Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52

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)

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. [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. [2] Nov 29: reverted a revert to the previous restoration
3. [3] Dec 3: Changed gears and removed content from the page. (It was from a banned user)
4. [4] Dec 3 reverted (restored) material removed on Nov 29
5. [5] Dec 3 removed discussion to put it on the talk page (not a bad idea but still another potentially contentious revert)
6. [6] Dec 3, it was reverted so he reverted
7. [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.

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]

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

1. [11]
2. [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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comments by others about the request concerning nableezy

nableezy:

1. Suggests his ban does not apply to the AfD because after one month it no longer applied to article talk pages. However ...
2. 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.
3. 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."
4. 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."
5. 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.
6. 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)

• 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)

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)

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. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Request concerning QuackGuru

User requesting enforcement

QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. [15] - relevant discussion
2. [16] - QuackGuru made reverts to the Aspartame controversy page.
3. [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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

Request to modify topic ban (User:Thomas Basboll)

On April 21, 2008, I was topic-banned for POV-pushing. Although I received no warning, and although this was the first administrative action that had been taken against me since I started editing in July of 2006, the topic-ban is nonetheless indefinite. So I'd like to request that the ban be modified to run out on April 21, 2010. I will then have been banned from 9/11-related pages for exactly two years . Although I have wholly respected the letter of ban (I did not edit the pages), I misunderstood its spirit (I suggested changes to a number of individual editors), which created a bit of disturbance in April of this year. That incident, then, will be about a year old by the time the ban runs out.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That is an ArbCom restriction. I would be rather hesitant to see it changed at AE. I would suggest that you file an ArbCom Clarification/amendment request instead. SirFozzie (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I contacted ArbCom by email about this and Roger Davies referred me to AE for a "public sounding".--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The concern that led to the topic ban was that you were using Wikipedia solely as a venue for advocacy, in a way that conflicted with the site's content and conduct policies. At the time, it looks like you were advised to explore some other areas of Wikipedia; I don't see evidence in your contrib history that you've done this. There was a problem that led to the topic ban, and I guess from my perspective I'd like to see a reason to believe that the problem won't recur if the topic ban is lifted. The passage of time alone doesn't quite do it for me, since you haven't (yet) given an indication that you understand the rationale behind it (instead, you question the legitimacy of the topic ban). MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

While I continue to reject the characterization of my work as "advocacy", I have come to understand why people might think that's what I have been doing. That is, I would do things differently in the future to avoid this misunderstanding. The "solely", however, has always been a stretch and it simply has no basis in reality. I think the balance of my edits show that I have a substantial contribution to make. There is still much of my writing in the involved articles. While I have tried to explain this before, I don't think anyone really bothers to look at the evidence. It is normally suggested, instead, that we "look forward". That's what my rather humble request here is about.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion here. Two years is a long time, and I would support setting an end date and giving this user a second chance. If I am mistaken; the error can be easily remedied: The standard of editors on controversial topics is high. I would expect Thomas Basboll to edit within both the spirit and letter of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and other applicable content policies. henrik•talk 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we try a temporary suspension of the ban, and see how Thomas Basboll edits for oh, a month?--Tznkai (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes sublime sense. Perpetual bans seem fundamentally excessive. Collect (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good thought, so implemented. I've suspended the ban, per Tznkai, for one month and asked that User:Thomas Basboll post a new request here at the end of that period for review. henrik•talk 12:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Thomas B (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Basboll is not going to change his agenda just because he has been unable to promote his conspiracy theories on this website...if Wikipedia mattered to Basboll, then he could have spent his time topic banned demonstrating his true interest in promoting a NPOV encyclopedia by editing outside his primary area of "interest". He has not done this ...instead he has been contributing a sum total of one edit between May 1 and December 7th of this year...I anticipate that we'll be back to the usual conspiracy theory POV pushing in short order...Basboll has a knack for being very subtle with his agenda...most who haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with his efforts could be easily fooled.--MONGO 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We already discussed the tenaciousness of his editing back in April...here, where he withdrew his request to be unbanned after it was clear that there little support to allow him to return to this topic. Even his own userpage makes it clear he is a self admitted single purpose account.--MONGO 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't worked on the World Trade Center articles much, but until retirement, I worked as an engineer and I am familiar with some of the techniques used in building failure analysis. I have read portions of the NIST report that have been the subject of much discussion on article talk pages. One of the reasons that I contributed little to the WTC collapse articles was the tendentious editing of Thomas Basboll and others. In my opinion, he is unlikely ever contribute constructively to those articles. I see no reason to rescind his topic ban. If he wishes to contribute constructively, millions of other articles are available. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The ban has not been lifted, it's been suspended for a month to evaluate what happens. There'll be a new discussion to examine that decision in a month's time. henrik•talk 06:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why the ban was suspended after only one day of comment, please? Since the ban has been in place for more than a year, allowing a week for comment hardly seems excessive and is in keeping with our custom on matters of less significance. I share Hipocrite's hope (below). Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This does seem like a very brief discussion to justify taking such a step. This topic ban has been appealed several times in the past - including to the arbitration committee - and it has always been upheld. The arbitration case in question cautions administrators not to reverse sanctions without "engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building", and we certainly haven't had that here - we haven't even notified the admin who imposed the ban. --Hut 8.5 20:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly respect your view, but I must disagree a bit. In my mind, a temporary suspension of a ban is an entirely different matter than lifting it entirely: Yes; the discussion was perhaps a bit light for that - but that is not was what done. This is a strictly limited temporary suspension, with a definite expire date, so that we can evaluate and come to a conclusion whether the original reasons for imposing it are still valid. For such a limited decision, I think there was sufficient discussion: Basically the only thing done was to say "let's gather more data for a bit", and then come to an informed decision rather than basing it solely on an edit record 18 months old. henrik•talk 21:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Henrik, Thomas Basboll has been around for 3.5 years...it would be incorrect to state that he has never edited anything outside the scope of 9/11 related articles, but they have nevertheless been his primary focus. His topic ban was just that, topical...he was never banned from other areas and I had always encouraged him, since he is obviously articulate and understands how to write, build a reference base and is fluent in wikilinking, etc., to venture forth in other areas. He has not done this, so it is hard to see him as, for lack of a better way to put it, reformed, when we have nothing outside his topic ban to evaluate his ability to follow our NPOV policies, and in particular our undue weight clause of the NPOV policy...and/or the section of NPOV titled Giving "equal validity"...Thomas Basboll has been very problematic in understanding that fringe views in articles not dedicated to fringe views is a violation of these clauses...that has been the biggest issue with him overall. In general, we tend to not worry about SPA's if they have a history of editing a particular subject that they are an expert in, so long as they maintain compliance with our policies...however, an SPA that has had a tendency to be problematic and fails to follow our policies, has a bias that undermines the encyclopedic integrity and factual reliablity of our articles, or has been repeatedly found to be engaged in an effort to give fringe views more "weight" than they deserve, then we ban them or do what I have done previously...which was to politely ask folks like Thomas Basboll to edit something else, and by doing that, we might then be able to see if we can allow him some more latitude in those areas he/she was previously found to be troublesome. Now, to be a little less than polite about this, I have had numerous editors tell me that with Thomas Basboll and others of a similar vein editing 9/11 related articles, it has been a tedious, less enjoyable experience and some of these articles have not been able to become rated as good articles much less FA's simply because many of the editors that would normally want to help get these articles to higher standards are turned off and or give up. Here's what I would be more interested in seeing...have other editors than myself encourage Thomas Basboll to edit outside his topic ban for 60 days...maybe even areas that have a tendency to be difficult and or have strong biases...see how he deals with those issues, whether he is still trying to encourage fringe views and is violating undue weight issues, and then if he shows a better understanding, then permit him to make comments at 9/11 related articles for 30 days and then if thats fine, allow him to edit under supervision those articles. Now, if you're familiar with 9/11 related articles and can spot the sometimes not so overt but still fringe viewpoint issues that are endemic to this subject, then perhaps you might be willing to mentor him...otherwise, we'll need some other volunteer to do so...but as it stands now, I can see no evidence that Thomas Basboll has any intention of changing his direction because he has provided us only with pleas to be unbanned...I have yet to see him admit that he understands why he was topic banned or that he intends to follow a different course of conduct.--MONGO 00:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, fringe views can be included in articles not dedicated to them, provided that (a) they are notable as evidenced by reliable sources (b) are presented in a way that is consistent with their due weight (c) they are described as fringe views, not presented as facts. I'd like to add my experience to this discussion here: Recently, I ran into troubles with another editor, and a temporary mutual revert restriction has been placed on both of us. I also, for a period of two weeks, had been restricted from editing articles in the 9/11 area. In the arbitration enforcement case, several editors have complained that the articles were in a bad state, and brought forward the idea that I would be the editor that would have caused them to be in that state. However, during my two-week long absence, the articles have not changed in any way (some trivial edits have been made to some of them). I therefore doubt that these editors generally think that the articles in that topic area are actually in a bad state (as they made no effort to change them), and I must asssume, based on my experience, that this is an argument that is deliberately being used to create the impression that the articles would have the potential to be greatly improved, if only certain editors would be banned or topic banned. Lumping together editors that have continuously contributed to that topic area with IP editors and some new and often very temporary accounts that are sometimes vandalizing these pages or are making other inappropriate edits at these pages also does not help to resolve the problems in that topic area.  Cs32en  09:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mongo, as always, speaks in unequivocal terms about my effect on the editing environment here. I just want to note that the topic ban was implemented unilaterally, without warning (or discussion), on the advice of an editor that I was engaged in a civil content dispute with. Until then no administrative action had ever been taken against me and no RFC had ever been filed. Since I will not agree to the terms MONGO suggests, I will make a counter proposal: let someone review my editing history, including my DR skills. Point out my mistakes. Again, Mongo's assuring tone notwithstanding, no evidence has ever been offered for the bias he suggests. What one is offered, instead, is a list of (and here just a gesture at) respected editors who complain about me, not examples of behavior worth complaining about. I won't claim that my record is spotless, but I'd love to see someone actually try to put together a case for the claim that my presence overall is detrimental. I've been away for a year and a half. The article has not gone even to GA in my absence. Returning now, I've crafted some prose for inclusion in the article and posted some (I think MONGO will agree) typical commentary on the talk page. Have a look. How's my driving?--Thomas B (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in letting rampantly problematic users run wild on controversial articles. Our articles are not the place for a crusader of any sort, and largely, yes, I agree with you that those who can not be reformed must sooner or later be shown the door. However, I'm not at all convinced yet that Thomas B belongs to that category of users. Had any of his recent edits shown an obvious problem, I'm sure you'd have pointed them out by now. If this truly is how he intends to build the article, I must say I fail to see a problem that is so grave that we can not afford a few weeks of trial. But yes, I quite agree with your last point. Thomas B could make his, and our life, much easier by finding a few other topics outside the 9/11 area to edit with - if nothing else, it should provide a less stressful environment to enjoy the more fun aspects of editing. henrik•talk 21:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope the intrepid admins who have decided that this latest Randy from Boise needs to be accomodated by other editors with better things to do are going to actually do their jobs - yes, I'm assigning work this time - and evaluate when the sword-skeleton theory has gone overboard. Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare restriction review

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

Request concerning Brews ohare

User requesting enforcement

Tznkai (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_topic_banned

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

See edits to "Multigrid method", explanation below.

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

N/A

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

Ban, one year

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As can be seen in the archive I placed a restriction on Brews ohare under one of the Speed of light case remedies about two weeks ago, quoted below verbatim:

Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. (Exceptions listed below) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views. As always, there a recognized exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning the Brews ohare (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking to sanction Brews ohare, as well as participating in Arbitration related elections and election discussions. This sanction will be reviewed in two weeks.

In the intervening period Brews O'hare has edited exactly one article, multigrid method. That article is unambiguously within of his general physics topic ban, as it is in the category computational physics. Under that circumstance it is my intention to ban him for a year. Comments are encouraged/--Tznkai (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Brews ohare

Statement by Brews ohare

It was considered by Finell and by Count Iblis among others that a purely mathematical article such as Multigrid method did not lie within my ban. It is perfectly obvious that any mathematics has applications: hence the inclusion of this article under category computational physics. However, absolutely no physics is discussed. The article also is in categories numerical analysis and partial differential equations, and any articles in these categories naturally also have ramifications in any science that uses math, which implies in no way that the math is the science. The science uses the math as a tool (just like it uses the English language in English speaking areas) by interpreting its constructions in the manner that the science finds useful, and that attachment of meaning to math symbols and concepts is the actual science part of that application. No such science applications occur in Multigrid method.

Moreover, it is evident that my contributions to this article are very far from controversial, consisting primarily of adding sources with google book links, a few general links to discussions of the material, and some minor reorganizations to accommodate these changes.

My view is that (i) no violation has occurred, and (ii) my actions have been entirely supportive of WP and further its objectives and (iii) no controversy has arisen or is likely to arise over these additions. Any action such as that proposed here by Tznkai is strictly punitive in nature and advances no objective of WP. Brews ohare (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Brews ohare

Are you suggesting that the article is improperly categorized? --Tznkai (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai: The category computational physics indicates that applications to physics are in use or are of interest; it does not mean that the article discusses these physics applications per se. Brews ohare (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, as a physicist, computational physics are usually much more concerned part with the computational part of things than the physics part of things. This is a computational method used in computational physics, but this is not about the physics part of things, it's very clearly about the computational method, and the theory of the method. I'll agree that Brews is walking on a very thin line here, but it seems like a genuine effort to get back to editing productively.

The current ban seems sufficient for now. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Headbomb. The categorization of the article Multigrid method indeed seems somewhat odd. Physics is, of course, a field of science that uses math extensively, but the mathematical concepts that this article describes are fairly general an can be used in many other fields of science. (It would be unhelpful to categorize 90% of all mathematics articles as "physics" or "X physics", just because there is some use of the concepts in physics.) A different question is whether and how the article is related to physics.  Cs32en  23:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Headbomb, I'm tempted to suggest letting this one go. "Computational physics" is to "physics" what "social science" is to "science". (I exaggerate somewhat, but the point is made.) While multigrid method does have applications in certain parts of physics, the article is essentially about the mathematics. Brews appears to be making thorough, detailed, productive contributions: adding numerous high-quality sources, and roughly doubling the length of the article. This article appears to be well away from any sort of argument or potential argument about fringe or alternative interpretations of physics principles (which was the trouble in the RfArb). I'm also willing to give a little bit of credit for honesty, as it was Brews who added the 'computational physics' category to the article in the first place: [18].

On the other hand, I'd also be inclined to strongly encourage both Brews' detractors and his supporters to just bite your tongues, stay off his talk page, and find something else to talk about for a bit. It's not helpful in any way for editors to make comments like this, as it encourages Brews to endorse and defend them as here, which further encourages him to get back into the cycle of escalating bickering which will end, ultimately, in a permanent ban. I think it would be enormously helpful for Brews to ignore the back-and-forth on his talk page, and for all of Finell, Bob K31416, Count Iblis, Hell in a Bucket, Dicklyon, David Tombe to help him out by just staying well clear. I'd like everyone on that list to try a little experiment — until 1 January 2010, try not talking about either Brews' topic ban or the ArbCom — especially not on Brews' talk page, or anywhere he's likely to be watching. You're not helping. At all. Just let it go for a bit. Give him an honest chance to get away from controversy and do some article editing. In exchange for this, I'd also expect Brews to refrain from any of his own whinging in his userspace since I'm certain that he's not interested in courting further conflict, right? Is that too much to ask? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re "little experiment — until 1 January 2010" - OK, will do. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose a site-wide 1 year ban, any broadening of Brews' topic ban, or any sanction based on Brews' editing of Multigrid method. It is an article about pure mathematics, specifically a methodology in numerical analysis used to solve a broad classes of mathematical problems, especially (as the article states) "the numerical solution of elliptic partial differential equations in two or more dimensions" (i.e., calculus). Like other mathematics, including basic arithmetic, it has very broad practical applications in many fields, including physics, engineering, economics, genetics, and lots else.

Brews' editing of this math article is exactly what all the arbitrators who commented at the last enforcement request, and several administrators, and several other experienced editors have been urging Brews to do. I was delighted when I discovered today that Brews was working on this non-controversial math article, instead of engaging in policy disputes. And the result? Brews took a long neglected article (no edits since April) on advanced mathematics and, in 5 days of methodical editing, he substantially improved and expanded the article. This diff shows just Brews' work on the article through today. Brews appropriately raised a couple issues at Talk:Multigrid method for discussion with other editors, fixed a copyright violation, and otherwise behaved as a model Wikipedian.

Brews should not be sanctioned for this constructive, encyclopedia-building behavior.—Finell 00:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Headbomb, Finell, TenOfAllTrades, and Cs32en about this issue. Note that physics is a huge field and ultimately everything is to some extent physics related (everything that happens in the universe is a consequence of the laws of physics, even me typing this message).

Brews is an engineering professor whose interests seem to primarily lie within his professional expertise. The fact that he is editing an article that lies within his interest and yet is sticking to the topic ban (interpreted in a reasonable way) should be considered to be a good thing. Particularly considering all the negative comments Brews got when he was contributing to policy related pages. Arbcom intervention and sanctions such as topic bans should be a solution to a problem, not an obstacle causing additional problems.Count Iblis (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with TenOfAllTrades that we should not interact with Brews at all. I agree that we should not start discussions relating to old conflicts related to the Arbcom case like e.g. Dicklyon did recently. But I see nothing wrong discussing with Brews some topics that he could contribute to. Count Iblis (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider my comment suitably amended. As a gesture of good faith, do you think it might be wise not to take shots at those other editors while you're in the process of committing to leave old conflicts behind? Please? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! I won't do that anymore. Note that Finell and I have made suggestions to Brews about what he could contribute to. It was also a good thing that others keep following these discussions as it is very easy to by accident suggest some topic to Brews that is actually too much physics related (happened to Finell some time ago). Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose I can't see any breach of the topic ban here. The subject in question is Numerical analysis which is an applied mathematics subject. Just because physics often uses maths as a language of expression, doesn't mean that maths always has to be physics. Physics uses the English language too. Would you consider it to be a breach of his physics topic ban if he edited at Charles Dickens? Brews was not editing on anything related to physics. Why did anybody even bother to think about punishing Brews for making the edits in question? He was clearly acting in good faith, without causing controversy, and in doing so, helping the project within his area of expertise. It came as a total surprise to me to discover that Tzntai had decided that he wanted to punish Brews for making those good faith edits. I thought I'd seen it all here, but obviously not. David Tombe (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is exactly why I wanted this review done on AE, and why I invited comments (though I'm moderately annoyed by the occasional and unnecessarily personalized digressions), so thanks to all for commenting. I am not well versed in higher mathematics or physics, and the categorization seemed to be physics related per se. In any case, there seems to be strong consensus that Brews ohare has been playing ball, in which case I'm likley to maintain the current sanction, and review it again in say, four weeks. Any comments, questions, concerns, or requests?--Tznkai (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this can easily repeat itself (e.g. Brews could improve the perturbation theory article or the Borel resummation article, which are not directly physics related either, but to lay persons that's not clear), you could think of implementing a mentoring agreement in which Brews notifies a mentor who knows a lot about physics and who is familiar with the Arbcom case whenever he wants to edit anything of a scientific nature.

E.g. Headbomb would be a suitable mentor (he wants to become an Admin, so it may be good for his cv). The mentor then doesn't have to restrict Brews from editing any physics related page, just those pages that in the judgement of the mentor are likely to produce the same kind of trouble that the Arbcom case was about. Arbitration enforcement will then only come into play if Brews violates the mentoring argeement.

In practice this can mean that the mentor could allow Brews to edit an article on electronics which would now fall within his topic ban, while he could be barred from editing an article on some philosophical topic, if the mentor thinks that this could lead to similar problems as on the speed of light article, even if such a topic is not physics related at all. Count Iblis (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. If Brews is off quietly improving an article, there is no need for anybody to take judicial notice. As long as there is no complaint that Brews caused a content dispute, or initiated disruption on a talk page or project page, I recommend ignoring him. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A key point (which I failed to emphasize in my original post) is that Tznkai shouldn't be lambasted for bringing his own concerns here for review. It's not a particularly great stretch to assume that an article in the 'computational physics' category is an article on a "physics-related" topic, "broadly construed" (per the extant ArbCom remedy). Indeed, if Brews' editing there had not been exemplary – and if he had not been adhering closely to the other provisions noted above – I might well have been inclined to consider multigrid method to fall within the broadly construed provisions of his topic ban.

A mentor who has an advanced level of knowledge in the areas of mathematics and physics and who is willing to review Brews' article selections in light of his topic ban could be a very valuable resource. Such a mentor should not be afraid to come here first, if there is any doubt about whether or not an article falls within the bounds of Brews' topic ban.

I don't think it would be wise at this time for a mentor to attempt to explore ways to further narrow the scope of Brews' current ban. (And I do wish that Count Iblis would take at least a short break from his ongoing attempts to rewrite Brews' restrictions, especially given his commitment to do so just a little ways up the page.) So far he's been editing one article productively, for all of four days. It's a good first step, and I hope to see more work in that direction — but it's not a sufficient basis for rewriting the remedies under which he has just begun to edit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that the problem area is not physics in general, but issues related to relativistic physics.  Cs32en  19:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The topic ban in the arbitration decision is "physics, broadly construed". It is not limited to relativistic physics. On the other hand, it does not extend to pure mathematics, which is what the Multigrid method article is—despite the fact that one of the several categories to which it is assigned is computational physics. Like many math articles, this one could be assigned to many more categories, because math and its sub-disciplines have very broad applications. But assigning math articles to applications is not necessarily a good idea; if you did this literally, you would have to assign the Arithmetic article to categories like carpentry, cooking, and a few hundred or thousand others.—Finell 06:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for creating this misunderstanding. I did not want to reinterpret the existing arbitration decision, but just state my opinion on where the actual problem area is.  Cs32en  14:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The imposition of mentorship on Brews is not called for by anything he has done. In the arbitration, I proposed that the arbitrators require mentorship for Brews as a remedy, but the arbitrators decided not to. I also suggested to Brews that he propose mentorship himself; if he had, the decision against him might have been less severe. But he did not offer to be mentored, and he has not done so since. Since he did not do anything wrong by editing Multigrid method—although it was reasonable of Tznkai to raise the question, and he to be commended for not blocking or banning Brews on his own)—there is no reason to impose mentorship as an additional remedy when the arbitrators didn't—Finell 07:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Whether the article itself is within the physics topic? Not necessarily. But does computational physics relate to the physics topic? Unambiguously. Adding or removing categories relating to the physics topics would constitute editing within the topic, and therefore a violation of the topic ban. This is where Brews added the category "Computational physics" to the article and thereby violated his topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and that was a really dopey thing for Brews to do. Adding the category was unnecessary, and nothing else in the article or in Brews' editing of it would have raised any question about violating Brews' topic ban. But Brews' bad judgment in assigning that unnecessary category should not be a basis for sanctioning him, especially in this context. Brews is doing what everyone else urged him to do: drop the stick and peacefully improve Wikipedia by making articles better.—Finell 18:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand: adding a category is not discussion of a topic, and not a conflict with sanctions; it is just a convenient toehold for readers who might find the topic useful. It is beyond any imagining that adding a category should be a disciplinary issue or conflict in any way with the goals of WP. A narrow minded, nitpicking interpretation of the sanctions does nothing for WP, and WP welfare should be the first thing on admin's minds; not the legalistic, straitjacket, punitive attempt to enforce wild extrapolation of sanctions simply for who-knows-what possible objective. Brews ohare (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to explain. When you added the Computational physics category, you put the article itself within the literal meaning of "physics, broadly construed". That is, you peacefully improved a math article (no problem), but you made it appear to be a physics article, from which you are banned, with your unnecessary addition of a category with the word physics in it (problem!). That is, you edited an article that was not even arguably within your topic ban, but by adding the category made the article appear to be a physics article, and hence an apparent violation of your topic ban after all. That is, this is a problem, and drama, of your own making. I am not saying you should be sanctioned for it. To the contrary, I have been arguing (like everyone else, for a change) that you should not be sanctioned for it. Adding the category was self-defeating.—Finell 20:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Finell: I appreciate your support. However, I do not think you are on track with your "explanation". Placing a category label does not make the article a physics article, it makes it an article of interest to physics, with a bearing upon areas in which it can be applied. Clearly, computational physics has an interest in various methods of computation. That does not mean methods of computation are physics. Maybe that distinction is not one you'd make; it certainly is not one appreciated by some others. Brews ohare (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Brews, I agree with what you say. Nevertheless, it was not clever of you to add that category, because that made it easy for someone to think that your editing of the article was a violation of your topic ban. And that is what happened. Again, you should not be sanctioned in my opinion. Still, there never would have been any question raised if you had not added the category. Further, you cannot entirely blame others who misunderstood, since that Computational physics category does include the work physics. I understand the distinction, most everyone who commented appreciates the distinction, and I disagree with Ncmvocalist, who is the only commenting editor who argues for literalism. Still, you could have avoided this incident entirely by not adding the a category that no prior editor thought to add. Live and learn.—Finell 06:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare, it doesn't matter whether it is an article, a talk page, a WikiProject banner, a category, a discussion, etc. The moment you begin editing in the topic you are banned from, you are violating your restrictions. This edit of yours violated that topic ban, regardless of whether the article itself is in the physics topic. In other words, while editing most of the article may be fine, what is definitely not acceptable is when you edit (that is, add, remove, otherwise modify content) relating to the physics topic - computational physics, if the name doesn't already suggest, is part of the physics topic as far as your topic ban is concerned. That some topics overlap with physics does not make it OK for you to edit the physics part of that topic, rightly or wrongly. If you continue to be problematic in understanding, accepting and fully complying with your restriction instead of making every possible attempt to avoid further incidents, then it is likely that ArbCom will take a harsher stance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist: Perhaps needless to say, I do not see how the action of adding a Category to a page constitutes a violation. I don't think it amounts to a modification of content, serving only to add the article title to a list elsewhere. No editing of "physics part of the topic" occurred. I am very, very far from exhibiting "problematic understanding" or failing "to make every possible attempt to avoid further incidents". I find this description of yours tactless, and worse, contrary to fact.

I believe your responsibility is to the welfare of WP, not to enforcement of rules regardless of the consequences. The remedies imposed upon me are intended to protect WP. Where the harmless action of adding a Category is interpreted by you as a violation (although it is not in some eyes), it behooves you to consider the matter as it affects WP, not simply as a matter of blind enforcement.

Your understanding of the purpose of these remedies, and also what constitutes their violation, is at variance with virtually everyone commenting in this space.

Finell has suggested my failing is in not being too clever: I should anticipate possible ambiguities in my actions. It is quite possible that I will do something in the future that you will disagree with, not out of malice or desire to annoy you, but simply because your view will take me completely by surprise, being unimaginable to me. I do not regard that as entirely my failing. I hope that you will adopt a more generous stance if this happens, and think carefully whether your actions benefit WP, or are in fact counterproductive. I assure you that my objective is to assist WP, not to cause difficulties. Brews ohare (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on your response, I'm beginning to wonder whether Finell's assessment of your judgement (or clear lack therof) was correct. I haven't believed a sanction was necessary for this - I would have said so quite bluntly if I thought so. What I did believe was necessary was (a) alerting users to the fact that you alone are responsible for this incident escalating to either a remarkably poor sense of judgement or because you are continuing to toe the line of your sanctions, and (b) making you aware of it so that you take more care in what actions and edits you make on Wikipedia so that you do not continue to escalate such incidents. Had you not so foolishly added that category, much of this discussion would not exist. And contrary to what you think, I'm well-aware of what the remedy intended to do, and how far the scope extended, as I was one of the users who was improving the drafting on some of the proposals. A violation is a violation, and the need to avoid doing anything that could reasonably be construed as such will remain as far as you are concerned. If you do not believe that adding or removing physics-related categories is included in your ban, then I suggest you directly request clarification from ArbCom to that effect, as few admins in the community will agree with your current view, should you decide to take such foolish actions again in the future. Of course, that you may choose not to do so in order to continue to advance your tendentious arguments across the project would not be anything unusual. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - I do not understand why expert help is so unwelcome here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think expert help is unwelcome; I've never felt unwelcome, and I'm an expert in many of the areas I edit. But sometimes experts act like their expertise trumps policies like WP:V, or they act like only their own POV is important, or things of that sort, and sometimes it's hard to talk them out of those situations. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon: Are you making a comment here pertinent to the present issues (I cannot see any relevance)? Brews ohare (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Virtually all applied mathematics, from addition straight through to vector analysis, is "broadly related to Physics." Exceedingly broad bans are, in my honest opinion, contrary to the reasonable goals of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment – The topic ban never made much sense, since Prof. Brews's behavior issues were not topic specific. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this remark 100%. Brews ohare (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Brews ohare

No consensus to change the status quo. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lapsed Pacifist

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

Request concerning Lapsed Pacifist

User requesting enforcement

2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2#Lapsed Pacifist restricted and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist#Lapsed Pacifist banned from affected articles

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

1. [19] Undiscussed revert of this edit. There is an old discussion on the talk page here, so this may count as discussed but may not just as equally.
2. [20] Undiscussed revert, see detailed explanation below on why this edit is incredibly problematic even with the "sources".
3. [21] Violation of topic ban. LP had previously been instructed to consider his ban to include the wider Britain/Ireland conflict over independence here, and the Fenian Rising is unquestionably part of that conflict.
4. [22]Violation of topic ban at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist. William III is a hugely divisive figure in Irish history particularly that of Northern Ireland. Also the change of Northern Ireland to Ulster was identified as problematic before.

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)

Admin discretion, preferably lengthy if not indefinite block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

More information on why the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory edit is very problematic.

I'll deal with the part of the sentence after the comma first, the claim that "and it has been estimated that tens or even hundreds of thousands died afterwards etc", allegedly sourced by Chomsky and Werner Daum. Chomsky cites two sources, Daum himself and Jonathan Belke (the book is on Google Books, but the preview has an unfortunate habit of saying the pages in question are not part of the preview on occasion, yet showing them on others. Same info is also available here. Belke says "tens of thousands of people", Daum says "several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess". The "or even hundreds" part is a complete invention by LP, and it really isn't acceptable to increase the estimates by a factor of ten based on your own inventions is it? Also in the main body of the article there's a challenge to those figures, claiming they are "fabricated out of whole cloth" yet this is omitted from LP's addition to the lead as it contradicts his anti-American POV pushing.

More reprehensible is the first part of that sentence, which is not sourced by Chomsky at all. More importantly, it isn't even true. LP's addition claims that "Several hundred employees were killed in the attack", when the death toll (at least according to one source that's frequently cited) was one killed and eleven injured. I'm prepared to accept that adding a source to the sentence would technically negate the need for discussion per Falcon9x5's edit summary, ignoring that LP has wilfully chosen to exaggerate what the source says. However that only applies to the second part of the sentence, as he hasn't added a source for the first part of the sentence.

I would also draw the attention of anyone dealing with this report to this edit, which although not a breach of any sanctions in itself shows LP's editing to be wholly incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. For anyone unfamiliar with the term "vassal" see vassal or vassal state, and see how inappropriate it is to describe the allies of the United States occupying Iraq post-2003. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[23]

Discussion concerning Lapsed Pacifist

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist

Comments by others about the request concerning Lapsed Pacifist

Following two blocks last month for violation of remedies, admin SirFozzie suggested I bring this user up at ANI. This was done and shows some clear violations of remedies and poor behaviour, however it was autoarchived before anyone did anything with it. Particular problems shown were this diff which shows a clear violation of the first RfAR as the article contains details of two IRA bombings. This diff & this diff which shows intent to continue violating this ban as both these articles contain details of the conflict in NI. Part of LPs second RfAR encouraged them to comment on the content and not on the contributor. this edit summary shows breach of that. LP has also been engaged in a very long running edit war on the talk page of Joe Higgins. One of the edit summaries contains a nasty enough personal attack and they have continued to harangue the editor here and here. Also worrying is this redirect which classifys Israeli settlements as "colonies" (LP has a histroy of anti-israel editing). POV pushing has continued too. (LP is also anti-US). GainLine ♠ _♥ 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

LP has been harassing me of late. He has taken to leaving comments on talk pages demanding that I answer to him and explain my edits to him. I added a category (non-controversial one) to People Before Profit Alliance and this was questioned. I sorted the cats on Patricia McKenna's page logically (as I explained in an edit summary) and again he demanded an explanation for this. Does he think he is the King of Wikipedia? This is typical of LPs behaviour. He questions other editors contributions no matter how trivial, if he doesn't agree with their edits. Then regarding his own prolific transgressions, no explanation is offered. Mote, Beam, Eye, etc. Snappy (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Snappy isn't the only one, it seems Steve Zhang has too as has Falcon 9x5 here as well as other editors here and here GainLine ♠ _♥ 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick point about my edit summary - I didn't mean for it to be antagonistic (in case it's viewed as such), I simply saw the addition of heavy WP:POV material without a source, and wanted to express my surprise (woah) and ask for a source. I didn't investigate further than asking for a source (and wouldn't have done, as I generally trust if a user can provide a source, it'll back up what it has to). Thanks! Fin©™ 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon the language but fuck...again? I'd advise a one year block at least. They just cannot learn. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I said it before, and will say it again. Lapsed Pacifist is not going to work within the terms of his ArbCom ban, and more importantly, within the rules and guidelines that Wikipedia expects of its editors. I think a long term sanction is the correct action here. SirFozzie (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a longer block, perhaps even a year, is justifiable. PhilKnight (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As the enforcement terms are a bit narrow, I suggest a 1 week block for the time-being. Alternatively, getting the community to impose the longer block separately or a restriction where the next block he receives will be increased to one year can also work. As Lapsed Pacifist was the only user in this case who was restricted, I am going to request ArbCom for an amendment so that the next block may be for a duration of up to one year, like in the recently closed Speed of light case...I hope nobody objects. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC) 4 blocks in the first case, along with 2 blocks in the second case, and now violations in both cases means that a 1 year block is authorised by ArbCom's enforcement terms. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw the flicker on RFAR, and I was thinking of writing such a thread up, actually. I might do so. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just placed another diff in evidence which is a clear violation of topic ban. Also it should be noted that they are continuing to harrass Snappy here:- User_talk:Snappy#Please. This edit summary confirms they have read the RfE yet have failed to make a statement as was the case at the previous RfEs and minimal input into RfAR. All this coupled with past wholesale dismissal of WP policies shows a complete contempt for the project. Snappy appears to suspect a sock or meat puppet, perhaps this should be investigated further? Several other editors have suggested a one year block. After the latest transgressions, I would think this should be the very minimum if not indef. GainLine ♠ _♥ 13:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I don't know Lapsed Pacifist or anything about the background to his topic ban etc so I can't really comment of those issues. I do however come across his edits fairly frequently in watchlisted articles and I have to say that a complete block would be a pity. This guy makes an astounding number of edits to articles all over the place adding links, fixing small errrors and various other thankless tasks that improve Wikipedia. I wouldn't be at all surprised if on examination the number of good edits outnumbered the number of problematic edits by many orders of magnitude. Maybe it isn't relevant to this discussion but looking at his contributions he appears to be quite significantly improving Wikipedia in an almost bot-like way rather than making it worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist

I have blocked Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) for only 48 hours as the issues presented here are varied and minor.[24] After having looked at many hundreds of diffs, I am far from convinced that long blocks are required this time. In regards to the issue with Snappy, a quick look at the problem indicates that the edit-war should never have happened, and Snappy has been keeping it going.[25] Lapsed Pacifist is under a topic ban and restrictions, but that doesn't mean that he/her is wrong in every instance. Diffs like these[26][27][28][29] are evidence of attempting to discuss the content, and that is what the restrictions are intended to produce. The sourcing issue and the use of "vassals" are more concerning, however they fall into the remedy "Lapsed Pacifist admonished and reminded to be especially careful". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Termer

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

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

Request concerning Termer

User requesting enforcement

Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Termer (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 : disruptive conduct on an Eastern European topic

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

1. [30] Termer cherry picks quotes, mischaracterising what the sources say
2. [31] Termer's mischaracterisation of sources caught by Fifelfoo
3. [32] Anderssl intervenes in discussion
4. [33] Termer mischaracterises article consensus
5. [34] Anderssl requests Termer slows down
6. [35] Termer misquotes Anderssl, mischaracterises Anderssl, causing disruption
7. Prior conduct in relation to mischaracterisation of sources is also recent, and mentionted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Conduct at Mass killings under Communist regimes
8. Misrepresentative conduct has continued at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Conduct at Mass killings under Communist regimes
9. [36] And continues to disrupt by misrepresentation and mischaracterisation. I had reverted the removals Termer requests me to restore over 24 hours ago, in order to proceed with an RFC.

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

Requests for discretionary action by administrators at WP:ANI failed for lack of administrator interest. The requested sanctions there were initial warning and counselling regarding conduct under this remedy.

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

I would most prefer formal warning and counselling at this stage. However, Termer's inability to recognise their own conduct at WP:ANI is worrying.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mass killings under Communist regimes is a difficult article. As explained at WP:ANI, it is highly reliant on the honest discussion of sources. Termer's claims that sources say one thing, when they do not, is disrupting the development of the encyclopedia. Termer's claims that other editors have said one thing, when they have not, is disrupting the development of the encyclopedia. I will be notifying the WP:ANI, Termer, Anderssl, and the article, of course. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In relation to Martintg, AmateurEditor admitted they had a limited access to the text, and I quoted at length in response, directly from the source.

In relation to Digwuren's scope, do you understand the words Broadly interpreted?

I was not aware that stating an opinion in relation to an AFD was "trying to get an article deleted." If its worth noting opinions, Vercrumba voted to keep it, and Martintg lobbied very strongly in favour of it by densely discussing his opinion with editors voting to decline. However, I don't think this really indicates anything about Termer's conduct at all.

In relation to Vecrumba, if you have been watching my edits closely since we had last talked with each other, I suppose you have an intense dislike for citation style, or feel that it is otherwise non-constructive behaviour. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Diff of Termer being notified

[37]

Discussion concerning Termer

Statement by Termer

I probably have made many mistakes on Wikipedia but at the moment I'm compleatly lost what exactly am I accuesed of. So I'm not even sure should I respond to this. In case yes, unfortunately I don't have much more to add to this than what I've already said at ANI.[38], [39], [40], [41]. And perhaps I should spell this out once more: In case anything in those diffs that Fifelfoo has provided is considered disruptive indeed by any uninvolved administrator, he/she is most welcome to take action against my editing privileges as deemed necessary. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Anderssl, I'm most puzzled with your accusations. you now think that the article is a "POV bait" despite you have never mentioned it before, despite the fact that article has been supported [42], [43] at AfD-s with well spelled out arguments by some of the most respected members of wikpedia community like for example DGG!

And now Anderssl you end up accusing me of "POV pushing", while I've clearly spelled out several times at the talk page that all possible viewpoints that have been published on the subject should be part of the article. In case you think it's disruptive me arguing against the removals of sourced material from the article by the editors who have wanted to delete everything all together in the first place than... Sorry if I disappoint you but I intend argue against such not discussed massive blankings [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] also in the future. And again, in case my behavior is considered disruptive indeed, I'm open to have my editing privileges cut back since I intend to disrupt anybody who thinks the best way to go about it is simply ediwarring over the articles at the same time ignoring what has been said in the discussion. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Martin I'm not sure on what exactly you base your assumption that I've been under discussion here by Fifelfoo. There is nothing in it suggesting that I've been under the discussion as far as I can tell.--Termer (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Collect thanks for a fair and clear statement!--Termer (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Termer

Comment by Vecrumba

I am not sure what campaign Fifelfoo is on. I first became aware of him when he posted his magnum opus pushing his agenda at FA article Hungarian Revolution of 1956, for example, see his mind-numbing POV-laden litany on "problems" with sources. There is little I have seen that is constructive in Fifelfoo's edits since, and I regret he has decided to pursue this attempt to control content by attacking editors.
P.S. When editors contend that what reputable sources state is "deceptive" per Fifelfoo's own diffs, that raises red flags that those sources are about to be completely misrepresented.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate Four Deuces (below) refraining from EEML ad hominem attacks.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  07:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that I was involved at the article before Fifelfoo's arrival; upon said arrival my advice was solicited by someone completely not involved with any of the EEML proceedings; most recently I was asked about Fifelfoo's activities by someone not on the EEML list, and so I took a recent look and found out Fifelfoo has been busy. I am weary of conspiracy being touted as the likeliest reason I show up somewhere. Let's stick to the conduct of the parties, no? PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, Fifelfoo contends per one of their own diffs that what a source means is not what a reader would take it to obviously mean. We are not here to interpret sources, we are here to relate what they say in a fair and accurate manner. If a source is so unclear as to require interpretation or to be readily open to interpretation, then perhaps it is not suitable for our use on WP. I would ask Four Deuces to cease and desist playing the EEML card and address the diffs Fifelfoo has presented. What I think of or say regarding WP to people off-Wiki has nothing to do with anything here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. To Four Deuces, as I recall, everyone was arguing over the original article and all I stated (repeatedly) was that an article titled "Communist genocide" should have as its content whatever it is that reputable sources write regarding "communist genocide", no more no less. As I recall you were one of the ones arguing article content or attempting to quash the whole topic based on WP:OR endless debating. You wish to make accusations against me, let's have at it, just not here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To Anderssl, regarding his full question (not misquoted) "should offer some explanation as to why Fifelfoo is taking these steps only against Termer, and not against all the other editors who disagree with Fifelfoo", Termer is merely the latest to disagree and apparently has stuck in Fifelfoo's raw as Fifelfoo failed to get satisfaction at the AN/I and responded by escalating the conflict—speaking to the issue of "conduct." I regret that, again, what I mostly see is an attempt to control content through a request for administrative intervention.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, to Four Deuces, this is not about EEML here. My editorial POV is well-supported by contemporary post-Cold War sources (Hiden et al.), I only relate reputable sources fairly and accurately. Because reputable sources are less than complimentary regarding the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe does not make it "POV" or me a POV pusher. Deal with sources, not with meaningless accusations (re: Fifelfoo's request here) about my opinions or attempt to stick me in some box of your crafting. Of course you are playing the EEML card, you brought it up in the first place.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To Four Deuces, "critical point", so what? There were > 100 books that contain the term "communist genocide" yet people were contending to delete the article for the lack of sources, lack of definition, blah blah blah. Second, you have an accusation, make it at the EEML proceedings. Third, you categorically have NO PERMISSION TO POST ANY OF MY ALLEGED PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE. I request the Email posted be permanently deleted. I am tired of having my privacy violated and individuals who wish to attack me attempting to crawl inside my head and the heads of others to make accusations.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: the observation "Well, this article is POV bait. Someone use AfD or RfC to get some more eyes on it so we can decide if the article is sustainable." That will not work, as the arguments over the article are all based on those who wish to quash it or morph it into something it is not versus their opposition. As I indicated, the original article was "Communist genocide." It should have simply represented what reputable sources say about "communist genocide", and then the introduction regarding what "communist genocide" is simply summarizes the article. But no, those up in arms over communists commiting genocide had to take the discussion elsewhere, demanding definitions, synthesizing definitions, etc. What a gawdawful mess that was.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by The Four Deuces

I concur with Fifelfoo. I note that Vercrumba is mentioned in the Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) arbitration and note that this specific article was mentioned in the arbitration. Numerous EEML emails concerning the editing of this article have been posted on Wikileaks. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I believe that it is relevant that a group of people (10+) with a similar POV appear to have been canvassed off-wiki to edit this article. My point is that when you and other members of the list comment here or at the article that it does not represent the normal way that consensus should be achieved. I note that Termer also appears to have been discussed in the EEML as someone who had a similar point of view and therefore should be supported in Wikipedia discussions/editing. While I believe this is relevant, if an administrator disagrees with me then I will stand corrected. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Martintg was also a member of the EEML and I am willing to produce the EEML correspondence concerning Termer if required. As a recipient of the e-mails, Martintg should be familiar with their contents. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, it is more than coincidental that beside you and Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, and Jacurek also edited the article, while Hillock65 voted in an AfD and Piotrus commented on the talk page. (That is 10 members of the EEML.) There are numerous purported EEML e-mails about this article which discussed how to defend it against charges of synthesis, changing the name and speculation about the existence of a cabal dedicated to deleting the article and even discussion about infiltrating them. If you do not remember the e-mails I can provide copies for you. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, no one is "playing the EEML card". I am merely stating that you and others attempted to create articles and control content in order to present a Cold War point of view that is contrary to the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. Anyone can see this by looking at the edits made by you and your colleagues. My opinion is that by relying on distortion and falsehoods in articles about Communism that you are actually promoting Communism by implying that the only argument against them is dishonesty. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, could you please elaborate on your comments. I notice that you have made numerous comments on the EEML case and edit many of the same articles, so your comments may be helpful. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba (and Martintg), do you not remember all the EEML e-mails about the article including this one:

Martin, I am not insinuating anything about Termer, merely replying to the various statements that you and Vecrumba have made. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, no one is "up in arms over communists commiting genocide". The dispute is whether the concept of communist mass killings exists in reliable sources and that the article accurately reflect those sources. The point of this request is that Termer's editing stops other editors from shaping the article to reflect the sources accurately. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Anderssl

Not much to add here, except I support Fifelfoo's request fully. The details are given clearly above. Termer's behaviour seems to be the Wikipedia equivalent of a filibuster: constantly creating confusion and expanding debate to the effect of making progress impossible (it is irrelevant whether this is intentional or not). If there is any case where counselling would be called for, this is it! --Anderssl (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone claiming that this is merely a content dispute should offer some explanation as to why Fifelfoo is taking these steps only against Termer, and not against all the other editors who disagree with Fifelfoo. This is not a question of Termer's opinions, but his conduct.--Anderssl (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing, though, to admit that Termer is not the only one engaging in this kind of conduct - see Martintg's comment below, where he misquotes both me and Fifelfoo in the same sentence. Well done! --Anderssl (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, we know this article is POV bait. It's been through three AfDs and countless RfCs in just a few months, with little improvements. Termer has been among the strongest supporters of the "POV bait" article, and his conduct fits nearly every symptom of disruptive editing. Please have a second look at this case, before all constructive-minded editors give up and leave this article to the POV pushers! --Anderssl (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Martintg

I wasn't going to comment here, until The Four Deuces attempted to spin some kind of association between Termer and the EEML (which is total BS of course) but illustrates a new Godwin's law style adage: "As an wikipedia discussion grows longer, the probability of claiming an association with the EEML approaches". A couple of points:

1. This is a content dispute which really should go to mediation. Fifelfoo is proceeding on the basis that his interpretation is the only correct one, therefore Termer must be "misrepresenting" the sources. Note however that other editors, for example here dispute Fifelfoo's own representation of the sources.
2. Fifelfoo lodged an unsuccessful ANI report against Termer here, with a neutral admin Ricky81682 taking no action against Termer, but instead said of Fifelfoo's arguments: "Most of these arguments are essentially repeats of the AFD discussion. As such, they are irrelevant to the article itself. People can dispute the AFD debate at DRV or somewhere else in my opinion", which is essentially true since Fifefoo had attempted to have the article deleted in three AfDs in as many months. Note that Fifelfoo was also reported for edit warring the article, removing huge sections of sourced text.
3. I'm not sure that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions is really applicable in any case, since this topic Mass killings under Communist regimes also covers Cambodia and China, and the content dispute seems to have evolved to whether the author Valentino treats Communist mass killings as a minor sub-category of his main types or not, rather than anything being specifically related to the topic of Eastern Europe per se.

If Fifelfoo is really sincere in resolving this, then I suggest formal mediation, rather than engaging in wikiviolence against Termer. --Martin (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Anderssl asks "Why is Fifelfoo taking these steps?" Evidently Fifelfoo, who regards himself as an expert "humanities specialist", has an issue with "non-humanities twonk....cookie-cutter anti-communists with no more than a high school grade humanities education" (which in my view crosses the boundary into gross incivility and massive assumption of bad faith), all because some people disagree with Fifelfoo's opinion. Mediation is the route to solving disagreements, not seeking sanctions.

The Four Deuces has made many outlandish claims, including "this article was largely written and defended by members of the EEML", one only needs to look at who has contributed to the article to see that this claim is also BS. Evidently he wants to litigate on the basis of the EEML, in which case he can post his "evidence" to the Arbitration case evidence page, this is not the venue for such litigation.

• This AE report is about Termer, I'm not sure what The Four Deuces is attempting to achieve by posting a four month old email that has no relevance to Termer, (or in fact any relevance to this article, since it has had a rename and two AfD's since), other than continue his attempt to insinuate that Termer is some how associated with the EEML? --Martin (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• To Termer and Fifelfoo, was there some other editor that Fifelfoo was referring to when he said" "unless WP:ANI actually grows cahones, or a particular editor continues baldly in the past conduct and makes me to to Arbitration's sanction request page"? In any case I have refactored my statement. --Martin (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

Content disputes are seldom solved in this manner. Clearly some editors have had opinions about "truth" when placing the article on AfD, and it is similarly clear that those who opposed deletion feel that the article should be retained. The article clearly is not more than tangentially related to Eastern Europe, and using Digwuren as a bed of Procrustes is singularly ill-suited. Termer has been acting in good faith, and the use of comments such as "cherry picks" "intervenes" and citing as evidence that fact that the same editor complained on another board (which may be WP:Forum shopping in any event) makes me more sure than ever that this request is ill-formed at best. Collect (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Dr. Dan

The EEML case has nothing, zero, zilch, to do with this case, or any parties concerning it. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Termer

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

Well, this article is POV bait. Someone use AfD or RfC to get some more eyes on it so we can decide if the article is sustainable. Also, not sufficiently within the intended range of discretionary sanctions for me to go any further than the strong recommendation that everyone take a deep breath and think very carefully about whether this article is a good idea.

Also, I may start censuring people for throwing around EEML like Colonial Americans used to use the word "witch"--Tznkai (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am still unconvinced that discretionary sanctions are the best way to take care of this, but I am considering various options.--Tznkai (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement is ill suited to the underlying dispute, and I am not comfortable waving my magic wand and summarily creating a solution here. I've opened up a request at WP:AN to get you all help. Please make any further commentary here--Tznkai (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Denotational semantics

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

Request concerning Carl Hewitt

User requesting enforcement

Pcap ping 02:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

CarlHewitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Carl Hewitt)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt#Post-case clarification

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

#

For the past six months or so Carl has been promoting his latest paper drafts [49] [50] on Denotational semantics. Consequently he has attempted to rewrite the article several times from the perspective of his work, and while he has engaged in initially reasonable discussion on the talk page, he later turned to trolling. He used a large number of IP addresses and at least one registered account. Some of the IP addresses have been blocked by User:Sandstein and the talk page recently semi-protected for two weeks.

1. Talk:Denotational semantics It should be obvious that the only person promoting a yet-to-be-published (or self-published if counting arxiv) papers by Carl Hewitt [sole author] is Carl himself, so all IP addresses and users supporting it seem to be him. Moreover, some of these exhibit(ed) the typical editing interests of Hewitt and have been blocked already for engaging in behavior prohibited by the ArbCom decision linked above.
2. Special:Contributions/71.198.220.76 blocked by User:Sandstein
3. Special:Contributions/76.254.235.105 blocked by User:Sandstein
4. Special:Contributions/68.170.176.166 blocked by User:Sandstein
5. Talk page was eventually semi-protected by User:Tedder.
6. Immediately after the talk page was semi-protected Special:Contributions/Madmediamaven, who had edited the talk page only once before showed up again.
7. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CarlHewitt/Archive, which lists other IP addresses involved on that talk page.

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

# Not applicable.

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

Bock Special:Contributions/Madmediamaven, Special:Contributions/99.29.247.230. Semi-protect for longer if necessary.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Tedder recommended that I file a WP:LTA report (in my user space?), but given that this is all stemming from a rather complex arbitration case (Carl Hewitt only appears to have been banned from engaging in specific edits, not from Wikipedia in general), and that further action seems needed, I thought this might be a better place. Also, User:Sandstein has been doing more than his fair share of enforcement, so perhaps the effort should be more distributed.

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.

Comments by others about the request concerning CarlHewitt

The article on Logic programming has had to be under long-term semiprotection since 2007 because of similar promotional edits by people who must be either Carl Hewitt or his students. I suggest that semiprotection will need to be liberally used at Denotational semantics, because this is a multi-year problem. The best response is most likely WP:RBI, since Hewitt is unlikely to change his behavior. Since this is a small set of articles, the problem should not be too extensive. Any registered socks should be easy to identify and block based on behavior. An WP:LTA would be useful to have but just keeping the SPI report up to date may be good enough. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Carl Hewitt

Comments by others about the request concerning Carl Hewitt

I don't know enough about the details of the case, but this appears to be better suited to SPI.--Tznkai (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Carl Hewitt

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

Request to modify topic ban (User:Thomas Basboll)

Statement by Thomas Basboll

On April 21, 2008, I was topic-banned for POV-pushing. Although I received no warning, and although this was the first administrative action that had been taken against me since I started editing in July of 2006, the topic-ban is nonetheless indefinite. So I'd like to request that the ban be modified to run out on April 21, 2010. I will then have been banned from 9/11-related pages for exactly two years . Although I have wholly respected the letter of ban (I did not edit the pages), I misunderstood its spirit (I suggested changes to a number of individual editors), which created a bit of disturbance in April of this year. That incident, then, will be about a year old by the time the ban runs out.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That is an ArbCom restriction. I would be rather hesitant to see it changed at AE. I would suggest that you file an ArbCom Clarification/amendment request instead. SirFozzie (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I contacted ArbCom by email about this and Roger Davies referred me to AE for a "public sounding".--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Thomas Basboll

The concern that led to the topic ban was that you were using Wikipedia solely as a venue for advocacy, in a way that conflicted with the site's content and conduct policies. At the time, it looks like you were advised to explore some other areas of Wikipedia; I don't see evidence in your contrib history that you've done this. There was a problem that led to the topic ban, and I guess from my perspective I'd like to see a reason to believe that the problem won't recur if the topic ban is lifted. The passage of time alone doesn't quite do it for me, since you haven't (yet) given an indication that you understand the rationale behind it (instead, you question the legitimacy of the topic ban). MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

While I continue to reject the characterization of my work as "advocacy", I have come to understand why people might think that's what I have been doing. That is, I would do things differently in the future to avoid this misunderstanding. The "solely", however, has always been a stretch and it simply has no basis in reality. I think the balance of my edits show that I have a substantial contribution to make. There is still much of my writing in the involved articles. While I have tried to explain this before, I don't think anyone really bothers to look at the evidence. It is normally suggested, instead, that we "look forward". That's what my rather humble request here is about.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Basboll is not going to change his agenda just because he has been unable to promote his conspiracy theories on this website...if Wikipedia mattered to Basboll, then he could have spent his time topic banned demonstrating his true interest in promoting a NPOV encyclopedia by editing outside his primary area of "interest". He has not done this ...instead he has been contributing a sum total of one edit between May 1 and December 7th of this year...I anticipate that we'll be back to the usual conspiracy theory POV pushing in short order...Basboll has a knack for being very subtle with his agenda...most who haven't bothered to familiarize themselves with his efforts could be easily fooled.--MONGO 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We already discussed the tenaciousness of his editing back in April...here, where he withdrew his request to be unbanned after it was clear that there little support to allow him to return to this topic. Even his own userpage makes it clear he is a self admitted single purpose account.--MONGO 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't worked on the World Trade Center articles much, but until retirement, I worked as an engineer and I am familiar with some of the techniques used in building failure analysis. I have read portions of the NIST report that have been the subject of much discussion on article talk pages. One of the reasons that I contributed little to the WTC collapse articles was the tendentious editing of Thomas Basboll and others. In my opinion, he is unlikely ever contribute constructively to those articles. I see no reason to rescind his topic ban. If he wishes to contribute constructively, millions of other articles are available. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The ban has not been lifted, it's been suspended for a month to evaluate what happens. There'll be a new discussion to examine that decision in a month's time. henrik•talk 06:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why the ban was suspended after only one day of comment, please? Since the ban has been in place for more than a year, allowing a week for comment hardly seems excessive and is in keeping with our custom on matters of less significance. I share Hipocrite's hope (below). Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This does seem like a very brief discussion to justify taking such a step. This topic ban has been appealed several times in the past - including to the arbitration committee - and it has always been upheld. The arbitration case in question cautions administrators not to reverse sanctions without "engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building", and we certainly haven't had that here - we haven't even notified the admin who imposed the ban. --Hut 8.5 20:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly respect your view, but I must disagree a bit. In my mind, a temporary suspension of a ban is an entirely different matter than lifting it entirely: Yes; the discussion was perhaps a bit light for that - but that is not was what done. This is a strictly limited temporary suspension, with a definite expire date, so that we can evaluate and come to a conclusion whether the original reasons for imposing it are still valid. For such a limited decision, I think there was sufficient discussion: Basically the only thing done was to say "let's gather more data for a bit", and then come to an informed decision rather than basing it solely on an edit record 18 months old. henrik•talk 21:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Henrik, Thomas Basboll has been around for 3.5 years...it would be incorrect to state that he has never edited anything outside the scope of 9/11 related articles, but they have nevertheless been his primary focus. His topic ban was just that, topical...he was never banned from other areas and I had always encouraged him, since he is obviously articulate and understands how to write, build a reference base and is fluent in wikilinking, etc., to venture forth in other areas. He has not done this, so it is hard to see him as, for lack of a better way to put it, reformed, when we have nothing outside his topic ban to evaluate his ability to follow our NPOV policies, and in particular our undue weight clause of the NPOV policy...and/or the section of NPOV titled Giving "equal validity"...Thomas Basboll has been very problematic in understanding that fringe views in articles not dedicated to fringe views is a violation of these clauses...that has been the biggest issue with him overall. In general, we tend to not worry about SPA's if they have a history of editing a particular subject that they are an expert in, so long as they maintain compliance with our policies...however, an SPA that has had a tendency to be problematic and fails to follow our policies, has a bias that undermines the encyclopedic integrity and factual reliablity of our articles, or has been repeatedly found to be engaged in an effort to give fringe views more "weight" than they deserve, then we ban them or do what I have done previously...which was to politely ask folks like Thomas Basboll to edit something else, and by doing that, we might then be able to see if we can allow him some more latitude in those areas he/she was previously found to be troublesome. Now, to be a little less than polite about this, I have had numerous editors tell me that with Thomas Basboll and others of a similar vein editing 9/11 related articles, it has been a tedious, less enjoyable experience and some of these articles have not been able to become rated as good articles much less FA's simply because many of the editors that would normally want to help get these articles to higher standards are turned off and or give up. Here's what I would be more interested in seeing...have other editors than myself encourage Thomas Basboll to edit outside his topic ban for 60 days...maybe even areas that have a tendency to be difficult and or have strong biases...see how he deals with those issues, whether he is still trying to encourage fringe views and is violating undue weight issues, and then if he shows a better understanding, then permit him to make comments at 9/11 related articles for 30 days and then if thats fine, allow him to edit under supervision those articles. Now, if you're familiar with 9/11 related articles and can spot the sometimes not so overt but still fringe viewpoint issues that are endemic to this subject, then perhaps you might be willing to mentor him...otherwise, we'll need some other volunteer to do so...but as it stands now, I can see no evidence that Thomas Basboll has any intention of changing his direction because he has provided us only with pleas to be unbanned...I have yet to see him admit that he understands why he was topic banned or that he intends to follow a different course of conduct.--MONGO 00:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, fringe views can be included in articles not dedicated to them, provided that (a) they are notable as evidenced by reliable sources (b) are presented in a way that is consistent with their due weight (c) they are described as fringe views, not presented as facts. I'd like to add my experience to this discussion here: Recently, I ran into troubles with another editor, and a temporary mutual revert restriction has been placed on both of us. I also, for a period of two weeks, had been restricted from editing articles in the 9/11 area. In the arbitration enforcement case, several editors have complained that the articles were in a bad state, and brought forward the idea that I would be the editor that would have caused them to be in that state. However, during my two-week long absence, the articles have not changed in any way (some trivial edits have been made to some of them). I therefore doubt that these editors generally think that the articles in that topic area are actually in a bad state (as they made no effort to change them), and I must asssume, based on my experience, that this is an argument that is deliberately being used to create the impression that the articles would have the potential to be greatly improved, if only certain editors would be banned or topic banned. Lumping together editors that have continuously contributed to that topic area with IP editors and some new and often very temporary accounts that are sometimes vandalizing these pages or are making other inappropriate edits at these pages also does not help to resolve the problems in that topic area.  Cs32en  09:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mongo, as always, speaks in unequivocal terms about my effect on the editing environment here. I just want to note that the topic ban was implemented unilaterally, without warning (or discussion), on the advice of an editor that I was engaged in a civil content dispute with. Until then no administrative action had ever been taken against me and no RFC had ever been filed. Since I will not agree to the terms MONGO suggests, I will make a counter proposal: let someone review my editing history, including my DR skills. Point out my mistakes. Again, Mongo's assuring tone notwithstanding, no evidence has ever been offered for the bias he suggests. What one is offered, instead, is a list of (and here just a gesture at) respected editors who complain about me, not examples of behavior worth complaining about. I won't claim that my record is spotless, but I'd love to see someone actually try to put together a case for the claim that my presence overall is detrimental. I've been away for a year and a half. The article has not gone even to GA in my absence. Returning now, I've crafted some prose for inclusion in the article and posted some (I think MONGO will agree) typical commentary on the talk page. Have a look. How's my driving?--Thomas B (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom supported your topic ban just this year...Raul just did what needed to be done a long time ago...if his action was so unilateral, then arbcom would have overturned it back in April.--MONGO 02:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in letting rampantly problematic users run wild on controversial articles. Our articles are not the place for a crusader of any sort, and largely, yes, I agree with you that those who can not be reformed must sooner or later be shown the door. However, I'm not at all convinced yet that Thomas B belongs to that category of users. Had any of his recent edits shown an obvious problem, I'm sure you'd have pointed them out by now. If this truly is how he intends to build the article, I must say I fail to see a problem that is so grave that we can not afford a few weeks of trial. But yes, I quite agree with your last point. Thomas B could make his, and our life, much easier by finding a few other topics outside the 9/11 area to edit with - if nothing else, it should provide a less stressful environment to enjoy the more fun aspects of editing. henrik•talk 21:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Henrik...this is a complex matter...truthfully and respectfully, I already provided a detailed summary of why Basboll was banned (banned by Raul no less) and a link showing the last effort by Thomas Basboll to be un topic banned, which was not supported by arbcom..I have no idea why they sent this mess here...but it is disheartening that they would do so. IF Thomas Basboll wanted to show examples of edits made outside the realm of 9/11 related articles which might demonstrate that he understands why he was banned and that he has reformed, then I might support your decision to, for lack of a better way of putting it, almost unilaterally, now give this guy a 30 day trial period...he'll probably behave himself for that period...but ultimately, we'll be back where we started...if you aren't aware of the topic issues and the serious POV pushing by a plethora of conspiracy theorists related to this topic, then you should recluse from handing down any topic ban suspensions related to this area...seriously. I have been on this website for almost 5 years, have numerous FAs (none related to 9/11 BTW) and have started hundreds of articles...Basboll has a track record of POV pushing, violations of the NPOV policies and has never once understood the reasons why we don't give more time to conspiracy theories in articles where we have known scientific evidence....we have articles that are dedicated to that issue...let him edit those if he is so interested in giving his "take" or slant on what happened.--MONGO 01:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope the intrepid admins who have decided that this latest Randy from Boise needs to be accomodated by other editors with better things to do are going to actually do their jobs - yes, I'm assigning work this time - and evaluate when the sword-skeleton theory has gone overboard. Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling editors names does not help consensus. As I understand it, there is a request for arbcom right now that started when one editor called an arbcom a "WP:Randy from Boise". Ikip 13:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am guessing that everyone concerned would be happier if the month trial doesnt involve the core articles, where even participation in the discussion page can result in disruption. Maybe Thomas could find and nominate a few articles that interest him, and work on them for the first month. Alternative, or he should be prohibited from working on FA or GA articles, and top-importance articles as rated by the 9/11 wikiproject.

back in April, I recommended that Thomas work on articles around this topic, rather than the main contentious articles.[51] I mentioned Operation Northwoods, World Trade Center (PATH station), Minoru Yamasaki, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but I am sure that there are a number of articles which deeply interest him, and are currently in need of improvement. e.g. Conspiracy Theory (TV series), 911: In Plane Site, A Few Days in September, Mystery of the Urinal Deuce. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Basboll is an intelligent and articulate man, and a good writer. That's what made his participation on the 9/11 articles such an extraordinary time-wasting nuisance. (That, and his unwillingness to stay off my talk page even after I made it clear his comments there had become, and remain, unwelcome. We'll see if that's changed...) His individual edits were fine, but together over time they slanted the page in favor of the conspiracy theories. I haven't seen where he's acknowledged he did anything wrong, but I might have missed it. There's no doubt he can behave himself for a month, but from his choice of articles to work on he still wants to legitimize the conspiracy theories, and cast doubt on the mainstream. Arbs, please don't let this foolishness waste any more time of the remaining people who are willing to work on these pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom sums up this entire topic ban:

"His individual edits were fine, but together over time they slanted the page in favor of the conspiracy theories."

This was, and always has been a content dispute.

There is a kind of legal fiction that arbitration does not get involved in content disputes. Intended or not, arbitration gave the majority the tools needed to finally silence the minority.

I have already discussed the possible conflict of interest of the admin who blocked Thomas. I won't repeat it here.

Since being a 9/11 conspiracy theorists is a scarlet letter. I feel compelled to once again close with this caveat: I strongly think 99.9% of these 9/11 conspiracy theories are absurd. I just feel that those views, supported by a sizable minority in the world, should have a small amount of WP:WEIGHT here. These minority editors should not be persecuted and banished by the veteran majority. Unfortunately in my experience, many of these majority editors will only allow their view on Wikipedia, and have absolutely no tolerance for opposing views. Ikip 13:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were intolerant of opposing views, there wouldn't be so many pages and pages dedicated to them. That's like someone hollering loudly about how they're being stifled. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Tom Harrison and I disagree about what the content of the article on the collapse of the World Trade Center should be. I am of course flattered by the rest of it, except the part about wasting his time, which is certainly not how I feel about the discussions we had. Discussing things with Tom, and others, has improved both my understanding of the WTC collapses and the Wikipedia articles about them. I will also repeat what I said before: the allegedly "slanted" articled have been free of any input from me (with the exception of the incident already noted) for over a year and a half. I haven't seen any concerted effort (i.e., time either spent or wasted) to remove things that I managed to get in there while working on it. As luck would have it, MONGO and I are currently engaged in an exemplary content dispute [52]. If what I'm doing there violates either policy or the 9/11 arbcom ruling, do let me know. It's precisely the sort of thing (I think) that MONGO and Tom are talking about. It's part what I'd like to do here. The other part can be seen by looking at my edits to the article this month.--Thomas B (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, are you asserting that there is a POV problem? If so, the first step to solving it is to highlight the problem. Thomas is not a magic bullet to solve any POV problem that you perceive but don't articulate.

It is pointless bring up the possibility of the blocking admin having a COI; the topic ban was reviewed by Arbcom, and upheld.

As Arbcom has now recommended that AE reviews the topic ban, opinions from the contributors who work in that topical area of the project are very important.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thomas just highlighted the problem.[53] I agree that "Thomas is not a magic bullet to solve any POV problem", I don't recall saying this, and I am sorry, I need to be more clearer on what I am saying because of the confusion.

Despite calling my sentence "pointless", my mention of the arbcom decision was not "pointless" in that I personally feel this is one example of how arbcom indirectly decides content disputes, and this has always, at its core, been a fundamental content dispute.

I worked in the 9/11 area years ago, mostly editing articles that many of these editors had actual lists to delete, and was involved with Toms edits, so I feel it is important to include context as I see it.

Ikip 15:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Thomas Basboll

Thomas Basboll is away until December 29, 2009.John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion here. Two years is a long time, and I would support setting an end date and giving this user a second chance. If I am mistaken; the error can be easily remedied: The standard of editors on controversial topics is high. I would expect Thomas Basboll to edit within both the spirit and letter of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and other applicable content policies. henrik•talk 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we try a temporary suspension of the ban, and see how Thomas Basboll edits for oh, a month?--Tznkai (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes sublime sense. Perpetual bans seem fundamentally excessive. Collect (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good thought, so implemented. I've suspended the ban, per Tznkai, for one month and asked that User:Thomas Basboll post a new request here at the end of that period for review. henrik•talk 12:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Thomas B (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy

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

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

Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2009 (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

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. Quds Day [54] Nableezy is banned from editing such articles, regardless of the reason.
2. PLO [55] Nableezy is banned from editing such articles, regardless of the reason.

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

#

1. [56] Nableezy recently had his ban clarified.

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

Extended block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Regardless of how egregious the edit was, Nableezy is still banned from the topic and could have informed another editor. Furthermore, his argument on the PLO article does not apply to his revert on the Quds Day article. Nableezy is not the only editor present that is able to revert others.Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

Im so sorry, I suppose I should have left an "encyclopedia" article saying that the PLO was founded on Mars to liberate Palestine by wearing festive hats. An "extended block" for reverting vandalism would be so very fitting. nableezy - 02:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit combined with the edit summary on the Quds Day edit I reverted constituted vandalism in my opinion. Every editor has an obligation to remove vandalism. But like I said, it would be fitting to be blocked for removing vandalism. It would almost be as funny as initiating this request. Almost. nableezy - 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tznaki, I wont, but perhaps User:Plot Spoiler, previously named ShamWow, could use formal notification of the ARBPIA case. nableezy - 03:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, the only ridiculous thing here is that somebody actually requested a block for removing vandalism. Piss off. nableezy - 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid, no you cannot say the same things about Muslims or Arabs. That user should not have said that, and combining the edit summary with the edit I felt, and still feel, that it was vandalism. The very diff you cite has already been addressed by Tznaki, there is no "flouting the sanctions with impunity" and to say that I have been doing so is plainly bogus. Can somebody archive this already? nableezy - 19:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy

This comes after Tznkai's call. nableezy has without a doubt circumvented sanctions a minimum of 5 times. A couple were files. One was an AfD a day before being unblocked. One of them was blatant vandalism. Another had a pretty crappy edit summary but was not necessarily a bad edit. Others (4 maybe?) were only "broadly" interpreted as being related. A couple were simply edit wars on talk pages that were only related to the topic. This does not excuse it. Harmless enough at first glance but they are still violations and a couple of them caused serious discussion. They even caused edit warring, requests for clarification, and requests for enforcement. A sanction is a sanction. He was not sanctioned to "not edit Arab-Israel when it might hurt feelings" He was sanctioned not to edit them at all. To punctuate this ridiculousness, Tznkai disregarded edit warring a few days ago (literally a few days!). How can you work on this project that has a disclaimer on potential long term blocks and not be concerned about edit warring? Edit warring is edit warring. As I called out Nableezy to get my sanction I will call out Tznkai: How can you clerk here and not see a concern? Wikiphilosiphy aside, there is an obvious problem and you bring your position into question. I feel that you have proven that you do not deserve/can handle/want the responsibility. If you aren't going to block (which is honestly OK by me) at least clearly say KNOCK IT OFF. You haven't done that twice now.Cptnono (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Further Comment by others after Tznkai's decision

I did not earlier see the comment "No one believes in your Jewish B.S" but I will just say that that type of bigotry has no place on WP, and points to serious problems collaborating with fellow Wikipedians in this area. Can I also expect to get a pass for saying the same except inserting "Muslim" or "Palestinian" or "Arab"???

Not all Nor were the edits were all reversions of vandalism --[57] It seems clear that Nableezy is flouting the sanctions with impunity. Stellarkid (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I see I misunderstood Tznkai's comment. I thought he was saying that Nableezy had made such a comment. I apologize to Nableezy for the misunderstanding and inferring here that he had made it. I will edit my comment. My point about him flouting his sanctions still stands. Stellarkid (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Nableezy

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

Declined. Blocking here would simply be too silly for words, but Nableezy would be well suited to take the article off his watchlist.--Tznkai (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me expand a little more. Silly vandalism and editors who say things like "No one believes in your Jewish B.S" are more unwelcome than any editor still around. I hope however, Nableezy does not take this as an invitation to look for other cases where he will get a pass. --Tznkai (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hokay then, I'll make it more explicit: Nableezy, knock it off and leave the topic area.

Now then, I can only work with the data I've been given, and if the only non-moot diffs are the two quoted above, I am going to continue to decline enforcement.--Tznkai (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.