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 21:32, 3 November 2010 editEpeefleche (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers150,049 edits →Statement by Epeefleche: ce← Previous edit Revision as of 21:32, 3 November 2010 edit undoNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,155 edits →Request concerning EpeeflecheNext edit →
Line 481: Line 481:


:Cirt, your response does not make any sense to me. What about Ep's involvement with the AFD entitles him to repeatedly remove a tag placed on an article and discussed on the talk page? Should I take from this that editors may remove any tag they wish without discussion or addressing the cause of the tag and make multiple reverts within minutes to do so? If that is the lesson here I can learn it, no problem. But I dont think that is the lesson here. The user has not been engaged on the talk page, despite what you write below ( is the only edit the user has made to the talk page, and he did that after removing the tag twice), and the user has not addressed any of the issues raised. Why exactly should an editor be entitled to repeatedly remove a tag placed in good faith and discussed on the talk page? Both removals by Ep were manifestly done in bad faith, if that is not sanctionable then so be it. But Ill keep that lesson in mind going forward. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> :Cirt, your response does not make any sense to me. What about Ep's involvement with the AFD entitles him to repeatedly remove a tag placed on an article and discussed on the talk page? Should I take from this that editors may remove any tag they wish without discussion or addressing the cause of the tag and make multiple reverts within minutes to do so? If that is the lesson here I can learn it, no problem. But I dont think that is the lesson here. The user has not been engaged on the talk page, despite what you write below ( is the only edit the user has made to the talk page, and he did that after removing the tag twice), and the user has not addressed any of the issues raised. Why exactly should an editor be entitled to repeatedly remove a tag placed in good faith and discussed on the talk page? Both removals by Ep were manifestly done in bad faith, if that is not sanctionable then so be it. But Ill keep that lesson in mind going forward. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>

:Che, in case you havent noticed, I havent brought AE cases every time I have been reverted. If Ep had been reverting content or something similar I would not have brought this here. But I cant even place a tag on an article, a tag that is valid and discussed on the talk page, without certain users repeatedly removing it? I have already given up trying to fix the actual content, I realize that there is a set of users that will revert almost any content change I make. But even a frickin tag is removed? The reason I brought this here is I am tired of dealing with such bad faith actions and bad faith editors. What other recourse is available to me? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small>


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Revision as of 21:32, 3 November 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

    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

    Iksus2009

    Editor notified under AA. If improper edits continue, a topic ban may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    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 Iksus2009

    User requesting enforcement
    Khodabandeh14 (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Iksus2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#1]
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    • Threatens to disbar an admin who had warned of his WP:NPA violation: . Note the comments on the previous violation:"If anything, don’t look at the past, look at what Iran is right now: one of the most backward countries on Earth, living according to a dark-age ideology, abusing women’s rights, and electing a total clown as your president. Very little indeed. So, I guess, again, I do understand why it is so important to Iranians of today to try to put as much of their national pride on what happened in the past, a side effect of this being attempts to appropriate anything you can. But even if you look in the past, to be frank, there is not much to be proud of. Really. What did this ancient Persia do? Greeks kicked your ass, and you left to the world 0% of what the Greek philosophy and science have left. You claim to fame is to have been beaten by an Ancient great nation, and is such a very derivative notion. It is like saying, “Hey, look, I am an accomplished person too, because Brad Pitt slapped me in the face pretty bad 20 years ago.” " and "Move on, and don’t try to steal other people’s achievements". These comments violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK and WP:BEP.
    • New comment also generalizes

    users based on their background violating WP:NPA and WP:BEP. " It is a sign of clear Iranian bias to hide this fact." "I see that Persians have overrun this page". Also threatens to disbar an admin who had warned him is a serious violation.

    • More minor but still serious issue when it comes to Armenia/Azerbaijan topics, removing sources without discussion in the talkpage.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warning by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    The user has obvisouly has come with a WP:BEP and WP:NPA approach. However, his 2009 comments were extremly xenphobic, which makes it impossible to work with in the article. The user should be topic banned from the article Nezami Ganjavi whose introduction has come through a many months worked concensus (which the user has been told in 2009 as well as the preamble of the article he is editing). His comments about "page being overran by Persians" , "Iranian bias" violates WP:BEP and WP:NPA. More seriously, threatening the admin who warned him about WP:NPA] with disbarment. With the addition of his severe WP:NPA, WP:BEP violats on the talk page, the user should be banned from the talkpage. Also a block for WP:NPA and threatening the admin who only warned of him WP:NPA with disbarment (which is an attempt at a psychological threat). Account could also be an SPA.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Iksus2009

    I request a permanent ban. Here is part of the latest comments after he got the warning. " So with this in mind, here is the promised political opinion: I hope the US and Israel bomb Iran sometime soon. Not because I hate Persians or Iran. I just think it would be good to bring some humility to Persian chauvinism, to talk some sense to them, to bring them up to date with the modern realities of the world (from being stuck in a time period three thousand years past),..." . And this too: " Since I am already going to be banned anyways (in an Iranian style censorship. Well, at least I will not be whipped ... I hope, or be issued a Fatwa against). ". This was just a portion of the latest comments. The user's acount is 1 years old and he has been warned multiple times today and last year. Do you really expect that such a user can be compromised with in the talkpage? Are other users supposed to forget all of his hatred and act like nothing happened and continue normal topics discussions that might arise? The user is asking to get banned as he states too and you predicted: "Ok, now you can go ahead and ban me. I plan not to use Misplaced Pages anyways. I think the Britannica subscription price is worth it, which I have realized thanks to this exchange. So thank you! As they say, you get what you pay for.", "I have no intent of wasting my time any more than I already have.".. etc. Well I think admins ca give him the oppurtunity of not wasting his time and the time of other users (for complaining to admins). It is really a waste of my time.


    If he is not permanently topic banned from such articles, then other places the user contribute, has already been poisened, and has created a WP:BATTLE atmosphere. For example, no one is going to talk calmly to another user who has called for a bombing of a country. There is a reason this sort of topic subjects have gone to two Arbitrations. I believe new measures are needed, where the first such comments, the user is blocked for a week and the second such comments, they are banned. In the case of this user, he was warned three times for the same type of comments, but got absolutely nothing except a light warning from admins (actually the first one was a serious warning but admins did not follow it up). This is a disaster in terms of admins weak policy, and some serious actions would perhaps reduce the number of users like this. Specially since such topics have come under two arbcomms, and admins need to get strict. Not follow one light warning with another with another. . Again, when a topic has gone through two arbcomms, it means admins need to be serious. Moreschi is surely missed, as he would have banned such users on the first incident. Not three light warnings in a row. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    Just a reminder per discussions below: "Because this editor has very little history and the warning from Nishkid came last year, I felt it was more reasonable to give a clear and explicit warning that battleground behavior is not acceptable than to block immediately. However any repetition of this very aggressive behavior should lead to an immediate response. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) "}}.

    I know admins have a lot on their plate, and they deal with so much nonsense everyday. However, they should act upon the previous warnings that were issued. Else violaters of the system might not take their warnings seriously. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


    Statement by Iksus2009

    Comments by others about the request concerning Iksus2009

    Result concerning Iksus2009

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    Because this editor has very little history and the warning from Nishkid came last year, I felt it was more reasonable to give a clear and explicit warning that battleground behavior is not acceptable than to block immediately. However any repetition of this very aggressive behavior should lead to an immediate response. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I have notified Iksus2009 of the AA discretionary sanctions. Since he hasn't continued to revert any articles, and the main problem is his intemperate and nationalistic rhetoric on talk pages, I suggest we close this with no further action. According to him (June 2009), Iran is "right now one of the most backward countries on earch, living according to a dark-age ideology, abusing women's rights, and electing a total clown as your president." At Talk:Nezami Ganjavi#Protected Status he has stated:

      My "fault" was that I was objecting to the clear Persian bias on display in the editorial board overseeing the Nizami page. I will pursue this issue to the end with Misplaced Pages until a balanced approach is reached. I think there has to be at least one ethnic Azeri present on the editorial board of this page.

      If he actually goes ahead and edits in accordance with a nationalist philosophy, a topic ban is one of the possible options. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • This comment by Iksus is precisely what we don't want to see. I am minded to not err on the side of leniency on this occasion, although I do understand why some are. AGK 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not minded to err on the side of leniency, I'm just minded not to poke an editor who has a good chance of disappearing if he isn't poked too much. Looie496 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    My understanding is that an individual admin may impose a topic ban on an editor from all AA articles "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." This could be done in the future without opening up a new enforcement request. The possibility of a topic ban may be held in reserve, even if the present request winds up closing without further action. If anyone thinks a block would be wise, can they specify a duration. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Martintg

    Request concerning Martintg

    User requesting enforcement
    User:The Four Deuces TFD (talk) 01:54, 31 October 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
    Block. Topic ban.

    User:Martintg is topic-banned from topics related to Eastern Europe. "Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics...." A request for clarification explained that this included "Communist terrorism". Although Martintg challenged whether this decision related to him, he abandoned it. A recent decision involving User:Marknutley shows that becoming involved in procedures involving other editors is the same as editing proscribed articles. Martintg has chosen to defend User:Justus Maximus who has been blocked for offensive comments about other editors at Communist terrorism. Therefore Martintg has violated his topic ban. TFD (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    I would ask the arbitrators to look at their recent decision considering mark nutley who has a CC topic ban: "I really don't know how much clearer the message can be to the topic-banned users: Please go away. If the discussion is on-wiki and even tangentially related to climate change, and is not directly discussing you, then leave it alone". Martintg was topic-banned from "Communist terrorism", asked for clarification and then abandoned it. TFD (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    Reply to Sandersaede, there was a request for clarification that decided this topic was part of Eastern Europe and Martintg raised then abandoned a request concerning whether it still applied. Martintg's definition of terrorism as including government actions allows for the inclusion of Soviet terror against other nationalities inside the former Soviet Union which were "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe". TFD (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    Reply to AGK, re: "Constitution of Estonia"

    From 1940 to 1990 the Soviet Union considered Estonia to be one of its republics, although the legality was disputed. Therefore the legitimate constitution during this period is a matter of dispute, which the article resolves by referring to the Third Constitution as de jure, although the Soviets considered the Soviet constitution to be de jure. TFD (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    Statement by Martintg

    I thought I was talking about Justus Maximus' unblock request for a block he received for comments he made on ANI, where he implied some editors were Marxist apologists who promoted terrorism, which is clearly offensive. He did remove those comments but was blocked in any case. I've been discussing JM's unblock for several days on ANI,,,, on his talk page, on an admin's page and nobody (let alone The Four Deuces who was also involved in that discussion too) had any issue in regard to my involvement until now. I thought talking about issues of WP:BITE and how we treat newbies is sufficiently abstracted from any underlying content, in this case whether or not Karl Marx promoted terrorism . I would have participated just the same as if the original issue was related to Right-wing terrorism or Apple pies.

    FWIW, the original topic ban "topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed" was narrowed to topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, until December 22, 2010 (one year from the closing of the original case) by motion, dropping "widely construed". Note that the Climate Change topic ban under which Mark Nutley was blocked incorporates the term "broadly construed". The importance of the presence of "broadly construed" in the remedy was higlighted in a clarification related to the original topic ban, most of the Arbitrators concurred with the viewpoint of Steve Smith when he stated: "But there is also a case that they are eastern Europe-related, in light of the "broadly construed" portion of the remedy". This "broadly construed" portion of my topic ban was removed when it was narrowed in September.

    I drafted a recent clarification request in good faith about whether the narrowed topic ban was still applicable to the article Communist terrorism, but soon abandoned it since it seemed to be a waste of the Committee's time (and mine) over something that I can easily avoid (and have avoided since) in deference to User:The Four Deuces (despite a couple of other editors welcoming my involvement), since the issue would be moot anyway in a couple of months time as my topic ban will expire anyway. But construing my good faith discussion of a user's unblock request due to his block over comments on ANI in light of WP:BITE as a violation is stretching things a bit too far.

    So it is not clear to me how discussion of JM's unblock request, which was related to his block related to his use of phrases deemed offensive during a discussion on the ANI page, which in turn was due to his perception of some editors and his view of their conduct, which in turn was related to a discussion of whether or not Karl Marx (a German national, by the way) promoted terrorism in his 19th century writings, which in turn was related to Communist terrorism which is an article about terrorism in Western Europe, Asia and South America (and no mention of Eastern Europe) and its proported relationship to Marxist doctrine, is related to my topic ban on East European national, cultural or ethnic disputes.

    I was only trying to help diffuse the situation and help JM understand how things work on Misplaced Pages. He seems to be widely read on Marxist writings and seems to have great potential to contribute. However given the climate of the increasingly broad and elastic interpretation of topic bans, I'm quite prepared to strike all my comments on JM's talk page and take no further part in trying to assist. --Martin (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    • Petri Krohn's involvement below appears to be an issue of WP:ACTIVIST, Arbitrator Shell Kinney is familiar with Petri's affiliation with a certain fringe political group, please contact her for the details. --Martin (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    Response to AGK and others

    My edits of Constitution of Estonia are fully sourced from Estonica, Estonia's reference encyclopaedia similar to Britannica. Text accurately reflects the content from Estonica. There never has been any connection with the article Constitution of Estonia and ethnic, cultural and national disputes. Nobody objected to my edits until it appeared that the original AE report wasn't going to get the result desired by Petri Krohn

    I must say this is the first time I've seen Bronze Night interpreted as a struggle over "opposing constitutional views", I thought it was about people protesting about the appropriateness of moving a war grave, but then I've only edited that article twice. After scanning through the article Bronze Night, the only reference to the Constitution of Estonia is in the section Bronze Night#Proposed Law on Forbidden Structures, where the constitution is actually used in support of the minority to veto more extreme legislation in regard to the Bronze soldier monument. No mention in that article that the disturbance was a result of conflict between two "opposing constitutional views".

    Now Petri has said he has just now created a redirect from Constitution of the Estonian SSR to Constitution of Estonia to apparently bolster his case, which begs the question on why Constitution of the Estonian SSR hadn't existed as a redirect before this AE report if there truly was a dispute over "opposing constitutional views". My reaction to this is that constitutions are specific legal documents related to a specific legal state order. Constitution of Estonia discusses the evolution of a series of specific constitutional legal act(s) related to a specific state order of the Republic of Estonia. Our opinions of a republic's notion of itself, based upon a specific legal POVs and assumptions as presented in the text of the constitution and commentary from sources like Estonica, is irrelevant and cannot be subject to dispute over POV, only verifiability. Redirecting Constitution of the Estonian SSR to Constitution of Estonia makes no sense. Constitution of the Estonian SSR should be expanded to discuss the specific constitutional legal act(s) as they pertain to the Soviet system and in the mean time be redirected to either Constitution of the Soviet Union or Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, I have no problem with that.

    I'm not sure Petri Krohn's POV of "opposing constitutional views" is actually based upon any published source or is it likely he just made this up. I've done some digging around and all I could find is manifesto published by SAFKA here, apparently signed by a person named "Petri Krohn" which Petri has linked himself to here. Whether Offliner has some sort of affiliation with SAFKA too, who knows. Are Petri Krohn's and Offliner's disagreement with my good faith edits to Constitution of Estonia an issue of WP:ACTIVIST? That needs to be determined elsewhere.

    Given the way Petri Krohn and Offliner have piled on to this AE report, in conjunction with the creation of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Martintg, there appears to be a larger issue than that what was originally reported. This AE report ought to be referred to the Arbitration committee, admins patrolling AE have done that in the past.

    The battleground is where you want it to be. I was minding my own business editing what I thought was uncontroversial topic based upon reliable sources and now this is be painted as wrong doing by two apparent activists. Afterall, the article isn't called Estonian constitutional dispute or something. If the admins here think my good faithed edits to Constitution of Estonia backed by a reliable source is also covered by my topic ban, then I will no longer edit that article either. --Martin (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Statement by Petri Krohn

    These protests and the violent civil disturbance that followed were targeted precisely against the revisionist interpretation of the constitution of Estonia Martintg has now introduced into the article. If this is not about "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe", I do not know what is!

    I have made every effort not to cross paths on or off Misplaced Pages with Martintg or his Eastern European supporters. I do not follow his edits or interfere with his editing and try not to edit articles in his limited scope of interest. Yet Martintg is exhibiting a pattern of following my edit history and editing the same or related pages, or coming to the defense of my opponents in disputes where I am a party. (The most innocent case of this is editing Operation Catherine after I added a link to it in two articles.) This has to stop! I will also be filing a related sock puppet investigation on him in a case where I believe he broke his topic ban by editing an article I had pointed him to.

    In the previous arbitration enforcement case against Martintg I posted a long comment explaining the dispute Martintg is involved in.

    "The central and core issue in the Eastern European disputes – as it relates to Estonia and other Baltic republics – is the claimed state continuity of the Baltic states in exile..." '

    It is of relevance only for the record, as due to conflicting edits, I made my edit two minutes after Jehochman had issued a one week ban. I could have been more terse. A minimal topic ban that would keep Martintg out of the dispute could be worded as follows:

    "Any content, (edit, section or article) that describes or tries to describe Soviet rule in the Baltics or Eastern Europe as illegal or oppressive or communism as immoral or criminal."

    This week Martintg started rewriting the article on the Constitution of Estonia. (history) The article is now yet another POV-clone of the claimed state continuity of the Baltic states in exile, as it only reflects the legal fantasy on the unrecognized government-in-exile. Already his first edit falls under his topic ban on “disputes”, as it introduced the disputed claim that the Soviet Union "occupied" Estonia in 1940.

    Martintg's only other contribution to article space, after his last topic ban ended, is to the article on Mart Laar. (history) Laar is the former prime minister of Estonia a, but also a controversial revisionist historian, who's books have been... (Claimed BLP violation removed by Martintg, will restore with source – or, why should I care. If Martintg cannot even allow this statement to exist, then clearly Laar is part of a dispute, and he should not be editing the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)) – and a primary source for Martintg's disputed POV. Although the edits were innocent, I would consider the article to be under his topic ban. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    P.S. – I have made request for a sock puppet investigation at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Martintg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    Response to AGK and EdJohnston

    One side in the ethnic conflict in Estonia, including the right-wing nationalist parties, the former “Estonian Government in Exile” and most notably, former prime minister and historian Mart Laar will argue that the underground “National Committee” formed by Kaarel Liidak in 1944, and the government in exile declared by August Rei, in Oslo, Norway in 1953 represent a de jure continuation of the Republic of Estonia – as it existed before June 1940. They also argue that constitutional rule was only established in Estonia in 1992, when the government in exile ceased operations and handed “power” over to president Lennart Meri and then prime minister Mart Laar. According to this view Estionia was under military occupation from 1940 to 1991 or 1992. and any action taken by local Estonian authorities, including implementing its workforce-hungry immigration policy, were actions of occupation authorities and thus without legitimacy. This is the point-of-view the article on the constitution of Estonia – as created by Matrintg – exist to promote. This interpretation of history is relevant, as it forms the legal basis of the denaturalization (loss of citizenship) of the ethnically non-Estonian population carried out under Mart Laar's rule in 1992. At the time the share of Estonian speakers in Estonia was a little over 50%.

    The opposing view, shared by Estonia's Russophone minority as well as modern Russian historiography is that the non-violent anti-authoritarian revolution in Estonia in June 1940 (known as Juunipööre) preserved the legal continuity of the Estonian state, and thus the petition of the Riigikogu to join the Soviet Union on July 22 as the Estonian SSR was constitutional. This view also holds, that the renamed Republic of Estonia of 1990, under prime minister Edgar Savisaar, and the succeeding independent member state of the United Nations of 1991 – all the way to modern Estonia – represent a legal continuation of the Estonian SSR (and thus its Soviet constitution.) Some on this side would argue, that the rise to power of Mart Laar and the constitutional changes that followed were a coup d'etat, carried out to pursue a racist national policy. People holding these views will argue that Estonia practices an apartheid policy by disenfranchising and discriminating against its minorities.

    The conflict between these two opposing constitutional views reached a climax in April 2007, with violent civil disturbance. The events also brought in a large number of new editors to Misplaced Pages, initially to edit war over the article Bronze Soldier, with some of them continuing in disputes that eventually resulted in the EEML arbcom case. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    P.S. – I have redirected Constitution of the Estonian SSR to Constitution of Estonia. However, I cannot see how the article could accurately reflect the needs of this redirect with Martintg anywhere near the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Update – Apart from the historical dispute of the continuity of the Constitution of Estonia and its reflection on present-day ethnic violence, there is the question if the undisputed post-1992 constitution is in fact a tool of oppression used by an apartheid government. I am not going to provide reliable sources as I will only show that a dispute exists. Here is one that came up from the on-line forum on Pravda with an English translation of Russian sources. UN report- Estonia is a racist, apartheid state – Quote: UNITED NATIONS again reminds about its apprehension those that in article 48 of constitutions of Estonia the participation in the political party is permitted only to the citizens of the country. The underlying claim seems to be that Estonia is a racist, apartheid state and the 1992 constitution of Estonia is instrumental in creating this system of apartheid. There is thus no need to go into the history to show that the constitution is part of an ethnic dispute in Eastern Europe. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Response to Biophys – You are in fact arguing, that Martintg should be allowed to edit the Bronze Soldier, as it is about a statue, but not the Bronze Nights as it about an ethnic dispute. I cannot agree with you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by Collect

    This appears to be "topic ban extension shopping" at best. The comments did not address Eastern Europe as a topic, and the extension of Digwuren has reached the level of putting a size 20 foot into a sixe 9 shoe. The nature of each editor's personal biases is irrelevant - there is no case to be made for stretching Digwuren even further. Note: I am banned from editing the London Victory Parade article which I have never even read, as a result of the spandex topic bans. Collect (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    Statement by Offliner

    A few weeks ago Martintg was blocked for a week for a massive violation of his topic ban. Additionally, former arbitrator FloNight urged Martintg to step back from pov contributions in the Eastern European topic area. Based on the current AE report, and especially this edit one has to question whether Martintg has learned anything from his latest block. The edit inserts text when the Soviet Union occupied Estonia, which clearly is a POV contribution about the topic of Occupation of the Baltic states, one of the main EE disputes and battlegrounds. The edit is similar to what Martintg was already blocked for. It seems that—contrary to ArbCom's demands—Martintg has failed to disengange from the battleground, and is continuing to violate his topic ban. Offliner (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    Response to AGK. This edit relates to the national dispute about the occupation of Estonia, with the other side claiming that Estonia being joined to the Soviet Union constitutes an occupation, while the other claims that it does not. The topic is the same for which Martintg was already blocked for (mainly this edit.) Please see this thread for details. Offliner (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Martintg

    In my opinion, this is too broad understanding of the topic ban. Although User:Justus Maximus edited only two articles, both of which had a relation to Communism, he is a newbie, so it would be premature to speak about him as about an anti-Communist SPA. In his posts Martin has been focused only on the way User:Justus Maximus was being treated, not on the content of his edits. He carefully avoided any content disputes. In my opinion, it would be hardly correct to speak about violation of the topic ban. In any event, even if it is the case, this violation is rather tangential, so a warning would be quite sufficient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    Can I concur with Paul Siebert here. It seems unduly harsh and possibly counterproductive to interpret a topic ban as extending into discussions about other users, merely because said users have been themselves banned in relation to a somewhat-distantly-related topic. I think the MartinG's arguments on Justus Maximus's behalf may actually help JM to understand that the action taken against him wasn't due to his viewpoint, but to his behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    Martintg is not topic-banned from articles about Eastern Europe, see here. I guess that is the reason why TFD was unable to link the appropriate ArbCom decision, as required for enforcement. In any case, I hope that this time a deeply involved administrator will not abuse his administrative rights and quickly enforce a highly dubious extremely harsh block without support from other administrators, like it happened before (why does he even have admin right after such major violation is beyond my understanding). --Sander Säde 08:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    Could we stop with this nonsense now? There is nothing controversial in articles about Mart Laar and Constitution of Estonia - this can easily be seen from the fact that there are not even unreliable sources claiming any controversies. This is just an attempt to silence or drive Martin away from Misplaced Pages. Martin has agreed to stay away from further attempts to defuse issues peacefully, I recommend an official ArbCom warning for both TFD and Petri Krohn (perhaps an interaction ban - or ban from ArbCom and AN/I pages?) for repeated attempts to misuse arbitration enforcement to resolve personal and content issues. --Sander Säde 21:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    Re to AGK. I suggest to quote accurately this According to Arbcom motion, Martintg "is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes...". This article is about constitution. Of course any political or historical subject is related to numerous conflicts (consider US constitution, for example). Such an extended interpretation would prohibit Martintg from editing any historic/political subjects in Eastern Europe. If that was Arbcom intention, this should be explained to Martintg and other users who have similar sanctions.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    People, how about helping your colleague to resume productive editing, instead of looking for every excuse to report him to AE? This battleground must stop.Biophys (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    I strongly second that last comment, Biophys. AGK 20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Rsp to AGK - no, there is nothing controversial about Mart Laar and Constitution of Estonia, which can clearly be seen from lack of any kind of sources in Offliner's and Petri's claims, not to mention, solid, peer-reviewed sources in major scientific journals. The claim that Mart Laar's book was banned in Germany is simply an untruth.

    As for Martintg's previous block, it was a clear-cut case of administrative abuse. At the time when the only non-involved administrator expressed worries about quality of evidence against Martin and suggested him to stop editing those articles or he might get a warning, an admin deeply involved in WP:EEML case (who also was against partial lifting of the Martin's topic ban) blocked Martin in what must be a record time in closing arbitration enforcement case. And since it was Martin's first offense, a standard procedure would have been a warning, especially considering the weak evidence. Second offense would get 12 or 24h ban. But the admin blocked Martin immediately for a week. Like I've said before, I do not know why his administrative rights were not immediately removed after such blatant misuse.

    --Sander Säde 08:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    Sander: What do you say to User:TFD at #Reply to AGK, re: "Constitution of Estonia" and to User:Offliner at #Statement by Offliner, after "Response to AGK"? AGK 20:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    In case of TFD, note "Soviet Union considered Estonia..." and "Soviets considered the Soviet constitution to be de jure ...". There are no modern scholars in the Western world who support this view, only couple of local-importance Soviet apologists. Hence there is really no dispute. I would recommend creating a separate article about the constitution of the Estonian Soviet Republic, in case someone thinks it is needed - I don't think it is, as the constitutions of Soviet republics were pretty much copy-paste material.
    As for Offliner... I would recommend to stop this battleground mentality immediately. Again, there are no modern Western scholars of law or history who dispute the occupation - quite the opposite, the case is often used as a textbook example of a military occupation. This has been discussed in-depth in the talk page of Occupation of the Baltic States - and at best so far there are some sources who fail to use "occupation", no scholarly sources whatsoever which claim there was no occupation. Of course, Russia's official view is that Baltic states joined Soviet Union voluntarily, but even historians in Russia (e.g. Roy Medvedev, the grand old man of history) do not support that view.
    I heartily recommend reading the link to the Pravda.ru web forum that Petri gave. I don't think I've never seen the level of racism as in that forum before (actually, lying here - I remember seeing a Russian forum which called to kill all people in Baltic states as they are "nazis") - and this is the best source for Estonia being a "racist, apartheid state", a web forum mentioning UN report which according to a post in the thread actually doesn't exist... I don't think further comments are necessary.
    --Sander Säde 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    With reference to Petri Krohn's "I have made every effort not to cross paths on or off Misplaced Pages with Martintg or his Eastern European supporters," Petri made it a point to stalk me and level accusations of bad faith at Sandstein's talk and Shell Kinney's talk—where I was pursuing options for putting conflict in the past—culminating in Petri leveling blatantly false allegations of outing attempting to get me blocked, followed by his attempts to cover up his own self-outing on-Wiki edits. Diffs have been provided prior. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    And you will note I have not filed an AE or AN/I over Petri's behavior, but as I have noted elsewhere, even my personal commitment to moving forward from conflict can tolerate only so much abuse. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Martintg

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • See User talk:Martintg#WP:AE.23Request concerning Martintg. Martintg has agreed to concede the point, at least as regards to his actions during the remainder of his topic ban. The ban expires on 22 December. I asked him to "voluntarily agree to absent yourself from any unblock review proceedings (or in ANI discussions or on any admin talk pages) where the person involved has recently edited any article or subject matter on your banned list." Based on his agreeing to this, I recommend that the enforcement request should be closed with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    Hang on, Petri Krohn may be expanding his statement. He has more issues besides Martintg's participation in the unblock discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    Question for Petri Krohn and others
    Can you create a list of articles from which you think Martintg should be restricted during the remainder of his topic ban, that would avoid the problems you identify? Do you think he should avoid editing anything to do with Estonia during WW II? In your opinion does this prevent him from writing about the Constitution of Estonia? EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I have reviewed Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive70#Result concerning Martintg, which closed on 3 October with a 1-week block of Martintg. I find myself agreeing with the admins who closed that one that Martintg's editing of State continuity of the Baltic states was improper. I am not quite convinced by the people bringing this case that he can't edit Constitution of Estonia, though I could be persuaded otherwise. The admins in the 3 October case seemed unhappy with Martintg's general behavior at that time, and I see their concern. However, I'm not seeing enough problems for a new block of Martintg at this point or for any additional restrictions. So I would be willing to close this case with no further action. Per my comment at the top of this section, he's already agreed to behave as though his topic ban covers unblock discussions, which was the original reason for bringing this case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Marting has edited the article Constitution of Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article which it is claimed relates to "national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe" (as prohibited by Arbitration motion). For the benefit of me and other administrators not intimately familiar with the subject matter of the conflicts of Eastern Europe, an explanation is required as to how that article does relate to the specified disputes.

      If it is demonstrated that the article does relate to the historical disputes in question and so for Marting to edit the article would constitute a violation of his topic ban, I would be minded to propose a two-week block for the infringement (with the absence of leniency in the length of that block being owned to the fact that Marting was blocked for violating his topic ban not even one month ago). AGK 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Response to Biophys' 22:08, 1 November 2010 comment: Um, yes, I see that, and that's what I quoted. Unless I'm missing something, you just said "you quoted that wrong, the arbitration motion says this: …", then quoted precisely what I said.

      On a general note: Thanks for the responses from everybody. I'll read through them all, then comment further. If any other uninvolved sysops have a comment to make, now would be an ideal time to jump in. AGK 20:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Rigger30

    Blocked, 24h.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Rigger30

    User requesting enforcement
    O Fenian (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Rigger30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Revert to this version
    2. Second revert, within 24 hours of the first
    3. Third revert, within 24 hours of the first
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Block
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Has clearly received the notification prior to the second revert, since he replied to my talk page messages here before the second revert.

    I will admit to a 1RR violation myself, but please allow me to explain. Here I reverted the third edit he made, as it has BLP implications and it is also factually inaccurate. In the early 1970s Gerry Adams was not held at a prison, as it was not a prison at the time it was an internment camp. Internment was for those held without trial or charge, whereas prison obviously implies either convicted or on remand after being charged. As the article was on the main page at the time, I felt it was unacceptable to have such an error in the article especially with the possible BLP implications. You will note my second revert ignored their second edit. I believe only reverting the one edit considering the lack of accuracy, BLP implications and the article being on the main page at the time should not count against me, but will accept any decision. O Fenian (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Rigger30

    Statement by Rigger30

    Comments by others about the request concerning Rigger30

    Result concerning Rigger30

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    Clear violation, blocked for 24 hours. Given his explanation above, I"m not inclined to block O Fenian at this time. Courcelles 20:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

    Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

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

    Request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

    User requesting enforcement
    Pfagerburg (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    The IP's listed in the most recent sockpuppet investigation have been making baseless accusations of sockpuppetry against me. Due to the articles which the IP's have edited, their obsession with tagging an IP in Canada as being me (though the sockmaster knows full well I live in Colorado), and the geolocation corresponding with the sockmaster's recently self-reported location, these are ban-evading sockpuppets of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs), and should be blocked.

    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive25#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey
    2. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive41#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey
    3. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive48#Jvmphoto
    4. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive65#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Block IP's listed in the SPI. High-level contact from Wikimedia Foundation to the ISP to inform them of the abuse originating from one of their subscribers.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    As also noted in the SPI, I am under an interaction ban with socks of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs), but the terms of the ban explicitly allow me to report socks to administrative boards.
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    , , , , Pfagerburg (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Discussion concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

    Statement by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

    Comments by others about the request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

    Result concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

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

    Most recent IP blocked. If you want "high-level" contact from WMF you are at the wrong page. T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Oclupak

    Oclupak is banned indefinitely from the topic of the September 11 attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    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 Oclupak

    User requesting enforcement
    Acroterion (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Oclupak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    At Talk:September 11 attacks, # , in support of recent IP vandalism , and . It is clear that Oclupak supports disruption of the article talkpage (edit summary a kind of vandalism that can be justified, as all other avenues to bring about a NPOV have been tried), and that he is not able to edit 9/11-related topics without promoting his view that "it is a kind of vandalism that can be justified" and "this article promotes exclusively the official propaganda of the U.S. government."
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warning by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Minimum 3-month topic ban from 9/11-related topics, broadly construed, enforceable by blocking. Given the opinion expressed in the diff, I see little hope that this editor can ever edit on 9/11 related topics.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    @ T. Canens, this is just the most recent occurrence in a pattern of behavior that indicates that Oclupak is not able to respect community norms in this matter. He otherwise seems to be a productive editor, so I have to believe that he understands the likely consequences of his support for outright vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Oclupak

    Statement by Oclupak

    I have nothing to add to what I already said. It will all come down to this: if the administrators who will pass judgement on this incident are of the same clique as Tarage, MONGO and Acroterion, they will blindly follow their suggestion and ban me from all 9/11-related articles. If, on the other hand, they are genuinely impartial, and if they investigate the matter, even superficially, they will come to realize that this article has been hijacked a long time ago by editors who tolerate no other POV but their own and that the claimed consensus for their approach only exists because, one by one, all opposing views have either been banned or have quit Misplaced Pages in disgust. The result is the vandalism we are witnessing right now which is apparently the only way available to express a dissenting view to this extremely biased article. If the responsible administrators do not find a reasonable and equitable solution to this situation, what can they expect if not even more vandalism in the future? I'm sure IP 174.89.59.40 would have had something worthwhile to contribute to the 9/11 article and that his acts of vandalism are the result of being blocked systematically with weasel arguments at every attempt before he resorted to this. Oclupak (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Oclupak

    If, on the other hand, they are genuinely impartial, and if they investigate the matter, even superficially, they will come to realize that this article has been hijacked a long time ago by editors who tolerate no other POV but their own and that the claimed consensus for their approach only exists because, one by one, all opposing views have either been banned or have quit Misplaced Pages in disgust. Editor seems to fail to realize that wikipedia is not here for him to spread the truth, but to report what mainstream, scientific concensus. 9/11 conspiracy theories have been universally debunked and are fringe. Soxwon (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Supporting this kind of vandalism is simply unacceptable. On Misplaced Pages, subjects such as Evolution, the Holocaust, Climate Change, Barack Obama's religion and birthplace, Alien abduction etc. all have in real life substantial numbers of people who believe, often fervently and with the greatest conviction, that the "official version" is not correct, and that moreover, there is a conspiracy to stop the truth coming out, and that most key "official" evidence has been doctored somehow. 9/11 conspiracy theorists may find it difficult to accept that as far as Misplaced Pages policy on fringe ideas goes, they are in much the same company as these people (although some clearly cross over into a couple of the other areas quite happily). Such discomfort is not a reason to change Misplaced Pages policy regarding the use of the best reliable sources. I feel particularly strongly about this because the current vandalism has led necessarily to the talkpage being semi-protected, which is always a regrettable event. Encouraging such behaviour shows contempt for Misplaced Pages processes rather than a desire to make them better, and, as suggested by Soxwon above, an open attempt to abuse Misplaced Pages for political ends. Oclupak has been on Misplaced Pages for a while now; he should by now have learnt that encouraging vandalism (and no one questions that it is vandalism) is thoroughly out of order. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    What can I say? I knew he would be back to his old tricks. I would have been one one to make this request had Acroterion not done it first. This user simply does not understand, will never understand, and will continue this inappropriate behavior. Misplaced Pages loses nothing with his removal. --Tarage (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Oclupak

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

    Since the editor seems unlikely to follow Misplaced Pages policies concerning conspiracy theories, especially 9/11, I recommend that he be topic banned from articles and talk pages concerning the September 11 attacks, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban would be indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    • I am quite hesitant to impose any sanction, let alone an indefinite topic ban, for a single comment that, as far as I can tell, caused no disruption by itself. We are not (or at least should not be) in the business of banning people solely for expressing unpopular viewpoints on the talk page. But this is clear disruption, and on the basis of that diff, I concur with the proposal for an indefinite topic ban. Indefinite is not infinite, and in the unlikely event this user can demonstrate their ability to edit in accordance with our guidelines, they can always appeal the ban. T. Canens (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm seeing a pattern of consistent tendentious editing that has not ceased since I gave my warning. I think that Ed's idea is a good one. NW (Talk) 04:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the additional data. After hearing the views of the other admins I'm imposing an indefinite ban of User:Oclupak from articles and talk pages concerning the September 11 attacks, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban will be logged at WP:ARB911. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Gilabrand

    Gilabrand restricted to 1RR until the end of January
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Gilabrand

    User requesting enforcement
    Nableezy 15:03, 2 November 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
    Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Removes material that is the subject of intense discussion on the talk page. The user has not made a single comment on the talk page
    2. Removes tag that is the subject of discussion on the talk page. The user has not made a single comment on the talk page.
    3. Removes tag that is the subject of discussion on the talk page, discussion that even includes discussion of why the tags should not be removed. The user has not made a single comment on the talk page.
    4. Reverts an edit discussed extensively on the talk page. No reason given in the edit summary and the user has not made a single comment on the talk page.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. notified of case
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Topic ban
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Gilabrand has repeatedly reverted without discussion on a number of pages. Trying to get this user to explain their reverts is more difficult than getting a baby to explain relativity. It is not possible to engage in a good faith discussion about a dispute when users refuse to discuss the dispute and when they deny that a dispute even exists, as seen in the repeated removal of tags placed and discussed on talk pages.

    I think the self-rv was enough and request that this be considered withdrawn. nableezy - 07:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Gilabrand

    Statement by Gilabrand

    Nableezy has again succeeded in throwing a wrench into the works. After the tags were reverted by other editors, I copyedited the article to remove all sources of dispute. After this cleanup, I removed the tags believing that contentious statements on both sides were no longer there and the tags were no longer necessary. Instead, Shuki reinserted a poorly worded POV section that I deleted, and Nableezy popped an artery because he wanted all the SYNTH and OR put back so that he could fight some more. He then added not two, but three tags, for spite. I reverted them with an edit summary explaining my actions. It may have been impolite, I agree, but nothing compared to the rude, threatening and vulgar comments that Nableezy spouts non-stop, as he snoops around for opportunities to wreak havoc in this project. Just seeing his name on a page is enough to scare people away. I am sorry for leaving that edit summary. I am sorry I edited the page. I am sorry for being so naive as to think that I could stop the fighting on a page where Nableezy's name appears. I restored the tags and the way is now clear for Nableezy to continue doing whatever it is he does. As I said, it's a free world.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    The "creative solutions" below regarding sanctions on my editing will certainly make Nableezy very happy. But you might as well delete my account right now, because I do not intend to leave 50 word messages about every sentence I change. My interest is in improving articles on Misplaced Pages, not wikilawyering with the likes of "editors" who are probably 90 weaklings in real life who are using this site to terrorize others. Please check the records to see how many articles I have expanded, copyedited and upgraded over the last several months, and don't forget to check Nableezy's record, which includes not a single valuable contribution to ANY article on Misplaced Pages. Yes, he has been busy, adding controversial tags, hunting down sockpuppets, masquerading as an administrator with the power to "block accounts immediately," threatening new editors, engaging in edit-wars with perceived opponents, and wasting everybody's time and energy reporting people endlessly on boards such as this. His commandeering of articles by placing multiple tags on them and not allowing anyone to touch them from that point on is outrageous, and administrators who side with this behavior by imposing sanctions on those who are trying to help need to think again. --Geewhiz (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand

    Comment by Shuki This is a extremely lame and quite frivolous. Frankly, I questioned one of the edits myself, but thank God I'll AGF Gilabrand anyday given her experience in copyediting articles to better English then most of us and NPOV. Gilabrand was just being WP:BOLD. Big deal. Nableezy has been warned about about bringing frivolous reports to AE. --Shuki (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Comment by NickCT Fairly unabashed WP:BATTLEGROUNDing. Not really all that surprising given the editors history. nableezy has a point with the whole "commenting on talk page" thing. If you want to WP:BATTLEGROUND at least try to make some excuse on the article's talk page. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by Supreme Deliciousness: It seems as the lifting and shortening of Gilabrands 3 month block and six month topic ban, did not help her behaviour: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by AgadaUrbanit: How it seems when it's not? I think we should leave Gila alone. There is a consensus for her edit. She made a single edit on the discussed page, took part in discussion and had an intellectual decency to self revert. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:41, 2 November 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.

    Gilabrand has backed away from the dispute, which obviates a need for action at this time. However the sarcastic tone of comments at Talk:Psagot is not a good sign. An editor who would be operating under a topic ban if it had not been lifted needs to be very careful about tendentious editing, and Gilabrand has not been careful enough here. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    In my opinion, the editing on both sides has been lame, with a pointless edit war over tags. Also, there's a centralized discussion over the legality issues, which is nearing completion, so I've protected the article. Although I disapprove of Nableezy's hyperbole, a restriction to require Gilabramd to explain her edits along with a 1RR per day could be helpful. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    I agree with both suggestions: the 1RR and the required explanations. I hope the explanation will be better than Gilabrand's 2nd-last edit summary: "No dear, the problems have been addressed and all statements are sourced so go take a hike". Her explanation should be on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, I propose the following wording, then - taken, mutatis mutandis, from an ARBMAC sanction imposed by Stifle (talk · contribs):
    Gilabrand (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for 3 months. Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page in a minimum of 50 words, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert.
    I think 3 months is a reasonable starting point. Feel free to suggest alternate durations. T. Canens (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    3 months is perfectly sensible. Personally, I'd say until the end of January, if only because it's easier for admins who watchlist the pages to remember, but that's entirely up to you. While I think there should be a requirement to explain edits, I don't consider a 50 word minimum to be necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    (←) Very well. Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Gilabrand (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, until 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC). Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert, excepting reverts of obvious (as in, obvious to someone who has no knowledge of the subject) vandalism, as defined in WP:VAND. T. Canens (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Nableezy

    Request concerning Nableezy

    User requesting enforcement
    No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    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
    1RR restriction, Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 1st revert
    2. 2nd revert
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. notified of case.
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Topic ban
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    In the past 6 months or so, Nableezy has been
    1. banned from editing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for two months on 16 April
    2. topic-banned until end of August from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries on 27 July
    3. topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for six weeks on 15 August
    4. restricted to 1RR until December 31 for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights on 16 September
    5. blocked 24 hours for reverting without discussion contrary to 1RR probation on Golan Heights article on 9 October
    6. blocked one day for violation of 1RR restriction on 19 October
    7. restricted to 1RR per day for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, until the end of December 2010 on 21 October

    Something is not working here.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Nableezy

    Statement by Nableezy

    The first "revert" listed is not a revert, it is an edit. Could NMMNG please explain what version of the page I reverted to? Shuki initially made an edit to that page. I modified, not removed or reverted, that edit so that it properly reflected the source cited. There is not a single version of that page that resembles my rewrite of Shuki's edit. This is one of the reasons that reports at AN3 have to show what version of the page the edit reverted to. No such version exists here and no definition of the word "revert" applies to my initial edit. nableezy - 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

    As far as I understand it, a revert is anything that changes content another editor put in the article, per WP:3RR: 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. It can involve as little as one word. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    And what material did I "reverse" "in whole or in part"? By this definition any edit to existing material is a "revert". nableezy - 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    EJ, could you please tell me why I should be sanctioned for making a single revert when I am restricted to 1 revert? How many reverts did I make? What edit did the first revert listed here "revert"? nableezy - 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    That is truly retarded. I replaced "Palestinians and left-wing activists intentionally vandalizing trees with saws in order to accuse settlers" with "Palestinians had destroyed trees with the intention of blaming settlers for the destruction.". You are going to call the first edit a revert because not every word Shuki wrote was kept. Fine, block me, but that is idiotic. nableezy - 21:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    I would like to expand on why this is idiotic. EdJohnston says that I removed, in my initial edit, the phrase "intentionally vandalizing trees with saws." It is true that I changed the sentence "Palestinians and left-wing activists intentionally vandalizing trees with saws in order to accuse settlers" to "Palestinians had destroyed trees with the intention of blaming settlers for the destruction." I then also added a direct quote from the source which says the following: 'According to Yedioth Ahranoth, photos taken by the group "allegedly show Palestinians and left-wing activists cutting down Palestinian olive trees using an electric saw".' So I included that the trees were cut down with a saw. The only part of the phrase that I am accused of removing that actually isnt in my edit is "intentionally vandalized". I replaced "intentionally vandalized" with "destroyed". Because of this replacement I supposedly made a revert. This effectively says that every copy-edit of any edit, no matter how awkwardly worded or nonsensical the original, is by definition a revert if any word is replaced. My edit has as a section title that these are claims of "staged vandalism", including even that word. To call the first edit a revert opens up an insanely wide definition of a revert, a definition that I certainly will remember for any future AE or AN3 report. Change any word and its a revert, thats the rule you are making. nableezy - 00:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Its nice having fans, it really is. As much as I would like to respond to some of the mindless droning below, I would instead like to focus on the topics that matters here. If I made 2 reverts I should be blocked, if I did not I shouldnt. There is a restriction on the number of reverts I may make, I acknowledge that and I have been scrupulous in abiding by it. I would like EdJohnston to clarify his reasons for calling the first edit a revert. My edit included a portion of the phrase he says I removed. Is it his position that the changing of the words "intentionally vandalized" to "destroyed", for the first time, constitutes a revert? nableezy - 03:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Sandstein, I would like to ask a question. If there were a 0RR, would there be no changes allowed to any text? That once material is added it cannot be modified in any way? nableezy - 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    If it is decided that my first edit was a revert then fine, I should be sanctioned. But to define that first edit as a revert opens up the definition of the term way past what has been used at AN3 and AE in the past, and if that is the definition used here it is the definition I will expect admins to enforce for every future AE or AN3 request I make. But can yall get to the point and make a decision already? Either that or restrict the ability of my many fans from filling the below section with the babbling that largely characterizes it? I can ignore it for only so long before a response to some of the more asinine comments will be necessary. nableezy - 16:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

      • NOTE: Countering bad editing with worse editing is a bad idea. I'm not saying WP:AGF can't be applied even after an editor was banned 4 months in the same year but Nableezy refuses to abide by wikipedia guidelines and is, if anything, an interruption to proper oversight. Jaakobou 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment by Shuki Looie496, you got to be kidding. I have yet to see Nableezy work things out with anyone and that is why it is so frustrating to edit with him. Please bring examples of this collaborative behaviour you attribute to him. Honest. I'm waiting. As for maintaining neutrality, it exists but very rare. Nableezy is a SPA account to introduce negative information on Israeli articles and has virtually no interest in improving Arab articles. I have previously proposed a creative resolution instead of a block that he should concentrate on improving Palestinian articles and perhaps bringing them to good status rather than the sad state they are in now. Until then, you cannot ignore that no one on 'the other side' has a record in the past six months like Nableezy. --Shuki (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment by Chesdovi regarding Looie496 I find Looie’s comment worrying. I am blocked for 1 whole month after having a clear 4 year run for being “unable to edit from a neutral point of view.” (I have yet to be informed which of my edits compromised NPOV.) Nab has had ban after ban, restrictions and blocks in such frequency and is still deemed a viable editor? What message does this give to other editors, myself included, who get severe treatment without anything like the AE history Nab has managed to attain for himself. I am encouraged however, that you have not rushed to block Nab before a fair and comprehensive discussion has taken place. Chesdovi (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree that it's worrying. I think it would be helpful if one of the more experienced admins could let us know if the attitude Looie496 is displaying below is compatible with how AE is supposed to work. I mean, do editors with multiple topic bans, editing restrictions and blocks in a topic under ArbCom discretionary sanctions get "more latitude"? And if it's impossible to give them more latitude, should editors of opposing POV be topic banned for no specific offense? I must have missed the discussion about all this. I think I dropped out at the point where an editor with a clean record for 4 years got blocked for a month because an admin wanted to "give a strong response". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you guys need to look at it a different way. I completely disagree with Looie496 and it isn't based on the 7 sanctions mentioned. It is on the 11 total (at least 1 reduced) and extensive block log. I do see what he is getting at, though. It is easy to assume that Nableezy is up against a wall and is either a necessary evil or fighting the good fight by countering hordes of POV editors. Whatever the reason, he has gotten away with much more than anyone else (see Chesdovi), continues to be tendentious in anything even mentioning the legality or boundaries of Israel, and won't stop slinging mud (calling others wikilawyers and made it clear that he meant it "in the most derogatory way" is my favorite recent one). I think he should have been banned months ago. He wasn't. And realistically, I don't think this potential violation was that bad. POV pushing (WP:WORDS!) yes but he did use the talk page. Like usual he doesn't appear to be interested in reaching consensus but at least he waited to make the last revert. So if we want to open a discussion on his overall editing then super. However, this incident probably isn't enough and I see why Looie might be hesitant. Realistically, a week block isn't near enough for Nableezy's transgressions so no block would be just as well, IMO. It won't matter since it will be appealed and lifted anyways. So this might as well be closed unless we are going to address the overall concerns and not this particular incident.Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment by Epeefleche regarding Looie496

    More than worrying. Looie’s comment is starkly belied by the facts. Even a brief review of his editing, or even his recent block history which is set forth above, reflect quite the opposite regarding this editor. In addition, Looie's particular comment that

    "If Nableezy is taken out of action I am going to feel a need to topic-ban a number of other editors who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally without oversight, and that is a suboptimal solution"

    is mildly outrageous. A clear violation of wp:admin.

    Looie -- let me be clear ... You are not allowed to threaten editors that you will topic-ban them if Nableezy is sanctioned here. That is beyond the pale. A shocking threat from a sysop. It is a form of wheel warring; though you are not threatening to reverse the sanction, you are threatening to take an opposite (and more than equal) action in the face of the sanction being applied. It is clearly a threatened abuse of admin tools. If the editors are not subject to topic-ban today, they will not become so simply because Nableezy is sanctioned. If another editor decides to bring the issue of your threat here up at AN/I or elsewhere, kindly let me know, as I would like to contribute to such a discussion.

    I would also note that this area is now one in which Looie has indicated he is involved, in that he has flagged for us his strong feelings about it, which he indicated will lead to him taking admin action against other editors if this editor is sanctioned. Involvement is generally construed very broadly, to include disputes on topics, regardless of the age or outcome of the dispute. It is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, as he has flagged himself as being here, that he pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Comment by NickCT - More tit for tat arbitration. Note that the aggressive editing Gilabrand took part in above seems somewhat more sever than the technical 1RR violation nableezy stands accused of. NickCT (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Response by Looie496 Just look at the edits that form the basis of this complaint, and then look at the source. It should be perfectly clear that the original version misrepresented the source, and that the version as Nableezy modified it was neutral and accurately represented the source. I am new to the I-P domain and haven't yet seen all that many examples of conflicts, but so far every example I have seen has followed this same pattern. I have little doubt that both sides would like to push their own point of view if they could, but so far every indication I have seen is that the Israeli side currently has the upper hand. Looie496 (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that your response reflects that you are taking to heart what I have said. I understand that you are new to this domain. Also that you are new to having admin responsibilities. Both facts militate, I would suggest, to you heeding my advice. As a new admin, you must exercise care in using your new functions. You may have reviewed these already, but if not you may find helpful the Administrators' how-to guide and the new administrator school, as well as the Administrators' reading list. As admin tools are also used with judgment, it can take some time for a new admin to learn when it's best to use the tools, and it can take months to gain a good sense of how long a period to set when using tools such as blocking in difficult disputes. New admins such as you are also strongly encouraged to start slowly, and build up experience on areas they are used to. Your approach seems to be somewhat at odds with that.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Looie496, if you make a statement "that the Israeli side currently has the upper hand", it should be supported by differences as any strong statement is. Reading your posts I believe you should not be the one to handle the editors involved with I/P conflict articles.
      About Nab, and 1RR in general. 1RR is imposed to stop editor edit warring. Nab never stopped edit warring. Only now he reverts in 25 hours instead of reverting in 24 hours. I believe topic ban should be imposed, during which Nab could concentrate on contributing on different topics. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
      Wow, 25hrs looks like full-on borderlining to me. Again, it is a separate incident than this report. Of course, it could be argued that the tags should not have been removed anyways so again it would just be appealed and lifted again.Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment by Sol The policy in question specifies that a revert "reverses the actions of other editors". The first edit modifies and expands on the content, it doesn't reverse it. *Yawn* It's just another day in the hot I/P e-turf war. Someone spots Nableezy with a possible policy violation and the usual lynch mob arrives. The judge acquits and the crowd burns him in effigy. I'm amazed anyone volunteers to admin these things. Sol (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment by VsevolodKrolikov (uninvolved editor) (I've never, as far as I recall, ever edited I-P pages and don't intend to start.) Nableezy's first edit was to what was clearly a POV representation as fact what the source itself called an allegation. He replaced with key quotations from the source. Is this a revert or an expansion? I think a certain generosity of interpretation is allowed, given what was changed. The second edit was clearly a revert, rather WP:OWNy and done aggressively, but I don't think a formal warning is merited (just a word from an uninvolved admin). Sanctions would be silly based on the evidence presented here, including user history.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment by Nsaum75 What nableezy is accused of is no different than what people from the "other side" have been accused of. However enforcement and sanctions often *appear* lopsided, casting doubt on the fairness of AE and the admins who manage it. In general, AE has become a tool used to punish those with opposing views and the baiting, gaming of the system, provocation and like must be stopped. Several admins have even as much as acknowledged this. However NOTHING has been done, and good, productive editors have been driven away because they do not want to become part of the "game". The "pro israel" side is just as guilty as the "other" side when it comes to creating a disruptive atmosphere. And the rampant sockpuppets on the "pro-Israel" side create animosity and only make the situation more clouded and complex. HOWEVER If those who manage these boards are incapiable or unwilling to apply uniform, firm, decisive action and make progress towards restoring editors' faith in the AE process, then perhaps it is time to recall some of the admins who regularly manage the boards, or at least find new leadership. Over the past few years I have watched I-P issues turn AE into a three-ring circus. I'm sure I am not the only one who has taken note of this, although it escapes me why I'm the only person who says anything. Maybe its fear of somehow being "punished" or "sanctioned" for bringing up one's concerns. I dont know...but I do know that the the lack of effective leadership here discredits Misplaced Pages and creates a vicious circle into which the admins are pawns of those who abuse the system. --nsaum75 05:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment by WookieInHeat while i find nableezy's approach to editing rather uncooperative in often making thinly veiled personal attacks and automatically assuming bad faith with other users (even in this very thread), i can't really be bothered with this case per se. regardless, thought i would offer an opinion on looie496's comment below which generated many replies. i understand where looie is coming from, in that nableezy could be seen as providing balance against the opposing side. however the line "nableezy is the main force maintaining any semblance of neutrality" gave me a chuckle. nableezy openly displays his COI with the arab-israel subject on his user page; he may be a "balancing force" to some degree, but calling him a "neutral force" of any sort can only really be described as a bad joke. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
      Wookie, you have twice, insultingly, characterised Looie496 as "loonie". Could you please strike and correct this? Thanks. --NSH001 (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    changed it, sorry my mistake, wasn't meant as an insult; honestly misread his name (it was 2 in the morning). i apologized to looie on his talk page for any offense i may have caused. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that it would be unjust to discipline Nableezy for not knowing that his edit constituted a revert when even a couple of admins (Timotheus, Mkativerata) don't come to that conclusion. Since he acted in good faith, maybe we should all just walk away better informed and on notice for the future. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    I forgot to make clear that last message was a Comment. By me. JGGardiner. Sorry about that. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with JGG that Nableezy acted in good faith here. Furthermore, it is perfectly clear that Nableezy's version is a much more accurate summary of the source than the one he changed. Are we really going to punish Nableezy for accurate editing? This is an enormous exercise in time-wasting, and should be closed with no sanction, other than a note to be more wary in future. --NSH001 (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    QuestionPhilKnight, what are you going to topic ban Shuki for? It is Nab, who was edit warring, it is Nab, who violated 1RR. What Shuki, who hardly edited in the last month, has to do with it? Please compare Nab contributions to Shuki contributins. Nab made 500 contributions between October 21 and today. Shuki made 500 contributions between August 15 and today. See the difference? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    Shuki has made over 100 edits in the last week but I fail to see why you are even stating the numebr of edits unless you think it somehow adds to the weight of your arguments, which it clearly does not. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Nableezy

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • Here are the two reverts: Twice, on October 31, Nableezy removed from the article the phrase "intentionally vandalizing trees with saws." The definition of a revert is given in WP:EW. It means undoing the work of another editor. Removing words previously added meets the definition. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I can't agree. In my opinion Nableezy is the main force maintaining any semblance of neutrality in this and a number of other articles, and needs to be given if anything more latitude rather than less. The system of Nableezy working things out with other editors such as Shuki and Cptnono is working reasonably well. If Nableezy is taken out of action I am going to feel a need to topic-ban a number of other editors who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally without oversight, and that is a suboptimal solution. Looie496 (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I cannot agree with Looie. If the AE process is to have any credibility, we must not show favors one way or another. Mitigating factors - such as baiting, provocation, enforcing consensus, correcting obvious misrepresentation, etc., can and should be taken into account in deciding upon any sanction; but no editor is (or should be) indispensable, and showing favors in this way only destroys the credibility of the AE process. If others are being disruptive, they can and should be sanctioned, but that is not a reason to not to impose sanctions on this editor if a violation is established.

      That said, I think EdJohnston took the definition of revert too literally. The definition should be interpreted with common sense - for under a literal interpretation even adding material that has never been there is a revert, as it "reversed" the implicit decision not to include it. That is nonsensical. I think the first edit cannot be fairly characterized as a revert, and therefore this request should be dismissed on that ground. T. Canens (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    I accept Nableezy's characterisation of the first edit as not being a revert. Taken literally every tweak would be a revert. In addition - though this has little bearing on whether 1RR has been breached - the edit appears to have been completely justified. I agree with Timotheus Canens above that this AE request should be decided on the no-breach ground rather than for the reasons suggested by Looie. Right or wrong as they may be, they don't justify a 1RR breach and seem to have provoked unnecessary distractions in the sections above.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    • I have been asked to comment here on my talk page by PhilKnight. I agree with EdJohnston that both edits are reverts because they undo - at least partially - the edit by Shuki immediately preceding them. This must have been clear to an editor of Nableezy's experience: WP:3RR provides that "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors," (in this case, Shuki) "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." According to that policy definition, every tweak is indeed a revert, as Mkativerata says. I disagree with T.Canens that under that definition even "even adding material that has never been there is a revert", because in that case there is no action by others that is undone. Consequently the request is actionable. I also disagree with Looie496 that the perceived impact on the editing environment must be taken into account, because the 1RR restriction (to be enforced here) did not include any socially gameable exception of that sort. Topic-banning "a number of other editors who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally" sounds like a pretty good solution to me. Since I'm taking a break from AE, I'll not take enforcement action myself, but frankly, if such clear-cut violations of validly imposed sanctions are not acted upon, you may just as well shut down this board.

      I'm also amazed at the palaver going on here: the point of AE is not to arrive at a consensus solution, but to give individual admins a basis on which to take action, like WP:AIV. If any admin believes that the conditions for action are met, they are free to go ahead and act. This sort of discussion can then take place, if needed, on appeal. No need to have it twice.  Sandstein  06:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Firstly, thanks to Sandstein for commenting. Regarding Looie's comment, if a sanction was perceived to be overly stringent, then I'd prefer to block or ban anyway, followed by modifying the restriction to 2RR/day or whatever. However, in this case, I don't consider there's a problem with the sanction, more a problem with a number of editors who are incapable of editing neutrally. I agree with Sandstein, issuing topic bans sounds like a pretty good solution. I'm inclined to topic ban Nableezy and Shuki until the end of the year, but allow involvement with centralized discussions at WP:IPCOLL. PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Having posted the above comment earlier today, and thought it over, I'm less certain about giving Nableezy and Shuki equal topic bans. PhilKnight (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It is not obvious from the face of the request the ground for a topic ban on either party, since we seem to agree that there is no 1RR violation, so diffs would be helpful. T. Canens (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm no longer intending to issue topic bans. However, I'm concerned there seems to be a general deterioration in the I-P editing, such as pointless edit warring over tags from editors who've in the past have edited far more constructively. PhilKnight (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Epeefleche

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

    Request concerning Epeefleche

    User requesting enforcement
    nableezy - 20:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Epeefleche (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
    1. Removes tag discussed extensively on talk page without making any comments on talk page
    2. Again
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Notified of case
    Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
    Restriction on reverts, or removing tags, or a topic ban
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    I think Epeefleche is being purposefully antagonistic with his removal of the tag, knowing that I am under a 1RR. The tag and the cause for its placement is discussed extensively on the talk page. Epeefleche twice removes a tag that explicitly says to not remove absent consensus for doing so, and he does so without making any comment on the talk page. Such editor behavior makes it impossible to assume good faith and when an editor even denies that there is a dispute it is impossible to have a good faith discussion about how to solve the dispute.
    This may seem like a minor, trivial thing, but I am really sick and tired of dealing with bullshit like this. Epeefleche claims that whether or not OR is present in the article is discussed in the AfD and that there is consensus that there is no OR. That is a manifestly absurd statement that any person who reads the AfD can see. He then also claims that I am the only person on the talk page who feels that there is OR in the article. I am also one of only 2 editors who had made any comments at all on the talk page, so 1/2 isnt exactly a small percentage. The removal of a tag that is discussed on the talk page was done in bad faith and the second quick revert of a tag that says not to remove absent consensus is further evidence of the bad faith practice and gaming that Ep regularly engages in. I dont know whether or not an admin will see this in the same way, but I for one am sick of dealing with such editing behavior. nableezy - 21:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    Cirt, your response does not make any sense to me. What about Ep's involvement with the AFD entitles him to repeatedly remove a tag placed on an article and discussed on the talk page? Should I take from this that editors may remove any tag they wish without discussion or addressing the cause of the tag and make multiple reverts within minutes to do so? If that is the lesson here I can learn it, no problem. But I dont think that is the lesson here. The user has not been engaged on the talk page, despite what you write below (this is the only edit the user has made to the talk page, and he did that after removing the tag twice), and the user has not addressed any of the issues raised. Why exactly should an editor be entitled to repeatedly remove a tag placed in good faith and discussed on the talk page? Both removals by Ep were manifestly done in bad faith, if that is not sanctionable then so be it. But Ill keep that lesson in mind going forward. nableezy - 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    Che, in case you havent noticed, I havent brought AE cases every time I have been reverted. If Ep had been reverting content or something similar I would not have brought this here. But I cant even place a tag on an article, a tag that is valid and discussed on the talk page, without certain users repeatedly removing it? I have already given up trying to fix the actual content, I realize that there is a set of users that will revert almost any content change I make. But even a frickin tag is removed? The reason I brought this here is I am tired of dealing with such bad faith actions and bad faith editors. What other recourse is available to me? nableezy - 21:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Epeefleche

    Statement by Epeefleche

    • Nableezy fails to reflect the following:
    1. Nableezy, I, and others had extensive conversation at the article's AfD as to whether the article is OR or not. Nableezy argued repeatedly that it is. In comment after comment at the AfD. For example: "To combine sources using the analogy into an article on an analogy is synthesis of primary sources. In other words, original research." and "OR based on syntheisis", and "You invented a topic", and "that is just a facade that if wiped away reveals serious problems with this article regarding original research." Not only was Nableezy's position revealed not to be the consensus position. It was revealed to be a fringe, tiny minority position. As I and others pointed out to him. In fact, of the 12 !voters, only 1 other agreed with him.
    2. When I first deleted, I left a note in the edit summary that the tag was inapplicable, Nableezy reverted me pointing me to the talk page. And making the curious statement—at distinct odds with the AfD discussion of a dozen editors— that "it is quite clear this tag is applicable and consensus is needed to remove it".
    3. When I reverted, I in turn indicated in my edit summary "see the AfD -- it is quite clear that your view is a minority view, and not the consensus view", and within 2 minutes (and before this was opened)
    4. I wrote at the talk page "As reflected in the AfD, Nableezy's view that this is OR is a fringe, tiny minority view. Consensus is at odds with his view."
    5. The talk page that Nableezy referred me to, curiously, was one where he was the only editor to express his view of OR.

    To be transparent, I have in the past triggered a sanction of Nableezy myself with a complaint. But I'm not sure precisely why Nableezy is under 1RR at the moment, or what the scope of his restriction is. Frankly, whenever I run into him, he seems to repeat himself a lot and not respect consensus, as at the AfD, so I'm not interested in conversations that involve him for the most part.

    But this sort of bad faith behavior and blatant attempt to intimidate on his part is just the sort of thing that should qualify an editor for sanctions.

    I made a good faith appropriate revert of the tag. Completely in line with the AfD rejection of his notion that there is an OR problem at the article. He is of the somewhat peculiar (IMHO) view that because he is under 1RR, I should not have reverted. He appears to believe that because he is under a 1RR restriction, presumably for disruptive editing, all other non-disruptive editors editing articles that he edits are under 1RR as well ... or else they are editing in bad faith, if they disagree with him. I'm not quite sure that is the intent of 1RR.

    I note that in the immediately preceding string, Nableezy sanctions for disruptive behavior over the past six months are detailed. I'll also mention, that though I weighed in there, I did not weigh in against Nableezy -- making his suggestion that I am "purposefully antagonistic" towards him somewhat odd. If I were, surely I could have joined those in the above string calling for his sanctions.

    I urge an admin to take appropriate action against Nableezy, and -- as he surely was aware that his view was one that was a severely fringe minority view in the AfD, and not supported by anyone else on the talk page, and as I had in fact responded on the talkpage before he brought this -- he has rebutted the assumption of good faith, and should be appropriately sanctioned for bringing this in bad faith.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comments by others about the request concerning Epeefleche

    .--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Comment by ElComandanteChe: I only wounder if filling AE complaint every time being reverted is a honest attempt to build a consensus, a refusal to get a point or a creative attempt to relegate own 1RR restriction? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

    Result concerning Epeefleche

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
    • Comment: Will defer to judgment of other admins on this one, but it does not seem that action is warranted with regards to Epeefleche (talk · contribs), due to the user's engagement with Misplaced Pages processes, including talk page discussion and an AFD consensus determination. Whether anything should be done with regards to Nableezy (talk · contribs), is also another matter responding admins may wish to evaluate. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)