Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:36, 6 December 2010 editMr.grantevans2 (talk | contribs)3,791 edits →Comments by others about the request concerning Littleolive oil← Previous edit Revision as of 13:00, 6 December 2010 edit undoNug (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,427 edits →Statement by Martintg: statementNext edit →
Line 740: Line 740:


====Statement by Martintg==== ====Statement by Martintg====
Offliner states ''"I believe Martintg has been violating his topic ban continuously from the very beginning"'', surely that is a gross exaggeration as my recent edit history shows. I guess what this AE complaint demonstrates is that Offliner is closely stalking my edits, with little over two weeks until the expiry of my topic ban and over two months since his previous complaint on AE, the sum total of Offliner's complaint is two relatively minor edits (actually since they are consecutive they would constitute a single edit). Surely if I was violating my "topic ban continuously from the very beginning" there would be more diffs.

The first edit I removed the text "(Nazi terminology about 'extermination camp')'" as it seemed out of context compared to the other sections and after checking both ] and ] and not finding anything about the term "Arbeits- und Erziehungslager" that seemed relevant, and it wasn't sourced. There is a "cleanup" template at the top of the page after all. The second consecutive edit was simply to correct a link to the actual article .

] is an article about a terribly heinous crime perpetrated by Nazis and their collaborators against Jewish people in Estonia during World War 2, there is simply no dispute about this in Estonia. So I am not sure how this would constitute an instance of a "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe". Estonia is probably the least anti-semitic of all the Eastern/Central European countries. In the pre-war period when virulent anti-Semitism was growing in certain Eastern/Central European countries, Estonia had instituted some of the most progressive policies in regard to her Jewish citizens, enacting laws that protected Jewish cultural heritage in that country, to the extent that the Jewish National Endowment Keren Kajamet presented the Estonian government with a certificate of gratitude for this achievement, see ]. Just recently Estonia (along with Britain, Finland, France, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) protested against antisemitism in Lithuania . As I said, there is no dispute about this in Estonia.

However, that being said, if the admins here think this is an issue here I will voluntarily refrain from editing any articles regarding the Jewish people of Estonia for the remaining two weeks of my topic ban. --] (]) 13:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


====Comments by others about the request concerning Martintg ==== ====Comments by others about the request concerning Martintg ====

Revision as of 13:00, 6 December 2010

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages'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
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Shortcut

    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 informationShortcuts

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

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

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cptnono

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

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

    Appealing user
    Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Cptnono (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Interaction ban with Nableezy. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Shuki, logged at ]>
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

    Statement by Cptnono

    The interaction ban is based on the comment "Then you need to explain why you disregarded the admins suggestion on how to implement this. Stop going out of your way to start trouble." That was an attack in the very broadest definition. I do understand that "going out of your way" could be considered mean. I was pleading with editors to use the centralized discussion and the other comments made show this: The centralized discussion was unraveling and it was a huge concern since we were so close to getting it figured out. In hindsight, I should have taken a step back since I was only feeding the fire in my attempt.

    Nableezy and I do not have a good history and there is no question that I disagree with his behavior. That leads me to what I feel is a very important part of my appeal. I was so frustrated with different editor's (especially Nableezy's which is one reason I understand where the admins are coming from) behavior that I made the mistake of being grossly uncivil in the topic area. It was inappropriate and I received a short block and it was made clear that those comments were not appropriate. Just before and shortly after I received multiple comments from others expressing that this was a path they did not like seeing me go down. The block and those comments was a reminder to me of how to act. PhilKnight expressed on his talk page that he felt this interaction ban would be appropriate based on my history with Nableezy. I have already made the decision to show a renewed effort in any interaction. I understand that my single comment was off but it is not a serious violation according to the precedent set. I of course would be willing to go even farther with efforts to be civil if this appeal is successful based on the comments by the deciding admins. I feel that I learned from my past mistakes and that this interaction ban is an overreaction to that comment based on the poor history. If anyone else would have made that comment I do not think it would have raised eyebrows. However I do understand that we cannot forget my editing history.

    @ LessHeard vanU: My intent if this is not successful would be to present evidence of better interaction in the topic area after sometime (3/6/12mos depending on how it goes). Kind of like WP:OFFER. However, I do not believe that is necessary. Although the vindicating myself is both needed and interesting, I would prefer not to do it with this over my head. Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    @Timotheus Canens: I know it is annoying for you as well but I am the one receiving limitations on my interactions which I feel will cause more of a burden than a solution. Didn't mean to make my appeal too long.Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    I see now. I'm actually surprised you aren't annoyed!Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    @Sean: That hypothetical doesn't have any bearing on this and the comments made in the above discussion and the admin's talk pages show that it is not relevant. I would rather such conjecture on such possible scenarios not impact any decision. Even if it were to apply, my concern is not for any other editors in the topic area but my own. I'm not appealing this based on any worry of games being played or false feelings of me needing to police the topic area. My concern is that I am inhibited for reasoning that was already taken care of (assuming my one comment was not enough to warrant such action). I should be able to respond to comments at the centralized discussion. I shouldn't have to worry if an edit I am amending is that of someone I am banned from interacting with (or if going to talk as I would often prefer to do s a problem). Those are just two examples of what ifs and we know there will be more. Being better than I was is on me and no one else.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    @George: Thanks, dude. You really should be commenting on the FAN and not here. George summarized my thoughts. And since this is my appeal I do want to point out that if more editors were like him (including myself) this would be a better topic area. I also should mention that although we sometimes come down on different sides argument wise in this topic area, we have worked over at the Sounders project so there is definitely some good history. I hope this does not discredit his words but wanted to make sure that everything was extra open.Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    @Philknight: The last AE was incivility but none of the quotes were on Nableezy's page or directed towards him. It was inappropriate (that is why I was sanctioned) but should not have any impact on this unless my comment is considered completely out of line. Cptnono (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    In regards to the quotes, that had nothing to do with this AE. Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


    I'm done groveling over this. Close it out. Nableezy already expressed reservations with this interaction ban before it was put in place. Tiamut also has. Other editors expressed concerns with it. I'll let editors see the various talk pages on their own. In my opinion, I am being restricted based on previous transgressions. The two admins rejecting this appeal were involved in the AE and have been dealing with the topic area so I assume they are fed up with it. You can correct me if I am wrong but it seems obvious. There is reasoning to be skeptical and I admit that but I am sick of this. I doubt it will matter much anyways. See you in three months for the request to lifted since my interactions will realistically be improved. It isn't my job to police the topic area since admins fail to and if I have to be extra careful in my interactions then so be it. That centralized discussion that I am harping about? I started it. It rubbed editors on the Israeli side the wrong way and got an edit very similar to what was being reverted over into the mainspace. You're welcome.Cptnono (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

    @Timotheus Canens: Interesting thought but I am fine without any changes. My comment was not bad enough for an interaction ban and I really am not happy with any action even if it is less. Also, my comments were pretty light in the last AE until Cla68 brought me up. If editors are going to be part of the community they need to be scrutinized by the community. So an interaction ban is fine by me. It isn't like I could comment on Nableezy's talk page since he made it clear he would disregard it. I couldn't bring it here since it was bad but not bad enough to start the drama. So what is the difference now? I can't talk to him for awhile? Fine. I'll have to be extra careful which gets under my skin but I would prefer to just drop it before it turns into more drama.Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    @Cla68:You didn't say anything until I changed your edit and notified you of your mistake so I have a hard time believing you were that offended. If you were there is no judgement from me about it. It would just be a coincidence that was hard to ignore. I get your point about scaring of people new to the topic, though. It isn't the first time I have heard people mention it. Yes, a more civil tone is needed. But this might be a better discussion for my talk page or the collaboration page.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    @Timotheus Canens and Gatoclass: So in the future, "see the centralized discussion for this" is better than telling someone they are causing problems. I still believe the request was needed and that there was a valid concern but agree the tone needed improving, though. Feel free to close this out. We are on the same page it looks like and can figure it out in three months.Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

    Statement by Timotheus Canens

    I think it is pointless unnecessary for me to add to the voluminous discussion right above on this page. My rationale for the sanctions is explained in the above discussion and on Cptnono's talk page, and I incorporate it by reference here.

    @LHvU: The intent is to make it indefinite for now, with review in a few months (three months sounds good), or sooner if the situation deteriorates, when it would likely be either lifted or changed into a topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Modified, T. Canens (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

    @Gatoclass: It's not victimless. A hostile editing environment drives away new users, even if the old-timers got used to it. T. Canens (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

    I have thought a bit more about this. The problem here is that discussions become unnecessarily personalized, in large part because people are throwing in conduct complaints in content discussions. This, in turn, creates a hostile editing environment and fosters further battleground behavior. I'm open to replacing this particular set of interaction bans with something similar to the restriction AGK imposed here, but I want to get some more comments first. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Cptnono

    Statement by LessHeard vanU

    At the very least could there be some clarification on the length of the topic ban, it apparently being indefinite presently? The strictures on being able to edit certain topic area's may be sufficient to promote among the parties a desire to interact more appropriately, and I would urge that some further consideration may be given to permitting an appeal to lift these sanctions after a defined period (6 months?) if Cptnono's appeal here is unsuccessful and the tariff is determined to be either indefinite or 1 year or more. (I realise this is not discussing the appeal directly, but I am too involved to be acting as an admin on this page but wanted to address some issues and make suggestions.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

    Statement by George

    I think that this was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. Cptnono was blocked for three hours for incivility only five days ago, largely due to interactions with Nableezy. I've seen them express frustration in interacting with Nableezy since then, but haven't seen much in the way of incivility, and I'm not in favor of someone being punished twice for the same offense. The comment Cptnono made to Nableezy in this discussion was borderline uncivil at best, and comparable to the tone of interactions between Wehwalt and SandyGeorgia in this discussion (I'm not commenting on either of those editors, nor suggesting an interaction ban between them, just noting the similarity in the tone in a conversation involving an administrator.) Given Cptnono's expressed understanding of the issue with the tone of their recent commentary, including the comment that led to this ban, and their professed willingness to try to improve on it, this sanction strikes me as more punitive then preventative. Having worked with both editors, I believe they have the ability to contribute and discuss constructively, even with each other, and this interaction ban will create annoying hurdles for both editors that I don't view as necessary at this point. I would suggest either removing it entirely, or reducing it to something like one week, with a warning that future, problematic interactions between them will result in a longer interaction ban. ← George 00:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

    Question from Sean.hoyland

    What happens if one editor accepts (=takes no action to appeal) an interaction ban and the other one doesn't by the way ? I have no idea whether that applies in this case but I'm just asking. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

    I didn't see the discussion on the admins page. Nevermind then. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

    Hi Sean, having just one half of an interaction ban in force would be a recipe for disaster so, I guess that either both sanctions are in force or neither. PhilKnight (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    Staement by BorisG

    I think this sanction interprets NPA and civility policy way too broadly. I believe it is profoundly wrong because if we continue on this path we will have no way to have an argument between editors. Sharp debates are a useful and necessary part of collaboration. - BorisG (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

    Statement by PhilKnight

    Obviously, I still support this restriction. From my perspective there's little difference between making it 3 months in duration, or reviewing after 3 months. In terms of why it's necessary, in addition to the comments by Cla68 in the original discussion, which relate to the thread linked by Cptnono, there have been 2 reports has been a report at WP:ANI in the last few weeks concerning Nableezy placing less than favorable quotes by Cptnono on his user page. In these circumstances, I think an interaction ban is worth trying. PhilKnight (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by Gatoclass

    I opposed the interaction bans when they were first proposed. Since then I have found WP:IBAN and it appears to me that such bans are not quite as onerous as I assumed, since the editors concerned can still edit the same pages but are prohibited from reverting each other's edits or commenting directly to or about one another. Also, PhilKnight has proposed a review after three months, a ban subject to periodic review would certainly be a lot less objectionable to me. However, before commenting further I would like to hear what Nableezy thinks. With an appeal of this nature, I think we should hear from both involved parties before making a decision. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

    I'm not sure if Nableezy intends to comment here or not, but I think he made a good point on his talk page, which is, if two editors are not unduly offended by each other's comments, and are prepared to continue working together, why should admins step in to slap an interaction ban on them? It does seem like a victimless crime. So I think if Nableezy is prepared to continue working with Cptnono and vice versa, there's a good case for upholding this appeal. Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

    Well I'm sorry Cla, but I just don't buy the argument about hypothetical noobs being "intimidated" by a few sharp exchanges between others. In fact the opposite is typically the case - it's the noobs who need to learn to tone down their responses in accordance with policy. But if a user is so thin-skinned that they are going to allow themselves to be "intimidated" by a little friction between other editors, they are unlikely to last five minutes on Misplaced Pages in any case - let alone in a contentious topic area. Gatoclass (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    In regards to T. Canen's suggestion per AGK of instant blocks for comments on contributor rather than content, I am opposed to such blanket methods. While comments on contributor are usually unhelpful and should be avoided, sometimes it is necessary to call someone out for their behaviour, and sometimes that helps get discussion moving again. Personal attacks are more problematic, but not everyone agrees on what constitutes such an attack.
    In any case, I don't think blocking is an effective counter for such conduct, and worse, it leaves a permanent blot on someone's record that can then be used as an excuse for an indef ban. The bottom line is that if one cracks down too hard on civility, one leaves the field to the civil POV pusher who is usually the one doing the most damage to content. Gatoclass (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think you understand how this particular variety of sanction works. The point of the blanket approach is that, whilst we should always call somebody on inappropriate content, we should never call them on the article talk page. AGK 12:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    You're right, I don't follow at all. Would you mind elaborating? Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    The idea is to separate discussions on content from discussions on conduct. Discussions on content, which we are primarily concerned with when we worry about the attractiveness of a topic area to new editors, belong on the article talk page. Discussions on conduct is good and all, but they belong at other venues - e.g., ANI, AE, RFC/U, whatever. You can comment on the contributor all you want - within reason, of course - but you can't do it on an article talk page. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, well I can't endorse that notion either. We shouldn't be encouraging editors to run to dispute resolution every time someone makes a comment about their conduct. That's just an invitation to gaming the system. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    User talk is fine too, if DR is unneeded; the point is that conduct matters should stay outside article talk as much as possible. T. Canens (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    When we have accusations of bad faith flying around, we've no problem but to make users take their grievances through the correct channels. Responsible editors do that anyway, in virtually all cases. Why should those who edit in troubled topic areas be any different? I genuinely don't see what your objection to this is. We're basically enforcing a utopian editing environment; frankly, I think that's better than letting things turn to chaos (as they have in many articles), because even if the end result does fall short of perfect, at least it's a start.

    Making comments about user conduct in the middle of a content discussion is never appropriate. This sanction simply makes that enforcable. Win-win. And, it's almost ungamable, because people learn the rules on this one super fast—and the result is a more harmonious editing environment, and one in which the actual content can be discussed without lots of background noise and shouting. AGK 21:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

    Well said. Cla68 (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by AGK

    As the administrator who initially remedied the interaction ban in question, I oppose the appeal. I am not convinced that Cptnono can interact constructively with Nableezy. I would be inclined instead to put everybody on a level footing, and levy an interaction ban with Nableezy. They shouldn't be bringing user conduct into article content discussions in the first place. AGK 21:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

    • I also wonder why I was not notified about the existence of this appeal. Have we forgotten process and courtesy, amongst all the drama that this board today faces? AGK 21:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by Cla68

    Gatoclass, it doesn't matter if Nableezy and Cptnono aren't offended by each others' comments. That article talk page is publicly viewable. The over-the-top hostile tone of their interaction with each other could very well intimidate other editors, especially new editors, from wanting to get involved in the content discussion. That kind of discourse on an article talk page is unacceptable, and both of them should know better. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal by Cptnono

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Proposed, per T. Canens: that, in response to the primary concerns and to action this request, Nableezy be sanctioned like this. Secondary concerns remaining include: whether Cptnono and/or Nableezy should be topic banned in addition, or whether the proposed sanction, coupled with Cptnono's ban on interaction with Nableezy, will remedy the problems that exist with their conduct; and whether additional sanctions of other users are required. AGK 21:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    What? This is an appeal, not a new case. The options are to either uphold the appeal or reject it. It's not an opportunity for you to pile on yet more sanctions to a user who has already been topic banned. Gatoclass (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    Nableezy

    Jiujitsuguy topic banned for 3 months and Nableezy topic banned 4 months
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Nableezy

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

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

    Alternatively, he engaged in WP:GAMING by using his reverts in a tactical manner to circumvent the spirit of the 1rr.
    I am amending this claim again to add a charge that Nableezy has engaged in additional Uncivil conduct by referring to my goodfaith edit (reasons for which I articulated at Talk) as a "Bullshit edit," in his comments below. It seems that he can not utter a retort without spewing vulgarities about edits effectuated by others.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    And now, adding insult to injury, he belittles my "newly found sensitivites"
    I needn't remind any admin reviewing this case that Nableezy has a history of engaging in uncivil conduct. Indeed, he had been recently blocked for this and is currently under an interaction ban with 3 editors due to incivility. It is ineresting that he couldn't even contain himself during this AE when he is under admin scrutiny
    • @ 17:44 Dec 2
    • @ 18:49 Dec 2
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Block or topic ban
    Additional comments by user bringing request

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

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

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

    @HMitchel. I wasn't trying to use AE "to gain the upper hand." I recognized what I thought was a violation of the letter if not the spirit of the new 1rr restriction and so I filed an AE. Am I now being sanctioned for bringing a violation to the attention of the community?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    @T. Canens. It wasn't me who engaged in the "self-revert a revert so that I can revert again" tactic. I recognize that I am not an angel but I don't believe that my conduct rose to the level of Nableezy's. I believe that equal sanctions here for unequal offenses seems inequitable. I ask all admins who commented to reconsider--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    @HJMitchell, I've always respected your opinions though I've not always agreed with them. However, I take issue with this comment "It seems to me that both the filer and the respondent are attempting to game the system and are certainly attempting to use AE as a weapon to gain the upper hand" that you made. In the past week or so, Nableezy filed at least two AEs. One against Shuki that resulted in a six-month topic ban adverse to Shuki, with no sanction applied to the filer, Nableezy. And the second against Cptnono resulting in a 3hr block against Cptnono, again with no sanction to Nableezy. It seems illogical that Nableezy can file as many actions as he please with impunity but suddenly, when someone files an action against him, the filer becomes the object of scorn. Something is very wrong here unless I'm missing something. Please consider this appeal before applying a sanction against me. Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    @HJMitchell. Please note that I attempted to engage in amicable relations with Nableezy and I tried to put aside our personal and political differences. Please see this exchange where, following the issuance of a 1rr restriction against him, I offered to voluntarily restrict myself to 1rr in articles where both he and I edit so as not to gain an unfair advantage against him. That is anti-gaming. Also, in the same thread, see how I attempted to resolve a dispute (in a gentlemanly fashion) that ultimately resolved in his favor and the edit that he was objecting to was removed--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Notification

    Statement by Nableezy

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Im not trying to "game" around anything. We are allowed 1 revert per day. If you want to say that I cannot choose which revert to make, that once one is made then thats is fine. Ill respect that in the future. I felt when I made my self-revert though that set the number of reverts that I had made to 0. "Gaming" is a reference to playing policies against one another, trying to subvert their intent. That is not what I am doing, it is what the users making such inane arguments that having a "word to avoid" justifies the removal of an entire sentence rather than removing or replacing that single word. nableezy - 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    All right, if it is not acceptable I wont do it. If you would like, I'll restore the article to where it had been at the time of Jiu's revert. nableezy - 23:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

    I think the most telling thing about this process is that two users who have removed the contested sentence from the article, Jiujitsuguy and No More Mr Nice Guy, have each made several edits to this page since my revert. They have not however made any comments in what is now going on 27 hours to the talk page of the article. Yes, I made a revert. But the revert that I made was not simply a straight revert. NMMNG raised 3 issues on the talk page. 1. there are "words to avoid" in the sentence, 2. the material is not expanded on in the body, and 3. BRD was not followed. The first 2 of these are valid objections, the last is a transparent attempt at filibustering. In my edit, I addressed both 1 and 2. I then asked on the talk page if there were any further concerns. NMMNG has yet to respond there, but has the time to make several comments here. Jiujitsuguy's reasons for reverting on the talk page are laughable at best, but even those reasons have been addressed. Neither party seems interested in the actual content here, as evidenced by their apparent willingness to completely avoid the discussion. You can say what you will about my use of AE, but almost all of the AE requests I make are based on editors acting in an unacceptable manner in article space. That is, my concern is the content of the articles. Here, the user is concerned with eliminating an "enemy", not in making sure that the content of the article be compliant with the policies of this website.

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

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

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

    Discussion concerning Nableezy

    Comment by (involved) Mkativerata

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

    He undid the self-revert for reasons best known to him. Look at the revision history. There is a clear violation--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    If he reverted himself why are we here? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    Of course, and perhaps I'm making your case for you, is the suggestion that nableezy, after seeing your revert, self-reverted his earlier revert of a less controversial edit, so that he would able to revert your more controversial edit withing 1RR? In other words, there's no 1RR violation, but the case could be framed as an charge of gaming 1RR (which I have no views on yet as nableezy hasn't commented). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    It appears so. He's using his reverts in a tactical manner. He first reverted Hmbr and when he saw my edit, he viewed that as the greater of two evils so he undid his last revert so he could revert me. It's quite devious behavior and in my opinion wholly contrary to the spirit of the 1RR--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

    @George: I take your point and it is difficult to read too much into it before Nableezy responds. But prima facie, I would think that self-reverting oneself to use a revert in a "more deserving" circumstance (a) would be gaming; and (b) treating 1RR as an entitlement to one revert, promoting a battleground mentality. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    It could equally plausibly be argued that Jujitsuguy waited to make his contentious edit (for the third time in four days) until after Nableezy had made a revert, in order to prevent him from reverting this. This unfounded allegation would have as much validity as Jjg'sown speculations about Nableezy's motives. RolandR (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    @George and RolandR: I am very mindful of this. Hence my comment above that the two reverts actually seem related. Nableezy justified the category restoration on the basis of sourced material in the article. Jiujitsuguy then, it seems, removed that sourced material. There may have been a high degree of opportunism there. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    Nableezy restored the material that justifies the category with his v2 revert, so that excuse doesn't seem to work. It's pretty obvious he undid one revert so he could do another. Now the only remaining question is whether that's legitimate or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    What I'm saying is that there could be an element of fault lying with the filer of this request, for deliberately pulling the rug out from under Nableezy's first revert while Nableezy was barred from responding because of 1RR. Obviously I have the requisite degree of cynicism to start actively editing in this area. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    That's an interesting point: hmbr's deletion of the "ethnic cleansing" category was incorrectly done as the article had material justifying its presence in the cat. Once the cat was restored the supporting information was removed, making the category inclusion nonsensical and thus rightly deleted. If your previous revert is rendered moot by another edit, can you undo your outdated revision and restore the supporting information necessary? Guess not. Sol (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Obviously that is mere speculation without any evidence supporting it. Nableezy's actions are supported by diffs. Like I said above, the only question is whether what he did is legitimate or not. Admins should keep in mind that their decision here will set a precedent that others will follow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    The filer's actions need to be scrutinised. As I see it J's revert was based on the view that there was "No consensus for contentious, problematic edit" (edit summary). It is disruptive for editors involved in active talk page discussions to, at the same time, be involved in reverting on the article due their self-proclaimed view of where the consensus lies. It's tendentious and to be quite frank I'm seeing prima facie cases for sanctions on both sides of this. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    If there has been a discussion going for a day or so, with 3 editors wanting to include something and 3 editors objecting, it is not legitimate to think that there is no consensus to include at that point? Consider me enlightened. The way I understood things work here is that if an edit is challenged with legitimate policy based concerns it stays out of the article pending reasonable discussion. This sort of thing happens all the time. I think it's called BRD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    BRD doesn't justify editors involved in the discussion pre-empting the discussion by reverting at the same time based on their self-proclamations of consensus. Especially not in a highly disputed area of conflict like PIA. When a discussion is open, editors should stick to the discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    Again, the way I understand it is that the edit stays out of the article pending discussion. The onus is on the editors who want to include material. Someone "pre-empted the discussion" by restoring it after it was objected to and removed the first time. Anyway, I'll wait and see what other admins think. This might be another precedent. It's something that happens very very often. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    Fair enough, it's something that in my view needs to be stopped. In addition to my and Nableezy's concerns is reverting with "per talk" edit summaries, which is classic trench edit warfare. If the reviewing admin would prefer that the issues raised in respect of Jiujitsuguy be handled in a separate AE I would be happy to open one. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    Presumably, the editor referred to by NoMoreMrNiceGuy as having pre-empted the discussion by restoring the text is me. I restored similar text after looking at his deletion of what was there previously as a pending changes review. The way things looked to me was that a properly sourced statement had been removed for specious, even nonsensical, reasons. For example, using NoMoreMrNiceGuy's reasoning, if a source said something like Spanish is widely spoken as a first language in the United States we would have to omit reference to the word widely and represent the statement as Spanish is spoken as a first language in the United States in Misplaced Pages.     ←   ZScarpia   00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    I said the editor who restored it the first time. That wasn't you. And as I said in my reply to you below, I'm very much open to my actions and arguments being scrutinized. If I am told by an uninvolved admin that I misunderstand policy or that my arguments are not valid, I will correct my editing accordingly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comment by George

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

    He self-reverted and then undid the self-revert. Look at the revision history--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm not seeing where he ever undid his self-revert. It looks like he reverted, self reverted, reverted a different edit, then made an unrelated edit. I don't think that counts as violating 1RR. ← George 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    I think it's pretty clear that Nableezy decided that Jiujitsuguy's edit was more deserving of his revert than was re-adding the Ethnic cleansing category, but I'm not sure if that counts as gaming. That seems like a bit of a stretch, but I'm curious to hear administrator's views on the matter. ← George 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    @Mkativerata - My concern is that the reverse could become a gaming tactic as well. Wait until an editor reverts a (relatively minor) change by someone else, "spending" their 1RR coin, then follow up with a more controversial edit of your own, knowing that they would be unable to revert you. I'm not saying Jiujitsuguy did that here, but if WP:GAME is interpreted the way you're describing, I'm concerned that we might see more of that in the future. ← George 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    Comment by ZScarpia

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

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

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

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

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

    I've participated in, and monitored, this page for several months now. I've already observed the activities of the involved parties, and wrote my comments accordingly. I am not advocating mercy; rather, I am assuming good faith as required, giving them credit for knowing their own history and consequences of past actions, and trying to work within the restrictions they are currently under. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Comment by Mbz1

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

    • Here's a copy of the message I posted to Tim's talk page: "Hi Tim, Sorry for posting here, but I am not sure you'd pay attention to my post on AE.You topic banned wikifan for 8 months because of editor's prior history. Now you said this, but IMO it is not exactly correct statement about Jiujitsuguy. He has not nearly as bad prior history of topic bans as Nableezy does. Nableezy has at least 6 month topic ban for I/P related articles. As much as I could see Jiujitsuguy has never been banned for the whole topic. Besides what exactly Jiujitsuguy done to deserve to be banned. He filed a valid AE request, and that's it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)"--Mbz1 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Lol don't draw me into this please. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Jiujitsuguy violating npov

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

    This is not to do with POV, rather fact v. fiction. The Golan is in Israel. To state otherwise is a lie. Chesdovi (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Your comment is in violation of npov: and it is based on your own personal believes. If you cant follow npov and instead resort to adding your personal pov into articles like Jiujitsuguy, then you should refrain from editing within the topic area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Between 48-67 the West Bank was "in" Jordan: even though the IC did not recognise Jordans annexation. The same goes for areas now controlled by Nothern Cyprus. The villages are in the Turkish republic. Pages discussing the legal disputes can go into to various viewpoints. Places in EJ & the GH, annexed by Israel, are viewed as in Israel like any other places on the planet, even if this move is not recognised. Chesdovi (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    The Golan Heights issue needs an ArbCom ruling like the West Bank/Samaria issue. We've seen fights on every possible article about whether or not it's part of Israel. I'd be perfectly happy if Israel got the Golan Heights in a peace agreement but until that happens and the world recognizes it, pushing Golan as Israeli sovereign territory is putting the perspective of one county above all the others. We've been over this many times in many talk pages; you don't have to change your personal opinions but recognize that they aren't what WP reflects. Sol (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

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

    A now-deleted version of your userpage at one time stated opinions such as "This user knows Israel has no right to exist" along with several very anti-Israeli comments & flags; in addition, you have made some unsettling comments in the past on non-political food articles ,. Would you say that those comments are much different from those which you are attributing to Jiujitsuguy? --nsaum75 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    I have already received a topic ban for those kinds of comments I made at talkpages and for the comments at my userpage. I also removed the things from my userpage a year and a half ago.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    If memory serves me correct an Admin, not you, removed the items from your userpage citing WP:SOAP. True, your topic ban has since expired. But you clearly espoused such opinions & viewpoints at one time, and you have continued to argue against the inclusion of photos from Israel in non-political food articles by saying that it is not neutral to have photos from Israel in articles about Arab food. So how are those article and userpage comments different than statements that you are attributing to Jiujitsuguy from outside wikipedia? --nsaum75 17:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    My topic ban was not for supporting inclusion or exclusion of photos from countries, admin said "the most compelling and disturbing behavior adduced here is nearly a year old. (The June 2009 edit seems to hit the high watermark for bad behavior)." It was certain types of comments I made, and I said that I would not say those kinds of things again, and I have not. Jujitsuguy has on the other hand not received a topic ban for his problematic behavior. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    So then when you say "This is clearly not someone who should be editing within the topic area." do you mean a short-term ban or an indefinite ban? Because I still see little difference in the comments you have made and the ones that you say Jujitsuguy has made. --nsaum75 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    I received my punishment for what I did, and I learnt my lesson, Jiujitsuguy has not recived anything for what he have done, and his probleamtic behaviour continues. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    @SupremeDeliciousness. Let me explain the difference between you and I. I expressed genuine remorse for making stupid and immature comments that were made on an off wiki forum. The contrition came after I was reinstated which means that I didn’t have to say it because I was already reinstated. The reason why I expressed regret was because I genuinely meant it. You on the other hand made vile racist statements referring to people of Jewish faith as "culture thieves" and land grabbers and you made these comments on Misplaced Pages. What’s even more disturbing is that you stated, while appealing your topic ban, that you would not repeat such offensive words on Misplaced Pages again but you never offered an apology for those hurtful, overtly racist views nor offered a retraction. You merely stated that from a tactical position, it wasn’t in your interest to repeat those views if you wanted to continue to edit. I asked you, as many as four times to retract those abhorrent statements and you refused which only means that you still subscribe to them. And that my friend is the difference between you and I. I recognize my shortcomings and try to improve myself whereas you’ve never demonstrated such a proclivity--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not only talking about those comments that you made of wiki, Im talking about your problematic pov edits at Misplaced Pages as I have shown above in diffs. I have never seen an apology from you. Also the things you are saying here about me are inaccurate, I never said "people of Jewish faith as "culture thieves"". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    The diffs speak for themselves and incidentally, aside from reverting edits with edit summaries like "remove Israeli POV," what content have you ever added to Misplaced Pages?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Comment by Sean.hoyland

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

    Comment by Tiamut

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

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

    Comment by Gatoclass

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

    Enigma, perhaps you should leave this AE request to more uninvolved admins since you yourself had a war of words with Nableezy not so long ago. Gatoclass (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Come on,Gatoclass. It was not a content dispute.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    That's quite irrelevant. The two were recently involved in an unfriendly exchange, which calls into question Enigma's impartiality here. There are plenty of uninvolved admins here capable of adjudicating this case. Gatoclass (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

    To that I will add that I endorse Amatulic's most recent comment. We need to keep a sense of perspective. I think at most, we should be looking at a month long topic ban for an offence like this, in keeping with PhilKnight's original suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

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

    I suspect that you won't get any hard and fast answers to your first question. If disruption were to occur, I assume that each editor's behaviour would be examined to determine the extent to which they were contributing and whether their actions were justified. If an editor was removing obvious vandalism or something that looked like a BLP issue, their behaviour would likely look clean. If an edit war was kicking off, the editors who prolonged it would tend to look like the guilty parties. In general, in such a case, it would probably be best to leave the article in whatever state it had arrived at and turn to the talk page. It wouldn't improve the appearance of your behaviour if you've been trying to insert invalidly sourced text, or, conversely, completely remove validly sourced text without good reasons. In the latter case, unproven claims that the statement being removed is "controversial" would hopefully not add up to anything of a defence. When it comes to taking ARBPIA issues to the Arbitration Enforcements Requests page, I've gained the very strong impression that it's not a good idea to do it if it might look as though you have any degree of responsibility for causing the issue you're reporting. I would say that it would look better if you've made a reasonable effort to resolve the issue before turning to Arbitration Enforcement. For 1RR violations that might include giving the culprit an opportunity to revert themselves first.     ←   ZScarpia   20:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    I completely disagree. I think the admins can and should let editors know when reverts are legitimate. I have no problem with them saying that when discussion is open reverting is not allowed (obviously with exceptions for vandalism/BLP). That's fine. Let us know what state the article should be left in, and you have a clear rule everyone can follow. That would cut down the edit wars significantly. Right now it seems JJG is going to get punished basically for bringing an actionable report to AE, since what he did is very common. There were at least 6 other editors reverting while discussion was open, including you and me, and I think we all know that sort of thing happens here all the time. Looking at my watchlist, I can give you examples for 3 articles where people are reverting while discussion is open, and that's just from the past few hours. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Perhaps there is no single clear rule governing the situation you're asking about? In any case, no admin would be able to give you a definite answer over how such a situation would go because other admins might interpret things differently. On the subject of Jujitsuguy, as any editor who's been following the ARPIA area should have realised, an editor bringing a case here risks having their own part in the issue judged; if it looks as though they haven't behaved reasonably themselves, they stand a good chance of being sanctioned too.     ←   ZScarpia   22:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

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

    Forgive me for replying here. The charade was pretending that your concerns merited the complete removal of the sentence, which is what you did. The charade was saying WTA applied after the "WTA" had already been removed, which it had been at the time you removed the rest of the sentence. Your concerns were valid, but not to the extent that the sentence should have been completely removed. A slight rewording, at most, was necessary, but you used easily solvable style issues to justify the complete removal of the content. nableezy - 00:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    I think a reading of the actual discussion doesn't support what you're claiming above. You dismissed my concerns completely, in your usual friendly manner. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    I encourage everybody to read the discussion. Especially where I write WP:WTA does not justify completely removing the content, if you have a problem with the word "widely" you could have removed that. I will be happy to expand on this material in the body, rendering moot your other wikilawyer-esque objection. And then they can see the edit where I address both issues in my revert of Jiujitsuguy. And then maybe even see me asking if anybody has any objection to the current edit. And then maybe they will see that none of the people who removed the content has bothered to respond to that question. But since I have your attention here, and I may not be allowed to engage you on this subject in the very near future, are there any problems with the edits I made, or did I address all of your policy or guideline concerns? nableezy - 01:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    You dismissed my objections, saying they are not grounded in policy. You did so in an unpleasant manner, as usual. After making sure I'm reminded why I don't like talking to you, you made some changes to the article. Now apparently you want me to go back there and what? Say "thank you"?
    NoMoreMrNiceGuy, I thought that your stated reasons for completely removing the text were completely worthless and it certainly looked to me as though you were making a pretty poor attempt at rationalising the removal of a statement you simply didn't like. Even new editors here would probably realise quickly that they can't completely delete sourced statements just because, without presenting evidence, they deem a statement contentious (nor could they do the opposite, reinsert an unsourced statement just because they deemed it obviously true). Unlike Nableezy, I don't believe that the use of the word "widely" by a source is covered by the WTA rule. If a reliable source says that something is called something widely, I think that it is legitimate to say that in the article. I think that there was a good case for moving the "ethnic cleansing" statement into the body of the article. In fact, I'm not keen on pinning labels on things and would rather just let the facts speak for themselves, but I thought that the reasons you gave for your deletion were so poor that I felt bound to reverse you.     ←   ZScarpia   01:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    As I told you several times already, if an uninvolved admin tells me I did something wrong, I will certainly take that to heart. You couldn't be considered uninvolved by any stretch of the imagination. To the point, I presented several objections and per BRD I reverted for discussion. I just had another look at BRD and it says nothing about not reverting "sourced statements" or anything similar. It says Bold->Revert->Discuss. I was reverting to the version before the bold edit, per my understanding of BRD. I think you felt bound to reverse me based on our prior interactions, but maybe I'm just being cynical. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Which previous interactions do you have in mind? If I was going to start pursuing vendettas, why would I choose you?     ←   ZScarpia   03:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Who knows why people do stuff. Is it not a fact you never edited the article before I did? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Comment by BorisG

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

    Additional comment by Mbz1

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

    Comment by Petri Krohn

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

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

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

    Result concerning Nableezy

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

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

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

    Enough, I say.

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

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

    • This is ridiculous. It seems to me that both the filer and the respondent are attempting to game the system and are certainly attempting to use AE as a weapon to gain the upper hand in this long-running content dispute. I would suggest a 0RR restriction or topic ban for both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • This "self-revert a revert so that I can revert again" tactic is not acceptable. T. Canens (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with HJ Mitchell - this is ridiculous. I suggest a 1-month topic for Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree with lengthy topic bans for both. At what point do we stop giving second... er... fifth chances to people who seem to always be in the vicinity of battleground disputes? -- tariqabjotu 07:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • @Enigmaman, it seems the JJG intentionally waited until Nableezy had made a revert (on a page restricted to 1RR) to make an edit he knew Nableezy would revert. That's just as bad as Nableezy's self-revert one revert so he can make another tactic imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • So Nableezy has no self-control; that he has to make certain reverts? Anyway, given Nableezy's more serious sanction history and the behaviour noted here, I think he should be the one to receive the stricter punishment. Similar to when the NBA issues double technicals to when two are fighting, I don't believe that just issuing a blanket punishment to all parties is an equitable solution. Enigma 16:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Both have been at each others' throats for many months, both have attempted to game the system and the filer is now attempting to use AE as a weapon to gain an advantage in their dispute, so both should face sanctions. Whether one is topic-banned for longer than the other, I'm not bothered, but, if both are topic banned, the levels of disruption in the topic area will be reduced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

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

    That has been done. Every article in the I/P topic area is under 1RR, so it's not a case of one editor being under such a restriction and another not. I agree with Mkativerata that sanctions are required. We have a 1RR restriction and it hasn't stopped the tendentious editing and the general battleground mentality, so now other measures are required in the name of preventing further disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Several points:
    • Once a related discussion is open, the page should remain as is, whether or not the disputed content is in there. That is, act as if it has been fully protected. Only in cases of egregious BLP violations or situations of comparable gravity should any revert be done once the discussion started.
    • I agree with HJ Mitchell that the topic-wide 1RR restriction has been so far unable to control the battleground behavior, and stronger measures are required to contain the disruption. This should come as no surprise, given my recent comments in several recent AE threads related to this topic area.
    • This does mean that we may be compelled to impose seemingly draconian sanctions, but we are not left with much choice here. The alternative would be to ask arbcom to open ARBPIA3, which, if the more recent cases are any indication, is likely to result in a series of indefinite topic bans. I seriously doubt that anyone wants to go down that path.
    • Nableezy's history is indeed more problematic than JJG's. Their most recent area-wide topic ban was for two months. I'll agree to a four-month ban for Nableezy and three months for JJG, in the hopes that we can reach some agreement here. T. Canens (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    I'd support that. Hopefully three and four months respectively will cool tempers and allow these editors to remain on opposite sides of the street from one another and, if not, we can revisit it in four months. I also concur that ArbCom are unlikely to do anything that would be perceived as less draconian than this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    I agree the imposition of a topic wide 1RR hasn't resolved the problems, and I'm ok with the 4 month ban for Nableezy, and 3 month ban for Jujitsuguy. PhilKnight (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

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

    Littleolive oil and Edith Sirius Lee 2

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

    Request concerning Littleolive oil and Edith Sirius Lee 2

    User requesting enforcement
    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Edith Sirius Lee 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    "that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Misplaced Pages in connection with these articles."
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    In this dif from Olive she refers to directs quotes from JAMA as "your personal biases". This is against WP:CIVIL, WP:DUE and the current ArbCom remedies. She has current restrictions in place here .
    In these difs from Edith and my views are referred to as "paranoid" A warning was given here for this previous edit where she states "Doc James destroyed years of work". This user has subsequently changed user names to User:Edith Sirius Lee 2
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Topic area ban for Edith, Warning for Olive
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    This users have an admitted WP:COI in that she admits to practicing TM. They edit this subject area primarily or exclusively.
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Olive here
    Edith

    Discussion concerning Littleolive oil

    Statement by Littleolive oil

    Mainspace edits per "They edit this subject area primarily or exclusively."

    Clarifications and context per the TM arbitration:

    • All editors on the list created by EdJohnston, as well as Jmh649 (Doc James) and Will Beback were parties in the TM arbitration.
    • All editors were included in the decisions and remedies
    • After months of deliberation and multiple pages of evidence, no single editor, with one exception, and no so-called group was found to be any more or less at blame than any other.
    • No COI was found/named in the arbitration
    • The TM arbitration did not in any way identify editors as belonging to "groups", but treated editors as individuals.
    • The TM arbitration discretionary sanction statement cited by Doc James, says a warning is required (bold). The full statement says:

    Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Misplaced Pages in connection with these articles.

    - Per the TM arbitration I was not warned, nor does one strongly worded statement constitute," repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes."

    Statement:

    My comment in the TM talk page was not a response to the JAMA article. It was a response to Doc James' history of personalizing comments, lack of assuming good faith, and hisj insistence on editing on a body of research from a singular point of view. Its clear from this thread,that I wasn’t sure what James was referring to. My intent was not to offend another editor but to express serious concern to an editor who has a history of unilateral editing, (even in the face of an RfC, where he split content off the main article including the TM research, on the second day of an RfC, while another solution had been suggested by an uninvolved editor, in the face of editor disagreement, effectively preempting the RfC) . However, the comment was strongly worded, and since it offended I sincerely apologize and will strike the statement.

    On three previous occasions I have asked James to assume good faith:

    Cmt:Warning:

    Cmt:Warning:

    Cmt:Warning:


    Concerns I have with Doc James' editing behaviour

    Personalizing comments on the TM article talk page:

    • "Well it seems that TM publishes a huge amount which they like to brag about little of the work has any real scientific substance to it."

    • "We do know that peoples who lively-hood and identity depend on TM disagree with a major report that found it either ineffective… "

    • "You will need to convince Misplaced Pages editors who are not practitioners of TM the validity of your argument…."

    • "Yes the three of you agree but you also all practice TM. Now please get some outside input."

    • "You and a number of editors who practice TM keep changing it. There have been no attempts by those who practice TM to get outside supporting opinions. It seems that only those who practice TM agree with the wording presented."

    • "Some have a desire to present the topic in a non NPOV manner with TM meaning only the technique in line with statements of official TM material.."

    • Many more diffs if wanted or needed

    Not assuming good faith:

    • "I have the impression of efforts to suppress information regarding the TM movement with a desire to give greater emphasis to the technique."

    • "I personally see KB list as just a specific selection of sites to support his POV."

    Misrepresentation/POV of research/Deletion sourced content on research:

    (Violations of TM arbitration)

    • Deletes material from a 2007 book published by McGrawHill Medical. The material was sourced to a chapter authored by three scientists from the National Institutes of Health and an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center.
    • Removes material sourced to a 2008 research review in BMC Psychiatry and a 2006 research review in the journal Ethnicity and Disease.
    • At the same time, he discredits research on TM (and violates WP:MEDRS) by quoting a 1985 book on religion that claims "that the original findings had been false or exaggerated."

    This is the second time James has brought me to AE on charges that are misrepresentations. I was taken to AE, restricted by Future Perfect At Sunrise and the case was closed before I could make a comment. I was restricted based on making two reverts is two months. Neither of these requests is right or fair, nor serves the time of editors who come to these AE/N in any capacity.

    As an editor, I am doing everything I can to support a collegial, collaborative editing environment, and to move away from convoluted discussion, that includes actively helping to draft a recent RfC suggestion section, asking a neutral outside admin. to come in to gauge consensus when there was disagreement, applying for two mediations, and starting the preliminaries for a third.

    Comment by Will Beback

    One of the principles from the arbitration concerned assuming good faith:

    • Decorum and assumptions of good faith
    • Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

    The remedies instruct uninvolved admins to the enforce the listed principles:

    • Guidance for uninvolved administrators
    • Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.

    If uninvolved admins think this is a clear-cut case of assuming bad faith then it would be appropriate to enforce compliance using the discretionary sanctions.   Will Beback  talk  09:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

    (Moved from admins section): I was caught by surprise by this filing, but I believe there is relevant evidence to present here. I think the best thing would be to put this case on hold for a few days to collect and present that material before making a determination. Or, to withdraw it and re-post it shortly.   Will Beback  talk  14:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by Edith Sirius Lee

    Is this officially an AE about Fladrif, TimidGuy and me as well? Since the issue is the lack of progression at the content level, should not admins consider the attitude of all involved editors toward consensus at the content level. @Tijfo098, the adjective "paranoid" was qualifying content (in sources), not editors. Also, the "independently done" is about content. TimidGuy also shared the same opinion about the "independently done". It is just a content dispute. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    Technical request to move a misplaced comment

    I respectfully request that Will Beback respects the following guideline in the section below: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above." I will remove this comment after that. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Littleolive oil

    Gadzooks, someone please give that poor talkpage a break from the endless hair-splittingly circular arguments and misrepresentation of sources by the proponents (mostly). TM is a form of alternative medicine, so I consider myself WP:INVOLVED despite not having edited there. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by Tijfo098

    Selective quotation from Talk:Transcendental Meditation#An medical article looking at cost and adverse effects:

    Olive: "You clearly are attempting to present the pejorative view." DocJames: "Some people who practice TM says it allows them to fly and have eternal health." Olive: "You are conflating your personal bias with use of sources."

    While observing the proportions, this situation appears not dissimilar from that of User:Destinero, who while right about the core science issue related to LGBT parenting, nevertheless chooses the most strident language to proclaim it, and actually manages to support his choice of words with citations (usually page xx out of a long amicus brief of affidavit by a major researcher or science organization), and hardly ever agrees to a compromise on the language regardless of what language other major science orgs use. Ironically, Destinero is the one usually dragged to admin boards for this; ANI, because there was no arbitration case on that topic.

    To conclude, there may be POV pushing at work here, but it doesn't seem to me from that discussion that it's only from one side. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

    P.S.: I read some of the context for that thread above where Doc cites Rodney Stark (whose views on the world are highly correlated with his current employer) to say that "Yes I have found a few sources that share my main stream scientific point of view regarding TM and could find many more... " That was funny not in the least because the words "fiercely polemical" are in the first sentence of a NYT book review of one of Stark's books: . Tijfo098 (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

    Regading EdJohnston's 4-way ban proposal

    After reading the unarchived talk page there, I think User:Edith Sirius Lee can be justifiably topic banned for repeatedly breaching decorum esp. calling skeptic views of TM "paranoid", and for general absurd lawyering e.g. regarding the word "independently", but I don't see evidence for banning the others listed by EdJohnson. I'm particularly bewildered by the suggestion to ban User:Fladrif as TM proponent; see Talk:Transcendental Meditation#Changes lead. Perhaps the algorithm invoked is red link user name => ban? Tijfo098 (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    I know its way off topic, but just to put in a good word for User:Fladrif,he stepped in first to rescue the Michael Welner BLP; he spent a lot of time with the sources too. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Littleolive oil

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

    Littleolive oil was one of the parties in the June, 2010 Arbcom decision known as WP:ARBTM and I understand that she has a TM affiliation. Over 90% of her edits since 2006 appear to be on the subject of TM. Opinions may differ as to the exact reason for the discussion at Talk:Transcendental Meditation going in circles for so long, but people with a TM affiliation have been working on these articles for years. (The talk page has 37 archives of up to 200Kb each). If the TM people were ever going to create a modus vivendi with the regular editors, it ought to be visible by now. I think that a set of bans from talk pages may be necessary if we ever want these articles to converge. Though COI-affected people can work well with others on some articles, it doesn't seem to be working out here. The least arbitrary way of selecting people for a talk page ban would be to pick those admonished in the Arbcom case or those sanctioned at AE since then. That list would be:

    1. User:Fladrif
    2. User:TimidGuy
    3. User:Littleolive oil
    4. User:Edith Sirius Lee

    I recommend that we impose a ban of these editors from the topic of Transcendental Meditation for six months, on all pages of Misplaced Pages including article and user talk, except for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution concerning their own edits. The ban would be evaluated after six months to see if their absence improved the editing climate or the quality of the articles. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    Bit draconian, that. Your logic, if I understand it correctly, is "lets just ban everyone who has gotten in trouble before" - hardly justice for those who are trying to mend their ways and have done nothing wrong since their last transgression was sanctioned. Am I missing something? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 12:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    I fully agree with that and, I might add, the same flawed logic appears to be at work in a number of other recent cases.
    If people want somebody to be topic banned, I want to see a pattern of recent misconduct, not just one diff. I can't see why this case would merit any more than a warning. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    I think we should give Littleolive oil some more time to respond. Otherwise, I agree with KillerChihuahua about the bans proposed by EdJohnston. PhilKnight (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Will Beback has also asked for some more time to prepare his case. I have moved his comment to his own section above. Gatoclass (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    As currently presented, I agree that EdJohnston's proposed bans sweep way too broadly. T. Canens (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    I would prefer that the much broader concerns be dealt with in a separate AE.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    Discussion concerning Edith Sirius Lee

    Statement by Edith Sirius Lee

    In all the diffs presented, I am only referring to content (in sources) or to edits that editors have done, including edits that undid a structure that took a long time to establish. There is no direct attack on an editor. I do not usually directly attack the POV of editors. I did it in some other diffs, but I apologized after. I do not know Doc James, but I am pretty sure he is a nice person. We just disagree on content. If I do my own self critic, I would say that I can be too direct when I contradict other editors in a content dispute using logics, which could even be wrong some times. It is often not well taken. I believe though that I am improving. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    I should add that I am told that my English grammar is not always easy to read. This cannot help. I will try to improve that also. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Edith Sirius Lee

    Gilabrand

    Blocked for one week.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Gilabrand

    User requesting enforcement
    Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Gilabrand must "required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert".

    I added that Migdal Oz is a "settlement" in the "West bank", and removed "Israel" since it is located in the West Bank and not in Israel: , Gilabrand reverts my edits, she removes that its a "settlement" and located in the "West bank":. She also says in the edit summary "remove original research by POV editor"

    And as can be seen at the talkpage she did not discuss her revert as she is obligated to do. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. She has had many topic bans and blocks: So she has been warned.
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Admin can decide.
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Gilabrand

    Statement by Gilabrand

    Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand

    Comment by RolandR

    The example cited by SD appears to be a clear breach of the sanction. It is over a week old, but a glance at Gilabrand's contributions history reveals several other such breaches. For instance, on Dead Sea, at 21.40, 2 December (edit summary "Undid revision 400189530 by 213.21.80.61"; on Kibbutz at 14.42, 2 December (edit summary "(editorializing & unsourced trivia deleted"); on Sderot at 16.19, 1 December (edit summary "do not delete sourced information and replace it with an advocacy site like palestineremembered"); on Iran-Israel relations at 15.44, 1 December (edit summary "Undid revision 399926899 by Jim Fitzgerald"); on Yarkon Park at 13.34, 1 December (edit summary "restore to last good version before Deanb edit-warring"). In none of these did Gilabrand discuss this, as required, at the talk page. This is serial breach of a clear sanction. RolandR (talk)

    Bogus accusations. On Dead Sea and in a few other articles Gilabrand reverted vandalism. Iran-Israel relations has nothing to with I/P conflict because Iran is not an Arab state.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    Please explain how any of these edits was reverting vandalism. Note that the sanction states that the only vandalism exempt from the discussion requirement was that which was "obvious to someone who has no knowledge of the subject". These all look to me like content disputes, some of them involving highly subjective POV assessments. Nor did Gilabrand attempt to describe these as vandalism at the time; the edit summaries make this clear. RolandR (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Gilabrand

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    I have above, here it is again: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    As far as I can see, you've twice provided the diff for the logging of the sanction, but thanks for that one if I'm just being an idiot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I have blocked Gilabrand for 7 days for repeated violation of the cited restriction. I'm happy to discuss the block or its duration here or on my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree that Gilabrand violated the sanction imposed by T. Canens on 3 November, since it was very specific. She did not provide the required explanation on Talk within 30 minutes. This happened in the following three cases (I'm repeating some of the diffs that SD provided above to be sure we are all referring to the same cases):
    1. At Migdal Oz (seminary) on 22 November per
    2. At the Dead Sea on 2 December per , and
    3. At Kibbutz on 2 December per .
    This kind of a restriction (which requires explaining each revert) seems like it could be beneficial in the future, but unless it is routinely enforced without too much fuss it won't have any benefit. A seven-day block seems about right. This was not a one-time lapse. On 4 November, just after she was told of the restriction, she in effect said she was planning to ignore it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    Marokwitz

    Request concerning Marokwitz

    User requesting enforcement

    SlimVirgin 17:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

    User against whom enforcement is requested

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

    Sanction violated

    Violation of 1RR (two reverts within 10 hours; different material involved); Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

    Diffs that violate it
    • Version reverted to: 11:27 Nov 25, added to the lead "known by it's Hebrew name, Lod"
    • Version reverted to: 05:37 Nov 27, added "In 2005, Israeli Historians Alon Kadish and Avraham Sela criticized the 'Arab and Israeli revisionist historiography' of the Lydda events, and argued that the expulsion was not premeditated, and that the decision for expulsion was made during heavy fighting and unexpected military circumstances. The further wrote that there is no first-hand evidence that a massacre took place, and said there is 'severe doubt' over whether a massacre actually took place in the al-'Umari Mosque."
    • 2nd revert: 15:04 Dec 5, added "Kadish and Sela criticized the 'Arab and Israeli revisionist historiography' of the Lydda events, and argued that there is no first-hand evidence that a massacre took place, and said there is 'severe doubt' over whether a massacre actually took place in the mosque.
    Diffs of prior warnings

    That 1RR applies to the page is posted on talk. I also offered him the chance to self-revert.

    Enforcement action requested

    Request a block for violation of 1RR

    Additional comments

    Marowitz's edits were not back to back. He made the first revert, restoring the Hebrew name issue. . I removed it. Then he made the second revert, restoring the "severe doubt" that a massacre took place (the massace issue is already referred to elsewhere in the article; Marowitz may be editing the page without reading it).

    The article is currently being prepared for FAC. There's an open peer review request, and editors are giving feedback at User talk:SlimVirgin/Lydda3—editors are commenting there because it's difficult to trust the mainspace version—and Marokwitz's manner of editing is not helping this process. Because his edits didn't stand, he has now added a POV tag, also not helpful.

    Discussion concerning Marokwitz

    Statement by Marokwitz

    First of all, I would like to thank SlimVirgin for making fun of my slight dyslexia, by choosing to present edits containing typing errors instead of the later versions in which I corrected them. Nice of you, SlimVirgin. You should be proud of yourself. I plead guilty to the typos. As for the rest, I am innocent, as I intend to demonstrate soon. Marokwitz (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

    I don't know whether you went back and fixed "they." You didn't fix "it's." I had to do it. This is the absurdity. You know I'm trying to get the page to FAC. But you add poor writing (and you say you know it might be problematic), and POV, and poor sources, and repetition, giving the impression that you're editing the article without having read it. I'm having to fix the writing of edits I disagree with, edits based on poor sources, because I can't revert, but I can't leave the writing as it is. That's why I'm having to keep an acceptable version of the page in my userspace, and uninvolved editors are having to review it on a user talk page. Not a good situation. SlimVirgin 19:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    Please calm down a bit, SV. The world does not have to come to a stand because you want to take an article to FAC. Indeed, to that end, the best approach would be to edit in a collaberative manner with all editors, instead of running to some noticeboard on some technicality, especially when your version is not consistent with the consensus at the talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    What ought to happen when an article is going to FAC is that people allow it to be written, and reviewed by uninvolved editors. It can't get FA status with partisan editors adding POV and poor writing, and bible.org as a source. So if that kind of editing must be accepted at I/P articles, which is what you're arguing, you're effectively saying that those articles should never be allowed to get FA status. SlimVirgin 22:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    1. I would advise you not to accuse editors of being "partisans", writing such things could get even the slim goddess of Misplaced Pages banned. You have no idea who I am or what my opinions are. Watch it.
    2. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with "adding POV", the whole idea of Misplaced Pages is to faithfully represent all commonly held POVs according to their prominence in reliable sources, and that includes some POVs not necessarily held by SlimVirgin. What you are doing ("removing POV") is actually much worse.
    3. "bible.org" is a perfectly reliable source when we are using it for citing the texts of one of the well known books and dictionaries contained on that site (for example, Hitchcock, Nave's, EBD, Smith's, ISBE, Strong's Greek & Hebrew Lexicon).
    4. If you think you are the only editor on Misplaced Pages capable of unbiased research, then god help us. Marokwitz (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    Motion to dismiss by Marokwitz

    Did I actually revert? Let's see. A few days ago I added reliably sourced material to the section "Lydda's defenses": :

    In 2005, Israeli Historians Alon Kadish and Avraham Sela criticized the "Arab and Israeli revisionist historiography" of the Lydda events, and argued that the expulsion was not premeditated, and that the decision for expulsion was made during heavy fighting and unexpected military circumstances. The further wrote that there is no first-hand evidence that a massacre took place, and said there is "severe doubt" over whether a massacre actually took place in the al-'Umari Mosque.

    Less than 10 minutes later, SlimVirgin rephrased my words and placed them in a footnote, without discussion and with the following very cryptic edit summary : "((ec) + details)"

    They argue that the deaths in Lydda occurred because a military battle for the town took place, not because of a massacre.

    Several days later, surprised to see that SlimVirgin decided the views of Kadish and Sela are only worth mentioning in a footnote, let alone without any explanation or discussion, I decided to add another, much shorter version of my text, this time to a different section where I felt balance was still needed, (The section "Israeli response to the shooting"), while keeping SlimVirgin's edit intact. I added the following:

    Kadish and Sela criticized the "Arab and Israeli revisionist historiography" of the Lydda events, and argued that there is no first-hand evidence that a massacre took place, and said there is "severe doubt" over whether a massacre actually took place in the mosque.

    From Misplaced Pages:Edit warring:

    "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material."

    In other words, a "revert" would be me taking SlimVirgin's work and reversing it fully or partially.

    However, I did not reverse any of SlimVirgin's edits, in whole or in part. I did not blatantly go and redo my edit. What I did is, added a new and different version of my text, to a wholly different area of the article, several days after the original edit, hoping that my new version would be good enough to reach consensus, and at the same time I did not modify or remove any of the work of SlimVirgin.

    To summarize:

    1. In the above-mentioned edit, I did not reverse actions of other editors in whole or in part.
    2. I may have made a similar edit twice in two sections of the article, yet I don't recall any discretionary sanctions against being repetitive. I have every right to do so, as long as I'm not reversing other editors work.

    My work is simply a standard case of collaborative editing, in which one editor gradually edits the words of another editor, in a non destructive fashion. SV's "extremist" interpretation of the policy, if accepted, would completely destroy the collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages and simply scare editors away.

    If some editor copyedits some text that I wrote and moves it to a footnote, according to the sanctions I'm not allowed to undo their edit (more than once per day). However, no policy states that I am forbidden from adding any remotely similar material sourced to Kadish and Sela somewhere else in the article.

    Similarly, in the second case I am accused of "reverting", regarding the Hebrew name of Lydda - this was not a revert either, rather I modified the article based on new reliable sources that I found and added in that edit ( A cyclopædia of Biblical literature: Volume 2, by John Kitto, William Lindsay Alexander. p. 842, and Lod (Lydda), Israel: from its origins through the Byzantine period, 5600 B.C.E.-640 C.E., by Joshua J. Schwartz, 1991, p. 15), and following discussion on the talk page in which several editors participated and agreed with my edit, while SlimVirgin, the only editor to oppose my edit, eventually failed to respond. It's not a revert, it's something which SlimVirgin doesn't seem to care much about called "consensus".

    I rest my case.

    It should be noted that the present situation is that both my edits are now OUT of the article, despite quite a clear consensus in favor for their inclusion. I'm really quite a terrible "edit warrior", ain't I?

    On a personal note, many editors are feeling that SlimVirgin is acting as if she owns the article, doing hundreds of edits and immediately reverting or changing every contribution by other editors. She is driving other editors away by her behavior. Just look at her edit history, and read the talk page of "her" personal essay, 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle. Just a short quote from SlimVirgin, addressing me :

    "I'm likely to remove the material you added today... We can't keep adding more details from particular perspectives, especially not in any of the background sections. ... You're welcome to oppose, but I need to shorten this, not lengthen it."

    She has recently harassed me on my talk page on another completely false allegation, just for daring to confront her tyrannical editing style.

    • This is not the collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages.
    • This is not the conduct expected from an experienced administrator.

    While it is not my style to engage in Wikilawyering and enforcement requests, I do believe that the result of this case should be a warning to SlimVirgin. She cannot try to scare and intimidate other editors way from "her" article; that is unacceptable.

    I am completely certain of my innocence. It was not my intention to edit war, and my actions can hardly be considered edit warring by any definition. I value my integrity and reputation above all. As an active editor in often highly controversial areas, with over 10,000 edits in over four years, not once was I involved in any such arbitration case. It is extremely important for me to keep this clean record. I motion for this arbitration case to be dismissed. In case I am found guilty for edit warring and warned or banned - I hereby declare my intent to self-ban myself for an additional period of 7 days. 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

    You self-reverted, so it's over. If you'd done it when first requested, the report would have been unnecessary. What you did was revert to a previous version of yours that you knew had been removed recently (one revert), then when I removed it, you reverted to another previous version of yours, which you also knew had been removed recently. That was the second revert. With both those edits, you knowingly reversed the recent removal of that material. You're only allowed to do that once in 24 hours on I/P articles. SlimVirgin 22:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    No, it's not over. I want a ruling to show that I'm being falsely accused. I will not accept my reputation being ruined for engaging in completely good faith and positive editing. Marokwitz (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    Comment by Brewcrewer

    This appears to be much ado about nothing except drama mongering. I don't know the intricities of 1rr so I will avoid commenting on the specific, but I told both Slim Virgin and Marokwitz that I along with other editors on the article talk page agreed with Marokwitz's edit and had he self reverted I would have reverted his self-revert. I guess that takes on new absurdity levels, but its just another day in the I-A conflict.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by BorisG

    This looks like a minor technical infringement made in good faith. SV is trying to own the article. I can understand this, given their massive contribution to this article and the FAC nomination, but refusing to engage in consensus building and accusing all other editors (who are trying to make the article more balanced) of being partisans etc is not helpful. I urge all editors here to work towards consensus. - BorisG (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Marokwitz

    Piotrus

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

    Request concerning Piotrus

    User requesting enforcement
    Offliner (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Misplaced Pages:EEML#Modified_by_motion_3
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warning by Coren (talk · contribs) "I also agree in principle with a narrowing of the topic ban, but that would be accompanied with a stern warning that trying to toe the line and argue about where it lies is the swiftest way to have it return"
    2. Warning by SirFozzie (talk · contribs) "as for the narrowing, I agree with Brad, and will at least be willing to narrow the topic ban, with the caveat that it's going to be very quickly reapplied if there are future issues"
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Block and reinstatement of full EE topic ban
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Offliner (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Piotrus

    Statement by Piotrus

    Comments by others about the request concerning Piotrus

    Result concerning Piotrus

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

    Martintg

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

    Request concerning Martintg

    User requesting enforcement
    Offliner (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Misplaced Pages:EEML#Modified_by_open_motion_6
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Removes the term extermination camp from the article The Holocaust in Estonia
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Martintg was recently blocked for a week for a similar violation, see here
    2. Warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
    3. Warning by SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Block and reinstatement of full EE topic ban
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    As I said here, I believe Martintg has been violating his topic ban continuously from the very beginning. He still shows no signs of stopping despite his recent 1 week block. Offliner (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Martintg

    Statement by Martintg

    Offliner states "I believe Martintg has been violating his topic ban continuously from the very beginning", surely that is a gross exaggeration as my recent edit history shows. I guess what this AE complaint demonstrates is that Offliner is closely stalking my edits, with little over two weeks until the expiry of my topic ban and over two months since his previous complaint on AE, the sum total of Offliner's complaint is two relatively minor edits (actually since they are consecutive they would constitute a single edit). Surely if I was violating my "topic ban continuously from the very beginning" there would be more diffs.

    The first edit I removed the text "(Nazi terminology about 'extermination camp')'" as it seemed out of context compared to the other sections and after checking both Nazi terminology and extermination camp and not finding anything about the term "Arbeits- und Erziehungslager" that seemed relevant, and it wasn't sourced. There is a "cleanup" template at the top of the page after all. The second consecutive edit was simply to correct a link to the actual article .

    The Holocaust in Estonia is an article about a terribly heinous crime perpetrated by Nazis and their collaborators against Jewish people in Estonia during World War 2, there is simply no dispute about this in Estonia. So I am not sure how this would constitute an instance of a "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe". Estonia is probably the least anti-semitic of all the Eastern/Central European countries. In the pre-war period when virulent anti-Semitism was growing in certain Eastern/Central European countries, Estonia had instituted some of the most progressive policies in regard to her Jewish citizens, enacting laws that protected Jewish cultural heritage in that country, to the extent that the Jewish National Endowment Keren Kajamet presented the Estonian government with a certificate of gratitude for this achievement, see Jews_in_Estonia#Jewish_autonomy_in_independent_Estonia. Just recently Estonia (along with Britain, Finland, France, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) protested against antisemitism in Lithuania . As I said, there is no dispute about this in Estonia.

    However, that being said, if the admins here think this is an issue here I will voluntarily refrain from editing any articles regarding the Jewish people of Estonia for the remaining two weeks of my topic ban. --Martin (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Martintg

    Result concerning Martintg

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