Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Petri self reverted, accordingly sanctions aren't required. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Petri Krohn User requesting enforcement mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Collect (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Digwuren Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [1] Reverts the reinsertion of a massive removal of content article is on a 1r restriction. He also did not go to talk to discuss these reverts or changes [2] Reverts his lede back in ... Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [3] Warning by Marknutley (talk · contribs) [4] Notice from Collect ... Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) No idea what the usual actions are in this case, but his refusal to self revert after being informed of the restrictions on the article is problematic mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Per notice at top of page involved - all pertinent Digwuren sanctions Collect (talk) 17 40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing complaint <Your text> The page is clearly marked as being under 1RR, and that the Digwuren sanctions apply. It states that revers are to be posted on the talk page, which was done in neither case. The notice is prominent on the edit page, talk page, etc, hence is (per the notice) sufficient warning in the first place. Petri refused to revert at [5] which makes the far later "self revert" not applicable as an excuse (which was then reverted <g> by TFD at the two minute mark!) Petri is, moreover, expected to be especially mindful of all Digwuren sanctions. Collect (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] See also [6] inter alia and is well familiar with multiple bans. Collect (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] [7] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Actual article talk page, edit page and so on as well as -[8] and [9] which ought to be sufficient. [10] Notification Discussion concerning Petri Krohn Statement by Petri Krohn Neither of my two edits to the article today constitute edit warring as in Wikipedia:Edit warring. My first edit to the article, in accordance of WP:BRD, was a giant leap forward for the article, as it removed the heavy POV-tagging from the article, that had hampered it for wiki-years. My second edit only restored minor chances and improvements that were lost in User:Collect's summary revert of the article. There has been a clear argument made in the the long discussion at the talk page that the deleted content is off topic. Its inclusion is the main reason why the page is marked with multiple tags. As per WP:BOLD I suggested a new status quo where the tags could be removed. I also introduced a new lede to the article. The article was then edited by users Paul Siebert (talk · contribs) and Fifelfoo (talk · contribs). My edits and those of Raul Siebert Fifelfoo were then reverted by User:Collect, who reverted the article to a version by Marknutley, who again had reverted the article earlier today. The two "reverts" included in my edit were to totally unrelated sections of the article. When I made the edit I was fully aware of the existence of the 1 revert limitation and carefully limited my edits not to break it – although I would not brake 1rr even if it was not mandatory. I now checked the article behind the WP:3RR and find that it now states "on a single page within a 24-hour period". This is new to me – the last time I remember reading the page was in May 2007 when I intentionally led user Digwuren into breaking 3RR. I now see that my edit have been against the letter of the new 3RR policy and have reverted myself (only to be reverted 2 minutes later with my changes restored.) I am now going through the edit history to see when the "single page" definition was added. Unlike Collect and Marknutley I have never edited the article before during its probation, (most likely never – but have not checked full history.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 As there still seems to be discussion on this issue I will make an additional comment. I do follow a very strict 1RR rule, I would not revert the same action of another editor more that once in a day, in a week or most likely – ever. I believe most people who follow a 1RR would interpret it the same way. Also I would at all cost avoid a blanket revert to earlier versions, like the ones done today by Collect and Marknutley. My two edits partially reverted unrelated actions in separate sections of the article and were within this policy. I was genuinely not aware of the precise 3RR definition: one article – not one action or section. This really slows down any improvement as well as conflict down to a snails pace. If that is needed, so be it. I also have to protest against EdJohnston's belittling comment below, removing the tags from the article would be a major achievement, as agreed by all editors involved. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Collect and Marknutley? I am surprised to see that users Collect (talk · contribs) and Marknutley (talk · contribs) have not been given a formal DIGWUREN notice as logged here. It is clear that their edits today have been edit warring and part of a long pattern of similar behavior. Also note, that Marknutley has volunteered to leave the Climate change topic area as a result of the on-going ArbCom case, so his future participation here is more then likely. Also I find their actions awkwardly teamish, as their common interests seem to extend from the Category:Koch family to climate change to commies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC), expanded 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Eh? I made a single and proper revert. Period. Nor have I been "edit warring" on Climate Change, Communist killings, nor any other area, nor do I even have any real overlap with Ptetri other than the simple fact I reported his 2RR on an article. Nor have I made any practice of editing anything remotely connected with Digwuren as far as ArbCom is concerned. This bit (complaint) made without even giving me the courtesy of any notification, and out-of-process to boot, ill serves WP:AE, and looks very much like a tit for tat response at best. Collect (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Accusations of "tag teaming" do not belong here. My overlaps with you or with Nutley are de minimis, and often not in agreement. To accuse a person of "tag teaming" is a violation of WP:NPA at best. I note your prior bans. You did not get any real punishment today, but it looks like you are anxious to push the envelope - sigh. Even if you do view it all as "kindergarten justice" (your words). Collect (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] In any action, where you seek sanctions, you must assume that all parties are likely, if not equally likely to be sanctioned. Even in cases where one party is guilty, Wikipedia will only offer its version of kindergarten justice. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] They seem well aware of it and unable to deny it since they asked for it against you. The warning is just so admins can keep track. If you want to submit diffs for some action to be taken against them you can but I would caution you, you admittedly [11] come to this with unclean hands so you may want to just drop it. I see the article is now protected due to the edit warring of various parties. --WGFinley (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comments by others about the request concerning Petri Krohn Mass killings under Communist regimes Is under a 1RR restriction "per Digwuren", with a requirement that reverts be discussed on the talk page. User:Petri Krohn is well aware of Digwuren (having been under its restrictions specifically, and has made reverts as [12] without posting the revert on the article talk page (copying a "bold" edit by Fifelfoo of deleting more than half the entire article, and which had been reverted) and then making a separate second clear revert at [13], The page is clearly marked on the talk page about the 1RR restriction, and has a huge red warning about the 1RR on the edit page. As Petri knows about Digwuren, I doubt that any excuse can be made. The 1RR is set as a bright line, not even an entitlement, and Petri has crossed it in spades. Thanks. The template is simply incomprehnsible, alas, for making this into the official format. Collect (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] See Template:Digwuren enforcement: ""any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" (my emphasis). Collect failed to warn the editor and one violation of 1RR cannot be seen as "repeatedly". The correct forum is the edit-warring noticeboard. TFD (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] (ec)The warning is on the article pages. Also note repeated warnings on the person's ut page. The Digwuren warning has been given to Petri per the initial sanctions. And note that the article page specifies that the revert is to be noted on the article talk page. So much for Wikilawyering here about Petri not having any idea about Digwuren <g>. Collect (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Which is where it started, and it was declined there as it was moved here. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Collect, could you please assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of "wikilawyering". I have inadvertently broken 1RR and I believe you have as well. Usually in these cases the editor is asked to self-revert before any sanctions are taken. Petri Krohn has self-reverted.[14] TFD (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Paul Siebert (taken from [15] mutatis mutandi) The first revert Petri Krohn made there [16]. Strictly speaking, it was not a single revert, but two unrelated edits: firstly, he removed the text re-inserted earlier, and, secondly, he modified the lede. The latter edit cannot be considered as a revert, because Petri Krohn didn't edit the article before. After that Fifelfoo and I made our edits, which were totally unrelated to the Petri Krohn's edits [17]. Then Collect made a wholesale revert, thereby reverting Petri Krohn's, Fifelfoo and my edits [18]. According to his edit summary, his only objection was removal of large text from the article. It is clear from this edit summary that Collect didn't notice change in the lede and the edits made by me and Fifelfoo. Petri Krohn restored my and Fifelfoo's edits, as well as his changes to the lede which were reverted by Collect without any edit summary [19]. Note, he didn't redo a removal of the text Collect noted in his edit summary. Consequently, based on the Collect's edit summary I conclude Petri Krohn restored only the text removed by Collect accidentally. Mark Nutley falsely accuses Petri Krohn in violation of 1RR [20]: "* 1st revert: [21] first revert was to remove content which had been removed and then restored [22] * 2nd revert: [23] reverts back in content he had added which was reverted out." As a result of Mark Nutley's attack Petri Krohn self-reverts [24]. Since Mark Nutley is known to use a 1RR as a pretext for unjustified attacks of good faith editors, in my opinion, he should be admonished about intrinsic flaw of such a behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] (ec to TFD above)You sought to dismiss this all, despite the clear material on the article pages, due to me "not notifying" Petri. I daresay that this is a splendid example of what you ought to decry. The person was, indeed, asked to self-revert -- and specifically refused. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petri_Krohn&diff=383461541&oldid=383460124[ shows the refusal. Collect (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] If I were you, Collect I apologised first for doing wholesale revert of several unrelated edits, which was supplemented with poorly written edit summary. It is your revert [25] which caused all this turmoil which distracts reasonable editors form their work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Eh? I went back to a stable version of an article - rather than just looking at more than half of it being deleted. Indeed, I would suggest that deletion of more than half an article is a wholesale deletion. As for any assertion below that any person missed the prominent notice at the top of the article talk page which specifies Digwuren, that is hard to fathom indeed. Collect (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] The fact that someone made a deletion of a large piece of the text does not allow you to revert other edits de facto without any edit summary. I agree, it is always easier to return to a stable version rather to meticulously restore the text you want, leaving other editing intact. However, if you are not ready for meticulous work, don't edit Wikipedia. Interestingly, Petri Krohn fixed your own mistake (accidental removal of my edits without any edit summary), and, as a result, you reported him. Moreover, even after I pointed out at your mistake (which, I believe, was just a mistake) you still refuse to apologise and withdraw your accusations. Unbelievable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Re: " As for any assertion below that any person missed the prominent notice at the top of the article" The ref to this notice is totally irrelevant, because there were no second revert: Petri Krohn just fixed the mistake you made (removal of subsequent edits, which appeared to be reverted accidentally).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] The fact is that I have no idea of WP:DIGWUREN. I have not taken part in any of the WP:DIGWUREN deliberations nor have I even read the related pages. (I have however read much of the WP:EEML evidence and find it most revealing.) I have followed a voluntary topic ban on the disputes in the EE topic, that is in anything Digwuren of his followers would be interested in – starting from the day in July 2007 when my request at WP:AN to have a community ban on user Digwuren (talk · contribs) was first rejected. The so called Digwuren warning was only introduced long after the case, I have never seen one. I do however take this AE as a serious warning. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2010 Result concerning Petri Krohn This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. While it is true Petri was an original party to Digwuren the case was amended with discretionary sanction powers during his ban. It's conceivable he was not aware of them and I did not see any previous warnings or a log of the warning. Therefore I have now warned him [26] and logged the warning [27] so it is now clear he has been notified. I see no further action needed in this case as he self-reverted. This article may need a watchful eye for edit warring. --WGFinley (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] This report was filed (I think) as a Digwuren request because the article 1RR restriction was placed by NuclearWarfare under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN. Since a notice of the 1RR restriction is posted prominently on the article talk, in my opinion Petri Krohn has had plenty of notice. In fact, a giant red warning about the 1RR restriction appears when you hit the 'Edit' button on the article. Note that this particular 1RR is accompanied by an explicit requirement to take changes to the talk page: "All reverts should be discussed on the talk page" (See the talk page header). Nonetheless since Petri Krohn self-reverted I don't think any sanction is needed here. The editor's statement in his own defense is rather embarrassing; I hope he does not use that logic in the future. "My first edit to the article, in accordance of WP:BRD, was a giant leap forward for the article." I strongly recommend not using BRD on articles subject to a 1RR. The sky will not fall if you use the talk page first. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree, he self reverted, so we don't need to apply any sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Concur, though any of the three parties who has not formally received a Digwuren notice should be given one now. Courcelles 05:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Purpose of Wikipedia
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Decorum
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Editorial process

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

1. [28] Labeling all comments made by Albanian editors as arguments of low quality.
2. [29] Accusing admin as not impartial because he made a suggestion about the previous dif
3. [30][31] Personal attacks against me(although I supported the decision to reduce his sanctions when he was topic banned)
4. [32] Deleting sourced content from the lead with summary Only an Albanian nationalist would place this in the second sentence of the article.
5. [33] Deleting sourced content with idontlikeit arguments about the reliability of the source(on RSN it was approved as rs)
6. [34] Further comments on the author herself that as I have read in some other reports might be considered BLP violations.

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

1. [35] Warning by The Wordsmith (talk · contribs)
2. Latest sanctions:User talk:Athenean#Sanction notice extended to User talk:Athenean#Banned

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

Indefinite topic ban from all topics and discussions related to Albania, Albanians. He had already received a two-week topic ban on Balkans a couple of months ago.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Athenean has received already two times sanctions for his editing behavior in Balkans related articles. The latest that expired was a four-month 1RR and expired about two-weeks ago. I have seen him many times while taking part in discussions with other users who edit the same articles making aggressive comments about the users themselves like Such behavior disgusts me, it's called backstabbing in English. I am done with you, and I am withdrawing from your stupid "collaboration" board. Since the sanctions ended he returned to his previous behavior and even when he was warned by The Wordsmith to ease up on the accusations against other users he didn't stop. Some users who have received the same sanctions as Athenean and also blocks may make comments against other users to defend him. A decision should be taken quickly to avoid any kind of disruptive behavior during this AE.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

[36]

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

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

User requesting enforcement

Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. [37] Personal attacks and another concern, see comments section
2. [38] Personal attacks
3. [39] Edit-warring on an article about settlements right after ban's expiration
4. [40] Personal attack against Brewcrewer (unrelated to settlements)

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

1. [41] ARBPIA notification by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
2. [42] Notification of ban for similar misconduct

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

A ban on articles about settlements

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nableezy and I have a history of unfortunate interactions, and in most cases I prefer to avoid any kind of interaction rather than potentially enter a heated dispute (as is usually the case in this topic area). Nableezy has been going around articles about Israeli settlements with an attempt to demonstrate that they are illegal under international law. He has edit-warred and personally attacked other editors in this topic area on numerous occasions, and was banned for this behavior in the past. What made me file this report now of all times was this comment, where Nableezy states that he will use sources only for one purpose (adding sentences about settlements' legalities) while refusing to make constructive contributions to these articles based on the same sources. I have contributed to articles about settlements in the past (and intend to do so in the future), and to me this comment is incredibly disheartening. I believe that this kind of outlook is much more severe than either edit-warring or civility, and, to cite WP:ARBPIA, goes against the very purpose of Wikipedia. It also shows that Nableezy chooses to adopt a clear WP:BATTLE attitude by only adding information that is controversial. As far as I can tell, Nableezy has not made any other contributions to settlement-related articles. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Just for the record, I do not oppose this edit (and won't unless there's consensus against it from other editors), and my complaint has nothing to do with this edit, or indeed any content issue, but with Nableezy's behavior only. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to PhilKnight: I would like to hear your opinion on whether you support editing in a manner that's meant to be controversial while refusing to make non-controversial contributions to articles. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given you've asked the same question on my user talk, I'll reply there. PhilKnight (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question to PhilKnight: You did not see a problem with Nableezy's conduct in the first two diffs. In the second one he makes a statement that he doesn't take anything I say seriously (and, implicitly, other editors who are perceived as pro-Israel). If that is the case, how are we supposed to engage in dispute resolution? The basis for successful dispute resolution (and I speak from experience) is that both parties must take each other seriously and understand the other side's concerns.

I'll reply here, if I may. From the context, I gather Nableezy is saying that he doesn't take seriously the view that it's dehumanizing to describe the people who live there as settlers. Again, for hopefully the last time, I still don't consider Nableezy's conduct to be substantially worse than yours. PhilKnight (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[43]

This is somewhat ridiculous. Ynhockey says here that "If you feel that the legality is another important fact, feel free to mention it in 8 words or less". I did that in the next edit, using only 6 words instead of 8 to address his somewhat inane argument that the 10 words that had been used was undue weight. Yn seems to think I am obligated to add any information that I can find about these settlements. The information that I am interested in is the information on the legality and so I add that information to these articles with sources that back my edits. I have emphatically not edit warred at this article. Yn removed the material as unsourced here (from an article that has no sources at all!). I reinserted the material and added a source here, addressing the cause for his removal. A "new" user removed it and I reverted the edit. The "new" user removed it again, again without commenting on the talk page as to why they were removing the content. The only user besides myself on the talk page talking about the content was Yn who said at this time "If you feel that the legality is another important fact, feel free to mention it in 8 words or less." I did exactly that and he brings me here? What is happening here is relatively transparent, but I think if I were to explicitly say why Yn brought this request he might call it a "personal attack". The first 2 diffs are not personal attacks, the 3rd one is but happened on my talk page after an editor did something somewhat stupid. nableezy - 21:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WGFinley, every page in the category Category:Israeli settlements and each of its sub-cats is in my watchlist. Ynhockey hasnt even accused me of hounding him. nableezy - 22:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yn, no such implication is made, and I take some things you say seriously. The topic under discussion was you claiming that calling Israeli settlers "settlers" is dehumanizing. No, I do not take your view that calling settlers "settlers" is dehumanizing seriously. nableezy - 23:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness, this is really ridiculous, Ynhocky (an admin) complains about Nableezy adding the only sourced material to the Psagot article. Why does Ynhocky want the only sourced material in that article removed? If an Israeli settlement is illegal under international law, isn't that a pretty huge deal? He first complained about it being unsourced: [44] and then when source is added, he instead says at the talkpage that the sentence is "superfluous" [45]. I have also seen Ynhocky push a very strong non neutral pov at the First Battle of Mount Hermon article: "the claim that it's in Syria is just as "valid" as the claim that it's in Israel." (remember, this is a region that is internationally recognized as a region in Syria) [46]. Its unfortunate that an admin edits in such a non neutral manner. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic discussion of another user - please stick to the one at hand.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And btw, this "new" user: User:LibiBamizrach, who reverted Nableezy twice, is not a "new" user, it is an old Wikipedia user with a new account that he is now using to edit war on a variety of pages. The SPI was temporary deleted because of claims of "privacy reasons" [47] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have already had enough of Nableezy accusing me of this garbage of being a sockpuppet on the talk page of Psagot article. Stop it already. You too Supreme Deliciousness. I do not know why you also have a problem with me. Maybe because as soon as someone presents an opinion on their edits that is not anti-Israel (in line with your point of view), so you decide they must be a sockpuppet. I really do not know or actually care. But the problem is you present no evidence of anything that makes me a sockpuppet so unless you can do this then stop attacking me (please read WP:NPA thanks). It is not acceptable to me. LibiBamizrach (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] And also next time if you talk about me somewhere do not do behind my back. If you want to have a discussion about me then notify me I have a talk page you should probably know where to find it? Thanks. LibiBamizrach (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] If I have presented no evidence of you being a sockpuppet, then why did you talk about my SPI and was laughing here: [48]? , and I don't have to notify you about anything because you are already wikistalking me [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cptnono It looks like the requester and I are on similar pages. I recently opened up a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Legality and edit warring. Of course it is a problem when Nableezy returns from a ban partially based on the same exact line in other articles to make reverts/partial reverts[61][62][63] without consensus. We all know a ban or block will not come from this request but I certainly hope editors will see that discussion since it is a hot button issue that has not been properly addressed. And Nableezy should at least be reminded that his behavior might be a problem.

And civility is an ongoing problem. I think that is a broader issue that would only serve to muddle up this request since it deals with other article's. I would like to remind Nableezsy that it is not OK to comment on why he believes people are making edits when it is done in a pointed fashion. I was sanctioned for it and Nableezy is fully aware of the issue.Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is already spiraling into unreadability and getting off topic. Hockey provided a link to the history of the article. In that history the following reverts/partial reverts can be seen:[64][65][66] over a short period (few days) without consensus. As Shuki points out, this is a resumption of behavior he was recently blocked for. It very well might be a good edit so maybe it shouldn't be controversial. But it is controversial. Can an admin simply remind Nableezy to chill with the revert button and crawl through the consensus building process like we are supposed to?Cptnono (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a comment on his talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is about to be closed out. Thought that was a great idea until Nableezy kept on editing the disputed line even though there is an attempt at a centerilzed discussion off the page and a discussion (without consensus on the page).[67][68] What is so wrong with holding off on making the edit until there is consensus or at least until more people are onboard?Cptnono (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the closing and commenting admins address the above edits before closing this? They look to me to be a too similar to the primary reason this was originally opened.Cptnono (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could, this admin can tell you it wouldn't end with Nableezy. Takes two people to edit war usually and were we to wade into this and start taking action it would not stop there. It's what Phil was getting at when he was trying to balance behavior. --WGFinley (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Anyone making multiple and/or contraversial changes when there is an ongoing discussion needs to be aware of the consequences.Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I have already said that I don't believe this AE request will end in blocks or bans and it is still doubtful. He received notice on his talk page and at the very least it needs to be repeated. Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Shuki,[69]
• Haberstr,[70]
• Ynhockey[71](is it more and I am missing one? I somewhat understand your concern with his revert, though)
• LibiBamizrach[72][73] + tag[74]

There has been a request on the talk page to stop but it keeps on going:

• Brewcrewer:some new ones (sequential)[75][76]
• Nableezy: 4 reverts/partial[77][78][79][80] and some sequential[81] but still controversial edits (these diffs are previous to the additional request to relax on reverts) + a new tag[82]

What needs to happen for some administrator intervention? It is obvious that Nableezy is the problem but others are also guilty. "Wade" in there and tell editors to knock it off. Cptnono (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zero0000 Despite being on opposite sides of the fence, both Nableezy and Ynhockey are editors who edit with integrity, a valuable commodity in a part of Wikipedia where such editors are outnumbered by pure POV-pushers. This particular episode seems to me like a storm in a tea-cup. Nableezy's words might have been better chosen, for sure, but I don't see an offense that can't be handled by a cooling off and calm discussion. Zero^talk 00:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shuki Integrity and nableezy? Zero, please read more of the case here and what is surrounding it. Ynhockey brought up that Nableezy is a quintessential POV pusher uninterested with improving WP. In this case, Nableezy seems to be showing his trademark lack of collaboration, and consistent post topic-ban POV pushing. WP is hoping that these repeated topic bans and warnings would motivate Nableezy into a being collaborative editor, but I guess not yet. --Shuki (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is Nableezy pov pushing and how is he uninterested in improving wikipedia by adding the international view to an article and adding the only sources into an un sourced article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Nableezy is continually getting warned. At what point do all those warnings mount up to something? --Shuki (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JRHammond

I'm not involved in this. I was just curious seeing Nableezy here, as we've encountered each other elsewhere. So I took a moment to examine the claim. There simply are no personal attacks by Nableezy in the diffs provided (1) and (2), period. As for (3), "edit-warring", at a glance Ynhockey has quite a few more edits than Nableezy. How are Nableezy's edits "warring" but Ynhockey's own not so? The claim is made, but no actual argument or facts to support it are presented. As for (4), on Nableezy's own talk page, he says, "I really did not think you were that stupid." At a glance, I don't understand the context for that remark. Perhaps Nableezy could explain it. In any event, so what? Has Brewcrewer himself filed a complaint? Why is Ynhockey speaking for him? If this is about someone having their feelings hurt by "personal attacks", real or alleged, I would suggest if people can't take the heat, they get out of the kitchen. Toughen up and don't be so extremely sensitive. I hardly think Nableezy's comment on his own talk page, which is the only thing even remotely substantive here, warrants any punitive action. But it's pretty clear this isn't about Nableezy violating Wikipedia standards. This is clearly the heart of the issue:

"Nableezy has been going around articles about Israeli settlements with an attempt to demonstrate that they are illegal under international law." -- Ynhockey

Ynhockey doesn't like Nableezy pointing out the indisputable facts (and it is a completely uncontroversial point of fact under international law that the settlements are illegal), and so is trying to silence him by seeking punitive action. This itself is abusive behavior. JRHammond (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

Looks like a routine content dispute. I disagree with Nableezy on many issues but I do not see a problem here. He is interested of putting certain material from the sources but not all of it? Fine, Ynhockey can add more. Indeed a storm in a teacup, in my view. - BorisG (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment by Sol Goldstone "I propose that you use the source to improve the article (write about its winery) and in the process we can think of something regarding the legality issue. Until you make it clear that your goal is improving the article, I will have trouble supporting your edits about legality. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)" So the bulk of the accusation is that he refused to meet arbitrary criteria? If the information satisfies policy standards how can you set conditional requirements on its inclusion? Never mind why the editor's intent is important. Sol Goldstone (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The first 2 diffs show Nableezy and Ynhockey criticising each other on an article talk page. I've formally notified Ynhockey of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions, however beyond suggesting they use WP:RFC/USER for personal criticism, I don't think any further action is required. The 3rd link isn't a diff, and I'm unsure what it's supposed to be showing. The 4th diff is uncivil, but was over a week ago, so I don't see why it's being dredged up now. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 3 (though not really a diff, it's a history link) shows Nableezy reverting Ynhockey [83] on a topic he's never edited before 5 minutes after Ynhockey has edited it.[84], Ynhockey had edited the article before. This would indicate Nableezy could be hounding Ynhockey's contributions. --WGFinley (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy has edited the topic of Israeli settlements previously, but not that individual article. Looking at the edit immediately before that diff, Ynhockey's edit disingenuously says the statement was unsourced, when anybody familiar with IP dispute would be aware of the legal situation, and easily be able to find a source. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree there are clean hands issues here but while saying one isn't as bad as the other, neither is good. --WGFinley (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Nableezy explaining how he came to that page and the advice given on his talk page, I'm in agreement with Phil on this and see no action needed at this point. --WGFinley (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I see Nableezy getting involved in content disputes. People in content disputes are human and tend to piss each other off. That's just how it goes. I see no need for action here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ready to close then? I would be in favor of no action with a warning to both to mind their interaction lest further sanctions be needed. --WGFinley (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

A collective 1RR limitation [85] [86]. It has been logged here [87]

Administrator imposing the sanction

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[88]

The AE request [89] and sanction statement [90] refered to Tag Team and use of Wikipedia for propaganda. From a general standpoint, I want to say that I am against Tag Team and I object to any use of Wikipedia for propaganda. For example see [91], which I wrote when I was still anonymous before I created my account. I made an informal appeal [92], but received no response at all. In the following, I present my formal appeal to that sanction.

The warning. The "warning" [93] that is mentioned in the Arb Request Enforcement was about a content dispute and has been presented to me by an editor that was involved in that dispute. We had a disagreement about what are the main findings and conclusions of a meta-analysis. My understanding progressed in that discussion, for example see [94]. At the end, my edits were basically taken from the summary of results in the source and reflected my honest understanding [95] of this source. In any case, there were no mention of any thing closely related to Tag Team and collective restriction in that warning.

The edit. The specific edit for which I am sanctioned is [96]. This was a revert to material [97] [98] that I wrote alone. Except for a possible and natural overlaps in the views (on sources) of editors, it was not material advanced by a team. It did not violate the Wikipedia policy. Even if it did, there were no warning specific to whatever rule would have been violated (e.g. Tag Team). I hope that the sanction I received based on that revert will be reconsidered.

Consensus in a Rfc. Part of the argument presented to support the sanction is that I would not have accepted a concensus in a Rfc [99]. The Rfc was presented as a vote between two options. I did not realize that other editors could perhaps see this Rfc as a definitive survey. If editors sees a Rfc as a survey, policy about survey [100] should apply. I was interested in all the comments expressed by outside editors in the talk page, especially when a comment came after what could be interpreted as a vote. No definitive conclusion could be drawn from the comments. For example see [101] where Yobol is one of the two external editors. After the Arbitration Request Enforcement started, at the request of Doc James [102] [103], Yobol made additional comments (e.g. [104]), but they came after the sanction was closed [105] and are thus irrelevant to determine whether I accepted consensus or not.

The preceding statement was written on 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Doc James

This is the not quite quiet environment that Doc James is referring to [106] [107]. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cirt

If I was mislead about the procedure to follow [108], please accept my apology. I asked help to make sure that I do it right but no help was provided [109] because it was assumed that I have a lot of experience with arbitration [110], which I do not have. I even originally misplaced my appeal in the amendment section of Arb Requests because I thought an appeal was an amendment [111]. This is why it was moved. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. I believe these sanctions have been overall successful, as they have reduced the unacceptable level of edit-warring on the pages in question. As such, I believe they should not be overturned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should be written by people independent of the subject at hand (see WP:COI and by those who contribute broadly to the encyclopedia. Having a 1R policy on this collection of SPA definitely has made a historically controversial page easier to edit on as can be seen with the more quite quiet editing environment recently. User:JamesBWatson an editor not involved with this topic provides a clear summary of matters here [112] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, another party covered by this enforcement, Littleolive oil (talk · contribs), has requested a clarification of the enforcement process at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Transcendental Meditation movement.   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of recent appeals

1. 18:29, 12 September 2010 - Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) files appeal, was moved and currently located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee.
2. 20:24, 12 September 2010 - Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) files appeal, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement.

---

Notes

• It seems quite odd that both of these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts (see [113] and [114]) filed appeals, at two different locations, on the same day, within less than two hours of each other.
• This seems like forumshopping of very similar requests to multiple Wikipedia-process pages at the same time, and also possible meat-puppetry as a tactic, initiating multiple debates about what is substantively the same issue.

Question

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement

• Can these two processes be consolidated into one page somewhere? Do these two separate processes filed by these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts need to be ongoing at two different pages at the same time?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The appealing party is a SPA who claims to be a new editor, other than for series of IP edits for 10 days prior to registering this user name. While no SPI has been commenced, a number of editors have questioned the assertion that ESL is a new editor. The claim that there was inadequate warning is meritless. The editor was repeatedly warned that s/he was violating the TM ArbCom decision in a number of respects, including for improper reversions of sourced material (the same editing behaviour which resulted in the sanctions) well prior to the further warning by DocJames, the commencement of AE, and the imposition of sanctions.[115] This was not some rogue admin imposing meritless sanctions without proper justification or process. Three univolved admins strongly concurred in the imposition of these sanctions. They should not be lifted or modified. [116][117][118] Fladrif (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm going to let FutPer comment before I put in a formal position but to be honest I am going to have a difficult time accepting these appeals. Many editors, myself included, hold themselves to WP:1RR voluntarily and follow WP:ROWN as a way to demonstrate good faith and avoid edit warring. If you need to revert something more than once for anything other than vandalism then there is a good chance you are fermenting an edit war. In short, 1RR is good for you and shoudn't be anything to file an appeal over. --WGFinley (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Jacurek^(Talk)

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

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

With this bold allegation of sock puppetry [119] user Varsovian violated his restrictions [120] as discribed below:

"..whenever he alleges misconduct by another editor, he must with the same edit provide all diffs that are required to substantiate his allegations, or link to the place where he has already provided these diffs, if he has not already provided them in the same section of the discussion at issue." Failure to comply with these restrictions may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or additional sanctions [121]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to

[122]

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

Block and extension of his topic ban [123] from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly construed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[124]

It is a well known fact that Jacurek and Radeksz are not the same person. The allegation made by Jacurek is little more than using AE as harassment, precisely the kind of disruptive request that can be meet with a block for the filing party (see here for an example, although not an example that involves Jacurek). Jacurek has in the past been blocked for harassment, harassment of me (see this log). Jacurek has also been blocked for socking as User:Cvc42 and other accounts have been blocked as suspected socks of Jacurek (User:Ambor and User:Mamalala and User:Tommy_on_Theems). If I wanted to accuse Jacurek of having used socks, there wouldn't be any shortage of evidence to support it. However, I did not accuse him of it: my comment was actually a reference to apparent possible off-wiki communication. As far as I am aware, off-wiki communication is not considered misconduct (unless one is socking for a blocked user) and as such, I am not required to provide diffs.
As for the claim made by Chumchum7 (how fascinating that a semi-retired user should stumble upon this request within 8 hours of it being made) that I have violated my topic ban, I clearly state that "I can/will not comment on Raseksz's article edits or this request": I make no comment on any post or article related to the area of my topic ban; my comment is regarding Radeksz's failure to offer any defence with regard to his actions regarding me after Skäpperöd pointed them out. With regard to Sandstein's comment about "necessary dispute resolution", it is not necessary that Radeksz ceases to engage in the attacks and behaviour pointed out by Skäpperöd? It's also interesting how two posters Radeksz has worked with in the past (see for example how Radeksz and Chumchum7 worked together on the London Victory parade article) now wish to make sure that I am not able to even comment on an Amendment case which involves me (or at least somebody's behaviour towards me). Varsovian (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the "diff" [125] concerning the "Bold allegations of sock puppetry made by Varsovian", offered here by Jacurek. That's a little scary, because either I'm losing it, or my wayward youth is giving me flashbacks. Does any one else see such an assertion made in that "diff" brought forth as evidence? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "bold allegation" in that diff, but there is a clear insinuation of sockpuppetry. "What are the chances" carries the unstated (but obvious) implication "unless they are sockpuppets". What this means in terms of arbitration enforcement against this editor I have no opinion about, since it would seem to turn on whether an insinuation is an example of the user "alleging" something or not, and I stopped counting angels on the heads of pins some years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wgfinley has asked me to comment here as the admin imposing the original sanction. That sanction is based on the principle recognized by the Arbitration Committee that routinely casting aspersions on others is prohibited (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting aspersions). In the instant case, Varsovian's comment at issue, [126], violates his instruction not to allege misconduct on the part of others without at the same time providing relevant diffs, although I do not think that this particular violation is grave. Since I'm currently taking a break from AE, I'll leave it to others to decide what sanction, if any, is appropriate.  Sandstein  05:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But at any rate, Varsovian's contribution to a Eastern Europe-related request for amendment violates his recent topic ban from Eastern Europe, as imposed here, unless the comment was made in the course of necessary dispute resolution, about which I have no opinion.  Sandstein  05:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Sandstein says, Varsovian is banned from the Eastern Europe topic area here. This strict restriction was applied after many months of time consuming disputes and personal conflicts involving Varsovian, and after many milder warnings, sanctions and restrictions had failed. Varsovian has now posted on the subject of the Eastern European Mailing List [127]. As Sandstein says, by doing this Varsovian has ignored the strict sanction imposed on him. This supersedes any concerns about (i) his possible allegations of sockpuppetry or (ii) his involvement in AE in a possibly disallowed manner. As it happens, his post at EEML Amendment engages in personal conflict again. For the WP community to remain confident in the the WP enforcement process, and to send a clear message to restricted editors not test authority, further sanctions must be applied on Varsovian now. One option is that his sixth-month ban from Eastern Europe topic areas is restarted from today. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've asked Sandstein, the admin who made the ban, to take a look and chime in. It's not clear to me if this skirts the AE ban he placed on Varsovian or not. The "diff" provided is spotty, yes he infers that someone is socking but it's not a blatant accusation. --WGFinley (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]