I stalk AE quite often to check and see what drama is stirring up. I realized that a strong minority of AE are almost exclusively aimed at Israel/Palestine editors, and editors seeking enforcement are often repeat-offenders themselves.

For example:

example

Now I'm not privy to this discussion and really don't know the backstory. But how many times has Nableezy filed an AE against a disagreeing editor? This must be his 10th report.

Which begs the question...what editors dominate noticeboard and enforcement boards?

Nab leads the pack according to my count.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

And I'm pretty sure he/she has filed one or two reports against me some time ago. Does this sort of behavior strike anyone else as odd? These reports were all filed in the last 7 months.

Can anyone top Nableezy here?

Mod warning: if you engage Wikifan on any topic related to Israel/Palestine, you do so at your own risk.

Don't look at me......I've still got him on ignore, so I don't see this thread.

The general topic of AE enforcement though is a legitimate one. Seriously, we hear a lot about all the dumb stuff that happens at AN/I (partly because there are more colorful characters there) but nary a peep about all the admin stupidity that goes on at AE. And for my money, the answer to the question - "where do you get more idiotic admin action, AN/I or AE" - is that AE wins hands down (and, this might sound weird, especially since Sandstein gave up on it ). It's more of a boring, humdrum, gray Kafkaseque idiocy than the drama fests and flame wars at AN/I but in its implications and forehead slappin' effect it just can't be beat.

AGK just managed to set a new record for AE stupidity recently, in what is a quite competitive sport, when he blocked a user for filing a correct and substantiated - substantiated by AGK in fact - report, one in which he himself took action against the other party, of an interaction ban violation. Because you see, if somebody violates their interaction ban against you, and you say something about that, you're violating your interaction ban. Obviously did not bother thinking this one through.

Seriously, I've known homeless drunks who could do a better job of enforcing Arbitration rulings than the current crop (the only sensible person currently active at AE is Boris G, who's not even an admin and unsurprisingly is completely ignored by the admins). Hell, the homeless drunks' mangy (and also homeless and also probably drunk) dogs could do a better job than what we get.

I'm actually thinking of writing a short history of AE and how it developed and how it got to the insanely dysfunctional - even by Wikipedia standards - state it is in today and collecting the data right now. We'll see if I have the time.

Eh, phooey. Personally, I think the British should come in an reclaim the Holy Land -- their decision to pull out in 1948 caused nothing but headaches.

yes, imperialists always know better!

Is the Annex full, or something?

How dare you! You are trying to illegitimate the rightful owners of the Holy Land-the Crusader Kingdom of Baldwin IV, Leper King of Jerusalem! What the nonexistant peace process needs right now is a bunch of chain-mail clad Christians LARPing through Jerusalem. A mutual target of hate would do everyone some good.

I represent the Canaanites, the most oppressed people in history.

No, the Midianites. And since it's such a horrible biblical genocide and ordered by the Hebrew god, therefore Wikipedia hardly has anything on it (at least nothing specific) in their only relevant article: that on Midian.

How dare you. The oppression of the Canaanites was a unique moment in history. Anyone who tries to compare the Midianites is ipso facto guilty of Canaanite Oppression denial.

Of the 613 Mitzvot:
"596. Destroy the seven Canaanite nations--Deuteronomy 20:17

597. Not to let any of them remain alive--Deuteronomy 20:16

598. Wipe out the descendants of Amalek--Deuteronomy 25:19"

Which is a pretty rough thing, try telling kids in Hebrew school they still have to kill any Canaanites they meet at the grocery store or at the DMV. I expect a suit against YHWH in the ICC on the matter.*

*(As a side note, archaeologists think it's apocryphal and it's commonly thought that these are moot as none of the targeted groups exist. Still a lot to swallow.)

Yes, that's the well-known "New Anti-Canaanism".

Haha, well played, sir.

Back on topic for the sake of perversity, assuming Nabl-E-Z(his rapper name) is the most common litigant at A/E ...so what? You admit you don't know the details (can't blame you, A/E shit is tough to swallow at the best of times), I don't either. The kicker with Nableezy is that he's often right and takes out the shit most people can't be bothered to deal with. I hate A/E, nowhere is WP's shitty interface and Kafkaesque bureaucracy more apparent but it's necessary; most mods are far too burnt out to deal with the daily influx of pure nonsense and lack the political capital to act on their own. Look at the number of frivolous charges brought up at A/E and I bet Nableezy also tops the list (Jiujitsuguy's hilariously meticulous attempt to nail him for sockpupetting from IPs is easily the best). I'm not even sure why Nab bothers fighting such a hopeless battle but I'm glad someone does it. On the plus side the primary canvassing cabal is temporarily in retreat. Hooray.

The issue is Nableezy habitually defers to Arbitration Enforcement in content disputes. Requesting for topic bans on editors who clearly don't share the same views. Wikipedia has a very solid network of dispute resolution and yet Nableezy goes straight to AE when it comes to Israel/Palestine. No 3OO, mediation, RFC, etc.

He probably spends more time trying to remove editors from wikipedia he disagrees with than actually contributing content to wikipedia.

While I spend my time on Wikipedia making articles about cookbooks.

Immune from any sort any sort of sanctions apparently. He/she decides to strike the offending comments and all the admins cave in.


A slam by NMMNG:



Nableezy did hit Agada with an AE and refused to withdraw the complaint after he reverted his edits. Yet Nableezy gets a pass for doing the exact same thing?

It's as if the admins didn't even bother reading the complaint. They just saw "Nableezy" and barked the usual narrative. Nab can redact his incivility without punishment but other users are hit with half year bans for less? Arbitration Enforcement is slowly mutating into a Kangaroo court. Dispute resolution process is fine in most areas of Wikipedia but for all things Middle East logic/reason tend to go right out the window.

discuss.

Slowly mutating? It has always been a kangaroo court.

"Seriously is anyone actually reading this?"

Unlikely, if you keep spamming General Discussion. People don't read things to report to dim wits like you anyway.

who are you anyways?

Mod's note: merged with Wikifan's other "Bad Nableezy" AE thread.

Maybe you don't know all the facts, or maybe you're ignoring them.

AgadaUrbanit was engaged in disruption on many pages, in many ways, and she/he was warned by several editors to stop the self-destructive behavior. The edit AU self-reverted was only a small part of AU's disruptive behavior. Plus, AU refused to self-revert for nearly a week.

Nableezy was quoting another editor, and as soon as Biosketch objected to his edit he self-reverted. End of story.

Are you starting to see the picture?

Anybody who's edited in the Israel-Palestine sewer for any length of time learns that dispute resolution doesn't work. Topic bans and blocks are the only things that do, and even then, pro-Israel editors routinely engage in sock puppetry.

Speaking of dispute resolution, when's the last time a pro-Israel editor tried it? When have you used it?

Negociation is not really popular among true-believers and fundamentalists.

Israel once had a prime minister who was asked about negociating with terrorists and said "Why not? You don't negociate with friends, you negociate with enemies." Rabin felt that this cost you nothing so long as you fought like you weren't negociating, and negociated like you weren't fighting.

Some fanatic murdered him, naturally.

I use dispute resolution all the time and frequently complain about editors going straight to AE as Nableezy does to remove editors they clearly dislike for ideological reasons. Notice I have never ever used AE even though I probably could have had numerous editors banned in conflict disputes.

You think Nableezy is really sending these editors to AE in good faith? Really Malik? Your obvious bias is clouding your judgement here man. Nableezy is uncivil as ever. swears, attacks editors, possessive over articles he edits. yet he is held to a much lower standard than everybody else.

this isn't about pro-israel/pro-palestinian. It is about Nableezy getting off again and again and again. Admin "discretion" is a joke. Policy should apply universally and admins shouldn't be able to play favorites.

but they do as demonstrated in this thread. Nableezy can't seem to get a long with anyone so he has developed an excellent ability of wikilawying. Have you actually read through his AEs? My god he must spend hours compiling evidence.

instead of truly evaluating nableezy's behavior you attack me instead. How predictable.

Nableezy is bored

Can't go 2 weeks without drama. Eventually there will be no editors left to work on Middle East articles if this keeps up and Nableezy is allowed to abuse the system as he does. He cites an edit made by an editor who commented in an AE aimed at himself!

Revenge-based warfare more like it. Can't we all just get along? Must editors hide in fear of offending the most sensitive user on Wikipedia?

What the fuck imaginary wiki project are you talking about, Wikifan? Because it sure as hell isn't Wikipedia!

Do you not know anything about ARBPIA?

Essentially, punishment is ultimately up to individual administrators. The core evidence is provided by offended editors, not "Wikipedia." Think of it like a a judicial system, which ARBPIA pretends to be.

It would be much better if cases of "disruption" or "edit-warring" were left to Wikipedia moderating observers. All cases would be [insert editor here] versus the state of Wikipedia. Right now it is battle ground editors verse battle ground editors and admins are getting tired of the process and so topic bans are handed out like candy because it is a hassle for them to deal with every AE. Nableezy overwhelms admins with "proof" hoping the fallacy will hide the fact that his cases rarely hold any merit or at least enough to justify extreme enforcement he wants (whole-sale topic bans, etc.)

What is happening now simply isn't working. It isn't fair and encourages a climate of intolerance. The only real situation where editors should be allowed to hit each other is blatant incivility and personal attacks (which Nableezy would get the Wikipedia-equivalent of the death penalty in that case) or sock puppetry. Everything else has their appropriate noticeboard (edit-warring, ANI, etc...)

More bruverly luv that is what is needed.

He is talking about Wiki16, the Wikipedia for 16 year-olds. The one where unicorns eat moonbeams and fart rainbows. Very good coverage of Nintendo and Harry Potter there.

I'm sorry AgadaUrbanit had a meltdown, I remember him as a nice fellow.

Also, this barnstar is hilarious.

Martin interaction ban

If you believe you can do better, please chime in at AE more regularly. We always welcome more input.

I updated my rationale for the ban of Martin when I realised the absurd precedent I was setting. That one was my bad; I didn't think it through. But Martin did violate his interaction ban by reverting Russavia (with whom he may not interact) under the pretence of a "copyedit". I informed him that he was banned for that, and not for filing the AE report, a good while ago, so the "new record for stupidity" bit is a smidge unfair; Martin was blocked for something completely different.

Martin threatened to run to ArbCom because policy apparently allows him to revert Russavia. I quoted WP:IBAN, "editor is [not permitted to:] undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". Still waiting on those arbcom proceedings to begin…

Re: AE dysfunction

What precisely is it that we do wrong? You point to one example here, but that isn't relevant because the ban was for something different. Do you have others? Is your conclusion based on the failure of WP:AE in solving the encyclopedia's biggest disputes, or perhaps on the fact that AE hasn't rendered ArbCom obsolete yet? We do a decent job with shitty tools: discretionary sanctions are handy, but we rely on biased editors bringing reports against their 'enemies', which is flawed. We act fairly, and we hear everybody out. We reach a fair decision most of the time, and when we mess up, we're promptly held to account. We explain our decisions, and we try to think of the 'common editor' when slamming the banhammer around.

Insanely dysfunctional indeed. Could you do a better job?

Sorry, this is Wikipedia Review - where what others have done is critiqued; you appear to be wanting Wikipedia Preview, which has been closed down because of a similarity of initials to some other place.

If that were the case Nableezy would be community banned. For example:

Admins (Ed and Tim) make judgement before actual responses come in from uninvolved editors

Tim made his closing remark @ 20:21, 22 June 2011.

Tim made his assessment after 3 hours after the AE was filed. In other words, this is the only contribution admins made before making their decision: link

So all that discussion between Nableezy and Biosketch and every other third part...totally ignored. They just saw "Nableezy" and immediately voted down any type of sanctions. No clear response to the allegations made by Biosketch.

Now of course when Nab files an AE, admins take theirsweet time

Does this not seem odd? I like Tim and I think he is a fair admin but this process is ridiculous. Nab is literally citing edits made again him in his own arbitration enforcement and portraying himself as a passive victim to Cptono audacity to tag an article with "POV." God forbid. Such actions clearly deserving of a topic ban.

Is the Annex full, or something?

You're simply whining that one of his wiki-opponents didn't get the wiki-punishment you feel he deserves. What is there to discuss?

"wiki-opponents."

at least you admit nableezy blatant battleground mentality.

I figured this thread was a showcase for yours.

And it is shiny and well lit. All Wikifan needs is a nice satin cloth to lay upon and blaze like the cripple-ass intellect they are.

How many AE's have I filed? Oh yeah...zero. Most of Nableezy's complaints are trivial at best and those that are not could be sorted through traditional noticeboards. But he's learned arbitration enforcement is the best place to remove editors he dislikes long-term. Do you really believe he is filing these reports in good faith? Really?

Hmm, too much sauce tonight, that should have read "one of your wiki-opponents..."

Readjust your wiki-outrage in 3..2...

uh?

Hang in there, chief. *splashes water on Wikifan's face and slaps it a few times*

C'mon, get up and walk around a bit. You're getting punchy.

Boo hoo, boo hoo.

I've never been to the dance, and nableezy goes all the time.

What a response, from an admin no less. Classy and mature.

More Nab douchebaggery.

douchebaggery

That's the only way one can describe this guy. What the fuck is up with Wikipedia? It's like Nableezy owns the place. This must be his 15th AE of 2011. Talk about battleground mentality.

I can only forgive your antics on account of your age for so long. But before you continue down this path, I would like to ensure that you are aware of a few things. You think I use AE more than others, in a way that shows that I think of this as a "battleground". You dont think for a second and try to find out who is brought to AE more than any other editor. At one point there were three separate threads about me on that page. More recently, two socks of the same twat of a man that is Isarig opened two separate requests against me within days.

Now, you describe my bringing Jiujitsuguy to AE as "douchebaggery" that is evidence of a "battleground mentality". Did you actually read what Jiujitsuguy wrote? The division between "the West" and the "elements with radical pro-Syrian, Pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas, pro-Iranian viewpoints". And why exactly do you think Jiujitsuguy posted anything to my talk page? My guess, he knew what I had typed as a response, but thought I was going to hit save page, which would have brought the usual outcries about my oh so uncouth behavior.

How many Arabs do you think edit in the topic area? Just guess. How many people do you think are "pro-Palestinian" in anything resembling what "pro-Israel" means on Wikipedia? Tiamut, bless her heart, isnt all that active, and honestly Im happy for her; she shouldnt have to deal with all the bullshit that cunts like your heroes put her through. Al ameer shows up every once in a while, but he doesnt get involved in the contentious stuff, he stays away, diligently working in an area that most of you Defenders of the Great Nation havent ever read about. Besides me and SD, who sometimes admittedly makes it difficult to be perceived as being on his "side", there are no other Arabs that are anything more than occasionally active.

The rest of the people that your little mind reduces to being "pro-Palestinian" fall into one of two groups. Jews who are down (Roland), Jews who are more down than most, but still Zionist (my guess, Malik), meaning they oppose the occupation, but not anything that happened up until 67, and a collection of other Europeans, and maybe a few Americans, and none of them are really all that "pro-Palestinian", at least not what I would call "pro-Palestinian". All of these people, all of them, members of "the West".

How about this, try naming all of the people that you think are "pro-Palestinian", and then provide a definition for "pro-Palestinian". Should be an interesting exercise.

so much noise Nab, maybe read the first post in this thread?

9 AE reports



I know for a fact you use AE more than any other Israel/Palestine editor. I'd argue you've used AE on a regular basis more than any other wikipedia editor. Congrats.



I should rephrase. What you did was very dickish. Juijit hasn't touched a single Israel/Arab article. As far as I can tell he referenced the area of conflict in a talk discussion which hardly merits another topic ban. Juijitsuguy is calling a spade a spade. It's not news many editors have vested interests and support certain governments/movements. Many editors possessively protect Hezbollah/Hamas from critical edits, other editors war over critical edits at Israeli settlements. Assuming good faith, I'd say Jiujitsu is being more hyperbolic. If he were to name names and make lists that would be a different issue.



I don't know any "Arab" editors and personally don't connect ones' ethnicity with ones' political philosophy. Malik says he is Jewish and supports a "two state solution" on his talk page but by any yard stick his views of Israel aren't very positive at all.

What you are doing here Nab is taking the topic - which is aimed at you - and deferring to other editors.



Projection. I don't think that way Nab. I don't interact with editors if they're "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israel." For example, Sean is obviously pro-Palestinian but I think he is a nice guy and fair editor. I have a problem with editors like you who seem to be hunting users who clearly share a different political philosophy than yourself. It has jack squat to do with policy or guidelines.

So either you're just a real sensitive editor and the most benign edit sends you off or you're just a douchebag.

You really are a moron. Yes, Jiujitsuguy has not touched any articles. What he has done is consistently talk shit. Because that has worked out for him so well in the past. I go to AE more often than others because I deal with the bullshit that nobody else is willing to. I deal with a collection of holy warriors intent on proving that the Palestinians are "displaced Jordanians", that "the Land of Israel" belongs to a group of Europeans who should feel no remorse for driving the natives from their homes. That the colonization of their land and exploitation of their labor is God's will. Why I deal with that bullshit is not something I have figured out, but one of the reasons is probably I cant stand the idea of underinformed kids such as yourself are free to write bullshit in what becomes the number one google result for any person, place, or massacre. But because I deal with that bullshit I am regularly taken to AE, usually on trifling charges and often by socks.

But you aint on my level, and it was stupid of me to reply in the first place. This is the last time I make that mistake.

Is this how you view yourself? Doing what no other editors are willing to do? How selfless of you Nableezy!

Do you really believe the shit you say? Seriously.