Epeefleche (talk | contribs) →User:Gilabrand: helpful to have this viewable |
|||
Line 448: | Line 448: | ||
== [[User:Gilabrand]] == |
== [[User:Gilabrand]] == |
||
{{user|Gilabrand}} blocked for three months and six-month topic ban reset.}} |
|||
===Request concerning User Gilabrand=== |
===Request concerning User Gilabrand=== |
||
Line 541: | Line 541: | ||
This request has merit. The user had been notified, has edited after notification, but has failed to respond to this thread. I therefore construe the silence to imply that no defense or mitigating factors are present. I find that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_Israel&action=historysubmit&diff=367924671&oldid=367923028] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palmach&action=historysubmit&diff=367730280&oldid=367729258] violate the user's ban from the [[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]] topic. This being her 5th topic ban violation, and the last block being one month, Gilabrand is blocked for three months, and the six-month topic ban is reset to begin anew upon the expiration or lifting of the block. Given her apparent inability to distinguish between edits that violate her topic ban and edits that do not, Gilabrand is urged to voluntarily avoid all content and discussions related to Israel for the duration of her topic ban, to reduce the likelihood of further violations. [[User:Tim Song|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Tim Song|talk]]) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
This request has merit. The user had been notified, has edited after notification, but has failed to respond to this thread. I therefore construe the silence to imply that no defense or mitigating factors are present. I find that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tourism_in_Israel&action=historysubmit&diff=367924671&oldid=367923028] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palmach&action=historysubmit&diff=367730280&oldid=367729258] violate the user's ban from the [[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]] topic. This being her 5th topic ban violation, and the last block being one month, Gilabrand is blocked for three months, and the six-month topic ban is reset to begin anew upon the expiration or lifting of the block. Given her apparent inability to distinguish between edits that violate her topic ban and edits that do not, Gilabrand is urged to voluntarily avoid all content and discussions related to Israel for the duration of her topic ban, to reduce the likelihood of further violations. [[User:Tim Song|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Tim Song|talk]]) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I agree with the above assessment, and, given that the request has been processed and additional comments are no longer required, am collapsing this thread. Editors are reminded that it is unhelpful to speculate about the motives for an AE request, or to criticize the sanction at issue: as long as the sanction is not lifted or successfully appealed, it will be enforced without regard as to who requests enforcement or why, and the only question that needs to be discussed in an AE thread is whether or not the sanction was violated and, if yes, what the appropriate enforcement action is. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
:I agree with the above assessment, and, given that the request has been processed and additional comments are no longer required, am collapsing this thread. Editors are reminded that it is unhelpful to speculate about the motives for an AE request, or to criticize the sanction at issue: as long as the sanction is not lifted or successfully appealed, it will be enforced without regard as to who requests enforcement or why, and the only question that needs to be discussed in an AE thread is whether or not the sanction was violated and, if yes, what the appropriate enforcement action is. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
== [[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]] == |
== [[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]] == |
||
===Request concerning [[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]]=== |
===Request concerning [[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]]=== |
Revision as of 05:39, 16 June 2010
Request concerning User:Breein1007
- User requesting enforcement
- Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Breein1007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions, warned:[1] (November 2009)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- There has been discussions at the Template talkpage: National Parks of Israel. Anyone can clearly see from the entire discussion there that in the end the majority agreed to have either "occupied territories" or mention the occupied territories by name in the template. Then there was a RfM to move an article List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel to: List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories. You can see the entire discussion here, admin closed it as "no consensus" for the move: [2] After this Breein1007 goes to the template, removed what was agreed at the template discussion and claims "this goes against the consensus of the recent RfC" So with the no-consensus RfM at the article he changed the consensus version of the template to the no-consensus version of the article. I asked the closing admin about this [3] and he said: "I will agree with you that a no consensus decision, does not bestow consensus status across the board for renames to the no consensus name. Each case needs to be considered on the individual merits. As to the contents of the template which is what I think your specific question is. This needs to be discussed on the template talk page and a decision reached there." I went to Breein1007s talkpage and told him this, and then he removes it from his talkpage: [4] And then he goes to the template and once again changes it to the same no-consensus version as the article RfM. Against the consensus at the template talkpage: [5] And then at the talkpage he says: [6] "And as discussed at the other article RfC, National parks "OF" Israel does not imply that they are in Israel." (misrepresenting the talkpage) "so please stop making POV edits with no consensus." He calls other peoples edits that follow the template talkpage consensus for "pov" while claiming it goes "against consensus" which is really a no-consensus from another RfM. And he did this after I pointed out to him what the closing admin had said, and he got no new consensus at the template discussion for the change he made.
UPDATE: Breein has continued to edit war and re insert the no-consensus version at the template: [7] He has done this twice now after that I showed him what the closing admin at the other article had said as shown above. He is removing the occupied territories when there is no consensus at any talkpage for them to be removed and then claims that he is "restoring the longstanding consensus." when its clear from the discussion that Breein is edit warring against consensus: [8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- There was a lot of discussions over several articles to change several mountains in the Golan Heights from the Hebrew name to the Arabic name:[9][10][11] The closing admin said there was no consensus so there was no change:[12][13](At this time the translation of the name was Arabic first, Hebrew second) Then there was talks about adding all the Golan mountains into one single article and having the names with a (/) next to each other. Breein1007 then went and changed the translation to put the Hebrew translation before the Arabic before getting any consensus at all for this change: "putting languages in right order" (once again misrepresenting the consensus at talkpage: "right order") [14][15] three times he reverts this and gets warned by admin, look at the edit summary when he removed it [16]
- At Golan Heights, a user had removed a quote and misrepresented the quote in the text, she changed it from the quotes: "more than 80%" to hers: "sometimes" I changed this [17] and explained this at the talkpage: [18] Breein jumps in and reverts, tells an IP "please stop edit warring, sock puppet. use the talk page as asked". But if you look at the discussion, the version that Breein1007 reverted to had no consensus, and Breein1007 himself did not use the talkpage as he had asked the IP to do: [19] He just reverted, inserting a sentence that the source did not support, that had no consensus, and that Breein1007 himself did not discuss about at the talkpage while asking an IP to talk about it.
- [20] Types "per talk" in edit summary, but if you look at the talkpage there is no consensus for his edit. He is deliberately misrepresenting the talkpage in his edit summary. [21] He also said at the talkpage that Nick did not "address the issue" which is exactly what Nick did: [22]
- Canvassing: A user goes to Breein1007s talkpage and asks him for help to participate in an edit war: "Need help to fight wih PoV"... Breein then goes to the article and helps him out in the edit war: [23][24][25][26][27] And they were also talking with each other in Hebrew, in what appears to be about the article: [28][29][30]
- Makes at least 10 reverts to Gaza flotilla raid in 1 hour: (I have not counted the 1 rvs or 2 rvs so its probably more then 10) [31][32][33][34][35][36][37] (7) [38][39][40](3) When another editor warned him about this he removed the warning and said "ignoring comments from an unwelcome individual" He got blocked for this.
Incivility/Behavior:
- Behavior (talking about an admin): "There is this one piece of shit idiot admin"... "he has the reading comprehension of a 5 year old"... "I was kind of looking forward to making a fool out of him for a bigger audience and stripping him of his admin powers"
- Behavior: "What the hell are you talking about"
- Behavior: "I would suggest that you either speak for yourself, or ask your doctor for an increase in dose of your meds; seems like your multiple personalities are acting up." (Then ads it again [56])
- Connects an ANI thread opened about him by coincidence on a Jewish holiday to: "the brutality and disgusting nature of the Arabs in the Yom Kippur War"
- Makes fun of a user who cant speak english well: [57] (Although some have suggested that Ani Medjool faked his bad english, Breein1007 didn't know this. Its the thought that counts.)
- Sabotages a DYK: [58]
I find it inappropriate that Breein has opened up several long discussions with admins specifically about this AE outside of this AE request, instead of replying here: [61] [62][63] and notifies an editor who edits on the same side as him in Arab-Israeli conflict articles to one of those off-AE discussions:[64] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
[65] (November 2009)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Permanent topic ban from Arab-Israeli conflict articles. His editing and behavior has been a long term problem within Arab-Israeli conflict articles. He has clearly failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. He has been sanctioned and warned many times, but it doesn't seem like it helps. He has clearly shown that he cant collaborate with other editors within Arab-Israeli conflict articles and he causes a lot of disruption at them.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
User Breein1007 has since he registered his account in November 2009 been banned 5 times [66] all of these banns are within the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has also been subject to an interaction ban: [67]
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Breein1007
Statement by Breein1007
Comments by others about the request concerning Breein1007
I can comment on Ani Majdul case and on asking Israeli admin to give him rollbacks rights in Hebrew language.
First, in the case of Ani Majdul, everyone on the ANI opened against Breein1007 agreed (including one or two admins), after detailed investigation by uninvolved editor was made and presented on the ANI, that he is most probably editor who write in bad English on purpose and that he's not the one he present himself to be (Arab refugee from Lebanon if I'm correct) both because of what seems as delibrate spelling and grammar mistakes, because of his style of editing and because even he presented himself as Arabic native speaker, he seems not to be able to communicate in very basic level of Arabic. Then, some suggested that he's Breein's sock. Breein seem to noticed the suspicious style of editing on Ani Majdul, he might go wrong anyway with mocking him a little, and there is possibilty that Ani is who he say he's, but the case is very complicated and Breein might feel that Ani mocking everyone so he responded accordingly but this case doesn't make it just to cast sanctions on Breein. If I'm not mistaken, it was monthes ago and the ANI case ended with nothing.
As for addressing Israeli admin in Hebrew. First, the nationality of one admin, let us all agree, is not relevant and we excpect admins who are involved emotionaly or at all in certain issues to be responsible enough to avoid any using of sysop tools in regard to these areas of editing or when dealing with involved editors. There is enough place to assume good faith here as I don't believe he realy thought Israeli admin will give roll backs rights without proper process and not according to WP policy. Second, Breein adressed me many times in Hebrew in issues which have nothing to do with Wikipedia, just because he seem to enjoy parcticing the language or something. He do it very frequently on his TP when corresponding with other Hebrew speaking editors in issues concern more with his everyday life than with WP. It's not uncommon that many many editors communicate with other editors in their native language when they have the oppertunity. Most times they even forget to add translation to English. I've seen editors communicating with each other in French, Arabic, Persian and Spanish many times before. No one realy think that it can hide what they write. There are enough very good speakers of Hebrew in both sides of the I-P area of editing and I can even name them. Some of those also have Hebrew tag on their UP. If I'm not mistaken, it was long time ago.
I don't intend to comment on other cases I'm not very familiar with, don't have time to and etc. Infact, these are the two diffs provided by the editor opened this case that I've read --Gilisa (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Shuki The past few months had been a welcomed respite from the battleground editing that Supreme Deliciousness and his like brought to the I-P conflict on WP. SD was topic banned on May 1 for 30 days and the quiet persisted. It is apparent though that SD has refused to calm down and decided to turn up the heat again with this frivolous report, somewhat similar to the one he filed on me in April in the hot recent spring. SD is fishing here and with no real point to grab on to. SD was also warned about his battleground mentality a couple of weeks before that in early April. --Shuki (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have already received a topic ban for something I mostly did a very long time ago:[68] If I now have done something wrong, file a new enforcement request. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- And Breein1007 has just been [banned for 48 hours] so this AE is quite redundant, vague and again, frivolous. There is nothing really here to action on except getting a bit emotional and pushing the limits of civility, nothing to do with the arbitration case. --Shuki (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Breein1007s ban on June 1 was only for his edit war on Gaza flotilla raid article, what about the other 99% of this enforcement request? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- And Breein1007 has just been [banned for 48 hours] so this AE is quite redundant, vague and again, frivolous. There is nothing really here to action on except getting a bit emotional and pushing the limits of civility, nothing to do with the arbitration case. --Shuki (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Statement by NickCT This is slightly silly. Anyone familair with Breein knows that if one took the time one could provide 1,000s on examples similair to the ones Supreme has offered above. His negative behavior has spanned over a long period of time. That anyone would speak for him here simply goes to demonstrate the disturbing bias that surrounds I/P issues. @PhilK - Sup is right about the recent block being for edit warring. These charges are different. PhilK, I'm a little surprised you were so willing to block me for suggesting Breein was a "bigot", and yet, in the face of the language and behavior above, which seems far further over the line, you do nothing. Is this a double standard? Is there a reason for it? NickCT (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Breein's disruptive behavior continues here. This is a pretty blatant edit war against the consensus opinion on the talk page. Can some admin take action on this AE before it goes stale? NickCT (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Housekeeping
- Just a note for archiving purposes: The editor filing this AE has posted notice at the AN forum[69]. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 20:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
more comments by Supreme Deliciousness moved up from below as per explicit guideline
- This is not true, read the first part of the enforcement request, his long time behavior problem continued yesterday several days after his latest block on June 1. And that same block on June 1 was only about his edit warring at one article: Gaza flotilla raid, what about the other 99% of things he has done in this enforcement request? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- B, all his incivility or the majority of it is related to Arab-Israel conflict issues, he has been warned many, many times but it doesn't help. And can you please comment on the first part of the request, the template issue, the canvassing and his behaviour at the Mountains in the Golan Heights, isn't this covered in discretionary sanctions? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- You did not answer about the canvassing part. Concerning the template, its name had consensus, and he changed it against consensus, the article name did not have consensus. So if anyone is gonna be changed to match the other, its not the one that has consensus that is going to be changed to the no-consensus one. I showed him the involving admins comment, and he still changed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know how he can be guilty of canvassing when he was the one canvassed. Blaming him for that is ridiculous. As for the edits themselves, yes, it's edit warring, and if reported, the article could have been locked or a block could have been considered, but it's stale now. --B (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- You did not answer about the canvassing part. Concerning the template, its name had consensus, and he changed it against consensus, the article name did not have consensus. So if anyone is gonna be changed to match the other, its not the one that has consensus that is going to be changed to the no-consensus one. I showed him the involving admins comment, and he still changed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
CIreland, concernign (1), the majority of things here, he have never been sanctioned for, only the edit warring at one article, gaza flotilla raid. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
B, there has been many attempts at intervention. Look how many warnings he received, I posted them in the evidence. Look at his many blocks and interaction ban, all within Arab-Israeli conflict articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Note for reviewing admins: The people in this enforcement request that have come to defense of Breein1007, (Shuki, Gilisa, Nsaum75, Jiujitsuguy) are people who edit on the same side as him in Arab-Israeli conflict articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- note to SupremeDeliciousness, please note that absolutely no one on 'your' side has come to support your frivolous report. This usually means that they do not support it at all. --Shuki (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The report is not frivolous and referring to it as such is not consistent with granting him the presumption of good faith. You can disagree with SupremeDeliciousness's interpretation of events or proposed remedies without assuming that he is acting in bad faith.--B (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry B, about the use of the word frivolous, that is your opinion and you should respect that I have my own. I have no doubt that especially in this case, AGF is long ago in the past, and now he is acting in bad faith, especially since he does not seem to respect that you and the other admins have put doubts in what he thought was an easy case. He put a lot of effort into documenting old edits by Breein and seeing how doubts of his own intentions are raised and this is being dragged out longer than expected, he evidently is losing confidence in his objective. He keeps commenting here and feels the need to make sure that he is part of the discussion that you admins are having. The above 'note for reviewing admins' is utterly ridiculous and I am disappointed that none of you bothered to comment on this attempt to influence you on disregarding the opposing comments that have been left here by other editors. George actually commented on my page that my edit summary was not civil, but I will quote George about SD's comment above: it increases the level of tension and discord and makes finding solutions for problems harder. Abusive behavior is an indirect assault on the community as a whole. But frankly, how do I identify bad faith? The fact that absolutely no one on 'his' side has come to support him on this, and his demand to totally ban Breein from the I-P area, not merely ask for a cool-down period. SD wants to shut up Breein, and apparently Nsaum75 as well, given the recent comments left on his talk page. --Shuki (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
B, if you follow the Wikipedia:ANI#Repeated attempted outing you posted , you'll see that Breein did not violate outing at all for a user that widely uses his real name. --Shuki (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Nsaum75
Breein1007's incivil behavior aside, I would like to remind the admins that that some of the POV issues that SD is raising about Breein's editing style, are the same editing styles that helped contribute to SD's topic ban in May[70]. Nobody is perfect and I would ask that the involved parties try to find a solution that doesn't escalate the already tenacious game of "tag" that appears to play out in IP related AE filings. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 04:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thats not true. I was topic banned for some comments I made at talkpages mostly a long time ago, and the admin who topic banned me said himself that: "the most compelling and disturbing behavior adduced here is nearly a year old." I was not topic banned for anything that I have brought up here about Breein1007. The comments I made at talkpages were mostly a long time ago so that was why it was a thirty day ban. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the admins cited battleground behavior and issues with "naming disputes" on Levant articles, and the POV "re arranging" of WP project listings... which does pertain to part of the accusations against Breein - because he/she himself has contributed to the revert-disruption at some of the very same articles involving naming conventions and translations; That is why I commented on it here. That is also why I think it is important that the admins keep in mind the "tag-team" behavior and editor aggressiveness (fishing, abuse of process, forum/admin shopping, admin canvassing) that has overtake all I-P related AE filings. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 13:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- He mentioned battleground behaviour, it was some things I had posted at talk pages that was the problem, the things I posted were involving origins of things. And many of them were from a long time ago. I haven't mentioned any WP project rearranging at this enforcement request. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the admins cited battleground behavior and issues with "naming disputes" on Levant articles, and the POV "re arranging" of WP project listings... which does pertain to part of the accusations against Breein - because he/she himself has contributed to the revert-disruption at some of the very same articles involving naming conventions and translations; That is why I commented on it here. That is also why I think it is important that the admins keep in mind the "tag-team" behavior and editor aggressiveness (fishing, abuse of process, forum/admin shopping, admin canvassing) that has overtake all I-P related AE filings. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 13:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that someone like SD, with his past baggage, can bring a case like this against Breein. It strikes me as a bit hypocritical. I looked at the complaint and it's clear that Breein has already been sanctioned for the subject actions that gave rise to the instant complaint. Issuing a second sanction would be akin to punishing Breein twice for the same alleged offense and that would be manifestly unfair.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not true, Breein has never been sanctioned for 99% of all things brought up in this enforcement request. And his edit warring at Gaza flotilla raid is unrelated to his general incivility, battle behaviour, and other things he has done at articles brought up at this enforcement request, which he hasn't been sanctioned for. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Btw, interesting comments from Jiujitsuguy who also left these comments at Breeins talkpage:[71] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed that comment, and was considering raising it here as an example of breach of BLP, racism, possible libel and other unacceptable behaviour. RolandR (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think comments on talk pages are subject to those rules RR. NickCT (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Those rules are applicable across Wikipedia, not just on article pages. I suggest asking Jiujitsuguy to remove those comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)"The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages". Similarly, racist or libellous comments are never acceptable in Wikipedia. My history with the editors concerned means it would not be a good idea for me to remove this; but I think someone should. RolandR (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think comments on talk pages are subject to those rules RR. NickCT (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed that comment, and was considering raising it here as an example of breach of BLP, racism, possible libel and other unacceptable behaviour. RolandR (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ahmadinajad called Zionists “the most detested people in humanity,” referred to the Holocaust as “a myth,” accused Jews of playing up Nazi atrocities in a bid to extort sympathy for Israel, called Israel a “fake regime” that “must be wiped off the map,” sponsored a Holocaust denial symposium, murdered members of the Iranian opposition and used his Basij thugs to terrorize peaceful protestors. Considering Ahmadinajad’s hateful past, the comments I made were complimentary. RolandR and ChrisO do you subscribe to these views?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- These alleged remarks were not made on Wikipedia, so they are not relevant to this discussion. My opinion of them is none of your business. RolandR (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've left Jiujitsuguy a warning on his talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- These alleged remarks were not made on Wikipedia, so they are not relevant to this discussion. My opinion of them is none of your business. RolandR (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment by unomi
Re Shuki stating please note that absolutely no one on 'your' side has come to support your frivolous report. This usually means that they do not support it at all. above. Wikipedia does not function at its best when it is interpreted as a democracy, having 'X' number of editors jumping in and stating Agree/Disagree adds very little to a conversation and only serves to impede actual decision making, deferring to the mob. In cases such as these the evidence should be at the center of attention. There is simply no point in jumping in and me too'ing when the evidence is this strong, one would hope...
The fact that Breein was blocked for actions on the flotilla article does not in any way invalidate the claims made here,- that Breein is persistently acting in a manner that is in contravention of community norms and is exhibiting behavior that should incur Arbcom sanctioned remedies. Sanctions incurred for past misdeeds do not erase or even negate those misdeeds, only a demonstrated change in behavior can. Remember that we are not here to punish anyone, we are not here to ensure some balance of misdeeds vs sanctions, we are here to ensure a relatively constructive editing environment.
The gross civility violations obviously hinder encouraging a collaborative atmosphere, but the multiple willful misrepresentations of consensus and the actions of other editors absolutely deny it. I could understand if it was a one-off, but as the evidence collected by SD show, it is more of a MO than a slip-up; Specifically, using the 3 oppose vs 4 support no-consensus RfC (on a different article) to muscle through the 'Right ' version on a template is not something that we want to see.
I can understand that there is some frustration, but if editors are not willing to engage in centralized discussion then we are unable to untangle the misunderstandings. The general question of occupied territories has been sought discussed at IPCOLL the discussion has been widely advertised and many of the editors weighing at this venue have also weighed in there, except for Breein.
That Breein has so far refrained from commenting here, and instead engaged directly with commenting admins is, to my mind, deeply inappropriate. I urge all editors to work towards ensuring that our stated community goals and standards are met and enforced. Unomi (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Breein1007
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Agree with Shuki - all of this happened before his block, so I don't think any action is required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think some sort of civility probation seems appropriate. With the rest of it, apart from what he was already blocked for, it's hard to make out a definitive "right" or "wrong" party. Some of the incivility is clearly over the top and on at least one occasion more recent than the block a week ago [72]. I would support civility probation. I don't know that a topic ban is warranted, though. --B (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, anything is technically covered by the discretionary sanction provision - that's why it's called "discretionary". ;) But in the case of the template header issue, (1) it's silly to fight over the label of the template, (2) it's logical that the template would match the name of the article, whatever that may be, and (3) even if you presume that his preferred title was less preferable, two edits six days apart are hardy sufficient cause to impose sanctions. Regarding the Golan Heights "does Hebrew or Arabic come first" issue, that's (1) a silly thing to argue about, and (2) stale. As I said above, I don't see anything actionable except possibly civility. --B (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afriad I must disagree with B and PhilKnight, above. Although some of Breein1007's actions have drawn sanctions in the past, I think that this report, combined with even a cursory examination of Breein1007's contribution history, demonstrates a persistent pattern of poor behaviour that has gone unaddressed by isolated blocks. In such a contentious topic area, a collegial approach is especially important and edit-warring, incivility etc. is especially problematic. In my opinion, a topic-ban (articles and discussions) of between one and three months is appropriate; had I come first to this report I would have imposed such a ban but, given that other administrators disagree, I'll naturally leave the final decision to consensus. CIreland (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi CIreland, having looked at the evidence presented again, I think my earlier comment was hasty. I suggest you go ahead and apply a ban. PhilKnight (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree that anything beyond some sort of civility sanction is warranted, but the discretionary sanction says "any uninvolved administrator", not "any uninvolved administrator with the consent of everyone else who happens to be there", so if you think it's necessary, then do what you will. But I would also suggest that there are other remedies short of an outright topic ban. If revert warring is a problem, then a topic 1RR for this user would resolve that problem. Mentoring is available. A topic ban is not really appropriate unless the user is so irredeemably biased/disruptive/whatever that other intermediate steps would be a waste of time. --B (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am concerned that the reporting party has identified only one edit that I can see that was since the most recent block. I asked them on ANI to post those edits which were more recent than the block and they do not appear to have done so. That would tend to make the whole report stale... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- My only real worry is the request in Hebrew for rollback privilege. You simply don't use foreign languages on this Wikipedia in those circumstances other than to avoid scrutiny of your request. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know ... people email such requests all the time. I think the only time I've ever answered affirmatively to one that was emailed to me was when it was someone whose rollback I had removed asking that I restore it ... but I do see such requests via email from time to time. Asking for it in Hebrew can't be any worse than an emailed request. --B (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a conflict between two approaches to arbitration enforcement here, both of which are legitimate.
- One approach treats this in a similar manner to a report at WP:AN3, in which one would not sanction twice for the same incident. According to this approach, we would only give weight to problems since the most recent block.
- The other approach deals with this report in a similar manner to that used in arbitration - the arbitration committee considers patterns of prior blocks in its findings of fact and imposes remedies accordingly.
When I advocated a topic-ban, above, it was largely on the basis of the second approach because I don't think adminstrators imposing run-of-the-mill 3RR blocks would necessarily look at the overall picture. By contrast, looking at an editor's contribution history overall is what I think should occur at arbitration enforcement. CIreland (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Response to CIreland --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree that option #2 is more appropriate in general, my concern is (1) there hasn't been a real attempt at intervention and (2) much of the conduct submitted seems more along the lines of a petty squabble than a problem that requires a topic ban. That is why I suggest civility parole and topic 1RR. --B (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Response to B --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Per WP:ANI#Repeated attempted outing, I withdraw my objections to harsher sanctions. This behavior is clearly unacceptable. --B (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Reply to B per WP:ANI#Repeated attempted outing --Shuki (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support some kind of strong 1RR restriction or (probably unnecessary at the moment) a topic ban. A quick purusal of Breein1007's editing patterns, even in the last few days (when he must know he's in hot water), shows that he has serious issues with edit-warring on, well, basically every article he chooses to edit. -- tariqabjotu 02:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Nakh
User placed on reverting restriction. |
---|
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 Nakh
Discussion concerning NakhStatement by NakhFirst of all I don't understand why am I responsible for Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 sanction. I don’t belong to any of these groups. If there is some sanctions concerning, Ancient history or Iron age it will be better for me. I want to thank Marshal for this notification, there was a really need for arbitration. Because there are many acts of vandalism on Hurrian related pages, and I couldn’t request arbitration for all of these users. Ok! Let’s start from very beginning. There is a serious problem in wiki and in normal life with nationalism. It’s not related only to Armenians, but also some Turk, Kurd and Nakh-Daghestanian groups. (in issues related Hurrians) I’m not going to discuss who’s right in here. But Wiki is becoming nationalists propaganda magazine in Hurrian issues. This was the reason why I abused Armenian Diaspora endlessly removing “As ancestors of Armenians” kind topics. To response complains against my actions; Related “unfortunate tendency of removing edits”: I don’t, I just remove edits which are not discussed and aren’t objective, unilateral or including propaganda. But my opponents seem to have "unfortunate tendency of removing edits" without discussing them, I was just reverting it to last objective version. Related discussion, users from my side have answered all your questions, also there is another discussion which you didn’t responded, for example “navigation templates”, “"nationalism" section” discussion on Talk:Urartu page. Then why did you do these additions without discussing them? “I feel that the restrictions in place on … will actually help him to click on the discussion, rather than the revert, button more often” Less natism and more answers from your side may help me more, don’t you agree with me? I kindly ask administration; 1st replace all navigation templates as “Armenian history” or “Turkish history” by templates as “Iron Age” or “Ancient Mesopotamia” at all such disputable pages. That’s objective. See; Nairi, Mitanni, Urartu, Hurrians and so on. 2nd replace “Ancestors of Armenians” topic with “Greco-Roman historiography” which is more objective. (At Mitanni page) 3rd remove Urartu is to Armenians what ancient Britons are to the English, and Gauls are to the French. Claim from Urartu page or take it in quote, because its opinion of a scholar and not generally accepted. 4th Please don’t remove protected status from Urartu page, and add that to Nairi, Hurrian and some more pages. 5th Please ask what do they think to dab and EvgenyGenkin they are dealing with natism problem at both english and russian sides of Wikipedia. Nakh 12:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"You made more reverts than anybody else, Nakh, and are therefore being considered for a more severe sanction." Yes, I agree. I understand that, I deserve the hardest sanction and it will be very fair. I foreseen it from very beginning, yet did it because was believing in a good reason. I don't have anything to add as defense. Waiting for sanctions. By the way, thank you for giving chance to defend myself and express my opinion. Sincerely Nakh 13:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Nakh
Result concerning Nakh
|
Varsovian
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Varsovian
- User requesting enforcement
- Dr. Loosmark 21:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions, User_talk:Varsovian#Arbitration_enforcement_warning:_discretionary_sanctions_.28WP:DIGWUREN.29, ([85]).
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- #
[86] <Accusing other editors of calling him racist, not providing diffs. This entire thread seems like a harassment thread, aiming at driving an editor away from a discussion>
[87] <Personal attack and bad faith assumption - discussing another editor in a fashion that shines bad light on them and is not relevant to the ongoing discussion>
[88] <Unnecessary comments about another editor - borderline personal attacks, poisoning the discussion atmosphere>
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- {{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- block or other sanction which would stop such type of behavior
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- I believe that diffs like presented above are unacceptable and I am especially disappointed by such behavior because user:Varsovian was very recently sanctioned by user:Sandstein and advised to stop claiming that people have accused him racism when they did not. It did not stop him.
Reply to Strife: Have you read the Digwuren sanction Varsovian is under? We are not talking about just reasonable civility standards (which is always somewhat personal interpretation) but direct violation of his sanction which requires him to provide the diff at the same moment when he is alleging misconduct of another user. He accused me of trying to divert attention from a warning I received. How exactly was I trying to "divert attention"!? He claimed that Kotniski is making accusation of racism without any diffs, is that not in direct violation of his Digwuren sanction? What exactly is the point of having him under such a sanction if he can freely ignore it!? Dr. Loosmark 09:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Varsovian's statement: I am not quite sure why is Varsovian providing diffs from 2009. Yes I might have made mistakes in the past but I own my errors and those diffs have nothing to do with request against Varsovian. Just briefly: 1) Kotniski has not accused Varsovian of racism, but Varsovian keeps repeating that. 2) He wrote bellow: How is it a personal attack to mention that he’s been warned that week?. Mentioning that I was warned that week is not a personal attack, however implying that I am trying to "divert attention" from being warned is in direct violation of his sanction. 3) I totally reject the bad faith accusation that I have deliberately mistranslated a source. I maintain that my translation was accurate. 4) Claiming that I have a problem "controlling myself" as he claims bellow is uncivil. Dr. Loosmark 11:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Further reply to V.: Varsovian is now stating that he didn't accuse me of deliberately mistranslating a source. Fine. Here is what he wrote: But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me! Why should I be "happy" that he didn't report me for deliberately mistranslating a source? In my opinion his implication is clear: the only reason I could possibly be happy that he didn't report me for deliberately mistranslating a source is if I would have really deliberately mistranslated a source. Dr. Loosmark 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [89]
Discussion concerning Varsovian
Statement by Varsovian
Summary
The best solution here is that Loosmark and I are both completely banned from interacting with each other.
Loosmark's accusations
Third diff he provides. I must admire Loosmark’s front here: the gall he has when complaining about this post is staggering. Loosmark claimed that a Polish source “states precisely that he [the subject of this article] was in the "Belarusian police" ”. The source actually says “Sawoniuk, który w czasie okupacji służył w granatowej policji białoruskiej,". “granatowej policji białoruskiej” actually translates as “the Blue police in/of Belarus” (for details of granatowej policji see this article). It most certainly does not translate to “Belarusian police”. I assumed and stated that Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake in his translation and state that I am not “accusing Loosmark of misconduct” with his unfortunate mistranslation (despite the fact that Loosmark has translated the phrase in precisely the meaning which supports his PoV). But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me!
Second diff he provides.The same week as being warned he threatens to report me for stating that a if a man who was born in Poland to a Polish mother is not Polish, another man who was born in Poland to a Polish mother is also not Polish. How is it a personal attack to mention that he’s been warned that week?
First diff he provides. No diff? Got me on that one. There is no diff: because the post contains a direct quotation from the post immediately above it! Let’s get one thing straight: if one said to somebody “you are anti-negro” or “you seem to have something against black people”, one’d be calling them a racist. Insert the word Polish or Poles in place of negro or black and you have the same accusations of racism. Strangely Loosmark doesn’t mention Kotniski’s repeated accusations that I am not editing in good faith ([90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95], a quote from that last one “That you're putting unsourced facts into an article, or dishonestly citing sources which don't support what you're writing, or putting off-topic information into an article just to smear a particular nation that you seem to have something against.”) or that the first post in that thread is “You have now made your second accusation that I am editing in bad faith. Kindly refrain from doing and strike out your accusation on the WP:POLAND page or I will request that you are warned of DIGWUREN sanctions.” How is a polite request that somebody doesn’t not make accusations of bad faith editing a “harassment thread”? Loosmark also claims I am accusing “other editors” but he has only provided a diff which mentions a single editor. What an unfortunate mistake.
Loosmark’s conduct and a requested solution
Loosmark has been warned of DIGWUREN sanctions ([96]), topic banned under DIGWUREN sanctions ([97]), placed on revert restrictions ([98]) and given a formal warning under DIGWUREN sanctions (“violates Wikipedia conduct norms, notably WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLE.” [99]). Since that formal warning, he has in relation to me been warned again for WP:BATTLE behaviour ("Continued misuse of this forum as a battleground will result in sanctions."[100]) and warned again about being civil ([101]). And for good measure a 3RR violation ([102] [103] [104]) while he attempted to keep an off-topic argument with me visible. When I asked Loosmark to self-revert he denied that he had reverted me "even once" and accused me of making "bogus accusation." ([105]). However, after I posted about his behaviour on Matthead's talkpage ([106]), he self-reverted ([107]) claiming "returned the collapse thing to avoid the usual wiki-drama. i still don't agree with it and will raise the issue at an appropriate board later." He didn't raise the issue.
This all suggests that Loosmark has something of a problem controlling himself when it comes to me finds civil interaction difficult when it comes to me. He and I were having problems at Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946 until I imposed an interaction ban on myself with regard to him ([108]). Loosmark couldn’t resist having the last word ([109]) but since then peace has reigned at the article.
Given that the solution has worked well on that page, I suggest that it be extended: i.e. Loosmark and I should both be topic banned from each other. We will not be allowed to reply to each other’s posts on discussion pages or talk pages, we will not be allowed to comment on each other’s edits. We will not be allowed to edit an article for 48 hours after the other has edited it. We will not be allowed to mention each other or even allude to each other anywhere on WP (i.e. talk pages, discussion pages, edit summaries, AE requests, everywhere!). I believe that this action will solve the problem and am only sorry that I haven’t got the strength to simply ignore Loosmark everywhere in the same way that I have managed at Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946.
- Further support that Loosmark has 'difficulty' in interacting with me in a civil way come from his reply to my comments. He says "I totally reject the bad faith accusation that I have deliberately mistranslated a source." but I have clearly stated above "I assumed and stated that Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake"! Varsovian (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just to make it clear: in the above I am not alleging any misconduct by Loosmark. I'm sure that when he read my "Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake" and read that as me saying he had "deliberately mistranslated a source", he made that mistake in good faith too. Varsovian (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Kotniski
More of his gems about me smearing Poles (this gave my girlfriend, her kids, my former uni students from when I was working here with Peace Corps and all my colleagues (i.e. some of the Poles who actually know me) a good laugh). I will reply in detail to his comments when I have enough time to (probably not until next week, I intend to be sat in front of the TV this weekend) but could he perhaps quote the part of WP:CIVIL which says ‘It’s perfectly acceptable to be incivil if you are dealing with “people like that” ’? Varsovian (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes Kotniski “policji białoruskiej” does mean "Belorussian Police". However, the source actually says “granatowej policji białoruskiej” and, as we both know granatowej policji means Blue Police.
Comment by Stifle
Please note that the comment from Kotniski which alleged that I trying to "smear a particular nation that you seem to have something against" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kotniski&diff=prev&oldid=367250748), i.e. that I am anti-Polish, which is the same as being racist, was the post immediately above my post on the talk page. You really think that I should have provided a diff in that situation?
I'm reminded of a group of editors from Eastern Europe who used to tag team their opponents: one or more would deliberately wind up an opponent and then another would immediately report the smallest infraction by the wound-up opponent. While clearly Loosmark and Kotniski would never engage in such behaviour, we have [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] from Kotniksi and then Loosmark jumps straight in with a report. Against me of course, Kotniski's self-confessed incivility isn't even worth a mention to Loosmark. Varsovian (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Chumchum7
This diff well describes Chumchum7's comments "But in its current state it is too long and argumentative and contains too few relevant diffs. We are not interested in opinions, we are interested in evidence." Despite being told that this page is not for long argumentative opinions, Chumchum7 simply copy/pastes his entire long (2,038 word!)argumentative opinion. Not the most helpful of contributions. Varsovian (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Varsovian
What we have here is a strongly POV-motivated editor who gives a very clear impression that his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to smear Poland and Poles generally (or wind up Polish editors, I don't know exactly what his motivation is). Anyone with an ounce of experience with these issues knows this - we won't make any progress by trying to pretend such things are not so. So frankly I'm not so concerned with the uncivility of his comments (and I'm sorry if people find what I say back to him uncivil, but Wikipedia forces reasonable editors to interact with people like that, so it's understandable if frustration and the desire for simple truth sometimes leads us to call spades spades), as with the inherent and unapologetic biased-ness of his editing. And it's not just him - there are other similar editors (you all presumably know them better than I do) on all sides. If ArbCom and admins really want to solve these issues, they must address the underlying problems of agenda-driven editing, rather than (just) the surface phenomenon of incivility.--Kotniski (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh and "policji białoruskiej" most certainly does translate as Belarusian police - maybe it's a simple linguistic mistake on Varsovian's part clamining that it doesn't, but there is no way in the world that it translates to "Polish police" as he originally claimed. But I'm tired talking to him or taking any further part in this debate - any discussion with him (even though civil on the surface) is destined to consist of this kind of untruths and fantastic original theories. --Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Chumchum7 here. I recently wrote the following complaint about Varsovian at AE, which I may get round to filing in standard AE format, if I ever get the time. Any or all of it may be used as evidence here:
Extended content
|
---|
I've chosen not to use the AE template so as to provide a fuller account of this long story, but all the required content is here. This filing is about Varsovian further to an Arbitration Enforcement warning here [116] then a block here [117] then my ANI here [118] which led to a DIGWUREN Arbitration Enforcement warning by User:Sandstein on 26th April here [119] and then most recently sanctions from User:Sandstein here [120] The DIGWUREN wording is clear: "If you, Varsovian, continue to fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (including the policies cited above), in the Eastern Europe topic area, you may be made subject to blocks, bans or other sanctions according to the cited arbitral remedy without further warning." I recently took a look at London Victory Parade of 1946, which is where much of Varsovian's troublesome activity has been. Sadly it appears that Varsovian has returned to his old ways there despite my ANI and the consequent warning that DIGWUREN sanctions may be applied. Firstly, these edits are of most concern, and their misleading edit summaries are equally troubling: [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] In these edits, Varsovian has repeatedly re-added or defended a piece of data that other editors have contested; he has also personally synthesised this data from other pieces of information in the citation; he appears to have done this to enable him to make his own desired assertion that 'no more than 8,000 members of the Armia Krajowa were full-time armed members as of 1943' and variants of this. It seems that the citation he uses does not specifically provide us with the data, but Varsovian has made his own calculations from data in the source and reached this statistic himself. While that could have been an uncontroversial breach of WP:SYNTH easily dealt with, the bigger problem is that the synthetic data is being used in breach of WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE. He appears to want to use this synthesised statistic as a weapon to compete with other editors on the page. Varsovian has been at WP far too long not to know that he was in breach of WP:SYNTH, and that he should not have disputed other editors' problem with this material. But he continues to defend it aggressively. Other editors cut the data because they cannot find anywhere in the citation. Varsovian is warring to keep the data in place. As can be seen from edit summaries and Talk page discussion, there's little respect by Varsovian for the normal process of consensus-building and collegiality that is the ethos of our community. Eventually, User:PTwardowski complains about all this on the talk page here [127] and asks where Varsovian's behaviour should be reported. According to the above mentioned DIGWUREN warning, it should have been reported here at WP:AE. Varsovian finally explains his rationale as to why he is reverting to keep the data in place, in response to User:PTwardowski here [128]. In fact Varsovian's explanation demonstrates that his additions have been a clear case of WP:NOR. It had baffled other editors because the data was not in the citation, and yet Varsovian presents himself as if he has vindicated himself with the explanation, and moreover that he is the victim: "I would be most grateful if you could kindly refrain from calling me a liar." This is some kind of strange behavioural game, and I recognise a lot of Varsovian's behaviour in the guideline notes at WP:GAME. Then, as can be seen from the discussion chain [129] User:Loosmark joins in, with a valid question: "What exactly has that number to do with the London Parade?" The question is a fair one: the data is made up, being warred over as well as irrelevant. Then, something even more concerning can be observed. Having already demonstrated a breach of WP:NOR, Varsovian goes on to reveal that his underlying desire is not to have any data at all: "I personally feel that information regarding size of contribution to WWII have no place at all in an article about the London victory parade" he says. So why the tendentious addition of the 8000 figure if he doesn't really care about it in the first place? It seems that by adding the data, he hopes to use it as a bargaining tool that will lead to all data being removed. Varsovian should communicate his wishes in a straightforward manner, instead of continuing to play games that could be interpreted as WP:TE, WP:DE and possibly even WP:VANDALISM. The 8000 figure is just the tip of the iceberg. After the completion of the ANI and the warning on 26th April, I edited the "Political Controversy" section of London Victory Parade of 1946, up until this edit [130] on 27th April. In response to my changes, Varsovian chose not to revert them (which was often his behaviour) but thankfully disputed them on the Talk page instead here [131]. In his dispute, he alleges I engage in WP:TE, which is precisely what my ANI about him had just been about, and had led to his DIGWUREN warning. I chose not to report Varsovian's allegation against me at WP:AE, despite the severe DIGWUREN deterrent he is under, because I hoped it would all cool down instead. Around the same time, Varsovian took up his issue about the London Victory Parade of 1946 at the Chopin page here [132] This seems to be an attempt to canvass editors in dispute with alleged Polish nationalists, to gain support at the London Victory Parade of 1946, to my mind in breach of WP:CANVASSING. There was then an ANI about off-topic incivility at the Chopin talk page here [133] which could probably been reported here at WP:AE instead. Varsovian's Talk page dispute with my edit of London Victory Parade of 1946 failed to gain any support whatsoever. Between my edit on 27th April until 18th May my edit seems to have proven generally uncontroversial, and in broadly in keeping with consensus. There were edits by other editors, and Varsovian reverted several of them. Two weeks after my edit and Varsovian's talk page dispute of it, he still hadn't gained even one voice of support, while the edit history indicates that my edit seems to have been largely in keeping with consensus. But Varsovian disregards that, and states he is going to go ahead and apply his desired changes anyway: [134]. User:Loosmark protests, and a very long fight ensues between them on the talk page. Despite Loosmark's opposition to Varsovian's proposed changes, Varsovian carries on regardless. Early on he attacks me directly in this edit summary [135], alleging my use of bold text in a block quote is a case of me manipulating the source: "Removing false claim that source emphasizes certain information" he says. I made a "false claim" by bolding some text within a block quote? A more helpful edit would have been to add "[emphasis added]" at the end of the quote, as per WP guidance. Varsovian's incivility was unnecessary, in defiance of the DIGWUREN warning, and seemingly an attempt to provoke my reaction. I didn't react. But a week later, Varsovian is back again, and rips out the entire block quote, including the citation that I had transcribed it from: [136] All of the above demonstrates Varsovian's unwillingness to learn or to change his ways, and his wilful contempt for the ethos of our community. I am reporting all this in keeping with Administrator guidance at the ANI and the DIGWUREN warning, both linked above. I hereby request enforcement. I have not recently looked up Varsovian's behaviour elsewhere, other than what is mentioned here, but I have been troubled by Varsovian's edits at other Poland-related articles. I defer to Administrators' judgement, but I am aware that my request is needed here. Given the issue now is less about attempting to improve Varsovian's behaviour, and more about preventing him from damaging Wikipedia, I would have to recommend a ban. -Chumchum7 (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Additional note: I have just seen a thread (dated after Varsovian's DIGWUREN warnings) at the Chopin talk page where Varsovian seems to indicate his general, long term axe to grind: [137] where Varsovian says "I'm sure that it will be unacceptable to certain editors (who all just so happen to be of a certain nationality)." The innuendo is unequivocally a generalised pre-judgement about Wikipedians from Poland and a massive breach of WP:INCIVILITY if not WP:NPA. User:Kotniski replies with a comment about the "anti-Polish" gang, when instead he should have said nothing and taken it up here at WP:AE. Varsovian's immediate response: "Could you perhaps refrain from accusing other editors of being racists? Thanks in advance." Later in the Chopin talk page, Varsovian spells out his feelings [138] with a list of Poles who he says many Poles deny are Polish because they don't fit Polish national myth. These denials by Poles might after investigation turn out to be verifiable, but Varsovian's apparent pre-judgement and generalization about Wikipedians from Poland is unacceptable. He goes on to imply Polish nationalism is motivating some Wikipedians here [139]. This is equally as unacceptable as it would be to allege British Nationalism on talk pages. Now, the cause of anti-nationalism is a noble one, but it should not compromise fundamental Wikipedia standards. I am saddened that Varsovian is still stuck on the same mission, because much time ago I took the step of expressing my heartfelt concerns here [140] and here [141]. This was an opportunity for Varsovian to see the problem. But Varsovian took offence, and said the latter was an accusation of racism, here [142] and in so doing dismissed my concerns as unreasonable. That was all a long time ago, and Varsovian has had plenty of opportunities to change, but his actions prove that he hasn't. There is a wider policy issue for Wikipedia, beyond this case, and I would like to know if it is addressed in WP guidance somewhere. Especially in the WP Eastern Europe topic area, we should be as vigilant about the assumption of nationalism as we are about nationalism itself. The former can be used as sport, to provoke nationalistic responses. Remember that Senator McCarthy fought a noble fight against American communism, and yet he himself was probably the single US citizen most obsessed with American communism. He made his own monsters in order to slay them. History indicates his moral crusade was less than candid. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Precedent: When administrators come to making a decision here, useful points of reference will be the type of sanctions that have already been imposed in the Eastern Europe topic area that should already improve Wikipedia by acting as a cautionary deterrent to all editors. Such precedents that I am aware of are the cases of User:Jacurek, User:Loosmark, User:Dr. Dan and User:Piotrus - all of which can be used to inform decision-making here. To my mind, one should make an assessment about to what extent Varsovian's behaviour has been better or worse than these peers in the topic area. That should be considered in addition to my above account of Varsovian's long-term pattern of behaviour, his multiple breaches and warnings, when making an enforcement decision here. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Further evidence of WP:GAME can be seen on Varsovian's first entry below. He has misleadingly characterized this as a 'content dispute' seemingly between him and myself, without even a passing mention of his breaches that I have listed above; and despite the fact that I have not been engaging with him on articles and talk pages in any dispute for weeks, while I have observed other editors' engagement with him. Secondly, Varsovian identifies 'winning' as something that is even possible in Wikipedia: this again demonstrates his WP:GAME tendencies, his attitude that the editing process is about winning and losing rather than building a consensus in a constructive manner. Neither Varsovian, nor any other editor, can win or lose, because Wikipedia is not a game but a group effort toward a non-competitive goal. The evidence I have provided demonstrates Varsovian's long-term refusal to accept this fundamental principle of Wikipedia. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Chumchum7 could you please collapse your text? My report is about a very specific violation of the AE sanctions by Varsovian. Your evidence might suggest problems of another nature however I doubt that the Admins will be willing to examine it within my request. Dr. Loosmark 18:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Loosmark, I have no idea how to collapse text so please go ahead and do that if you know how to. I support your request, but repeat the message to administrators that we have a much bigger, long term problem here with Varsovian, who is playing a long-term WP:GAME, as I have detailed in my text above. I may file another AE at any time at my convenience, and anyone else can use the evidence I have earmarked in future AE requests, if the problems continue as they have for the past several months. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've collapsed it for you. Regards, AGK 10:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Loosmark, I have no idea how to collapse text so please go ahead and do that if you know how to. I support your request, but repeat the message to administrators that we have a much bigger, long term problem here with Varsovian, who is playing a long-term WP:GAME, as I have detailed in my text above. I may file another AE at any time at my convenience, and anyone else can use the evidence I have earmarked in future AE requests, if the problems continue as they have for the past several months. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Varsovian
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- None of those three diffs appear to me to be outside the bounds of reasonable civility standards. On the contrary, Varsovian is expressing himself quite reservedly and straightforwardly. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- To Dr. Loosmark: I see now, this refers to [143], an existing sanction, rather than a general request for a new sanction. This is actionable; I will hear editors and other admins as to what might be an appropriate sanction. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Brandmeister
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Brandmeister
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
Karabakh Khanate
The diffs contain evidences of disruptive editing, violation of 1RR rule, thought technically the majority of reverts were not violating the 3RR as well but the RVs from 9 to 11 do, permanent deletion of referenced information which might be considered edits not in good faith; the article was blocked due to edit-wars until the 3rd of June for a consensus to be reached and just after the ublock Brandmeister jumped into editing it in the same manner without having consensus. According to WP:TE it's a clear pattern of Tendentious Editing.
Others include but are not limited to
Khojaly Massacre
Besides the reverts as such, Bradmaster jumped again into edit-warring right after the temporary block was lifted from this article as well.
Nagorno-Karabakh War
Is a featured article.
- Here he taged some controversial edits as minor and then adds a new section, which includes five claims all supported by the same business newspaper which had only reprinted what Azeri side had been reporting. Ionidasz revert with a long edit summary
- Brandmeister revets back having again violated several remedies of AA2.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to
Brandmeister was first placed under restriction and then topic banned for 6 months because it was not sufficient [144] and he clearly knows the rules. Some attempts to discuss and warn were also made as described in the "Additional comments".
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Several attempts were made on his talk-page to let him see his problematic behavior but he disregarded or system-gamed [145], [146]. The many calls for discussion and consensus on the articles' talk-pages were disregarded as well.
- Although quite active on other WP projects for the last days, he refuses to discuss issues on the subject articles when they are blocked showing no interest in positive contribution.
- Together with the previous bans and his current behavior it is more than obvious Brandmeister's goals are different from contributing information and are strongly tendentious towards the picky articles of AA2.
Re Grandmaster
Grandmaster and Brandmeister are together with a bunch of editors (about 24 more) involved in quite a huge-scandalous Arbitration request on Ru.WP including canvassing and harassment of editors (also active on En.WP) in real life. I'd like to exclude any of those being able to participate in any formal processes (besides those concerning them directly) against any of the members of the group until the final decision of ArbCom. The notification of it has been made on the ArbCom talk on En.WP. Aregakn (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Re the IP message
If what the IP user said is true, he could participate in discussions and other activities by his IP anyway, as he did interestingly notice the AE. This only confirms that Brandmeister was/is not interested in consensus and discussions and the content of Wikipedia but has other goals. I'd also like to request all the IPs that Brandmeister used be checked and the result of this AE to be on those too. I'll add the latter to the sanction request. Aregakn (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Topic ban: Formally placed on 1RR, then topic banned for 6 months. The editor showed clear pattern of Disruptive and Tendentious Editing with refusal of Consensus.
- Additional note for the requested action: If what the IP presented is right, I would like to ask the result of this AE to be enforced on all the IPs (including the IP presenting himself as Brandmeister) Brandmeister used to log in with, or a direction how it can be achieved given. Aregakn (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
User informed. Aregakn (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Brandmeister
Statement by Brandmeister
First of all, I would note that since June 9 I have no access to my account, probably because it is compromised now. I have already wrote to stewards and Wikipedia functionaries about that. Regarding the request, I follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, the Karabakh Khanate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in particular suffered from repeated and obvious source distortion: at least three registered users and some IPs have been modifying the lead text to push systemic bias and I was ultimately forced to request a semi-protection. As for Khojaly Massacre, there was no "jumping again into edit-warring" there and I explained that to Aregakn on my talk page. There is no policy, which prohibits editing after protection has expired. As for Nagorno-Karabakh War, I would encourage Aregakn to discuss the sources at talk, this venue is not for dispute resolution. 213.154.5.92 (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Brandmeister
From what I see, many of reverts were on SPA IPs, which were used to edit war in this article. Some of reverts by IPs were accompanied by incivil comments, accusing others of vandalism, etc. Eventually the article was semi-protected to stop the IP disruption. Grandmaster 04:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would just like to point out that it's misleading to say that Brandmeister was reverting IPs, when 9 out of the 13 reverts in that article were reverts against registered users and that only the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th were against IPs. Note that on Khojaly, that the main user with whom he was reverting was sanctioned, but not Brandmeister. I can provide further examples of disruption, if the above are deemed insufficient.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Brandmeister
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
To resolve this request, we need to determine whether Brandmeister's account is indeed compromised, as is being claimed by the IP above. If yes, it should probably be blocked on these grounds, and the request is moot. I'm asking a checkuser whether they can help determine this. Sandstein 21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Brandmeister's account has not performed any checkuser-logged action since 18:34 UTC on 9 June 2010. J.delanoygabsadds 22:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Gilabrand (talk · contribs) blocked for three months and six-month topic ban reset.}}
Request concerning User Gilabrand
- User requesting enforcement
- --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated : topic ban same topic ban extended for 6 months
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Violation:[147][148] [149] [150]
- Gilabrand was topic banned from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this edit she removes that Jerusalem is a disputed city. This is a clear violation against her topic ban as the status of Jerusalem is a huge part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as Palestinians claim the east part of Jerusalem and Israel do not accept this and have annexed it, while this is not recognized by most countries who keep their embassys in Tel Aviv. Clearly the edit is within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- In these edits, she removes: [151]"Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, on the back of oppression, slaughter and exile of the Palestinian people, it has been grown and exported by Israeli producers, who stole the land. Selling produce from an occupied country is illegal under international law," [152]"Palestine, now illegally occupied by Israel" and "Palestine's occupied land".
- Ads "According to Arab historian Walid Khalidi" about a section about "clearing upper Galilee of its Arab population."[153]
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Not applicable
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Up to admin. But keep in mind that she has been blocked many times before for violating this:[154]
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Gilabrand
Statement by Gilabrand
Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand
Question for Admins
Since ARBPIA "rules" are very vague (broadly construed/interpreted), is it possible that every article pertaining to Israel/Israelis could be considered as being part of the I/P conflict in one way or another? I ask this because some major world entities (Hamas, Iran, Syria etc) consider all of Israel to be "occupied Palestine" (and consider anything Israeli-related to be politically motivated -- one can even find Hamas' positions on nightclubs in Tel Aviv)...Also keep in mind that every aspect of daily Israeli life is impacted in one way or another by the IP conflict.. Anyhow, it would be useful for editors to know the answers to these questions. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 23:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- @Tim Song/T. Canens - so effectively any and all articles relating to Israel, since most, if not all, could be construed in some way to be touched by the IP conflict (fruits, vegetables, night clubs, jewish places of worship etc)...especially if an editor decides to go "fishing".. Ok.. Just wanted clarification. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 00:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Gilisa
Indeed, many times bans are being interperted too broadly and by that only esclating the drama they were also intended to stop. As for the OP SD, during the last months he reported almost every breach, or what was viewed to him as breach of ARBPIA by editors with different attidue than the one he have through the I-P issue, to the ArbCom and on other boards. I truely wonder, and didn't check, if it's ok by Wiki policies or that it may be considered as WP:HOUND. --Gilisa (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perdito, I usually watch closely the ArbCom noticeboard, yet you don't excpect no editor to be updated with all or even most decisions made by the ArbCom if they were not at least part of the reason for which the desicion was made. --Gilisa (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Perdito, but no offense was taken because I wasn't defending myself. My point was that Gilabrand alleged violations of the topic ban are to be scrutinized within the scope of reasonable interpertation of the extent of the topic ban. The situation now is that admins themselvs are not sure whether it was a violation or not. In such cases I would say that the topic ban interpertation shouldn't be stretched too broadly, espcially as there was no disruptive editing by her. In fact she removed highly biased edits made by other IP editors on articles that are not connected to the I-P topic by default. For instance, Jaffa Orange was one of Israel's known agricultural products in the 60's and 70's -it doesn't have any connection to the I-P articles and I wouldn't excpect the article to include information about the I-P conflict, but it does, because some editors think that Jaffa Oranges are yet another symbole to the occupation of what they call "occupied Palestine". The removal of these highly biased and provocative political editings (evidently, Israel is Israel and not "occupied Palesitne" and sections about how Israeli have to kill palestianians to take their Jaffa oranges or something twisted like that are not belong into the article I guess) from a non political article is by no mean violation of the topic ban. I think that it's pretty reasonable that if one who is under topic ban terms in the I-P subject edit article on mathmatics and then one enter a phrase on how Israeli mathmatician who responsable for one mathmatical breakthrow is also murder of Palestinain children and the Israeli air force have used his assistance to calculate the course of its bombs, then he can remove it like he can remove anything else which is without connection to the subject of the article itself, it should be considered as an edit within the mathmatics realm. The same rule goes for article which do have something or more to do with Israel, but realy not with the I-P conflict. Not any, or most, articles that are about Israelis or connected with Israel (Israeli products, companies and etc) have anything to do with the I-P conflict. It's true that many times it's pushed to these articles, but yet it doesn't make them subject for the topic ban just because someone made I-P edits in there. IMO, one should have the ability to clean articles from unrelated edits when the article not falling within the topic ban terms, even if the disruptive edits themselvs do. That is, the topic ban apply only to article by definition falining under the banned topic and in other articles the banned editor is free to edit without limitations. Appologize for the spelling.. --Gilisa (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- But, in a situation where we have long-running POV edit wars over food, snakes and many other seemingly unrelated and uncontroversial subjects, it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to draw the sort of dividing line you are suggesting. RolandR (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think that is part of Gilsa's point. Edit wars are happening over things like national parks and tourism. Can't even have the name Jeruselum in an article without someone trying to add a sometimes out of place lines about the conflict. That is probably best for other editors' AEs or specific talk pages though.Cptnono (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- But, in a situation where we have long-running POV edit wars over food, snakes and many other seemingly unrelated and uncontroversial subjects, it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to draw the sort of dividing line you are suggesting. RolandR (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- RolandR, we can draw the line on the basis of signficance and common sense. While Gaza blocked or Quasam rockets are by no doubt part of the I-P topic and one who can't see it can't represent the reasonable common editor, Jaffa oranges don't seem part of it to many (count me as well). One have to made OR to push it into the I-P arena. Falafel or humus are different stories and the warring about these goes strongly and in high profile outside wikipedia as well, although it's pretty ridiclous fight as I see it.--Gilisa (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that, n the face of it, these are ridiculous fights. The point is that they continue to happen. You were asking about the scope of a topic ban, and I was noting that this should probably also cover such articles, at least for edits reflecting the POV dispute. I'm not suggesting that Gilabrand or Nishidani, for example, should be banned from writing about the proportion of lemon juice to garlic in hummus, or the markings of the Palestine viper. But the arguments about the origin of hummus, and the geographic location of the viper, should certainly be included in a ban. So I am suggesting that it isn't as clear cut as you would like it to be, we can't just say that some articles are covered and others are not. The issue is the content of the edits, not their location. I/P topic-banned editors are not barred from edits relating to politics in the countries where they live; but there are many issues where a ban should prevent them from contributing. Similarly with your example above of a (hypothetical?) mathematician, although the article itself should not be covered by a topic ban, the specific edit you suggest might be; it would certainly be advisable for the editor in question to leave the problematic edit for another editor to deal with. RolandR (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- RolandR, we can draw the line on the basis of signficance and common sense. While Gaza blocked or Quasam rockets are by no doubt part of the I-P topic and one who can't see it can't represent the reasonable common editor, Jaffa oranges don't seem part of it to many (count me as well). One have to made OR to push it into the I-P arena. Falafel or humus are different stories and the warring about these goes strongly and in high profile outside wikipedia as well, although it's pretty ridiclous fight as I see it.--Gilisa (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I pretty much agree with most of what you wrote but not with all. The mathematician (hypothetical, yes) in my example is not the subject of the article, i.e., the article is not about him. Let's take Heisenberg uncertainty principle as yet another hypothetical example. Heisenberg was most certainly a Nazi physicist, yet in the article on the uncertainty principle itself I would expect no elaboration on his Nazi background to be included and certainly not ranting that the uncertainty principle is a Nazi principle. So let's assume that there is editor who is banned from editing on the Nazi movement or on WWII, if he remove such editis I would not consider it violation of the ban under any terms simply because as I see it the broad interpertation given to admins when enforcing community or ArbCom bans only purpose is to keep banned wise guys behind the right side of the border. They should not come to the topic, but it shouldn't be brought to them as well without the slightest reasonable justification. Also, if we return to articles about food and agricultural products, mostly and naturaly these are not being frequently edited or instead they are being edited regulary by the same very few editors who have them on their watch list -so, when one make disruptive edit there (and changing the name of Israel to "occupied palestine" is disruptive) it could stay there unnoticed for months and years (I have examples from different topics) and while for his/her own sake I would suggest banned editor to leave it to other editor, I don't consider edits in articles outside the banned topic per se as violation of the topic ban. --Gilisa (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, let's take another, possibly more relevant, example. Robert Aumann is an Israeli mathematician, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics for his work on games theory. He is also a member of Professors for a Strong Israel, and has used his mathematical views to support his political views. All of this is obviously relevant in the article on Aumann himself, and Gilabrand should not edit this. Your question is whether, if another editor inserts this material in an article on, say, games theory, Gilabrand should be able to remove this. You say yes. I say that, irrespective of the value of the edits (which could well be unacceptable), she should not do so, and this would be a breach of the topic ban. The original edit, however POV or undue, is not obvious vandalism, and the topic ban should apply. This would be even more so if such material was inserted in an article about the Nobel Prize for economics, since Aumann's views, and their political implications, proved a highly controversial public issue at the time. I am not arguing that such edits are necessarily valid, simply that they should not be exempt from the topic ban. The potential for edit-warring is clear; and this surely is the reason for the ban. RolandR (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I pretty much agree with most of what you wrote but not with all. The mathematician (hypothetical, yes) in my example is not the subject of the article, i.e., the article is not about him. Let's take Heisenberg uncertainty principle as yet another hypothetical example. Heisenberg was most certainly a Nazi physicist, yet in the article on the uncertainty principle itself I would expect no elaboration on his Nazi background to be included and certainly not ranting that the uncertainty principle is a Nazi principle. So let's assume that there is editor who is banned from editing on the Nazi movement or on WWII, if he remove such editis I would not consider it violation of the ban under any terms simply because as I see it the broad interpertation given to admins when enforcing community or ArbCom bans only purpose is to keep banned wise guys behind the right side of the border. They should not come to the topic, but it shouldn't be brought to them as well without the slightest reasonable justification. Also, if we return to articles about food and agricultural products, mostly and naturaly these are not being frequently edited or instead they are being edited regulary by the same very few editors who have them on their watch list -so, when one make disruptive edit there (and changing the name of Israel to "occupied palestine" is disruptive) it could stay there unnoticed for months and years (I have examples from different topics) and while for his/her own sake I would suggest banned editor to leave it to other editor, I don't consider edits in articles outside the banned topic per se as violation of the topic ban. --Gilisa (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You put the disagreements between us very well. I must say that regardless my personall views, I would never consider removal of clearly unrelevant content from one article as POV, regardless if I agree with the superflous content or not. Games Theory article have nothing to do with Aumann own opinnions unless it lead to notable event. Say, if according to the Games Theory one state decided to declare war against another, following Aumann advise. Topic Ban is most relevant, as you mentioned many times, where there is a problem of inserting POV into articles. It doesn't apply in the cases we discussed. I can't see how removal of not in place content is baypassing the topic ban. And calling Israel "occupied Palestine" in one section title may not seem vandalism to you, but to me it's not very far from that. And anyway, it's disruptive.--Gilisa (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Pedrito
I thought it might be useful to remind everybody here that there is a precedent in which it was decided that all such edits fall under the WP:ARBPIA sanctions. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 07:45 15.06.2010
- Gilisa, my comment wasn't directed at anybody in particular and I'm sorry if you took offense. This case just reminded me of the previous one and I thought I should bring it up for consistency. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08:34 15.06.2010
Comment By unomi
[156] and [157] appear to be pretty straightforward violations. Unomi (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Diff 157 link to the article about tourisem in Israel, which is far from being classical, or at all, I-P related article. The fact one article is directly or not related to Israel does not automaticaly make it subject to the I-P restrictions. The Hi Tec industry of Israel is also affected by the I-P conflict, yet it's not prat of the I-P topic when comes to WP. Diff 156 link to the Palmach article which was edited by Gilabrand (content, clean up, pharsing, refs) with most of her edits, if not all, don't regard to the part Palmach played in the I-P conflict but to its structure and so forth. I would advise her to stay away from any editing have something to do with the military history of Israel as long as she's under ban restrictions, though. --Gilisa (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Gilisa, You are not addressing the issues in your comments. In the Tourism of Israel article she removed a sentence that Jerusalem is disputed, that is a direct violation against her topic ban. In the Pamach article she added a sentence changing a fact that: "the objective of the operation was to clear upper Galilee of its Arab population." - she changed it to a statement/POV from one person, that is also a direct violation against her topic ban. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Diff 157 link to the article about tourisem in Israel, which is far from being classical, or at all, I-P related article. The fact one article is directly or not related to Israel does not automaticaly make it subject to the I-P restrictions. The Hi Tec industry of Israel is also affected by the I-P conflict, yet it's not prat of the I-P topic when comes to WP. Diff 156 link to the Palmach article which was edited by Gilabrand (content, clean up, pharsing, refs) with most of her edits, if not all, don't regard to the part Palmach played in the I-P conflict but to its structure and so forth. I would advise her to stay away from any editing have something to do with the military history of Israel as long as she's under ban restrictions, though. --Gilisa (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Her edits on the Palamach article were nothing close to vandalism from the much I seen, and further discussion about their quality is unwanted, I think, because this is not the right forum. She may go wrong with her evaluation of the Palmach article but even if so, I'm not under the immpression she systematicaly violating her topic ban or acted out of bad faith. Therefore I find it possible to avoid severe punishment. --Gilisa (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply that her edits were vandalism, I was alluding to the diffs that I did not bring up - the jaffa and especially bombing edits, which could reasonably be argued as vandalism fighting activities. The 2 diffs I brought up were not obvious vandalism fighting activities. Unomi (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Her edits on the Palamach article were nothing close to vandalism from the much I seen, and further discussion about their quality is unwanted, I think, because this is not the right forum. She may go wrong with her evaluation of the Palmach article but even if so, I'm not under the immpression she systematicaly violating her topic ban or acted out of bad faith. Therefore I find it possible to avoid severe punishment. --Gilisa (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment By Shuki
I think that this is another frivolous effort by SupremeDeliciousness in his continued attempt to silence all editors that are not on his side. It is clear that there is only one problematic edit here on the Tourism article, and the edit on Palmach is not controversial at all. If only SD were so objective and also pursued like-minded editors on their topic bans, I would AGF, but here there is none. I was hoping that this battleground mentality was a thing of the past, but SD refuses to let it go. Incredible to see how much spare time some editors have in pursuing 'adversaries' instead of actually contributing to the project.--Shuki (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Hertz1888
The Palmach edit is a routine matter of providing attribution. In the other edit still at issue, it is not unreasonable that an article on tourism in Israel would provide the reader with information on places of interest that are reachable only from Israel and under Israel control, whether or not that is the permanent status. Agreeing with Shuki, I think this filing is part of a vendetta by S.D., whose long history of hostility to Israel and Israelis, and battleground approach, is a matter of record. It strikes me as a ludicrous example of the "pot calling the kettle black". Gilabrand is a gifted and diligent editor with a multi-year record of outstanding contributions to Wikipedia deserving of appreciation. Let not this enforcement request turn into another instance of "no good deed goes unpunished." At most what is needed is gentle advice to tread carefully, but I think even that is too much, as it would reward S.D. for a frivolous filing that wastes everybody's time, and would encourage repeat performances. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Please reconsider decision in light of mitigating factors just posted above. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Jiujitsuguy
Another successful effort to silence those who are perceived as being sympathetic to Israel. SD's AE is a transparent attempt to muzzle any voice that disagrees with his. Gilabrand's edits are by in large constructive and have added immeasurably to wikipedia both in terms of quality and quantity. The sanction is harsh and extreme and I ask that it be re-considered. Please don't reward frivolous complaints and personal vendettas with censorship.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Gilabrand
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Again? T. Canens (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- @RolandR: Topic bans are generally taken to include an exception for reverts of obvious vandalism, copyvio, and BLP violations. This is a revert of obvious vandalism, so is exempt. I'd be interested, however, in what defense Gilabrand can provide for the edit brought up by SD.
- @Nsaum75: "Broadly" means that if there's any doubt as to whether an article/section/paragraph/item/whatever falls within the topic ban, it should be avoided. T. Canens (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is my view that two of the subsequent edits SD brought up fall within the vandalism exception as well. [158] and [159] are the only edits I'm concerned with.
@Nsaum75: If the paragraph is about how the fruit tastes or looks, etc., I don't think it's going to be a problem. Of course, someone who wants to play it safe can avoid all Israel-related matters, but it's not required. T. Canens (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The only comments I'm interested in are whether the two edits I listed above fall within the scope of the topic ban and, if they do fall within the topic ban, what sanction should be imposed. I should note that given the history here, if sanctions are imposed the default will be quite severe. If there are any potential mitigating factors related to Gilabrand or circumstances of the edits, they should be brought up now. Any comments about the OP is off-topic for this AE thread. If you have a problem, file another AE request. T. Canens (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is my view that two of the subsequent edits SD brought up fall within the vandalism exception as well. [158] and [159] are the only edits I'm concerned with.
This request has merit. The user had been notified, has edited after notification, but has failed to respond to this thread. I therefore construe the silence to imply that no defense or mitigating factors are present. I find that [160] and [161] violate the user's ban from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic. This being her 5th topic ban violation, and the last block being one month, Gilabrand is blocked for three months, and the six-month topic ban is reset to begin anew upon the expiration or lifting of the block. Given her apparent inability to distinguish between edits that violate her topic ban and edits that do not, Gilabrand is urged to voluntarily avoid all content and discussions related to Israel for the duration of her topic ban, to reduce the likelihood of further violations. T. Canens (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the above assessment, and, given that the request has been processed and additional comments are no longer required, am collapsing this thread. Editors are reminded that it is unhelpful to speculate about the motives for an AE request, or to criticize the sanction at issue: as long as the sanction is not lifted or successfully appealed, it will be enforced without regard as to who requests enforcement or why, and the only question that needs to be discussed in an AE thread is whether or not the sanction was violated and, if yes, what the appropriate enforcement action is. Sandstein 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Request concerning Nableezy
- User requesting enforcement
- --Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated :
- In application of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Nableezy was banned on April 16, 2010, from editing articles which (or whose edited parts) are broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, for two months. Reverts of vandalism were not excluded from the ban. [emphasis added]
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Violations:
- April 17: List of military occupations, add regarding compliance w/the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace.
- April 21: Robert Fisk, edit to article on Lebanon-based journalist who was one of the first to visit scene of Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinian and Lebanese Muslims as Israeli troops surrounded the camps, and who has also reported on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
- April 22: Anabta, rvv to article on Palestinian town in the West Bank which was occupied by Israel in 1967.
- May 24: Azzun, undid revision regarding a Palestinian town in the West Bank that prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War had a total land area of 24,496 dunams, but which today has 9,130 dunams.
- May 25: Ayyubid dynasty, rv in article on Muslim dynasty which conquered Palestine from the Kingdom of Jerusalem
- May 25: Seljuq dynasty, rv in article about Muslim dynasty that controlled present-day Israel and Palestine.
- May 27: Richard Goldstone, ce to article about head of the UN Gaza Conflict fact-finding mission on the Gaza War between Israel and the Palestinian Hamas.
- June 10: Helen Thomas, edit to article on Arab journalist who resigned on June 7 (edit being three days after her resignation) due to major controversy engendered by her statements that Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine .... Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land..... [The Jews in Israel should] go home ... Poland. Germany. And America and everywhere else. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries? See?".
- "Broad" ban
Clearly, these edits are to articles/text squarely within his broad topic ban related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of note is what admin Tim Song pointed out in regard to another editor banned from the I-P conflict (where, as distinct from here, the ban didn't even by its terms mention that it was to be "broadly construed"). Song, responding to a question as to whether "every article pertaining to Israel/Israelis could be considered as being part of the I/P conflict in one way or another? ... every aspect of daily Israeli life is impacted in one way or another by the IP conflict.", responded: "'Broadly' means that if there's any doubt as to whether an article/section/paragraph/item/whatever falls within the topic ban, it should be avoided."
Wikipedia:Topic ban states:
Topics may be "broadly construed" to give wide latitude to enforcement and to prevent gaming. For example, a topic ban regarding a particular person might also be construed as a ban on editing articles about institutions which that person is a prominent member, subjects that the person has commented on or written about, or even places that the person has lived. Since how "broadly construed" the topic ban is may be up to interpretation, the onus is on the user under the topic ban to avoid impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety. [emphasis added]
Similarly, construing "broadly" in an unrelated matter, sysop Bigtimepeace wrote "Broadly construed" means precisely that and y'all need to err on the side of caution in a major way."[162] And in another unrelated matter construing the meaning of the phrase, sysop Tznkai wrote: "When topic bans are "broadly construed" I think that means all ambiguity goes towards violation".[163]
The number of editors (including sysop Malik Shabazz) who based their support for Nableezy's ban violations on a mis-reading and/or misapplication of Wikipedia:Topic ban, and even a mis-reading of the breadth of the ban (asserting that it was limited to the I-P conflict, which it is not ... and then saying they still have the same position, despite the basis for it having been completely incorrect) causes me some concern as to what is going on.
- Vandalism reverts banned
Importantly, the ban itself stated clearly that reverts of vandalism were not excluded from Nableezy's ban.
Those who took positions that Nableezy should escape punishment for ban violations that are vandalism reverts have no basis for their views in a plain reading of the ban. The ban unequivocally states that included in what Nableezy is banned from doing are vandalism reverts. Nothing could be clearer. This calls to mind the arbitrators' strongly worded comments regarding similar poorly founded arguments as why a prior Nableezy topic ban should not be enforced according to its clearly stated language. To now not enforce the ban on the basis that some reverts are only vandalism reverts is not only contrary to the plain language of the ban, but it makes an utter mockery of bans and this entire process. It also encourages a lack of respect for bans, and is the sort of un-ven application of the process that leads to concerns among editors and others.
And reflecting the raw "FUCK YOU, BLOCKERS" attitude of Nableezy, when he was informed of his block by his blocker, with a link to the details that made clear that "Reverts of vandalism ... are not excluded from this ban", what did he respond? He responded "I am going to revert vandalism where I see it (though I will restrict myself to blatant vandalism) and if an admin wants to block me for that they can." And guess what? He did just that -- he was a man of his word. Perhaps some sysops think its fine for Nableezy to, in the face of a clear directive, say that he will not obey his block, and then act on his words. Nableezy himself said -- if an admin wants to block me for that they can. For the sysops on this page to not mete out the appropriate punishment for clear, willing, intentional, Fuck-You violations of bans would be a failure on their part to uphold their obligations as sysops.
The number of editors (including sysop tariqabjotu) who based their apologist support for Nableezy's ban violations on a mis-reading and/or misapplication of this aspect of the ban causes me some concern.
- Nableezy-specific circumstances
It is eye-catching that Nableezy has committed such multiple such violations: a) starting the day after his ban was instituted; b) in -- while a minority -- a substantial percentage of his articles edited under the Nableezy name during his ban; and c) after being on the receiving end of admin action so many times.
Note as well, as was noted by admin Sandstein at the most recent admin action regarding Nableezy, Nableezy's problematic record as reflected at least in part here and here.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Not applicable
- Enforcement action requested
- (block, topic ban, or other sanction)
Up to admin. But please keep in mind that Nableezy has been blocked many times before for violating this: [164]
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Nableezy
Statement by Nableezy
- did not notice that one line out of 23 removed by vandalism was about the MFO. Sorry for that.
- The whole of the Roberst Fisk article is not within the P/I conflict, and the section that I touched does not mention the conflict at all. This is not part of the topic ban.
- The vandalism I reverted had nothing to do with the P/I conflict, this is like saying that somebody cant touch the Tel Aviv article
- Really? The text added to the article was a straight copyvio of http://tearsgaza.ahlamontada.net/montada-f38/topic-t372.htm, and was in a foreign language. No reasonable person can find fault with this edit. I'll not comment on whether or not certain people are reasonable.
- it takes a special person to say that an article on an empire that fell in the 13th century is related to the Arab Israeli conflict. And even if somebody was to make the inane leap that any group that ever ruled any part of Palestine is part of the A/I conflict topic area (I suppose this means I can't edit the article on the Roman Empire either), the edit I made had nothing to do with either Arabs or Jews (there was no such thing as an Israeli at the time), so I fail to see how this is part of my topic ban
- again, an empire that fell in the 14th century. Pretending this is a topic ban vio is stupid. I would say silly, but this crosses the line into stupid.
- The whole of the Richard Goldstone article is not in the A/I conflict area, the section dealing with the UN mission on Gaza is. I did not touch any area that was at all related to the topic area.
- The whole of the Helen Thomas article is not in the A/I conflict area, the section dealing with this latest kerfuffle is. I did not touch any area that was at all related to the topic area.
A day before my topic ban is to expire, Epeefleche has chosen to continue his mission of seeing that I do not edit here. The only edit that comes close is my reversion of vandalism on the occupation page as there is indeed one line out of many that can be said to be included in the topic ban. Had I noticed that single line I would not have reverted it. I do remember editing that page and checking that I was not reverting the section that had to do with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but I did not think to check if there was any mention of Sinai. nableezy - 21:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- My mission? I admit I raised complaints about your editing at least twice. I believe that each time, once by arbitrators' comments, and once by sysop block, the comments I raised were confirmed as being valid. Why would you seek to bully editors into not bringing legitimate complaints to the fore?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please refrain from commenting in this section. And your first AE request against me was closed as inactionable, the second one, a repeat of the first, was overturned. And would you care to let us all know whose topic ban you were inquiring about here? But tell us in your own section. nableezy - 22:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Phil, the area of conflict defined in the ARBPIA case is the whole of the Arab-Israeli conflict, so the MFO in Sinai would fall under that. That was an honest oversight on my part, nearly two months ago. So there is one edit here that could be "actionable", though what action it merits is up to yall. nableezy - 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Tariq, are you saying that the Richard Goldstone article, of which less than 15% touches on the conflict, is as a whole part of the A/I topic area? nableezy - 01:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy
Comment by RolandR Of the eight edits listed above by Epeefleche, three(nos 1, 2 & 3) are obvious reversion of vandalism; one (no 4) consists of the removal of a large chunk of non-English text from an article; two (nos 5 & 6) do not appear to relate to the Israel/Palestine conflict, however broadly defined; one (no 7) is the addition of a missing, and clearly non-contrentious, word to an admittedly highly contested article; and one (no 8) is only very tenuously related to the area covered by the ban. It seems top me that this is an extremely poor case, entirely without merit. I am concerned that it is brought the day before Nableezy's topic ban is due to end, although most of these edits were made many weeks ago. And I note that this ban was imposed on the basis of a report which even the closing editoe described as "largely frivolous", and which led to the reporting editor being warned "that they may be made subject to sanctions if they file more largely inactionable enforcement requests".
This too seems a frivolous and inactionable request, and I recommend that Epeefleche withdraw it. RolandR (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you missed the fact that the ban states clearly, using up in fact much of the language in the actual ban, that reverts of vandalism are not excluded from the ban. That also covers of course what you indicate are helpful edits -- the purpose of the ban as it clearly states is not to limit him to helpful edits, but to ban him quite clearly from any edits, including "helpful" ones, such as vandalism reverts. Also, that the ban related to the Arab-Israel conflict, not as you (and admin PhilKnight, below) assert incorrectly to the P-I conflict. I believe that covers all of your above comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Malik Shabazz Epeefleche seems to have misread Sandstein's statement concerning nableezy's topic ban, which was limited to "articles which (or whose edited parts) are broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" (bold emphasis added). Editing an article about an ancient dynasty that controlled Palestine doesn't fall within the scope of the topic ban because it is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (a modern conflict). Editing Helen Thomas to change her ethnicity doesn't fall within the scope of the topic ban because the edited part is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. So what's left of Epeefleche's complaint? A single violation that took place two months ago. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I read it carefully, Malik. Note the use of the phrase "broadly" (emphasis added). The edits fall within the topic ban. I find your suggestion that adding the word "Arab" does not fall within the "Arab-Israel" topic ban, and that Thomas's comment that is precisely about the Arab-Israeli conflict, which was so noteworthy that Obama commented on it and Thomas resigned as a direct result of reactions to it, makes me wonder where you are coming from in general. The ban construed broadly does not allow the editor to edit articles about people famous in part or in whole because of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to just edit around the words that speak directly to the conflict. We've just had a slew of blocks that demonstrate that not to be the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. Helen Thomas has a long and storied career wholly unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict and edits that are not related to the conflict are not within the topic ban. Same with Goldstone. And the idea that an empire that fell more than 500 years prior to the Arab-Israeli conflict is within the topic ban is just ludicrous. nableezy - 22:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- That long and storied career came to a screeching halt as a result of her comments on the P-I conflict. Which comments Obama and others commented on. That's how notable they were. And your edits followed by three days her resignation because of her P-I conflict statements. As to Goldstone -- there are 4.76 million ghits relating to Goldstone and his Gaza report. Perhaps thou doth protest too much -- your comments may mislead the uninformed, or give POV editors something to grasp onto, but they are not supported (as I expect, given you knowledge in the area, you know) in the least by the evidence.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- And I did not touch anything about how her career ended or why. The whole of that page is not within the topic ban, the sections dealing with the conflict are. Same with Goldstone. The overwhelming majority of that page deals with his life before the Gaza report. I did not touch any section dealing with the conflict, the rest of that page is not within the topic ban. Your understanding of what is or is not included in topic bans has been shown to be incorrect in the past, no shame in that, but continuing to make nonsense accusations does you no favors. nableezy - 22:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You were banned from editing "articles which (or whose edited parts) are broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Had your ban been to "articles whose edited parts" broadly relate to the conflict that would have been a very different ban. Your ban, though, relates to "articles ... broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". These articles fall squarely within that. The fact that you edit a different section is of no nevermind -- as with reversions of vandalism, you were being broadly banned -- by the terms of the ban -- from editing the article. You weren't being asked to revert vandalism, or edit around parts of the article that say "A-I conflict", or just edit the word "Arab" -- the ban by its very terms mandated that you simply stay away from articles broadly related to the conflict. You failed to do that.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- And the articles are not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, there are sections within them that are and I stayed away from that. But seeing as you dont have a say in what exactly is a topic ban or not, Ill stop now. nableezy - 22:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are making believe that your ban was only to sections of articles that relate to the conflict. But that's not true. Your ban, by its very terms, is to articles that--construed broadly--relate to the conflict (as well as to sections of articles that relate to the conflict). Your suggestion that despite the 4.76 million ghits Goldstone does not relate to the conflict is one that no NPOV, informed editor can be expected to agree with.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, I am not making believe. Articles that are in large part broadly related to the A/I conflict are covered in the topic ban. That would include some biographies, such as for instance Yasser Arafat or Ariel Sharon, even the sections that deal with their early lives. But other articles that only have limited content related to the topic area but largely fall out of the topic area are not in whole part of the topic ban. What you are saying is that the whole of the Bill Clinton article is out because of Oslo. Or, even further, that the editing sections dealing with the early history of Bethlehem would be out. nableezy - 22:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am saying that the Goldstone article is within the broadly construed ban because of the 4.76 million ghits. Just as if, say, you were under a Holocaust-related-articles (broadly construed) ban, I would suggest that a Hitler article would be off-limits, despite the fact that much of his article relates to other matters. As sysops have mentioned in such situations, wikipedia has millions of articles. Well-intentioned editors bent on avoiding disruption should quite easily be able to find other articles to edit during their ban that do not bump up against such "broadly construed" bans.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Uhh, yeah, Hitler:Holocaust is not the greatest analogy to Goldstone:I/P. Needless to say, the number of google hits about a report somebody issued does not determine whether that person's biography is within the topic ban. But, if you havent noticed, and such you pay such attention to sysops, each sysop that has commented has said this is not actionable. nableezy - 23:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- In the case of the Goldstone article, which I largely wrote, Nableezy's edit was to add a single word that I had omitted from a sentence that I wrote. This edit was not contentious in any way and fixed a trivial error in my own editing. The section that he edited concerned Goldstone's youth in South Africa. Since the edit in question was (a) innocuous, (b) indisputably beneficial and (c) had nothing whatsoever to do with the I-P conflict, bringing it up here seems to me to be - at the very least - misconceived. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Uhh, yeah, Hitler:Holocaust is not the greatest analogy to Goldstone:I/P. Needless to say, the number of google hits about a report somebody issued does not determine whether that person's biography is within the topic ban. But, if you havent noticed, and such you pay such attention to sysops, each sysop that has commented has said this is not actionable. nableezy - 23:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am saying that the Goldstone article is within the broadly construed ban because of the 4.76 million ghits. Just as if, say, you were under a Holocaust-related-articles (broadly construed) ban, I would suggest that a Hitler article would be off-limits, despite the fact that much of his article relates to other matters. As sysops have mentioned in such situations, wikipedia has millions of articles. Well-intentioned editors bent on avoiding disruption should quite easily be able to find other articles to edit during their ban that do not bump up against such "broadly construed" bans.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, I am not making believe. Articles that are in large part broadly related to the A/I conflict are covered in the topic ban. That would include some biographies, such as for instance Yasser Arafat or Ariel Sharon, even the sections that deal with their early lives. But other articles that only have limited content related to the topic area but largely fall out of the topic area are not in whole part of the topic ban. What you are saying is that the whole of the Bill Clinton article is out because of Oslo. Or, even further, that the editing sections dealing with the early history of Bethlehem would be out. nableezy - 22:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are making believe that your ban was only to sections of articles that relate to the conflict. But that's not true. Your ban, by its very terms, is to articles that--construed broadly--relate to the conflict (as well as to sections of articles that relate to the conflict). Your suggestion that despite the 4.76 million ghits Goldstone does not relate to the conflict is one that no NPOV, informed editor can be expected to agree with.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- And the articles are not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, there are sections within them that are and I stayed away from that. But seeing as you dont have a say in what exactly is a topic ban or not, Ill stop now. nableezy - 22:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You were banned from editing "articles which (or whose edited parts) are broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Had your ban been to "articles whose edited parts" broadly relate to the conflict that would have been a very different ban. Your ban, though, relates to "articles ... broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". These articles fall squarely within that. The fact that you edit a different section is of no nevermind -- as with reversions of vandalism, you were being broadly banned -- by the terms of the ban -- from editing the article. You weren't being asked to revert vandalism, or edit around parts of the article that say "A-I conflict", or just edit the word "Arab" -- the ban by its very terms mandated that you simply stay away from articles broadly related to the conflict. You failed to do that.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- And I did not touch anything about how her career ended or why. The whole of that page is not within the topic ban, the sections dealing with the conflict are. Same with Goldstone. The overwhelming majority of that page deals with his life before the Gaza report. I did not touch any section dealing with the conflict, the rest of that page is not within the topic ban. Your understanding of what is or is not included in topic bans has been shown to be incorrect in the past, no shame in that, but continuing to make nonsense accusations does you no favors. nableezy - 22:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- That long and storied career came to a screeching halt as a result of her comments on the P-I conflict. Which comments Obama and others commented on. That's how notable they were. And your edits followed by three days her resignation because of her P-I conflict statements. As to Goldstone -- there are 4.76 million ghits relating to Goldstone and his Gaza report. Perhaps thou doth protest too much -- your comments may mislead the uninformed, or give POV editors something to grasp onto, but they are not supported (as I expect, given you knowledge in the area, you know) in the least by the evidence.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. Helen Thomas has a long and storied career wholly unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict and edits that are not related to the conflict are not within the topic ban. Same with Goldstone. And the idea that an empire that fell more than 500 years prior to the Arab-Israeli conflict is within the topic ban is just ludicrous. nableezy - 22:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Topic ban indicates that the fact that your ban is to be "broadly construed" is meant to prevent you from engaging in gaming. As the guideline says, "a topic ban regarding a particular person might also be construed as a ban on editing articles about institutions which that person is a prominent member" (such as Goldstone-Goldstone Gaza Report, in reverse), and "subjects that the person has commented on or written about" (as in the journalist who wrote about the Arab-Israeli conflict, in reverse). Furthermore, as the guideline clearly states: "Since how "broadly construed" the topic ban is may be up to interpretation, the onus is on the user under the topic ban to avoid impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety."--Epeefleche (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Im not gaming, not a single admin has agreed with your interpretations. The game being played here is your claiming that the last 7 edits are related to the topic ban, no matter how broad you wish to pretend that ban is. You havent even attempted to justify including edits to an empire that collapsed hundreds of years ago as part of the A/I conflict. This is typical of your contributions to this page. And, as the lack of anything actionable in your diffs is seen, I see no need to continue going back and forth with you. You are here asking for me to blocked for removing a link to a sexual act in a BLP, for adding a missing word, and for restoring the ethnicity of a writer. If you want to even pretend that you do this in good faith you can try, but it is plainly obvious that for all but one of your diffs there is not topic ban vio. nableezy - 00:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- You were banned from reverting vandalism. Even now, in your above edit, you defend yourself on the basis that you were reverting vandalism. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Topic ban put the onus on you, the editor subject to the broad topic ban, to avoid impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety. And yet you are engaging in wikilawyering/gaming arguments to the effect that Goldstone of the Goldstone Gaza report, with millions of ghits (and corresponding notability for that report on the A-I conflict) is not, broadly construed, related to the A-I conflict. And how a writer "on the A-I conflict" is not related to the A-I conflict -- despite the fact that [[Wikipedia:Topic ban] states that broadly construed topic bans cover the connection between a subject and a person who "has commented on or written about" the subject.
- Im not gaming, not a single admin has agreed with your interpretations. The game being played here is your claiming that the last 7 edits are related to the topic ban, no matter how broad you wish to pretend that ban is. You havent even attempted to justify including edits to an empire that collapsed hundreds of years ago as part of the A/I conflict. This is typical of your contributions to this page. And, as the lack of anything actionable in your diffs is seen, I see no need to continue going back and forth with you. You are here asking for me to blocked for removing a link to a sexual act in a BLP, for adding a missing word, and for restoring the ethnicity of a writer. If you want to even pretend that you do this in good faith you can try, but it is plainly obvious that for all but one of your diffs there is not topic ban vio. nableezy - 00:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is reminiscent of your prior efforts to convince arbitrators that a similar ban did not apply to your edits, and arbitrator Vassanya's comment (w/which arbs Bainer, Wizardman, and Risker agreed) when you made similar arguments in regard to a topic ban you were subject to, elsewhere:
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 "[A]ll pages ... which relate" seems to make the scope inclusive and clear.[165]
And arb Carcharoth (w/whom arb Wizardman agreed) wrote with regard to your protestations that a topic ban did not apply to you elsewhere:
"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".[166]
--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I wasnt sanctioned under WB/JS so I dont know why you keep bringing that up, and Sandstein's topic ban is not the same as the WB/JS ones. And Goldstone is not simply "Goldstone of the Goldstone Gaza report", anybody who looks at the article for two seconds can see that. And Fisk is also more than a writer on the conflict, he covered the Troubles for many years and covers a great many other topics. And the same is true for Thomas. I am not defending my reversions because they were reverts of vandalism, I have said those reverts fall outside of the topic ban, and apparently each admin who has commented agrees with that. The only confusion in this entire request is coming from you, the only hair splitting is coming from you. Those articles are outside of the A/I topic area, though there are sections within them that are in that topic area. I have not edited those sections, in compliance with my topic ban. nableezy - 01:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're simply repeating the same sort of behavior that the arbs brought you to task for in the above block quotes (and which you evidenced in your Fuck You--I intend to flout your ban and I dare you to go ahead and block me you spineless sysops reaction to your ban), regarding similarly misleading arguments you made with regard to your topic ban-related edits in that matter. Editors can click on the refs to read the arbs' full reactions to your comments w/regard to your edits in the face of that topic ban. Your edits here are to articles clearly within the topic ban "broadly construed", as a reading of Wikipedia:Topic ban makes evident. The admin reactions here have included admins who adopted their positions mistakenly believing that the ban was to the I-P conflict, and mistakenly believing that it did not cover reverts of vandalism, so perhaps the initial knee-jerk reactions were not all highly considered, and didn't reflect a reading of Wikipedia:Topic ban. Furthermore, despite an effort by Sandstein to close discussion off before it had even begun--an astounding mere 38 minutes after it was opened (what is that about? Even AfDs accept comments for 7 days -- what possible rationale would he have in seeking to railroad a close here before editors had an opportunity to comment?), as you know this was just opened hours ago -- perhaps others, including other sysops, will weigh in. Everything else that you say has similarly been replied to.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Shuki
This is a no brainer coming off the very recent open/close to Gilabrand, but I blame A) the original admin who only gave Nableezy a weird partial topic ban. Instead of encouraging Nableezy to take a time off, it let him continue on the talk pages and the many slips mentioned above came much easier than if Nableezy would have been on a total 'time off' from the subject, B) SupremeDeliciousness' recent flurry of AE activity. Reasonable people would give others a bit of flexibility, but SD looking for ways to silence opposing editors only motivates his 'opponents' to do the same. If Breein and Gilabrand are going to be held to such a zero tolerance standard, then it is not surprising that this wakes up others to demand the admins here be perfectly balanced and of course C) the editor himself for not being able to resist editing related articles. --Shuki (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Very peculiar the workings and inconsistencies of admins here. On one recent AE regarding userspace here, he says that I believe that this interpretation, which would allow the sanction at issue here, is more plausible, in part because the remedy lists "bans from editing any page or set of pages" (and not just "articles") among the possible remedies. On top of that, only a few hours ago, Sandstein warned Editors are reminded that it is unhelpful to speculate about the motives for an AE request, or to criticize the sanction at issue: when Nableezy himself did the same thing above. --Shuki (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is totally baffling me. I'm not sadistic looking for punishment here, I think that Nableezy has a lot to contribute if he really wanted to. Perhaps he should be mentored instead of topic banned, but that does not seem to matter here.
- But even more peculiar and inconsistent, is Sandstein recently here blocking an editor for merely commenting on an AE related to I-P, not editing the article space, hence interpreting the AE very, very broadly, as opposed to the comments below. --Shuki (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by cptnono
You just knew I was going to chime in on any request regarding Nableezy. There was a conversation on his talk page regarding the block where he said he as going to revert vandalism anyways. A couple editors reccomended that since he had access to the talk page he simply bring it up there and that he stay out of the main space on these articles. He reverted anyways. He thumbed his nose at the topic ban so principle dictates that something should be done. However, even I can see the reason in reverting vandalism and doubt any additional sanctions would accomplish anything. Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Except ... the ban, in its ultimate wisdom, took pains to clarify that it applied to Nableezy reverting vandalism. He was quite clearly banned from doing so. He quite clearly violated that ban.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- That is why it is so frustrating. He basically gave the middle finger to the admin who wrote up his enforcement. I have noticed on Wikipedia that admins rarely admonish or work on principle though. His edits didn't hurt the project exactly but him continuing to work in the mainspace didn't help the battle mentality in a topic area that is already emotionally charged. I have basically come to the conclusion that it has to be way over the line for anything to get done. There was an edit where he changed "holy land" to "Palestine" that jumped out at me as a problem but I assumed that alone would not have been enough to raise anyone's eyebrow but mine.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The problem, I imagine, is where POV can play a large role wrt ones interpretation of what constitutes vandalism, and Sandstein wished to ensure that there were no such creative outlets. I very much doubt that reverting a page blanking was desired to be in violation of the spirit of the sanction. Unomi (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are probably right on there. Sandstein was the enforcing admin (right?) and if he is saying close this request then that should be that. I don't buy into the notion that Epeefleche did anything wrong by making this request though. And a "hey don't change 'holy land' to 'Palestine' if you are topic banned in the future" might be in order. If I recall correctly, it was long standing and an IP had changed it. Probably that vandalism gray area.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Sand was the enforcing admin. But once the ban is put in place, that does not afford him a superior position in enforcing violations of the clear words of the ban. The sysop community is required to apply wikipedia rules to the language of the wikipedia ban once it is put in writing. There seems to be some lack of focus on what the words "broadly construed" mean in this context, as stated in Wikipedia guidelines and by various sysops in other matters. Here, there is no vandalism gray area -- reverts in that area are clearly ban violations. And "broadly construed" requires any ambiguous circumstances to be considered within the ban, as the guideline states.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You prety much expressed the frustration I was talking about in your recent addition up above. Don't you know Nableezy can do whatever he wants? He has been brought here so many times. And each time there is some reason even if there is some battling mentality from those bringing it up. Fortunately for him, he was right. And realistically it is the principle of it since the only disruption was editors being shocked that he had the balls to do it. And any block would be recinded anyways since the admin would be bombarded afterward with novels discussing how fine of an editor he is and how it is the other guys who were wrong. Screw it. This AE will only lead to trouble. At least we have something to point to next time editors feel there was some sort of double standard.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Sand was the enforcing admin. But once the ban is put in place, that does not afford him a superior position in enforcing violations of the clear words of the ban. The sysop community is required to apply wikipedia rules to the language of the wikipedia ban once it is put in writing. There seems to be some lack of focus on what the words "broadly construed" mean in this context, as stated in Wikipedia guidelines and by various sysops in other matters. Here, there is no vandalism gray area -- reverts in that area are clearly ban violations. And "broadly construed" requires any ambiguous circumstances to be considered within the ban, as the guideline states.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are probably right on there. Sandstein was the enforcing admin (right?) and if he is saying close this request then that should be that. I don't buy into the notion that Epeefleche did anything wrong by making this request though. And a "hey don't change 'holy land' to 'Palestine' if you are topic banned in the future" might be in order. If I recall correctly, it was long standing and an IP had changed it. Probably that vandalism gray area.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The problem, I imagine, is where POV can play a large role wrt ones interpretation of what constitutes vandalism, and Sandstein wished to ensure that there were no such creative outlets. I very much doubt that reverting a page blanking was desired to be in violation of the spirit of the sanction. Unomi (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- That is why it is so frustrating. He basically gave the middle finger to the admin who wrote up his enforcement. I have noticed on Wikipedia that admins rarely admonish or work on principle though. His edits didn't hurt the project exactly but him continuing to work in the mainspace didn't help the battle mentality in a topic area that is already emotionally charged. I have basically come to the conclusion that it has to be way over the line for anything to get done. There was an edit where he changed "holy land" to "Palestine" that jumped out at me as a problem but I assumed that alone would not have been enough to raise anyone's eyebrow but mine.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Nsaum75
I'm going to disagree with this AE filing against Nableezy. However, I would like to state that AE is broken. The "administrators" who hand down "decisions" here are just as much at fault for the "disruption" on Wikipedia as the editors they are supposedly "bringing down justice" upon. By virtue of their continued involvement in these AEs, they are no longer "uninvolved" parties, but pawns to be used by warring factions against each other. What make this situation even more sad and depressing, is that very few seem to recognize it. I do not have a solution for this ongoing problem, but its plain to see that the system is broken. I guess someone could "punish" me for stating such an opinion, but, that would only make more evident the cancer that has metastasized in AE. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 01:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Gilisa
I didn't read it all, but if I got the gist right and she is banned from editing in the I-P subject and she did edit in Helen Tomas article then this is a clear breach from her topic ban. Helen Tomas is high profile activist very well known for her opposing to the Gaza blocked and recently there were edit wars directly connected with her (see the TP of the article of the raid on the Gaza flotilla) and with the I-P subject. Yesterday Gilbrand was blocked for three month and her topic ban was reset for a less clear breach from her topic ban. The same standards should be applied here. --Gilisa (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Nableezy
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- The WP:ARBPIA restrictions concern the Palestine - Israel conflict, not the whole of the Middle East, so this report doesn't appear to be actionable. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it's the Arab-Israeli conflict, a somewhat broader issue, but Malik Shabazz is correct. Without admin objection, I will close this as not actionable. Sandstein 21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was misreading WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict. Anyway, I agree this should be closed. PhilKnight (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Most of these articles are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (esp. broadly defined), as explained by the Epeefleche. However, the nature of the edits to these articles (correcting a typo, removing vandalism, removing unnecessary Arabic text, etc.) are so minor and uncontroversial that I see no point in applying a block. -- tariqabjotu 01:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it productive to dig into a user's contribution history trying to discover edits from a month ago that arguably violated a topic ban; violations should be brought up in a timely manner or not at all. In this case, the only recent edit, [167], does not appear to fall within the topic ban (Helen Thomas, unlike, say, Hamas, is not so inextricably intertwined with the A-I conflict that any edit to the article is related to A-I conflict per se.) I therefore concur that a block is inappropriate here, without reaching the question whether the remaining edits fall within the ban.
I emphatically disagree, though, with the view that the fact that the edits are "good" can be a reason not to impose sanctions for a topic ban violation. Bans are bans. If the edits are "bad", that's a good reason to enhance the sanctions. That the edits are "good" simply means that no enhancement should be made; it does not mean that no sanctions should be imposed at all. T. Canens (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it productive to dig into a user's contribution history trying to discover edits from a month ago that arguably violated a topic ban; violations should be brought up in a timely manner or not at all. In this case, the only recent edit, [167], does not appear to fall within the topic ban (Helen Thomas, unlike, say, Hamas, is not so inextricably intertwined with the A-I conflict that any edit to the article is related to A-I conflict per se.) I therefore concur that a block is inappropriate here, without reaching the question whether the remaining edits fall within the ban.
- Most of these articles are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (esp. broadly defined), as explained by the Epeefleche. However, the nature of the edits to these articles (correcting a typo, removing vandalism, removing unnecessary Arabic text, etc.) are so minor and uncontroversial that I see no point in applying a block. -- tariqabjotu 01:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was misreading WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict. Anyway, I agree this should be closed. PhilKnight (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it's the Arab-Israeli conflict, a somewhat broader issue, but Malik Shabazz is correct. Without admin objection, I will close this as not actionable. Sandstein 21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The WP:ARBPIA restrictions concern the Palestine - Israel conflict, not the whole of the Middle East, so this report doesn't appear to be actionable. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)