Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive93

Shatter Resistance

Request concerning Shatter Resistance

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

--Domer48_'fenian' 21:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Shatter Resistance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

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

1. Revert 1
2. Revert 2
3. Revert 3
4. Revert 4 Despite the notifications and requeste

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

1. Notice placed on Article Talk Page
2. Notice placed on Editors Talk Page

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

To be determined.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Shatter Resistance despite being made aware of the 1RR, and having been asked to self revert, a number of times [1][2] by both myself and another editor who also asked a number of times [3][4] they have prevaricated both on their talk page, and on the Article Talk page. They then point blank refused to self revert. Despite all this the editor then makes a fourth revert.

Editor has now indicated that they will continue to revert regardless.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On the Article they have stated "I don't care how many reverts we are meant to have I am trying to establish a discussion" and are actively looking to have the article locked. On their version of course!--Domer48_'fenian' 21:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On their talk page they have stated "I don't won't to keep on reverting but I will in order to maintain the status quo."--Domer48_'fenian' 22:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Shatter Resistance

Comments by Shatter Resistance

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure how this works so please correct me if I am writing in the wrong places Secondly, the first revert mentioned here as being vandalism is definetly not so as it was my first revert, which I am entitled to under IRR, there was confusion about that earlier. Thirdly, I have no indicated I will revert regardless I have indicated that I will revert any edits which again change the article from its old format, a decision which you will find other users accepting if you look on my talk page and the article in question. I wanted a discussion about the changes, I provided evidence (the only person to do so) yet apparently nobody wishes to have one. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how wanting to get the article locked (by which I did mean protected, sorry) is in any way wrong. Assuming Wikipedia actually listens to sense then if the article was protected that would mean I was correct and if it wasn't then it would mean I wasn't. Getting the article protected would actually stop me making reverts and would instead mean a discsussion could take place, something I have a strong record of advocating instead of just making unilateral changes. This is the first time that I have ever had other users attempt to stop a discussion - or to put it more accuratly not to revert and discuss which has so far always led to a compromise both sides have been happy with. At one point there seemed to be an agreement to discuss and actually I'm only here because I reverted so that process could continue. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do understant 3RR, it was only after you said that it was fine to revert disruptive edits whatever that I reverted for the 4th time (which under your logic wasn't a breach of 3RR). I admit to breaking 1RR however, I didn't know about it, though as seems to have been accepted by other users that was a mistake and everybody seemed fine just to let me off the hook on that one considering my reverts took place before I read their warnings. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I haven't been a member before, but well I have no way of proving that so you will just have to decide to trust me or not on that (not that I think it should actually make any real difference), unless there is a way of finding out in which case go for it, I have nothing to hide.

I'd also like to point out that the article in which I am accussed of making me violations on is the Irish general election, 1918 which was not in the troubles, so actually 1RR does not apply to it, it concerns me that apparently experienced editors have made this simple mistake. This means that I have only possibly made one violation, the revert of which in question I actually justified under the reasoning of the editors who have reported me here, who claimed under certain circumstances reverts were allowed to continue, again possible I was too trusting of what seemed to be their experience. As far as I can see, I haven't actually possible performed more than one violation and if that is justification then at least one of the other editors involved in this dispute (namely: Scolaire) should be blocked too for providing me with my argument to preform the 'violation' and for actually provoking me to do it by delibretly stating they were going to ignore the fact we had all stopping 'edit warring' and were trying to talk. Shatter Resistance (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Slightly worried that User:Domer48 who applied for this application, may not consider discussion to be an important element of Wikipedia having seen the level of maturity used moments ago in reaction to what is actually begining to become quite an effect discussion with merely the line LMAO, ;), which seem to me that possibly this user isn't really very serious. Shatter Resistance (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just discovered that part way through the discussion on the Irish general election, 1918 article Domer48 added the Troubles template to this article, depsire the fact the troubles is well establised as having taken place after WWII, Wikipedia's own page cites 1968, 50 years after the 1918 election. You can see here the page as it was part way through the discussion without the template and then the next comment by Domer48 here in which it has been added. I see no evidence that this article is part of the troubles and that instead it has been placed there in order to enforce Domer48's inaccurate claim it was subject to 1RR. I am going to remove the template from the page until proper evidence has been provided. Shatter Resistance (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others on the request concerning Shatter Resistance

Shatter Resistance has also stated that I don't won't to keep on reverting but I will... and also that they intend get the page locked also stating "I will have the page locked to prevent further changes" Mo ainm~Talk 21:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have the impression that Shatter Resistance genuinely misunderstands WP policies, in particular 3RR and BRD, as evidenced by the edit summary here. Unless he previously edited under another username, he has only been a user for six weeks. However, he was given very explicit advice here, here and here, and chose to ignore it, so he has no complaint if he is sanctioned as a result. Scolaire (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Shatter Resistance

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

• I recommend that User:Shatter Resistance be blocked for three days for the 1RR violation and warned of the possibility of Troubles probation per the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors. If probation is eventually imposed, it puts the editor under a 1RR/week limit on all Troubles articles. Shatter Resistance created their account on 19 May but due to their sophistication they must have been on Wikipedia before. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm slow to assume that Shatter Resistance is a returned editor, and if he is not, EdJohnston's proposal strikes me as unduly harsh. I think we can simply explain what is and what is not a revert, and that one revert per 24 hours is allowed in the topic area. You are not entitled to a new revert just because you are reverting an entirely different part of the article. So, unless there's some proof to Ed Johnston's last sentence, I'm in favour of closing with a stern warning and no use of the block button. Courcelles

Cptnono

Nableezy and Cptnono are interaction-banned. They may not open complaints about each other at AE. Details within. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Cptnono User who is submitting this request for enforcement Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 19:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 06:48, 22 June 2011 Tendentious editing, hounding 05:32, 24 June 2011 Tendentious editing 05:43, 24 June 2011 Personal attack, accusation of socking without evidence 06:02, 24 June 2011 Personal attack. Here he admits he has no evidence for the accusation, but proceeds to repeat it 05:36, 24 June 2011 Personal attack. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Blocked by AGK for violations of NPA Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Interaction ban, topic ban Additional comments by editor filing complaint Cptnono has repeatedly hounded my contributions to follow me to articles where he was not involved to revert my edits. There are numerous examples of this, and he has in the past admitted to doing so to "keep me in line". One such example is Golan Heights Wind Farm, where Cptnono performs, as his first and only edit to either the article or talk page, a revert of an edit by me shortly after I edit the page. This is exactly what happened at Dahiya doctrine. After I revert an IP who had tagged the article without cause, Cptnono follows me there and reverts me as his very first edit to either the article or talk page. When Cptnono is asked to, instead of immediately tagging the article, edit the article to correct any issues that he might see, he refuses to do so. He later re-reverts to place the tag once again on the article. He has yet to actually say what he would like to add, only saying that some unknown source is not used properly and that the article is "POV". This is tendentious editing, the purpose of which is to goad other editors in to an edit war over a tag. This is not simply my opinion of what happened, in this edit to a user's talk page he taunts other editors and dares them to revert him so that he can go to AE. In sum, Cptnono hounded my contributions to revert me, then said he was not interested in even attempting to address any POV issues that may be there, and then attempts to goad others in to reverting him. This series of edits shows that he is simply playing games here. Cptnono has also made repeated accusations against me about socking. He has not once produced a single thread of evidence to support such a serious charge, but he has repeated it multiple times on this very page. In the above diffs, Cptnono says that he does not have any evidence for the charge, but repeats it anyway. He has done this in the past, (example here and refusing to substantiate the accusation here). According to WP:NPA, accusations made without evidence are personal attacks. The policy says, in the section "What is considered to be a personal attack?", Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. This is among the most serious accusations that an editor can make here, and repeatedly making it without providing any evidence at all, even admitting that there is no evidence at all, is highly inappropriate. This editor has repeatedly leveled serious charges against others without once providing evidence. He has repeatedly hounded my contributions to involve himself in disputes simply because I am already there. He has repeatedly reverted to restore tags to articles despite never even attempting to edit the article to address whatever issues he claims exist, and indeed has rebuffed requests that he do so. He has attempted to goad others into edit-warring, with the explicitly expressed objective of bring others "down with Nableezy" here at AE. These generally tendentious actions would not, by themselves, cause me to make this request. But combined, they demonstrate that Cptnono is editing with the purpose of annoying me and goading me in to doing something so that his years long campaign to have me banned succeeds. I realize that one-sided interaction bans are disliked by admins with good cause, and while I do not feel that I have done anything to merit any type of ban being placed on me with regard to Cptnono, if that is what it takes to have this never ending stream of asinine accusations and repeated tendentious hounding of my edits stop then so be it. Boris, Cptnono has done this multiple times. And as you wrote, I objected to the accusations above at the time they were made. If Biosketch wishes he can ask that Tarc stop making such accusations without providing evidence, and if Tarc persists he may then seek administrative relief from such unsubstantiated charges. I have repeatedly requested that Cptnono cease making accusations without providing any evidence, yet he persists. Additionally, the hounding by Cptnono has gone from a mere annoyance to disruption, as he is involving himself in articles where he either has no interest of editing or is literally too drunk to do so. If you would like to raise the issue of Tarc making such accusations you are free to do so in any number of venues. It is however completely irrelevant here. I am not Tarc, I am not responsible for him, and what he says does not in any way excuse Cptnono's repeated unsubstantiated and unfounded accusations. nableezy - 05:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Some of these comments below are simply unbelievable. Cptnono's every edit is scrutinized????? He has "enemies waiting in ambush to pounce"?????? Truly astonishing. As far as I know, not a single editor has ever hounded Cptnono, and not a single time has an unmerited enforcement request against him been filed. He has repeatedly hounded my contributions, not the other way around. He has repeatedly made malicious charges without ever providing a single bit of evidence for them, not the other way around. Many of the below comments do only one thing; that is they demonstrate that this page needs to do away with the comments by involved editors. Cptnono has repeatedly made serious accusations without ever providing evidence for them. He has repeatedly hounded my contributions and edited in a tendentious fashion when doing so. See his conduct in the diffs above at the Dahiya doctine article, accompanied by his drunken ranting at Sean.hoyland's talk page. I have held my tongue in giving anything resembling an honest critique of Cptnono, despite repeated provocations by him in which he has made blatantly dishonest accusations against me and edited with the sole purpose of annoying me. I await a response to the actual issues involved here from an uninvolved admin. nableezy - 05:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Cptnono Statement by Cptnono If Nableezy wants me to stop commenting on him at AE he should stop getting himself in trouble. I do have a hard time interacting with Nableezy since he is the catalyst to so many problems. I just don't edit war with him and that is why I am still around while others are not. I try not to seek him out exclusively but he makes it pretty hard when I want the topic area to not be garbage (note the centralized discussion I started). If an interaction ban is the decision then I am cool with it. However, I don't think it is feasible. We edit too many of the same articles. I would prefer a limited interaction ban (basically a final warning) but I would also be OK with an interaction ban as long as it is lifted when he is topic banned again since all interaction is based in one topic area. When he is topic banned again I don;t think I should have any restrictions. No matter what, no interaction ban is appropriate without a waiver on Gaza War (it was getting a little less combative until he came back, BTW) since there is an ongoing discussion.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC) And I don;t need to comment on the sock thing. My comment was clear and he chose to take offence. Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC) And my laptop does not have a breathalizer. At least I am only a jerk when drunk and not a POV pusher. Chucgging a handful right now, friends (see, I am honest about it :) ). Cptnono (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Hold on a second Biosketch: Don't let my love for the most drinkable garbage beer lead you to believe that I don't like a handful from a good microbrew at happy hour. I am from Seattle after all :) @Peter: I don't understand your questions exactly. So I will clarify my point:" I think Nableezy is only back for a short time since I assume he will continue to get himself in trouble. So basically I don;t want to have some weird interaction ban hanging over me based on the principle of it. If he is booted again I want to be in the clear so that there isn't some weird scarlet letter on me. And yes, Gaza War oddly enough since it is not feasible to have us both work on the article if e cannot talk to each other. But maybe this is why we should have ARBPIA3. I will be bounced for a bit for my history of incivility (the report above does not show that but a history will kill me) while a history of pushing a POV and edit warring will rip out the real trouble makers. I am a jerk but I don't cause the other issues that permeate the topic area. Overall, why is this AE still open. I do not deserve the time to be perfectly frank. Been here enough and know how it works. I do appreciate the comments since there is a good blend of constructive criticism and plain niceness. Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I'm cool with it. The only thing I take issue with is AGK preaching about intoxication on my talk page (who are you to turn from a janitor to a preacher? How about I suggest you stop trying to play Judge Wapner at night?) and the mention of tit-for-tat (I had not filed a request here for a bit so it wasn't really tit-for-tat as it?) But at the end, it is a well worded interaction ban and 6 months seems like a reasonable amount of time to let things cool down. It is not my job anymore which is a relief. But ARBPIA3 is still something I would be interested in. A 6 month topic ban would be unfortunate for me but it if it helps clear out some of the issues then great.Cptnono (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono I think an interaction ban would be a very good idea. I'm not sure Cptnono has crossed the line into topic ban territory, but he's dancing very close to it. And he would be wise not to edit while intoxicated. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC) There seems little point in sanctioning Cptnono. His comments here make it clear he will simply cheat the system in order to circumvent actions taken against him. Note the lines: "…Now how about a cycle my IP... If I ever get blocked for a longer amount of time I will certainly go for it…" Prunesqualer (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC) That's a good point, and anyway "having to be Cptnono" is probably a lot worse punishment than anything we can do here. Herostratus (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Personal attacks are rare in AE comments. Well done! Can we please have this request closed, before more people exercise their sense of humor? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Speaking of the system, I would have thought your topic ban kept you from commenting on an ARBPIA request. Or am I mixing you up with someone else? --JGGardiner (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Who are you referring to? I don't think that anyone commenting here is under a relevant topic ban. RolandR (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Prunesqualer is indefed from PI area. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC) I know some editors view interaction bans as punishments, while others welcome them, so I'd like to hear Cptnono's thoughts on an interaction ban with Nableezy before I comment further. ← George talk 00:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Having heard back from Cptnono, I'd say I support an interaction ban. While Nableezy and Cptnono may have opposing viewpoints, I think the real problem is what they have in common with each other: neither particularly cares for bullshit, but they both can keep up (and don't back down) if you bring it. I don't know if that's a character flaw or a commendable trait - possibly both - but when you line them up against each other it can get a bit ugly. Maybe give an interaction ban a shot and see if it helps calm the waters? I think it would be more constructive than throwing topic bans at otherwise productive contributors anyways (productivity being irrespective of whether or not you agree with their viewpoints). My two cents. ← George talk 23:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Agree with Malik Shabazz that at this point an interaction ban would be a good idea; Wikipedia is not a battleground, regardless of whether or not you've enjoyed a few too many chelas; if an interaction ban does not improve the situation, there may be a need for more draconian steps. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 01:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC) I do not support accusations without evidence, but Cptnono's latest statements about Nableezy were made in the context of another editor making such allegations against Biosketch [5] [6]. Nableezy disagreed with these allegations [7]. However, omission of this context by Nableezy here is itself highly tendentious. - BorisG (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC) From Cptnono's post yesterday to Sean Hoyland's talk page: "no need to pretend anymore. you are in the topic area for on reason and one reason only. you flew under the radar and it was cute but don't pretend to be neutral. you are a funny guy who does make good edits but leave the vandalism fighting to those who actually care about the project and neutrality." I know how easy it is to feel frustrated and cynical with those who oppose one's usual POV in so controversial an area, but it's important to recognize the need for a break when that frustration exceeds easily manageable limits.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC) I don't know who needs a break, but I recommend that Cptnono be reminded not to comment on users, only on edits. This may also be good advice to some other participants here. I am not referring to comments made here, of course, since this page is largely about editor conduct. - BorisG (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Cptnono chooses to edit in a very very difficult area (I can only every dip in and out) and I have always respected his editing. Maybe we all lose our way now and again but I would ask that you take it easy on him as I for one believe he is an asset to this project. BTW Cptnono we all need to take a break now and again. Bjmullan (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Nableezy = pot calling the kettle black. I.e. Nobody has any basis for seeking to sanction me on AE but I'll go out of my way with a weak case to get everyone else sanctioned. Yawn. Moveon.org. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC) My thoughts exactly. And Herostratus (talk · contribs) makes a valid point: Cptnono (talk · contribs) wears uncomfortable shoes in the I/P topic area, and few of us would want or be able to walk in them for very long. His every edit is scrutinized with an electron microscope, and he has enemies waiting in ambush to pounce on his every uncrossed t or undotted i. He should probably keep booze and Wikipedia at least an hour apart, and it wouldn't hurt to switch from that Miller crap he drinks to some quality European brews.—Biosketch (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC) An undotted i might not seem like a big deal. But you have to remember that in WP you really have to go out of your way to do it. I think you'd have to screw around with the CSS actually. So when you see an I/P editor make a big effort to cause a small dustup it can be pretty upsetting. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC) On the other hand, I did say this during a recent Nableezy AE discussion so it is probably fair that I repeat it now: What do you do in Chinatown? As little as possible. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I have decent relations with both editors and think they have both made useful contributions. An interaction ban may be the best way to go. However, I have a couple of questions for Cptnono about the exceptions he proposes. If Nableezy gets blocked for being rude or for edit warring on one article, why does that suddenly mean that his edits elsewhere become so bad that your interaction ban shoudl be dropped. Surely if they were that poor someoen else is likely to want to revert them? Also why an exception for Gaza War? Surely where you both feel strongly is where you are most likely to clash.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Cptnono This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. As I have previously opined, I am concerned that we are so often seeing requests for enforcement that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Specifically, the unceasing tit-for-tat enforcement requests and endless editing only of articles about P/I by most editors is worrying, and the situation is generally unsustainable. After much reflection, my view is that we must topic-ban the major contributors to this subject area irrespective of the seriousness of their own misconduct, because the alternative would be to refer the dispute to arbitration for ARBPIA 3 - where many would be topic-banned anyway. Some of these editors make constructive editors, but the aggregate of their contributions is that the P/I topic is a complete mess, and a topic ban must therefore be the lesser of two evils. To put my thinking into an image: if the primary editors of a contested topic area are youths in a town with high anti-social behaviour, then my suggestion is to instate a curfew of all 12-17 year olds, irrespective of whether they spend their nights spray-painting walls or diligently doing their homework. To employ the tactic of liberally topic-banning is crude, but would work as a last-ditch attempt to improve behaviour on P/I articles, and I invite comment from other uninvolved administrators on the matter. With regards to the specific request for enforcement, I concur that it has become counter-productive to permit Cptnono and Nableezy to interact. The following sanctions are passed, effective immediately, per WP:ARBPIA2#Discretionary sanctions: Cptnono banned from interacting with Nableezy for 6 months Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for 6 months (until 27 December 2011) from interacting with Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in accordance with the standard interaction ban detailed at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban. Cptnono may not: Edit any page within Nableezy's user or user talk space; Reply to Nableezy in any discussion; Make reference to or comment on Nableezy, directly or indirectly, on any page; or Undo any edit by Nableezy to any page except his own user or user talk pages (by any means, including the rollback function). In accordance with this restriction, Cptnono may also not submit a request for arbitration enforcement that concerns Nableezy. Nableezy banned from interacting with Cptnono for 6 months Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for 6 months (until 27 December 2011) from interacting with Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in accordance with the standard interaction ban detailed at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban. Nableezy may not: Edit any page within Cptnono's user or user talk space; Reply to Cptnono in any discussion; Make reference to or comment on Cptnono, directly or indirectly, on any page; or Undo any edit by Cptnono to any page except his own user or user talk pages (by any means, including the rollback function). In accordance with this restriction, Nableezy may also not submit a request for arbitration enforcement that concerns Cptnono. I will leave this request for enforcement open, to allow any comment on my preliminary remarks about avoiding ARBPIA3 by the more frequent use of extended topic-bans. AGK [•] 22:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I don't particular like how this is done, especially the #2 and #3 which also restricts possible RfAr that encloses more than these 2. I would prefer to make all subpages of RfAr (Not counting AE) excluded from the restriction (i.e. RfAr and cases are okay, AE is off-limits). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC) This is the standard form of an interaction ban, as set down at WP:IBAN. I think it is a given that, if the dispute proceeds to arbitration, all bets are off and all discretionary sanctions are suspended; but to be clear, if these editors are later both named in a request for arbitration, they are exempted from this ban. AGK [•] 10:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC) I tend to think that it is better to pass the case to arbcom, which is in a much better position to do a comprehensive review over the entire topic area than individual AE admins. Barring that, I agree that liberal use of topic bans seems to be necessary to control the persistent disruption. T. Canens (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC) This request has been open for ten days and it is time to close it. The admins who have commented so far have converged on a common sanction and we might as well adopt it. I might go along with the idea of more liberal use of topic bans if the bans can be given in a principled way and people can see they are being applied uniformly. Cptnono and Nableezy are mutually restricted as described by AGK. Neither may open a WP:AE request about the other, but they may respond if someone else complains about their editing at AE. They are free to initiate proposals at WP:RFAR, WP:A/R/CL and WP:A/R/A. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Δ

No action. Forum shopping. Wikihounding needs to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Δ User who is submitting this request for enforcement Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Betacommand_instructed The text reads "Betacommand is thanked for his contributions to the project but is instructed [...] To refrain from any further instances of untoward conduct". While the "such as" that follows is a specific example, the language is clear that it's an "e.g." not an "i.e." Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [8] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 00:49, 5 July 2011 [9] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 17:44, 5 July 2011 [10] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 14:58, 6 July 2011 [11] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 15:05, 6 July 2011 In particular, not that this was a reversion of Rcsprinter123's edit of 15:04, 6 July 2011 that had edit summary "it needs the book covers - the policy doesn't cover that." He reverts twice more without communicating with this editor, I believe that this constitutes a violation of his editting restrictions as well as violating the policy. [12] (remove non-free content overuse) Latest revision as of 15:50, 6 July 2011 There were at least two areas where Δ's conduct was being discussed when these edits took place, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_exemption_of_restrictions. (Please note that I'm not including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#WP3RRN_Delta7July2011 since I initiated that report post facto.) A large number of editors have commented in that thread, many of whom are not previously involved in any disagreement with Δ. There is a subsection of one of those very long pages where a topic ban is being debated, and it continues to trend towards a postive consensus. Given the ongoing debate, and noting in particular that Δ appears based upon the ongoing discussion at the WP3RRN to not understand the problem, I'm asking for enforcement. I'll be quite direct: I don't have any evidence that Δ thinks he's doing anything "untoward" by continuing these actions, or even by reverting the move of his "loosen the restrictions" proposal. I believe that he's sticking his finger up at the peanut gallery, but probably still thinks he's "technically correct" to do so. However, it appears clear to a large segment of the community that it is untoward to continue any course of action while it is engendering intense debate. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) I have not warned this user. I'm aware that this misses a tick box, but given the ongoing debate (and in particular this editor's behavior with respect to subpaging, his ongoing recalcitrance, and the general drama-fest) I feel it would be overly paper-pushin' at this point. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I'd like an "injunction" on Δ doing any more work in this area, I'd like the ongoing topic ban discussion to be allowed to run its course in some manner I'd like Δ to be encouraged to continue to develop the proposed solution as it is now on WP:AN, with the caveat that there is clearly no need for him to have restrictions removed for this work to be carried out. I'd like some finger wagging to be directed at those who continue to enable Δ, to use an unfortunate word. There is a small rant on my part below where I expand on this point. While it's clear to me that asking for a block would be reasonable, I'm really not trying to "punish" Δ. There do exist people whose opinions I trust who say his programming skills are an asset to the project. And clearly Δ wants to continue to contribute. It's unfortunate that it's come to this, but I'm hoping for an outcome that will be a net benefit to all. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Wikipedia:Fair use overuse, linked from the edit sumaries, is an essay. Wikipedia:3RR#3RR_exemptions is quite clear in that "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)," [emphasis original]. Per Wikipedia:NFLISTS#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section," [emphasis mine]. When good-faith objection to removals of this type, particularly by experianced editors, has occured across several venues (diffs availible if required) it's clearly not a good idea to keep doing the same thing. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notified. This sucks, doing this whole thing, it's really a shame. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Rant on enablers A good deal of this drama (and I don't mean now, I mean the whole long drawn-out saga) could have been avoided if there was not a small-but-vocal proΔ group. I'll frankly and fearless and call out Hammer specifically here. While I can provide diffs if requested, I don't actually believe that anyone who's looked into this for more than one minute will doubt that the cycle tends to be Δ does something, userF reverts, Δ drops a "you'll be blocked" template, userF uses talk pages, Hammer shows up. The behaviour goes well beyond just cleaning up Δ's mess, escalating not only to smear tactics but to outright childishness. I've only just become aware of Hammer's "somebody stop me!" edit in which, looking at his edits; he appears to increase his NFC removal rate just to make a point. Speaking only for myself, last week I had no dog in this race. I'd seen the drama many times, had voiced an opinion in a few !votes, but I certainly wasn't partisan. but in the last few days the unrepentant bullying, not by Δ but by his "posse," has really pissed me off. To be blunt. So yes, I do now have a "side" here, but I'm trying quite hard to continue to be calm and reasonable, despite the occasional character assassination directed my way. And, if I'm being honest with myself, regardless of what happens now I'll certainly be on the look out for whomever the next person is that's getting the treatment I've gotten at the hands of the enablers. (Man, I need a better word.) The tendency of some small groups to form intractable positions and defend them against all comers is one that has led to some of the largest blow-ups we've had: user boxes, spoilers, schools. We really need to develop a better system than the one we currently have, where whomever has the least social grace eventually "wins". Feel free to blank this section if you think it useful, anyone and everyone. Except Hammer. (No, just kidding, I don't own my edits, blank away if you like.) Thanks for your eyes, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Discussion concerning Δ Statement by Δ Im going to be blunt and to the point, Im fucking pissed off at this constant harassment, stalking and wiki-hounding against me. I have time and again proven my actions correct with regards to NFCC enforcement. Most of these users stalk my edits, harass me and are vocal against NFC policy. If needed I can provide plenty of evidence of forum shopping, stalking and un-civil comments directed towards myself. I do regular enforcement of NFCC and there are users who refuse to get the point, or want to ignore the policy. I politely explain things if asked, and I warn users appropriately for repeated violations. (the same thing many NFC patrolers do) however due to the fact that I tend to do the enforcement on a larger scale (and one of the few who is willing to take the shit thrown at me for doing so) I am a target. Most of these users want to see WP:NFCC repealed or at least turned into a spineless ineffective policy so that they can include copious amounts of non-free files in their pet articles, without any regard to our m:Mission or our current policy WP:NFCC. They know they cannot attack the policy directly so they do the next best thing harass, stalk, try to intimidate and drive us away from enforcing policy. I have seem them drive several great editors away by their sheer pointless torment. Because I really dont give a flying fuck about their opinions and instead enforce NFCC as it is written, and have proven that they cannot bully me into moving into another area they are trying to make another end run around policy and shut us up for enforcing policy. I would like to see a topic ban regarding NFC and those who enforce it applied to Crossmr, Georgewilliamherbert, CBM, MickMacNee, Aaron Brenneman, and Buffs. ΔT The only constant 05:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Δ Comment by Buffs Canens below states "This does not appear to be an enforceable remedy." I would like to know why not? Buffs (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC) And since Δ has seen fit to respond (no malice/negligence implied), I will respond by saying that I do not have a problem with NFCC nor the manner in which it is generally applied. I have come to agreements with several other users (to include Hammersoft and other Δ supporters regarding NFCC issues and how NFCC are to be applied). The issue I take as do most of those mentioned above, and I can't stress this enough, is with the manner in which Δ applies said policy (which are violations of OTHER policies and guidelines: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, etc). Way, way, way, WAY too often, the root of far too much dramaz is Δ. Δ can work other aspects of this project but actively chooses not to do so. Instead, he continues to press full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes. Outbursts featuring profanity (like the above) are rare, but still too frequent...and they highlight the hostile attitude that permeates Δ's interactions on WP. Recent community discussions had a clear majority opinion (roughly 65-35) supporting Δ's restriction from the NFCC arena. No admin acted upon the request, but the request was closed nonetheless with no action taken or even a closing note. I believe this page is the next step in the process and this certainly isn't forum shopping. Buffs (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC) As for the advocation of a block against me, I'd like to see any hard evidence other than "Buffs disagrees with me sometimes"...hardly a blockable offense. I also tend to use far less expletives. Buffs (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by CIreland Closing administrators should be aware that this is basically a request to overturn Spartaz's closure of a recently filed report (also filed by A. Brenneman) concerning the same edits at WP:ANEW. CIreland (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by Mathsci This request seems like a stunt by Aaron Brenneman, who, according to his own statement, has been forum shopping. Mathsci (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not the first to comment on this travelling circus. [13] Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Comment(s) by brenneman Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I'd prefer not to clog up the sections above. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC) @Buffs - Can you provide a link to the 65-35 you mention above? Thank you. Urgh, the link was right there. -_- @Mathsci - Did you miss the bits where I was trying to keep discussion in one spot and was reverted? It's clear to me that this was both a 3RR violation and a restriction violation. Hard to accuse me of forum shopping when I've taken such great pains to point on each forum to the other discussions, I'd have thought? @Mathsci again - The close was, err, odd, and so low-key I actually missed it, asking in a later edit who'd closed it. The close fails to explain anything about why it was closed, why it was not a violation... anything, really, just "this is not leading to a block" (emphasis mine). What does that acutally mean? I'd like a better explanation of that, please. @Beet - Sorry to dash this off, and haven't looked at the diffs, time is precious at this second, but I thought it was important enough to blurt out: but you're correct in much of what you say. Comment by Beetstra So, the edit warring request was closed by an uninvolved admin as 'no vio[lation]', there was clear overuse on the page, and now Aaron Brenneman comes here to enforce it in another way? No, Aaron, you cross-posting it in open discussions was not the Forum shopping, but having this request here after the previous discussion is closed as 'no vio' is Forum shopping to get Delta banned. Yet another chapter in the story of bashing Delta around, and while bashing him around accusing him of not wanting to cooperate (while this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this (until the 5th post in that thread ..), this - decent questions, nice answers). Yes, the focus is on 'Delta does not communicate', 'Delta does not communicate in a civil way'. Maybe those approaching Delta should change their ways? Aaron Brenneman (and I am talking here as I think you would call me one of Delta's 'enablers'): There equally is a group of editors who bash Delta around on every occasion possible, I would like to see some finger-wagging towards those as well, as those editors do nothing when Delta is approached in a rude way. Those same editors do nothing when editors are edit-warring with Delta where the violation is unquestionable (not saying that the overuse in this article was not unquestionable), those same editors do nothinghardly anything to help solving the problem (but leave the policy violations stand while continuously complaining that they are so friggin' easy to solve). Do I need to go on? And those are exactly the editors who are calling on banning him (for which there is not a massive support), who threaten to block Delta while he is completely right, who keep on yelling that Delta should be fixing the rationales himself (something that is utterly not supported by policy - while having that rationale is supported by policy), who go into edit wars with him because they do not understand why he is removing something, who do not ask questions but yell first, who fail to assume good faith on Delta (because Delta is the one that is obviously wrong, isn't he, even when he is right?). I am sorry, Aaron, I find this attempt at silencing the 'small-but-vocal proΔ group', obviously in an attempt to get rid of Delta, despicable. </rant> Maybe the ones who show this continuous behaviour of bashing around Delta should be banned from NFC - as far as I see it, Delta is technically right in 99+% of the cases (and the only holding counter argument is, that there are better solutions than removing - well, there has been nothing stopping anyone from doing that in the last 3 years, it has been suggested over and over to get that off the ground), but still the opposers do nothing but yell at Delta, and hardly any significant effort is made to solve the problem (such suggestions were not followed up in the past. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by Kusma As Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Review_and_future_remedies states, "The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. Nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur." I think three years are sufficient time to see that the underlying disputes and disruptions have not ceased. Clearly further action of some kind is required. For example, ban or topic ban Delta, or disallow any discussion of his edits. Or whatever. It is clear to me that there is a huge battleground mentality by people in this dispute, and that needs to be addressed for the sake of eventual peace. —Kusma (t·c) 10:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Δ This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This does not appear to be an enforceable remedy. T. Canens (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I'm closing this as unconstructive forum-shopping. We have more than enough Delta threads already, and this particular case was treated and concluded at the AN3 noticeboard. The wikihounding needs to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy

Topic ban extended two months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Jiujitsuguy User who is submitting this request for enforcement nableezy - 03:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC) 03:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 02:32, 1 July 2011 Discussing the topic area, personal attacks (accusations made without any supporting evidence of having others edit on my behalf) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=437166111 Discussing the topic area Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Diff of notification of topic ban 13:02, 4 March 2011 Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) block, reset of topic ban Additional comments by editor filing complaint Since being banned in March, Jiutjitsuguy has done almost nothing except discuss the topic area, on numerous occasions making unsubstantiated allegations about other users. I say almost, because he did make 2 edits one day in an unrelated area, adding a citation request and asking a related question on the talk page. In his most recent activity, Jiujitsuguy makes an absurd accusation that a "a radical pro-Palestinian sock puppeteer" edited on my behalf. I dont know how far email logs go back, but if somebody can check great, but I have never contacted Cryptonio or been contacted by him, and the suggestion that he edited "on my behalf" is ludicrous and has never even been raised before. His next edit was to Sandstein's talk page, where he divides editors as "Western" or "elements with radical pro-Syrian, Pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas, pro-Iranian viewpoints". This followed a prior edit on EdJohnston's talk page where he discussed the topic area here, that he later struck here. I would not buy any excuse of not knowing the extent of his topic ban based on what happened at EdJohnston's talk page. He would have had no reason to strike his comment if he thought it was not in violation of his topic ban. nableezy - 05:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Where on earth "Topic bans are usually reset only after the third violation" came from is not something I know. But if you insist, violation 1, violation 2, and violation 3. nableezy - 06:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Ill repeat the point, Jiujitsuguy was very obviously aware of the scope of his ban. Otherwise he would not have stricken his comment on EdJohnston's talk page. And Chesdovi, you are violating your own topic ban by commenting here. Topic bans include all pages on Wikipedia and bar you from discussing the topic area. Topic bans are reset on violations, see for example here. A reset is necessary because a block will do nothing. JJG is not editing anything, a block does not affect him in any way. A reset will convince him not to continue violating the topic ban and posting disparaging comments about others. nableezy - 12:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC) JJG, Courcelles did not impose your ban and did not comment on it. He gave a clarification on the scope of another ban. You were banned from discussing the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia. The admin that imposed your ban agrees your comment is in violation of it. You yourself effectively admitted to understanding that scope when you struck out your comments at EdJohnston's talk page. nableezy - 13:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Also, the fact that JJG's comments are filled with personal attacks should be considered, as it was the reason I came here at all. He accused others of editing "on my behalf" without any evidence. He further divided editors into one of two groups, the pro-Western and pro-Israel and the "elements with radical pro-Syrian, Pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas, pro-Iranian viewpoints". I am sure many of the editors in the topic area would not appreciate the implication made in that division. nableezy - 13:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC) And finally, the terms of JJG's ban were made clear to him. He was banned according to WP:TBAN, which at the time said this (still does) For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as: ... discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia nableezy - 13:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Corcelles comments on an unrelated ban is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the terms of your topic ban, which you showed you understood by striking out the comments on EdJohnston's talk page. Regarding my edit notice, that is true. I should have clarified that unsubstantiated attacks are not covered. Either way, there is more than one example of your violating your topic ban, and your language below about me contains further personal attacks. nableezy - 14:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC) NW, if you want to buy JJGs claim that he did not know that user talk pages were covered that is up to you. But it is obviously not the case. When he made a comment on EdJohnston's talk page related to the topic area, he was informed that it was covered in his ban, and he subsequently struck out his comments. Finally, given your off-wiki contact with JJG and the fact that you made an ill-founded indef block based on that off-wiki contact, I question whether or not you can be considered uninvolved on issues related to me and him. Your trigger happy approach in support of him seems very odd compared to your desire to reduce any sanctions here. You completely disregard that both of the diffs here are filled with attacks on other editors, instead calling the disruption "minimal". I dont know about you, but an unfounded accusation of meatpuppetry made against me is not something I consider "minimally disruptive", especially when it comes from somebody who has repeatedly engaged in meatpuppetry, which you know very well. nableezy - 16:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Does anybody plan on doing anything here, or is a topic banned editor allowed to repeatedly make personal attacks directed at other users while violating his topic ban? nableezy - 14:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion of Courcelles' clarification regarding an unrelated topic ban misses the point. The issue here is not just the topic ban violation, which is both obvious and repeated (again, see JJG's edit to EdJohnston's talk page which he struck when informed that it violated he ban), but that the violations themselves are filled with personal attacks. That has not been addressed by JJG at all, or by any of the other comments either. Even if he were not under a topic ban, his comments were, and are, unacceptable. An unfounded, and in fact bizarre, accusation of meatpuppetry, along with the classifying of editors as being either "Western" or "elements with radical pro-Syrian, Pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas, pro-Iranian viewpoints" demonstrate that there very clearly is an issue here. Forget about the clear cut violation if you want, even without it there is clearly an issue here. nableezy - 18:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Jiujitsuguy Statement by Jiujitsuguy NW are u fucking kidding? I haven't edited a single I-A article or talk page since my ban and have less than two months to go and you want to sanction me again for asking my banning admin to take a proactive approach? WTF man!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry NW for the profanity. I’ve stricken it. Please see this diff[14] and answer by Courcelles who clarified the breath and scope of the topic ban and declined to issue a sanction against another user who was under a similar ban and commented on an AE dealing with the subject matter. By this interpretation, I could have added comments on enforcement actions (and I didn't even do that!) without violating my topic ban. If I thought otherwise do you really think I would have left a message for Sandstein (the admin who topic banned me) to be vigilant? Let me clearly state that I am more than 2/3 through my topic ban. I haven’t edited a single I-A article, article talk page, AE, ANI, SPI or any thing to do with I-A. In the absence of any other interpretation concerning the breath and scope of the ban, I relied on Courcelles’ interpretation. I have complete respect for the rules and the admins who enforce them. Please AGF and let me finish the duration of my ban unmolested. You won’t hear another peep from me.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC) @Sandstein, all I asked was for vigilance and that’s it. In the absence of any other recent interpretation, I relied on the interpretation of Courcelles[15] concerning the parameters of the ban. Do you think I would have left you of all people this message had I known that there would be a problem? For more than four months I have scrupulously adhered to the provisions of the ban. Considering my strict adherence to the ban, the fact that I only have two months left and in light of Courcelles' interpretation, please AGF.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC) @Penwhale. Thank you and see this comment by Courcelles The topic ban was meant to apply to article space, without much tolerance for arguments over whether a particular article is related or not. I'll clarify the logs. Under this very recent interpretation, I am certainly not in violation of anything.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC) One more thing. For reasons noted above by Courcelles[16] I believe I was well within the bounds of my restriction. However, I feel compelled to note Nableezy’s hypocrisy and the selective and calculated manner in which he eliminates his perceived opponents. Nableezy states the following concerning messages left on his talk page By posting on this page you agree that anything written on this page will not be brought anywhere else, such as AE or ANI. If you find those terms to be unacceptable I have to ask that you not post on this page again. If you accept those terms feel free to continue posting here. Now, he disregards his very own directive because it suits him. But even in the absence of his inviting comments, there was at the very least ambiguity as to whether the ban included the type of comment and forum where noted. Again, I stress that I scrupulously adhered to the ban’s provisions for over four months, did not edit a single article, article talk page, AE, ANI, SPI or otherwise relating to the topic area, have less than 1/3 left to go and in the absence of specifics, relied on Courcelles interpretation concerning the ban’s parameters. I respect the rules and under the totality of circumstances, am asking that administrators evaluating this vindictive and calculating AE, assume good faith and allow me to complete the duration of my ban unmolested.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC) @Tim. Tim, I've nearly completed my topic ban without a single transgression. My mistake was my misplaced reliance on Courcelles interpretation of prunesqualer's ban. He has clarified it and I understand it and will not repeat it. This was not a flagrant, willful transgression, done with intent to flaunt the rules or make some profound statement. It was a non-purposeful mistake and that's it. Do you really believe that I would have left that message on the banning admin's page if I thought otherwise? Whatever, I've repeated myself adnausum and have nothing more to add. I hope that you AGF and just let me finish the rest of my ban, which is nearly complete.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Jiujitsuguy Jiujitsuguy is a rational person capable of productive editing who in many ways represents the kind of radicalized (IMO) editor who needs to be brought in from the cold in my view. Talking to him to try to change his approach to editing would be far better in the long term than simply shutting him down. Unless a way can be found to moderate the approach of intelligent people like Jiujitsuguy through dialog and make it more consistent with the objectives of Wikipedia there is little hope for improvement in the topic area. There are thousands of potential Jiujitsuguy's out there. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Sandstein makes a good point about editing outside of the topic area while topic banned. Perhaps that should be used as leverage in place of ban hammers to see if it helps. Maybe it's better to tell editors that they have to make something like 100 edits outside the topic area for every 1 edit within the topic area rather than simply topic banning them or at least give them a choice between the 2 options. It's form of forced labor that would allow Wikipedia to profit from a real world conflict. There may be some moral and ethical implications I've missed but it seems like a win-win. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC) DUDE! JJG, you are going to get yourself in trouble if you cuss towards NW like that. It looks like NW is interpreting "is topic-banned from the area of conflict for six months" as not being allowed to comment anywhere about anything that has to do with the topic area. It is a legitimate interpretation. I assume you interpret it as staying away from articles and their talk pages from your reaction. If that is the case, lets get it clarified and stick to it. A simple misunderstanding isn't worthy of a topic ban but there is no way NW is going to not consider sanctions if you start acting like me. Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Statement by Broccolo Even if the user violated his topic ban a short block is sufficient for the first time violation. Topic bans are usually reset only after the third violation. Broccolo (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Courcelles , I do not believe topic should be reset at this time. Nableezy himself violated his topic ban a few times as it is seen from his block log. His topic ban was not reset. User:Gilabrand's topic ban was reset only after she was blocked for fourth time. I support NW call for closing this AE with no sanction and I hope Jiujitsuguy understands it was his last warning and will not repeat similar action for the duration of his topic ban. Broccolo (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Timotheus, you might be right about starting imposing indefinite topic bans but this is is not the right situation to do it. If it was a violation of the topic ban it was rather mild and made not in the articles. Similar violations of different bans happen every day. For example Nableezy called fellow editors "jackals". He probably was talking about Cptnono. Nableezy has an interaction ban with Cptnono. Should we go ahead, and ban Nableezy from A/I conflict topic indefinitely? Once again I propose to close this request with no actions. Broccolo (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Statement by Chesdovi A topic ban means a ban on the topic, not on discussing the ban itself. Jiujitsuguy highlighted some facts and provided a suggestion at Sansteins page. He did not discuss editorial changes to any topic or the like. A topic ban is not a gaging order for heaven’s sake. Chesdovi (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy This report just validates the point JJG was making on Sandstein's page. Considering Nableezy is the submitter of this report (3 reports in a week, is that a record?) rather than its subject, I expect a ban escalating both in length and scope from the previous one. I suggest banning JJG from the whole internet for 3 years. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Statement by Malik Shabazz Jiujitsuguy's message to Sandstein not only violates her/his topic ban, it also represents the worst sort of BATTLEGROUND mindset as well as a personal attack. I am more than a little dumbfounded at the notion that AGF allows that sort of thing to be swept under the rug. If I weren't involved in this area, I would have reverted the message to Sandstein and blocked Jiujitsuguy myself. I can't believe that none of you has the balls to do it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC) @Brewcrewer: Where has Jiujitsuguy "backtracked"? Why are the comments still on Sandstein's Talk page?[17] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not looking for blood, I'm looking for an acknowledgement from somebody, anybody, that likening other editors to terrorists is not acceptable behavior. The silence is deafening. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by BorisG I am compelled to re-iterate my claim that tit for tat AE requests made by editors highly involved in I-P (and similar controversial topics) magnify the drama and are not serving the purpose of building an encyclopieda. I suggest we seriously consider Gatoclass's latest proposal. - BorisG (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Sure, but where can I find it? Thanks in advance. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC) [18]. - BorisG (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by Brewcrewer This almost daily AE reporting is ridiculous and I am astounded that it is being allowed to continue. JGG made some comments that were germane but tangential to the Arab-Israel conflict. He now backtracked. This can be safely closed now.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC) @Malik Shabazz. Ugh, it looks like you're just looking for blood. AE is unabated egregious behavior, not for technical violations, for which there has been an apology. JGG may be guilty of the latter, but we both know an editor or two guilty of the former who you apparently defend without fail at every single opportunity. Please correct if I am wrong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC) What? How did I get dragged into this mess? --JGGardiner (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Agreed Brewcrewer. We all know what the problem is. Editors who are here to start trouble are getting off their blocks. Look at the request to lift Nish's (an editor who broke their topic ban multiple times and will be back in the near future). JJG is actually not a poor editor. He really really disagrees with some but as long as he doesn't edit war it should be all good. But let ARBCOM let them back and let the admins patrolling the topic area deal with it in a knee-jerk and inconsistent fashion. Have fun you crazy kids :) Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by Cla68 I agree with T. Canens that you all should start giving indefinite topic bans to these guys. Maybe that would get their attention so there wouldn't be an I/P-based enforcement request posted every week as is currently the case. Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by Peter Cohen Looking at JJG's recent edit history, he has shown himself incapable of contributing to Wikipedia outside the I/P battleground. Even if his comments on misunderstanding the scope of the ban are taken as made in good faith, the posts he made just show that he is only capable of thinking of Wikipedia in terms of whether his side is treated as fairly as the other side or not with the usual battleground-mentality conclusion of not. This is an attitude we can do without. People who genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia can be shown leniency. (Mbz1 and JayJG come to mind as examples on the I side of the battleground.) People who are just here to push their views should be told where to go. Reset or extend the ban.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Jiujitsuguy This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. That's a pretty clear violation of the topic ban. Suggestions on possible sanctions besides a topic ban reset? NW (Talk) 04:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I agree that at least the post to my talk page violates the topic ban, but leave it to others to decide what to do about it. It's not encouraging that Jiujitsuguy has essentially only edited around the edges of the topic since being topic-banned, though, rather than doing productive work in other areas.  Sandstein  05:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC) People that places topic ban notices really ought to spell out what a topic ban entails just so a loophole can be closed. I don't favor a reset currently, but may be persuaded otherwise. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC) To Jiujitsuguy, I clarified and made clear the rules on a topic ban that I placed another user on, as part of a pathway towards a lifting of the restriction. This is a looser restriction than the usual language of topic bans. You, however, have no such clarification from either this forum, ArbCom itself, or the admin who placed your topic ban. I agree that Jiujitsuguy is in violation of his topic ban, and suggest a reset and a firm reminder to not come anywhere near the lines of it in the future. Courcelles 23:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Assuming good faith that JJG didn't know that what he was doing is wrong, and taking into consideration the fact that any disruption his edits caused was minor, I'm inclined to dismiss this request and clarify exactly what his topic ban means. @JGG, with regards to Courcelles' diff about Prunesqualer, that's certainly not the traditional way a general topic ban is supposed to be handled. Courcelles had apparently meant to make the topic ban article space only but forgot to specify; yours was specifically meant to cover all pages of the Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 00:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I would favor a reset of the topic ban, basically per Courcelles and Sandstein. The lack of evidence of collaborative editing in unrelated topics is extremely concerning especially in light of the current acrimonious climate in this topic area. In fact, I think that we should start using WP:ARBRB-style topic bans for this topic area instead of the usual fixed-duration ones. T. Canens (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Having re-read Sandstein's original ban message from 4 March 2011, I agree with the others here who find this to be a violation of Jiujitsuguy's topic ban. Sandstein indicated that the ban was per WP:TBAN, which is very broadly worded. Penwhale is for the moment against a ban reset, Courcelles suggests a reset, T. Canens favors a reset, NW believes that JJG deserves a clarification, Sandstein does not recommend any particular sanction. A full reset of the ban would be a four-month extension, so I'm compromising with a two-month extension of JJG's topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict. The new expiry will be 4 November, 2011. In choosing this result, I am influenced by the seriousness of the original violation from last March, which asserted misrepresentation of sources, and the fact that JJG has done very little editing in other areas during the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN

No action against PANONIAN. Nmate blocked three days for a personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning PANONIAN User who is submitting this request for enforcement Nmate (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested PANONIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[19]] Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it PANONIAN is not a is not a problem free editor, he is so to speak an antediluvian edit warrior having been blocked several times [20] who has somehow survived an indef-block on Wikipedia, but because those cases are bygone , right here I do not want to adduce them. Nevertheless, he is a dedicated Wikipedian, who is the author several articles ,all of which have made in very bad English. Also, he is very interested in drawing maps. Many of which have heavily been influenced by strong POV-pushing, and considering that he is a very prolific map creator, he is an enormous pest upon the community's shoulders. However, none of those cases I have been involved in in relation to PANONIAN. His comport is also oppugnable in connection with the fact that he has also often been expressed his anti-Hungarian viewpoint on Wikipedia. WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE For instance : [21] "User Hobartimus is one of the reasons why I do not want to log on since he track my edits (when I am loged on) and vandalize articles which I edit. He harasing me for more than 2 years by reverting my edits in numerous articles and accusing me for sockpupetry and other things (this page is an example of it) and I really do not know where to ask protection from his behaviour (and there are other users who were also his victims). The fact is that he is nationalist POV pusher and he will do anything to present that POV in Wikipedia and thus he harasing and accusing other users that do not agree with his behavior" [22] "Finally, if you check edits of user:Hobartimus, you will see that he is involved in constant revert wars with multiple users in many articles related to Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, etc trying to push Hungarian nationalist POV (and other users will confirm this" [23]"And it is very interesting that you (of all people) speak about Greater Serbian nationalism when you are noted Greater Hungarian nationalist who use Wikipedia to "fight" with various Romanian, Slovak and serb editors for "great national cause" - you are constantly involved in revert wars with multiple users trying to push your hungarocentric views for everything." [24] "How nice job, Baxter9 - it is very interesting how some Hungarian editors in Wikipedia are pushing even the most extreme Hungarian nationalistic POV in numerous articles" Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Notified on 4 April 2011 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested Topic ban on Hungary and Hungarians, broadly construed. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Even thogh these anti-Hungarian remarks are no longer pertinent , recently, something has happened to make them pertinent: I deleted an edit of him [25] ->[26] (one of the sources by which the sentence was backed up was a family blog of someone written in Hungarian, and PANONIAN can't even speak Hungarian, anyway). Soon after,I found myself the subject of a spurious sockpuppet investigation saying that I may be a sockpuppet of two established Hungarian users User:Baxter9 and User:Hobartimus on the grounds that we all are Hungarians ,we consecutively edited the same articles , and that we have the same interesting field, which is hardly surprising that if we all are of Hungarians.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nmate In the sockpuppet investigation, PANONIAN wanted to put me in touch with even user:VinceB who had been blocked for indefinite time one and a half years before I started to edit Wikipedia ,basing on the fact that I too am Hungarian. Also, it is interesting to note that my interaction with PANONIAN on Wikipedia is dated back to at least two years, and that of Baxter9 and Hobartimus may be even longer. The checkuser investigation was of course declined in which it self -admittedly came to light that User:Buhuhu who too was accused of being a sockpuppet of mine is a sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi, and even he told PANONIAN that that "Logic isn't your strongest point, isn't it? You don't need to be a genius to realize that any of accounts listed by you isn't a sock of Nmate" even before being blocked [27]. I recommend taking into consideration that PANONIAN should be topic-banned from the topic of Hungary and Hungarians for making personal attacks on Hungarian Wikipedians, filling blantantly spurious SPI for block-shoping purposes aimed at me, and for ethinc vilifications aimed at Hungarians, which are incompetible with WP:PILLARS. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [28] Discussion concerning PANONIAN Statement by PANONIAN I am not going to waste much of my time to this. Only two things: 1. I admit that I used somewhat "harsh language" in the past during some content disputes, but my behavior improved greatly since then and I am trying to be as polite as possible to other users (including Nmate). Anyway, please see what Nmate actually wrote about me after I requested sockpuppet investigation in relation to his revert warring: "If life were so easy, I would have gotten rid of them one by one as they all are enormous pests upon my shoulders": [29] - this is actually very open threat where Nmate said that he "would have gotten rid of them" (presumably me and other users that supported sockpupet investigation about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nmate ). So, while my "harsh language" was something that I used in distant past, open threat of Nmate is very new and very bad: in another words, "would have gotten rid" could mean that "he would kill me", so this is example of death threat addressed towards me. Also, here is evidence that Nmate in fact started this thread as a sort of revenge to me, which he clearly admitted: [30] - "So then we will meet at ArbCom as my wrath that your recent gimmick caused me, needs to soothe". 2. As for requested topic ban "on Hungary and Hungarians", it is clear that I mostly do not edit such articles: [31] - from my edit count everybody can see that I mostly edit articles related to Serbia (country where I live) and not articles related to Hungary. Only article "Greater Hungary (political concept)" is highly positioned in my edit count, but even that one was not edited very recently by me and even that one is related to Serbia. Also, I do not see any evidence that I ever said anything bad about Hungary or Hungarians. All my "harsh language" that is presented here was addressed to "Hungarian nationalism", which is an political ideology that cannot be equalized with Hungary or Hungarians. I used same "harsh language" for nationalists from other countries in some other discussions and this is only because I have liberal political ideas and I am opposing any kind of nationalism. Furthermore, I am ethnic Serb and I support independent Kosovo - can you find any more liberal person than me? :) So, if I will be on trial because I criticized some nationalistic concepts then direction in which Wikipedia might go does not look very bright. PANONIAN 16:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning PANONIAN @Nmate, 1. Listing such old diffs is waste of time and bandwidth. 2. Calling someone a pest right here on the AE page is a personal attack and can get you sanctioned. 3. It appears that sockpuppet investigation wasn't entirely without merit, since the user in question was found to be a sock, just not of you. 4. Accusing someone of bad English when your own English is far from perfect is not a very smart idea. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I reviewed the case and think the request against Panonian has no merit. Vandorenfm (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Result concerning PANONIAN This complaint is baseless. At first, it concerns generalised allegations, diffs supporting which are obviously stale. The only relevant and current complaint is about an SPI which, while it may have been a bit hastly, resulted in a sock being identified. Decision: The filer, Nmate, be blocked for three days for a personal attack made in this very AE (eg "pest upon the community's shoulders"). Nmate has been notified of the availability of such blocks before: [32] so I see no reason why a block now is not appropriate. No action against PANONIAN, other than (at this stage) informal advice to be quite careful that SPI requests have a proper basis to proceed, especially in heated topic areas. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reenem

Topic banned for 3 months. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Reenem User who is submitting this request for enforcement asad (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Reenem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, WP:Minor edit Reenem continues to ignore WP's policy on marking edits as minor when they are in fact not minor. All the edits are typically involve changing the status of East Jerusalem from being occupied to either being "captured" or part of municipal Jerusalem. Of course, these are in no way minor edits. In fact, in a topic are so contentious as the I/P area is, it is nothing more than disruptive and sneaky editing practices. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy 13/07/11 Changes status of East Jerusalem from being occupied to being "captured". Marks the edit as minor. 13/08/11 Removes the word "reportedly" from a sentence saying that activists had used gas masks in their attempts to fend off the Israeli navy during the Gaza Flotilla raid in 2010. 11/07/11 Removes the word "including" when referencing the West Bank and East Jerusalem in an obvious attempt to severe the connection between the to entities -- which is, needless to say, a contentious matter in the I/P area. Marks the edit as minor. 06/07/11 Adds that Jerusalem is Israel's capital (something that nearly the entire world doesn't recognize) and adds that it is Israel's largest city (which is only true of the population of occupied East Jerusalem is included again something that is very contentious). Marks the edit as minor. 04/07/11 Removes East Jerusalem from the Mount of olives article and replaces it with "Jerusalem". And again, marks the edit as minor. Reneem has been warned numerous times about this very situation. Warned on 04/07/11 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) I then continued on the same thread to further clarify with Reneem why the edits were being marked as minor -- Reneem never responded. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) topic ban Upon further thought, I think it would be better if Reneem was sternly warned that that continuing the action of marking un-minor edits as minor would lead to further action in A/E and that Reneem gave a statement committing not to continue such actions. Also, if such a warning could be logged here. I think this is a fairly considerable request considering that me and another editor have gone out of our ways to inform Reneem editing like this violates WP policy -- all to receive a insincere response or, my case, no response at all. Then again, the editor has made dozens of edits and has not once replied on this thread or to the thread on their talk page. I think a block is needed now, if only at least to get their attention. It seems this user also has no interest in working collaboratively. -asad (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing complaint This user seems to have a disruptive practice of editing in the I/P area in general (as is evidenced by the numerous complaints by other users on Reneem's talk page about various subjects relating to the conflict). @TC - You're correct. I struck it. -asad (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Wow!! -- Yet again, Reenem makes an edit that would be viewed very controversial by many and marks it as minor. I really hope some action will be taken, I think there is no better time for a block than this. Reenem seems insistent on spitting in the face of those who wish to work by the policies of WP. (BTW, this wasn't the first time Reneem made such edits and marked them as minor with regards to the Golan Heights, see here and here). -asad (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [33] Discussion concerning Reneem Statement by Reenem Comments by others about the request concerning Reneem Comment by ElComandanteChe Reenem is a massive content contributor: 92% of his 20000+ edits are in article space. He had and still have problems with edit summaries, but these have nothing to do with the alleged disruptive editing in the P/I area. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC) This seems to confirm that the editor does not take part in discussions, does not justify their edits, and does not respond to questions. RolandR (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Fortunately, this is not accompanied by edit warring, incivility, stalking and other acts of bravery typical for this board. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Query by Jaakobou Why would the mountain of olives be in "East" Jerusalem?? Unlike the removal, whomever pushed this political bit into the lead made quite a provocative editorial choice. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Because it's in East Jerusalem ? Just guessing. GeoHack - Mount of Olives can help you find your way if you are lost. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC) There's a reason 'East Jerusalem' is not a separate city on any map. It's political hackery of the lowest kind shoved into the first paragraph on a neutral encyclopaedia project. Reminds me of a picture I've recently seen with Mubarak Photoshopped to walk in front of Obama instead of alongside Netanyahu -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/egyptian-newspaper-alters_n_719504.html. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Sean's explanation and your objection is perfect proof of how it was an entirely disruptive edit when Reneem removed "East" and marked the edit as minor. In the end, this thread is about marking un-minor edits as minor, not about Jerusalem vs East Jerusalem. But thank you for demonstrating the contention in the subject area. -asad (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Any objection here shows a preference to politically motivated polemics over a proper first paragraph on an encyclopaedia. Although not as obvious, it is akin to vandalism. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC) OUTSTANDING I've had the fortitude to click on the 'zoom in' button a couple times in the link provided by Sean. You know what it said? Jerusalem (not "East Jerusalem"). As such, I reiterate my initial statement that, unlike the removal of this borderline vandalism (akin to the image of Mubarak), whomever pushed this political bit into the lead made quite a provocative editorial choice. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy @Ed - FWIW, in the diff you gave the law does specifically apply to Palestinian residents and not all residents. I agree that Reenem better come over here and defend himself before he finds himself smacked with a restriction completely disproportionate to what he's been doing and his history of previous sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by Chesdovi Am I allowed to comment here under Topic ban? Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I want to add something to what Jakobau has said? Chesdovi (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Chesdovi, you're not allowed to comment here unless someone makes a complaint about *your* editing. In that case you would be entitled to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Can I complain about Asad's editing in this area? Chesdovi (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC) You can't post here or at any admin noticeboards since you would be complaining about Asad's editing of I/P. You are "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, for one year." EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC) That was the reason why I was banned this time, b/c I brought a case against Asad from 5 months ago, (okay, it was in response to his report against me, but still). You see, if in one year I complain about things now, I wil get banned again and Asad will kept on with his edit style! Oh well, sometimes you can never win. Chesdovi (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by Peter Cohen It's about a year and a half since Reenem was last blocked and that was shortened after discussion. Rather than jumping straight to a long block or topic ban, mightn't a short block attract his/her attention, at which point you might be able to engage him/her in a discussion about the original issues raised?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by jd2718 I'm concerned that Reneem's editing, with few summaries and non-minor edits marked as minor, extends beyond the bounds of this arbitration decision. And he's prolific. And he tends to edit in more controversial areas. His contributions show this, and his talk page is littered with it. Get his attention (block). He needs to commit to (accurately) summarizing his edits for other editors to see. Jd2718 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by Ohiostandard Reenem's editing style came to my attention for the first time last month after he undertook a strongly POV 3 and 1/2 hour rewrite of one of our most contentious articles, Gaza flotilla raid. I objected and, along with other editors, tried to address his changes on the talk page; that extensive effort is very fully documented in these three sections. That AGF effort was entirely wasted with respect to Reenem: He ignored every editor who contributed to the talk page, despite the strong consensus there that he needed to discuss such sweeping changes. He didn't make even a single response to any concern raised about his desired changes, but in subsequent editing sessions simply reinstated them. Reenem does not use talk pages to work with other editors. It's my impression that he thinks it's more effective re his goals here to simply try to unilaterally rewrite the articles to suit his POV, rather than to engage in any consensual or collaborative effort.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by Mirokado A lot of my time was also wasted with the incident mentioned above by Ohiostandard. Reenem is still failing to provide edit summaries for that article. (For full disclosure, I have just reverted those changes, see the edit summary). I suggest that the admin taking action address both the concerns raised in the comments here – inappropriate marking of edits as minor and lack of edit summaries – as they both make it systematically difficult for other editors to review the changes made. We need admin action to "encourage" Reenem to edit responsibly because the only practical way a normal user can deal with a succession of such edits is to revert them wholesale straight away. We would then of course hit 1RR on many of these controversial articles and might appear to be hounding Reenem or being petty. I have already provided an objective criterion which I will use when deciding to revert unexplained edits. --Mirokado (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Reenem This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Unless I missed something, diff #4 was not marked as a minor edit. T. Canens (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Since this AE request was opened, Reenem has continued to edit and has not responded to any messages left on their talk. They are still marking edits as 'minor' on I/P articles that are not minor. The most recent was this one, at Racism in Israel, which changes 'resident' to 'Palestinian resident.' Since User:Reenem won't reply or negotiate, if we consider this issue significant our only option is to impose a block or restriction. For example a ban on labelling any edits 'minor' on I/P articles for three months. Another possibility is a 24-hour block. The problem of the minor edits which are not minor has continued for several months, judging from their talk page. They have pushed other boundaries as well. The editor was warned that they broke 1RR on Itamar attack on 6 June. They did not acknowledge the warning or undo their edit. Reenem has already been notified under ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC) We can't have editors refusing to engage with others when making contentious edits in a difficult area. Propose a 3 month ban from all I/P related articles. Spartaz Humbug! 04:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Agree with Spartaz. T. Canens (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Concur with my colleagues, a 3 month topic ban, with a crystal-clear warning that if problems return in October, the next one could well be permanent. Courcelles 04:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC) This request has been open for a whole week now, and Reenem has had ample opportunity to respond, yet failed to do so. Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators above, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Reenem (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all non-Talk namespaces for three months. Reenem is allowed to participate in discussions related to the topic area. Should Reenem be able to demonstrate their ability to engage with other editors, this ban may be lifted early; conversely, continued refusal to discuss with editors with good-faith concerns may result in extension of the ban, up to and including for an indefinite period. T. Canens (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)