Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355

nableezy

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

Request concerning nableezy

User requesting enforcement: Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2009 (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 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive49#Nableezy

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Edits by topic banned users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Cook has caused some confusion. A request for clarification was made by another editor here regarding the Judea and Samaria case but Nableezy was involved and it deals with a subject that is also Israel-Palestine related. Nableezy is not prohibited from editing talk pages as of November 29.* (The AfD has sett off a series of reverts and it looks like he has immediately continued the behavior that got him banned.

[1] Nov 28: Restored material that was removed since it was added by editors who were under a potentially relevant topic ban. Potential violation of previous sanctions.
[2] Nov 29: reverted a revert to the previous restoration
[3] Dec 3: Changed gears and removed content from the page. (It was from a banned user)
[4] Dec 3 reverted (restored) material removed on Nov 29
[5] Dec 3 removed discussion to put it on the talk page (not a bad idea but still another potentially contentious revert)
[6] Dec 3, it was reverted so he reverted
[7] Dec 3, reverted the restoration of the other material

As mentioned in the clarification request above, I was concerned about two reverts to a user's talk page discussing the Arab-Israel conflict that he made during his ban. Multiple reverts are inappropriate especially when there is not a clear line as to where you should or should not be editing. He also broke his topic ban by editing two files. These were actually good edits but since I brought it up at the request for clarification I felt that it is appropriate to bring it up here (it comes across "petty", though).

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): Not applicable. Already sanctioned and is fully aware of the AE process. He mentioned that editors could take the reverts at the AfD to AE a couple times in his edit summaries.

He also said to take it to AE in his rebuttals to my seconding a request for clarification

[11]
[12]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I don't know. Whatever stops the multiple reverts. Anything ranging from a good talking to all the way through a block. Maybe a 1rr sanction would do the trick since that seems to be the biggest concern.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: It looks like I am out to get Nableezy. That sucks but the same troubling pattern is emerging within a week of of his ban on talk pages being lifted. If he would stop edit warring there wouldn't be a problem.

Sometimes it appears that he believes he is doing the right thing. Unfortunately, it turned an AfD (which has consensus to keep it looks like) into a mess for whatever admin handles it. It also looks like there is some stress on the talk pages (he wasn't the only one to edit war, though).

I'm a little concerned about the potential violation of his topic ban, but that is more of the principle than anything else.Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I assume this means AfDs as well since that is discussion and not content. My primary concern is the edit warring. The handful of edits before the 29th are bad but I wouldn't have brought them up without the edit warring. I could care less about chit chat going on after that. Just wanted to clear that up.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [13]

Discussion concerning nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

I removed an edit by the sockpuppet of a site-banned user. That is not changing gear, that is something that policy calls for. I restored other edits another editor removed asking that user to go to WP:AE if they felt the editors comments were in violation of their topic-bans. In what way exactly have I violated my topic ban? The other users were out of line in removing peoples edits that were on topic, and I regard those reverts as reversions of vandalism. The moving of information completely off-topic discussing the AfD itself belongs on the talk page of the AfD, it should not be on the AfD page. And the "other editor" who requested clarification has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of the site-banned NoCal100, who had used another sockpuppet to both vote in the AfD and remove Nick and Nishi's edits as those of banned users. In fact one of those sockpuppets was involved in the previous enforcement action against me, I wonder if we will get a chance to see another. nableezy - 06:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, how many places are you going to copy and paste the same thing? The 1 month ban did start on the 29th (see here the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction.) And I said I viewed the AfD as an extension of the talk page, not that it is the talk page. nableezy - 08:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admit what? I have said the same thing every time (extension of the talk page, extension of the talk page. I consistently called it an "extension of the talk page". nableezy - 08:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that AGK's words in the amended decision were I am adjusting my initial sanction of Nableezy, after much consideration. The ban on editing article content is reduced from four months to two; and the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction. which suggests that AGK saw two areas, articles and talk. It is my contention that the AfD falls in "talk", space designated for discussing the article. nableezy - 08:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incredibly odd reading. You are saying in 1 more month I will be free to edit articles but not AfDs? I find that to be beyond belief, but we can just ask AGK (I just did). nableezy - 08:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear on why I restored those edits. The only reason I did so is because I felt it was not the place for two involved users to determine what the topic ban includes and how to enforce that topic ban. I repeatedly asked each user to go to WP:AE. At WP:ANI the issue was raised and closed by LessHeard vanU with the comment that This is an WP:AE issue. I told both users that it is not their place to make the determination of whether or not this page is within the topic ban and that WP:AE is the proper venue to make a complaint. They both refused to do so. My removal of User:Mr. Hicks The III's !vote is one that requires no judgment to do, WP:BAN explicitly says that any user may revert the edit of any banned editor. As Hicks was site-banned as the sock of NoCal100, he was clearly banned from that page, that removal is not comparable to the repeated removals of Nick and Nishi's comments. nableezy - 09:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGK has clarified that AfD discussions should for the purposes of enforcement of this sanction be treated as article talkpages. nableezy - 02:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning nableezy

nableezy:

Suggests his ban does not apply to the AfD because after one month it no longer applied to article talk pages. However ...
An AfD is clearly not an "article talk page". Even when one performs a search under "Wikipedia talk", AfD pages do not show up. See also this, where Wiki pages (which include AfDs) and Wiki talk pages are two different search categories. Though AfD discussion (or "talk") pages show up. AfD pages fall squarely within his "all pages" prohibition.
As to timing, his ban was first handed down on October 29. In its original form it was for four months, " all pages within subject areas relating to th[e] arbitration case."
Two portions of the "all pages within the subject area" were then shortened on November 3. Article pages to "2 months from all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case, except article talk pages, from which he is banned for 1 month."
He was editing the AfD page by November 28. Even if the 1 month ban started on October 29 ~~(and not on November 3, the day it was handed down)~~, and even had the AfD been an "article talk page" (which it clearly isn't), he was editing on a page on the subject before he should have.
But, most importantly, its clear that AfDs are not "article talk pages". That is the only area he has been allowed to edit during the entire time of the AfD--all of his many edits at the AfD, on his talk page, and on the AfD talk page have been in flagrant violation of his ban.

Nableezy seems by his reply to my above comments to now admit that an AfD is not a talk page. But rather, as he calls it, "an extension of a talk page". Whatever that is. But whatever that is--it is not something he has permission to edit. He only has permission to edit talk pages. And yet he has flagrantly violated that ban, editing, voting, commenting, and removing others' comments on the AfD page. Despite many request that he not do so, in light of his ban. He has also edited in tandem with the other two topic-banned editors who nevertheless edited at the AfD; in toto, the three of them accounted for a significant percentage of the AfD discussion to date, and Nableezy even now insists that his comments and vote must remain at the AfD, and has refused to restore to the AfD page my comments that he moved from that page.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy raises an important point. But leaves out the most important part. In his ban, AGK wrote: "I am banning Nableezy for a period of 4 months from all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case. If he violates this topic ban, his account will be blocked for disruption (for any duration less than the time remaining of the topic ban)." So, the ban related to: a) all pages, including b) article pages, and c) article talk pages. AfDs fall into category a, but not categories b and c. AGK only reduced the times in categories b (to 2 months) and c (to 1 month), but did not decrease his four month ban on pages other than article pages and article talk pages.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drama

More drama. See Tempest in a teapot. If only people would simply follow the discretionary sanctions. Imagine, the article certainly wouldn't have been nominated for deletion in the first place, topic banned users wouldn't have felt compelled to say something while openly acknowledging their topic bans (which ironically may be unsound anyway thanks to the actions of yet another of the endless line of activist sockpuppets), highly involved non-admins removing comments wouldn't have confused themselves with uninvolved admins, other users wouldn't have felt compelled to reverse the removal (and that wasn't just Nableezy), other users wouldn't have escalated the situation by using dramatic terms like 'poisoned', 'I'm appalled', 'gross disregard'. I thought the sanctions were there to help us 'aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict.' rather than a way to produce more drama. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu

I suppose 1rr is the way to go from here, but i can't guarantee that there won't be another 3rr thread in two weeks where editors will be hairsplitting this thread, deating whether 1rr applies to removing banned editors' comments, arguing whether the blp-3rr exemption applies to 1rr restrictions, or wikilawyering whether the talk page of a template which has 63.4% blp's falls under the blp exemption. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Agree with Tznkai that this seems a bit technical for enforcement. An AfD is a discussion, like a talk page. Perhaps an editor under such a topic ban should only be allowed to comment and not to vote, I don't know. Or maybe they should participate only on the talk page of the AfD (logical, but a bit tedious). Several editors were reverting these comments, including at least one banned sock (plus one anon IP). But, the dispute is the kind you have on a talk page, not the kind you have on an article. Agree with Tznkai also that editors should not be revert warring, ever. User:Jeppiz did the right thing by relaying the important information that needed to be relayed himself, rather than just replacing Nishidani's comment. He recently removed that comment, though I'm not sure why.[14] Another option would be to move the comments to the talk page. People on all sides should look for compromises, not just revert back and forth. Mackan79 (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning nableezy

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

I enjoy the game of statutory interpretation as much as anyone else, and Epleefleeche's interpretation is more likley textually correct, but Nableezey's is less absurd. I see actual legitimate confusion, so until AGK comments, I'm going to hold action, but very strongly suggest Nableezey find something not remotely related to I/P to write about, like Southeast Asian cuisine. --Tznkai (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, this is an important bit: don't edit war. EVER. 3RR is a signal you've already gone too far, not the first sign of trouble. I'll look into the history of the AfD tomorrow.--Tznkai (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After clarification from AGK on his user talk page, I'm going to have to decline enforcement. I think I've said enough on proper behavior here in general, but if I can help out in a non enforcement medium, any one is welcome to drop me a line on my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning QuackGuru

User requesting enforcement: QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans & QuackGuru was commenting to much on the talk page but not doing enough listening to other editors.

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

[15] - relevant discussion
[16] - QuackGuru made reverts to the Aspartame controversy page.
[17] - involved editor concerned about QuackGuru

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): QuackGuru wishes to learn from this experience and be more productive in any future content disputes.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: QuackGuru made too many comments on the talk page and should of gave more time for other editors to comment. When other editors disagree with QuackGuru, QuackGuru needs to address the discussion instead of simply restating QuackGuru's viewpoint.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: QuackGuru filed this report.

Discussion regarding QuackGuru

A recent discussion which may provide an overview here. I commend QG for bringing the case before AE of own volition. Unomi (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To state the obvious: This request is obviously defective insofar as it doesn't point to a violated sanction or remedy. I think WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions is applicable here. A topic ban for all health related articles has been suggested by BullRangifer and Unomi (on Shell Kinney's talkpage, see Unomi's link), but I am not sure that this would help. QuackGuru has behaved in a similar way on Talk:Citizendium, where he insisted against everybody else that in "the project had 12,590 articles [...] of which 120 (1%) had achieved editorial approval" the "1%" was original research. It seems likely that the behavioral problems will occur whereever QuackGuru edits. Hans Adler 19:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request is a little too Bob Dole for me.--Tznkai (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking him at his word would be the easiest and would save a lot of time and trouble. We'd avoid RfC and ArbCom cases. If he can't avoid disruption on topics outside the topic ban area, then it can be widened to a total ban.

A general topic ban would be best. That would apply to the subjects of health, medicine, alternative medicine, pseudoscience, fringe science, quackery, etc., whether in articles, talk pages, or even in his own talk page. Best to avoid the topics completely for awhile. This behavior is exactly, to a T, the same as the behavior exhibited by the indef banned KrishnaVindaloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (KV), so much so that I have always suspected that QG was a sock of that disruptive user. A CU should be performed:

KV stopped editing on 12-05-2006
QG started editing on 12-31-2006

Coincidence? I think not. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in response to the technical issue above, logs available for checkuser review only go back about three months, and there is no data available from 2006. Further, even if the data was available, it would be unreliable, given the passage of time. Risker (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's not get bogged down in that detail and get on with a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has QuackGuru's request been honored yet? We're waiting for that topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Haines

Discussion closed at this time. See User talk:Alastair Haines. See history for prior discussion and decision if necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]