This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs) at 03:08, 12 October 2009 (→Comments by other editors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for enforcement

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.

Lapsed Pacifist

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

Request concerning Lapsed Pacifist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User requesting enforcement:
GainLine ♠ _♥ 11:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist Remedies - Lapsed Pacifist is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland

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

1. This edit is on murals relating to the Conflict in Northern Ireland, a topic that the user is topic banned from editing on and more so this particular edit changes the context of the the picture.

1. Again an edit in an area (Irish republicanism and the conflict in Northern Ireland) that the user is banned from. While there is no content change, the user is pushing the limit of what may or may not be acceptable in the ban and is gaming the injunction.

1. continues to push the bounds of what is or isn't acceptable here, even after this RfE being brought up.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. Warning by Falcon9x5 (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Review if these actions fall under the scope of the remedy and whatever sanction deemed appropriate.

Additional comments by GainLine ♠ _♥:
Lapsed Pacifist is currently subject to a second RfAR arising from conduct relating to editing in another area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Notification of enforcement request on Lapsed Pacifists talk page

Discussion concerning Lapsed Pacifist

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist

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

First edit listed was a definite problem, second one less so, but still not a great idea. I would be content with a very stern warning this time unless there was trouble caused. Am I missing any procedural history here?--Tznkai (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts. LP is restricted from this area. He also will have another topic ban in another area in the ongoing ArbCom case when it closes. I am fine with a warning.. a LAST warning. If the line is crossed again, in any way shape or form, drop the heavy end of the hammer. SirFozzie (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

After seeing the latest edit, where he knew he was under investigation, I have dropped the heavy end of the hammer. Seeing as this is his FOURTH violation of the ArbCom sanctions, I have blocked User:Lapsed Pacifist for two weeks, and I was considering making it a month or indef, and would not protest if the block was extended. I am leaving this open for any further discussion, but will close it in the next 24-48 hours if none is forthcoming. SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Suspected return of banned user on Sathya Sai Baba

Sbs108

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

Request concerning Sbs108

User requesting enforcement:
*** Crotalus *** 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Sbs108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#SSS108_2

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

4. numerous others - see notes below

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not required

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
The previous topic ban on this user should be enforced.

Additional comments by *** Crotalus ***:
Based on WP:DUCK, it seems clear that User:SSS108 has returned as User:Sbs108. The user names are only one letter apart, and both accounts focus almost exclusively on Sathya Sai Baba and closely related topics. Both also exhibit similar grammatical flaws. Since User:SSS108 was indefinitely banned from this article, I request enforcement of this remedy on that individual's current account, User:Sbs108.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Sbs108

Statement by Sbs108

I really don't know how to answer this other than I am not SSS108. This is a bold accusation which is not true. I've also edited two other articles, Desert Fathers and St. Anthony, so I am not just involved with Sathya Sai Baba although most of my edits have been on the Sai Baba article. I really don't know what else to say. SBS are the initials of my name and 108 is a holy number in Hinduism and Buddhism. That is the origin of my user name. Sbs108 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, Truth is the foundation of the universe. I would never use deceit to get my way. One who would decieve others wouldn't be worthy of the Grace of a Holy Soul. I would never stoop that low as to lie. In reality do I really care about the wikipedia article of Sathya Sai Baba...no...Will my editing affect or change the life of Sathya Sai Baba...no.....Yes I have in interest in the article but not to the extent where I would lie to get my way. If it weren't for me and a few others, this article would be taken over and used as an extension of someone's critical website as it has in the past.Sbs108 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPA States."One can only form opinions of editors as a result of their actions. Over time, they may diversify their contributions. Users who continue to work within a narrow range of articles may find it difficult to build credibility in community discussions, although extended improvement to a specific section of Misplaced Pages should not disadvantage an expert opinion. I have been on Misplaced Pages since May or April of this year, that's 6 months only. I don't see how mainly edited one article can get someone banned? It says nothing of this in WP:SPA. This case is claiming I am SSS108 which I am not. Please drop this case as there is no evidence of such. I have edited other articles and in fact am the main contributor to the article on the Desert Fathers. My edits in the Sai Baba article were mostly defensive and in trying to restore the article from many violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The article before I got involved was 90% criticism and took on a unrealistic dark tone.Sbs108 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Sbs108, you have a total of 10 edits on Desert Fathers and its talk page. You have exactly one edit on Anthony the Great. All your other edits (several hundred) are on Sathya Sai Baba, its talk page, policy discussions, or related subjects such as 1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam. If you are not the same as SSS108, perhaps you would care to explain why you not only have a virtually identical user name (only one letter different), but also share the same single-purpose interest. This is just too suspicious to be a coincidence. *** Crotalus *** 16:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are wrong. I am not the same person. I have nothing to do with this SSS108. Really if I were would I come back with almost the same name? Like I said the initials of my name are SBS, Scott my first name, Boyd my middle name and my last name begins with S which I won't reveal. The 108 number is a common holy number in Hinduism and Buddhism.Sbs108 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Radiantenergy

Croatulus claims that “Sbs108” is banned user SSS108 why? Croatulus stated that “The user names are only one letter apart”?

• This statement is Preposterous because if we start banning wikipedia users on the reasoning that their username sounds like an old banned user or the spelling is similar to a banned user if you replace the middle letter "B" with a “S” letter. Such arguments really sound very unreasonable and absurd for banning an user. I am sure there will be no users left in wikipedia if that’s the reason for blocking / banning wikipedia editors.
• The proof Croatulus has given is from the recent edit war in the Sathya Sai Baba about a source “Daily Pioneer”. The Administrator Mfield put the article on Protection because there was an edit war on that source between Croatulus and Sbs108 and others. Again citing that edit-war history does not make Sbs108 same as the old banned user SSS108.
• Editor cannot request another editor to be banned just because the other editor edit-warred with him on the article. There must be a real evidence or proof for such request.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Question here is did Sbs108 really pass the WP:Duck test? - The answer is No and here's why?

• So far the proof provided by Croatulus here ,

, did not show any evidence proving Sbs108 made same grammatical errors as banned user SSS108.

• Croatulus complaint has been about the username being one letter apart that cannot be a criteria for stating that somebody passed the WP:Duck test.
• The duck test states that "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" - But in Sbs108 case so far there has been no evidence to prove the his characteristics matched with the banned user SSS108.
• The WP:DUCK test has failed. There is no evidence either showing strong comparisons between Sbs108 and banned user SSS108 this case should be dropped.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Sbs108

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

Please have someone at SPI comment.--Tznkai (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence above and my own check of the contributions of this user, I concur with the conclusion that this is user SSS108 editing in defiance of his site ban for harassment and his topic ban from Sathya Sai Baba. I have blocked the account indefinitely. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92

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

Request concerning Powergate92

User requesting enforcement:
jgpTC 03:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Powergate92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Mass_date_delinking

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

1. date delinking with generic edit summary that looks like it could've been done by a script
2. see above, but different article
3. now edit warring over it after being warned (see below warnings)
4. third article, done after warning
5. fourth article, done after warning
6. fifth article, done after warning

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. Warned by Ryulong (talk · contribs) that the issue is contentious
2. Warning by Ryulong (talk · contribs) mentioning there was an arbitration ruling over it

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
appropriate-length block based on enforcement: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Enforcement_by_block

Additional comments by jgpTC:
User engaged in mass date delinking on several articles and edit-warred over it even after being warned.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Powergate92

Statement by Powergate92

I was not using an automated script you can look at my monobook.js and see. I was not edit warring as you see in the edit summary I reverted has edit "per discussion at User talk:Powergate92#MOS:UNLINKDATES" That is not warning that him saying that I was making "automated edits that are not labeled as automated" when I was not. In that warning he said "There were two separate arbitration cases about it." but then did not show me links for the "two separate arbitration cases about it" when I asked him "Can you add the links for the "two separate arbitration cases about it"? Also if it's "extremely disputed over its usage" then why is it still part of WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)?" but he said "I'm not sure what has come about of it or why it's not mentioned anywhere on that page." and then I said "If your not going to add links for discussions about it being "extremely disputed over its usage" then I am going to revert your edits." and then 14 hours after I said that I reverted has revert. Now that I see a link for the arbitration cases about it I am going to revert my edits. Powergate92Talk 04:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs of me reverting my edits that were not reverted by other users: Powergate92Talk 04:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re to Tznkai: How is reverting 1 edit, 14 hours after the discussion ended edit warring? Powergate92Talk 05:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Powergate92

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

For cryin' out loud, I cannot think of a single topic that justifies edit warring less than this. It isn't even funny enough to be lame, its just ridiculous. Powergate, do not edit war. Edit warring includes what you were doing - "its not automated" doesn't make it not edit warring, - arguing with someone on your talk page doesn't make it not edit warring. I do not see a clear violation since mass delinking implies more volume, but that won't stop a simple block for edit warring if this stupidity continues.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is not "I'm going to do something unless you do XXXXXX" its the active attempt to form an agreement.--Tznkai (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure if I'm involved now, Powergate92 baited Ryulong into 3RR and got him blocked, I unblocked him. I absolutely agree with Tznkai here, this is unbelievably lame and needs to stop about five minutes before it started. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono

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

Request concerning Cptnono

User requesting enforcement:
Tiamut 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. Commenting on editors not content
2. Ditto
3. Ditto
4. Request from me that he stop commenting on editors and stick to discussing content
5. Cptnono continues to comment on editors (more generally) rather than content
6. Request from me (again) to stop speculating/commenting on editors' motivations
7. Cptnono continues to comments on editors. Excerpt: If you have Palestinian stuff on your user page you shouldn't be editing here.
8. User:Sean.hoyland defending User:Nableezy and calling for people to begin filing reports at WP:AE about problematic behaviour
9. Another request from me to Cptnono that he stop discussing users
10. Cptnono continues to justfy his discussion of other editors' motivations.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. from me, from me again, from Nableezy. For the extended discussion relating to all of these warnings, see here.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Official warning be issued regarding I-P arbcomm case that notes that commenting on editors rather than content is unacceptable. It just sidetracks discussion on the talk page, wastes time, and impedes progress in achieving consensus. Cptnono's edits do fall under the purview of this case, as is indicated by the template at the top of Talk:Gaza War, but he is not taking heed of the special restrictions. A specific warning referencing the Arb comm decision may help him to understand that commenting on editors rather than content is unacceptable (Perhaps a reminder that WP:AGF and WP:NPA do apply to him too?) Requests to stop from the editors he is commenting about have not seemed to help. Maybe hearing it from an admin will.
Additional comments by Tiamut:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Cptnono

Seeing as Cptnono says I stand behind my comments, it would be good to have an admin clarify if commenting on editors and their motivations is okay at I-P pages. If it is, I sure have a lot more to say. I've kept such thoughts (mostly) to myself, since my understanding is that by focusing on content and not contributors, we have a better chance of improving articles and a lower chance of pissing people off. Also, do admins agree with Ctpnono's statement that: If you have Palestinian stuff on your user page you shouldn't be editing here? Can I tell editors with Israeli symbols on their pages to take a hike from now on? Would I be immediately blocked for such a statement? Probably. Tiamut 09:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it came across harsh but certain editors have not been responsible. Saying all was to far and I am happy to clarify that to some. I also do not believe there are any editors with Stars of Davids on the page. As a reminder, part of the reason that came up was another editor's assertion that Wikipeida is pro-israel. Furthermore, I wouldn't take offence if you said that editors who were editing in a biased manner should not be editing. We have to be neutral. I did not present the crticism with the intent to be malicious. I did it since we were discussing how to get the lock caused by other editors' edit warring lifted. I hope you understand that it was for the betterment of the article and not to attack anyone. I thought I made that clear so please understand that now if you didn't then.Cptnono (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Cptnono, but twice now you have used article talk pages to accuse first me, and then Nableezy of POV editing. In my case, you didn't cite any article edits I made, but instead focused on my user page content. In Nableezy's case, you harped on his lack of POV for taking a position opposed to yours on the issue of "the Gaza massacre". In both cases, you discussed (at length) our so-called motivations on the talk page, even after being asked to stop mutliple times. This is poisonous to the editing atmosphere and does nothing to help in the forging on consensus. Instead of discussing article content, the discussion falls into mutual recriminations or useless repetition (You are POV editing - No I'm not, please stop saying so - Yes you are - No I'm not stop it, etc., etc.) If you have a valid reason to suspet editors are engaged in POV editing, you can amass diffs and open an WP:AE case. Using article talk pages to issue unsubstantiated accusations is distracting and disruptive. And defending your right to do so after people ask you to stop is tendentious. Tiamut 10:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And I stand by the accusations. I was overly crass with you which I apologized for but that doesn't change the fact that certain editors are only editing the page for a sole purpose. Many times this has lead to the railroading of content, skewing consensus to present information with a POV, and unnecessary reverts. You obviously did not deserve such a hard time but Nableezy clearly does deserve negative feedback (or constructive criticism as I said) from his history in my opinion and this is verified by several others criticizing him on related pages. I also think that I showed an obvious attempt to not attack him as a person but his editing. I was not attacking him personally like I did to you. In that situation I took a Wikibreak to chill out and apologized a day or so later. If you want this arbitration to be based off of that then say so but Nableezy should be able to discuss criticism about his editing. I presented links to another discussion bringing up the same charge. In this situation, you can ask me to stop all you want but it was a discussion that editors needed to be involved in and aware of. In regards to being disruptive, I was also making comments on how to get the lock lifted. I opened a few discussions. In two of issues I agree with what could easily come across against Israel. I wrote a draft. No one else was even trying. It is the exact opposite of being disruptive.Cptnono (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion ended awhile ago. I said what I thought needed to be said and went to bed before your request was even made here. I am not going to apologize since I was bringing up something in an attempt to better the article. Nableezy was showing that he was not willing to consider other options even though a few of us tried accommodating using the word "massacre" in the lead. He has still failed to show that it was used enough to deserve prominence over other terms but MrUnsignedAnon's new proposal could take care of that. So what is the point? Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users so I assume that is out of the question. I have no problem with an admin saying not do it again if it is considered disruptive. I'll bring it up in a different venue (a notice board or case like this) if I feel it should be discussed. I did mention this but thought your request that I stop and Nableezy's comment warranted a response. I should also have my name added to the people made aware of the sanctions on the topic. If an admin is going to admonish me that is OK. I would request that several editors on that page who's edit warring led to the lock along with anyone campaigning gets the same treatment. This discussion is about stopping my disruptive editing (which stopped over 24 hours ago) though and no one else's so that other stuff shouldn't be discussed in detail here. If an admin wants to tell me if I was wrong or not then I am willing to accept their judgment. Cptnono (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cptnono

I stand behind my comments. The three sections below are a proper summary of any statement I could make (bold emphisis on a few lines not in original text)

• "I will not agree with BashBrannigan's suggestion since it asserts as a title and it is against the manual of style (Title's need to be bolded in the lead). My solution was dumbing down the lead to the point that there is no mention of Israel's operational name and to be frank it makes them look pretty bad (which they deserve to some extent of course). Even with this, I still including the term massacre since people did describe it as a massacre. Some people have even used it as a title but it was relativity rare when comparing it to the multiple other titles out there. If Nableezy requires it to be asserted as a title then there is a huge roadblock and we will have to add several others (which is like BashBrannigan suggestion only we will do it per MOS).''Also, regardless of the two of us agreeing or not (since it isn't required to not edit war and it isn't either of our's decision anyways), there was another series of edit warring that caused the page to get locked. It was over another editor's cleanup of someone else's cleanup of someone else's cleanup of a poorly laid out lead and a few other portions of the article. (please see the handful recently added discussions to this talk page and the reverts with several editor's names mentioned in the edit history).Cptnono (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)"

• "Ok, this is out of proportions. Bring it to Arbritation and let them decide after we made our points heard. Then we lock part by part arbritated. For eternal time untuched my editors. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not how it works. nableezy - 07:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with any administrative action or oversight. Nableezy is fresh off of charges of gaming the system and winning by shear staying power with allegations of campaigning. ( here and here I like him but agree with the concern. Nableezy's priorities are Palestine and not Misplaced Pages. I know those look like horrible charges to make but he was presented with a perfectly fine option and disregarded any "compromise" (we shouldn't be compromising facts). I would like to think that he is an alright guy (I really do like him) but his edits show that there is a sole purpose and that is Palestine not Misplaced Pages. Cptnono (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)"*

• "You made it clear that the discussion of edit waring did not involve me. You edit war on more than one Gaza-Israeli based pages. I full-on expect a negative response from you. I am doing it for constructive criticism since no one else has (including admins) when you need it. We can move this to a talk page if you want but I'm not calling you out to be a dick. I'm doing it since other editors perceive you as gaming the system.Cptnono (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)"

*since inserting these comments from the talk page Nableezy has raised concerns that I was misrepresenting him. Nableezy clarified his "not how it works" comment with a comment about the process. This is an overview of my actions not his and the intent of using the statement was to show that I was happy to use other available methods to resolve the dispute.Cptnono (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Cptnono

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

Shuki

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

Request concerning Shuki

User requesting enforcement:
untwirl(talk) 19:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so

1. , , , , , , - these were the edits shuki was warned about on 10/7
2. continuing changes after warning
3. continuing changes after warning
4. more edit warring (along with inappropriate commentary insinuating racism)
5. continuing changes after warning
6. continuing changes after warning
7. plus all of these from the user's contributions:
8. 10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'on ‎ (Undid revision 318718235 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
9. 10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Immanuel (town) ‎ (Undid revision 318716885 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10. 10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Beit Horon ‎ (rv OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
11. 10:02, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Alon Shvut ‎ (Undid revision 318718337 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
12. 10:01, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Efrat ‎ (Undid revision 318718628 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
13. 10:01, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Kiryat Arba ‎ (Undid revision 318718824 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
14. 10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Avnei Hefetz ‎ (Undid revision 318719858 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
15. 10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'ale Mikhmas ‎ (Undid revision 318719976 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
16. 10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Kokhav HaShahar ‎ (Undid revision 318720051 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
17. 10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Sha'arei Tikva ‎ (Undid revision 318720146 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
18. 09:59, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Beit El ‎ (Undid revision 318720326 by Nableezy (talk)OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
19. 09:59, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Alon, Mateh Binyamin ‎ (OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
20. 09:58, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Barkan ‎ (Undid revision 318720575 by Nableezy (talk)OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
21. 09:58, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'ale Adumim ‎ (Undid revision 318646193 by Dailycare (talk) unneeded edit, might construe all Palestinian settlements as holding same status)
22. 09:57, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Adora, Har Hebron ‎ (Undid revision 318719523 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

1. Notification of sanctions by CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Warning by CIreland (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) "Shuki (talk · contribs) is notified of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles and the article in question watchlisted. I would be inclined to apply discretionary sanctions if the edit-warring over the order of adjectival phrases in the ledes of such articles continues. Involved editors may prefer to go to WP:AE for further reports."

Editor notified

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
whatever action admins deem appropriate; topic ban editing topic ban, narrowly construed and excluding talk pages so the editor can participate in discussion seems most likely to help since warnings and notifications haven't.

Additional comments
This editor is edit warring over calling israeli settlements "villages" or "kibbutzes" first instead of the most common name: Israeli settlements. After being warned and notified of sanctions, shuki has continued this behavior aggressively. I went ahead and returned most articles to their consensus based state, however I will not continue to revert. This issue needs admin attention.
Due to shuki's concern's in exchange, i have stricken and adjusted my suggested remedy. untwirl(talk) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

The only thing that I am going to say on this here is that it is plain 'weenie' and bad faith pre-emptive effort to gang up and silence me after I was merely notified of the existence of the I-P sanctions (and you might all need to admit that I am one of the most prominent I-P area editors who has not received this official notice until now because of simply not needing to).

A) There is absolutely no warning of sanctions as explicitly stated by admin Clerland.

B) The Untwirl user did not even bother to open a section on WP:AN3, instead went for the kill on this page.

C) The user Untwirl abused WP:AGF by not even giving me a week to digest the 'notification'.

D) I already announced last week that I plan on opening a DR later this week (because of G below).

E) I already started a pre-DR discussion at WP Israel in order to avert a mass edit war by multiple editors that Untwirl, unfortunately, could not resist joining in.

F) The discussion is already dominated by non-WP Israel members because...

G) last week and this weekend is a religious Jewish holiday around the world and

H) I am certainly expecting opposing editors to respect that.

I) If anything, I suggest that it is Untwirl who is now the next candidate to receive notification of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_notifications for his controversial unilateral reverts on 10 October 2009 while a healthy discussion has already begun and for opening a false and misleading request on this page which has put an undeserved mark on my username, especially given my taking the lead in the attempt to resolve this conflict. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

I dont think this is necessary, Shuki said that a WP:DR process would be started shortly over this issue and I dont think it would be a problem to wait on that before doing anything here. IMO this should be closed without any action. nableezy - 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i missed that statement by shuki. could you provide a link, please? this is the user's last contribution and i don't see any statement that an rfc or dr process is being started. plus, all of those edits are after the notification and warning by an uninvolved admin. untwirl(talk) 19:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I plan on opening a WP:DR early next week. nableezy - 20:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

how does that statement on 10/9 justify diffs # 2-6 on 10/10? untwirl(talk) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to justify anything, I am saying that the best way forward would be an RfC on the topic which Shuki said would be forthcoming. That being the case I think it would be fair to wait on that RfC and see what happens. nableezy - 20:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

he was warned on the 7th. made many related edits on the 9th. said on the 9th he would seek DR. on the 10th continued on the same issue without seeking dr. you can't just say, "i'm going to seek dr next week" and then continue doing the same thing you have been warned about. i dont understand why you are defending this behaviour. untwirl(talk) 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment—actually this is a content dispute, and the editor who most clearly violated policy is not Shuki, as explained here (in reference to Nableezy). The user was notified in the past of the case, therefore I request that the enforcement be extended to include him as well, if action is taken against Shuki. —Ynhockey 00:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I have only now noticed that the user who filed this request did exactly the same thing that they are accusing Shuki of doing—a mass revert in the articles in question. This does not help matters, and the things I said in the linked-to post apply here as well. —Ynhockey 01:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation of me violating policy was nonsense the first time you made it, it is no less nonsensical now. nableezy - 01:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, I think your comment is rather unhelpful and misrepresents the situation. Nableezy's objectives and actions increase the compliance of article content with mandatory core policies. Shuki's actions decrease the compliance of article content with mandatory core policies. Nableezy argues by referring to core policies. Shuki and others argue using subjective emotional feelings about the meaning of words and people's intentions. Dispute resolution is the right course but it would certainly help if everyone could stick to just making policy based arguments and stop treating wikipedia as an ethnic battleground. If this AE request reduces the about of non-policy based actions/statements by editors then that is a good thing in ny view. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

if requested by an uninvolved admin i will happily self-revert. i was simply undo-ing the actions which shuki had been warned not to continue. untwirl(talk) 01:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Shuki

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