Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by T. Canens (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 21 August 2010 (→Result of the appeal by JRHammond: propose close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:41, 21 August 2010 by T. Canens (talk | contribs) (→Result of the appeal by JRHammond: propose close)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

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.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

Shuki

Complainer and complainee both topic-banned for 5 weeks.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Shuki

User requesting enforcement: nableezy - 19:24, 18 July 2010 (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:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

Removes reliablly sourced material because it conflict's with the user's own personal view
again
again
again
again
again

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

Notified of the case

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Shuki has been filibustering any mention of the status of these settlements in international law. Originally Shuki has complained that the sources did not specifically say that a certain settlement is illegal. Since sources have been provided that specify for each of the settlements listed that they are illegal under international law Shuki has now changed tactics and insisted that the source "prove" that the specific settlement is illegal. The issue here is not the one or two reverts Shuki has made in each of the articles or the content being reverted. The issue is that Shuki has obstinately filibustered what reliable sources have reported and demanded proof beyond the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. The arbitration case specifically says that editors should be editing within the policies of the website, including NPOV, RS, and V. Here, Shuki is violating all three; NPOV by refusing to allow a super-majority view to be represented in the article, RS by demanding that a RS is not sufficient "proof" on Misplaced Pages, V by repeatedly removing material cited to verifiable reliable sources.

Reply to Shuki's statement: The RFC had nothing to do with the legal status of the settlements or how that should be covered. And it is not an exceptional claim that Israeli settlements are illegal, and even if it were reliable sources were provided. The text is not discussing Israeli law but international law, so Israel's High Court's rulings on the legality under Israeli law is immaterial. None of this addresses the issue though, that you have repeatedly filibustered the inclusion of reliably sourced material for pure POV reasons. nableezy - 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Gatoclass: How much emphasis should be put on the material is certainly something that is strictly a content dispute, but Shuki has not been simply moving this information from the lead into the body, Shuki has been filibustering the content from appearing anywhere in the article. Is edit-warring the only thing that is actionable under ARBPIA? Is a systematic campaign to violate core policies of this website not actionable? Is everything that is not edit-warring a "content dispute"? nableezy - 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass, each of those diffs is of Shuki completely removing the content on legality, claiming that because the source does not "prove" it is illegal it is not acceptable. The only reason there are not more diffs is because I have not made any other edits as I would rather not have edits to the 200 or so articles on Israeli settlements be reverted without cause. Shuki is demanding that a source provide "proof" that the settlement is illegal, that it must reference a specific court decision that says that specific settlement is illegal (see , where that argument is made). Shuki is completely disregarding what RS says and removing content that says "X is illegal" and the source that says "X is illegal". But if this simply a "content dispute" then there is not really much of a point of any of this. If a user can simply just say no and block what reliable sources say from appearing in an article then this whole system is ****ed. We have had lengthy topic bans for making too many reverts, but things like this just get brushed away as "content disputes", which lead to, guess what, more reverts. nableezy - 05:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And Gatoclass, not only has Shuki rejected sources that say all Israeli settlements are illegal, he or she has further rejected sources that say specific settlements are illegal if that source does not provide "proof" that the settlement is illegal. Each of the edits listed above are removals of sources that say the specific settlement is illegal. nableezy - 05:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to many of the comments below. It is understandable that people come to the aid of what they perceive to be an ally. I'll just note that many of these same editors also came to the defense of the sock of a banned editor at a recent SPI, claiming that I was attempting to remove an opposing editor. That may well be the end result, but my purpose here is simple. Shuki's edits have violated a number of core policies of this website in contravention of ARBPIA. If there are editors that wish to show how that is not true they should make that case. Making this about me does not help anything. nableezy - 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Stifle: I understand it is easier to say "a pox on both your houses", but if you do so you are effectively saying that it is more important that there is an appearance of an equal application of the rules than it is to actually have an equal application of the rules. I have added well-sourced material about these settlements. The material I added is not "POV", it contains both the majority POV and Israel's by saying that they are illegal under international law though Israel disputes this. The material is both notable and verifiable, in fact every BBC story about a settlement contains that very same information. Shuki has removed notable, relevant, reliably sourced material from a number of articles and has done so by twisting policy such as RS and V or by giving no policy based reason for such removals. Regardless of Shuki's and Ynhockey's absurd comments about this material being "REDFLAG", there are countless reliable sources that flat out say that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law; to record that in supposed "encyclopedia" articles cannot be seen as disruptive unless "disruption" is defined as anything the extreme right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum does not like. I understand that you all are not supposed to adjudicate "content disputes", but that does not mean you cannot actually look at the content. The material I added is backed by literally hundreds of reliable sources. Shuki removed that material on the most specious of reasons and has done so repeatedly. If people are free to simply remove whatever information they like without regard to how well sourced it is then this place truly is a complete waste of time and fails its goal of providing an educational resource. If you or any other admin is actually serious about creating an "encyclopedia" then you should not, no cannot, tolerate such behavior as repeatedly removing well-sourced content. Our "sins" are not all equal here. You have on hand a user adding well-sourced content. You have another user twisting policy and filibustering the inclusion of that well-sourced material. Shuki has in the past removed sources that say all Israeli settlements are illegal because they dont say that specific settlement is illegal. Now, the removals are of sources that say that the specific settlement is illegal because the source does not supposedly "prove" that and does not cite a specific court case saying that the specific settlement is illegal. That is plainly an absurd reason. If you want to treat both the person adding well-sourced material and the person removing it for absurd, ideological reasons then topic-ban us both. If, however, you want to ensure that our articles follow the policies of this website then I invite you to take a closer look at the circumstances. We are not guilty of the same sins here, and treating us as though we were may be easy but is without justification. nableezy - 14:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Stifle: I would like to know what exactly you say I am at fault of. I added sources that say specific Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Almost 5 years ago Shuki reverted the same information asking that a source be provided. I provided that source. Shuki has since shifted the goalposts writing that the source must "prove" that Ariel is illegal under international law. No sane person can read WP:V or WP:RS and come to any such conclusion. What exactly did I do wrong here? nableezy - 18:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

Nableezy has never shown any attempt to collaborate and make reasonable efforts with other editors. Nableezy also forgot to mention that he is violating the closure of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements. Since he 'lost' that RfC he started, he has wasted no time in opening a new front with his typical and documented battleground mentality. Nableezy is ~~one of~~ the most negative editor I have met on WP and has nothing good to say on articles. It is not 'fun' to edit with people who hold this attitude for long. Most people mellow out and learn to work with editors with opposing POVs, Nableezy simply cannot. I wish I could say he was pro-Palestinian, but even a superficial glance at his contributions show that he has nothing positive to say on Palestinian pages, and is merely a general SPA for including controversial negative material into Israeli articles. Until now, there was no 'BLP' for geographical places, and because of him, I think there should be one. Nableezy, blocked numerous times for problematic behavior, is himself in violation of AE with his insertion of negative boilerplate WP:REDFLAG material. Specifically, his latest non-consensus solo effort, is to find any mention of a locality that also says that it is illegal. No proof of any court action specifically declaring this and definitely in contrast to many court cases with the Israeli Supreme Court that has decided whether a place is illegal (part of Amona that was in fact torn down) or not (Revava won a libel case against Peace Now for making false claims of its 'illegality').

I have certainly not changed any tactics, thanks for pre-empting me here with what I had just accused Nableezy on another page, I have always demanded that sources specifically mention the locality and not just in passing. There is no such thing as 'super-majority' and the RfC Nableezy filed failed to approve that peculiar non-existent policy. --Shuki (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Nableezy, your RfC was not clear from the beginning, and I'll say that is the reason it failed, and failed to go anywhere constructive and why I (and most anyone not in your POV) was reluctant to take part for so long. --Shuki (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Stifle and others including Nableezy. Peculiar the accusations and follow-up accusations as well. One only needs to look at what both of us do simultaneously to see who collaborates with others and improve WP, and who is merely here to get blood to push his interests. On 18 July at 19:19, at the same time that Nableezy is putting the final touches on this repeat AE against me filed 5 minutes later (and sadly against himself as well - People who live in glass houses should not throw stones), I can be found collaborating with an 'opposing' editor here.

2nd reply, to Stifle, to 'topic-ban us both' Nableezy, and 'take one for the team' RomaC. I certainly do not believe in WP suicide, but we know that Nableezy is ready for martyrdom with many uncivil remarks made and threatened retirement when he was blocked and then surprisingly weirdly unblocked early at the beginning of the year. Frankly, I know that most 'Israeli cities, villages, towns, and more in the West Bank / Judea and Samaria Area' articles are not on the watchlists of many, if at all, and no one has been contributing to the topic of 'Israeli settlements' articles as much as me though I wish I had more help. I admit to the kneejerk reaction to what I saw Nableezy doing (evidently and his admitted flooding of articles with tendentious boilerplate one liners, contrary to Sandstein's closing RfC recommendation to deal with each issue on a case-by-case basis) was to quickly make those reverts, and hopefully merely temporarily freeze him on his admitted conquest to add it to all 200+ articles, so that perhaps the WP community could handle this much better with, hold on, collaboration and consensus. I was not going to follow him around on each page to put it in another section, given that some editors have an issue with that too - something that calm consensus should decide. I cannot recall too many instances in which we have seen a reasonable and rational Nableezy, wanting to accomplish anything except to get is POV included and he only bothers to behave if others are watching too. To his credit, and perhaps the exception that proves the rule, he did start the RfC. Unfortunately, he did not bother to pursue further dispute resolution given his failure with the RfC.

3rd, to Stifle, I do not see how a three month topic ban is proportional to merely reverting six articles once and with my long-term record which is centred primarily around creating, improving and maintaining Israeli geography articles. Since coming out of my single 1RR 'topic ban', I have managed to keep that 1RR behaviour intact except for a repeat SPA anon who was/is repeatedly just making a mess on three articles and has been reverted by others as well. On the other hand, comparing me with Nableezy who was;

topic banned for two months
blocked and topic 1RR and violates it leading to
2month topic ban and then
comes out of his most recent two WP:ARBPIA topic ban swinging to which I alerted the collaboration project and
a very SPECIAL MENTION making blanket reverts not unlike what he is accusing me of doing scroll to bottom to the edit comments sources call this place a Palestinian village (?!)

and his repeated use of AE for the hunt (of me), even though warned only a month ago from making non-actionable claims

by closing admin. Stifle, does that warning count for anything?

The proper thing to do would have been for Nableezy to make another RfC, or use other dispute resolution mechanism to engage editors in this issue, or perhaps get other advice from a mentor, or like-minded but mature editor or admin. I am not interested in 'taking anyone down with me' and frankly, I don't care to see Nableezy topic banned either (and I have tried unsuccessfully in the past to suggest he make positive contributions instead of only the negative edits that he characterizes him). Peace, here on WP and in Israel, will not be made by one side attacking the other but by each side wanting to progress and improve. If I could sanction Nableezy, it would be to A) get him to join Misplaced Pages:Palestine, and B1) improve above stub status 200 Palestinian locality articles (in contrast to the 200 Israeli articles he was beginning to edit), or alternatively B2) create 100 new 'pro'-Arab/Palestinian articles starting with the requested ones on WP:Palestine (not anti-Israel ones) or alternatively B3) work on getting GA status for five Arab/Palestinian articles of his choice (preferably ones that promote Arab issues, and do not include anything about 'international law', warfare and blood). Instead, until then, I see this as another frivolous attempt ato bully me and scare others as well. Many have come to support me here (surprisingly, thank you and I have not emailed or canvassed anyone either) and few have come to back Nableezy up, and there is no shortage of editors who are on 'his side'. It is a fact that the six accused edits mentioned are definitely not 'an attempt by me at filibustering', that while my accuser prefers otherwise, even if I have shown to accept inserting material my personal POV would rather not have included and I collaborate. --Shuki (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Shuki, where does WP:V or WP:RS require that a source "not just in passing"? I seem to remember you made the opposite argument in the past. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG --Shuki (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that Israeli settlements are illegal under the Geneva conventions is an "exceptional claim"? Wow. Just wow.

I'm sorry, Shuki, but REDFLAG doesn't say what you think it says, and you don't get to set your own bar for which sources are acceptable and which aren't. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Mbz1

The issues raised in this request are issues related to the contested content of a few articles, and should be discussed on the articles talk pages as such. IMO the request should be closed as non actionable because Shuki has never violated any policy.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

On a side note I am surprised that Nableezy while filing the request about Shuki has no problems with IP, who inserts unsourced POV to the same articles with the edit summaries like this one for example: "an illegal settlement built on a stolen and occupied land is NOT a villeinage!!!! stop promoting lies violating wikipedias terms and the international law!!!!". --Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Gatoclass question about Shuki editing against consensus. No, they did not, just the opposite. Please take a look at one of the articles in question talk page's discussion. Nableezy started it just few hours before he filed this AE, and there's no consensus there. As user:Noon put it:
Israeli settlement is the FIRST descriptor of this locality in this article. Click it and you'll get all arguments regarding settlements. No need to repeat it again and again. This is what links are for in wiki article, unless you wish to make a non neutral point.
I am not going to discuss the fairness and/or correctness of user:Noon's statement because it does not belong to AE. It is a content dispute, which cannot be resolved through arbitration enforcement. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I really liked Shuki's proposal about sanctions for Nableezy. In general I believe that topic bans should be imposed rarely, if there's absolutely no other choice. I believe uninvolved admins should be more creative in the sanctioning of the involved editors. I actually liked how Tznkai topic banned Supreme_Deliciousness:

"This topic ban will run for 30 days from 00:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC) or until I see one of the following: A comprehensive and good faith proposal for a neutral standard on naming conventions, to be submitted for the consideration of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration|The Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject; a comprehensive and good faith proposal for a neutral standard on how images are chosen for Levant cuisine, to be submitted for the consideration of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration|The Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject; or a 3000 word essay on the meaning and importance of assuming good faith and avoiding battleground behavior."

So I concur with Shuki proposal about sanctions for Nableezy. It will help Nableezy to avoid being anti-Israeli single purpose account, and it is always the right thing to do. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To the closing administrator. I would like to stress out three important points provided by me and others as a small summary:

Nableezy filed this AE at 19:24, 18 July 2010 less than 4 hours after he started the discussion on the issue at the article's talk page, and failed to get consensus. It is not the way to proceed. It was neither an emergency, nor BLP, nor something else extraordinary that could not have waited for a few days. This request created unwanted wiki drama, that could have been avoided by a simple discussion.

Every article in question, except one, is linked to Israeli settlement. Israeli settlement article provides all information about Israeli settlements therefore there's no need to repeat it in every article. As somebody has written ""International law" is a tricky thing that people claim to know, but there has been no binding court case on the matter, and considerable legal debate. The Israeli settlement article discusses the complex legal issues at length", and it is the place to learn about it. The one that is not linked to Israeli settlement is linked to Community settlement (Israel), and I am not sure how it got to Nableezy's request in a first place.

According to the above this AE against Shuki should be closed as non actionable. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To the closing uninvolved admins, I am not going to jump into your space as very much involved Gatoclass did, but I do agree with him: banned editors should know what they are banned for. Shuki has done absolutely nothing wrong at all. The issue of the request is a content dispute, which could not and should not be enforced by AE. Nableezy did not make nearly enough efforts to resolve the issue at the article talk pages before bringing the matter up to AE. He demonstrated a battleground behavior, and it is not first time he files non actionable, time-wasting AE. That's why IMO Nableezy should be given 2 weeks symbolic ban on AE just to make him give it another thought before he files another AE. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass

While I certainly agree that the status of all such settlements in international law should be outlined somewhere in the relevant articles, it doesn't strike me as imperative that this status be noted in the intro, unless perhaps the intro is long and/or the settlement a particular source of friction. IMO, it's sufficient that the status of such settlements be referred to somewhere in the body of the article. In any case, this looks to me like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, and I don't see anything actionable under ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Nableezy's questions - firstly, your diffs do not demonstrate that Shuki has been "filibustering the content from appearing anywhere in the article". If he has done so, that may be an issue worth addressing, but I think you would need a pretty strong case, ie lots of diffs, to demonstrate that and you haven't provided any. In regards to your other question: Is a systematic campaign to violate core policies of this website not actionable? I would say it is, or should be, actionable, but again it would have to be clearly demonstrated. Perhaps, say, if you could demonstrate a persistent defying of consensus across multiple pages, that could be considered disruptive. But ultimately a lot will depend on the view of the closing admin. Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Having just read Shuki's comments above, I am obliged to amend my position. I consider Shuki's statement that "I have always demanded that sources specifically mention the locality and not just in passing" to be an absurdity, as it's clear that if a reliable source states that all Israeli settlements in area x are illegal, one does not need to find a source which specifically mentions that settlement y in area x is illegal. If Shuki has been reverting based on such specious reasoning, that could certainly in my view be considered disruptive and thereby sanctionable under ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

an Israeli organization .... was forced to pay damages and issue a public apology to settlers after falsely claiming that a particular settlement was built illegally on private Palestinian land - Ynhockey.

Well, fine, but that is quite irrelevant to this discussion. Sources can always be wrong, we knew that. The issue here is that Shuki is demanding a higher burden of proof for the inclusion of material than is required by WP:RS. He is demanding that sources specifically state that a given settlement is "illegal", when logically it is only necessary to demonstrate that a settlement is in the occupied territories to demonstrate its illegality. A source could of course be wrong in making either statement, so that's an entirely separate issue. Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

People need to stop making arguments for their take on the content dispute since that it not the scope of these requests - Cptnono.

Cptnono, there is a difference between a content dispute and sheer illogic. If someone holds a position that is plainly logically fallacious, and maintains that position even after having its erroneous nature pointed out to him, that has ceased to be a mere content dispute and become disruption. In this case, Shuki's position is rendered untenable by simple logical deduction:

All Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law.
This is an Israeli settlement in the occupied territories.
This is an illegal Israeli settlement.

There can therefore be no justification for Shuki's claim that Nableezy is required to produce sources that state a particular settlement is illegal. Nableezy only needs to produce a source which states that the settlement is in the occupied territories, because its illegality is a function of its location. If Shuki is prepared to acknowledge his error and agree to stop reverting on those grounds, perhaps there is no need for further action here. If however he is going to insist on maintaining his current view, I think that would be grounds for imposing further sanctions. Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass is in violation of WP:GAME. Nableezy's adding of "illegal under international law " to the first -- I repeat: 1st -- paragraph of dozens of articles is exceptionally poor form after the joint RFC to promote this action failed. Gatoclass, Nableezy, Tiamut, and co. support of of this collab RFC did not sway the general public and Gatoclass's comments here are an ARBPIA violation of WP:GAME. i.e. to promote a sanction on Shuki after failing to get the results he was looking for through the proper course of action (RFC, dispute resolution) is a bad faith attempt to use the policies of wikipedia. Thank you. Jaakobou 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"the general public", that's a good one! RomaC 03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ynhockey

While it pains me to say so, I have to agree with Shuki's assessment of Nableezy's general editing practices (although I disapprove of the specific terms used). It is unfortunate that Nableezy has chosen not to make constructive contributions to articles about settlements, but rather to go out of his way to "prove" that they are illegal. Even if, theoretically, ample sources could be provided and the significance of this statement could be proven, it still seems like a WP:BATTLE action to just go around articles about settlements saying they're illegal and adding no other content. This WP:AE request seems like yet another piece of WikiDrama to get an editor from "the other side" banned and thus have a certain version of the article say. If Nableezy continues to edit settlement-related articles, I sincerely hope that he invests more resources into improving sections about the history, geography and culture of settlements. —Ynhockey 04:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a relevant note, although this might not belong at WP:AE, but I thought it more appropriate to post it here than on user talk: As Shuki noted, an Israeli organization (Peace Now) was forced to pay damages and issue a public apology to settlers after falsely claiming that a particular settlement was built illegally on private Palestinian land (Hebrew article). What I am saying is that this is an extremely sensitive issue that is essentially similar to WP:BLP (which was created, in part, to avoid legal action against WMF), and it is important that each settlement is examined on a case-by-case basis. —Ynhockey 16:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Note to Stifle: I will respect any decision you make, but ask you to look at what each editor has done for the articles in question. In fact, as far as I can tell, Shuki has singlehandedly written most of the content in settlement-related articles. As I noted above, Nableezy has unfortunately failed to make any contributions to these articles. I ask that this is taken into account in any decision you make. —Ynhockey 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? nableezy was contributing to the settlement articles by adding the entire worldview with reliable sources. And the sourced worldview was removed by Shuki. Who is the one that has been trying to contribute to the articles here? and who is the one who has been tampering the articles here? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cptnono

I hope that any request for enforcement against Nableezy will not look like reprisal since it has been coming for some time now.

The RfC closure set a very good chance to do some case by case basis with a firm reminder not to start any shenanigans. This should have been handled better and Shuki should not be shouldering the brunt of the blame.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Gilsa makes a point that the wording and the sources have been questioned. Editors continuing to stick them in on a mad spree after a contentious RfC is not the way to go about doing things. Shuki was reverting what he saw as contentious edits inserted on multiple articles and now he gets an AE for being a POV pusher essentially. Bad form and Shuki shouldn;t have even been brought here. A little bit of talk page would be better but unfortunately that hardly stops the wackiness going on in this topic area.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

People need to stop making arguments for their take on the content dispute since that it not the scope of these requests.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop discussing content here, Gatoclass. Not everyone agrees with it so it is therefore contentious. Methods used to include or removed that contentious material are the concern. Maybe editors feeling so strongly that their edits can be defended with assertions such as shear logic is the problem since their are channels in place for content disputes which should not be ignored. Unless of course the purpose is to set a precedent (Shuki was wrong therefore everything must be mentioned as "occupied"). Basically what I am saying is that Shuki is allowed to revert bold edits. Nableezy is free to seek other channels to include it if that is done. There is not an overuse of the revert function and Shuki is not alone so why make such sweeping changes when there is an ongoing dispute? And I agree that AE needs to get a little tougher on editors who have repeatedly been blocked or received sanctions if it is shown that they have crossed the line. Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)\

Why Nbaleezy is being scrutinized has come up here. I really don't think it matters if Gatoclass wants to switch into admin mode and comment down there so fine I will provide some diffs. Nableezy and I were discussing this on my talk page and he also asked for some evidence of what I thought was his wrongdoing. My thoughts on it are that he needlessly reverts and does not participate with a collaborative mindset. If Shuki is POV pushing than Nableezy surely is but if both of them stop reverting and finding other methods I don't care that much about what they do.

His response was typical for him with deflection and other assertions such as: It was propaganda (kind of a dirty word here), It was sourced (disregarding that the sources have been questioned and that we should not be mirroring the tone of biased sources), reverts were to a troll (even though he has edited in tandem with an IP that others have accused of being a troll), and so on. I'm not going to list diffs of accusations of edit warring not related to the subtopic this AE gets into, civility, gaming, outing , and other potential problems since Stifle might have a good suggestion and overdoing the diffs would just lead to needless mudslinging. What is an obvious problem is that Nableezy came off of a restriction and within a day started rocking the boat in issues dealing with the legality of places, occupation, and settlers. Regardless of his feelings, he needs to stop hitting the revert button.

I think a full-on topic ban would be fine but I am obviously frustrated with him and Stifle's idea might work. I also think a 1rr would be good. For Shuki, if he is reverting as much as Nableezy than he should suffer similar consequences. I don't buy any argument that says the listed reverts show him as POV pusher but I am admittedly biased.

Diffs and thoughts and stuff

*Ateret (195.50.69.30 was already active here making contentious edits about the same thing): Bold edit Revert of Shuki's partial revert Talk page used after reverting and discussion follows about the source.

Ariel (city): Bold edit even though there is already questions about the use of the source in another article Revert of Shuki's partial revert Talk page not used.
Ma'ale Adumim: Again and again. Talk page again used after the reverting in regards to where the info was placed. It does not appear that some involved realized there was even a somewhat related discussion ongoing at another article. The last message on this talk page regarding the term "occupied" was a week before the edit was made.
Ariel: again and again
Halamish (this one is interesting because there was already an ongoing edit war between Shuki and 195.50.69.30 over the same thing): same edit Revert of tagging for failed verification (me this time)revert of my removal since the tag was removed partial revert of another editor (albeit it guideline based) Talk page discussion started by me. Nableezy jumped on after reverting and failed to mention that the same source and edit was already being questioned elsewhere.
Katzrin (this one involved several editors including Shuki): an edit regarding settlement revert of another editor revert (guideline based but a tag or providing a source himself might have worked instead) Talk page at least used even though it did not address that this sort of problem was ongoing.
Hebron (more reversions based on "settlement" and the map. All to an IP using pop-ups without a note in the edit summary, their page, or the article's talk page. This should have been easy enough to address once to get it fixed.)
Mount Hermon (More with the settlement, occupied, where it is issue. Supreme Deliciousness pops up in this one like he does in a handful of Nableezy's edit wars. Jiujitsuguy was also active.):revert of an editor revert of another editor an IP one of the previous editors
Neve Ativ (Nableezy edit warring over a line with another editor while talk page discussion was ongoing. Supreme Deliciousness stepped in and Nableezy eventually reported the other editor for edit warring. Agree with Nableezy that it could be included but the edit warring was not needed):revert
Nableezy, Supreme Deliciousness, and Shuki reverted eachother at Ortal, Golan Heights after the RfC was closed They were using talk so why didn't they just chill out and work towards finding a solution?
Tourism in Israel saw a slow edit war of reverts, restorations, and partials, IMO, based on legalities and where the places are. The first was jumping into an already ongoing revertfest with political disclaimers less than a day after coming off of a two month arbitration enforced article topic ban in the topic area.
Reverting at Golan Heights over the Arabic translation coming first (presumably since it is Syrian and not Israeli under intl law). It sounds like there was a discussion so that is good but this is just sill and if it is being edit warred over people need to put in a hidden comment or link to the discussion in the edit summary. I slack of on making edit sumaries in gneral especially when it is IPs but I think this shows Nableezy's mentallity. (sporadic reverts of this stretch back for quite a bit)

Reply to Cptnonos "Diffs and thoughts and stuff" I have edited 1080 articles. I am interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict and so are many others, so those who are interested in the same topic will of course run into me on several articles. Now to Cptnonos accusations where he mentions my name:

I have edited the Mount Hermon article for a very long time, my first edit there was over a year ago. So I did not just "pop up" there just because nableezy edited it. And my edit there on the 7th July was not the same as Nableezys, they were two seperate edits. At the Golan Heights article there has been talks many times and at Mount Hermon talkpage we have had many talks about the issue, and I have participated at the talkpage discussions at both articles every single time. All reliable neutral sources show clearly that we can not say that the area is in Israel since that is against the entire international view (Npov). Also notice that at the Mount Hermon talkpage pushing for the Israeli pov is at least one topic banned sockpuppeteer Amoruso and his sock the Sipio account.

Concerning the Ortal, Golan Heights article, nableezy actually reverted himself there, back to Shukis verion, so there was no rv there from him. The problem there was that Shuki had changed position of the settlement and kibbutz and he had not gotten any consensus for the rearrangement yet he continued to change the position from the status quo. So why did he do this? I asked him repeatedly at the talkpage to show me at what time the "kibbutz" was before "settlement" but still he hasn't shown this til this day. And I did one rv at the 24th June and then almost one month later on 18th July did another rv and the only reason for the second rv was because he still after all this time hadn't shown me at the talkpage at what time exactly when both terms was in the article was the "kibbutz" before "settlement". Just like he right now hasn't answered to my latest post there. Also my last revert there at the time 18.32 18th July was by accident, I unintentionally pressed the rollback button, but I reverted back to his version and explained this to him:

Concerning Neve Ativ, I did not just "stepp in" there, as I will explain below that I am familiar with Jubata ez Zeit and Neve Ativ. A newly registered account Martinakohl came and removed that Neve ativ was built on top of Jubata ez Zeit, he claimed that Marsad was an unreliable source so Nableezy added a source from cambridge university but the newly registered account continued to remove this clearly reliable source several times and also edit warred with a user named Jeff G. and several IPs to remove the sourced information. And I knew in advance that Neve Ativ was built on Jubata ez Zeit because it was me who started the Jubata ez Zeit article, and I had edited the Neve Ativ article before adding this info:, and I also had another source to confirm the same thing from the Jubata article, so I added the other source and I explained at the talkpage and just because the title of the book source I added was called "Settlements and cult sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean culture in the Hellenistic and Roman periods" , he removed it saying: "Jubata ez-Zeit is not a Roman village" which is complete nonsense since it has nothing to do with anything, the text I added to the article did not say it was Roman and the source in the book did not say it was Roman. He was blocked and then he created two sockpuppets to continue to forcibly removed the sourced content: . So in this "conflict" I made one rv and in that rv added another source and I participated at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if there was confusion. I wasn't trying to single you out here and I did not intend for it to an argument against your editing. I think you still make some mistakes. So does Jujitsuguy on the other side. Both of you have mirrored some bad habits seen in more experienced users like Nableezy but neither of you are under any scrutiny here.Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Gilisa

Yes, the removed material was sourced. However, the wording was far from being neutral. The international status of Ma'ale Adumim is far more complicated than these sources show. The USA discussed with Israel many times the possibility of acknowledging such cities as regular part of Israel, in fact, it's also discussed between Israel and the palestinian representatives.

Also, these sources are all from Guardian and BBC. While they are usually RS, they are not considered impartial in their attitude through Israel. Infact, once Israel submitted official complaint against the BBC for being biased against it. The BBC then was forced to establish a committee that scrutinized these complaints. They never published the committee's conclusions. If you search the web for it, you will find many reliable sources heavily doubt the neutrality of British media sources like the BBC and the Guardian about the I-P conflict. When it comes to settlements thing then no one is argue that the BBC came up with MA being considered as a settlement by the UN. But it does not represent the entire issue and the wording by itself is harsh and not neutral still.--Gilisa (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

Funny how Nableezy’s name keeps popping up on these boards, over and over again, either as a complainant or respondent. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It seems to me that he comes into this with soiled hands, edit warring while mastering the art of tag-teaming. Nableezy has adopted the Lord of the Flies approach to editing Misplaced Pages, reverting endlessly, baiting others into edit wars, tag-teaming and initiating harassing enforcement actions when things don’t quite go his way. The admin who rules on this case should also note that Nableezy has been indeffed (for threatening legal action, later lifted when withdrawn) has been blocked and subjected to lengthy topic bans. This is not exactly your model editor. As for the substantive issues involved, this is a content dispute in which Shuki has provided ample and cogent reasoning for his edits. If anyone should be sactioned, it is Nableezy who continuously uses these enforcement actions as tools of fear to silence his opposition.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sean.hoyland

This is about policy compliance. We can't have people removing sourced information because the information isn't wearing a hijab or whatever the nothing-to-do-with-policy reason was here. Editors are obliged to edit according to policy. If they are upset by reliable sources saying that Israeli settlements are illegal and editors adding that information to articles there are plenty of other subjects for them to work on. What would happen I wonder if, rather than topic bans and such like, editors who find it difficult to comply with the discretionary sanctions were simply restricted from removing sourced material from articles ? They could add sourced material, reword existing material but not remove it altogether without calmly proceeding to the talk page and making their case. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another alternative to the standard and clearly ineffective methods currently employed to deal with neutrality-challenged editors might be to require them to swop to 'the other side' of the conflict for a period. This is something I would really like to see happen personally. If an editor wants to blatantly ignore WP:COI, blatantly ignore the 'Editors counseled' section of the sanctions and consistently advocate for a side in a conflict as so many do then maybe there should be a cost to the editor. Perhaps they should have to advocate for 'the other side' too and the benefit should accrue to Misplaced Pages in the form of improved content and a general reduction in silliness. If an editor is genuinely here to build a better encyclopedia they shouldn't mind adding policy compliant material for a period even if it comes from sources they don't like such as..um..the BBC and even if it makes 'their side' look bad in their eyes. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Epeefleche

When we have highly disruptive editors (as in, those who have been blocked three times already this year) elevating their content disputes to non-actionable complaints, in apparent efforts to further their own POV, we have a wasteful time-suck. Perhaps it's time to consider ways to slow down our most disruptive editors; especially those who gravitate towards controversial areas such as the I-P area. Something that slows down those editors who have already been blocked 3 times in 2010, say, from taking any of various steps that lead to wastes of time for the community at large (ARE, AfD, etc., in the I-P area). In the U.S., felons are prohibited from voting in many elections. And at wikipedia, when articles are controversial, we limit editing to certain editors who we view as more trustworthy -- such as non-IPs. Extending those concepts here might prove beneficial.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Misarxist

Just over a week ago Shuki came of a 3 month 1r restriction (AE result) this doesn't appear to have sunk in as since then:

Halamish edit warring over several days on same point , & with no attempt to discuss on talk page.
Israeli settler violence unactioned 3r violation , & again no discussion.

He just doesn't seem to be here to edit collaboratively and probably requires a topic ban rather than another revert restriction. Misarxist (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to get into your space I will move my comment, if you'd like me to, but did you notice by any chance that in first three examples of so called edit warring you provided, Shuki reverted IP vandal, who was reverted by quite a few other editors, me including, as well. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re the admin comments about 'content dispute', obviously there is disagreement about the content, but the complaint is about straight-foward multiple reverts of sourced content without discussion. As I noted above (even with Mbz1's note, yes that's not as simple as I claimed, but the 3r example is undeniable) we are talking about an a know tendentious edit-warrior. There doesn't seem to be any real argument about Shuki being sanctioned again. But the complaints about Nableezey's record (the bulk of the responses here) are not relevant to that. And if Nableezey's conduct is at fault there's going to to need to be evidence cited, the fact that he's in a dispute with a tendentious nationalist editor isn't good enough in itself. Also while the underlying and widespread dispute does need to be dealt with, this simply isn't the right venue. Misarxist (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by AMuseo.

Since the status of all land that has been conquered in a defensive war is a complex matter and the status of the West Bank finds no consensus among international legal experts, it is POV pushing to write the kind of statement that User:Nableezy is defending. I do not see nableezy questioning the status of the Western Sahara, or of Tibet, or criticizing the recent genocidal attack on the Tamil. He writes on behalf of a political cause dear to his heart. This does not make him a useful colleague. You can, after all, always find newspaper articles making flat assertions about just about anything. this is not scholarship. A simple statement that there is no consensus regarding the legal status of the West Bank would be better and could be well-supported. But I do not expect scholarship or balance from Nableezy. He is a highly contentions editor, the kind that drives moderate, informed editors from Misplaced Pages. Actually, I have come to believe that it is his goal to make editing so unpleasant that moderate people will go away, leaving the field open to him to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground to wage a Palestinian proxy war.AMuseo (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Fandriampahalamana

Although I wasn't involved in the articles mentioned above, I do feel it necessary to decry Nableezy's disruptive edit habits and intimidation of editors. On the Helen Thomas article while I explained every move I made, he vandalized my edits without any explanation, or with meaningless ones which is even worse. Once, it could have been explained away, but not a pattern of them. Then he had the gall to try to intimidate me by pretending that he is an administrator and admonishing me (for doing what is right) when he should have admonished himself for editing in bad faith. On one edit on July 13 (not pertaining to me) seeing that he can’t have it his way, he then made another controversial edit slanting the lead and explaining it with "all right, you want specifics add specifics, not just one part of the story." He seems to be using Misplaced Pages to tell the story the way he wants it to be told, as he actually admitted in a moment of truth and exasperation, of if you're getting it your way then I'll get it also my way. He sees everything as "your way" or "my way". I think he is unhelpful and a drain on controversial articles. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Peter Cohen

It's unfortunate that this request is following the usual pattern of people's views on Shuki's conduct being 100% corfrelated with their views on the IP dispute. I regret that I'm conforming to that pattern. Looking at the last edits listed by Nableezy, I see that theis effect is to remove any mention of the status of these settlements under international law. It has to be a notable effect about these places that they are considered illegal by major international institutions that pronounce on and enforce international law. The major institutions I have in mind are such organs ases of the UNSC, the high-contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions, the ICC, ICJ etc. When all those that pronounce on the matter say the settlements are illegal and none dissents, then the fact has to be mentioned in the articles. To remove any such mention is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Noon: I'm surprised by your reasoning. The quote from Nableezy indicates that there are a number of banned or permanently blocked editors who persist in creating sockpuppets in order to carry on distorting Misplaced Pages in favour of their political position. Persistent sockpuppeteers are damaging to Misplaced Pages. They increase the appearance of conflict between legitimate editors and anyone who uses SPI/CU to root out these users is to be praised. Accusations by the likes of Stellarkid who was a puppet of a user banned for participating in a drive by an external organisation to distort the content of Misplaced Pages have a wholly deleterious effect on the project. The fact that they have edit-warring and the reporting of legitimate users to the various admin boards as weapons is just evidence that thre is an organised effort to malign political opponents. One of those opponents should not be criticised for pointing this out. That certain editors leap to the defence of such sockpuppeteers also raises the question as to whether they are here to improve Misplaced Pages or whether they are themselves part of the effort to disrupt the project.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Brewcrewer

As this is apparently the place to hang out these days, I feel obliged to chime in lest people forget my existence. Unlike some other editors here who feel this is an content related dispute and should be closed as unactionable, I'm of the position that some action should take place as a result of this report.

The editor who filed the report insists that the first three words of any article on an Israeli entity beyond the '48 border should be "illegal settlement". This position has resulted in lots of edit warring. Numerous editors and a RFC later (linked above) have revealed a consensus that although the argument for illegality should clearly be included in an article, it should not be the first three words, per WP:NPOV.

Nevertheless, Nableezy still insists that "illegal" be in the opening sentence and any position taken to the contrary is "stupid". Not only is it "stupid", arguing that it does not belong in the first sentence is an ARBCOM violation.

Nableezy claims that Shuki wants to remove any mention of illegality of article, but that's blatantly false. Each article linked by Nableezy mentions the illegality issue, some even have an entire section discussing the illegality argument.

Thus, what we have here is a blatantly frivolous AE report filed by one of the most prolific AE filers, who should know better. Some sort of action should be taken so that this huge waste of time does not reoccur. Perhaps an AE ban? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, sorry for placing this statement here, but that is simply not true. Nowhere did the RFC say that the words "illegal settlement" should be used as the first three words, legality was not even the topic of the RFC (which, oh by the way, certainly did not result in the consensus that you claim). And nowhere in the articles Ofra, Ariel (city), Amona, or Immanuel (town) is the legal status discussed. Kindly do not misrepresent what I have written or the RFC or the content of the articles. nableezy - 14:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The first two links you brought as the basis for your claim have entire sections catered to the illegality issue. I don't plan on spending more time litigating and word playing. This has wasted enough time already.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And the rest of them? You wrote "Each article linked by Nableezy mentions the illegality issue". Is that or is that not true? And you did not address the gross misrepresentation of the RFC. I guess that is "word playing". nableezy - 14:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by RomaC

Concur with Peter Cohen above on all points. See many examples of Israel saying A and the rest of the world saying B, and some editors pushing A first, then a mention of B, then a rebuttal per A as "neutral." As for the admin suggestion below re: possible concurrent 3-month blocks, excuse my cynicism but I imagine Shuki might agree to "take one for the team" and be blocked if Nableezy were also taken out. There are few topic areas with nearly as much concerted partisan activity as Israel-Palestine. Yes, Nableezy may be biased, but he's also badly outnumbered which makes him sort of stick out in these content disputes. Respectfully, RomaC 14:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Noon

As I understand the AE regarding the I-P articles, one of its purposes was to facilitate a reasonable editing atmosphere in this contentious area. Contributors who exhibited "battleground" mentality and aggressive behaviour were banned or were blocked for a long period of time. In contrast to this purpose, the filing party of this request is engaged for a long time in trying to get the upper hand in content disputes by making considarable efforts to ban his opponents or block them indefinitely. Just one sample illustration of his "battleground mentality" may be found here, where he says: "There were three people who had pushed for my first topic ban. One of those was later blocked as a sock of NoCal100, the one who filed the complaint has now been blocked as a sock of Dajudem/Tundrabuggy, and the last is still taking aim at me." WP is not a battleground nor a venue for shooting ducks as done in Luna Parks. It looks as if the filing party spends most of his energy either to make small controversial edits to push his political views, while violating the fundamental WP:NPOV policy, or in targetting disruptively his opponents, espacially those who dare criticizing or reporting him, until they get out of his way. Content should adhere WP:NPOV not only in the facts and refs, but also in the tone of what is written, and how and where the facts are presented (ie. either in the lead, or as a link to the relevant article where all POVs are presented, or in a separate section in the same article where more views can be presented). accordingly, and for the huge waste of time dealing with this unwarranted request, it seems that the filing party fails to adhere to the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and the I-P AE penalty guidelines may apply to him. Noon (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this "and the last is still taking aim at me" too, and I agree it is yet another example of a battleground behavior by user:Nableezy--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Peter Cohen regarding this quote: Please listen to the music, imagine the moving targets, listen to the 'shootings', listen to the happy victory shouts, imagine the sniper tracing and targetting his 'enemies' above earth and in war tunnels, look at the sparkling eyes of this sniper when he realizes that some 'enemy troops' are still there hiding disguised somewhere or trying to sneak away... don't you hear real sounds of WAR here in Misplaced Pages? and this is just one example I've found in few minutes.

In my opinion this battlefield mentality is what the Arbitration Committee tried to stop, or, at least, significantely reduce, in their harsh sanctions in the I-P case and its subsequent AE mechanism.

There is no place for such a war mentality when trying to build a useful and accurate encyclopedia. Noon (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Stifle, Nableezy has not done anything wrong here, while Shuki has been removing sourced information. Please look at the real issue instead of what other people say here at this enforcement. Every time there is a pro-Israeli editor up for enforcement, the same group of people show up in defense of that editor. Please look at the real issue here instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Stifle, please think about what you are saying, you are talking about a sanction on a user for adding the entire international view with a reliable source into an article. This is not a content dispute, when someone removes the entire worldview that is sourced with a reliable source - that's censorship, you can not impose some kind of "collective punishment" here. Also agree with Gatoclass, please explain your comments about this in more detail, "each side is at fault" is vague. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment by Jiujitsuguy

When evaluating sanctions, prior disciplinary history should be factored in. A look at Shuki’s record reveals two relatively short blocks, the last of which occurred more than a year ago This is an indication that Shuki is adhering to wiki policy and guidelines. By contrast, Nableezy’s block history is a mess, full of lengthy blocks and topic bans In fact, Nableezy has just come off a topic ban. In addition, Nableezy has previously been indefinitely blocked for threatening legal action against Misplaced Pages. It was lifted when he withdrew his threat but it shows that he has lost sight of reality and can not distinguish between the real and virtual worlds. It is clear from his prior sanction history that this is an editor who takes a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing with a “take no prisoners” mentality. Clearly, under the totality of circumstances, the person who deserves to be permanently banned from the topic area is Nableezy.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot Shukis recent 3 month 1rvpd restriction --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

When you are a recidivist, like Nableezy, when your block log history reads like a lengthy rap sheet, like Nableezy’s when you find yourself on these boards on a daily basis, either as a respondent or complainant, like Nableezy, When you come into every I-A article with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, like Nableezy, when an editor loses his grip on reality and threatens to sue Misplaced Pages, as Nableezy has, it’s time to ask; Is this a productive editor or a disruptive one? I leave it to the admins to decide.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Pantherskin

I have not encountered Shuki in the past, although it is clear from the diffs provided that he has a strong POV which is reflected in his edits. On the other side, he is prolific content contributor in the Israel content area, and most of his edits clearly improve the enyclopedia. Regarding Nableezy I have encountered him and again it is clear that his edits reflect his strong POV. That in itself is not necessarily a problem (although usually it is), but when coupled with incivility and combative language (, - some recent example, but from cases clearly a pattern), speculations and accusations about the ulterior motives of other editors (, ) it becomes a problem as it makes collaborative editing difficult to impossible. I am ignoring here the partisan editing of Nableezy and presumably Shuki - it would probably be beyond the scope and my take on it is that we probably need a fully fledged arbcom case to deal with the current detoriation in the Israel-Palestine topic area.

Nableezys comment "Go away" was to a blocked sockpuppet who had repeatedly disrupted the Golan heights article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it was directed against an IP address that was temporarily blocked and tried to start a discussion on the talk page (at last). I do not know where you get the sockpuppet part from, as there is no indication on the IPs talk page and no sockpuppet investigation. Pantherskin (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP was blocked and then he used another way to edit the talkpage while his other IP was blocked, that's block evasion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Tariqabjotu

This isn't about Shuki specifically, but the prevalence of arbitration enforcement requests and posts on AN3, ANI, and RFPP, especially as of late, regarding Israel-Palestine articles and articles that only mention something Israel-Palestine-related suggests that it's high time for another ARBCOM case. Either that, or admins need to be more willing to exact serious sanctions against editors that have been shown to be disruptive on these articles. We see the same editors being reported again and again (and the same editors doing the reporting again and again). This is one of today's most persistent and divisive conflicts, and while I appreciate people's willingness to give editors second, third, and fourth chances, the fact of the matter is, those people who edit disruptively in this arena will almost certainly always edit disruptively in this arena. This method of moderate sanctions and warnings that never get followed up on is not working. It's clear that a certain set of editors are testing the community's patience, and if they can't voluntarily move to an area in which they can more constructively edit, they should be forced to do so post-haste. -- tariqabjotu 12:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Agree with Tariqabjotu. However the administrators who regularly "manage" these areas are just as much at fault for the disruption as those who some consider "problematic" editors. The admins have become unwilling pawns of so called "battlefield warriors" and are therefore are unable to be non-bias, uninvolved parties themselves. Part of the solution, I feel, to defusing this situation (in addition to a new/clarified ARBCOM case) is to remove the administrators who regularly "enforce" actions on this board. I'm not suggesting revoking their admin status, only that since there is gross failure on their part to effectively administer IP-related disputes on ANI/AE (as evident by the level of REPEATED drama that regularly appears here), they should no longer be making binding decisions on editors whose action is brought to ANI/AE. --nsaum75 19:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the administrators here. The problem is not so much the administrators, as the AE system itself, which is still remarkably undefined and arbitrary. What this project needs more than anything in my view, is a simple, streamlined, transparent and predictable process for dealing with content disputes, which is what most disputation is ultimately about. We have got to stop throwing the content dispute dilemma into the too hard basket, and come up with a method of dealing with such disputes that doesn't compromise the Misplaced Pages commitment to NPOV. Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The administrators who regularly handle the tag-team "game" that AE has become have ignored concerns stated by others about the process and summarily ignored or dismissed those who question their neutrality. They have allowed themselves to become pawns of those who use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and therefore have ceased to become "neutral" "uninvolved" parties. Therefore, they do indeed share in the blame. True, the current AE system has been greatly abused and become a tool with which to "do battle", but you cannot ignore the fact that this "three ring circus" has been allowed to carry on as long as it has -- and to the extent that it has. There are other remedies for abuse of wikipedia processes themselves, completely separate from IP Arbcom regulations, but no one seems to be interested in taking advantage of them. Instead, the destructive, abusive, and disruptive behavior is allowed to continue unabated, with editors gaming the system knowing full well that the worst that will happen is a slap on the wrist. --nsaum75 04:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my concern is that remedies are often too drastic rather than too lenient. But it can go either way. That's why I think this process is unduly arbitrary - it's usually left up to a single admin to decide upon a remedy, and depending on who he is or how he sees it, it might end up being anything from a 24-hour block to an indef ban. It's kind of like Russian roulette, you just never know what the outcome will be. We ought to be able to do better than that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What if we had three admins decide a short term remedy - Maybe if an immediate block is warranted, do an emergency block for 12-24 hours, then have a group of admins decide what the "new" block should be. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ZScarpia

Unlike the Israeli legal position, which is irrelevant to it, the overwhelming international viewpoint, as embodied in such organisations as the UN, is very staightforward: the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law (see the article on Israeli settlements, such documents as the text of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 7/18 and newspaper articles such as this one from Le Monde Diplomatique).

The Misplaced Pages rules require, as stated by Nableezy, that articles should present the all significant viewpoints and in a proportionate manner. Those on Israeli settlements and outposts, particularly major ones such as Ma'ale_Adumim and Ariel, should reflect the main global point of interest in them (as shown by the context in which they normally appear in sources), their status as illegal settlements in occupied territory and their role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trying to minimise or suppress the proportionate representation of that viewpoint amounts to point-of-view pushing. That is particularly true when reasons given for reverting edits, rather than being based on the Misplaced Pages rules, are, as they have been here, where a reason given for reverting was that the status of the settlements is uncertain because it has never been examined in a law court, is based in a particular viewpoint (from the international point of view, the settlements are illegal because that is the ruling of the bodies responsible for making those judgements).

The reliablitly of the BBC as a source has been mentioned above. The BBC is far from infallible, but its duty as a public service broadcaster to report neutrally means that its reports are subject to more than normal editorial oversight, which, in Misplaced Pages terms, is an indication of greater reliability. In 2006, the report produced at the end of an independent review commissioned by the corporation's board of governors was, unlike the internally-produced Balen report, published. The review suggested that the BBC's reporting, if anything, favoured the Israeli side. The review panel recommended that the BBC should make public an abbreviated version of the Israel and Palestine part of its journalists' guide to facts and terminology. In light of the conversation going on here, perhaps the guideline which says, "when writing a story about settlements we can aim, where relevant, to include context to the effect that 'all settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this," which is very similar to the text that Nableezy was trying to introduce, might be seen as of interest.

← ZScarpia 21:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you comment on the RfC? That comment would have been better there. Anyway, so what you are saying is that the articles should start - Ariel is a city in the West Bank....established...with x population. Ariel is an Israeli settlement. That would satisfy what you suggested. --Shuki (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a very revealing comment from Shuki. Even at the end of an enforcement case against him, in which he faces a possible topic ban, he still cannot bring himself to concede that the illegality of these settlements should be mentioned in the settlement articles. Shuki's lack of objectivity in this topic area could scarcely be made more apparent. Is it any wonder that other users become frustrated? Judging by the comments he has made at this AE case, it appears to me that it's time for Shuki to find some other topic area in which to contribute. Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again it is a content dispute, which should be decided individually in every situation at the articles talk pages, and it could not and should not be enforced by AE. It is not as black and white as some try to present it here. And no, it is not an enforcement case against Shuki, or at least it is as much against Shuki as it is against Nableezy. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing the entire worldview from articles that is sourced from reliable sources is not a content dispute, its embarking on an article in a harmful manner. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has demonstrated any wrongdoing by Nableezy in this case. Everything that's been said about Nableezy has been in the form of either vague generalities or dredging up of old disputes. I've seen no evidence of current misbehaviour, and I might add that I think his past record of alleged misbehaviour is also overblown. But that of course is another issue. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You obviously did not read my comments above in which I show specifically that Nableezy has done exactly what I have and much more, and given that his record is problematic, while mine is significantly better. There is nothing 'revealing' here, and as an admin you should know to discuss the AE here against me (and consequently Nableezy for bringing the spotlight on himself as well) and relative to other accepted/tolerated behaviour on WP, not content. --Shuki (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I did not previously read all your comments, per WP:TLDR. However, I have now read them per your request and stand by my previous comment. Moreover, on closer examination of your arguments I find the following:

Nableezy, blocked numerous times for problematic behavior, is himself in violation of AE with his insertion of negative boilerplate WP:REDFLAG material. Specifically, his latest non-consensus solo effort, is to find any mention of a locality that also says that it is illegal. No proof of any court action specifically declaring this and definitely in contrast to many court cases with the Israeli Supreme Court that has decided whether a place is illegal...

Here, you are characterizing the position of every major international legal body that the settlements are illegal as an exceptional claim per WP:REDFLAG. As Malik noted above, that is simply a preposterous claim. Not only that, but you are conflating Israeli law regarding the legality of settlements with international law, when they are entirely separate entities.

I don't want to speculate on what might motivate you to try and defend these indefensible positions, but the fact that you are continuing to try rings very loud alarm bells for me. I'm not in a position to judge your overall contribution to the project, but if this is typical of your approach to disputes, then I'm sorry to say that I think you are editing in the wrong topic area and need to look for an area that is less emotionally charged for you. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

{Reply to the comment addressed to me by Shuki at 22:29 (UTC) on 21 July 2010} Ideally every involved editor should be co-operating to produce a less single-perspective article. If the lead section were to be written by me, it would start something like:

Ariel is a city in the West Bank which was founded as an Israeli settlement in 1978. It is now the mother settlement of 26 others in its vicinity. Together, these comprise the Ariel settlement bloc. Like all settlements in the West Bank, the international community views these as illegal, though Israel disputes this. After the one at Ma'ale Adumim, the Ariel settlement bloc is the largest Israeli settlement in the West Bank.

← ZScarpia 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In regard to court judgements on the legality of the settlements, in its role as the principal judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice stated the following in an advisory opinion given to the UN General Assembly on the 9 July 2004:

(page 9 of the summary) ... the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the 1967 conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel ...

(page 10 of the summary) The information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The Security Council has taken the view that such policy and practices “have no legal validity” and constitute a “flagrant violation” of the Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

← ZScarpia 02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The addition of statements noting the international view that particular settlements are illegal has a long history and is not, as far as I can see, a breach of established consensus. For example, in the article on Ariel, the first time such a statement was added in April 2005, a year after the article was created, by Doron. ← ZScarpia 15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hope&Act3!

it is the first time that I express my views in such a setting and being inexperienced I will probably be clumsy, please be indulgent. Some have already said things I agree with, no need to repeat them

I don't contribute much since I have been busy reading kilometers of Talk pages, exclusively in the I-P domain, (which is the most vicious battleground in wp despite every guide line,) trying to understand where the grip is and hoping to come up with a proposition to fix it. In my following comment I will adopt the 'they' and 'us' 'pro-I' and 'pro-P' style although it's not my vision of the I-P in real life it only represents the actual situation in wp:en
(1) the context
it's obvious to everyone I think that this endless bickering is a waste both of time and energy, - war is not appealing to most editors so they avoid taking part in it and in consequence don't contribute and that ends being wp's loss
(2) the actors
I won't address directly Nableezy's accusations, the root of the problem is beyond that.
Did you notice that Shuki is the main 'pro-Israel' contributor in these so called discussions? so much so that seeing all the 'pro-Israel' on this page is amazing since they (like myself) don't figure so much there. That's the way it is, only Shuki managed to bear with Nableezy's uncompromising atitude: Nableezy won't ever be ready to give up until he has achieved his goal: occupation is illegal must be mentioned every 3 words at least so that nobody can forget the unforgivable wrong doings of the Zionists... (don't read it literally, it's a caricature, just to make the point of how it feels discussing with him)

I admire Shuki's patience and fortitude for Nableezy is a relentless attacker, if Shuki did fail in anyway it is because he has been pushed unto that intended breaking point.

Nableezy, which might be a pleasant person, is a victim of his blind hatred of the State of Israel and Zionism, and through that is easily manipulated by the 'pro-Palestinian' party: he is the willing spearhead which will eventually take the fall and that did happen many times already as we know
(3) my personnal experience
as soon as I started to grasp the depth of the war -consider that Jiujitsuguy added 'Jewish' before Gamla and SD could not take it: no such word is to be written in any place on the Golan which is Syrian, was Syrian, and will be forever Syrian.... Gamla was Jewish and many RS exist , so when I understood that I refrained from editing and as I said above read and read and read .... and I specially decided not to engage Nableezy in any dispute -not even about the 'stupid things' attack- and let it go since I consider that to be a futile exercise in nothingness and due to lead to frustration and possibly even anger hence my admiration for Shuki.
once in a while I did edit but that brought upon me a tentative of intimidation by RomaC for 'vandalism and warring' (I was waiting a few days before filing a complaint)
out of that I got the message that 'they' want to have a free rein in the I-P editing -as said Ynhockey, AMuseo, Noon - and will try to discourage anybody 'pro-Israel' bold enough to dare come and play in 'their' courtyard -since I am a genuine account 'they' had no chance to oust me for sockpupettery which is 'their' regular feat so 'they' have to find different ways. one must not forget: it's WAR! ('their' opinion)
(4) solution?
- quit this war state of mind (as many advocated)
- blocking editors doesn't work, it's brutal and when they come back, well it's back to square 1 (remember the last return of Nableezy -sorry, I don't mean to target you but this the only example I can think of presently- )
- I too thought like Sean.hoyland of this technique used in conflict resolution groups when everyone has to bring up the other side's position but I figured that in a workshop setting the participants will stay in situ and collaborate, here those which don't want to will simply stay away for the time of the exercise and then... resume the same game

- I will plead not to ban either Shuki or Nableezy -it should be both, albeit not identically, or none- for (see Mbz1) a ban is cruel since it hurts and doesn't reform and in the long term it's bound to be counterproductive, just demand a monitored* cease fire in litigation and pov push and instead of the inumerable rfc et al a serious brainstorming with everyone interested to come up with a friendly solution (not just the administrators), as oppose to the big stick policy which has failed so far -that at least is clear to me-. Violence breeds violence and is to be avoided. I believe that with a lot of good will from everyone we can pull it up, it won't be easy but there is really no choice, carrying on the present way is a dead end. Guide lines are just that, they must not be blindly -and foolishly- enforced but with flexibility to meet both parties' wishes, unless we intend to institute once again the good old Pax Romana
- if you still think that only a firm hand will bring results and do want to break their back, I will suggest a very radical measure: a topic ban of ALL the editors and hopefully the new batch will be wiser (I very much doubt that though)

*should be very closely monitored in order to avoid the type of policy SD -which is not the subject here- adopted so that s.o. else would fight his battles (re Tznkai /topic ban)

:@RomaC: There are few topic areas with nearly as much concerted partisan activity as Israel-Palestine. uh! if it's how you see it that does explain a lot regarding the failure in reaching balance! that is a point to clarify then. Nableezy may be biased, but he's also badly outnumbered which makes him sort of stick out in these content disputes. I disagree, as I said Shuki was mainly left on his own to face endless days of lines of over and over the same words and arguments, are you saying that Nableezy believed he was alone holding the fort? I felt under attack myself I guess that I do not think that I only can save the world where he felt desperately obligated to fight to the end, was it so? that also is to be discussed . On another wiki I read an essay: 'Nobody is irremplacable' (fortunately) still each one of us is unique, ok?
I read again the comments and I saw a lot of a militantist attitude, I hope this is not the tone which will prevail
@Stifle: thanks for offering your help, Hope&Act3! (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional Comment by Pantherskin

One of the most destructive tactics to use on Misplaced Pages is the introduction of hoaxes into articles, and the use of made-up sources. At the Syria article both Nableezy and Supreme Deliciousness wanted to include the sentence "...to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis." in the article, cited to "Kamrava, Mehran, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, University of California Press; 1 edition, p. 48". I checked the source in the library, neither on this page nor anywhere else in the book is there anything even remotely. You can even check it on Google Books, For me page 48 does not show, but it is clear that this chapters is about the pre-World War I era. You can also search for the numbers 67 and 69, the numbers 67 or 69 are not mentioned anywhere in the book. In short, these editors used a made-up source to bolster their claims and only after being caught red-handed did Supreme Deliciousness remove the fake source (see and ). I do not know how one can work collaboratively on this projekt or have trust in Misplaced Pages articles if we cannot trust our editors to be honest about their sources. This is even more important than civility and conforming to NPOV.

I did not "want to include the sentence" I reverted an edit that you made that removed something that I did want to include and you never once raised any concern about the other material. Perhaps I should have checked the first part of the edit but as you never once said one word about the material or the source I did not. Kindly do not misrepresent my actions here. nableezy - 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We even discussed this section on the talk page and on the NPOV noticeboard, and I made it clear that the claims of Israel having shelled Syria are in conflict with what virtually all other sources say. I even quoted the first part, the part with the made-up source Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Syria, so how you manage to be completely oblivious to this is beyond me. Either way I do not know how one can trust you as an editor when one has to double-check the sources you use. Pantherskin (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You never once said one word about this source. If you had either removed just this and the material it was sourcing or if you raised the issue on the talk page I would have checked the source. But you did not, you just kept removed it with the Dayan quote. The reason I reverted that is because of the Dayan quote, of which there is no doubt of the authenticity or relevance. I dont particularly care what you think of me because, well, I dont think too highly of you. If you want to pretend that this was the issue you can, but anybody who looks at the discussion page can see that it was focused on the Dayan quote and you never once raised a question about this source. nableezy - 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That sentence has been in the article since November 2008. It isn't unreasonable for Supreme Deliciousness and nableezy to assume good faith that the source supported the sentence. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The comments here above from Pantherskin is clearly Assumption of Bad faith. That text was in the article and looked to me as well sourced, Panterskin removed it together with a well sourced Dayan quote and did not say anything about that the Jerusalem office text had a false source. As soon as it was pointed out to me that that specific part about the Jerusalem office had a false source, I removed it myself. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The content was questioned several times by editors on the grounds that it contradicts what is known about this conflict from reliable source, including me (Talk:Syria#Border_Flare-Ups, /Talk:Syria#Invalid_Source_on_Dayan_Admitting_to_Israel_Provoking_Clashes). But you Supreme Deliciousness insisted that it is well-sourced. You never said that you do not know what the source actually says and mislead other editors about the content. The manner in which you removed the content after being caught red-hand furthermore suggests that all the time you knew that the source was fake. Pantherskin (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it suggests that if you had once questioned that line on the basis of the source not supporting it SD would have checked it and removed it himself. nableezy - 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by unomi

To me it seems clear that what we have before us is not a content dispute. The dispute may be grounded in the content, but the enforcement request is solidly regarding policy violations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive

We have had a number of public discussions regarding how sources deal with the illegal settlements; at IPCOLL wikiproject, and across a multitude of talkpages. While there are sources which dispute the 'illegal settlement' moniker, the majority of quality sources support it. For a light primer see fx Daniel C. Kurtzer's article in Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs reprinted here:

Secretary of State Cyrus Vance made this clear in Congressional testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, March
21, 1980: US policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process...Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in the judgment of each of the legal advisers of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that are illegal and that applies to the territories.
Vance's view was based on longstanding US policy. For example, in March 1976, Ambassador William Scranton told the United Nations Security Council: Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.
Scranton's statement was based on the position expressed by Ambassador Charles Yost, who told the UN Security Council in July 1969:
Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation.

I think it is fair to say that these are not fringe views, and they are supported by ECJ and ICJ publications. In light of the supermajority of sources which support the wording that Shuki tendentiously edited to remove I find Nableezys enforcement request entirely reasonable. Unomi (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarify the limits

Can you please clarify the limits of this action? Does it basically include; 1) all locality articles in the region, 2) all geography articles (including parks or attractions), 3) talk pages as well?.

I made a couple of comments at Talk:List of national parks and nature reserves of Israel today. If they are included in the ban, I will refrain from continuing. --Shuki (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the purpose of this ban is to prevent edit-warring over whether or not a particular site is actually in Israel, surely all that is necessary is to restrict editing in this limited area. Even accepting the legitimacy of the block, I can't see a reason why Shuki or Nableezy should be prevented from making edits like this or this. RolandR (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Shuki

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

I invite Shuki and Nableezy to show cause why they should not both be topic-banned for 3 months from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. And I request in advance that all comments relating to this request are added here, not at my talk page. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For clarification, "here" means "on this page". Stifle (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that I have read all the submissions and am analyzing the evidence. In a couple of days I intend to propose a final sanction and invite admin comment on same. I am reading the diffs and other details provided and will not be jumping to conclusions. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read and reviewed all the submissions and diffs and remain convinced that each side is at fault. There is a possibility that one party is more at fault than the other, but that is neither here nor there. I am still minded to impose a topic ban on both parties, although I will shorten the duration to the end of August. I invite comment from other uninvolved administrators here (i.e. this section) as to whether this appears appropriate. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. This is a content dispute which the people involved can't resolve in a collegial manner. I considered proposing limiting the scope to Israeli settlements, but that's probably too open to gaming and disagreement. Sandstein 11:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your conclusion of course Stifle, but I think the parties to the dispute are also entitled to know what precisely they are being convicted of, and on what evidence. "I remain convinced that each side is at fault" is not exactly forthcoming. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring, tendentious editing, and using reverts rather than discussion on a disputed article. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The individual articles link to Israeli settlement, which contains an overview of the legal situation. To what extent any of this needs to be summarized in the articles is obviously an editorial decision, however edit warring over whether there should be a mention in the lead is disruptive, and therefore can result in sanctions being imposed. I agree that Stifle's proposed sanctions are reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above discussions and pursuant to Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, Shuki and Nableezy are both topic-banned until 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. Violation of the topic ban shall result in a block of appropriate duration and the topic-ban being reset to run for five weeks from the end of the block. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As things stand, (1) is included, (2) is included (as a park or attraction is a place), and (3) is not included. Disruption on talk pages will however be viewed dimly. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Russavia

Radeksz (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours, all editors with Eastern Europe-related sanctions banned from the article at issue.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Russavia User requesting enforcement radek (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated "Russavia (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution." Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Russavia has inserted themselves into a middle of an ongoing dispute between myself, Chumchum7 and others. The question as to whether the controversy about Polish participation is notable or not has been a long running subject of this dispute and Russavia is obviously taking a side here, unnecessarily interacting with me, and so in a clear violation of his restriction. The edit can also be seen as provocative in and of itself, and given the heated nature of that dispute this appears to be a straight forward attempt at "pouring gasoline onto a fire" Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warning by Sandstein Please also see this statement by Shell Kinney which specifically requests that these sort of violations are reported, Re Russavia's statement below, this note, also by Shell can obviously be interpreted as a warning Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) block Additional comments by editor filing complaint This is Russavia's second violation in a short period of time, after this . Wait. Actually it's his fourth if we count his comments at Miacek's appeal and his request at this very board not too long ago against himself in violation of WP:POINT . Russavia is clearly and deliberately trying to test the boundaries of his interaction ban. Since the ban is mutual, I am of course also forbidden from interacting with Russavia except for purposes of necessary dispute resolution. This is necessary dispute resolution, as Russavia jumped into an argument I was having with somebody else. Re to Future Perfect: Future Perfect, it's not even about editing the same article. If Russavia had only edited the section on Australian participation then I would not have had a problem with that. But instead he chose to edit the section on Polish participation, one in which I have been extensively involved. That's not participating in 'necessary dispute resolution', that's CREATING a dispute between himself and me, where none existed, in clear violation of the interaction ban. Am I allowed to undo his edit or revert him? Am I allowed to edit articles on Nashi or Air Fiji or The Diplomatic Relations of Russia and Australia? Am I allowed to edit the article on the 2010 Moscow Victory Parade? Specifically making edits against Russavia? The fact that editor A edits an article does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the article is off-limits for B. But it does mean that B should not jump into any disputes that A is having on that article and should take care to avoid interaction with A on that article. Russavia's not doing that - quite the opposite.radek (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Or think of this way. Now Russavia has made this edit to the talk page . I take my interaction ban with him to mean that I cannot respond to this or to undue his edits to the article. Yet, this is precisely the subject I've been involved in on the article for some time now. If it is okay for him to make these statements despite his interaction ban, and I cannot reply to these comments, I am effectively frozen out of the discussion that I had been a part off much longer then he. If I CAN reply to them, then the interaction ban is pretty meaningless. So a different way of phrasing your question would be: if editors A and B have a mutual interaction ban, and editor A is working on the article and editor B comes in - and this is judged not to be a violation of the interaction ban - then is editor A prohibited from replying or continuing to work on the article? The obvious answer is "no". But that means that either the initial edits by B are in violation of the interaction ban, or the interaction ban simply doesn't exists for all practical purposes.radek (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Right. So on the same day that all of sudden Russavia pops up in an article I am involved with, which he has never edited before, and inserts himself into the middle of a dispute I am involved in, his close buddy Petri Krohn also pops up in an article I am involved with, which he has never edited before, and inserts himself into the middle of a dispute I am involved in. Oh yeah, sure, coincidence, one was just checking Parade articles and the other looking for random articles to move. I would also like to ask that whoever the administrator is that takes on this request, they allow me to contact them privately, as I'm pretty sure something else is going on here which I do not care to discuss on Wiki.radek (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Re to Igny: I did not "come back to confrontations with Russavia". In fact I've been trying to avoid him. He's the one who showed up on a controversial article that I had been involved in discussions on and inserted himself right smack in the middle of it. Now, I don't know what I'm supposed to do. If I continue participating in the discussion that I was previously a part of I run the risk of violating the interaction ban myself. Yet, it doesn't seem right that a user who is banned from interacting with me can just elbow me aside in such a way. Quite honestly, I basically want Russavia to stay the hey away from me (he did take part in outing my personal information after all) - if he undoes his edits to the "Polish" section of that article (I think it's fine if he edits the "Australian" section) - for example, removes the UNDUE tag - does not participate further in the discussion I was part of and promises to leave that part of the article alone (as well as other articles I'm working on extensively) then perhaps a block is not necessary. That's a less drastic way of dealing with this, but he has to play along.radek (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Re to Igny's proposal. Sure.radek (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Russavia may have edited the article before (so what? That was before he had an interaction ban) but he has not specifically edited the section that is under discussion - on Polish participation. All he had to do was to take a look at the discussion page to see that I was involved in heavily discussing that very section. Considering that there is a very good reason for why Russavia got the interaction ban - he shows up at articles and creates battlegrounds or pours gasoline on existing disputes - and considering that Russavia TOOK AN ACTIVE PART IN OUTING MY PERSONAL INFORMATION (for Chrissake!) (, 2nd from top in case somebody gets lost) there's absolutely NOTHING frivolous about my request that Russavia stay away from me, as his interaction ban directs him to. Enough.radek (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Russavia, it's simple: STAY AWAY FROM ME PER YOUR INTERACTION BAN, as I have stayed away from you all this time. Then you can have all the good faith in the world.radek (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Russavia Statement by Russavia During WP:EEML, Radeksz had a finding of fact against him (Misplaced Pages:EEML#Disruption_6), which stated amongst other things, that he has treated WP as a battleground and has also abused dispute resolution processes. Another finding of fact which covered the entire EEML (Misplaced Pages:EEML#Improper_coordination) was that "baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned" had occurred, and which to a large extent was likely possible for sanctioned editors receiving a "Russavia topic ban" (Misplaced Pages:EEML#Editors_restricted), "except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution." The report by Radeksz clearly goes against the spirit of the "Russavia topic ban" sanction, and what he wrote at the amendment request which led to his topic ban being lifted before its expiration. In particular this statement: I encourage everyone, former members of the list, as well as their "opponents" to undertake efforts which will reduce the battleground atmosphere in this topic area and lead to more collaborative editing. Somebody's got to make a show of good faith however, and I would like to say that I personally harbor no grudges against any other editor currently active on Misplaced Pages and am willing to work with anybody. I'm going to reset my "assume good faith" meter back to good faith and I hope others do likewise. Contrary to Radeksz's statement, I have edited the article before , and this was done whilst the EEML arbitration was ongoing. I had also commented on general editor behaviour on the article around the same time and had also removed bickering between editors from the article talk page. Given that, this article has been on my watch list since then, although I haven't really taken notice of developments on the article in recent times. My edits on the article, have been explained clearly on the talk page, and are not addressing any editor, either directly or indirectly, but are merely presenting problems with the article as a whole. I do not regard the statement by Radeksz that this is necessary dispute resolution is warranted, as he could have sought clarification from the committee on the minor issues that he has brought here. Instead, he has instead chosen to attack me (in violation of an interaction ban), and has attempted to turn this into another unnecessary battleground. I would ask that Radeksz' behaviour be given the once over, given that he has continued to make accusations against me in response to comments by other editors. His choice of words is somewhat telling, such as arguing with other editors, instead of collaborating, etc. Also troubling is the assertion of article ownership that he is trying to have validated here. He also seems to be implying that I am acting in an underhanded way, by asking that he be able to contact admins off-wiki with more accusations which are to be considered here. I take offence to such accusations and insinuations. I would ask that the manufactured dispute against myself be closed off without action. I also ask that Radeksz apologise to myself, as he does not appear to be assuming good faith in relation to my editing and has offended myself in doing so. If some sort of good faith on the part of Radeksz is forthcoming, I think that the request can be safely closed, and editors can get back to editing, otherwise I think it is pertinent that Misplaced Pages:EEML#Editors_restricted and Misplaced Pages:EEML#Enforcement_by_block can be enacted. --Russavia 07:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia I'm not entirely certain to what extent the "no-interaction" ban is meant to cover also editing of the same articles. After all, the rule contains the modification "... except in the case of necessary dispute resolution" – which implies that there must be conceivable, legitimate occasions where the editors involved actually have a dispute in the first place, which seems to imply content disagreements over articles. Does the ban really mean that once A has edited an article, that article is off-limits for B? Not sure. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Arbitrators don't usually intervene in these discussions, but as the drafter of that language in the decision, I can state that it was not intended to mean that these users can't edit the same articles. Of course they are required to abide by all other applicable policies and any relevant restrictions when they do so. (Not commenting on the merits of this request beyond answering Fut.Perf.'s question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I find nothing surprising in Russavia editing the article – after all he recently created 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade. However, I find this accusation by User:Radeksz that I was stalking him at Talk:Jewish community of Danzig#name unacceptable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I am disappointed by this development. Radek, I went back and re-read your statement here, I saw no clue that you'd come back to controversial situations, much less to confrontations with Russavia. I am sure that there are less drastic ways to resolve this situation (such as asking for an advice from an admin) than filing AE report. (Igny (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)) Before it escalates any further, a solution is quite simple, Russavia you undo your edit (if you think your edit was warranted, other editors could come and make it). Radek, withdraw your AE request. Everyone apologizes without admitting guilt to each other, an admin closes this thread. (Igny (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)) I want to point out that Russavia edited the article in 2009 apparently before Radek has shown any interest in it. Thus, I do not think the request is valid Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Russavia This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This is the latest iteration of a series of factional nationalist disputes about the article London victory parade of 1946 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) in which many of the editors from previous Eastern Europe arbitration cases are involved. Fut.Perf. has now protected the article because of excessive sockpuppetry. This can't go on like that. The 1RR restriction I've imposed on the article seems not to have helped. I've not got the time (or the checkuser tools) to go to the bottom of this by myself and find out who, if anybody, is most responsible for this mess (and please spare me any unfounded speculation via e-mail; if there's actionable private evidence it needs to go to ArbCom). It may be that another arbitration case is necessary, since I am not sure that the roundabout topic ban that may be needed should be imposed at the AE level. But, to stop this circus for now, I'm imposing the following restriction on the article via its editnotice and talk page: "Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, all editors with "Eastern Europe" sanctions are hereby banned from editing the article London victory parade of 1946 or its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies or sanctions logged on the case pages WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML or WP:ARBRB, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators." This is likely to affect some innocent editors, but these are not very likely to want to edit to edit this obscure article in particular, and the benefit to Misplaced Pages of not having constant wars over the article outweighs that drawback. As to the request at hand, I'll get to that after lunch. Sandstein 10:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC) The request is without merit. Simply editing an article that another editor has also edited is not an interaction, as noted by Newyorkbrad above. It would take additional evidence (which has not been provided here) to convince me that the edits should be considered an interaction (e.g., a WP:STALKING), which judging by the edits themselves does not seem to be the case. Consequently, this request does not constitute "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" and is therefore a violation of the restriction applying to Radeksz, WP:EEML#Editors restricted. As Russavia's statement correctly notes, the request is additionally disruptive in that it makes veiled allegations of what sounds like serious misconduct on the part of Russavia ("I'm pretty sure something else is going on here which I do not care to discuss on Wiki") without offering any (onwiki) evidence. This is a serious problem given that the Committee, at WP:EEML#Improper coordination and WP:EEML#Radeksz, found that Radeksz has previously been engaged in similar misconduct, and that I yesterday warned Radeksz not to make serious allegations against others without useful evidence. In enforcement of WP:EEML#Editors restricted, I am therefore blocking Radeksz for 72 hours. Concerning his request to submit offwiki evidence to me, it is declined, because I strongly dislike ex parte proceedings, and because any evidence that is genuinely unsuited for open discussion because of privacy reasons should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee alone. Of course, the Committee is free to change this block as they see fit if they are indeed seized with actionable private evidence. Sandstein 12:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Radeksz (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours, all editors with Eastern Europe-related sanctions banned from the article at issue.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Russavia

User requesting enforcement: radek (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: "Russavia (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution."

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

Russavia has inserted themselves into a middle of an ongoing dispute between myself, Chumchum7 and others. The question as to whether the controversy about Polish participation is notable or not has been a long running subject of this dispute and Russavia is obviously taking a side here, unnecessarily interacting with me, and so in a clear violation of his restriction. The edit can also be seen as provocative in and of itself, and given the heated nature of that dispute this appears to be a straight forward attempt at "pouring gasoline onto a fire"

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

Warning by Sandstein
Please also see this statement by Shell Kinney which specifically requests that these sort of violations are reported,
Re Russavia's statement below, this note, also by Shell can obviously be interpreted as a warning

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: This is Russavia's second violation in a short period of time, after this . Wait. Actually it's his fourth if we count his comments at Miacek's appeal and his request at this very board not too long ago against himself in violation of WP:POINT . Russavia is clearly and deliberately trying to test the boundaries of his interaction ban. Since the ban is mutual, I am of course also forbidden from interacting with Russavia except for purposes of necessary dispute resolution. This is necessary dispute resolution, as Russavia jumped into an argument I was having with somebody else.

Re to Future Perfect: Future Perfect, it's not even about editing the same article. If Russavia had only edited the section on Australian participation then I would not have had a problem with that. But instead he chose to edit the section on Polish participation, one in which I have been extensively involved. That's not participating in 'necessary dispute resolution', that's CREATING a dispute between himself and me, where none existed, in clear violation of the interaction ban. Am I allowed to undo his edit or revert him? Am I allowed to edit articles on Nashi or Air Fiji or The Diplomatic Relations of Russia and Australia? Am I allowed to edit the article on the 2010 Moscow Victory Parade? Specifically making edits against Russavia?

The fact that editor A edits an article does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that the article is off-limits for B. But it does mean that B should not jump into any disputes that A is having on that article and should take care to avoid interaction with A on that article. Russavia's not doing that - quite the opposite.radek (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Or think of this way. Now Russavia has made this edit to the talk page . I take my interaction ban with him to mean that I cannot respond to this or to undue his edits to the article. Yet, this is precisely the subject I've been involved in on the article for some time now. If it is okay for him to make these statements despite his interaction ban, and I cannot reply to these comments, I am effectively frozen out of the discussion that I had been a part off much longer then he. If I CAN reply to them, then the interaction ban is pretty meaningless. So a different way of phrasing your question would be: if editors A and B have a mutual interaction ban, and editor A is working on the article and editor B comes in - and this is judged not to be a violation of the interaction ban - then is editor A prohibited from replying or continuing to work on the article? The obvious answer is "no". But that means that either the initial edits by B are in violation of the interaction ban, or the interaction ban simply doesn't exists for all practical purposes.radek (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. So on the same day that all of sudden Russavia pops up in an article I am involved with, which he has never edited before, and inserts himself into the middle of a dispute I am involved in, his close buddy Petri Krohn also pops up in an article I am involved with, which he has never edited before, and inserts himself into the middle of a dispute I am involved in. Oh yeah, sure, coincidence, one was just checking Parade articles and the other looking for random articles to move.

I would also like to ask that whoever the administrator is that takes on this request, they allow me to contact them privately, as I'm pretty sure something else is going on here which I do not care to discuss on Wiki.radek (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re to Igny: I did not "come back to confrontations with Russavia". In fact I've been trying to avoid him. He's the one who showed up on a controversial article that I had been involved in discussions on and inserted himself right smack in the middle of it. Now, I don't know what I'm supposed to do. If I continue participating in the discussion that I was previously a part of I run the risk of violating the interaction ban myself. Yet, it doesn't seem right that a user who is banned from interacting with me can just elbow me aside in such a way. Quite honestly, I basically want Russavia to stay the hey away from me (he did take part in outing my personal information after all) - if he undoes his edits to the "Polish" section of that article (I think it's fine if he edits the "Australian" section) - for example, removes the UNDUE tag - does not participate further in the discussion I was part of and promises to leave that part of the article alone (as well as other articles I'm working on extensively) then perhaps a block is not necessary. That's a less drastic way of dealing with this, but he has to play along.radek (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re to Igny's proposal. Sure.radek (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Russavia may have edited the article before (so what? That was before he had an interaction ban) but he has not specifically edited the section that is under discussion - on Polish participation. All he had to do was to take a look at the discussion page to see that I was involved in heavily discussing that very section. Considering that there is a very good reason for why Russavia got the interaction ban - he shows up at articles and creates battlegrounds or pours gasoline on existing disputes - and considering that Russavia TOOK AN ACTIVE PART IN OUTING MY PERSONAL INFORMATION (for Chrissake!) (, 2nd from top in case somebody gets lost) there's absolutely NOTHING frivolous about my request that Russavia stay away from me, as his interaction ban directs him to. Enough.radek (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Russavia, it's simple: STAY AWAY FROM ME PER YOUR INTERACTION BAN, as I have stayed away from you all this time. Then you can have all the good faith in the world.radek (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Russavia

Statement by Russavia

During WP:EEML, Radeksz had a finding of fact against him (Misplaced Pages:EEML#Disruption_6), which stated amongst other things, that he has treated WP as a battleground and has also abused dispute resolution processes. Another finding of fact which covered the entire EEML (Misplaced Pages:EEML#Improper_coordination) was that "baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned" had occurred, and which to a large extent was likely possible for sanctioned editors receiving a "Russavia topic ban" (Misplaced Pages:EEML#Editors_restricted), "except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution."

The report by Radeksz clearly goes against the spirit of the "Russavia topic ban" sanction, and what he wrote at the amendment request which led to his topic ban being lifted before its expiration. In particular this statement:

I encourage everyone, former members of the list, as well as their "opponents" to undertake efforts which will reduce the battleground atmosphere in this topic area and lead to more collaborative editing. Somebody's got to make a show of good faith however, and I would like to say that I personally harbor no grudges against any other editor currently active on Misplaced Pages and am willing to work with anybody. I'm going to reset my "assume good faith" meter back to good faith and I hope others do likewise.

Contrary to Radeksz's statement, I have edited the article before , and this was done whilst the EEML arbitration was ongoing. I had also commented on general editor behaviour on the article around the same time and had also removed bickering between editors from the article talk page. Given that, this article has been on my watch list since then, although I haven't really taken notice of developments on the article in recent times. My edits on the article, have been explained clearly on the talk page, and are not addressing any editor, either directly or indirectly, but are merely presenting problems with the article as a whole.

I do not regard the statement by Radeksz that this is necessary dispute resolution is warranted, as he could have sought clarification from the committee on the minor issues that he has brought here. Instead, he has instead chosen to attack me (in violation of an interaction ban), and has attempted to turn this into another unnecessary battleground. I would ask that Radeksz' behaviour be given the once over, given that he has continued to make accusations against me in response to comments by other editors. His choice of words is somewhat telling, such as arguing with other editors, instead of collaborating, etc. Also troubling is the assertion of article ownership that he is trying to have validated here. He also seems to be implying that I am acting in an underhanded way, by asking that he be able to contact admins off-wiki with more accusations which are to be considered here. I take offence to such accusations and insinuations.

I would ask that the manufactured dispute against myself be closed off without action. I also ask that Radeksz apologise to myself, as he does not appear to be assuming good faith in relation to my editing and has offended myself in doing so. If some sort of good faith on the part of Radeksz is forthcoming, I think that the request can be safely closed, and editors can get back to editing, otherwise I think it is pertinent that Misplaced Pages:EEML#Editors_restricted and Misplaced Pages:EEML#Enforcement_by_block can be enacted. --Russavia 07:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia

I'm not entirely certain to what extent the "no-interaction" ban is meant to cover also editing of the same articles. After all, the rule contains the modification "... except in the case of necessary dispute resolution" – which implies that there must be conceivable, legitimate occasions where the editors involved actually have a dispute in the first place, which seems to imply content disagreements over articles. Does the ban really mean that once A has edited an article, that article is off-limits for B? Not sure. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Arbitrators don't usually intervene in these discussions, but as the drafter of that language in the decision, I can state that it was not intended to mean that these users can't edit the same articles. Of course they are required to abide by all other applicable policies and any relevant restrictions when they do so. (Not commenting on the merits of this request beyond answering Fut.Perf.'s question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I find nothing surprising in Russavia editing the article – after all he recently created 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade. However, I find this accusation by User:Radeksz that I was stalking him at Talk:Jewish community of Danzig#name unacceptable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I am disappointed by this development. Radek, I went back and re-read your statement here, I saw no clue that you'd come back to controversial situations, much less to confrontations with Russavia. I am sure that there are less drastic ways to resolve this situation (such as asking for an advice from an admin) than filing AE report. (Igny (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Before it escalates any further, a solution is quite simple, Russavia you undo your edit (if you think your edit was warranted, other editors could come and make it). Radek, withdraw your AE request. Everyone apologizes without admitting guilt to each other, an admin closes this thread. (Igny (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

I want to point out that Russavia edited the article in 2009 apparently before Radek has shown any interest in it. Thus, I do not think the request is valid Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Russavia

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

This is the latest iteration of a series of factional nationalist disputes about the article London victory parade of 1946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in which many of the editors from previous Eastern Europe arbitration cases are involved. Fut.Perf. has now protected the article because of excessive sockpuppetry. This can't go on like that. The 1RR restriction I've imposed on the article seems not to have helped. I've not got the time (or the checkuser tools) to go to the bottom of this by myself and find out who, if anybody, is most responsible for this mess (and please spare me any unfounded speculation via e-mail; if there's actionable private evidence it needs to go to ArbCom). It may be that another arbitration case is necessary, since I am not sure that the roundabout topic ban that may be needed should be imposed at the AE level. But, to stop this circus for now, I'm imposing the following restriction on the article via its editnotice and talk page:

"Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, all editors with "Eastern Europe" sanctions are hereby banned from editing the article London victory parade of 1946 or its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies or sanctions logged on the case pages WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML or WP:ARBRB, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators."

This is likely to affect some innocent editors, but these are not very likely to want to edit to edit this obscure article in particular, and the benefit to Misplaced Pages of not having constant wars over the article outweighs that drawback. As to the request at hand, I'll get to that after lunch. Sandstein 10:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The request is without merit. Simply editing an article that another editor has also edited is not an interaction, as noted by Newyorkbrad above. It would take additional evidence (which has not been provided here) to convince me that the edits should be considered an interaction (e.g., a WP:STALKING), which judging by the edits themselves does not seem to be the case. Consequently, this request does not constitute "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" and is therefore a violation of the restriction applying to Radeksz, WP:EEML#Editors restricted. As Russavia's statement correctly notes, the request is additionally disruptive in that it makes veiled allegations of what sounds like serious misconduct on the part of Russavia ("I'm pretty sure something else is going on here which I do not care to discuss on Wiki") without offering any (onwiki) evidence. This is a serious problem given that the Committee, at WP:EEML#Improper coordination and WP:EEML#Radeksz, found that Radeksz has previously been engaged in similar misconduct, and that I yesterday warned Radeksz not to make serious allegations against others without useful evidence. In enforcement of WP:EEML#Editors restricted, I am therefore blocking Radeksz for 72 hours. Concerning his request to submit offwiki evidence to me, it is declined, because I strongly dislike ex parte proceedings, and because any evidence that is genuinely unsuited for open discussion because of privacy reasons should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee alone. Of course, the Committee is free to change this block as they see fit if they are indeed seized with actionable private evidence. Sandstein 12:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:TimidGuy and User:Littleolive oil and User:Edith Sirius Lee

TimidGuy (talk · contribs) topic-banned from TM edits for two months; TimidGuy (talk · contribs), Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) and Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) placed on collective 1RR/24hrs revert restriction on all TM-related edits.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning the above three editors User requesting enforcement --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated "that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Misplaced Pages in connection with these articles." Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it A RfC was filled here TimidGuy deemed these editors misinformed and thus no need to listen to their advice. These violation have been ongoing by these WP:SPAs. Many incorrect accusations have been made including Timidguy insults my usage of source , little more than a personal attack. They continue to agree among themselves and attempt to use Misplaced Pages as a method to advertise their organization. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC: TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: TimidGuy does not follow RfC: Littleolive does not follow RfC: TimidGuy removed references in the lead Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes Prior warnings Timidguy was warned above. Littleolive oil was warned here Edith was warned here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) block Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning above users Statement by TimidGuy Doc persists in putting erroneous information in the science paragraph in the lead. For example, he writes, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education," and his citations include Ospina 2007. But Ospina found just the opposite in regard to relaxation: "When compared to PMR progressive muscle relaxation, TM produced significantly greater benefits in SBP and DBP ." This is the only meta-analysis in Ospina that used relaxation as a comparator. Why is this objection, in Future Perfect's words below, "nitpicking" and "patently without merit"? There are three randomized controlled trials on TM that use relaxation as a comparator, two on blood pressure that show a benefit beyond relaxation and one on anxiety that doesn't. Is Doc correct to generalize this single trial on anxiety to all health conditions? Doing so is another misrepresentation, in my opinion. Please please please don't come to judgment on this without looking at the details. I can document many false statements made by Doc, not only in the article but in dispute resolution. For example, at RSN he characterized Ospina 2007 and Cochane 2006 as being "one of the only independent analysis of TM research.". But in fact there are scores or even hundreds of independent reviews that include research on TM. (If you do a search on Pubmed on meditation reviews, you'll get about 275 results.) Will I be given the opportunity to document his misrepresentations rather than have a rush to judgment? Future Perfect made his recommendation before I even had a chance to write a statement, let alone document the misrepresentations. In regard to respect for consensus building, look how hard I tried in this thread to build consensus regarding the science paragraph in the lead. I had tentative consensus among four editors, including Will. Fladrif kept objecting but wouldn't say specifically what he didn't like. Then Doc came in after a months-long absence from the article and, in my view, completely took over the process and subverted my effort at consensus building. TimidGuy (talk) Regarding the specific diffs. I made a single revert to the version that had corrected some of Doc's misrepresentations. The second diff shows my addition of sourced, relevant material. The third shows a deletion of a source that Doc had misrepresented. Doc quoted statements from the source that were directly about the four randomized controlled trials that were examined in the review. None of those four studies was on TM. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I am more than happy to address Timid's point as I have on the talk page for the article. Let me provide the exact text supporting the passage: Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. <ref>{{cite book\|author=Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP.\|url= http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf\|title= Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research\|publisher= ]\|page=4\|date=June 2007 \|quote=A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients}}</ref> <ref name=Cochrane10>{{cite journal \|author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N \|title=Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) \|journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev \|volume=6 \|issue= \|pages=CD006507 \|year=2010 \|pmid=20556767 \|doi=10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2 \|url= \|quote =For this study there was no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the drug therapy group on the teacher rating ADHD scale (MD -2.72, 95% CI -8.49 to 3.05, 15 patients). Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the standard therapy group on the teacher rating ADHD scale (MD -0.52, 95% CI -5.88 to 4.84, 17 patients). There was also no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the standard therapy group in the distraction test (MD -8.34, 95% CI -107.05 to 90.37, 17 patients).}}</ref> <ref name=Cochrane06>{{cite journal\|author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M \|title=Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders \|journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews \|volume=\|issue=1 \|pages=CD004998 \|year=2006 \|pmid=16437509 \|doi=10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2 \|ref=harv\| quote=The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety}}</ref> So the executive summary support the comparison to health education. The 2006 Cochrane paper supports the comparison to relaxation. And the 2010 Cochrane paper come to similar conclusion for ADHD not finding evidence of effectiveness. Progressive muscle relaxation is not the same as relaxation. In the rest of TimidGuys response he misunderstand what a Cochrane meta analysis is. Cochrane looks at all the studies done by doing an exhaustive review of the literature. It specifically discusses a couple trials on ADHD and TM. And based on the poor data concludes that the evidence has not found benefits. TimidGuy states above that I have many false statements and provides the dif above regarding my statement that their are only a few independent studies. Someone much smarter than me however said the same thing in 2004 Canter PH, Ernst E pmid=15480084 "All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization." User:TimidGuy and User:Keithbob allude to my incorrect statements and than this is the best example they can find. One in which we have a review article published by experts in the field in 2004 that supports my opinion. TimidGuy's statement that I have made "many false statements" and Keithbob's that I have "a long history of mis-representation of sources and disruptive editing" without providing diffs is a continuation of the insults I have been subject too on the talk page. While in most situation and professions this sort of statement would mean little however in academia it is a personal attack of the greatest severity and one that should not be taken lightly. I encourage editors to look at my history ( having brought three article to GA status, having made nearly 27,000 edits on thousands of different pages, and collected a few barnstars on long the way ) which I think speaks for itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC) At an appropriate future time and in an appropriate future forum I would be happy to provide the diffs you have requested but since this case was closed prematurely I see no point in posting them here.-- — *Keithbob* • Talk • 12:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning TimidGuy Statement by Littleolive oil I'll be able to comment later today. In the meantime, I would request commenting admins look carefully at the diffs Doc presented, the research section of the TM article and in relation to the lead, so they are aware of the research. Further, could diffs be provided that indicate non compliant behaviour, per individual editor, such as the supposed tag team editing, so decisions are informed and fair. Thanks.(olive (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)) To Future Perfect: You have acted before I and another editor even had a chance to post. This is blatantly unfair and inappropriate. Nor do you say what I have been guilty of. I am forced to wonder why the haste. Further TimidGuy has serious concerns about the edits made by the editor who then posted here. Such concerns deserve serious consideration not possible in a few hours. i hope you will reconsider your overly hasty action.(olive (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)) And Cirt: You support sanctions on an editor before that editor has even had a chance to speak, is that right?(olive (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)) Comments by others about the request concerning Littleolive oil Statement by Edith Sirius Lee I also did not have the time to respond here, partially because at about the same time that Doc James made his arb request, there were a large amount of text added by Fladrif and Will BeBack in the Talk page, which I felt had to be answered quickly. There were enough added that I am not yet done. Just quickly here, my understanding is that TimidGuy is accused to have rejected some Rfc comments based on the fact that the external editors were misinformed. May I add that he has done so while being willing to discuss the issue in good faith with others. I don't think he meant to reject any comment, but only wanted to put them in the context of the actual content of sources and of the the policy. As far as the accusation of edit warring is concerned, Doc James seems to suggest that we should not edit the paragraph on Research in the lead because two outside comments say that his version in the Rfc was good (or better than the only other one). I don't understand that argument. Even if these two comments were well informed, which I believe was not the case, the paragraph can still be improved. The Rfc was presented as a vote between two paragraphs, but there is no guarantee that the best paragraph was one of these two. Also, if we look at the Rfc or Noticeboard, we can see that some external editors progressively changed their position as they received more information. It did not seem to me that a definitive conclusion was reached. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC) For the record: ESL made this comment before you went to their talk pages and asked both editors who commented on the RfC to clarify their positions . So Edith made his/her comment based on what was in the discussion at that time. The comment you cite was only available later after Edith had commented. I don't find your comment a particularly accurate betrayal of what happened.(olive (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)) Comments by others about the request concerning Edith Sirius Lee Prior to registering a username, ESL also posted fairly extensively for ~10 days as Special:Contributions/67.230.155.29; Special:Contributions/67.230.155.38; Special:Contributions/67.230.154.111; Special:Contributions/67.230.154.243; Special:Contributions/67.230.154.70; and Special:Contributions/67.230.154.96. It has been suggested that ESL is not a new editor, given a level of familiarity with Misplaced Pages policies that is atypical of new editors. I genuinely think that ESL is not a sock of one of the editors who were parties to the TM ArbCom case, solely on the basis of the occasional odd sentence structure or choice of vocabulary, suggesting to me that English, or at least standard American/Canadian/British English, may not be ESL's first language. Whether or not that perception is accurate, ESL was advised, prior to the edits Doc has listed, and in connection with other problematic edits, including an earlier reversion of sourced material which Doc has not listed , that the TM ArbCom decision's discretionary sanctions apply to all editors, not just editors who were parties to the case at the time. Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I must say I am quite dismayed at the 'rush to judgement' type comment that was posted by Fut Perf six hours after the case was opened. It was posted before any of the defendants had made any statements and it makes many sweeping generalizations that, in my opinion, are not accurate. Anyone who takes the time to examine the diffs and the talk page threads and the edit history's of the accused editors, and their accuser, will see that DocJames has a long history of mis-representation of sources and disruptive editing. As for COI accusations, this has long been used as an intimidation stick by some editors and accusations of COI and POV pushing were levied against parties on both sides of the fence on the recent TM ArbCom but there were no findings, at that time, against any party on either side. Our job now is look to look at recent edits since the decisions on June 4, 2010 and determine who is violating the ArbCom decision. Is it the accused or the accuser?-- — *Keithbob* • Talk • 16:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I have to agree with ESL's comment "It did not seem to me that a definitive conclusion was reached." I also felt that no conclusion or agreement had been reached and the discussion was ongoing. --BwB (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Result concerning TimidGuy, Littleolive oil, and Edith Sirius Lee This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I agree that some of the behaviour described above is problematic. What I see on Talk:Transcendental Meditation is a persistent effort, mostly by TimidGuy, to block consensus by an endless row of objections of wikilawyering and nitpicking nature, aimed at deemphasizing the findings of studies critical of TM. Many of these objections, mostly about the correctness of summaries of the research literature proposed by other editors, appear to be patently without merit. Taken in isolation, such objections would probably count as normal good-faith content disagreements, but in the larger picture and given their constant, long-time effect of blocking effective consensus-building, they take on the character of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption, especially as he and the other editors who support his viewpoint are refusing to listen to independent outside input, which was successfully elicited by the RFC. There is also evident tag-team revert warring. Moreover, Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) is yet another single-purpose agenda account that suddenly appeared after the conclusion of the Arbcom case. In this topic domain, which has been plagued by single purpose editors and COI problems, this is in itself highly problematic. I therefore propose to enact the following sanctions: TimidGuy (talk · contribs) to be topic-banned from TM-related articles and discussion for a short-to-medium period, let's say 2 months, to give the discussions a bit of breathing space. independent of this, all three editors (TimidGuy, Littleolive and Edith Sirius Lee), to be placed on a collective 1RR limitation to stop tag-team reverts (that is, these three editors together are not allowed to revert more than once per 24hrs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Having reviewed the situation further, I have become even more convinced that the above measures are needed. I am therefore now imposing the measures as outlined above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I agree with the above Arbitration Enforcement enacted here by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

TimidGuy (talk · contribs) topic-banned from TM edits for two months; TimidGuy (talk · contribs), Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) and Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) placed on collective 1RR/24hrs revert restriction on all TM-related edits.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning the above three editors

User requesting enforcement: --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested

TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: "that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Misplaced Pages in connection with these articles."

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

A RfC was filled here TimidGuy deemed these editors misinformed and thus no need to listen to their advice. These violation have been ongoing by these WP:SPAs. Many incorrect accusations have been made including Timidguy insults my usage of source , little more than a personal attack. They continue to agree among themselves and attempt to use Misplaced Pages as a method to advertise their organization.

Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC:
TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC:
TimidGuy does not follow RfC:
Littleolive does not follow RfC:
TimidGuy removed references in the lead
Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes

Prior warnings

Timidguy was warned above. Littleolive oil was warned here Edith was warned here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning above users

Statement by TimidGuy

Doc persists in putting erroneous information in the science paragraph in the lead. For example, he writes, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education," and his citations include Ospina 2007. But Ospina found just the opposite in regard to relaxation: "When compared to PMR progressive muscle relaxation, TM produced significantly greater benefits in SBP and DBP ." This is the only meta-analysis in Ospina that used relaxation as a comparator. Why is this objection, in Future Perfect's words below, "nitpicking" and "patently without merit"? There are three randomized controlled trials on TM that use relaxation as a comparator, two on blood pressure that show a benefit beyond relaxation and one on anxiety that doesn't. Is Doc correct to generalize this single trial on anxiety to all health conditions? Doing so is another misrepresentation, in my opinion. Please please please don't come to judgment on this without looking at the details. I can document many false statements made by Doc, not only in the article but in dispute resolution. For example, at RSN he characterized Ospina 2007 and Cochane 2006 as being "one of the only independent analysis of TM research.". But in fact there are scores or even hundreds of independent reviews that include research on TM. (If you do a search on Pubmed on meditation reviews, you'll get about 275 results.) Will I be given the opportunity to document his misrepresentations rather than have a rush to judgment? Future Perfect made his recommendation before I even had a chance to write a statement, let alone document the misrepresentations. In regard to respect for consensus building, look how hard I tried in this thread to build consensus regarding the science paragraph in the lead. I had tentative consensus among four editors, including Will. Fladrif kept objecting but wouldn't say specifically what he didn't like. Then Doc came in after a months-long absence from the article and, in my view, completely took over the process and subverted my effort at consensus building. TimidGuy (talk)

Regarding the specific diffs. I made a single revert to the version that had corrected some of Doc's misrepresentations. The second diff shows my addition of sourced, relevant material. The third shows a deletion of a source that Doc had misrepresented. Doc quoted statements from the source that were directly about the four randomized controlled trials that were examined in the review. None of those four studies was on TM. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am more than happy to address Timid's point as I have on the talk page for the article. Let me provide the exact text supporting the passage:

Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education. <ref>{{cite book|author=Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP.|url= http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf|title= Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research|publisher= ]|page=4|date=June 2007 |quote=A few studies of overall poor methodological quality were available for each comparison in the meta-analyses, most of which reported nonsignificant results. TM® had no advantage over health education to improve measures of systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients}}</ref> <ref name=Cochrane10>{{cite journal |author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Ngamjarus C, Witoonchart C, Piyavhatkul N |title=Meditation therapies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) |journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev |volume=6 |issue= |pages=CD006507 |year=2010 |pmid=20556767 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD006507.pub2 |url= |quote =For this study there was no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the drug therapy group on the teacher rating ADHD scale (MD -2.72, 95% CI -8.49 to 3.05, 15 patients). Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the standard therapy group on the teacher rating ADHD scale (MD -0.52, 95% CI -5.88 to 4.84, 17 patients). There was also no statistically significant difference between the meditation therapy group and the standard therapy group in the distraction test (MD -8.34, 95% CI -107.05 to 90.37, 17 patients).}}</ref> <ref name=Cochrane06>{{cite journal|author=Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M |title=Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders |journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |volume=|issue=1 |pages=CD004998 |year=2006 |pmid=16437509 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2 |ref=harv| quote=The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety}}</ref>

So the executive summary support the comparison to health education. The 2006 Cochrane paper supports the comparison to relaxation. And the 2010 Cochrane paper come to similar conclusion for ADHD not finding evidence of effectiveness. Progressive muscle relaxation is not the same as relaxation. In the rest of TimidGuys response he misunderstand what a Cochrane meta analysis is. Cochrane looks at all the studies done by doing an exhaustive review of the literature. It specifically discusses a couple trials on ADHD and TM. And based on the poor data concludes that the evidence has not found benefits.

TimidGuy states above that I have many false statements and provides the dif above regarding my statement that their are only a few independent studies. Someone much smarter than me however said the same thing in 2004 Canter PH, Ernst E pmid=15480084 "All the randomized clinical trials of TM for the control of blood pressure published to date have important methodological weaknesses and are potentially biased by the affiliation of authors to the TM organization." User:TimidGuy and User:Keithbob allude to my incorrect statements and than this is the best example they can find. One in which we have a review article published by experts in the field in 2004 that supports my opinion.

TimidGuy's statement that I have made "many false statements" and Keithbob's that I have "a long history of mis-representation of sources and disruptive editing" without providing diffs is a continuation of the insults I have been subject too on the talk page. While in most situation and professions this sort of statement would mean little however in academia it is a personal attack of the greatest severity and one that should not be taken lightly. I encourage editors to look at my history ( having brought three article to GA status, having made nearly 27,000 edits on thousands of different pages, and collected a few barnstars on long the way ) which I think speaks for itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

At an appropriate future time and in an appropriate future forum I would be happy to provide the diffs you have requested but since this case was closed prematurely I see no point in posting them here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning TimidGuy

Statement by Littleolive oil

I'll be able to comment later today. In the meantime, I would request commenting admins look carefully at the diffs Doc presented, the research section of the TM article and in relation to the lead, so they are aware of the research. Further, could diffs be provided that indicate non compliant behaviour, per individual editor, such as the supposed tag team editing, so decisions are informed and fair. Thanks.(olive (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

To Future Perfect: You have acted before I and another editor even had a chance to post. This is blatantly unfair and inappropriate. Nor do you say what I have been guilty of. I am forced to wonder why the haste. Further TimidGuy has serious concerns about the edits made by the editor who then posted here. Such concerns deserve serious consideration not possible in a few hours. i hope you will reconsider your overly hasty action.(olive (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

And Cirt: You support sanctions on an editor before that editor has even had a chance to speak, is that right?(olive (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Comments by others about the request concerning Littleolive oil

Statement by Edith Sirius Lee

I also did not have the time to respond here, partially because at about the same time that Doc James made his arb request, there were a large amount of text added by Fladrif and Will BeBack in the Talk page, which I felt had to be answered quickly. There were enough added that I am not yet done. Just quickly here, my understanding is that TimidGuy is accused to have rejected some Rfc comments based on the fact that the external editors were misinformed. May I add that he has done so while being willing to discuss the issue in good faith with others. I don't think he meant to reject any comment, but only wanted to put them in the context of the actual content of sources and of the the policy. As far as the accusation of edit warring is concerned, Doc James seems to suggest that we should not edit the paragraph on Research in the lead because two outside comments say that his version in the Rfc was good (or better than the only other one). I don't understand that argument. Even if these two comments were well informed, which I believe was not the case, the paragraph can still be improved. The Rfc was presented as a vote between two paragraphs, but there is no guarantee that the best paragraph was one of these two. Also, if we look at the Rfc or Noticeboard, we can see that some external editors progressively changed their position as they received more information. It did not seem to me that a definitive conclusion was reached. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record: ESL made this comment before you went to their talk pages and asked both editors who commented on the RfC to clarify their positions . So Edith made his/her comment based on what was in the discussion at that time. The comment you cite was only available later after Edith had commented. I don't find your comment a particularly accurate betrayal of what happened.(olive (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Comments by others about the request concerning Edith Sirius Lee

Prior to registering a username, ESL also posted fairly extensively for ~10 days as

It has been suggested that ESL is not a new editor, given a level of familiarity with Misplaced Pages policies that is atypical of new editors. I genuinely think that ESL is not a sock of one of the editors who were parties to the TM ArbCom case, solely on the basis of the occasional odd sentence structure or choice of vocabulary, suggesting to me that English, or at least standard American/Canadian/British English, may not be ESL's first language. Whether or not that perception is accurate, ESL was advised, prior to the edits Doc has listed, and in connection with other problematic edits, including an earlier reversion of sourced material which Doc has not listed , that the TM ArbCom decision's discretionary sanctions apply to all editors, not just editors who were parties to the case at the time. Fladrif (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I must say I am quite dismayed at the 'rush to judgement' type comment that was posted by Fut Perf six hours after the case was opened. It was posted before any of the defendants had made any statements and it makes many sweeping generalizations that, in my opinion, are not accurate. Anyone who takes the time to examine the diffs and the talk page threads and the edit history's of the accused editors, and their accuser, will see that DocJames has a long history of mis-representation of sources and disruptive editing. As for COI accusations, this has long been used as an intimidation stick by some editors and accusations of COI and POV pushing were levied against parties on both sides of the fence on the recent TM ArbCom but there were no findings, at that time, against any party on either side. Our job now is look to look at recent edits since the decisions on June 4, 2010 and determine who is violating the ArbCom decision. Is it the accused or the accuser?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with ESL's comment "It did not seem to me that a definitive conclusion was reached." I also felt that no conclusion or agreement had been reached and the discussion was ongoing. --BwB (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning TimidGuy, Littleolive oil, and Edith Sirius Lee

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

I agree that some of the behaviour described above is problematic. What I see on Talk:Transcendental Meditation is a persistent effort, mostly by TimidGuy, to block consensus by an endless row of objections of wikilawyering and nitpicking nature, aimed at deemphasizing the findings of studies critical of TM. Many of these objections, mostly about the correctness of summaries of the research literature proposed by other editors, appear to be patently without merit. Taken in isolation, such objections would probably count as normal good-faith content disagreements, but in the larger picture and given their constant, long-time effect of blocking effective consensus-building, they take on the character of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption, especially as he and the other editors who support his viewpoint are refusing to listen to independent outside input, which was successfully elicited by the RFC.

There is also evident tag-team revert warring. Moreover, Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) is yet another single-purpose agenda account that suddenly appeared after the conclusion of the Arbcom case. In this topic domain, which has been plagued by single purpose editors and COI problems, this is in itself highly problematic.

I therefore propose to enact the following sanctions:

TimidGuy (talk · contribs) to be topic-banned from TM-related articles and discussion for a short-to-medium period, let's say 2 months, to give the discussions a bit of breathing space.
independent of this, all three editors (TimidGuy, Littleolive and Edith Sirius Lee), to be placed on a collective 1RR limitation to stop tag-team reverts (that is, these three editors together are not allowed to revert more than once per 24hrs).

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the situation further, I have become even more convinced that the above measures are needed. I am therefore now imposing the measures as outlined above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above Arbitration Enforcement enacted here by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by the drafting arbitrator and subsequent discussion archived. Sanctioned editors should use the appeals procedure ({{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} if on a noticeboard) to contest any flaws in the decision rather than continue to discuss them here. Sandstein 20:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment by the drafting arbitrator: Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of the decision, the applicable section of the discretionary sanctions says: Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct. The warning and feedback step seems to have been omitted. Roger Davies 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC) I'll comment here since no other location seems suitable after the request was closed. I filed an AE request regarding TimidGuy, and Stifle agreed that a warning should be given. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#TimidGuy I don't know if it was, but TG edited that request subsequently so he would have seen that determination. I warned Olive here: and DocJames warned her here: . DocJames warned Edith Sirius Lee here: . (Note that that user insists that the sanctions do not apply to her). Will Beback talk 23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC) The "warning first" language was drafted by Newyorkbrad for the specific purpose of avoiding "...but I didn't know I was getting myself into trouble" types of situation and so it's probably best if diffs for them are clearly provided in applications for enforcement. Roger Davies 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC) While we have your attention, could you clarify two points? First, is the RFAR remedy All parties instructed intended to be enforceable? I've gotten feedback to the effect that some editors think there were no instructions to change behavior. Second, do the remedies apply to new (or returning) editors like user:Edith Sirius Lee? Will Beback talk 03:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, of course they're intended to be enforceable. The focus though is firmly on fresh and persistent misconduct rather than on historic stuff, under which we drew a line. To this end, the sanctions give uninvolved administrators broad discretion to address clear examples of misconduct which (i) arise after the case closed, (ii) persist after a warning specific to the alleged misbehaviour has been issued and (iii) are sufficiently serious in themselves in the opinion of the enforcing administrator to require sanctions. They apply equally to established, returning and new editors and reflect the committee's expectation of good behaviour from all people working within the topic. Roger Davies 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for those clarifications. Will Beback talk 06:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I'll be posting later today, I've had the flu. I'm somewhat concerned with haste around here so wanted to make that known. Seems like we might need a new policy, WP:Undue Haste.(olive (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)_ Re this:. TG was NOT warned. That particular AE report was never finished and was apparently aborted in favor of the newer, larger scope AE involving two additional editors, look at the “result” section concerning TG: . There’s no consensus for even warning, TG or that he even did anything wrong. There’s nothing final there, and it doesn’t look like consensus to me. Then try to find any ‘warning’ on TG’s talk page, it doesn’t exist. This was not a ‘warning’ that meets the TM ArbCom decision on how and when to apply discretionary sanctions .  While WBB mentions that Stifle agreed, he conveniently left out that Sandstein disagreed., and even proposed closing it as “non-actionable” There was no consensus for a warning or that TG even did anything wrong in the first place.   As for my ‘warning’ by WBB, First, is a warning by a highly involved party like Will Beback adequate so that immediate sanctions are applied; secondly, in WBB’s ‘warning” he makes it very clear that this is not an ‘official’ warning. “Consider this an informal warning not to delete material peremptorily again. If there are repetitions I will request an official warning and enforcement” How does this fulfill ArbCom’s requirements for a warning prior to sanctions? It does not.   And prominently with my sanction, WBB’s ‘warning’ had nothing to do with what I was sanctioned for, completely different situation and one that is false. My restriction was based on “editng warring”, reverting against consensus when there was no consenus and the RfC in the sitauion had not been closed, and there was no edit warring. I tell the editor who objected to my revert that I will only revert once. How can that be edit warring?   Doc James warning was also false. He moved a fair amount of content which I move back into place asking him to discuss first. . Then he used that situation to create a warning. With Edith Seruis Lee, an involved editor gave a ‘warning’, which I think is insufficient. An uninvolved admin should have given a warning and instructions  And the sanction limiting Edith to 1RR doesn’t match the so-called ‘warning” at all:    There were no adequate warnings or explanation given to any of the three editors before the sanctions were put into place. The sanctions need to be lifted, and if 1RR is imposed, it should be on all editors editing TM articles, not just this select few. And as an added concern, two of the three editors were never even allowed to speak before the sanctions were applied. While this may not be a necessity, allowing people to speak and defend themselves is a respectful and fair thing to do. A Misplaced Pages were people are not treated faily and resepctfully is a very poor Misplaced Pages.(olive (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)) Clarification:Stifle agreed with AE #2, Sandstein commented on the TG AE. FYI, WP:AE does not operate by consensus and this page isn't even required for enforcement. Any uninvolved admin may enforce the ArbCom's decision. Will Beback talk 18:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Since it seems like we are continuing here. I had added this to the above ArbCom request not realizing I shouldn't once it is closed. Edith claimed a user is changing his mind here I posted on the three users talk page requesting clarification and this users responded here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC) No, we're not continuing here. If the AE decision is flawed in some way, it can be appealed as provided for in the case's discretionary sanctions remedy. This discussion lacks the structure and notifications needed for an appeal and does not seem to be going anywhere, so I'm closing it. Sandstein 20:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by the drafting arbitrator and subsequent discussion archived. Sanctioned editors should use the appeals procedure ({{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} if on a noticeboard) to contest any flaws in the decision rather than continue to discuss them here. Sandstein 20:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment by the drafting arbitrator: Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of the decision, the applicable section of the discretionary sanctions says:
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.
The warning and feedback step seems to have been omitted. Roger Davies 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'll comment here since no other location seems suitable after the request was closed. I filed an AE request regarding TimidGuy, and Stifle agreed that a warning should be given. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#TimidGuy I don't know if it was, but TG edited that request subsequently so he would have seen that determination. I warned Olive here: and DocJames warned her here: . DocJames warned Edith Sirius Lee here: . (Note that that user insists that the sanctions do not apply to her). Will Beback talk 23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  - The "warning first" language was drafted by Newyorkbrad for the specific purpose of avoiding "...but I didn't know I was getting myself into trouble" types of situation and so it's probably best if diffs for them are clearly provided in applications for enforcement. Roger Davies 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    - While we have your attention, could you clarify two points? First, is the RFAR remedy All parties instructed intended to be enforceable? I've gotten feedback to the effect that some editors think there were no instructions to change behavior. Second, do the remedies apply to new (or returning) editors like user:Edith Sirius Lee? Will Beback talk 03:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      - Yes, of course they're intended to be enforceable. The focus though is firmly on fresh and persistent misconduct rather than on historic stuff, under which we drew a line. To this end, the sanctions give uninvolved administrators broad discretion to address clear examples of misconduct which (i) arise after the case closed, (ii) persist after a warning specific to the alleged misbehaviour has been issued and (iii) are sufficiently serious in themselves in the opinion of the enforcing administrator to require sanctions.
        They apply equally to established, returning and new editors and reflect the committee's expectation of good behaviour from all people working within the topic. Roger Davies 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
        Thanks for those clarifications. Will Beback talk 06:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be posting later today, I've had the flu. I'm somewhat concerned with haste around here so wanted to make that known. Seems like we might need a new policy, WP:Undue Haste.(olive (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)_

Re this:. TG was NOT warned. That particular AE report was never finished and was apparently aborted in favor of the newer, larger scope AE involving two additional editors, look at the “result” section concerning TG: . There’s no consensus for even warning, TG or that he even did anything wrong. There’s nothing final there, and it doesn’t look like consensus to me. Then try to find any ‘warning’ on TG’s talk page, it doesn’t exist. This was not a ‘warning’ that meets the TM ArbCom decision on how and when to apply discretionary sanctions .  While WBB mentions that Stifle agreed, he conveniently left out that Sandstein disagreed., and even proposed closing it as “non-actionable” There was no consensus for a warning or that TG even did anything wrong in the first place.  

As for my ‘warning’ by WBB, First, is a warning by a highly involved party like Will Beback adequate so that immediate sanctions are applied; secondly, in WBB’s ‘warning” he makes it very clear that this is not an ‘official’ warning. “Consider this an informal warning not to delete material peremptorily again. If there are repetitions I will request an official warning and enforcement” How does this fulfill ArbCom’s requirements for a warning prior to sanctions? It does not.   And prominently with my sanction, WBB’s ‘warning’ had nothing to do with what I was sanctioned for, completely different situation and one that is false. My restriction was based on “editng warring”, reverting against consensus when there was no consenus and the RfC in the sitauion had not been closed, and there was no edit warring. I tell the editor who objected to my revert that I will only revert once. How can that be edit warring?   Doc James warning was also false. He moved a fair amount of content which I move back into place asking him to discuss first. . Then he used that situation to create a warning.

With Edith Seruis Lee, an involved editor gave a ‘warning’, which I think is insufficient. An uninvolved admin should have given a warning and instructions  And the sanction limiting Edith to 1RR doesn’t match the so-called ‘warning” at all:   

There were no adequate warnings or explanation given to any of the three editors before the sanctions were put into place. The sanctions need to be lifted, and if 1RR is imposed, it should be on all editors editing TM articles, not just this select few.

And as an added concern, two of the three editors were never even allowed to speak before the sanctions were applied. While this may not be a necessity, allowing people to speak and defend themselves is a respectful and fair thing to do. A Misplaced Pages were people are not treated faily and resepctfully is a very poor Misplaced Pages.(olive (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)) Clarification:Stifle agreed with AE #2, Sandstein commented on the TG AE.

FYI, WP:AE does not operate by consensus and this page isn't even required for enforcement. Any uninvolved admin may enforce the ArbCom's decision. Will Beback talk 18:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems like we are continuing here. I had added this to the above ArbCom request not realizing I shouldn't once it is closed. Edith claimed a user is changing his mind here I posted on the three users talk page requesting clarification and this users responded here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we're not continuing here. If the AE decision is flawed in some way, it can be appealed as provided for in the case's discretionary sanctions remedy. This discussion lacks the structure and notifications needed for an appeal and does not seem to be going anywhere, so I'm closing it. Sandstein 20:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Forsts23

First topic-banned, then blocked as a sock.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Forsts23 User requesting enforcement Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Forsts23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it this and the following 8 sets of edits added Armenian related material to the article which was then reverted by at least 5 editors until he was blocked for edit warring as above as above, etc, the rest can be seen at Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) warning by Stifle (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) He has received a 48 hour block for edit-warring. I'm not sure what is appropriate here, but given his other edits last month, after the warning, at Urartu, ie 8 edits similar to adding a history of Armenia template, I think a block extension is warranted. As he is blocked, someone will have to add any comments from his talk page here. Additional comments by editor filing complaint <Your text> Directly after his block expired he went back to Mitanni (where he'd been blocked for edit-warring) with and (which also so far as I can tell, completely fail WP:EL}. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Forsts23 Statement by Forsts23 Comments by others about the request concerning Forsts23 The edits which Forsts23 has been reverting have been primarily mine. What particularly concerns me about his behavior is that six days before I actually began editing Mitanni, I warned him here that the text in question was cited with what is clearly not a reliable source. It seems Forsts could not find any time in six days to even glance at WP:RS, but somehow manages to revert any edits he doesn't like within minutes. If Forsts wishes to use reverts as a substitute for discussion, clearly he needs a revert probation. Thanatosimii (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Forsts23 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This a copy and paste of the account's last 20 edits: (del/undel) 05:10, 10 August 2010 (diff \| hist) m Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 378126235 by Seb az86556 (talk)) (del/undel) 04:48, 10 August 2010 (diff \| hist) Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 378125525 by Seb az86556 (talk) look at my edits before reverting, he is referring to the Eupolemus section) (del/undel) 04:45, 10 August 2010 (diff \| hist) Mitanni ‎ (→Legacy) (del/undel) 04:44, 10 August 2010 (diff \| hist) m Mitanni ‎ (del/undel) 23:52, 9 August 2010 (diff \| hist) Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 378086779 by Thanatosimii (talk) please discuss in the section I mentioned, and dont remove the ref'd materials) (del/undel) 20:25, 9 August 2010 (diff \| hist) m Mitanni ‎ (m) (del/undel) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (diff \| hist) Mitanni ‎ (→External links: added further references see my discussions with User Paul_Barlow and User Til on the references. added Henry Hall ref) (del/undel) 19:30, 9 August 2010 (diff \| hist) m Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 378047059 by Thanatosimii (talk) see talk page, stop removing info from the page) (del/undel) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (diff \| hist) m Mitanni ‎ (rv removals of material) (del/undel) 17:09, 9 August 2010 (diff \| hist) m Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 377865860 by Thanatosimii (talk) restored deleted reference, and reason i made is clear) (del/undel) 16:16, 28 July 2010 (diff \| hist) Mitanni ‎ (found a Eupolemus info, close enough. Notice you wrote here "may" correspond, its not saying "for sure") (del/undel) 11:19, 27 July 2010 (diff \| hist) m Mitanni ‎ (the response above your last comments, and this was always put here by you even, and its not a problem on the page) (del/undel) 10:41, 27 July 2010 (diff \| hist) m Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 375703394 by Dbachmann (talk) Dougweller's response) (del/undel) 10:39, 27 July 2010 (diff \| hist) Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 375702218 by Dbachmann (talk) there was no discussion regarding this also with user Aregakn , who is still waiting) (del/undel) 04:48, 27 July 2010 (diff \| hist) Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 375676680 by Nakh (talk) rv, discuss with Kentronhayastan first) (del/undel) 05:06, 24 July 2010 (diff \| hist) Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 375158645 by Nakh (talk) discuss with KentronHayastan first before making changes) (del/undel) 22:40, 23 July 2010 (diff \| hist) m Urartu ‎ (you are mistaking yourself with User KentronHayastan, he is the one that put "more than enough" info regarding this, and the discussion 'is' related to this) (del/undel) 22:43, 22 July 2010 (diff \| hist) m Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 374928610 by Dbachmann (talk) please use talk page) (del/undel) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (diff \| hist) Urartu ‎ (rv, there is no source for image, and there is no vandalism) (del/undel) 05:24, 21 July 2010 (diff \| hist) Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 374616543 by Nakh (talk) rv, discuss in talk page first, and give a proper source for the crosses, Christian era crosses) Clearly there is a serious problem here, so an editing restriction, such as a 1RR/week, or a temporary topic ban, could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Agree with a strict revert limitation or downright topic-ban. I was considering a revert limitation linked with enforced talk page participation and additional slow-down waiting time (Something like: 1RR/48hrs, with the additional condition that before any revert, the user must explain their intention with a polite note on talk and then wait at least such-and-such a period, let's say, 4hrs, between his talk page explanation and the actual revert, to allow others to comment.) But I'm not sure whether this is the type of user who could actually profit and learn from such a rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC) I would tend towards 1RR/48hrs with a mandatory discussion afterwards. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Looking at the recent reverting since the block, I am not certain 1R/48 is enough. The current revert-warring is slow, but recalcitrant, persistent, and with no regard to consensus or reasonable considerations of article quality . Forced talkpage participation won't help much either: he is participating on talk, but won't adhere to consensus anyway. So, I am now going for a medium term topic-ban, 4 months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

First topic-banned, then blocked as a sock.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Forsts23

User requesting enforcement: Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Forsts23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision.

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

this and the following 8 sets of edits added Armenian related material to the article which was then reverted by at least 5 editors until he was blocked for edit warring

as above

as above, etc, the rest can be seen at

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

warning by Stifle (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): He has received a 48 hour block for edit-warring. I'm not sure what is appropriate here, but given his other edits last month, after the warning, at Urartu, ie 8 edits similar to adding a history of Armenia template, I think a block extension is warranted. As he is blocked, someone will have to add any comments from his talk page here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: <Your text>

Directly after his block expired he went back to Mitanni (where he'd been blocked for edit-warring) with and (which also so far as I can tell, completely fail WP:EL}. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Forsts23

Statement by Forsts23

Comments by others about the request concerning Forsts23

The edits which Forsts23 has been reverting have been primarily mine. What particularly concerns me about his behavior is that six days before I actually began editing Mitanni, I warned him here that the text in question was cited with what is clearly not a reliable source. It seems Forsts could not find any time in six days to even glance at WP:RS, but somehow manages to revert any edits he doesn't like within minutes. If Forsts wishes to use reverts as a substitute for discussion, clearly he needs a revert probation. Thanatosimii (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Forsts23

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

This a copy and paste of the account's last 20 edits:

(del/undel) 05:10, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 378126235 by Seb az86556 (talk))
(del/undel) 04:48, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 378125525 by Seb az86556 (talk) look at my edits before reverting, he is referring to the Eupolemus section)
(del/undel) 04:45, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) Mitanni ‎ (→Legacy)
(del/undel) 04:44, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎
(del/undel) 23:52, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 378086779 by Thanatosimii (talk) please discuss in the section I mentioned, and dont remove the ref'd materials)
(del/undel) 20:25, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (m)
(del/undel) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) Mitanni ‎ (→External links: added further references see my discussions with User Paul_Barlow and User Til on the references. added Henry Hall ref)
(del/undel) 19:30, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 378047059 by Thanatosimii (talk) see talk page, stop removing info from the page)
(del/undel) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (rv removals of material)
(del/undel) 17:09, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 377865860 by Thanatosimii (talk) restored deleted reference, and reason i made is clear)
(del/undel) 16:16, 28 July 2010 (diff | hist) Mitanni ‎ (found a Eupolemus info, close enough. Notice you wrote here "may" correspond, its not saying "for sure")
(del/undel) 11:19, 27 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (the response above your last comments, and this was always put here by you even, and its not a problem on the page)
(del/undel) 10:41, 27 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Mitanni ‎ (Undid revision 375703394 by Dbachmann (talk) Dougweller's response)
(del/undel) 10:39, 27 July 2010 (diff | hist) Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 375702218 by Dbachmann (talk) there was no discussion regarding this also with user Aregakn , who is still waiting)
(del/undel) 04:48, 27 July 2010 (diff | hist) Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 375676680 by Nakh (talk) rv, discuss with Kentronhayastan first)
(del/undel) 05:06, 24 July 2010 (diff | hist) Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 375158645 by Nakh (talk) discuss with KentronHayastan first before making changes)
(del/undel) 22:40, 23 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Urartu ‎ (you are mistaking yourself with User KentronHayastan, he is the one that put "more than enough" info regarding this, and the discussion 'is' related to this)
(del/undel) 22:43, 22 July 2010 (diff | hist) m Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 374928610 by Dbachmann (talk) please use talk page)
(del/undel) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (diff | hist) Urartu ‎ (rv, there is no source for image, and there is no vandalism)
(del/undel) 05:24, 21 July 2010 (diff | hist) Urartu ‎ (Undid revision 374616543 by Nakh (talk) rv, discuss in talk page first, and give a proper source for the crosses, Christian era crosses)

Clearly there is a serious problem here, so an editing restriction, such as a 1RR/week, or a temporary topic ban, could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with a strict revert limitation or downright topic-ban. I was considering a revert limitation linked with enforced talk page participation and additional slow-down waiting time (Something like: 1RR/48hrs, with the additional condition that before any revert, the user must explain their intention with a polite note on talk and then wait at least such-and-such a period, let's say, 4hrs, between his talk page explanation and the actual revert, to allow others to comment.) But I'm not sure whether this is the type of user who could actually profit and learn from such a rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would tend towards 1RR/48hrs with a mandatory discussion afterwards. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the recent reverting since the block, I am not certain 1R/48 is enough. The current revert-warring is slow, but recalcitrant, persistent, and with no regard to consensus or reasonable considerations of article quality . Forced talkpage participation won't help much either: he is participating on talk, but won't adhere to consensus anyway. So, I am now going for a medium term topic-ban, 4 months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JRHammond

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

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

Appealing user: JRHammond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – JRHammond (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed: 1 week block, see above notification of block by WGFinley.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: I wasn't notified but learned of the appeal here, seems to be a simple slip by the editor who copied over as this editor is blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JRHammond

The situation is simple, and grossly mischaracterized by WGFinley, who has previously blocked me on similarly spurious pretexts (you will observe the fact that I successfully had that block reversed because of its spurious nature). A section of the Six Day War article stated that the French version of UN resolution 242 is not authoritative, that only the English version of the text is legally valid. This is false. So I corrected the article to note that the French version is equally authoritative as the English. I provided a source, to the deliberations on 242 just prior to its passage by the UN Security Council, in which the French delegate observes this fact, that the French version is equally authoritative. I also began a new section on the talk page to address this issue and provide an extensive explanation for my edit, contrary to WGFinley's suggestion that I've refused to try to work with others to build consensus on the Talk page.

Following that, somebody reverted that edit with the reason provided in the edit summary being that this source was not good enough to demonstrate that the French text is legally authoritative. I again returned to the Talk page, observed that no source was provided for the (false) assertion that the French text was not authoritative, and that thus a double-standard was being applied. Nevertheless, I did not simply revert the revert to restore my previous fix. Rather, I made an enormous effort to find authoritative sources to satisfy the stated objection to my edit. Having done so, I again corrected the unsourced and false assertion to the contrary, this time, to satisfy the objection, including those additional sources.

An anonymous editor (IP only) then reverted my fix, with the edit summary stating "revert 1RR violation". (1) I did not "revert" my edit. I took the objection to my original edit into consideration and provided numerous additional sources. (2) A non-admin has no legitimate authority to revert my fix under the guise of enforcing Misplaced Pages policy. That is not a legitimate reason to revert my fix, or a legitimate objection based on the merit/demerit of the edit itself. (3) No further discussion was made by this editor on the talk page, despite my creation of a new discussion extensively explaining my edit and offering sources. There was no explanation made for this revert on Talk, and no objection raised, such as with regard to my additional sources. Given these facts, it seemed reasonable to me to re-implement my fix, in order to correct a factual error and thus to improve the article, and I did so.

WP:3RR clearly states that "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." The spirit of that principle must clearly also apply to enforcement of the 1RR rule in effect on the Six Day War article, and I explicitly made this point to WGFinley prior to this whole episode, when I agreed with his interpretation of how 1RR should be enforced. WGFinley did not object to the principle that what is important to enforce is the spirit and not the letter of the policy, that leeway should be granted to editors who make good faith edits to improve the article. Yet WGFinley did NOT take into consideration, even in the least bit, the actual merits/demerits of my edit, when he blocked me, as demonstrated by the fact that he reverted my fix back to the version that contains a false and unsourced statement.

It comes down to a simple question: Which edit was more appropriate and helped to improve the article? Whose actions here demonstrate a good faith effort to have this article read fairly and accurately?:

(a) My edit: "However, the definite article is included in the French text of the resolution ("des territoires occupés"), which is equally authoritative as the English text." Fully footnoted with numerous authoritative sources.

b) WGFinley's revert of my edit back to: "The word the is present in other (notably French, Spanish and Russian) versions, but according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document, which in this case was English." Not only completely unsourced, but demonstrably false.

My good faith efforts speak for themselves, as do my legitimate and reasonable edits.

Addendum Per JRHammond's Talk Page

I don't have a voice elsewhere, as I'm currently blocked, but I would observe that WGFinley is violating his own rule and reverting an edit multiple times: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Six-Day_War&diff=379326420&oldid=379314087 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Six-Day_War&diff=379402012&oldid=379397740

He's indicated he are reverting because people are violating 1RR. The purpose of the rules is to create a civil and productive environment in which editors can work on improving articles. WGFinley is enforcing rules for enforcing rules sake, with total disregard for the spirit of those rules and the merits of edits being made. This is more counterproductive than helpful.

He is undoing an edit that improves the article by stating a fact that is well sourced to definitive authoritative sources in favor of an edit that consists of an unsourced claim that is demonstrably false.

The merit of an edit must be taken into account. 1RR must follow the basic policy of 3RR, which clearly states that editors who revert to maintain the quality of an article will be given leeway. Furthermore, it states explicitly that reverting unsourced material does not count as a violation of the rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule

The 3RR policy on giving leeway to editors who maintain or improve the quality of an article states this with regard to featured article. But the principle applies to all articles. WP:IAR states: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it.” http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:IAR

The 3RR policy exception with reverting unsourced material is with regard to biographical material, but, again, the principle applies to all material. According to WP:BLP: “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

But does not only apply to biographical information. “Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information”. “It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.” This is “particularly true of negative information about living persons”, but “is true of all information”. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

If anyone thinks that it is somehow helpful towards the goal of maintaining or improving the quality of articles to revert an edit inserting a well-sourced factual statement back to an unsourced demonstrably false statement, I would welcome an explanation of how that could be possible, because I come to the opposite conclusion. JRHammond (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sandstein stated: JRHammond's appeal addresses only the circumstances that led to the ban, but these do not matter here: since he appeals the block, not the ban, the only proper subject of discussion is whether the ban was indeed violated and that violation properly sanctioned.

This is a fallacious argument. It follows that if the ban was wrongful and illegitimate, and therefore null and void, then therefore so was the block that followed, and thus no violation occurred. JRHammond (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by WGFinley

I will be brief because the facts here are clear. I will be happy to provide further detail if needed. I feel brevity is needed for a talk page that went over 330k for just a few days and makes diffs take very long to load.

Six-Day War is subject to WP:GS, all editors there have been notified multiple times and this editor has been notified
I put a modified 1RR restriction into effect because of the constant edit warring on this article. and logged it. Previous attempts using Pending Changes had failed.
I clarified the nature of the 1RR and this editor even noted he agreed with my interpretation, in it he indicates he feels there should be exceptions.
This editor put content previously discussed and objected to on the talk page into the article., content that was previously reverted and he was warned there were objections to and no consensus on .
He was reverted by another editor for violation of the 1RR restriction.
I put this editor on an article-ban for 48 hours for violating the 1RR restriction and logged it.
Despite being article-banned he edited the article putting back in this same material..

As you can see this editor makes multiple attempts to bring admins into the debate on the merits of his material, I have consistently refused and remained uninvolved in this article. This action has nothing to do with the merits of the material. There's no consensus for the changes he wanted to make, he has shown he will ignore restrictions to continue to put material in that is disputed and I had no choice left but to block him. --WGFinley (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mbz1

The user was notified that he was made the subject of 48 hours ban for the article. Versus appealing the ban the user violated it. As I was told the bans are in effect until expired or successfully appealed. The diff I linked to above was a clear cut violation of the current and still in effect ban. The appeal should be declined.

On a side note: the user is a single article account, who has been pushing his POV ever since he came to Misplaced Pages. IMO the user's topic ban for Six Days War should be extended to indefinite, and lifted, when the user proves he could make positive contributions in other topics. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 has made an attempt at possibly outing an editor, perhaps that should be dealt with. RomaC 14:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The so called "outing comment" was copied from the user's talk page. It has been present there for quite some time. So there was absolutely no outing here, but as user:Tariqabjotu put it while removing my comment "irrelevant -- please don't expose or use people's off-wiki identities as evidence: people are free to express whatever views off-wiki; what's important is if/whether/how that effects on-wiki behavior" Well, I asked the admin for clarification on his removal, and he responded. I still believe I've done nothing wrong by adding the comment, and definitely there was no outing ,but if it is against any other policy, I am sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Unomi

Can someone point me to where this particular edit was argued against? I can only seem to find the arguments for inclusion. Unomi (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter now, if the 48 topic ban was issued correctly, and if there was 1RR violation. What matters that the ban was issued, and it was violated.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it matters to me because my edit was just reverted. Unomi (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment There have been no arguments presented against the proposed edit since the 15th - and what seems to be ample evidence against the relevance / weight of the arguments presented at that time. Could someone please point to how this can get resolved? Unomi (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JRHammond

Here are the two diffs being discussed: the earlier change here and the later change here. This seems to me to be an incontestable violation of 1RR. If they differ, it is only in trivialities: the diffs are substantially identical. Nandesuka (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Any AE request that begins with explaining why a particular person is correct in a content dispute should be outright dismissed. But, were I to humor JRHammond for a moment, I should mention that the block is not just for a 1RR violation -- it was for a violation of an article ban, something which is quite obvious. It seems JRHammond might have a problem with the article ban, but the appropriate solution to that would have been to appeal the ban, not violate it, and then appeal the block. -- tariqabjotu 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu you are an admin, why are you commenting here? You are heavily involved in the I/P topic area and I recall several editors recently asking you to stay out of such discussions. RomaC 15:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi RomaC, forgive me for saying this, but just about every admin who has enforced ArbCom decisions has been asked to stay out of such discussions. I've been asked for all sorts of reasons, none of which come close to meeting the requirement of WP:UNINVOLVED. Tariqabjotu has been an admin enforcing WP:ARBPIA decisions since the very beginning, and in this context, I think you should substantiate your comments with diffs. PhilKnight (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline appeal. The block is the correct reaction to a clear-cut violation of an article ban. It is remarkably long, but the length is within admin discretion and is at any rate not being contested here. As Tariqabjotu correctly explains, JRHammond's appeal addresses only the circumstances that led to the ban, but these do not matter here: since he appeals the block, not the ban, the only proper subject of discussion is whether the ban was indeed violated and that violation properly sanctioned. If JRHammond disagrees with the ban, he should have appealed the ban instead of violating it. Sandstein 07:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by JRHammond

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

Looks like the discussion has died. Barring objections from uninvolved admins, I'm going to call this appeal declined. There's no "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to overturn the block; if anything, the consensus is to the contrary. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:No More Mr Nice Guy and User:Jiujitsuguy

Request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy

User requesting enforcement: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions,

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

On 16th August I removed synagogues in the Palestinian territories and in Syria from the Oldest synagogues in Israel article, since these two synagogues weren't in Israel:

The day after on the 17th, No More Mr Nice Guy shows up and re ads these synagogues in the Palestinian territories and in Syria to the article:and then says at the talkpage that ""Israel" in this context doesn't necessarily mean the modern state of Israel".... "Perhaps a name change for the article is in order"

Now this looks like a normal content dispute, and that's also what I thought until a very interesting blog was revealed to me yesterday.

In that blog several of my edits are brought up.

In one of the posts at this blog, the blogger reveals that he is a Misplaced Pages user and also says: "So, I have started this blog to publish the often hidden problems of the world’s free online encyclopedia. I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site."

I looked around at this "blog" and I noticed that in one of the posts published 1 day before No More Mr Nice Guy performed his edit, the blogger said about my Misplaced Pages edit: "The editor removed two synagogues, the one at Gamla and the one at Qumran" .... "when these ancient synagogues were built, both Qumran and Gamla were part of an the ancient Kingdom of Israel".... "It is probably best resolved by renaming the section"

This edit that the blogger advocates, and his suggestion for a rename, and his argument for what "Israel" means in this context, is the exact same edit that one day after the blog post was posted, No More Mr Nice Guy showed up and performed at that article and also suggested a rename at the talkpage and used similar argument for the meaning of "Israel" in this context.

Another user, Jiujitsuguy, also showed up to the article one day after the blog post:

Notice that before all of this happened, neither No More Mr Nice Guy or Jiujitsuguy had made any edits at this article, and both of them just "showed up" there the day after the blog post. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Topic ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy

Not sure what I'm being accused of here. He removed relevant sourced (from two different RS) material. I restored it and discussed the issue on the talk page.
I submit that this is a frivolous report, and considering it's not the first one from SD, a cooling off period for him might be in order. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I initially wasn’t even going to respond to this horse shit but against my better judgment, I will. SupremeD made some contentious edits and removed well-sourced information. I reverted him/her. Looks like SupremeD has lots of spare time on his/her hands conjuring up wild conspiracy theories. It’s a shame that I have to waste time dealing with this nonsense. I’m pretty sure that, as with all Israeli-Arab enforcement actions, partisan battle lines will be drawn with the pro-Arab and anti-Western contingent calling for our heads so that the playing field can be their exclusive domain. Nableezy will of course lead the charge. Gotta love Misplaced Pages.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So if I understand the accusation correctly, a blog created in August 2010 recruited me in December 2008 for the purpose of editing in a particular way? Either that or I run that blog? I deny both accusations. Both are completely without basis. I think someone should have a talk with SD (at the very least) about what kind of evidence should be brought forth when reporting other editors. Again, this is not the first time he has filed such a frivolous report. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What you just said doesn't make any sense. An editor can get involved in off-wiki canvassing/meatpuppetry after creating a Misplaced Pages account. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy

I'm not sure what the accusation is here either. That the two editors read a blog post and acted upon it? First, there's no evidence of that. It's possible that happened, but it's also possible it didn't; he could have, for example, simply been looking at your contributions to see what you have done, which, while annoying, is far from being involved in an army of POV editors. So, without being able to do anything about that, as, again, there is no evidence of it, we only have their on-wiki activities. The hard evidence is a revert or two from three days ago. Not a big deal, so I'm suggesting this be declined. I'd like to know who this blogger and his followers are, but we don't, unfortunately. -- tariqabjotu 14:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
@tariqabjotu - I'm not sure how you're missing the implication that User:No More Mr Nice Guy is the blogger in question. @User:Supreme Deliciousness - Nice spot, but I think you have wayyyyy too much time on your hands to make these kinds of links. Additionally, while this kind of off-wiki collusion does certainly seem a bit decietful and conspiratorial, does it actually violate any policies? NickCT (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Im not saying that he is the blogger, but the circumstantial evidence leads me to believe that he read the blog post and acted upon it. That is participation in canvassing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

- Comment I concur with Tariq. This seems frivolous. I doubt either NMMNG or Jiujitsuguy is the author of said piece, and even if they are readers and stumbled across it, that's hardly a violation on their part. Anyone is free to surf the web and read things about Misplaced Pages and make edits based on what they read. There has been no evidence presented by any wrongdoing. Enigma 20:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe that we do have policies against acting as meat puppets, which is the basic allegation here as I read it. The fact that they echoed the same arguments and desired outcomes as the activist site, one day after the post was published, on an article they had seemingly never edited before, seems to circumstantially support the allegation. u n☯mi 15:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's relatively strong circumstantial evidence. Does WP:MEAT really apply here? I thought WP:MEAT's basic idea is "Do not recruit....your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Misplaced Pages and supporting your side of a debate". Is that happening here? The issue seems more that No More Mr Nice Guy is colluding with other editors off-wiki to push a certain POV. I don't think that that is explicity against policy. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is unambiguous proof that Jiujitsuguy has violated WP:MEAT several times, though that proof requires linking to sites which contain his real name so I cant do that here. However, if any admin is serious about enforcing that policy I would be glad to email them the information that shows Jiujitsuguy recruiting like-minded editors on various websites. nableezy - 15:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nab, could you please send the evidence you have to admin tariqabjotu? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not unless he asks me to. nableezy - 23:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the outcomes of the CAMERA arbcom case was that they explicitly wanted to be informed about such incidents, atleast that is my reading of this. u n☯mi 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the basis of this complaint. The internet is full of blogs and forums written by Misplaced Pages editors. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, unlike Wikibias, not many of them advise editors to use sockpuppets: "DO NOT get stupid, log on under a new user name at Starbucks (different IP address) and immediately enter the debate under a new identity (sockpuppet)." ← ZScarpia 00:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, similar situations have been seen as meat puppeting in the past. The point is that this very likely is off-wiki canvassing. However, I would suggest that it is difficult to distinguish an editor who just read something on the net that referred to Misplaced Pages and made an edit based on this, and another edit who regularly visits sites on which such canvassing is taking place. Also, many editors are not aware of the policy. For these reasons, I would suggest to notify the editor about the policy, adding that continued editing based on off-wiki sources that are canvassing people is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Cs32en Talk to me 16:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - The way this AE is being presented, and given the tenacious history between the editors on both sides of the filing, this AE could be taken as a violation of WP:OUTING -- or at least an attempt to silence an editor by raising the implication that they may be the person in an offsite blog. Either way, it can adversely affect the reputation of individuals involved, especially since the accused has denied being the individual in question but SD and NickCT are still trying to "tie" NMMNG to the blogger in question. This is a clear violation. --nsaum75 19:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of SD's request she is indicating that they may have fallen victim to being used as meat puppets, even if she had stated that she believed that any of the two were the authors of the activist site, there is no indication of the real world identity behind it. I see that NickCT made a comment that indicated that he read her request differently, that may be due misreading it as the blog post having been written after the arguments were presented on-wiki, I don't know, but for myself I don't see indication that SD has made such a claim. u n☯mi 19:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Outing requires information about identity. None has been presented here and the blogger is anonymous (although it seems fairly obvious who it is....I could be wrong and I don't think it's NMMNG or J). Everyone involved here is well aware of what the policies and the discretionary sanctions say. I'm not sure that anyone here really knows exactly when WP:MEAT applies and I think clarity is needed on these issues. For example, Tariq used the phrase 'army of POV editors' in his posting above. What does 'Misplaced Pages' regard as an army of POV editors and what attributes would indicate that an individual editor is a member of that set ? We already have many armies of POV editors across various topics but they're self assembling because they have common objectives. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. SD is linking NMNG's actions to the statements on the blog. Isn't he/she suggesting the blogger is infact NMNG? The blogger in questions says claims to have done some of the stuff on NMNG's edit history.

This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:OUTING because no has made an attempt to reveal a real-life identity. NickCT (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said that NMNG is the blogger. Read my post above: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. NickCT (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that this report is premature. This happening once is coincidence. It happening twice is suspicious. It happening every time for the first 100 articles posted at the blog is more than conclusive. Of course now that everyone is aware of Wikibias - there's a name that is wondefully self-descriptive - they'll find that the people they disagree with will be following the blog too.

Nableezy says he has concrete evidence which unfortunately would out someone. Approaching Arbcom with a reference to the CAMERA case and an explanation that outing would be involved in the presentation of evidence is the way to go with that. --Peter cohen (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy

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

Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely, per Nableezy's evidence. If an admin or ArbCom member wants to contest or look into this block, they are free to ask me (or, I'm sure, Nableezy) for the evidence, but it as, as he says, unambiguous that it comes from Jiujitsuguy and clearly unacceptable for someone who chooses to edit in the Israel-Palestine area. The kind of off-wiki canvassing, as well as the ethnic personal attacks, used by Jiujitsuguy also suggest he is unsuited to edit anywhere on Misplaced Pages. People have been banned for less, so I applied an indefinite block. -- tariqabjotu 01:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant remedy at WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions authorizes only "blocks of up to one year in length" (emphasis mine), so I assume that this isn't an AE block? Because otherwise it is clearly ultra vires. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)