[edit] Requests for enforcement

How to file a request (please use this format!):

Enforcement requests against users may be brought if a user is likely to be acting in breach of the principles and decisions in a closed arbitration case, or a passed temporary injunction (for open cases).

Enforcement is not "dispute resolution". ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that the actions and behaviors in the remedies are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether or not that prohibition was breached.

Requesting enforcement:

Arbitration Enforcement is not the place for anything other than enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling. It is not for:

Content disputes, unless (very rarely) there is a content dispute prohibition in place. Use Requests for Comments for content issues.
Conduct not covered by the ruling. A Request for amendment may be filed if the existing sanctions are inadequate, or help may be requested at the administrators' incident noticeboard.
Proposed decisions (other than passed temporary injunctions). A proposed decision is not enforceable until the case is formally closed. Bad behavior in an open case should be reported on the administrators' incident noticeboard and you should consider noting the behavior on the /Evidence page of the case, and in some cases requesting a temporary injunction until the case is completed.
Community or administrator decisions, breach of these should be raised at the administrators' incident noticeboard or in exceptional cases, cited as evidence in a request for arbitration.

Conduct at Arbitration Enforcement:

Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still Assume Good Faith. ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals. Messages posted here that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be redacted and may be deleted.

Administrator information:

If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.
In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except
- with the written authorization of the Committee, or
- following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so.
Provisionally (pending updates to the enforcement process), this applies only to specific administrative actions affecting specific users; it does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. (Clarification motion)
The enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally in order to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.
More than one side in a dispute may have arbcom conduct rulings applicable to them.
Once an issue is resolved, close it and move it to the top of the Resolved issues section, whence a bot should archive it in 3 days.

Using this page

Click here to add a new request and follow the instructions that will appear above the edit box.

Please be aware that as a user requesting arbitration enforcement, it is your responsibility to supply all information required for administrators to determine whether enforcement is required, as described in the instructions. Your request may otherwise be declined without further action.

Appeals

Some arbitration decisions provide that appeals against sanctions imposed under the decision are to be appealed to this noticeboard. For such appeals the template {{Sanction appeal}} may be used.

[edit] Request concerning Nickhh, Nishidani, and Nableezy

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

User requesting enforcement: --Epeefleche (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Users against whom enforcement is requested

Nickhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Diff of notice [1]
Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Diff of notice [2]
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Diff of notice [3]

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Nickhh: "placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles."[4]
Nishidani: same as Nickhh, immediately above.[5]
Nableezy: Nableezy's ban arose separately. Originally, on October 29—"per the provisions of this remedy of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case, ... banning ... for 4 months from editing all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case."[6]

Then Nableezy's ban was reduced on November 3, as follows—"I have included in the sanction on Nableezy all articles within the subject area in question.... I am adjusting my initial sanction... The ban on editing article content is reduced from six months to two; and the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction".[7]

[edit] Background

Despite their I-P conflict topic-bans, Nickhh and Nishidani actively participated in an AfD discussion regarding Jonathan Cook, a freelance journalist whose notability arises (as is clear from the first sentence of his article) from his writing on the I-P conflict.

Nishidani left his comments up for 7 days. Only crossing them out a few hours before the AfD closed (w/the accurate edit summary: "Striking out comment written in breach of my ban, as indeed I should have when this was first complained of").[8] This was IMHO willful flouting of his ban with intent to influence the AfD. Nishidani also said at the Request for Clarification that the reason he weighed in was because the vote at the time was "in favour of deletion". That reflects his desire to influence the outcome of the AfD, which—mildly speaking—he was not allowed to do.

And Nickhh left his AfD comments up for the entire course of the AfD, never striking them out.

Multiple participants in the AfD voiced concern that this violated their topic ban,[9][10] and removed the banned users’ comments from the AfD.[11][12][13] The banned users' comments were re-inserted into the AfD; more than once by Nableezy, who was himself subject to a similar topic ban, arising from a different Arbitration Enforcement.[14] Nableezy even went so far as to delete my questions—as to the appropriateness of banned editors commenting—from the AfD page,[15] insisting on moving them to the AfD's discussion page, without my permission,[16] and refusing to restore them or allow me to restore them.

Nickhh and Nishidani themselves acknowledged that their participation was questionable (e.g., Nickhh: “I wonder if I'm allowed to say anything here, given the topics the man tends to write about”[17]; Nishidani: “Yes, technically we should keep out of it.”[18]

At the Request for Clarification on this matter, the arbitrators unanimously indicated that the banned editors violated their bans.[19]

Arb Vassanya made clear that this applied not only to the Nickhh/Nableezy topic ban, but also to the Nishidani topic ban ("Neither topic ban makes an exception for discussing unrelated issues on related pages. They are prohibitions on editing related pages. Full stop."). However, the matter is confused a bit by the fact that apparently (however the Nishidani ban may appear to me and to the arbitrators on its face), the banning admin did not view it the way we did, and at a concurrent WP:AE on the same facts, which took place as the arbitrators were taking the above position, enforcement was declined.[20] I'm therefore uncertain whether as to Nableezy, despite the arbitrators' above clarification, the matter is now moot as to whether Nableezy violated his ban, or whether it is appropriate to consider sanctions against him for violating his ban. In any event, among Nableezy's edits were repeated insertions of clearly banned editors' comments into the AfD, as is reflected in the below diffs. He thereby facilitated violations of their ban. Finally, he edited the AfD page as early as November 28, which was clearly a violation of his ban, even under the most generous interpretation. I leave the determination as to whether it is appropriate to sanction Nableezy completely to the ~~arbitrators~~ closing admin, without expressing a strong view.

It is important to note, btw, that Nableezy's Palestine-Israel articles ban was only reduced after arguments and testimonials about him were made by the very same two editors who were already banned from commenting on any community discussions related to the I/P conflict—Nickhh and Nishidani! See [21], [22], [23], and [24]. I believe this constitutes another series of violations of their ban.

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

[25] Nickhh at AfD
[26] Nickhh at AfD
[27] Nickhh at AfD
[28] Nishidani at AfD
[29] Nishidani at AfD
[30] Nableezy reinserting banned editor's (Nickhh's) comments on November 28
[31] Nableezy reinserting banned editors' (Nickhh's and Nishidani's) comments
[32] Nableezy at AfD
[33] Nableezy at AfD
[34] Nableezy removing others' comments at AfD
[35] Nableezy reinserting comments of banned editor (Nickhh) into AfD
[36] Nableezy deleting my comments (and others' responses) from AfD (and moving them to discussion page)
[37] Nableezy deleting my comments (and others') from AfD
[38] Nableezy reinserting comments of banned editor (Nickhh) into AfD
[39] Nableezy commenting at AfD
[40] Nableezy commenting at AfD as to why his comments and those of the other banned editors were appropriate
[41] Nableezy insertion at AfD talk page of material he deleted from AfD
[42] Nableezy at AfD talk page

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

Not applicable

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

~~Per Arbitrators' discretion. But i~~ It would seem that the only thing left with Nickhh and Nishidani, as their topic ban is already indefinite, would be to for some period enlarge the scope of their ban beyond that of the I/P issue.

As to Nishidani, it may well be enough, if sanction is appropriate (and if this is the correct place to pursue it), for a temporal extension of his ban from the I/P issue.

Additional comments

The basis for this enforcement is set forth in the arbitrators' responses to a Request for Clarification on the conduct at issue here.

At the Request for Clarification, Nishidani wrote: "If you think my ban should extend beyond the I/P area, to elsewhere, I won't object. Indeed, it would be logical"; and "I ... expressed my readiness to suffer any further sanction an arbiter might wish to impose on me for my egregious lapse"; and "I expressed my guilt and readiness to be punished"; and "I've waited to be banned from all wiki articles ... I suggest the way to stop this bickering is to act immediately and extend my perma-ban."[43]

And Nickhh wrote:

"I don't think anyone's claiming that relevant AfD pages - in principle - are not covered by the topic ban as worded. I'm certainly not, and agree that they pretty clearly would be."[44]

The pertinent language at the Request for Clarification from arb Vassanya (w/whom arbs Bainer, Wizardman, and Risker agreed) was:

"AfD discussions about IP-related articles quite clearly falls under "participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". There is no grey area. An AfD is about as perfect of an example as you get for a "community discussion substantially concerned with such articles".... Shifting discussion over to user talk pages or other venues is at bare minimum a gross violation of the spirit of a topic ban. ... As far as I'm concerned, the confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear and AfD is unquestionably included even in a strict reading of the sanction language.... "[A]ll pages ... which relate" seems to make the scope inclusive and clear in a similar fashion. Neither topic ban makes an exception for discussing unrelated issues on related pages. They are prohibitions on editing related pages. Full stop."[45]

And arb Carcharoth (w/whom arb Wizardman agreed) wrote:

"When someone is given a topic ban in a particular area, they are meant to move away from that topic area...If... an editor shows an inability to move away from a topic area, then sanctions should be enforced.... The normal response would be to either extend the topic ban (if it is not already indefinite), or to move on to harsher sanctions."[46]

And arb Coren (w/whom arb Wizardman agreed) wrote:

"Agreed with my colleagues; an AfD discussion of an article within the topic area definitely and unambiguously falls into that topic area. The only case where I would consider any ambiguity is if the topic ban specifically excluded talk pages or was explicitly limited to articles; and even then it could be argued that a discussion about deletion is too "close" to the topic ban to be confortable."[47]

--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Nickhh—Yes, readers are encouraged, if they like, to read the full 47 quotes and diffs I provided, as all have been truncated for purposes of brevity. The links are provided at each quote or diff, or in the preceding text. Furthermore, while Nickhh made points at the Clarification which he repeats here, the arbs responded emphatically as indicated above. As to timing, it seemed logical to raise this AE only after the Clarification was closed, which is what was promptly done. As DGG mentions below, he indicated that AE would be the appropriate next step. As to points raised regarding other editors, as to whom I am completely unfamiliar, that would appear to be irrelevant to the proper treatment of violation bans in the Cook AfD—the subject of this AE. Finally, the arbs did not think the ban violations were at all borderline, and support was voiced for enforcement, which is what is sought here.—Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional topic ban violations by Nableezy — here on November 13, here on November 14, and here on November 14, all approximately two weeks after Nableezy's ban was put in place, "warning" another editor with regard to edits on the subject of whether certain regions of Israel are "occupied".—Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to question by Nableezy, as to why Nableezy warning another editor for a putative 3RR violation for editing regarding use of the phrase "occupied" when referring to territories within the I-P conflict is a violation of his topic ban. Yes, I can provide further clarification. As arb Vassanya (w/whom arbs Bainer, Wizardman, and Risker agreed) pointed out at the Clarification at which your similar behavior was raised:

"Shifting discussion over to user talk pages or other venues is at bare minimum a gross violation of the spirit of a topic ban.... [your] confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear ... Neither topic ban makes an exception for discussing unrelated issues on related pages. They are prohibitions on editing related pages. Full stop."[48]

—Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(cont'd) Do you actually believe that your I/P topic ban allowed you to snipe at an editor who was editing an I/P issue, in an I/P article, by giving that editor a 3RR warning for his edits there? And a 3RR warning that is baseless, to boot? If so, I think you may not be taking to heart the comments that the arbitrators directed at you, and perhaps could benefit from some greater guidance by the closing admin here as to the appropriateness of your behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Nableezy

This is dumb. But it is what Epeefleche and Gilabrand should have done instead of edit war out comments that they are not qualified to decide are a violation of anybody's topic ban. As to my own topic ban, AGK has clarified that my topic ban does not include AfDs and my actions here have already been addressed in an earlier AE thread. While it is nice having fans, two frivolous AE threads within the span of 12 hours is too much for even me. nableezy - 17:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But since we are here, below is a rundown of what happened at the AfD (apologies if I miss a revert in there):

Gila removes Nick and Nishidanis comments, reverted by Jeppiz, again removed by Gila, anon removed others, reverted by Mackan79, removed again by Gila, again by Gila, restored by Jeppiz (who at this point went to ANI where the closing admin said that this is an AE issue), I restored, removed by Mr. Hicks The III (now known to be another NoCal100 sock), I reverted, This stops for a while. When Hicks is discovered to be a NoCal100 sock I remove his comment and vote (something that any user, not only uninvolved admins, can do as he was site-banned). Gila then removes Nick and Nishi's comments again. I restore. I then move comments not relevant to the AfD but rather about the AfD itself to the talk page. Gila then again removes the comments relevant to the AfD to the talk page [49]. I revert. Epeefleche now joins the fun by removing the comments, and then removing my comments though my topic ban did not include AfDs. SlimVirgin reverts.

This entire time I asked each person who removed the comments to instead go to WP:AE with their complaints so that an uninvolved admin could make a determination of whether or not the comments were in violation of the topic ban and what to do if they were. Instead Gilabrand and Epeefleche, both highly involved and non-admins, took it upon themselves to make that determination and to enforce their own decision. All they had to do was to come here, instead they choose to continually revert. If anybody deserves an admonishment for what happened there it is Gilabrand and Epeefleche. nableezy - 17:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, would you care to explain how informing a "new" user about the 3 revert rule after they have made 3 quick reversions is a violation of my topic ban? nableezy - 05:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Breein, you yourself have written that you are not a new user (see here), so why would you take exception to that? nableezy - 05:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but, fyi, sarcasm often does not translate well in text. nableezy - 05:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ep - the content of the edits is immaterial, I did not discuss the content of the edits, I did not discuss whether or not a place was occupied, what I did do was inform a "new" user of what they could expect if they continued repeatedly reverting. I think I am qualified to do so. I did not edit a "related page". Breein was not given the notice because he or she added or removed the word occupied, Breein was given the notice because he or she made 3 quick reversions. nableezy - 05:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not "sniping" at another user, I did not raise any issue about the content of that users edits. And the 3RR warning was not "baseless". Unlike everything you have written above. I am not wasting more time on this or on you. Bye. nableezy - 19:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by uninvolved editor Breein1007

I take exception to those quotation marks, Nableezy! Breein1007 (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, take a quick look at this. Breein1007 (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough! Breein1007 (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reply/Comment by Nickhh

Just so that I'm not seen to be ignoring this altogether, my response to this is the same as that to the original clarification, posted here. In response to a couple of further points -

Epeefleche, you quote me as saying AfDs are definitely included in the topic ban in principle, suggesting that as a result I was knowingly in breach of the ban, but neglect to quote the following sentence - "The point is more about whether making a general comment about journalistic notability in an AfD debate about one journalist's page is indeed a breach of a ban that stops editors discussing I-P issues". That was the issue in my view that needed clarification. As you also do quote me saying, I wasn't sure at the time. Once it has that clarification (although it has to be said, no arb made this point explicitly), it would seem more sensible for all involved to leave it there, rather than susbequently demanding enforcement in some manner some three weeks after the original event, when nothing much has happened since - I didn't even go back and look at the AfD once I'd made the brief initial comments. No one for example is running around demanding that enforcement action is taken against User:Jayjg for their one-off action in actually closing a far more contentious AfD recently.

DGG, you appear to be conflating my and Nishidani's case with Nableezy's - for the former of course AfDs in principle were included in our topic ban (as acknowledged rather than "challenged" - the point was slightly different, see above); for the latter they were not, on the basis that Nab was allowed to comment on talk pages, as the terms of their ban were different.

Following all the drama and the clarification I think it unlikely I or Nishidani will do something similar. At the time I knew my comment was borderline (and was quite open about that), and with hindsight would probably not have skirted so close to the border. The only qualification I would put on that is that of course this whole incident had the unexpected bonus of flushing out a rather wide sock farm, which has ranged across I-P pages for a long, long time, making it such an unpleasant place for initially passing editors such as myself whose main interest has never been the Middle East conflicts particularly, and ultimately drawing them into rather daft conflicts that end with us all where we are now. --Nickhh (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by uninvolved editor Sm8900

I think that any such topic ban should have a specific end date as well as a start date. I think that this one has run its course. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Tznkai

There appears to be a major misunderstanding of what goes on here. First, with very rare exception, Arbitrators do not patrol enforcement requests, other admins do. I am an admin, I am not an Arbitrator. Second, enforcement requests are not meant to handle general troublemaking, they are meant to handle specific violations of arbitration remedies. This is why it is important that you link the exact remedy. Third, we do not relitigate, retry, or reargue cases. We do not expand, or minimize remedies unless they explicitly invite us to do so. While we may accept or deny requests to enforce on our own discretion, we are not in the buisness of arbitrating ourselves.

In this case, Nableezy is not sanctioned under Westbank Judea-Samaria, and no action will be taken against him under this request. You can see me comments in an above section for what will or will not bring sanctions down on his head.

As to the other two, there was already a clarification requested and it came down clear enough that Jonathan Cook afd was within the Westbank - Judea and Samaria topic ban, this issue is mooted - its already been decided and I'm not sure what harm additional sanctions would prevent. To reiterate the point from the clarification: Knock it off! If there are recent issues I am unaware of, please update the request to make me aware of them. I'm going to wait 24 hours for more information or another administrator to come in and take over.--Tznkai (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I still really don't know what action it is I'm supposed to take here, but I'll throw this one on the table - I'll make a 1 second block on NickH and Nishidani, with a link to the clarification request and making it clear that AfDs of journalists involved in the IP conflict are off limits.--Tznkai (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Mackan79

I hope that ArbCom's clarification will settle any questions that remained about these sanctions, until the sanctions may be reevaluated. I do not see why we would seek to apply the clarification retroactively, particularly considering that it was brought by a banned sock puppet under the same restrictions, who was using another account to participate in the same AfD (if indeed we're going to review for technicalities). Epeefleche seems to remain unaware of this, as they quote the sock (Mr. Hicks The III) to show concern about the Jonathan Cook AfD, so I think it bears mentioning. Mackan79 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

To DGG, my comment is based on the fact that it is not the only "close call" (or what I would also have called a clear violation) that has preceded the recent clarification. I consider Nickh's comment a clear violation in that, even though he tried to limit the scope of his comment relating to an article that is not wholly within the area of conflict, he still couldn't help briefly mentioning the political motivations for the nomination. I consider Nishidani's comments a clear violation in that, while his presentation of sources itself on this AfD should in some format be protected under WP:IAR, he also couldn't help making a similar comment about motivations in passing. And yet, I am no less clear that Jayjg's edit here, removing material which argues that the Washington Times is "pro-Israel" is at least equally a violation of the restriction. If the latter was deemed not a violation, then notwithstanding the Arbitrators' comments, the remedy was not sufficiently clear that we editors knew how to implement it. I hope it now is, but unless we're going to reevaluate every incident, I don't think you take a recent clarification to go back and look at just one of them, especially considering that the clarification itself was brought about by a sock puppet who was very specifically trying to game the system. The much better option is to look forward. Mackan79 (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by JoshuaZ

I've already told Mackan why the comparison to Jayjg's edits isn't accurate. Since I don't have much time right now, I'll simply link to that comment. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Result concerning Nickh, Nishidani, and Nableezy

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

I'm a little confused by some of the rejoinders above. Eppefleche asked my advice what was the appropriate step after the ArbCom clarification motion closed. I advised him that it would be to request enforcement here. Th people involved made engaged in an AfD. Arb Com had previously t said they were not to participate in that subject area. Enforcement was requested and challenged on the grounds that arb com had not meant to include afds within the topic ban. Several of the members of arb com replied, all saying that it did, and that it was totally obvious that it had been included from the start--none expressed the least doubt about it. (And, frankly, that seems the obvious view to me as well.). It was not a matter of extending their ban to additional areas, it was saying what it had been all along. In essence, they were saying that it had been a proper case for AE all along, and action should have been taken there. (Being arbcom ,they didnt simply refer it back, which would have simplified things.) I don't see how the editors involved can now try to say it was ex post facto, or moot; it was always part of the ban, and they violated it. Action is now expected of us. Having advised Eppefleche about procedure, I'm not uninvolved enough to do what should be done. (And personally, I wish arb com would start enforcing its own remedies or designating someone or some small group to do so--throwing it back to the community tends to have the effect it did here, of reopening the issue from the start and continuing the problem. ) DGG ( talk ) 09:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is my assessment of the request:

Nickhh and Nishidani: The RfC has made it clear that I-P topic bans cover relevant AfD discussions. Accordingly, Nickhh and Nishidani have violated their ban. But since this happened about a month ago, and there are no actionable outstanding complaints of more recent violations, a block at this time would not have a preventative effect. Their topic ban is already indefinite, so we can't extend it. It seems to me that no enforcement action is needed under these circumstances, but any new ban violations should be reported here and result in rapid blocks.
Nableezy: By editing the I-P-related AfD, he violated the I-P topic ban imposed as a discretionary sanction in effect at the time. He is also unapologetic, asserting that "AGK has clarified that my topic ban does not include AfDs and my actions here have already been addressed in an earlier AE thread", but providing no diffs to support these assertions, which makes them immaterial. What matters is the sanctions log, which clearly states that the ban applies to "all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case", which includes AfDs. Under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, I am therefore restarting the two month topic ban, beginning now. This means that Nableezy is prohibited from making any edits to any page if the edits or the page relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed, with the sole exceptions of defending himself in any subsequent arbitration or arbitration enforcement proceedings, or reverting blatant vandalism. Sandstein 19:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Nefer Tweety

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

[edit] Request concerning Nefer Tweety

User requesting enforcement: Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Neutral_point_of_view_and_undue_weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Decorum

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # Several editors mediated between me and Arab Cowboy at the Asmahan article, after the last mediation ended with admin al ameer son you can see here the sections of the article was, "career" section and in that section a subsection of "Egypt's influence", and "immigration to Egypt" was a subsection of "early life", I made an edit and explained this at the talkpage yet it has been reverted by Nefer Tweety against the the mediations/collaborations/consensus [50] and also undue weight, texts about her career are put in "Egypt's influence on Asmahan’s career". Nefer Tweety is an account which is almost exclusively used to do the same edits as Arab Cowboy, Nefer Tweety reverted the entire article back 4 months to Arab Cowboys edit, not caring about edits made by several people [51] I had also made a copyright violation request and a copyright admin removed the copyrighted material here, the exact copy righted text has been re added by Nefer tweety , personal life, section: [52]

Update: Assumption of bad faith is a violation against a principle: "to promote his POV and Syrian agenda" [53] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): block or bann.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: <Your text>

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [54]

[edit] Discussion concerning Nefer Tweety

[edit] Statement by Nefer Tweety

User: Supreme Deliciousness is presently under disciplinary probation for one year for edit warring and other violations specifically related to Asmahan and other articles. On 20 December, Supreme Deliciousness returned to his old ways of making biased and inflammatory edits into Asmahan to promote his POV and Syrian agenda while claiming copyright violation about any text does not suit his agenda. There's no more copyright violation, the article had been rebuilt by Arab Cowboy without any copyright violations while Cactus Writer was closely watching. Supreme Deliciousness's probation must be enforced as well as the probation on Asmahan and he had better leave this article alone. I am dedicating my time on Wikipedia to protecting Egypt related articles from Supreme Deliciousness's vandalism. Nefer Tweety (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others about the request concerning Nefer Tweety

(This threaded discussion moved from admin section below. Sandstein 18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC))

NuclearWarfare, at the talkpage there has been comments which are in direct violation against the cases principles Decorum, incivility and assumptions of bad faith in principle: [55] comment: "to promote his POV and Syrian agenda" "Supreme Deliciousness's vandalism" [56] The scope of the case shows that Nefer Tweety has been involved in this: [57] Is no action gonna be taken against this violation against a principle? What are the principles for if that is the case? So people can violate them and get away with it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked over the recent edits to the talk page. As there have been no edits to even the talk page since December 25, I am still inclined to not give any sanctions here. I shall watchlist the page and keep an eye on any discussions. If any administrator disagrees with my (lack of) action, they are of course free to use their judgment to take what they feel is the appropriate course. NW (Talk) 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nefer Tweety has continued to violate the proposed principles and has been canvassing: [58] (To Arab Cowboys sockpuppet) which I believe is inappropriate behavior: [59] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Result concerning Nefer Tweety

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

I am inclined to dismiss this report as Stale. There have only been 4 edits to the article in the past week, and the edit warring seems to have died down. I would be interested in hearing any other outside opinions though. NW (Talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The request is not formatted in the recommended style (see {{Arbitration enforcement request}}), making it difficult to evaluate. In particular, it is not clear which specific edits are believed to violate which specific remedy for which reason. If the request is not improved soon, I am inclined to close it with no action. Sandstein 18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed as no action per the above. Sandstein 11:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Nableezy

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

[edit] Request concerning Nableezy

User requesting enforcement: Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Nableezy is continuing to make the topic area a hostile environment for other editors. Over the last month or so he has called other editors "duchebags", told editors that he can't comment on them since he would be breaking civility guidelines (close enough to breaking it), and harassed another editor since he felt their was Wikihounding. All that could be in the past since several of us have gone through this arbitration process with reminders, Wikibreaks, and blocks to because of inappropriate behavior is to be avoided. Unfortunately, the pattern is repeated over and over again.

Nableezy took offence to my assertion that the International Committee of the Red Cross's webpage on Palestine and the Occupied Territories was not an appropriate external think under the WP:ELNO provision "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view". The Red Cross is only concerned with the humanitarian concerns of the conflict. It doesn't matter why people are blowing their hands off while making bombs or why babies are getting killed by tanks. The focus is that it is happening and there is suffering. I called it bias and having an agenda (oops). I've attempted to clarify my reasoning with more palatable terms (goal, mission) but Nableeezy appears to want to continue arguing and is making some personal attacks that have crossed the line. This is a particular concern because he has just recently had his sanction on talk pages lifted and has voluntarily taken some additional time away from the article. One of his first series of comments upon returning is full of insults, assuming the worst, and continuation of the battlefield mentality.

[60] "Uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit these pages." - This is uncivil and spits in the face of what Wikipeida is. I don't believe I am uninformed but simply look at the subject form a different perspective. His comments were insulting and I recieved a sanction for similar venting.

[61] "But perhaps it is too much to ask that you do the slightest bit of reading about an organization before you write about it." Completely inappropriate remark. Just to admit when I have dome something inappropriate, in this edit difference you will see that I referred to Nableezy's previous comment, Tiamut commenting on my intentions (something I am not allowed to do since she opened an arbitration case when I did), and Romac's sarcastic edit summary and use of an image on the talk page (which he has been asked not to do). I later apologized for using the term bullshit and admitted that less crass language would have been better. Nableezy also believed I was implying that he was a sole purpose account. He actually does have a focus on a few select topics (nothing wrong with that) but my comment was completely unrelated and an attempt to illustrate what I was trying to say.

[62] "Uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit these pages..." After I attempted to clarify my position and recommended that all four of us stop, Nableezy again makes a comment that is against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and is simply insulting.

[63] "your comments undermine the very idea of what this 'project' purports to be" - Wikipeida falsely claims to be collaborative (he would later verify that this was indeed what he meant) and "and, yes, others agree that the link should not be included, but not because of the inane idea that the ICRC is 'biased'" - Calling another editors opinion "inane" is not appropriate. Even if he disagrees that is a personal attack.
[64] "...unlike others I know the meaning of what it is I write and am careful to make sure I do not say incredibly stupid things." - This was the point where I thought seeking enforcement would be appropriate. It is one thing to disagree with another editor, but stating that others (presumably me) were writing "incredibly stupid things" was too much.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): [65] This diff shows a couple comments by me. I tried to diffuse the situation by admitting to a mistake I made while asking other editors to stop. I thought everything would be OK but it stoked the fire.

[66] My attempt to explain that his comments were not appropriate

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I have requested a 1rr restriction and reminders to stop edit warring on Nableezy previously. I even made mentions that I have not been seeking his block. This time is different. This incivility on the talk page shows to me that the reduction in his talk page sanction was, in hindsight at least, premature. We all need to try harder to be civil but Nableezy has proven that he either cannot or will not. If that is too much to request, a simple "Hey, you all need to be more civil" would be great. Not saying we need to frolic through meadows together but this stuff is going to far.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think it would be nice if Romac removed the image from the talk page and if Tiamut was reminded that the talk page is not for commenting on other editors intentions. I was pretty pissed when I saw their comments but they haven't continued and would be lame of me to not get over it. Nableezy's just get worse and worse, though. Apologies to pile it on. I see that there are two others up above but I believe this incident is unrelated. I'm sure that will cause frustration and would have been happy to take it to the Wikietiquette noticeboard if this wasn't the proper venue. Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to Nableezy, that was sometime ago and I have gone out of my way to express apologies, knock it off, and not repeat such mistakes. It is continually brought up in discussions but there is nothing I can do to take it back. You have continued being disruptive. That is why this AE is about you. Although it sucks that I was a jerk in the past it doesn't excuse you from continuing with this sort of behavior.

x2: We have discussed my sanction previousley. I also took a good Wikibreak. Blocks and all that are meant to b preventative not punitive. Mine obviously worked since I am trying to not start fights on multiple pages and have stopped making personal attacks. I get it now and had hoped that everything would be OK. You keep it going when it isn't needed. My past transgressions should have no bearing on how you conduct yourself.

And another follow-up. As in the previous enforcement request against Nableezy, I get emails from other editors pointing one thing out or another. I seems a little sneaky to me, but at the same time I have to respect someone's privacy and there was a point. It looks like we make Wikenemies when we have lapses in judgment (I am sure I have). He was asked to stop but continues to edit. I doubt this edit would warrant enforcement on its own but it could be viewed as continued flouting of the sanction (which includes the greater Arab-Israeli conflict). I'm on the fence with it myself since it might seem nit picky. This enforcement request is also based on civility. That last enforcement request ended in Nableezy telling me to "piss off" so I hope this doesn't come across as baiting.Cptnono (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Offliner. I can see why that might come across. However, I think I have been pretty honest so am surprised that anyone would look at this as an attempt to use the guideline as a weapon. I could have attempted it after being told to piss off a couple of weeks ago if that was the case. Nableezy has made inappropriate comments time and time again and continues to start conflicts over multiple pages. I wouldn't be seeking a block if this was the first time to be honest. I was surprisingly offended by this round and he kept on making inappropriate comments even after a request to stop. And if you reread my requested action you'll see that I mentioned a good reminder as an option. I still think a block is needed but I really don't expect it. Cptnono (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tiamut: Although I have admitted to leaning in one direction on the talk page, my article contributions have shown both sides of the coin. The only major content dispute between the two of us is the massacre thing on a single article. I even agreed that the Cook one should be kept. I know you like Nableezy but some of us disagree due to his negative influence on the project (discussion and edit warring not opinion wise). If Nableezy would stop edit warring and causing conflict on talk pages people would stop bringing AEs against him. At the time of this filing there were three individual requests. He does receive more attention then other editors so it would probably be in his best interest to be more cautious. Pages under the West Bank arbitration can be under the Palestine-Israel case since it covers the broader Arab-Israel topic (something that started due to Israeli settlements should meet that criteria). Nableezy knows this and even pointed it out to another editor previousley. There is no punishment about it. It is about stopping this behavior on multiple pages.

I had actually failed to realize his topic ban just ended. I'm going to ask you to assume some better faith as I did when I took Nableezy at his word and struck out the already admittedly nit picky incorrect violation since it seemed like an honest mistake well before you made your comments.Cptnono (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, we've gone over this several times including just recently on this page so there is nothing left to say to that.

Regardless, I am OK with withdrawing this request since. Nableezy made a note on my talk which alleviates my concerns (assuming it doesn't continue). An apology or acknowledgment can go a long way sometimes.This request is also falling into the previousley seen pattern of repeating arguments and becomming unreadable for the closer. The assumption of bad faith is also taking this in a weird direction. Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[67]

[edit] Discussion concerning Nableezy

[edit] Statement by Nableezy

Cptnono has problems understanding basic things, I did not say that Wikipedia is not collaborative. I also did not believe that he was calling me a SPA, not that I give two shits if he does feel that way. And the idea that the ICRC is "biased" is in fact inane. That is all I have to say about this. And the "venting" that Cptnono was "sanctioned" for was calling another user a dirty liar (something that should have already been covered by NPA, but apparently he needed a sanction specifically telling him not call another editor a dirty liar) and for saying that If you have Palestinian stuff on your user page you shouldn't be editing such pages. Not exactly the same thing as saying that uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit pages that they have no knowledge about. nableezy - 01:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not looking for an excuse, I was pointing out that your comparison that your behavior which led to your laughable "sanction" is in no way comparable to me saying that uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit those pages. Just showing the comparison made was bogus. nableezy - 03:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Suez Crisis edit was an honest mistake, I saw it in my watchlist and thought it was the Suez Canal page, and in any event it was straightforward vandalism that was reverted. But had I noticed it was the Crisis page and not the Canal page I would not have made the reversion. nableezy - 02:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon being dragged to AE with the complaint that you contribute to a hostile environment, do you really think it's a wise course of action to start your response with "Cptnono has problems understanding basic things"? henrik•talk 10:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

He was making basic errors in quoting me, but it was probably not. nableezy - 15:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For Jaak, as Tiamut points out my topic ban expired prior to those edits. AGKs adjustment was relative to the initial sanction which was on Oct. 29. nableezy - 15:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche - yes, it has been disputed that I violated my topic ban on the Cook AfD, and your understanding of my topic ban has been proven wrong in the past. nableezy - 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly "chastised" me? nableezy - 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono is right, I was acting like a dick on that page. I got pissed off and let it get the best of me. Im sorry and will not let it happen again. But if somebody wants to block me or take some other action that is fine by me. nableezy - 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Jaakobou

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is in breach of his currently active ARB sanction by reverting on the Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman.

Sanction: topic banned from all related articles for two months in November 2009[68].
Violation: 22:00, 29 December 2009
History: Nableezy edit wars and has incivility issues in Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles. He was blocked for edit-warring in March and July of 2009[69] and topic banned for two months in November 2009 (initially 4 months)[70] (talkpage ban for 1 month). Sanction aside, I disagreed with Nableezy's surprise revert on Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman (Nableezy doesn't really contribute to the page), removing what Hamas stands in the 'treason' context.[71] I opened a WP:3O to avoid the usual drama (sample-continued) but as there's a standing complaint, I decided to mention the violation.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Tiamut

Regarding Jaakobou's assertion that Nableey is currently in violation of his topic ban, he is incorrect. The original topic ban was placed for four months on October 29 at 21:02 and was reduced to two months (one month from talk pages and two months from article pages) on November 3 19:33. [72] The reduction to two months was to be counted from the date on which the initial sanction was made (i.e. October 29th). Therefore, Nableey's edits to Avigdor Lieberman came just after his topic ban had formally ended.

I share Offliner's concern that the complaints may be attempts to eliminate an editor with an opposing viewpoint, without regard as to whether or not this is the best course of action for the project. Tiamut^talk 14:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Epeefleche's comment, I am unsurprised that he would like to see Nableezy's topic ban extended given that he filed an unsuccessful request to get further sanctions placed on him less than a month ago. Again, this seems to a bit of a pile-on by editors with opposing POVs, anxious that now that Nableezy's topic ban has in fact ended, they will have to engage him in substantive discussion to achieve NPOV on different articles. Nableezy has already explained that his edit to correct spelling errors on Suez Canal Crisis a day before his topic ban ended was a good faith mistake based on a misreading of the title (which he saw as Suez Canal). Could we please let him get back to editing (and perhaps allow him to even enjoy it)? He's been punished for two months already and over that time, the encyclopedia has been deprived of an excellent contributor who catches vandalism, and produced comprehensive content like Al-Azhar Mosque. Others might try doing the same rather than spending their time nitpicking. Tiamut^talk 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, you are incorrect in your statement. No one thought that Nableezy violated his topic ban by editing the Jonathan Cook AfD but you. His topic ban on talk pages had already expired by the time he made his comments there and AGK, who initiated the topic ban, himself stated that it was permissible for Nableezy to participate in AfDs once that happened. Please do not misrepresent the facts. Tiamut^talk 18:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I remain unsurprised by the fact that the three people seeking to extend Nableezy's topic ban include two editors who have previously filed unsuccessful AE complaints against Nableezy and one who is currently engaged in a content dispute with him at an article that falls under the scope of his original topic ban which has now expired. Please people, try not to be so obvious. Tiamut^talk 18:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, you are conflating admin statements regarding the topic bans of those covered under the WestBank/Judea-Samaria case with those regarding Nableezy. The two issues are quite separate. Please try to recognize that. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, without a diff supporting your statement, I cannot accept what you are saying as true. My own review of the clarification request shows that Nableezy's case was not the one being addressed. AGK was clear in stating on another page that when his talk page ban expired, he was free to comment in AfDs. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, while I appreciate you striking your comments after Nableey's explanation regarding the Suez Canal edit, I remain concerned that you are overly interested in finding fault with what Nableezy is saying or doing. I long ago got over you calling me "a dirty liar" and drawing conclusions about my editing based on user page content alone. I'd appreciate it if you would get over Nableezy's comments at Talk:Gaza War too, which were not even comparable to your own, and which he admits above were not helpful and for which he has expressed regret. Tiamut^talk 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, thank you for providing the relevant commments. While the admins were commenting on whether or not the Jonathan Cook AfD fell under the scope of the topic bans for both, they seem to have missed the fact that Nableezy's ban from talk pages had ended. AGK clarified on a separate page that when Nableezy's talk page ban had ended (it was only for one month), he was permitted to comment in AfDs in that topic area as well. So while you are technically correct about what the admins said, their comments are frankly irrelevant given that the ban on talk pages had ended when Nableezy made his comments. They were speaking as to the general principle, and not his specific actions.

Cptnono, thank you for showing largesse and withdrawing your request. It goes a long way to alleviating my own concerns about your motivations in filing this request. I hope that in the future, we can all learn to speak to each other more politely and graciously, and avoid coming here every time we have a spat. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 22:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, upon review, it seems you are correct that Nableezy made his first edit to the Jonathan Cook AfD one day before his talk page ban on I-P articles ended. Considering his belief that this article was not covered by the scope of the ban (as exemplified in his defense of the right other indefinitely banned I-P editors to comment there) I see this as a good faith mistake. In any case, admins who commented in the request for clarification you filed did not see fit to do anything about it then, so I do not see the relevance of this now.

Shuki, I think you mean that Nableezy returned to copy edit articles in a way that does not accord with your POV? I really do think this pile-on by editors with opposing POVs, just when Nableezy's 2-month topic ban has ended, is extremely unfortunate. Particularly so given that Nableezy apologized for the comments that prompted Cptnono to file this report, and the apology has been most graciously accepted and the complaint withdrawn. I understand that some of you are not happy to have to deal with the return of an editor who tenaciously challenges your POV, but I think it would be best to let sleeping dogs lie. If Nableezy so much as sneezes in the wrong direction, we will no doubt be here again in short order, given the intense interest in every move by so many. Tiamut^talk 21:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Epeefleche

Nableezy did in fact violate his topic ban elsewhere as discussed further up on this very same page, and the tone of his comment even here (as has been pointed out) have often been markedly uncivil. This is an ongoing, intransigent problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tiamut: As is discussed further up on this very same page, and has not been disputed, even in the most liberal reading of Nableezy's topic ban he violated it with trigger happy editing at the Cook AfD. Of course Tiamut shouldn't be the least bit surprised - Nableezy has been repeatedly uncivil (even on this page) and shown repeated lack of an appropriate approach to editing (as pointed out even after his ban by the arbs, as discussed above). Indeed, that's what led to his topic ban in the first place.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tiamut: I've not filed an unsuccessful AE. In fact, the admin who has opined above at the still-open matter under "result" indicated that it was clear that the AE was appropriate. And of course, as indicated above, the arbitrators at the request for clarification uniformly chastised him for his post-topic-ban behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tiamut: Not so. I would refer you to my request at the clarification that the arbs discuss both bans, and the arbs comments regarding both bans.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tiamut:At the request for clarification I wrote:

"nableezy had indicated on my talk page that this "request for clarification in no way applies to my topic-ban." As he was a named party, and his ban discused here, it would be helpful if arbs were to indicate (if it is the case) that it does apply to his ban as well."[73]

The pertinent language at the Request for Clarification from arb Vassanya (w/whom arbs Bainer, Wizardman, Coren, and Risker agreed) was:

"AfD discussions about IP-related articles quite clearly falls under "participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". There is no grey area. An AfD is about as perfect of an example as you get for a "community discussion substantially concerned with such articles".... Shifting discussion over to user talk pages or other venues is at bare minimum a gross violation of the spirit of a topic ban. ... As far as I'm concerned, the confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear and AfD is unquestionably included even in a strict reading of the sanction language.... "[A]ll pages ... which relate" seems to make the scope inclusive and clear in a similar fashion. Neither topic ban makes an exception for discussing unrelated issues on related pages. They are prohibitions on editing related pages. Full stop."[74](emphasis added)

--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tiamut. I'm actually in agreement w/the admins, and unlike you don't think they were all incorrect. As already noted more than once, he did in fact start editing there before his topic ban was over. under the most liberal interpretation. I'm done repeating myself and re-posting for your benefit as you appear not to be reading (at least closely), and am sure the closer here will appreciate my stopping this colloquoy now. On a final note, pls don't follow me around -- much appreciated.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Shuki

I am very disappointed with Nableezy's behaviour and return after the block. I once suggested to Nableezy to concentrate on creating and improving the quality of existing articles instead of spending the vast majority of time attacking articles and edit warring (in the past). Nableezy did start off the topic ban with a pretty good new article showing how one can be productive on WP but unfortunately, to celebrate the return after that was to continue the edit warring, reverts, and copyeditting of issues contrary to Nableezy POV. Frankly, it started during the topic ban. --Shuki (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

The diffs presented above show that Nableezy is using an inapproriate tone, but I do not see major incivility. I am concerned that this report may be an attempt to eliminate a content opponent from Wikipedia, using WP:CIV as a weapon. Offliner (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I noticed another violation of ARB sanctions and added it (12:01, 30 December 2009) to this complaint. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no other violation, as outlined above. Though Jaakobou has been asked to modify his statement in light of the facts, he has declined to do so. [75] Tiamut^talk 19:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Coming off a 2 month block and starting an edit-war on an article he was blocked for edit-warring on seems like a problem IMHO. Your participation in reverting for him/tag-teaming with this and smearing other users here is not proper conduct either. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Kettle said to pot, right, because the main edit-warrior at Avigdor Lieberman as I see it is none other than yourself Jaakobou. And refusing to correct a factual error in your statement, even when you know it is wrong, is a huge problem, IMHO, and evidence of a out-to-get-Nableezy-at-any-price mentality. Further, making unsubstantiated accusations of "reverting for him/tag-teaming" is smearing other users without cause (diffs please?). People in glass houses maybe? Tiamut^talk 21:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut,

Nobody's out to get Nableezy. In fact, I suggested that the initial sanction was too long and doesn't give him a reasonable chance at returning and fixing his condut issues. I don't see his return from the talkpage ban to be showing great improvement in the area of incivility and his return from the article space ban by taking on an edit war together with a couple partners is clearly a violation of the spirit of his sanction.

p.s. tag teaming between you two has been quite obvious and the main person smearing others with a COI brush here is you.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou,

The edit war at Avigdor Lieberman began when you undid this edit by Jim Fitzgerald (your first revert). Nableezy then undid your edit (his first revert). You then undid his edit (your second revert), and opened a section on the talk page for discussion. After I posted to the talk page three times to object to your restoration of that material citing POV, and asked you to please remove it until consensus could be gained on how to phrase it, and you refused to do anything about it, I reverted (my first revert). Shuki then undid my edit (her first revert) and posted to the talk page. Then, Factsontheground undid her edit (his first revert). Nableezy (engaging in talk throughout) then attempted to introduce a compromise formulation here (not a revert, and an attempt to break the deadlock). You then made this edit (your third revert, undoing his edit, while adding "sources", ignoring that the lack of sources was not the problem). I then undid your edit (my second revert), and quickly offered this edit as a compromise. Ynhockey then largely undid that edit. Discussion on the talk page continues to determine how to proceed.

In sum, you reverted three times and Shuki reverted once to back you up. On the other side, Nableezy reverted once (to Jim Fitzgerald's version), Factsontheground reverted once, and I reverted twice, offering a compromise edit 15 minutes after my second revert. Nableezy also offered a compromise edit.

In other words, you are the primary reverter and edit warrior at that page. Your edits show no evidence of a willingness to compromise. Conversely, both Nableezy and I have offered alternatives to our preferred versions, in an attempt to garner consensus.

Please refrain from making false accusations without providing diffs. Thank you. Tiamut^talk 17:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Result concerning Nableezy

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

No action taken. This thread covers several complaints: Cptnono believes that Nableezy has violated conduct norms in the topic area, and Jaakobou believes that Nableezy has violated a topic ban imposed as a discretionary sanction. The former issue is no longer actionable at the moment given Nableezy's credible apology at the bottom of his statement, and Cptnono's withdrawal of the complaint. As to the latter issue, on closer examination, it appears that the two month ban ([76]) was meant to begin on 21:02, 29 October 2009 ([77] in fine) and was thus already expired at the time of the contested edit at 22:00, 29 December 2009. Finally, allusion is made by others to other occasions, including a "Jonathan Cook AfD", in which Nableezy is believed to have violated his topic ban. But these would need a properly formatted, separate and timely complaint (including diffs) in which they could be properly discussed. Accordingly, no arbitration enforcement action is required, based on this request, at this time. Sandstein 18:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Climate change

Resolved. Not a request for arbitration enforcement. This is not a general purpose noticeboard. Sandstein 18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A discussion from WP:AN relates to at least one and probably more cases plus one case requested right now, which is likely too unfocused right now. Experienced editors and dispute resolvers are invited to contribute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] ChildOfMidnight

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

[edit] Request concerning ChildOfMidnight

User requesting enforcement: Sceptre ^(talk) 00:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight and Scjessey restricted

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: [78] As COM was not mentioned in the amendment request (and Scjessey was) apart from a non-controversial statement explaining why I'm not adding him to the request, I believe that this is not exempt like the arbitration pages normally are from topic bans, and is, in spirit, similar to COM posting in an AN(I) thread about Scjessey and contravenes his restriction set down in the case.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): COM has been blocked three times for contravening his topic bans.
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: [79]

[edit] Discussion concerning ChildOfMidnight

[edit] Statement by ChildOfMidnight

[edit] Statement by Bigtimepeace

Just a quick comment here as I'm out the door. I don't think this should be acted on, though it was not improper to file the request for enforcement. ChildofMidnight was named (I think unnecessarily) in the Request for Amendment mentioned above. It was reasonable for him to respond at that point, though it is true he should not have mentioned Scjessey. In so doing the he was largely pointing to what ChildofMidnight perceived to be violations of the interaction restriction between Scjessey and C of M (which largely took place on my talk page). I don't think those comments were violations (see my statement here, especially paragraph three), but it's not unreasonable to for C of M to mention them if he saw a problem. The rub here is that there has been some recent discussion (going back to early December) about how to construe an interaction ban between two parties, and some of that discussion has led to accusations of violating the ban, etc. etc. In that context (which is a bit confusing, and admittedly somewhat ridiculous) I don't think sanctioning anyone is a good idea, though everyone involved should definitely drop the whole matter. A block of C of M really will not accomplish anything, particularly as the amendment request which led to this issue is now being withdrawn by the editor who proposed it. I can provide more detail about the situation later if needed but will be offline for the rest of the night. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Scjessey

In the interests of trying to foster good relations and avoid further drama, I would prefer that no action be taken against ChildofMidnight for this. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others about the request concerning ChildOfMidnight

[edit] Result concerning ChildOfMidnight

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

[edit] Request to modify topic ban (User:Thomas Basboll)

On December 8, a topic-ban against me that had been implemented under the 9/11 ArbCom ruling was suspended for a trial period of one-month. (See discussion archived here.) My original request had been to modify the ban: instead of being an indefinite ban it would become a two-year ban, to run out on April 21, 2010. I hadn't expected to return to editing so quickly, but I've tried to do some work that might indicate what sorts of thing I'd like to do if I returned. I'll leave it up to you to evaluate my editing and decide on the future status of the ban. Thanks for your time.--Thomas B (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Offliner

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

[edit] Request concerning Offliner

User requesting enforcement: Sander Säde 10:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: All following edits violate WP:BLP, specifically adding highly dubious category not supported by neither article content nor sources.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): [80] Arbitration enforcement by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights), later vacated as Offliner had not officially been warned under WP:DIGWUREN previously ([81])
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Extended topic ban from all BLP and Estonia-related articles

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Attempts by myself and others to resolve the issue without involving AE:

Offliner created category Category:Victims of Estonian political repression and added the category to three BLP articles - Mark Sirõk, Dmitri Linter and Johan Bäckman. There is no content whatsoever in any of those articles supporting the category as required by WP:BLP#Categories nor are there any sources whatsoever supporting it. Offliner has been repeatedly asked to provide sources ([83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]); so far he has not been able to do so and has only claimed that the inclusion of category is "clearly demonstrated" ([90], [91]).

As a background information - Mark Sirõk and Dmitri Linter organized a demonstration which became a looting and rioting (see Bronze Night). They were arrested under suspicion of organizing mass riots, but the court acquitted them of the charge and monetarily compensated the time they were arrested, as they were not responsible for the demonstration's becoming a riot - and peaceful demonstrations are obviously not forbidden. There have been no claims by them nor any other source that they were arrested for their political views.

Johan Bäckman has repeatedly calling to violently overthrow Estonian government. He attempted to come to Estonia without travel documents required to cross borders between Schengen countries, was detained (not arrested, like Offliner has repeatedly claimed) for a few hours and denied entry to the country under a brief entry prohibition (two weeks, if I remember correctly). No source has claimed he was "victimized" nor that he is a victim of "Estonian political repression".

Offliner has a history of BLP violations and tendentious editing of Estonia-related topics:

Mark Sirõk. Edit-warring to include BLP-violating material (health information sourced in a web forum!) and to remove well-sourced material: [92], [93], [94]
Kaitsepolitsei: Including and edit-warring to include criticism from non-valid sources (Johan Bäckman's blog and self-published book): [95], [96],

[97], [98], [99]

Creation of one-sided WP:POVFORK Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia, merged quickly to Human rights in Estonia after AfD.
Creation of draft in his userspace, which started "According to organization X, there is considerable glorification of the country's nazi past in Estonia, with parades of former SS-officers taking place in the capital Tallinn annually", an utter fabrication to a degree where it was seen as an attack page by an Estonian editor [100].

Response to Offliner

Please do not misrepresent BrownHairedGirl. She did not claim that removal of category from BLP articles during CfD discussion was inappropriate - in fact, she did the opposite, supporting removal of categories from articles that violate BLP principles, providing the articles are listed in CfD discussion and removal of category is clearly spelled out. And as I left a very clear notification to the CfD discussion prior to removing categories ([101]) and the articles are linked in the discussion...

You still haven't provided a single source supporting inclusion of those articles in the category, a policy which is very clearly spelled out in WP:BLP#Categories - and that despite close to ten requests to provide sources for your claims. Like you wrote below, you believe the inclusion of category to the articles is justified. Wikipedia does not work with beliefs, Wikipedia works with sources. Hence inclusion of this category to articles without single supporting source is a violation of core Wikipedia principles.

I fail to understand what has EEML has got to do with your policy violations? Also, you are (again) misrepresenting Arbitration Committee, as there are no FoF's related to "organizing campaigns aimed at getting rid of editors who had content disagreements with the group". Would you please stick to the truth at least on this page? --Sander Säde 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [102]

[edit] Discussion concerning Offliner

[edit] Statement by Offliner

User:Sander Säde emptied the category by removing it from all articles while the category was discussed at CfD.[103] This is inapproriate and forbidden under CfD policy: Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Therefore I reverted his removal.

As I have explained on the CfD, I believe the inclusion of the category in the three articles is justified. I definitely do not see a WP:BLP violation and neither did any of the other participants in the CfD. I have no objections to the category being deleted or removed from all articles if this is the consensus; I only reverted Sander Säde's removal because it is inapproriate during a CfD.~~as confirmed by admin User:BrownHairedGirl: [104].~~

I'd reluctantly also like to point out that User:Sander Säde was a member of the WP:EEML cabal, which according to ArbCom was responsible for organizing campaigns aimed at getting rid of editors who had content disagreements with the group. Offliner (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I was alerted to this discussion by a note on my talk page.[105]

I have no knowledge of the dispute between these two editors other than what I have seen at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression, and no comment on the dispute other than in relation to my note on removing articles from a category while it is being discussed at CFD.[106].

Offliner is incorrect to claim that I said that "it is inappropriate during a CfD". What I actually said was "Per WP:BLPCAT, I will always support the removal of BLP articles from categories which are not supported by references."[107]

In the same comment I also noted that "However, doing so whilst a CFD discussion is underway has a major impact on the discussion, so any such removal should be clearly notified at the CFD, listing the articles removed and explaining the reason. Editors discussing the fate of a category need to know why it has suddenly been emptied, because without that information they cannot reach a meaningful decision. Unless the decategorised articles are listed at the discussion, the removal appears sneaky, even when the removal has been done in good faith."

However, User:Sander Säde's comment at CFD noting the removal of articles did not actually list the articles removed.[108] They had been listed elsewhere in the discussion, but it would have been clearer for all concerned if the note on their removal had explicitly listed them, which User:Sander Säde has now done in response to my comment.[109] None of the three edits removing the category from articles[110][111][112] has an edit summary explaining the reason for their removal, which would also have been helpful.

At this point, rather than a further argument about process, it seems to me that since Offliner supports the categorisation of these three articles as "Victims of Estonian political repression", Offliner should explain which references to reliable sources explicitly support this view, without WP:OR or WP:SYN. My understanding of the relevant guidelines and of the general principle that wikipedia relies on secondary sources is that it is insufficient for a reference to simply report events; what is needed is references to reliable sources which explicitly make the value judgement that the actions against each of these people did amount to political repression.

As a wider point, I would like to note my only other comment in that CFD debate, in which I expressed a concern that the whole series of categories under Cat:Victims of political repression are too subjective to be viable.[113] It seems to me this particular dispute is an inevitable consequence of wikipedia's use of this group of subjective categories, and I am surprised that these categories do not appear to have generated many more similar disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others about the request concerning Offliner

[edit] Result concerning Offliner

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

User:Offliner is placed on a 1RR restriction for 6 months, with the additional condition that the user is also required to discuss all reverts. henrik•talk 13:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Requests for enforcement

[edit] Request concerning Nickhh, Nishidani, and Nableezy

[edit] Background

[edit] Reply by Nableezy

[edit] Comment by uninvolved editor Breein1007

[edit] Reply/Comment by Nickhh

[edit] Comment by uninvolved editor Sm8900

[edit] Comments by Tznkai

[edit] Comment by Mackan79

[edit] Comment by JoshuaZ

[edit] Result concerning Nickh, Nishidani, and Nableezy

[edit] Nefer Tweety

[edit] Request concerning Nefer Tweety

[edit] Discussion concerning Nefer Tweety

[edit] Statement by Nefer Tweety

[edit] Comments by others about the request concerning Nefer Tweety

[edit] Result concerning Nefer Tweety

[edit] Nableezy

[edit] Request concerning Nableezy

[edit] Discussion concerning Nableezy

[edit] Statement by Nableezy

[edit] Statement by Jaakobou

[edit] Statement by Tiamut

[edit] Statement by Epeefleche

[edit] Statement by Shuki

[edit] Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

[edit] Result concerning Nableezy

[edit] Climate change

[edit] ChildOfMidnight

[edit] Request concerning ChildOfMidnight

[edit] Discussion concerning ChildOfMidnight

[edit] Statement by ChildOfMidnight

[edit] Statement by Bigtimepeace

[edit] Statement by Scjessey

[edit] Comments by others about the request concerning ChildOfMidnight

[edit] Result concerning ChildOfMidnight

[edit] Request to modify topic ban (User:Thomas Basboll)

[edit] Offliner

[edit] Request concerning Offliner

[edit] Discussion concerning Offliner

[edit] Statement by Offliner

[edit] Statement by BrownHairedGirl

[edit] Comments by others about the request concerning Offliner

[edit] Result concerning Offliner