Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:10, 21 November 2011

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

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 WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect 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.

Nableezy

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

Request concerning Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ynhockey 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Further_remedies

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

The following edits show the user violating the 1RR restriction linked to above, which in this case is also a violation of WP:3RR. Another anonymous editor also violated 1RR so any action taken against Nableezy IMO should also be taken against the anonymous user (even though there's no evidence that the anonymous user was aware of the ArbCom case, and did not also violate 3RR).

1. Reverting User:Two for the show
2. Possible revert of User:Brewcrewer (depends on your revert of definition)—entering slightly different content as a form of "undoing" the same edit as was reverted the previous time
3. Reverting anonymous editor claiming vandalism, even though the edit was clearly not vandalism and a discussion was ongoing
4. 2nd revert identical to previous
5. 3th identical revert

Additional evidence of recent edit warring and WP:GAMING

At Banias a new edit was made here The edit was reverted twice by Nableezy within a span of 26 hours.

1. @ 15:15 13 November
2. @ 17:11 14 November

In addition to WP:GAMING, two things should be noted. First, Nableezy made these reverts whilst an AE for edit warring is outstanding against him thus demonstrating the contempt for which he views these proceedings. Second, at least once before, Nableezy was sanctioned for this very type of behavior, WP:GAMING--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of tendentious and hateful editing

1. Refers to Israelis as European colonizers.
2. Refers to Israelis as European invaders.

The comments are revolting, hurtful and xenophobic in nature and should not have been uttered by any editor and this is especially true of an editor who chooses to focus his edits exclusively on I-P--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

While the remedy does not require warnings specifically, Nableezy is aware of the ArbCom case and its remedies, as (partially) shown by the list of blocks and bans.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I only noticed this behavior now and unfortunately was not there to ask both parties to refrain from edit warring. I therefore apologize in advance for bringing up a case where I couldn't warn/notify the editors in real time. However, the case had to be brought up because it's a gross violation (and not a borderline one) of the remedy imposed by ArbCom.

P.S. I also now saw that the editor edit warring with Nableezy was already blocked as an abuse account. This was clearly the correct decision by the blocking admin, but I'd like to point out that since at the time of the edit war this account had not been known as an abuse account, the case still stands.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Nableezy notified

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

The second edit is not a revert, I am not returning the page to any previous version or undoing any other editors changes. The remaining reverts are of a disruptive IP who is an obvious sock. Any self-respecting admin would look at the edits by the IP and have them blocked, not reporting the user who reverted him. Of note, the other IPs edits include deleting talk page comments and reinserting a paragraph in a BLP that contained not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not even 6, but 7 citation needed tags. The IP has been blocked for being an Abuse-only account, and likely sock. Ynhockey, I hope you will reevaluate whether or not you would rather be on the side against such blatantly disruptive throw-away sockpuppet gaming tactics or if you would rather report the people who are. A self-respecting admin would consider that question before reporting the user who had been hounded from one article to the next by this abusive troll who has been socking for some time now. One would hope at least. nableezy - 21:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Im just going to say that when Jiujitsuguy makes an accusation of others vitriolic hatred it is both dishonest and incredibly hypocritical. I can source "condemned internationally" to, oh, how about Murphy, Ray; Gannon, Declan (2008), "Changing the Landscape: Israel's Gross Violations of International Law in the Occupied Syrian Golan", Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 11, Cambridge University Press: 140, In 1981, Israel enacted legislation that purported to annex the territory. This move was widely condemned by the international community. I did not revert Biosketch because I dont think it matters for that article. If you would like to compare my comments on user talk pages to, oh, calling the natives squatters and trespassers we can do that. Then we can see who is more filed with vitriolic, bile-filled hate. Oh, and the subtle, but blatantly dishonest, inclusion of Jews in his view of Jews and Israelis. is I suppose par for the course when dealing with you. nableezy - 22:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If that is what you got from my comment then I can understand why you thought Finkelstein was a source for calling the natives squatters and trespassers as you apparently see things in text that require me to trip out on shrooms to see. I dont accept the premise that my comments express any hateful and xenophobic views about anybody at all, though I can make a convincing argument that yours in fact do. I dont see how your imaginations are relevant here though, so until you can bring something worth responding to Ill leave it to the audience to determine just how far you are willing to distort the record. nableezy - 23:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, I am brought here for making 1 revert of a named user (Two for the show (talk · contribs), who by the way is a sock of NoCal, will compile the evidence in the next days for SPI), then modifying, not reverting, an edit by another user (brewcrewer), then making several reverts of an obvious sockpuppet IP. Id just like to make sure Im not missing anything. nableezy - 15:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And now that Two for the show has been blocked, the reverts consist entirely of reverts of a sock of a banned user and reverts of obvious IP sockpuppets (and before somebody says it wasnt known the user was a sock, yes it was). If need be I'll address JJG's laughable addition above. If an admin is considering that addition please let me know so that I can respond. nableezy - 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I would rather not respond to the garbage just added by JJG, so I repeat my request that any admin considering such nonsense say so before performing any action based on it. nableezy - 18:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The first listed diff at Banias is not a revert. JJG added a pushpin map, I changed the map. The second edit is a revert, my only one. A ban is being considered on the basis of 1 edit and 1 revert, with both the edit and revert being made to rectify the addition of propaganda, literally, into an encyclopedia article? On what basis? nableezy - 00:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

WGFinley, are you even paying attention? The edits at the category are as follows. 1. A revert of a since blocked sockpuppet of NoCal100, a banned edito. 2. Not a revert. 3. Reverts of a since-blocked IP sockpuppet of Ledenierhomme, a banned user. An IP whose entire contributions list are blind reverts of myself and one other editor. None of them are reverts of Jiujitsuguy. Out of every edit of mine listed here, exactly 1 is a revert of Jiujitsuguy. Additionally, reverts of IPs are explicitly exempted from the 1 revert rule. You write and it should have gone to the talk page to be hashed out. If you were not aware, I did exactly that, prior to even my first revert, that being the first comments made on the subject at the talk page by anyone. And until a disruptive sockpuppet IP of a banned editor began mindlessly reverting any edit I made it was being hashed out on the category talk page, and in fact has been. Your comments indicate a lack of awareness to what you claim to have thoroughly read. Please ensure that you have carefully considered the evidence before threatening topic bans and interaction bans. nableezy - 02:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And I brought the issue to the discussion when that since blocked sockpuppet of a banned editor made that revert without initiating any discussion. But what then justifies a topic ban? Because I made that single revert? Are you serious? You earlier wrote that every revert after the first one is out of line, meaning the first wasnt, so why now do you say that this revert is a problem? NoCal reverted without discussion and laughably, and predictably, asked for discussion. I discuss the issue and revert, but my revert is the problem? Every revert after the first was a revert of a sockpuppet IP of a banned editor made with the express purpose of hounding me and reverting me. You really want to say that such tactics work? That a banned editor can use an IP and go around reverting an editor over and over and over from article to article, and that this will work? Really? nableezy - 02:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

WGFinley, this had nothing to do with Jiujitsuguy, what dont you understand about this? That user has a hard on for trying to get me blocked, so he added a bunch of bullshit to this report, which was not initiated by JJG and did not cover any edits related to JJG. If you do not understand that I do not think you have any business commenting here. nableezy - 12:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And again, it seems as though you are not reading, because yes I did know that Two for the show was a sock of NoCal. I already linked to

NW, all due respect, but showing what the entire world calls Syrian territory as being in Israel is not a very small issue. It is the difference between being an encyclopedia article and being propaganda. This may not seem like much, but it is. nableezy - 12:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Reverting edits by IPs doesn't count against 1RR (although it does count against 3RR). In my opinion, nableezy's second edit was not a reversion but rather implements the Talk page consensus. Perhaps it would have been wiser for nableezy to wait another seven hours before making that edit, or to allow another editor to make it, but we're basically talking here about a single edit that Ynhockey describes as a "possible revert". Yes, and possibly not a revert. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@T. Canens: Might I suggest that the usual suspects (a group in which I probably should be counted) be banned from commenting in future AE complaints unless they bring the complaint, are the subject of the complaint, or their name is raised in the discussion by an uninvolved editor? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Malik the involved editors shouldn't comment on WP:AE unless specifically asked by admin.The bickering between two editors here is a good example of what should be avoided.--Shrike (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Peter Cohen

The Ip account User:89.165.121.234 has been blocked as disruptive. I hadn't heard of one of the other accounts by th euser talk page is so interesting that I had better not make any comment.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

In reply to the first two admins to comment below, If you want to start a new Arbcom case, I will be happy to join you there. I think a group of people have chosen to indulge in WP:TE with regards to the interpretation of certan guidelines and things are going to contnue to escalate until this is cracked down upon.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that the purpose of bans and blocks it to protect Misplaced Pages rather than to punish specific users, then those making a decision need to ensure that they don't facilitate the functioning of one of our most enduring and malevolent sock-puppeteers by preventing the person who is most effective in identifying the puppets from reporting them.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by DougWeller

I've just protected Mount Hermon due to edit warring there in which Nableezy and the IP were involved, the difference being that it started with Nableezy reverting Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) and has just been reverted by Ericsmeer (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

Nableezy’s edits go well beyond tendentious; they demonstrate a visceral hatred toward Israel and Israelis. The following are just two examples that epitomize his view of Jews and Israelis.

• Here, he refers to Israelis as European colonizers. This revolting and despicable comment was repeated
• Here, in a rather lengthy rant, he once again refers to Israelis as European invaders.

This is not only hateful; it demonstrates a profound ignorance of Israel. Yet Israel and Israelis are the focus of his vitriolic, bile-filled hate. Why is he permitted to say these revolting and disgusting comments with impunity? But that is not all. Nableezy has also engaged in serious source distortion. Here he states In an act condemned internationally and attributes that erroneous and harsh comment to his cited source. The source cited to by Nableezy never even mentioned these words. Thankfully, the error was caught by Biosketch and was reverted here Nableezy's uncharacteristic muted response to Biosketch's revert speaks volumes. He tried to pull a fast one that was thankfully picked up by an alert editor. I was topic banned for six months for similar conduct (that will never be repeated) that I readily acknowledged even before an AE was filed. Hateful editing, tendentious editing, source distortion, edit warring, disruptive bullying; these are all trademarks of nableezy’s style.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

How do any of these comments "epitomize his view of Jews"? Until Jjg's comment, nobody had mentioned Jews, only Israelis. In what way is it "vitriolic bile-filled hate" to refer to Israelis as "European colonizers" (in fact, in the link cited, Nableezy refers to "European colonists", a subtly different term) or "European invaders"? Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights was indeed condemned internationally; but note that, in the edit cited, Nableezy does not, as claimed above, attribute these words to his source. There was no distortion in Nableezy's edits; only in the misleading account above. RolandR (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Only Israelis?" So let me see if I understand you correctly. It's okay for an editor, who edits exclusively in Israel-Arab topic area, to express hateful and xenophobic views about Israelis. Got it. Thanks for clarifying Nableezy.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone (see, for instance, the Hertzl Museum) is as squeamish about using words such as 'colonization' (not that Nableezy used that one) in connection with the establishment of a Jewish homeland.     ←   ZScarpia   02:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Should tolerance work both ways? Just as the views of others may be anathema to you, your views may be anathema to others.     ←   ZScarpia   09:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Brewcewer

My comment is not necessarily directly on point. Basically supported by the diffs presented above, but more clear to those familiar with Nableezy's past AE postings, and general contributions --- it seems like Nableezy edits with a vengeance, an anger, and appears really bitter about anything Israel related. From his edit summaries and talk page comments it appears that it really bugs the hell out of him if an article about any geographic entity outside the '67 border does not make clear at least once that its status is considered illegal or if the article places too much of an emphasis on the fact that Israel is the governing entity of said location. (some examples just from today: ( ) This attitude is not conducive to a collaborative project such as ours, and may be just what AE was supposed to weed out, but I'm not writing here necessarily to support any sort of ban. What perplexes me is how Nableezy can involve himself in this volunteer project when it appears to cause him so much heartache. In my estimation there is a general anti-Israel bias here on Misplaced Pages (especially the last year or two), but it does not make any change in me. I do what I can to keep things NPOV, but don't lose sleep when things don't go my way and stay cool (basically) while on Misplaced Pages. It just does not make sense to get so rankled up on a volunteer endeavor. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What perplexes me is that you and many other editors don't feel the same way or even more strongly about NoCal100 and make every effort to stop their repeated sockpuppeting when it's clearly the right thing to do for the topic area. You are part of their perceived peer group. You have the best chance to persuade them to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you suggest stopping this sockpuppetry? I agree it shouldn't be allowed. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know. I'd like to see an end to anonymous editing in the topic area but that will never happen. A technical solution doesn't seem to be possible right now. Raising the entry threshold for the topic area seems inappropriate as that harms the innocent although it would certainly provide some protection. Collective punishment is a popular approach in the real world. Perhaps we should try it e.g. everytime NoCal socks, brewcrewer gets blocked until he persuades him to stop...possibly unethical I guess. NoCal100 in particular is technically capable and careful enough to make confirmation through the SPI process difficult. Many of the persistent sockpuppeteers are. Maybe we should start plastering articles that sockpuppets like with alerts like this. The extent of the problem will soon become apparent to editors.

What is a bit frustrating is that an admin apparently knows who NoCal is in the real world. They have been in contact with them off wiki when they were very upset about someone else sockpuppeting (as far as they saw it)...no, it doesn't make sense. Clearly they won't be able to stop or reform without help because they just can't see that they are doing anything wrong. It seems we have no way of really dealing with it without help from people who the sockpuppets might listen to. There is nothing good about the sockpuppets. They destabilize the topic area and bring conflict here. A personal appeal from Mr Wales ? Free entry to deprogramming courses ? Pie ? Perhaps just burning Nableezy at the stake would be enough. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What the what? How is nocal's sockpuppetry relevant here and how am I any more responsible for his sockpuppetry then you are or Nableezy for User:PalestineRemembered? This is just a red herring to throw off the scent of admins. I may have been insulted or even angry over your baseless accusations if they were not so laughable and irrelevant.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Your response is part of the problem. Of course you are responsible. You help to facilitate it. You treat a sockpuppet as a legitimate editor when you must know that they are not. You are enabling their behavior. Solving the issue involves you. Of course not just you. The level of conflict in the topic area at a given time is related to two main factors in my view a) the level of sockpuppetry and b) the level (and absurdity) of the POV pushing. They often go together because disposable sockpuppet accounts can trigger edit warring with impunity, say whatever they want, and cause/contribute to mass hysteria a group response from like minded individuals which can lead to a robust response from policy minded editors who are sick of the nonsense that goes on here. So, not baseless, not laughable and highly relevant. I know nothing about PalestineRemembered. Before my time. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask you to stop. If you continue to accuse of facilitating sockpuppetry without any diffs or evidence I will have to ask an administrator to intervene.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How ironic. An administrator has already intervened to file this report with a list of diffs, all of which revert sockpuppets, apart from your edit which reverted to the sockpuppet's version. Marvelous. To be fair, I assume they didn't know. I would like to compile a long list of diffs but it's tedious. I would prefer you to just help resolve the problem. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just flat out untrue. Nobody at the relevant page has been found to be a sockpuppet and my edit conformed with the position of at least two other editors and conformed with WP:V, WP:BLP, as explained on the talk page. You and other editors have insisted on adding unsourced BLP-violative information despite its non-conformance with out polices and despite the lack of consensus. As seen on the relevant history of the page and its talk page, there are atleast two other editors opposing your introduction. The fact that someone who you think is a sockpuppet also reverted your unsourced addition does not mean I or anyone else reverting is facilitating sockpuppetry. For all I know he is a sockpuppet of nableezy and is being utilized to create this red herring by insisting that nobody else can revert because someone he thinks is a sockpuppet also disagreed with him. There is nothing I can do to stop nocal, assuming it is even him. I edit in accordance with the policies, I edit collaboratively, I don't edit war, and I certainly do not sockpuppet of facilitate sockpuppetry in any fashion. The fact that you are trying to turn this around on me instead of actually defending Nableezy is uncalled for and I hope an intervening admin can act or comment accordingly.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Of course it isn't untrue. This mess started with me. It is ludicrous. A perfect example of how messed up the topic area is. I amended the Category:Israeli settlers inclusion criteria to include the Gaza Strip (and Sinai) so that I could include an article, one article (but there may be more), that I have already started to make clean up preparation edits on about a pregnant women who was murdered along with her 4 children just because she was a settler. No other reason than that, she was a settler, so she and her 4 girls were just killed. All I want to do is to be able to categorize the article. The description was preventing that. My edit summary said "restoring Gaza+Sinai. reason=scope of cat should include Israeli civilian victims of militant attacks who were settlers at the time of the attack in Gaza for instance such as Tali Hatuel and her children". To my amazement, it resulted in sustained edit warring including multiple socks who are very obviously socks and I had to deal with nonsense on the talk page despite the fact that the people lived in a settlement in the Gaza Strip, she was a settler according to the sources I provided, and she was pointlessly murdered precisely because she was a settler. I patiently tried to example to you and others why you were wrong in this specific instance, that categorization is valid, clarified that this is not about living people and suggested alternatives. You stonewalled making demands for sources that talk about the attributes of all members of a set when we are only talking about one instance. Categorization is case by case. GHcool did not stonewall and bless him for it. What I'm doing here at AE is called for. It's necessary. Things have gone too far. People throw shit at Nableezy, fine, he can take it. So can I. But if you stand in my way and prevent me from making a change that is based purely on taxonomy, logic, cold heartless completely neutral stuff supported by what the sources say, using arguments that miss the point (probably because you assume nefarious motives that won't mean anything to me), you really get my attention. All of the other things you do that I normally might turn a blind eye to that do not comply with policy begin to shine very brightly. brewcrewer, you have to trust me. I am not the enemy. I'm not an advocate. I'm far worse than that. As I said on the talk page, try to imagine you are dealing with a rules based machine. The bottomline is that the sockpuppetry, the denials and feigned innocence, the bizarre arguments, the pointless edit warring have to stop at some point. Now would be a good time and it needs your help to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just not true again. The problem did not start with you. Look at the page history . You reattempted to introduce a description for which there was a discussion a few months prior that did not result in a consensus based on the opposition of myself and two other editors in good standing. Put simply, per BLP and V you need sources that support the claim that someone is still considered a setter after the settlement has been shuttered or s/he has left. Nobody has ever provided a source for that. Making this about what I can do to stop sockpupppets (absolutely nothing) is a red herring.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, have it your way. I've said what I thought needed to be said. This is now bickering apparently. I normally like to wear a flowery blouse+beret when I'm bickering and I don't have them handy so we should stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also frustrating is the off-Wiki evidence of sockpuppeteers, rather than being asked to stop, being encouraged to persist and to seek ways of becoming less detectable.     ←   ZScarpia   10:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Above, Jujitsuguy appears to be become very needled over references to Israeli colonists and invaders. Would you see that as justifiable irritation, though?     ←   ZScarpia   09:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Zero

Nableezy was perfectly entitled to revert the edits of 89.165.121.234, both according to the AE rules and according to common sense. The boringly predictable comments of Jiujutsuguy and Brewcrewer are irrelevant to this case. Zero 09:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To WGFinley: I don't understand your judgment of "status quo" at Category:Israeli settlers. The issue of whether to include Israelis who settled in the Sinai and Golan after those areas were occupied by Israel has been simmering there since soon after the category was created. I don't see any reason for Nableezy's version to be less the status quo than anyone else's. Not only that, but (1) it was Nableezy and not any of the others who raised the issue on the talk page, (2) Nableezy's version is what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources support. Zero 05:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Sean.hoyland

WGFinley, statements like "I don't see how that user being a sock has anything to do with this" can only have negative consequences for the topic area, a topic area already seriously compromised by the presence of sockpuppets. This whole report is based on an admin failing to see the obvious. The report is founded on the notion that illegitimate editors, who are not allowed to be here, who are not allowed to do anything at all, can be treated by admins as legitimate editors in a dispute. That is the kind of mistake that the topic area can't afford. You are compounding the original error with another error. That is the important point here. This case isn't about Nableezy vs JJG. That is a distraction. That is the peripheral issue. I edit in the topic area. I will be one of the many people who will have to pay the price for admins legitimizing the actions of sockpuppets because they can't see how socks have anything to do with this. It is not a price I'm willing to pay because of anyone else's inability to see things. Nableezy understands how to deal with sockpuppets and he is extremely effective in reducing their impact on the topic area. That's why they follow him and target him again and again. Admins are supposed to help legitimate editors and should not help sockpuppets profit from their actions. Nothing sockpuppets do can be allowed to affect legitimate editors and content decisions and no one can collaborate with sockpuppets. This whole episode is absurd. We have sockpuppets and editors in the topic area who wouldn't allow a change to the inclusion criteria for a category so that an article about an Israeli settler could be placed in the Israeli settler category and Nableezy is the problem ? Everything in the topic area is connected. Without an effective method to exclude sockpuppets from the topic area, removing Nableezy would be a tactical error. Someone will have to compensate for his absence to ensure ongoing protection and it won't be you. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right, Sean. If the solution as outlined by WGFinley is applied, we can kiss goodbye to any objectivity on these articles. NoCal, Ledenierhomme and others can continue to creat scores of sockpuppets at will. These will revert freely until they are blocked; which will not bother them, as they have no interest in constructive editing, only in disruption and entrapment, and in any case they can always create more. Meanwhile, legitimate editors will each use their one permitted revert, and will then either have to sacrifice themselves in order to preserve the integrity of the articles, or watch them turn into a propaganda-fest. Many of us recognise these socks as soon as they appear, but the SPI process takes so long, and the drawer is so stuffed that insisting that we wait until sockpuppetry is confirmed before reverting will mean that articles are almost permanently in the state desired by the socks. In order to combat this, we need more effective tools to identify and deal with socks, particularly of the handful of serial puppeteers; articles in this subject area may need to be indefinitrly semi-protected in order to make it more difficult for socks to disrupt them; and the guidelines need to be amended in order to explicitly exempt reversions of edits by socks. RolandR (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani

• In my estimation there is a general anti-Israel bias here on Misplaced Pages (Brewcrewer)

We (those exercising some assiduity in looking to ensure that articles regarding Palestinians and The West Bank approximate to NPOV) are not editing articles on Israel. We are engaged in editing articles on a territory occupied and controlled militarily and financially by Israel, on which almost 95% of RS, virtually all of the discursive resources on the West Bank, come from Israeli newspapers, books by Israelis, Israeli-linked think tanks, etc. There is a preponderance of military, political, and discursive power on one side: the number of people with a political or ethnic allegiance to Israel vastly outweighs the exiguous number of editors who are Palestinian (two or three, at last count) So there's no real room for complaint that somehow this zone is full of anti-Israeli bias. Personally, I never touch articles on Israel, since they are excellently edited and have a vital wiki community ensuring quality. But I think it rather silly to whinge about skewed representation when the numbers game is as I described it above. Many dislike Nableezy, and describe his work here as motivated by a 'vengeance, an anger,' psychoanalysing him as 'really bitter about anything Israel related (Brewcrewer).' it appears that it really bugs the hell out of him (Brewcrewer); Nableezy’s edits go well beyond tendentious; they demonstrate a visceral hatred toward Israel and Israelis. (Jiujitsuguy):'This revolting and despicable comment (Jiujitsuguy)'; 'Yet Israel and Israelis are the focus of his vitriolic, bile-filled hate.(Jiujitsuyguy)'; 'Hateful editing, tendentious editing, source distortion, edit warring, disruptive bullying; these are all trademarks of nableezy’s style.';hateful and xenophobic views about Israelis.' etc. etc.

Note that you are all taking editing on the legally distinct topological reality of the West Bank as intrinsically an assault on Israel. It's a convenient rhetorical confusion.

Those of you who have it in for Nableezy would probably see much less of him, myself and a number of other equally obnoxious editors if you managed to take in the fact that the West Bank is not Israel, that our work there is dictated by a policy fundamental, that of ensuring balance in articles overwhelmingly written via (pro-)Israeli sources, backed by a large in loco Israeli editorial body, dealing with an occupied country whose people are all but invisible on wikipedia. Get rid of him or me or anyone else and the NPOV problem doesn't disappear. To the contrary, you would all be under a very strong obligation to double and triple your workload by doing precisely that research load on the underrepresented POV of the Palestinians to ensure NPOV. A little more care to police the wild IP editing, unilateral POV pushing in this area by editors who seem to think Israel and the West Bank are one reality would give us all the opportunity to piss off, and leave all of these articles in responsible local hands. It's policy you know, that editors must ensure both sides are represented.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim that Nableezy's editing is only about the West Bank is almost as ridiculous as comparing the "number of people with a political or ethnic allegiance to Israel" with the "number of editors who are Palestinian". See for example this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wigley. In operational terms, you are suggesting that all reports of editors failing to follow policy should lead to interaction bans between the reporter and the putative abusive editor. It's an issue, however, of admins adjudicating the merits of policy adherence. Most of these conflicts would not arise if consensus were accepted, wikilawyering punished, and policy applied, whatever one's POV. Everyone knows, in the real world, how the legal lie of the land on this content issue lies, and attempts to screw it don't hold water.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A short summary of this discussion so far about the evidence provided above.

I feel the pain of user:NuclearWarfare, so I tried to summarize the discussion above about the evidence provided, while skipping unconstructive bickering.

1. Edits at Category:Israeli settlers ( )

• It was noted from multiple angles that according to {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} "edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty".
• The question still remains whether or not the second edit could be considered as a "revert", for WP:1RR purposes.
• According to user: Malik Shabazz, a revert of anonymous IP editor "does count against 3RR" so a question of possible WP:3RR violation might be also open, while probably more appropriate at 3RR noticeboard.
• When considering user:Nableezy line of defense, based on sock claim, maybe user:Tim Song note elsewhere might be relevant: "Reverting someone who you think is a banned user is different from reverting someone who is unambiguously a banned user."

2. Edits at Banias ( )

• Noone really addressed those. It might appear as slow motion edit warring, thus WP:GAMING, though other items of evidence submitted by User:Jiujitsuguy were found irrelevant according to discussion above possibly rendering those edits also moot.

This summary is for the sake of the closing admin, I could be watching Big Bang Theory, but I am wasting my time for this exiting volunteer based project called Misplaced Pages. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Further_remedies doesn't just say that reverts of anons don't count towards 1RR, it says anons "may be reverted without penalty". A reasonable reading is that they are permitted without 3RR limit either. I suspect that whoever wrote the text didn't think of this question. A ruling on it ought to be sought if we think it is important. Zero 14:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, I have always assumed that "revert without penalty" meant you can revert an IP as often as necessary. In any event this case strikes me as highly opportunistic in that the reversions of Nableezy's edits were made by a (since blocked) IP clearly intent on harassment. Such tactics should surely not be rewarded. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify your comment. You meant "the edits reverted by Nableezy", not "the reversions of Nableezy", right? Zero 03:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was clear from the context that I meant the reversions of Nableezy's edits by the IP, but I've now tweaked my comments to clarify that. Gatoclass (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Nableezy

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

Am I the only one who's getting the sense that there is going to be quite a few boomerangs here? T. Canens (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This reads a great deal like the West Bank/Judea and Samaria case. I in fact, recognize most people from it.--Tznkai (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, I wonder why we don't ban everyone who comments more than twice at an AE thread. I was planning on reviewing this report, and then decided I have better things to do with my time. NW (Talk) 04:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know why we continue to have AE taken up with such nonsense. I went on Wikibreak getting exhausted from mitigating disputes in this content area, come back a bit and look, same cast of characters who refuse to get along with each other. I would deal out a ban myself but they would be back to appeal in a few days or weeks or months and the ban would be lifted. Serious action is needed in these cases of continued and systematic tendentious editing in this subject area. These folks have been warned, they've been banned, they start it again the second their ban is lifted, significant bans are in order. --WGFinley (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• With regards to Nableezy, I have reviewed the edit wars at Category:Israeli settlers and will decline to block. I have also reviewed the issue at Banias. I see it as indicative of a larger issue regarding...territories in the Levant that have at one time or another in the last 70 years been under the military control of either the State of Israel or a bordering state. I think some sort of sanction might help, but I don't know if 1RR, a block or a topic ban is what is needed; those seem far too blunt to me.

  I have not looked deeply at the behavior of other editors, but I think that such a thing is warranted from a brief look. NW (Talk) 18:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• @Nableezy: I don't think a topic ban is what is required here, but I do think that you and a number of other editors are spending an awful lot of time focusing on very small matters. NW (Talk) 04:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• I actually destroyed the brain cells required to try to understand what's going on here. As usual, the first diff provided is the best one. Looking at the edit history of Israeli Settlers you have the constant problem. Previous dispute died down in June, a few days ago it is reignited and then you have parties on both sides calling in their reinforcements. It's "revert first, ask questions later" and by the fourth revert or so it becomes "go to the talk page". Personally I think every revert after the first one is out of line and it should have gone to the talk page to be hashed out. Judging by this current AE page an interaction ban for Nableezy and JJG is in order and probably a topic ban for both, they seem to live to revert each other. --WGFinley (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • @Nableezy, yes, I'm paying attention. Two for the show reverted it to status quo and asked for discussion and consensus, you reverted him., the only consensus you had to make that edit was your own. --WGFinley (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • That user is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Even if Nableezy didn't know that at the time (and I'm not sure if he did or didn't), at the very least it excuses him after the fact. NW (Talk) 04:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't see how that user being a sock has anything to do with this. I just look at the individual action. He reverted to status quo and said let's quit the warring and build a consensus. What's wrong with that? Nableezy didn't like his version so he reverted first (5th Revert on the article that day) and asked questions later. He should have made his proposal on the talk page and left the dispute at the status quo. Instead he just continued the edit war. --WGFinley (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • {{BannedMeansBanned}}. NW (Talk) 05:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • He didn't know that, if he did he should have cited it in the revert and called it to the attention of an admin. Look, these are all technicalities and I actually racked my brain reading the endless diatribes and dragging in of peripheral issues into this. The complaint is Nableezy participated in and heightened an edit war, do you need any further proof than this PAGE? This page is a war between these users, it needs to end. --WGFinley (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Since Nableezy is the one who emailed me the evidence I relied upon in blocking that sockpuppet, I think it's fair to say that he did know that. T. Canens (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy/JJG Redux

I think this case has a good synopsis of the issues between these two, it also includes the numerous prior AE cases involving them. It's pretty clear they don't get along and don't intend to. It's pretty clear previous interaction and topic bans have had little effect and still AE and the P-I topic area is beset with these constant fights. What course of action is there left but meaningful interaction and topic bans without the possibility of early parole? --WGFinley (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy

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

Request concerning Jiujitsuguy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 00:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 14 November 2011 Removal of consensus statement on illegality of Israeli settlement

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

1. Notified of the case

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Similar to an earlier case where an editor removed from articles the consensus sentence on the legal status of Israeli settlements, which Jiujitsuguy was involved in and is aware of the consequences, Jiujitsuguy has removed from an article on an Israeli settlement the consensus sentence. Jiujitsuguy was involved in both the discussion that resulted in that consensus and in the AE request linked above. Since coming of his topic ban, JJG has continued with the same conduct that saw him banned, relentlessly pushing an extreme minority POV, such as claiming the Golan is in Israel (see for example here or here where he adds maps showing the Golan as being within Israel's borders). This latest episode of removing the consensus statement is the last straw as far as I am concerned. The user should have been banned for any number of actions, this just being the latest one. In both the edit summary of the edit reverted by JJG (here) and the talk page section opened about the issue (here) the discussion WP:Legality of Israeli settlements is explicitly referenced. This is simply bad-faith editing against consensus and should be dealt with accordingly.

Besides the issue with the removal of the sentence on the illegality of the settlement, there is an additional problem with the edit. In the edit, Jiujitsuguy changed it is the largest settlement in the Golan Heights to it is the largest town in the Golan Heights. The source for the sentence says Katzrin, the largest among the Golan settlements with a population of 7000. Now one might quibble over whether Katzrin should primarily be called a settlement or a town or whatever, but Jiujitsuguy here ignores the source to further a political agenda and while doing so introduces a factual error into an encyclopedia article. According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, Katzrin (listed as Qazrin in English here, the Hebrew spelling קצרין verifies it is the same city) had, at the end of 2005, a population of 6500. Majdal Shams had a population of 9500. Katzrin is considerably smaller than the largest town in the Golan, it is specifically the largest settlement, yet this was ignored due to the political leanings of a Misplaced Pages editor. This manipulation of language to suit a political purpose while ignoring the sources causes damage to the encyclopedia. Jiujitsuguy continues to disregard, and indeed misrepresent, sources when they do not conform to his political views. nableezy - 05:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Jiujistuguy's response only causes greater concern. He says I do not for one second regret that part of my edit with that part being a reference to the modification of the sentence on Katzrin being the largest settlement. He now brings as justification for that edit a "source" that was not mentioned in the article or the talk page and one that is clearly inaccurate as even official data from the Israeli government shows (also, I found a more recent census, which gives Katzrin's population as 6500 and Majdal Shams as 9600). He still feels justified in introducing factual errors so long as they reflect his personal political opinions. The misrepresentation of sources to push a political POV was the major cause of his last topic ban. To remind anybody who has forgotten, in that episode Jiujitsuguy modified Israel also expelled Arabs from the DMZ and demolished their homes to Israel also expelled Arab squatters and trespassers from the DMZ and demolished their homes. This most recent episode, with the stubborn refusal to acknowledge the wrong, demonstrates that he has yet to understand the issue of misrepresentation of sources and that he continues to do so for purely political purposes. nableezy - 17:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy still, despite repeated explanations from both myself and RolandR, does not understand the issue. That doesnt give me much hope that this can be rectified with anything other than a ban. This isnt an issue of calling Katztrin a settlement or a village, a colony or a city. That he can only see this issue through that lens and persists in arguing a completely irrelevant point is itself evidence of the tendentious nature of his edits. He still has not understood the basic point that Katzrin is not the largest town in the Golan, and by making the article say that, based purely on his political positions, he introduced a factual error into the article. And he apparently feels no regret for that. I dont think much more evidence is needed that Jiujitsuguy's editing goals and Misplaced Pages's mission are simply incompatible. His goal here is to align articles with a political viewpoint without any regard for either the facts or the sources. That cannot be tolerated, especially in an area as problematic as the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 19:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

JJG, do you really not see a problem with calling that a scholarly source, or with the fact that it is plainly wrong as the census data makes clear? And do you still not see the problem that in your rush to push a POV based on your personal political feelings you disregarded the source and introduced a factual error? Or does everything fall under "content dispute"? It seems you have yet to learn the lesson of the last topic ban, which was due to exactly this type of disregard for sources in order to push a POV. nableezy - 21:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@WGFinley, the issue is the misrepresentation of sources to further a political agenda. JJG was banned for exactly this behavior, and he repeats it, almost to a t, here again. In the past instance, JJG misrepresented an offline source, changing Arabs to Arab squatters and trespassers when the source makes pretty much the opposite point. Here, he changes what settlement to village when the offline source, again, makes the opposite statement, and in doing so he introduced a blatant factual error into an encyclopedia article. He defends this action. I can think of no action more serious to the integrity of the encyclopedia than willfully and repeatedly misrepresenting sources to further a political agenda. Let me know if you still dont see what the issue is. nableezy - 00:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, not exactly. In fact, not even a little bit. Jiujitsuguy self-reverted after being brought here due to his having removed the consensus statement on the illegality of the settlement from the lead. He did not then, nor has since, acknowledged any error in misrepresenting the cited source and introducing a factual error into an encyclopedia article due to a tendentious attempt to push into the article a political viewpoint, an extreme minority one at that. nableezy - 02:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

WGFinley, that last comment of yours demonstrates that you have no business on this page. This isnt about Nableezy vs Jiujitsuguy, and the thread above has almost nothing to do with JJG. I repeat, please ensure that you have carefully considered the evidence before threatening topic bans and interaction bans. Your comments demonstrate a lack of understanding. nableezy - 12:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Jiujitsuguy

Statement by Jiujitsuguy

Was unaware that this so-called consensus statement applied to the Golan Heights. I was under the impression that it only applied to the West Bank since the AE against Shuki involved a West Bank settlement and not the Golan Heights. I will self-revert but seek clarification if this is indeed the case.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

self reverted--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I immediately self reverted within seconds once I was provided with the link above. Look, if you’re looking to ban me just let me know so I won't waste any more time with this. I self-reverted almost immediately once I was provided with the link. Forgive me if I'm not completely up to speed with every nuance of IPCOLLAB. In addition I haven't edited in I-P for over eight months. And again, the minute I was provided with the link and read it, I self reverted. What more do you want for Christ sake?!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jiujitsuguy

Comment by Epeefleche

Firstly, looking at the first noted diff in complainant's "additional comments" section, it appears that the complained-about edit was supported by a ref to an RS. And that this was noted in the edit summary as well. Secondly, what is referred to by complainant as "the agreed upon consensus statement of illegality" seems to be a violation of wp:SYNTH, in that the subject of the article is not mentioned at all in the source given. While it may be appropriate language for an article on settlements in general, it does smack of spamming for an editor to insert the sentence in the instant article where the ref fails to mention the place in question.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As to the second point, if there was (as is indicated) an earlier consensus (to the effect that including such a statement in articles is not synth, even where the ref does not mention the subject of the article),then I agree that consensus should be followed. Perhaps that discussion can be referred to with a diff, rather than a bald reference? It would be interesting to understand why that is not synth, in the eyes of the consensus. And also to explore what similar statements could be created (with that as a basis) and inserted into all "relevant" articles (even if the ref fails to specifically mention the specific subject of the article). I expect it could be a template for all sorts of dozens-of-insertions entries. For example, as to entities that are viewed as engaging in illegal terrorist activities.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What up, Epeefleche? Some (close enough to 50%) were not happy at all with the final consensus. I (the originator of the discussion) was on the fence. The line is SYNTH. This was clearly understood by editors involved. My reasoning for being OK with it being SYNTH is that it was concise and the only way to do it was by WP:Ignore All Rules. How it has played out has been contrary to IAR, though. Ignore All Rules is about the betterment of the project. The rollout of the line has been contrary to the project's goals. It is bad enough that editors have decided to use a boiler plate when using a source directly related to the subject would obviously be preferred. But now we have several incidents of bickering over it. I started the conversation to stop the disruption (edit warring and sneaky editing). Events since have been just as disruptive. This discussion might be better at IPCOLL. I just wanted to clarify since it is so related. Cptnono (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the discussion where the decision was made? That would be helpful. It may well be worth revisiting the issue. And/or extending this exception to the SYNTH policy to other matters, such as "x is considered a terrorist organization by z", whenever such organizations are mentioned.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Jiujitsuguy

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

• The consensus found by LHvU in the discussion plainly covers the Golan Heights (and the West Bank, and East Jerusalem), and it plainly states that this sentence is to be "included in all relevant articles". I'll reiterate what I have said previously: all editors in this topic area are expected and required to respect and follow this consensus in their editing, until and unless a different consensus is obtained through another RfC of similar participation. Failure to do so is ground for sanctions, including but not limited to a block or a topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

@Tim, I immediately self-reverted within seconds once I was provided with the link as noted in my response above.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately it comes as no surprise that Jiujitsuguy is making this kind of an edit again. If JJG 'immediately self-reverted when he was provided with the link' how come he did not notice the mention of WP:Legality of Israeli settlements in the edit summary of Nableezy's last version, the one that he reverted? The Legality page explicitly mentions the Golan Heights. And in his own statement above, JJG says "Was unaware that this so-called consensus statement applied to the Golan Heights. I was under the impression that it only applied to the West Bank." It seems doubtful he would say this if he had even *read* the single sentence which the Legality page has determined to be the consensus wording. (Yes, that single sentence includes 'Golan Heights'). Unfortunately the only practical way to keep JJG from engaging in more adventures is a renewal of his topic ban. Admins at AE have made strong statements about enforcing LHvU's formula since the pressure to boldly ignore it is so strong. I think the I/P topic ban is the only adequate method to ensure that people will respect the consensus statement. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ed. I am being truthful when I say That I did not know that that template language applied to the Golan. Yes, I was indeed negligent in not seeing it in his edit summary. I only became aware of it from his AE and after reading the link, I self-reverted, literally within seconds of his filing. I'm asking not to be thrown in the cooler again. I'm asking you to AGF and to take into consideration the self revert.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm very interested in hearing JJG's response to Nableezy's newest comment. T. Canens (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I was truthful in my first response and I will be truthful in my response to Tim’s query. The “consensus template” does not address the issue of whether Katzrin is a town, village, city or settlement. Thus, it would not be incorrect to apply any and perhaps all of these labels to this particular city so long as it comes from and RS and is verifiable.

  Concerning the subject edit, I noted at Talk page the following; "From Time magazine Israeli army tanks advance on the firing range during a training exercise, May 21, 2008, on the outskirts of the Israeli city of Katzrin in the Golan Heights. emphasis added. An equally if not greater persuasive argument can be made for calling it a town or city."

  There is also this describing Katzrin as the largest town in the Golan

  I made the edit because at the time, the first two sentences in the lead described Katzrin as a settlement without any reference to its town or city status. After my edit, the first sentence still referred to it as a settlement and the second referred to it as a town. I do not for one second regret that part of my edit (emphasis added). The only part of the edit that I regret is removal of the “consensus” language, which I immediately reverted once I realized that it also applied to towns in the Golan. (emphasis added)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This response does not even begin to address Nableezy's point: Majd ash-Shams is the largest town in the Golan Heights. In this context, it is irrelevant whether you call Katzrin a settlement, a town, or a city, it is still smaller, and in altering the term "settlement" to "town", Jjg introduced a blatantly false assertion into the article. RolandR (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So I guess that all the reliable sources that refer to Katzrin as a town or city including Time Magazine The New York Times, Haaretz as well as scholaraly texts, are also asserting "baltant falsehoods," hmm?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you are still missing the point. The blatant falsehood is not that Katzrin is a town or a city; it is the assertion that it is "the largest". RolandR (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this this scholarly text, Katzrin is the largest town in the Golan. So it becomes a content dispute.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I dug a bit further and I think this is very relevant to that particular portion of the edit. The RFC concerning this very issue was closed as no consensus for the demand that each geographic entity beyond the 67 border be deemed a settlement in the opening sentence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sticking To The Point

Nableezy has filed one action in this AE request, that JJG took action in violation of consensus. JJG reverted himself within 30 minutes of the action when it was pointed out he was wrong. What's the issue? --WGFinley (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to Nableezy's comment above while I am certainly aware of the type of behavior JJG gets drawn in to (having banned him in this topic area myself on more than one occasion) I don't see the particular offense here to merit AE. He put something in, the point was made to him he wasn't being accurate and after 30 minutes of reflection on it he self-reverted. That's the exact thing I would expect. --WGFinley (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy/JJG Redux

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Nableezy above. --WGFinley (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Given the sequence of events and the self-revert, I would be OK with closing the complaint against Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) with no action. However it is surprising that JJG manages to find himself back at AE so frequently. You would hope that past experience would encourage caution and get him to avoid making changes to very contentious portions of article leads. Some editors in this area who are closely associated with one of the two sides seem to feel duty-bound to strike a glorious blow for the cause. Thanks to WGFinley for all the new analysis he has done. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  Unfortunately it's not surprising in this topic area. --WGFinley (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't find JJG's response as to the "largest town" issue convincing. To me this seems similar to the example in WP:VNT#"If it's written in a book, it must be true!" of using a travel guide that says "Washington D.C. is named after George Washington (1722 - 1799)" to argue that Washington is born in 1722 and not 1732.

    I agree that no action should be taken on the "legality" issue at this time, considering the self revert. T. Canens (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

nableezy

The Devil's Advocate

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

Request concerning The Devil's Advocate

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

-Jordgette 05:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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

The Devil's Advocate was recently blocked for one week for edit warring on the 7 World Trade Center article (a Featured Article). As noted in his block case, many of these edits were tendentious. Immediately after the block expired, the user began making more edits to the article. Although they have become increasingly subtle, as another editor pointed out , some of the recent edits "make controlled demolition seem less implausible." Edits before block:

1. 10/24/11 Removal of information about physical evidence used by firefighters to predict that the building would collapse due to fire
   
2. 10/19/11 Weakening of language to support the idea that NIST could not "rule out" the use of thermite to demolish 7WTC
   
3. 10/25/11 Removal of engineering and fire-safety organizations that collaborated with NIST, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (the mentions are injurious to CT claims that the investigation was secret, insular, and inadequate)
   
4. 10/24/11 and 11/7/11 Repeated removals of image of Fiterman Hall, a building across the street that was damaged by 7WTC's collapse (the image is injurious to the CT claim that 7WTC collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint)
   

After block:

1. 11/16/11 and reverted 11/16/11 Weakening of language to make NIST findings about blast sounds more open to question
   
2. 11/16/11 More weakening of language, highlighting the fact that this is merely NIST's opinion
   
3. 11/17/11 Incredibly, after this request for enforcement had been filed, the user removed the sentence "Few photos and video clips exist that show the damage sustained to the south face of 7 World Trade Center on 9/11" from a caption in the article. This sentence is inconvenient for conspiracy theorists and its removal consistent with the other POV-pushing.
   

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

1. Warned on 11/9/11 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user feigns impartiality, for example when it was pointed out that his deletions would be applauded by conspiracy theorists . Having been confronted, the user hides behind WP:AGF to defend his actions (in his statement below as well as here, paragraph 3) while accusing those who protect the status quo on the Featured Article of bias (, ). The user defends his actions with great verbosity and during his block declared himself right and innocent, even after three admins told him otherwise — so enjoy yourselves on this one!

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning The Devil's Advocate

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I have made it clear in the talk page that the change I was making was purely related to a grammatical error. The word "because" in the sentence does not match with the earlier wording "found no evidence" so I replaced "because" with "such as" and removed "were not observed" so that the sentence would be grammatically correct. An earlier change merely replaced absolute wording with more appropriate wording that was also used in the source material. The only other change just used identical wording to an earlier part of the sentence. It appears these are the only changes Jordgette is using to argue this point. While the latter two changes should not be a matter of controversy given what I just said here, I left those reverts in place and only sought to address the grammatical error.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It would appear Jordgette also believed that the previous wording needed to be fixed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Another note is that of the supposedly three edits listed as happening after the block, two are the exact same edit. The only other edits included the changes Jordgette has now acknowledged as legitimate as well as some changes that concern the building itself and have no bearing on the POV I am supposedly pushing. Some changes were purely style-related and had no impact on content, like merging paragraphs, while other changes involved removing blatantly promotional language, or expanding on a piece of information. What we are left with are edits before the block, in which case it appears Jordgette is merely pushing for additional sanctions on top of the week-long block.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

One issue that keeps getting repeated ad nauseam is the notion that I am pushing a conspiracist POV. Unfortunately these accusations increasingly border on failure to assume good faith, as in the accusation that I was using a grammatical error as an excuse to make "dubious" edits or Jordgette's insistence that I am insidiously hiding behind a pretense of impartiality. That the admin who blocked me accepted the accusation of me pushing such a POV is part of the reason I rejected that decision. It seems there is a poor habit of editors, admins included, presuming that the only reason someone would not want to insert absolute wording in favor of the official version of events (preferring to use intext citation) is because that person wants to push the conspiracy theory or that merely being open-minded when it comes to conspiracy theories means you cannot evaluate edits objectively.

However, my insistence on qualifying such statements by noting who said it or not using definite language is consistent with my edits across multiple subjects that have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. My opinions on some of those other issues are far stronger and sometimes are even dis-served by my changes, but only on this subject do people accuse me of impropriety and seek administrative sanctions over such accusations. Sadly, I cannot really prove to anyone what is going on in my head, but that just makes it all the more important that editors try to consider whether my reasons for edits make objective sense. Rather than approaching the subject with a battle mentality some editors need to be more diplomatic.

Tom's claim below that I was adding "a lot of chaff" to the talk page is an example of this battle mentality. He appears to be referring to comments I made on the talk page looking for his explanation on why he performed a number of reverts on material that had been unchallenged for at least a week or longer without providing any explanation. My concerns pointed to a lot of serious issues like information not being contained in a citation and the questionable use of a non-free image. Describing my queries as "chaff" when the editor was being questioned about his reasons for reverting material that appeared to have gained consensus without explaining why he did this does not suggest a desire for cooperation. Tom may have also been referring to my questions towards Jordgette about whether that editor objected to certain changes that had been reverted, given that the editor only raised one specific concern, as well as explaining why I had made those changes. Describing that as "chaff" would also demonstrate a lack of interest in discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Jordgette is going overboard now. I shortened a rather lengthy caption by removing information that goes on about how few photos exist, something that is of no consequence to the subject at hand at all (despite Jordgette's odd insistence otherwise). I also moved the image to the other side of the page so that the section would not look so cluttered. Once more, in Jordgette's haste and trigger-happy reverting, uncontroversial changes have been undone that only improved the article. Now we have three images on one side and it just makes the whole section look terrible. Absurdly Jordgette fails to fully restore the wording and when correcing that mistake makes the bizarre remark that the mistake was a "casualty of the current crisis" only going further to prove my point that these editors are in total battle mentality rather than actually seeking the good of the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that, it appears that particular word has been absent for some time. It appears to only have just now been noticed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked back in the history and it appears that mistake Jordgette blamed on the "current crisis" has been an issue since a change over four years ago.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

On my week-long block, since Jordgette brought it up and with those actions leading to it appearing to be the main thrust of the editor's objections, my reason for not accepting the decisions of the admins is because the one argument I made consistently, that my edits were consistent with WP:BRD, never got addressed by any of those admins. The closest an admin came to addressing it was the last admin reviewing the unblock, who still failed to acknowledge that my efforts at discussion specifically sought the opinions of other editors and tried to accommodate the opinions expressed or that such discussion did result in consensus changes. Of note for this case, Jordgette went to the noticeboard in that case hours after I tried to inquire about that editor's objections. Here Jordgette did not even bother to wait and reacted to a change that the editor now seems to acknowledge was not in any sort of bad faith. This behavior of jumping to seek administrative action even when an editor regularly expresses a clear desire for discussion is far more problematic than anything I am accused of doing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning The Devil's Advocate

It should be noted that this request concerns all of the edits listed above, before and after the block. The user, having gone through the edit-warring noticeboard process and a considerable block, continued making dubious edits immediately after the block. I for one have lost patience with the user and am pursuing this venue as the last resort that it is. -Jordgette 06:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I endorse Jordgette's request for enforcement. Coming right off his block, The Devil's Advocate, along with a number of routine edits, made two tendentious changes (Jordgette's statement above) to the paragraph on controlled demolition and added a ton of chaff to the talk page. Tom Harrison 14:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning The Devil's Advocate

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

The diffs provided show removal of sourced material without explanation. TDA has provided a TL;DR explanation of his philosophy but no response to the diffs submitted. Since he just came off a block I think a topic ban is in order. --WGFinley (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Lutrinae

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

Request concerning Lutrinae

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

University of Hawaii based Lutrinae (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Lutrinae) who is also Modinyr, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive100#Modinyr) has returned to editing via dynamic IPs, some of which were included in the first AE report. The evidence for Lutrinae=Modinyr is here and here where Modinyr edited logged out as 132.160.54.149, another University of Hawaii IP.

Recent IP editing

• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.124
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.140
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.148
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.156
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.162

For an added bonus they also appear to have access to what looks like the United States Army Information Systems Command (USAISC) server shafbc2.pac.army.mil (Special:Contributions/141.190.32.9) in Fort Shafter, Honolulu. It seems clear that it is the same person when you look at the combined contributions of the various IPs to

• Talk:Queen_Rania_of_Jordan#Reception_history_missing (note that the 141.190.32.9 IP continued the other IP's arguments and oddly began to sign with 132)
• GFHandel's talk page
• Nableey's page (+ Cptnono's comments here were somewhat unhelpful).

I think they have also just registered as That132IP presumably to continue to follow my edits related to this misinformation currently being discussed at User_talk:Soosim#Facts.

Their presence continues to be disruptive, abusive and politically motivated. Please shut them down once and for all, all accounts, all IPs. I don't see any evidence that range blocks would cause any collateral damage.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User is IP hopping. Notified one IP

Discussion concerning Lutrinae

Statement by Lutrinae

Comments by others about the request concerning Lutrinae

So let's see,

• User:Lutrinae was blocked at 2 November 2011 by User:Alexandria, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lutrinae/Archive
• User:141.190.32.9 was blocked at 20 November 2011 by User:Malik Shabazz
• I tagged the mentioned 132 IPs with {{sockpuppet}} for Lutrinae though during last week or so they appear to be stale.
• User:That132IP is also tagged and appears active as-of November 20, though so far in relatively constructive way.

Thank you for sharing the valuable info above with the community, Sean. Should we prepare the launch pad for defending missiles, since we are aware now of US military Fort Shafter, Honolulu connection to plot against the Freedom of Misplaced Pages? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Lutrinae

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