source as criticism of a living person, when the source does not actually criticize that person, smacks of WP:SYNTHESIS. I explained this in more detail on the talk page here. With this in mind, I tried removing the sources that don't mention Rushton and changed the material to match the remaining sources that actually are criticizing him, but as usual Marek immediately reinstated his material. - no, that's not what happened. I listed about a dozen sources to back it up on the talk page [49]. I didn't think it necessary to add the whole dozen to the article (to make it look like this [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) so I just picked two or so. Because one (out of a dozen) of the sources is criticizing PF in general (of which Rushton is a the head) and not Rushton specifically Boothello's made a big deal out of it, accused me of SYNTH and completely ignored the other sources I provided. An RFC was opened [50], at least three editors agreed with me and not with Boothello [51]. Why is this being brought up here? If anything this is evidence of Boothello's IDIDN'THEARTHAT attitude.
Marek has also added similar accusations of racism against individuals rather than institutions. [111] [112] As can be seen from their articles, Hans Eysenck and Corrado Gini are known for a lot more than racism and eugenics, but the most negative information available about them is the only information that Marek thinks is worth mentioning. - yet another total misrepresentation (and yes, I am getting quite irritated by this). I did not add accusations of racism to Eysenck's and Gini's articles, where, I agree it might be undue. However, Eysenck's and Gini's views on race are very relevant in an article related to Race & Intelligence. This is common sense. The "complaint" Boothello links to wasn't much of a complaint - hell, the person leaving it qualified it with a statement feel free to disregard, as I don't know the full context).
Marek removed that. [115] [116] I think the second edit is especially telling because this information had previously been in the article for months, and Marek's rationale for removing it was completely nonsensical. The source for the information that he removed is Ullica Segerstrale, who is a very well-respected academic, and nobody considers her "crazy." - alright. I'm starting to get pissed now. This is the second time that Boothello is repeating this, after I explained it to him already, which means he is knowingly misrepresenting facts - i.e. blatantly lying. Here is my explanation to Boothello [52] Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my statement. I didn't say Ullica Segerstrale was part of the "crazy part" of the ideological spectrum. What I said is that all kinds of non-crazy people - not just those associated with Marxism - have criticized this racist research. What I obviously meant was that maybe Marxists were "crazy" (according to some) but they were not the only ones criticizing racist research. (This was in response to this comment from Boothello [53] in which he calls my edit summary "nonsensical" - exactly what he thinks is "incivil" if I do it). He responded to this comment [54], hence he saw it and saw my explanation. Yet, he tries to misrepresent it again here. How does one have an honest conversation with such a person?
No doubt Marek could come up with an individual justification for some of these edits, but what matters is the overall pattern - no, the overall pattern is the sum of its parts. And every single one of these edits is legitimate, and article-improving. Boothello is misrepresenting them.
The apparent purpose of Marek's involvement in this topic area is to add accusations of racism against individuals and institutions that support viewpoints he doesn't like. - uh, the apparent purpose of my involvement in this topic area (a topic area called RACE AND INTELLIGENCE) is to add information on the racist views held by racist individuals - and that ain't me calling anyone racist, it's multitudes of reliable sources. Boothello and his friends try to remove this information per IDON'TLIKEIT. But yes, I don't "like" these viewpoints. Does anyone here like these viewpoints?
sources are also always polemical - bullshit. At most the one source mentioned by Fred was "polemical" (yet still reliable). Boothello is making things up; note this is completely unbacked by any kind of evidence.
Marek's editing looks like a mirror image of Miradre - I can take that as either a personal attack or a compliment. I'm just gonna ignore it.

As it may be apparent from my statement above, I consider Boothello's newest batch of accusations to be extremely manipulative, misrepresentative, false and in a few places seemingly purposefully so. Below Fred suggested filing an AE report on other editors so that their behavior can be examined. Since I think these kind of tactics are fairly representative of Boothello's general behavior in this topic area, my response above, along with other evidence, can very well be made into an AE report, unless, per BorisG, this is dealt with here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek

Comments by Piotrus

I find it very curious that Boothello (talk · contribs), an account with <500 edits that begun editing only half a year ago (November 7, 2010) is displaying such an extensive knowledge of our our DR/AE policies to be able to fill in such a detailed report, worthy of an experienced Wikipedian. I see that up till now he has only commented on AE once, and did not comment in any other Wikipedia namespace other than two AfDs. The user has never commented in the Wikipedia talk namespace. His user talk namespace interactions are very limited, dating only to this April, and numbering <20 edits. Despite that, Boothello reports has diffs, links, uses WP:ABBREVIATIONS, templates (user), and shows he understand DR well enough to research and present history of sanctions against a user who has had a (sanctioned) name change. I am not familiar with the Race and Intelligence case, but I'd strongly advise the admins to investigate this as a SPI sock; ditto for QuintupleTwist (talk · contribs) (WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE is quite loud here).

At the same time, I'd advise VM to be less forthcoming with accusing others of being SPIs on regular discussion pages. If concerns arise, I'd suggest bringing them to a DR forum and/or consulting with admin who knows how to handle SPIs first. Commenting on a talk page does little rather than inflame the situation and give ammunition to the culprits, who can (as here) try to claim they have been "personally attacked" (by being called for what they are...but in the wrong place...sigh). Per DUCK/SPADE, I'd hope that admins here would focus on taking care of the ban-evading SPIs rather than shooting the messenger. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Boothello's response. You write: "If anyone can offer me specific advice for how to improve my editing or conduct...". Simply, trying to talk things over through mediation would be much nicer then launching an AE, which suggests bad faith and an attempt to win a dispute through administrative procedures. (Not saying that all or most AE requests are like that, but they usually involve editors previously sanctioned in specific areas, which does not apply to either of you, AFAIK). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by aprock

I think the most discouraging aspect of this case is the mention of sloth and laziness. The enforcement of disruptive behavior evidenced by egregious policy violations has never been a serious problem. Obvious problem editors are handled properly and effectively. The problem is that this topic is plagued by WP:CPUSH editors. This has generally taken the form of non-neutral single purpose editors who advocate for promoting their own viewpoint through the misuse of sources. While edit warring is one tactic taken by these editors, the more problematic behavior is the persistent pov pushing and incessant over emphasis on controversial sources.

I appreciate that actually going to the talk page to review the behavior of all parties requires a non-trivial amount of time and energy, but when faced with the problem of civil pov pushing WP:CPUSH, simple diffs are not going to be sufficient to communicate the extent of disruption. In that vein, instead of offering diffs, I suggest that any admin wishing to review the situation read the talk page at Race and intelligence, specifically:

I realize that's a fair amount of reading to undertake. But that's one aspect of civil pov pushing. By creating mountains of discussion without moving forward in a collaborative way, ignoring policy, and ignoring editors, disruption can be cloaked. When I have a chance, I'll go back and give a brief summary of all the sections above to at least aid in separating some of the signal and noise.

Note, that there are a lot of editors that participated in the above discussions. I think the behavior of all participating editors, including myself, should be scrutinized, and that any disruptive behavior handled appropriately. aprock (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Vecrumba

The R&I articles have long been an area of contention. I have not been active there for a while, however, generally speaking my participation there was seen as thoughtful and constructive. I regret that looking at Boothello's edit history and command of WP:ALPHABETSOUP they appear to be someone returning to R&I under a new persona, and the attempt to control content through AE requests points, equally, to a veteran of past R&I conflicts. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fred Bauder

The discussion on the talk page, Talk:Race_and_intelligence#all_of_them_ARE_in_fact_associated_with_PF of the disputed edit seems quite incomplete in that a number of obvious alternatives were not discussed. The title, "all of them ARE in fact associated with PF", chosen by Volunteer Marek, is quite argumentative so the conversation kind of gets off on the wrong foot. The source, The race gallery: the return of racial science, obviously has a debunking point of view which seeks to characterize research in this area and link it to discredited ideology. These and other considerations, such as Pioneer Fund being the source of most funding for research could all be considered with respect to how to characterize the role of Pioneer Fund and those associated with it and the research and researchers it has funded. Volunteer Marek is not being very patient and seems unwilling to consider alternatives. He is presumably correct that the material is in a book, but it is a POV book, thus raising questions about how to handle the sourced "fact" which need to be discussed patiently and at length, not short-circuited by a simple assertion that "It's in the book". Editing in an emotionally and politically charged area such as race and intelligence may require more patience than Volunteer Marek has and a topic ban might be appropriate it that is, in fact, found to be the case. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of simply removing a sourced reference either, on the ground that there is no "consensus"; the last I heard reality is not determined by consensus. The role of the Pioneer Fund seems significant and some researchers are associated with it; the question is how to integrate that sourced information into the article in an appropriate way; for example, in a section rather than in the lead, or with qualifying language such as many researchers are associated with or funded by the Pioneer Fund. Bottom line, it's not black and white and if someone can't get beyond black and white thinking they probably should not be trying to edit the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Race and intelligence talk page notice is at the top of Talk:Race_and_intelligence. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However it is possible you have not received a proper warning as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Warnings. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are meatpuppetss and SPAs that needs to be dealt with here, not by adopting an ugly attitude. Reasonable courtesy and good faith is required by the specific terms of the arbitration decision. Being unable to definitely link new accounts to the accounts banned from the topic by the arbitration decision is not a barrier to enforcing those bans on new SPA accounts, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_Ted_Kennedy#Sockpuppets. Hard as may be to maintain it, a user needs to have sufficient faith in administrators' integrity to bring problems up here, not take an attitude that nothing will be done. Engaging in aggressive behavior with the excuse that nothing has been done or would be done when you yourself have done nothing is not acceptable. If you think there are special purpose accounts who are or should be subject to the topic bans imposed on this area bring it up here. Each individual account should receive a warning regarding aggressive tendentious editing in this area by special purpose accounts. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is an essay, not policy. No one is obligated to "respect" it or conform to it. However, when someone is encountered who thinks it's a good way to proceed, it may be wise to try it out. It may work well with them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Boothello

Boothello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began editing November 8, 2010, a few months after the decision in the arbitration case was finalized. His first few edits, all in areas related to race are wikignomish but display a sophisticated knowledge of simply Wikipedia templates. Obviously the account is an alternative account of an experienced Wikipedia editor. 02:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Boothello's explanation of the sudden appearance of his account is accepted the question remains as to whether edits by Boothello have been so disruptive that standard discretionary sanctions should be applied, see Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Case_amendments. I think analysis of their editing patter viewed a whole is required. But perhaps I making too much work out of it. Some egregious examples of POV or disruptive editing might settle the matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

@Fred: I am not sure filing of separate cases is necessary. There is a warning at the top of this page that if you come here with unclean hands you will bear the consequencies, and that the record of ALL parties will be scrutinised. Thus the record of Boothello can and should be scrutinised here and now. Third parties can be handled separately. I suggest to VM to submit, at the bottom of his statement, a concise evidence regarding Boothello to be examined by admins. Not necessarily by Fred. Does this make sense? - BorisG (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothello: your latest statement about your prior history just confirms that suspicions of your past involvement with Wikipedia were not unfounded. I know nothing about this topic and its history, and so cannot judge whether this clears up your entire story (though you do sound convincing). But given your own admitted history, filing a case against an established editor on the grounds of borderline incivility does not seem like a wise move. Rather it looks like an attempt to solve a content dispute by banning an opposing editor. While VM could indeed be advised to be more careful with summary allegations, you don't show yourself in a good light, in my view. - BorisG (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning other accounts that Volunteer Marek alleges are editing disruptively

Until specific allegations have been made and notification made comment is inappropriate.

SightWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - account created Oct 12, 2010. 439 edits [55]. First 15 edits not related to Race and Intelliegence, but then jumps in head first. True, about 200 of the edits are non-Race and Intelligence related. But the nature of the edits which are speaks for itself and folks can draw their own conclusions.
Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - account created Oct 10, 2010. 5968 edits [56]. I can't find a single edit which is not Race/Intelligence related.

I initially had a good impression of Miradre because of him cleaning up some unverifiable statements at Ashkenazi intelligence; and so had other editors it seems. On the other hand, Miradre's insistence on removing accusations of racism from J. Philippe Rushton seemed suspicious. It's true that he only argued to remove indirect accusations, but I had little trouble finding direct ones myself. [57] (supported by the sources already cited in the article) Tijfo098 (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No specific allegations have been made with respect to Miradre and no notification of this proceeding has been given to Miradre. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

174.97.236.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - first edit March 11, 2011, but this being an IP it's impossible to say when the person became active. All edits related to Race and Intelligence.
QuintupleTwist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - first edit January 2011. All but 9 edits related to Race/Intelligence.
71.65.235.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - first edit Dec 10, 2010. 50+ edits. All of them on Race/Intelligence [58]

Comments by Mathsci

I requested an SPI/CU on QuintupleTwist at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. He has been identified as an indefinitely blocked user Bob19842 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with site-banned Mikemikev as the likely puppetmaster of both accounts. So presumably that account will soon be blocked indefinitely.
Recently issues have arisen off-wiki connected with the accounts of SightWatcher and Ferahgo the Assassin. I have forwarded details to Shell Kinney as well as the arbitration committee mailing list. Mathsci (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Miradre stopped editing on 22 April after a period of intense activity. She/he had a logged notification of WP:ARBR&I from 2over0. [59]. There was a recent extensive discussion [60] about Miradre's editing on this noticeboard (pace Tijfo098's comments above), No action was taken because it was unclear whether WP:ARBR&I applied to articles like Race and crime. Clarification was later sought from ArbCom, who passed a motion as a result. Mathsci (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

Proposed result, please comment

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) is warned that he may be banned from editing with respect to the topic of race and intelligence if he fails to extend good faith and reasonable courtesy to others who edit with relationship to that topic. He is required to bring complaints about alleged special purpose accounts or established accounts who he feels are engaged in aggressive tendentious editing the topic of race and intelligence which violate the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Remedies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or some other appropriate forum. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page:

Disappointed:

You know, Fred, I always thought you were one of the more clear minded and big picture guys around here, but this is disappointing. You are picking up on a good editor, and ignoring the SPI/sock issues. This is very much "lets focus on the letter of the policies and ignore their spirit and the good of the project" bureaucratic attitude ("I don't care if you discovered a terrorist nuclear plot, you filled in the wrong form to report this and you'll be fined for that") that I did not expect from you :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but I plead sloth: it is easy to determine that Volunteer Marek is being rude; it is hard work to determine if a number of other accounts are violating the arbitration decision in a broad way, especially when Volunteer Marek is not naming names and providing evidence. And by the way, 24 is a TV program. Controversy regarding race and intelligence is not time limited, in fact, it appears to be perpetual. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

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

Request concerning Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

At administrator's discretion

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor is just out of their yet another topic ban and back home to pattern of WP:DE. While in topic ban the editor did not produce any significant contribution to the project. The editor disregards civility and engaged in slow motion WP:EW denying WP:Consensus and WP:BRD as appropriate WP:DR procedure, which might appear as WP:GAMING. The disruption which spells WP:IDHT is across multiple articles in I/P topic area, though I have gathered diffs for Ramot and Quds Day article, where East Jerusalem is pushed as a fact into the lede.

I am involved in Ramot. EJ is pushed as a fact location, where actually the source used as ref "They began planting neighborhoods such as Ramot Allon on annexed West Bank land..." says West Bank.

Long discussion follows, during which the editor prefers to discuss contributors and not contribution. Finally stating: BRD is an essay, it has no special status that allows you to choose the lead. "No consensus" is not a valid reason to revert. I ask again, do you have any sources that contradict the many sources that say the settlement is in EJ? The final revert WP:ES is typical: this is silly, you havent given any sources disputing any aspect of the lead. brd is not a tool to filibuster any movement of the article

Similar edit pattern could be seen at Quds Day, where I have never been involved, the editor is pushing East Jerusalem into the lede.

Long discussion, involving 3rd opinion intervention, the discussion is disregarded.

Notification to editor of this discussion

Due diligence: Initially I've been WP:SPA and have WP:EW history at Gaza War with editor in question. Topic ban which since expired helped me to realize I've been lame and helped me to contribute more constructively to Wikipedia

Comment I do not want this discussion to devolve into regular food fight between partisan parties and generally prefer clean talk environment. I would perform a voluntary halt to all my Ramot article editing while this request is being looked into. I feel that an objective of talk page discussion is WP:DR. and imho a constructive way to move forward was suggested more than once. There's little point discussing the issue of location/political definition on multiple article pages of Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem topic. I still believe that if we want to resolve the issue with minimal risk of triggering edit warring across an entire set of articles, WP:IPCOLL seems like the best place. Honestly I'm not sure why this proposal was rejected.
I realize that this is not a forum to decide on content disputes, however I'd like to address a reason why the editor's edits were opposed both in Ramot and Quds Day. The edits presented POV as a fact. The editor provided multiple sources, however there were conflicting sources brought during discussion on the talk page. My line of thought was that opinions should be fairly attributed. The point is that ignoring some sources and claiming others as a fact is not NPOV and unacceptable in Wikipedia project.

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.

I am aware of WP:Boomerang and realize I could be sanctioned for this request. With that I want to assure everybody that my intention is less disruptive I/P environment where WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS do matter and people try to be WP:CIVIL. Imho currently we see that discussions go and go in persistent and well known POV circles, which do not contribute to I/P topic articles content Oh well, c'est la vie. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on ギリギリ violations Generally agree with User:Cla68 observation on Ramot. Honestly I fucked up there. With that Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem topic is a new frontier. Another interesting organic topic, full of juice and sweetness and agreeable odour, being turned into an automaton might be Keep your eye on the ball. This topic got promoted to WP:Activist, See also, when I first noticed it. And surprise, surprise another discussion started as topic ban expires. Previous consensus is No consensus means no map.

Bold edit
My revert
Editor's Revert.
3d party warning :Regarding this revert at Golan Heights, as a veteran editor who's been sanctioned in the past and who frequently warns other users about violations of I/P policy, you're expected to know that "All editors...and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page." A message to that effect appears both when editing the article itself as well as on the Talk page.. Anyway, please explain your revert...
BRR discussion: BRD is an essay. You have to have reasons to remove content, including maps, and no consensus is not a reason. You cannot simply use BRD as a tool to filibuster content. That is what you are doing and that is unacceptable.

Initially it appeared as violations of I/P policy, but later the editor commented on the talk page, they probably forgot. To me, this history spells WP:IDHT and WP:CIRCUS. Bottom line there is such thing as WP:DE, so I clearly support User:Cla68 observation and suggest to widen the topic to GH article or maybe even wider. Do I dare to say whole I/P area? Otherwise I would not be surprised, based on previous history, to see the discussed editor starring on this page again and again, maybe be in a role of a user who is submitting this request for enforcement or as a user against whom enforcement is requested. I'll pull up a chair and start some popcorn first though - it would be a good show. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some articles which cover dangerous I/P area could devolve into partisan patchwork crap (See Falafel for instance) still others stay sane and nice (See Hamsa) and could go without WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES header. One just needs to click on the article talk page tab to see if it is true. So I was topic banned previously. My personal opinion is that topic ban could be a blessing instead of a curse and could help any WP:SPA editor to contribute more constructively to this project. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

At Quds Day, I went and asked for the 3rd opinion. That 3rd opinion backed my position and I made one further revert. The revert was re-reverted and the author of the 3rd opinion reverted back to my edit. To say I "disregarded" the 3rd opinion is so blatantly dishonest that I cannot think of a way of describing that statement without making a personal attack.

At Ramot, Agada has been filibustering, without cause or sources, the inclusion of a statement that has 5 reliable sources listed on the talk page backing it up. The user also reverted an entire section on the legal status of the settlement ([66]) despite the consensus at IPCOLL on this very issue. The user has been doing almost nothing at that page except for reverting based on "no consensus" and "brd" (eg [67], [68], [69]). Despite several requests for a single source backing his position (eg [70], [71]) the user has declined, instead choosing to say BRD and no consensus. These bad faith maneuvers to disrupt the progress of creating an encyclopedia article should not be tolerated. The user refuses to discuss the actual issues, instead choosing to rely on any guideline that supports his quest to remove any material he personally dislikes. The fact is I have provided several sources for each of my edits. Agada has, instead of looking for sources that dispute mine, has chosen to stick his fingers in his ears and yell out NA NA NA NA I CANT HEAR YOU and revert without cause. nableezy - 18:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Agada, instead of discussing the actual issues on the talk page, has been lobbying for administrative action to be taken on User talk:Timotheus Canens. Having not gotten the wanted action there, he has moved here. Thats fine, Im a big boy, but the biggest issue here is the reverting based solely on "no consensus" where "consensus" is taken to mean that if Agada shouts NO long enough then there is no consensus. nableezy - 18:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, casting aspersions without evidence is a personal attack. I object, strenuously, to the backhanded swipe made without a shred of evidence of sockpuppetry on my part. Your "most problematic" set of edits ~~does not contain a single revert. Not one.~~ contains one revert, the first diff listed. The next two are edits, not reverts. It is good to see the quality of the evidence against me remains at its usual level. nableezy - 01:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, no doubt on accident, reveals that the issue here has nothing to do with my editing behavior. For example, he says I "instantly jumped back into disputes he had previously." citing Gaza War and Falafel, and uses this as evidence of my supposedly disruptive nature. At Falafel, I have been asking him to back up his unsourced assertions that go against reliable sources cited. He has, for weeks now, refused to comply. I have not made a single revert on Falafel. On Gaza War, I brought several sources to a talk page, and made an edit. When that edit was reverted (by Agada under the spurious grounds that there was "no consensus"), I did not revert a single time. I opened an RFC and am patiently waiting for it to conclude. There are a set of users here that will do anything they can to shut me up, and they will do this for a simple reason. They oppose the content of the edits I make, but find it difficult to actually find policy based reasons for doing so. They dislike that I bring sources and make edits that reflect views that they find distasteful, for whatever reason. And because of this, spurious charges are filed left and right against me. There was one point on this page where there were 3 separate complaints filed against me, the only one that brought any sanctions against me resulted in a 3 hour block. nableezy - 01:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A game, right. Cptnono makes statements made up out of thin air. I ask him which reference, he refuses to say. And Im playing a game. Right. Again, I did not make a single revert on List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. I made 3 edits, ~~not a single revert, 27 hours or 27 days apart.~~ the first of which was a revert. The others were all edits. What edit did they revert? I again object to your fallacious accusations. What is "toxic" in this topic area are the editors who insist on making unfounded statements and dishonest arguments on talk pages and follow it up with fallacious charges on administrative boards. I repeat, an arbitration decision found that casting aspersions on editors without evidence is "unacceptable". Either provide evidence for your charges, including the one of sockpuppetry, or strike them. nableezy - 02:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these people and where have they made such an accusation? Again, either provide evidence for your accusations or strike them. I will ask that you be blocked if you refuse. nableezy - 03:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so very interesting, so now it is off-wiki private communication that you refuse to provide to support accusations you make on wiki. How charming. I have already responded to your allegation of gaming the 1RR. Those were not reverts. Exactly what edit did the second diff listed revert? What edit did the ~~first~~ third diff listed revert? Those were both edits, so regardless of whether they happened 27 hours or 27 minutes apart there would be no 1RR vio. And so there was no 1RR gaming. nableezy - 03:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, golly, thats just super. Your diffs only show what you are willing to do to attempt to have me banned. That you will literally manufacture evidence or, when you cant make up evidence, make wild accusations without showing a shred of evidence. nableezy - 03:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cla, this isnt a revert, this is me restoring a tag. You are left with 3 reverts over a week. Please look at Agada's "contribution" to the talk page. It consists of one of two things, misuse of a source or repeating the mantra BRD and no consensus as a means of filibustering. You cannot compare our contributions. Of course Agada supports your proposal, the reason he does all this is to have me banned. It does not matter to him if he is likewise banned, so long as I am then he did what he sought out to do. His purpose here is to filibuster any material that he dislikes, and he sees an effective way of doing that by having me removed. nableezy - 13:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I understand your frustration, but believe me, it pales in comparison to my own. I dont know what else I am supposed to do. I am hounded from article to article by a collection of sockpuppets, accounts that barely understand clear English (or at least feign to not understand for the purpose of stalling), ones whose sole purpose is to filibuster any change I make, and ones that willfully make things up out of thin air and say no when asked for sources. I no longer edit war, I try to be as civil as I possibly can, I make edits that are supported both by the sources and the policies of this website. What else would you have me do? Just give up and leave them to it? The reason there are regular requests for enforcement against me is simple. I am effective at adding content that the "pro-I" group would rather not include. But because I add this content with reliable sources it is difficult for them to give an honest argument for removing it. So the easier route to stop the inclusion of such content is to have me removed. To illustrate the point, how many enforcement threads have been opened against me that resulted in no sanctions? How many have been opened by accounts later shown to be socks of banned editors (and I have no doubt the one recently archived will soon be added to that list)? I am repeatedly brought here on the most trifling of charges, often on completely spurious grounds. Asinine accusations, such as the one below of sockpuppetry, are routinely made without evidence. But all these charges add to the perception, rightly or wrongly held, that I am the problem. That without me the topic area is "better". If by "better" one means that it is easier to ignore the Palestinians and present a slanted account of their history, when not completely denying it, then sure that part is true. But if by "better" one means that the articles reflect the policies of WP, such as NPOV and V, then that is emphatically not true. If you tell me what exactly you think I am doing wrong I will correct it immediately. But dealing with the type of bullshit that I regularly see from some of the editors commenting here makes me much more frustrated than I could imagine you being. nableezy - 16:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

This seems like an attempt to use WP:A/E to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Administrative noticeboards shouldn't be used when discussion is ongoing, and especially not when one's efforts to lobby an admin have been fruitless. (See User talk:Timotheus Canens#Question and WP:Forum shopping.) Perhaps WP:Boomerang applies here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, it's "Get Nableezy week" again, is it? I see nothing in this submission that is any more actionable than the previous groundless complaint (above). As AU notes, Nableezy's topic ban is over; therefore he ids free to edit in this area. This is precisely what he has been doing, without edit-warring, disruptively editing or in any way acting other than as an asset to Wikipedia. I will not speculate on motives, but I am growing increasingly weary of attempts to remove him.

In this instance, I note that AU's latest revert of Nableezy has itself been reverted by the editor who gave a third opinion. So it is disingenuous for AU to accuse Nableezy of disregarding the discussion; the accusation would be better self-directed.

I think that this clearly unfounded and vexatious complaint should be speedily closed with no action against Nableezy; and that AU should be warned against further such frivolous actions. RolandR (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Broccolo

Just a month ago I would not have argued about banning a user for using the word "trolling", but another editor was banned for doing just that Should we be consistent here? While the differences presented in Mbz1 case were collected over a few months I'd like to bring your attention to two differences for the last 2 days made just a few week after user:Nableezy prior topic ban expired. user:Nableezy has been repeatedly warned over uncivil comments he made. Let's see his reaction:

Another "crime" for what Mbz1 was topic banned was described by user:passionless as "Inability to work co-operatively . Here is a similar example by user:Nableezy.

[72]

I am not saying user:Nableezy should be sanctioned over the differences I presented. I am simply looking for some consistency. Broccolo (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously providing, as your first example, a diff that shows Nableezy removing a message (from his own talk page) posted by AgadaUrbanit, in which Agada, himself, says, "... you are free to remove this warning."?? I seriously hope admins take into consideration how low users are going with there quote/quote evidence in attempt to get him banned. -asad (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A difference that springs to mind is that in those diffs, Nableezy is describing an edit (to his own talk page) as being trolling, whereas in the case of the "another editor" you refer to, the diffs presented referred to multiple editors (including me) as being "trolls" (and "wikihounds", et cetera). That's the difference between commenting on content (or lack of it), and commenting on the contributor. Having seen a fair few of these things pop up on Nableezy's talk page, yes I think there is a reasonable case for describing some of these edits as being "trolling". But that wouldn't justify describing the editors as being "trolls". See the difference? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pick on Nableezy week (by Cptnono)

I get the skepticism. Why else would people be picking on Nableezy if it wasn't to win content disputes? Nableezy must be a good editor who just happens to be the on the receiving end of POV pushing jerks' scorn. So here are my thoughts. Afterward feel free to scream that an interaction ban is needed:

Nableezy chose to sit out his topic ban by contributing almost nothing to other articles. Sure there was some but the ratio (a few edits a week vs scores a day) says enough. That is within the rules. He is allowed to be a single purpose account even if SPAs get some grief. I know that sockpuppetry (eg: he didn't sit it out but relied on a secondary account) has been a concern but I will let others present evidence if they are inclined.
Nableezy instantly jumped back into disputes he had previously. Falafel and Gaza War are just two examples. Of course, he sat out his ban so he is allowed. Doesn't mean we should respect it.
Most problematic: He was just here for potentially gaming 1/rr. He has been accused of gaming the system before but in this most recent episode he was reverting a probable sockpuppet (But what about this: contraversial edit ->revert->~~revert~~(clarifying edit: controversial modification of other editors in direct response to a revert) 3 hours after 24 hours had elapsed

So yeah, I think we should pick on him. He has proven that he is here for one reason and that that he believes the reason is sufficient to come dangerously close to gaming thew system over and over and over again. I had assumed that the "break" would bring a new and improved Nableezy. That was not the case. He is (and should be) under increased scrutiny for his previous infractions. On the other side of the coin: Good for him on sticking to his principles and at least being transparent. At least we know what we are getting with him.Cptnono (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Nableezy instead wishes to dispute my reference to him starting touble on Falafel. So fine. We have a source in the article discussing Alexandria and yet he actually says that it is not in there. Read the article it is right there. He is playing games. Whatever he can do to "win" he will do. Since Gaza War and Falafel are so hard to prove I will again point to the flagarant abuse of 1/rr. He waited 3 hours to make a revert. He was already making a controversial edit. To follow it up with coming so close to 1/rr is obvious. Nableezy makes this topic area toxic. In his absence we got a GA. In his absence we had relatively quiet talk pages. He is edit warring over FLAGS in an article. He is willfully ignoring sources. He is willfully starting trouble. If he isn't gone now it is only a matter of time so it doesn't hurt my feelings if the admins again give him a pass. I a, confident that he will gain dig his own grave because that is just what he does.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing the subject Nableezy. It isn't my fault that others thought you were editing with an alternate account. And it isn't my responsibility to make the argument for them. If you reread my statement I did not say you had a sockpuppet. I simply acknowledged that others called that. But you and I arguing isn't going to help your case. If anything It is going to get me bounced along with you. You are toxic to the environment here. Just like this conversation is. I hope that an administrator closes this without any action because I am confident that you will again be here within a month and I won;t have anything to do with it. You are simply a problem. Everyone knows it. Even the admins while looking at this might believe I am also a problem but they will know that you have done nothing but rock the boat. Go write a GA in the topic area and then I will be happy to work with you. Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not allowed to divulge private communications according to Wikipedia's rules. Even if it was not against the rules I would not since it would be bad form. You can ask for me to be blocked if you want but I will not apologize for simply pointing out that others have raised the issue of you editing with an alternate account. I especially do not need to since I did not say you did. I made it clear that that was the bottom of my list of issues. So stop changing the issue and actually respond to the allegation of gaming 1/rr. Can you actually discuss the concerns or would you rather change the subject in an attempt to dodge the major issues?Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My diffs show a concern. If you do not see it then you deserve to be at AE. I really don't need to say anything else here since you are just proving my point. After this is closed out (regardless if bans for the both of us are long or not) I will be happy to try to edit with you if you change your behavior. Cptnono (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as I know I've never edited that article. Nableezy's edits are ギリギリ violations (Onomatopoeia alert!) but appear to be part of a larger problem. From what I'm seeing, there appears to be a edit war going on there between two editors. There should be no revert warring taking place while editors are trying to reach a consensus on the article talk page. The other editors at that article appear to be trying to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise. Here are reverts over the last week or so:

Nableezy [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]
AgadaUrbanit [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]

I suggest article-banning Nableezy and AgadaUrbanit and I think the current conflict problems with that article will largely evaporate. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone should be article or topic banned for the time being. However, AgadaUrbanit should be subject to a restriction preventing him from warning Nableezy or filing or commenting on AE reports against him. He templated him multiple times despite being asked by Nableezy to stay off his talk page, asked by me to stop it, and referred by Timotheus Canens to WP:DTTR (will provide diffs on request - not much time right now). The same restriction should apply to Cptnono, who has it out for Nableezy as evidenced by his multiple AE filings and pretty much every comment he has ever made to him or about him. That restriction could also be applied to Nableezy so that interaction between these users outside of regular article editing can be minimized and with it the unnecessary drama it provokes. Tiamut^talk 13:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Nableezy on Cptnono's talk page: Been a little busy IRL and keeping you inline since your return (how has no one else dragged you to AE yet?) is not a priority. Yes, there's the thing, keeping Nableezy 'in line'. ← ZScarpia 01:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What of it? Thai is part of volunteering here. Nableezy has been active in three sockpuppet investigations in not even the last month. He is obviously attempting to keep others inline. That is what we do here sometimes. Actively searching out for solutions to problems is not forbidden unless it is done only to harass the other editor. But how about you comment on Nableezy and not me since he is the one accused of doing wrong? All of this changing of the subject. No wonder admins never read these things.Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Nableezy should be sanctioned because other editors have created sockpuppets? Come off it! As you know, there is a serious problem of serial sockpuppetry, with scores of accounts being created by a handful of blocked editors. Coincidentally, all of these seem to favour a "pro-Israel" point of view; there has been no evidence of a similar concerted campaign by "pro-Palestinian" editors. If there was, we can be sure that you would, quite correctly, be active in preventing this abuse. What is Nableezy's crime here?RolandR (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But how about you comment on Nableezy and not me. Since you're making accusations, I think that it's relevant to address what your motivations are. What of it? I think that the comment on your talk page illuminates the reason why Nableezy is being brought to the AE board. If you think that part of your job here involves keeping other editors in line, I'd say that indicates that you have an attitude problem. Nableezy has been active in three sockpuppet investigations in not even the last month. I think that he should be commended for doing a very important job. ← ZScarpia 16:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think Nableezy has recently shown exemplary restraint in the face of persistent provocation and obstruction, and certainly doesn't deserve to be sanctioned. His comment above of 16:37, 9 May 2011 is spot-on in my view.

I sympathise with admins who have to deal with these requests. I suggest that anyone bringing a request here should be automatically sanctioned if no action is taken against the subject of the request, and a warning to this effect be well-publicised and displayed prominently in the edit notice here and elsewhere. The level of sanction should be sufficient to deter frivolous or poorly-grounded complaints without deterring well-founded requests. (The thought of something like the system of "challenges" in tennis has occurred to me in the past, but I can't see a way of doing it that wouldn't be subject to gaming.) --NSH001 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy

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

I'm seriously thinking that if this trend continues, we should simply throw our hands up and send this to arbcom for ARBPIA3. T. Canens (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The seven reversions cited in the initial request are adequate corroboration that Nableezy's conduct is so problematic as to warrant sanctioning. For reference, the reversions are: Ramot – 30 April 2011 2 May 2011 5 May 2011 8 May 2011; Quds Day – 28 April 2011 29 April 2011 2 May 2011.
Nableezy's primary argument with relation to Quds Day is that there was support in a third opinion (3O)[83] for including East Jerusalem. But, as User:Plot Spoiler correctly commented in the 3O thread, no other editors were involved in that discussion—rendering the 3O at best a valueless exercise, and at worst an attempt by Nableezy to gain some pretence of validation for his edit. A small third opinion is not an adequate consensus-building exercise for such a major dispute, and especially in such a contested topic area. Additionally, there was no counter-argument by Nableezy with relation to his four reverts at Ramot. On balance, and taking into account his previous record in this topic area and the volume of reverts made, Nableezy is prohibited from editing any page related to Palestine-Israel, broadly interpreted, for two months. Furthermore, I intend to initiate an evaluation at WP:WPAE or here into the wider pattern of editing in the articles involved in this request, because I suspect that Nableezy is not the only one whose behaviour warrants a sanction. AGK [•] 20:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[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]

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