From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Blocked 24 hours. T. Canens (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Truthinderry[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
2 lines of K303 20:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Truthinderry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
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 
  1. 15:51, 18 July 2012 Revert #1
  2. 15:56, 18 July 2012 Revert #2, within 24 hours of the previous one
  3. 20:39, 18 July 2012 Revert #3, within 24 hours of the previous ones
  4. 20:58, 18 July 2012 Revert #4, within 24 hours of the previous ones
  5. 21:19, 18 July 2012 Revert #5, within 24 hours of the previous ones
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 16:09, 18 July 2012 by One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Persistent attempts to add unsourced and highly POV commentary. Editor was quite obviously editing earlier in the day as (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Although not all the reverts are identical edits, there's certainly more than enough similarity for the "in whole or part" definition to apply. Also while they weren't warned of the 1RR restriction until after their second revert, they've certainly breached it with their third. 2 lines of K303 20:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Revert #4 added. 2 lines of K303 21:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
And 5. 2 lines of K303 21:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Truthinderry[edit]

Statement by Truthinderry[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Truthinderry[edit]

Result concerning Truthinderry[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Since at this point they've violated not only WP:TROUBLES but 3RR, and made not even an attempt to engage in discussion, I'm going to go ahead with a 24 hour block. Truthinderry seems to be suffering from inexperience more than anything, hopefully that'll get them to slow down and talk. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces. Dailycare (talk · contribs) is advised that it's a good idea to double-check existing sources, especially in such a fraught and contentious topic area. T. Canens (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Dailycare[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Jiujitsuguy (talk)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Dailycare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. In this edit Dailycare writes the following According to Avi Shlaim, Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence and he references the 2007 edition of Shlaim's book, Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace at page 238. I thoroughly checked that page and found that Shlaim makes no reference to Nasser disregarding the views or counsel of his intelligence service. Indeed, there is no mention of Egyptian intelligence at all, on that page. I then scoured the entire book and read it cover to cover. Perhaps, I thought, Dailycare had just mistakenly referenced the wrong page. In fact, I could not find any reference in Shlaim's book to Nasser disregarding the counsel of his intelligence. I then thought that perhaps Dailycare meant to cite a different book written by Shlaim and that that information could be found there. So I checked the only other book written by Shlaim that is referenced in the article (The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, 2000, 2001) and that book too is devoid of any such reference or information regarding Nasser's disregarding the counsel of his intelligence. See page 238 [2] I was unable to retrieve the cited page reference for the other book on Google Books but I scanned the relevant page into my computer. I will be more than willing to email the page (and any other pages in the book) to any Syop wishing to see the referenced page.

    The relevant page can also be accessed here at TinyPic

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

Warned here and here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This is black and white. I could have added additional information concerning other matters but did not want to cloud this clear-cut case. He states that Avi Shlaim said something that Avi Shlaim clearly did not say. If that is not source misrepresentation, I don't know what is. In a previous AE, T. Canens noted that Dailycare was careless in the manner in which he employed a particular reference and Daily was issued a warning. Well, this case represents outright misrepresentation in the extreme and something more that just a warning is clearly warranted. Moreover, even if the insatnt case can somehow, under the most liberal interpretation be construed as "careless," how many instances of carelessness are we willing to tolerate?

@nableezy, Uh no...Other historians including Michael Oren and Leslie Stein have stated that Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence. But Dailycare added the following, "According to Avi Shlaim" and Avi Shlaim made no such representation. Dailycare didn't even bother reading Shlaim because had he done so, he would have seen that Shlaim never said that. By adding the words "According to Avi Shlaim" Dailycare made an affirmative representation that Shlaim said something that he clearly didn't say. That is source misrepresentation.
@Nableezy you view me as your enemy of sorts and since your return from your t-ban, have been the first to comment on AE's which I initiated which says a lot about you. My edit was sourced by Stein and Oren both of whom clearly state that Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own staff I even quoted Stein in the reference. You can't be more explicit than that. But Dailycare then twists it by attributing views held by Stein and Oren (who were explicitly referenced by me just prior) to Shlaim. He stated "According to Avi Shlaim" and Avi Shlaim never held this view.
@Nableezy. Did you even bother taking note of this edit where I clearly and unambiguously attributed Nasser's disregard of his military staff to Leslie Stein? Stein, "Fawzi reported to Nasser that: 'There is nothing there. No massing of forces. Nothing.'" p. 266 these were views held by Stein and Oren, not Shlaim. But Dailycare then writes "According to Avi Shlaim" attributing views to Shlaim that Shlaim clearly never said. That is source distortion. Whether it was purposeful or not, it shows that Dailycare didn't bother reading Shlaim. Otherwise he would have realized that Shlaim never said those things.
@Nableezy That sentence "Nonetheless, Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence" is attributed to Stein and Michael Oren both of whom I referenced immediately prior. The statement is 100% accurate and verifiable. I don't have a problem with the statement that I myself introduced. I have a problem with Dailycare stating "According to Avi Shlaim" which is an outright distortion and misrepresentation of Shlaim. Had he taken just a brief moment to read the sources, he would have realized that his affirmative attribution was an absolute falsity. Anyone reading the article and checks the sources that I noted knows that the sources state that Nasser disregarded the intelligence assessment of his military staff. See for example oren. yet the Egyptian president preferred to overlook these repudiations and to proceed as if the Israelis were about to attack the problem with Dailycare's edit is that by specifically stating "According to Avi Shlaim" he attributes this not to Oren and not to Stein but specifically to Shlaim, which is patent falsehood.

─────────────────────────@Dailcare. The first AE I brought was not dismissed as "frivolous" as you falsely state. At least one of your edits was deemed "careless" and as you may recall, you were issued an ARBPIA warning. Second, my goal is to see the accurate use of sources. When you affirmatively attributed a statement to Shlaim that Shlaim did not say, that was a source of concern for me and it should be for all others as well. This AE has turned into the usual partisan bullshit. It is a clear cut case of source misrepresentation by Dailycare. What his intention was in manipulating my edit is immaterial. He performed it in a reckless, careless manner and in his previous AE, he was cited there for being careless as well and that is why a warning was issued.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now corrected Dailycare's inaccuracy and have properly attributed the edit to Michael Oren with inline citation.
@T. Canens. I absolutely take credit for that edit as well as this and according to Michael Oren and Leslie Stein, Nasser disregarded the advice of his own staff and continued the buildup. What I didn't do is attribute that statement to Avi Shlaim. I noted the sources and if you want me to email you the relevant pages I will absolutely do that. What I did not do is state "according to Avi Shlaim" because Avi Shlaim absolutely never said that. Moreover, even if Dailycare's edit predates the warning, continued retention of it constitutes continued distortion and, I felt strongly that this type of affirmative false attribution is something that had to be dealt with. Bottom line Dailycare affirmatively and falsely attributed a comment to Avi Shlaim that Avi Shlaim did not say.
Comment and notification to other Syops

About six weeks ago, at the request of a member of Oversight, I filed a detailed complaint against Tim Canens alleging bias in the extreme and abuse of his Syop authority. The complaint was long and exhaustive and Canens was required to respond to each and every charge. This likely took some time and no doubt he was annoyed for having to "waste" time answering my charges and clarifications from Oversight. Ultimately, Oversight determined that no sanction was warranted. I obviously disagreed but voiced no objection to the substance of their determination. My only request however was that given the antagonistic relationship between myself and Canens and the fact that he was aware the it was I who filed the complaint, that he recuse himself from all AEs in which I am either the filer or respondent. I predicted that if I was T-banned, it would be T. Canens who would be the main antagonist and the one advocating the ban. Oversight considered the request but noted that there were mechanisms in place to ensure that there would be transparency and fairness. It is interesting to note that in both of the recent AEs that I filed, it was T. Canens who responded as the first syop and almost immediately, this despite the fact that other AEs (like Dali lama ding dong's) were languishing and some were being archived for lack of commentary. I hope that other Syops who view this case will not be influenced by TC's metaphoric poisoning of the well, which he is quite adept at doing. My interest was to ensure that sources remained accurate. The only thing I can be faulted for is not providing an inline cite, which in hindsight would have been more helpful. But my edits were well sourced with reliable and verifiable sources. Dailycare however falsely attributed a comment to Avi Shlaim that Avi Shlaim did not say.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

user notified

Discussion concerning Dailycare[edit]

Statement by Dailycare[edit]

Here we go again?

Concerning the content, I added "According to Shlaim" in front of the sentence since the sentence was attributed, by Jiujitsuguy, to Shlaim (and Mutawi, but Shlaim is mentioned first). I decided to mention the author since Jiujitsuguy had removed the Shemesh source, and content sourced from it, from the article. By writing "According to Shlaim, ..." and "According to Shemesh, ..." I was able to present both narratives of why Nasser moved his forces. Pure and simple. Alternatively we could write "According to some sources, ..." and "According to other sources, ..." if there are multiple sources for both viewpoints.

Concerning Jiujitsuguy's behaviour, this is the second frivolous AE against me within a short space of time. Jiujitsuguy is under a recent, personal and stringent warning that any further disturbance will result in an indefinite topic ban. My suggestion is, that this topic ban would now be activated either as indefinite or fixed term. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm of course moved by the way you're checking my edits with such loving care, in fact I feel like I should be paying you. However, these AE requests need to stop as you're wasting people's time.--Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I can be (even) more active with double-checking going forward. I agree that it's a good idea. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Dailycare[edit]

This is as spurrious as the last report, and something should be done about this repeated bad-faith use of AE to attempt to remove one of the better editors from the topic area. the sentence Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence and began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran. was already in the article. It was cited to Shlaim (2007) p. 238 and Mutawi (2007) p. 93. It was added by, and this is where this gets comical, Jiujitsuguy (search for Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence in that diff). The material that JJG is objecting to having cited to Shlaim was added by JJG to a sentence that cited Shlaim. If anybody is to be sanctioned for poor sourcing, it needs to be JJG.

All Dailycare added was According to Avi Shlaim. He did not add the reference, he did not add the rest of the sentence. Dailycare attributed what was cited, in part, to Shlaim to Shlaim. The claim that Dailycare wrote that sentence is false, and seemingly made to intentionally mislead admins. That the material was actually added by JJG only makes this an even more egregious case of an underhanded use of AE. nableezy - 16:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@ JJG, uhh no. Your edit didn't cite Stein or Oren for the sentence. The only two sources cited in the sentence that you added the material were, and still are, Shlaim (2007) p. 238 and Mutawi (2007) p. 93. That is, you added material to a sentence that had sources without adding any sources for that sentence. Any reader looking at that sentence and seeing what is cited would assume that Shlaim (2007) p. 238 and Mutawi (2007) p. 93 are what backs up the material you added. It is you, not Dailycare, that inserted that material in a sentence that cited Shlaim. All Dailycare did was make explicit what your edit did implicitly. Again, if anybody should be sanctioned for poor sourcing, and yet another bad-faith use of AE, it is you. nableezy - 17:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont view you as [my] enemy, and its ironic that in a request about a user attributing to somebody something they did not say you do exactly that with me. I comment in AEs where a user, in bad-faith, distorts what has happened so that he can attempt to remove somebody he views as his enemy of sorts. And no, you emphatically did not cite Stein or Oren for the phrase Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence. Anybody can look at the diff and see that the sources that appear following the sentence that you added that phrase to are Shlaim (2007) p. 238 and Mutawi (2007) p. 93. Trying to play fast and loose with the record isnt the wisest choice here as we can all see the diffs. You did not cite Oren or Stein, and the only thing that DC did was explicitly attribute to Shlaim what was sourced to Shlaim, and it was sourced to Shlaim because you were, once again, careless with your sourcing. nableezy - 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, do you really not understand the simple concept that the citations appear after the sentence they support? That you used Oren and Stein for the sentence Egyptian intelligence later confirmed that the Soviet reports were in fact groundless. but not for the phrase Nonetheless, Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence? That the only sources for the entire sentence Nonetheless, Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence and began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran were, and still are, Shlaim and Mutawi? If you dont understand that concept then we have a bigger problem, though it is a problem that can be solved without you being banned. If you do understand that concept, and you are simply feigning ignorance, then we have a different problem, one that has a straight-forward solution. nableezy - 18:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
How is the phrase you added "attributed to Stein"? Are you seriously disputing that the only sources that appear at the end of the sentence that you added that phrase to are not Shlaim and Mutawi? Yes or no for that last question please. nableezy - 19:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont know how many ways I can write this, but the sentence was cited to Shlaim, and you made it so that Shlaim was the cited source for something that you say Shlaim never said. Again, DC made explicit what you edit did implicitly. There is no rational reason for you to continue to dispute this, and your steadfast refusal to actually acknowledge that the sentence was, and is, cited to Shlaim and Mutawi is inexplicable. Your edit made it so that Shlaim was cited for the material. DC's edit made that implicit attribution explicit. Which of those is "source distortion"? The one that actually adds material unsupported by the cited source? Or the one that explicitly notes what the cited source is? nableezy - 19:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment - JJG, which of the following do you regard as a more serious violation, what you say Dailycare did or what you did by writing Talk:Operation_Sharp_and_Smooth#Results, a piece of unsourced original research based on your personal opinion, followed by a policy violating addition of OR to an infobox ? I don't understand how it is possible to violate policy in a very obvious way like that on one day and complain about an editor violating policy in a convoluted and obscure way on another day. Dailycare has a clean block record[3]. You don't[4]. Which of the editors presents a greater risk to content based their editing history and the nature of these contrasting edits ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment by AnkhMorpork
  1. JJG added the content that "Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence"
  2. This content is not in dispute and is confirmed by several sources (Oren, Stein). JJG then adds a source immediately before this sentence to support his recent additions. This could have been done is a clearer manner by inserting it after the next sentence, even though the material's accuracy is not in question.
  3. Dailycare mis-attributes this statement to Shlaim. This is a poor edit which demonstrates that he did not inspect the sources and that he has a tendentious agenda.
While JJG could have provided better clarity by providing a precise inline citation to support his unchallenged additions, I fail to see how this has any bearing on DC's attempt to trivialize the material by falsely attributing it to a single source that he manifestly had not read. Ankh.Morpork 19:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Activism1234
The case is not a difficult one - although there may have been some confusion over wording initally, at the end, Dailycare still unproperly referenced a source where the source did not say anything remotely close. I'm sure mistakes like these happen all the time - after all, we are only human - but this is part of the Wikipedia process - an edit is made, improved, a mistake is cited, users are notified of the mistake, and the mistake is corrected. Unfortunately, it was not corrected, and based on previous warnings that JJG brought up, and previous source manipulation, the behavior represents a poor agenda, and possibly done on purpose. "According to Shlaim..." but it's not according to Shlaim, and before including those words - regardless of whether he was referenced - it should've been checked, and when it was pointed out that it wasn't true or reverted, it should've been left or discussed further. It was Dailycare's fault for making a statement and not properly checking out to see if it was true. Content was attributed to Shlaim that Shlaim never said - that is a major deal.
After that, there are users here who are arguing against JJG and attacking him in cases that are similar to ad hominem attacks, rather than focus on the case at hand. The AE is being screwed up over that, and it shouldn't be. These should have no bearing on the procedures, as we don't need to take as a fact whatever JJG says - the admins can check up on everything for themselves, and JJG brings Wikipedia links and diffs as well. There is no reason for this to turn into a battleground and silly attacks. That goes for everyone - those attacking and those being attacked. It's childish. State your case, and don't try to divert attention and make this something it shouldn't be. If people can support JJG, or can support Dailycare, then they should go ahead and do so without diverting attention from the main cause. Otherwise, nothing will get done, and this will all turn into a silly chaotic mess without any cohesion or cooperation.
T. Canens, perhaps you saw it, and perhaps you missed it, which is fine. Reading your comment below, I think it's the latter case, but just to help out, JJG did answer what you wrote previously above. He bolded it as "@T.Canens." Hope it helps. I do not see any reason to ignore Dailycare's unproper source manipulation and instead punish JJG when he answered the allegations above, taking credit and explaining according to whom this was true etc, so I just wanted to point this out in order to help with the AE. I do hope it helps.
I would also like if some other admins can take a look at this case and make a judgement call. Thanks. --Activism1234 21:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Shrike I see a pretty clear case of source misrepresentation by Dailycare. He specifically attributes a view to Avi Shlaim that Avi Shlaim did not say. The edits made by JJG were accurate, verifiable and well-sourced. Dailycare however didn't bother reading the source and thereby caused a misleading edit. I don't know whether Dailycare did it on purpose but it certainly was very sloppy and careless.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Dailycare[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Putting aside for the moment the fact that this diff pre-dates Dailycare's ARBPIA warning, I'm particularly interested in JJG's response to this very interesting diff in which the phrase "Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence" was first introduced to the article. T. Canens (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • This request is doubly meritless. First, the diff provided predated Dailycare's ARBPIA warning - in fact, it predated the closure of the last Dailycare thread, also brought by JJG. It therefore cannot be actioned at AE. Second, even were the edit to have occurred after the ARBPIA warning, this request must still be dismissed. This is a straightforward case of unclean hands. JJG's edit here introduced the phrase "Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence" in a sentence cited to Shlaim and Mutawi. By his own logic in his previous report concerning Dailycare ("at the very least made it appear as though [Shlaim]'s book contained this information by adding the [phrase] just before the [Shlaim] reference"), that constitutes source misrepresentation. Having misrepresented the source himself, he will not now be allowed to complain that another editor erred in relying in good faith on his misrepresentation.

      It is remarkable indeed that someone who raised allegations of source falsification in multiple AE threads, engaged in essentially the same misconduct that he has accused others. That suggests a tendentious attempt to game the AE process, rather than a good faith attempt to deal with actual misconduct. The previous AE thread on Dailycare, brought by JJG as well, containing three totally spurious allegations of source distortion, is a good example.

      JJG was subject to an indefinite topic ban in January this year; that topic ban was lifted on appeal in April. I think it beyond clear that the lifting of the ban had been improvident, and that an indefinite topic ban for this kind of continued battleground conduct is appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

      • Going to close this in 24 hours, unless any uninvolved admin objects. T. Canens (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to concur with the comment directly above, although I'd also generally advise Dailycare to be a bit more careful about sourcing. Mistakes happen, it's not A Big Deal, but especially in this topic area it's good to double-check. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the accusations against T. Canens, I've taken a careful look through the conclusions reached by him, and find the accusations of wrongdoing/vendetta to be totally baseless. His conclusions are well-supported by the facts of the case. Dailycare made at most a mistake, and one which at most compounded JJG's initial error. The correct thing to do in such a situation would've been to bring that to Dailycare's attention, not to run straight for AE. JJG was already on the very last chance here, and I think the rope has come to its end. Support (re)imposing an indefinite topic ban on JJG, with a minimum of six months' productive editing in unrelated areas required before we consider any request to lift it. (That does not mean "editing very little if at all"—show us you can do it right.) For Dailycare, I think a reminder that it's a good idea to double-check existing sources, especially in a topic area as fraught and contentious as this one, is all the "sanction" that's needed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Shuki (talk · contribs) blocked one week. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2012 (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 Shuki[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 22 July 2012 Shuki's posting on my talk page discussing an ARBPIA sanction. Shuki's topic ban prohibits discussing ARBPIA-covered matters in any namespace and in any way.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Topic banned from ARBPIA in all namespaces: AE report resulting in Shuki's ban
  2. Warned on 6 April 2012 by WGFinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) of imposition of the topic ban.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

As Shuki is directly questioning my judgment, I do not feel it ideal for me to take administrative action without review by others. However, I believe this is a straightforward violation of Shuki's topic ban against discussion of ARBPIA matters in any namespace, as Shuki was clearly discussing an ARBPIA case. I therefore request review here, and recuse from any decisions on administrative sanctions in this matter. I also accept reviews and judgments from my peers of my own statements in the Dailycare/JJG request, regardless of what findings may be made in regards to Shuki. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As a quick note to those feeling that a warning should've been applicable here as I suggested above, I disagree. I believe there's a significant difference between an editor just warned of the sanctions who clearly made an honest mistake (and to be precise, failed to correct a mistake already present), and an editor clearly notified of a topic ban and clearly editing in defiance of it repeatedly. The idea of a topic ban is not to continually see how close one can edge up to the line of the banned area, and that will inevitably result in crossing that line anyway. Rather, it means that editor's behavior in that area has been found to be a net negative, and they've been asked to stay away completely from that topic or area. The topic ban is, in essence, the final warning—fail to stay away from the banned area, and you'll be asked to stay away from the project altogether. Shuki, I see nothing ambiguous about the notice you were given—no editing or discussing ARBPIA matters anywhere on the project, period. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Shuki, if I thought the notice you were given regarding the topic ban was ambiguous or unclear, I'd be inclined to agree. I reread it, though, and I'm just not seeing it: "This notice is to inform that you are you banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces indefinitely per this AE report. Violations of this ban will result in blocks, more information about topic bans can be found at WP:TBAN." (emphasis added) WP:TBAN, linked from there, states as a part of a restriction that a topic-banned editor may not participate in "discussions or suggestions about (the topic banned from) anywhere on Wikipedia..." Could you please clarify how you misinterpreted those to think you were allowed to discuss ARBPIA enforcement decisions (except of course in your own defense, as you're doing here)? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified 22 July 2012

Discussion concerning Shuki[edit]

Statement by Shuki[edit]

Seraphimblade, I don't think I have to add anything more to the blatant double standard Biosketch pointed out you have for me and Dailycare, an experienced editor in I-P who you nonetheless suggested be given the benefit of the doubt, twice. Yes, a simple warning to me might have been AGF instead of running straight for AE. Filing an AE is a bit annoying , so you must have had something in for me to not even bother to ask I retract my message to you. I was thinking of emailing you privately, but as opposed to others who carry out backroom exchanges, and I think as most admins and WP prefers, I kept it in the open. Your reply to me on your talk page shows that you don't know if the ban applies to comments on your talk page, but you'll file the AE anyway and ask questions later. This is quite battleground and non-becoming of an admin who regularly judges on AE.

TC, I'm glad to see you showed up here as well with your expected opinion. As for the diffs that Zscarpia brought up, A) if they are pertinent here, then you should officially add them to the accusation, and be a party to the AE as well so others could openly judge for themselves and B) it is not surprising that editors on 'my side' are required to search and bring forth evidence of issues but you actually go to other unrelated pages to help the case here (do you have other editors pages watchlisted??). I do not recall you ever bringing forth external 'evidence' for anyone pro-Israel but rather giving them 400 words or less to state their side. Zscarpia did not post here, but you took the initiative to go see how hard you can throw the book at me. This is highly suspicious and irregular. C) And if my edits at Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu (not I-P related) and Majdi Halabi (a missing Druze soldier not yet related to I-P conflict), then please do objectiveness a favour and bring them up in the open for discussion of people who might be able to add something else. Besides the talk page message where I brought up that Nishidani mentioned me without the courtesy of apologizing (merely strikeout? Why not delete and apologize), my editing over the past three months has been fine and non-controversial. Frankly, I do not view posting on an admin's talk page as violating the ban and even when construed broadly. An admin's talk page is 'ex-territorial' and the discussion did not even start. --Shuki (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to Seraphimblade 09:00, 24 July 2012. It is very misleading to claim that I am clearly editing in defiance of it (topic ban) repeatedly and that I continually see how close one can edge up to the line. The ARBPIA topic ban is about I-P articles and discussions as well as the techincal areas surrounding this like namespaces. You brought up one issue here - my post on your (an admin) talk page. I have already stated that I think it is not included in the topic ban and is a better replacement then some secret email. You have not referred to that issue in your recent reply here, I think that you should reply on topic. If AE and wikipedia policy objectively deems this (my request on admin talk page) a violation of the topic ban, then I accept that judgement.
I think that another statement you made about me is clearly prejudiced and not representative of me at all for the almost seven years with the WP project - with regard to editor's behavior in that area has been found to be a net negative, it is only fair that before you make such a comment, you actually review my extensive contributions to WP which includes over 150 new articles and cats, extensive improvement of many other articles, including over 3000 unique articles, as well as other administrative work like cat sorting, deletion discussions, and copy-editing, most but not all related to Israel. Is Shuki really 'net negative'?
If there are other pertinent issues about allegations of violating the I-P topic ban, it is only fair for you to bring them up in the open so it is clear to all what the issues are. FWIW, in the past, it was made clear that editing Israel-related articles is not a violation of the I-P tban. If that has changed, ARBPIA should be updated. --Shuki (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Heimstern, thanks for AGF and for putting words in my mouth. If you want to know my intentions, please ask and less assume. I'm only asking for objective fairness and no double standards. --Shuki (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a past recommendation by T Canens to me: You may edit articles unrelated to the A-I conflict, provided that your edit is also unrelated to the conflict. T. Canens (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC) My edit at Majdi was to remove a nonRS, and my edits at Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu was an expansion and update. --Shuki (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Nableezy, I am surprised and also very appreciative of your compassionate message here in my defense. No matter what will be decided, I hope this is a good sign of kinder, gentler I-P area. I'm sure you understand why I had to come out hard here since virtually no one wants to show visual support in what seems like a predetermined decision anyway and this is turning out to be a non-explanatory vp:vote instead of something about the actual tban.
Heimstern, I'm still very disappointed that there is no actual discussion here about why/how/if I've violated the ban on any of the edits, given the advice that T Canens himself gave me but rather the fact that I have raised criticism. Nonetheless, I'll save you the ink and take a voluntary two week abstention from WP. Whether you feel that this should be longer or not, I kindly request that any further comments be beneficial to the ARBPIA under which this was brought up. --Shuki (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki[edit]


Seraph, in the AE case directly above this one you said, "The correct thing to do in such a situation would've been to bring that to Dailycare's attention, not to run straight for AE." Indeed, the correct thing to do in a situation when an editor has a momentary lapse of judgment, as Dailycare and Shuki may both have had, is to bring the matter to their attention rather than race to file a retaliatory AE and escalate the situation rather than resolve it discreetly. You're an Admin. Explain to Shuki that he shouldn't be discussing I/P-related issues. If he subsequently reverts his edit on your Talk page, you should withdraw this Request.—Biosketch (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Biosketch is right, there isnt a point to "punishment" here. Just tell Shuki to stop discussing the topic area, full stop. Shuki, if you want to appeal your ban then do that, but until then you need to understand the scope of the ban. Dont talk about anything related to the topic area anywhere on Wikipedia (and being combative here is never going to help). Thats all that needs to be said. AE doesnt have to be this way, you dont have to use the biggest hammer you have. A light tap on the shoulder will be more effective in "preventing" future issues than a fist to the face. There are times, and people, that merit some consequential administrative response. This is not one of them. nableezy - 06:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I concur with Biosketch and Nableezy's request for clemency, though I disagree with their arguments. Seraph's point of indictment is correct, and the now meme-ish rehearsals of TC's putative bias are beginning to look bad, whatever the reason. It doesn't help that any one judgement is being measured for coherence against judgements made against 'adversaries', rather than in terms of its intrinsic merits. Dailycare's case is quite distinct from Shuki's, because these two edits patently violate the topic ban (a) Shmuel Eliyahu and (b) Majdi Halabi. In both cases however Shuki was under the impression he was only adding information relevant to those people as Israelis ('it was made clear that editing Israel-related articles is not a violation of the I-P tban,'). From ground level, there's a huge amount of empirical evidence for my impression that many editors do not trouble to read the whole page before adding in some item from an article they have just read, which looks, in context, neutral, and I think this must be what caused Shuki's oversight. Since Seraphimblade didn't mention them, and Scarpia (who rightly did nothing) only mentioned the fact on my page (and I myself just advised him to be careful), I suppose they are not relevant to the original indictment. If they are, then perhaps Shuki could just be reminded strongly that 'Israeli-related pages' that happen to also mention Palestinians in a conflict context (Shmuel Eliyahu, Majdi Halabi) are strictly off-limits, and that he, like the rest of us, should desist from the meme of insinuating that admins whose judgement one dislikes are ipso facto, biased. All judgements here are collegial, in the end, and endless chipping away at this or that member of the jury's reliability is counterproductive, aside from poisoning the well. I can say this because both TC and Seraph backed my own recent ban (which I deserved), and, though I might question its nuances, their judgement struck me as serene and disinterested.Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • And, Shuki, since you were offended (unknown to me) by my confusion of you with User:Shrike, I apologize for the, thanks to Nableezy's lynx-eyed examination, momentary error. No malice intended, just old eyes, haste and old age. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Shuki[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Seems like a pretty flagrant violation of the topic ban. Given the somewhat unusual block log of Shuki, I'm not sure about a block length, but probably extended. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • ZScarpia (talk · contribs) documented a few other violations here. The block log is a bit unusual but the ARBPIA sanctions log has 8 entries on him counting the 6-month block. A block sounds appropriate.

    Just for the record, I emailed arbcom about the JJG topic ban after I closed the thread (as it happens, I was informed that JJG did so as well), and they see no problem with it. Under these circumstances, I don't think it necessary or appropriate to recuse. T. Canens (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Clear violation (violations, if the ZScarpia ones are included), and what looks to me like a smokescreen attempt portray admins dealing with the situation as biased. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Regardless of intention, I find the suggestion of involvement unsustainable. And regardless, the involvement of Seraphimblade is not the point here, whether or not Shuki violated the topic ban is, so I have a rather hard time assuming there is a good faith reason for bringing it up. All of that aside, there seems to be agreement here that Shuki has violated the ban and should be blocked. Given the length of time since the last block log entry, I'd think a shorter block, maybe a week would be reasonable, but will wait to hear what others think. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
      I'm fine with a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      Fine with me too. T. Canens (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • A week seems not unreasonable, particularly taking Shuki's own comment about a self-imposed two week break. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


GoodDay blocked for one month. — Coren (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2012 (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 GoodDay[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 11:29, 28 July 2012‎ Commenting on on-going diacritics discussions
  2. 11:51, 29 July 2012 Creating list of honourees in the fight against diacritics
  3. 19:13, 30 July 2012 Adding to list
  4. 22:02, 30 July 2012 Adding to list
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

User has a history of trying to push the boundaries of various sanctions they are under to see what they can get away with. They have already been blocked under this arbitration ruling once. The edits above are clearly him trying to cheer-lead those who he feels support his beliefs in the area of diacritics. This only adds to the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that was part of the problem he has had in the past. Clearly he hasn't understood that he needs to just drop the stick and walk away. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning GoodDay[edit]

Statement by DJSasso[edit]

@John Carter: In his last Arb Enforcement Request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive117#GoodDay it does seem to indicate it applied to his own talk page, so I would take that to mean that it would also apply to his user space. I wouldn't have posted this had he not done essentially the same thing as what he did in his last enforcement request and was blocked for. (same as in it was a comment in his userspace) -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@Rrius: Actually the Arb decision does specifically cover what he has done. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#GoodDay_warned it specifically mentions if he continues any of the actions which were stated in the Findings of Fact. Of which engaging in a battleground behaviour is one of them. Clearly he is egging on his "side" of what he perceives as a battle in his comments. That would be continuing to engage in a battleground mentality. As such he is directly acting against the decision that was handed down by the Arbs. -DJSasso (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: You said "(3) he's now promised to actually heed the restriction". However, he promised both in the last enforcement request and at the original ruling to heed the restriction. What makes this claim any more likely to stick than the last two times he promised. This is a user that is under two different and distinct topic bans, not some innocent editor who made a mistake. He didn't accidentally break his sanctions, this was clearly deliberate. I'd actually support moving this up to amend the original ruling to actually have Arb look at more of his actions. I didn't realize that was an option when I made this request. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

At the risk of breaching the anywhere part of the 'said' topic-ban (by posting here), I'd accept a 1-month block. Furthermore, I'd endeavor to refrain from posting directly or indirectly about 'said' topic-ban. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning GoodDay[edit]

  • Comment Although I'm familiar with both editors, I'm not really sure where all this "diacritics" debate began. Most likely been going on for a while, but I have neither the time nor the patience to go reading the entire dispute over diacritics. What is the question here is whether or not GoodDay violated the topic ban. Although I never took part in any discussion on this in the past, I disagree with the wording of the topic ban that has been placed on GoodDay. Editors should not be banned from voicing their opinions on talk pages. Banning from editing main article content is one thing, but not from voicing opinions on talk pages, even if that opinion is unpopular or even at times obnoxious. That said however, although I did not take part in the past arbitration discussion that imposed the topic ban on GoodDay, that does not mean that the arbitration findings are not valid. I am, of all things, consistent, or at least I try to be. If a guideline, MOS, or in this case an arbitration finding says "not to do something", then that "something" should not be done, even if I don't agree with them. In this case the first sentence of GoodDay's arbitration ban say "indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics." Those edits he made on his user space seem to be diacritics concerned and appear to violate the ArCom ban. Sorry GoodDay. I would, however, push for a stern warning on this, rather than a block or worse. The fact that "user space" was to be included may not have been completely evident to GoodDay. Suggest adding "user space" to the original ArbCom result. In addition I suggest that DjSasso steer clear from any discussion that GoodDay is involved in, unless GoodDay initiates contact first, such as at an unrelated discussion page, on an unrelated matter. As long as GoodDay continues to abide by the findings of the ArbCom, however--JOJ Hutton 19:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to agree with DJSasso. "Anywhere on the English Wikipedia" indisputably includes User: space — and, in particular, subpages of User:GoodDay. This interpretation was considered necessary in order to prevent GoodDay from continuing to act disruptively on this topic anywhere on Wikipedia, including by incitement, proxy, or other indirect means. I realize GoodDay disagrees with, resents, and/or rejects this interpretation of his topic ban, but the clear consensus at the previous AE discussion a month ago went differently — namely, that the ban did cover his "own" spaces — and in the absence of a clear followup ArbCom motion or community consensus saying otherwise, I would consider this to be a settled matter.
It is completely appropriate (and, under the circumstances, not harassment of or a personal attack on GoodDay) for people to question the appropriateness of material such as the last two sections currently in User:GoodDay/My stuff. It seems reasonably clear to me (from examining the recent discussions on the cited pages, together with recent editing by the named editors) that GoodDay is, in fact, continuing to comment (indirectly) on diacritics discussions — a general subject area which he was ordered to avoid completely — and if this is not in fact what GoodDay is doing, he needs to speak to the subject of the inquiry (not to the motives of the person who made the inquiry) and patiently, courteously explain what he did mean and why he believes his comments were not a breach of his topic ban.
I'm sorry to see GoodDay truculently rebuffing DJSasso's calm and friendly attempts to point out that the Simple English Wikipedia (which GoodDay was considering moving to) may not be the diacritic-free paradise GoodDay apparently assumed it to be. GoodDay does have the right (per WP:REMOVED) to remove comments from his own talk page, though it is not appropriate for GoodDay to try to change the subject here (in this AE request) by posting ad hominem attacks against DJSasso for filing the request. If GoodDay wants people to discount this AE request as a personal attack against him by DJSasso, he must first argue convincingly that the AE request itself is baseless — something which, as best I can tell so far, he has not even tried to do.
Finally, I think it's appropriate to observe that GoodDay was sanctioned by ArbCom (see here), not out of a desire to impose a specific position on diacritics and suppress any dissent from same, but because GoodDay was found to be pursuing his views on diacritics in a disruptively uncollegial, "battleground" manner. ArbCom warned GoodDay that any "additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies" — not narrowly related to diacritics, but (as I would interpret it) any continued unwillingness to work collaboratively with others here or to respect their views or contributions — could lead to additional sanctions. I certainly would prefer not to see GoodDay torpedo himself out of spite, but if he simply will not change his approach to this project, I'm afraid that is likely to be the result. — Richwales 20:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Except that the ArbCom result does not say "avoid completely". It says don't change diacriticals and don't "participate in discussions" about them. None of those four diffs shows him doing either of those things. If ArbCom had wanted to say "avoid completely", they could have. They didn't. There is nothing in their ruling that bans general comments in the user space about the thrust of diacritic usage in the project is a bad thing, yet he was blocked over that for week. There is certainly nothing in the ruling that bans stating that he is enjoying reading two talk pages and showing approbation for the efforts of some of the editors there. Frankly, people are stretching the ArbCom ruling beyond what it says and stretching GD comments beyond what they actually say. If people really want the topic banned amended to have the broad sweep people are pretending it already has, they should work to reopen it and make the amendments instead of broadening it through enforcement. What's happening here is frankly unfair and seems rooted in animus toward GD from people who are sick of him rather than a calm, arms-length consideration of what the evidence actually shows he did. -Rrius (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As an addendum, I wish to say that I have not seen anything at all in DJSasso's recent interactions with GoodDay that I would find uncivil. Calmly mentioning that another project (specifically, the Simple English Wikipedia) may not meet GoodDay's idealistic imaginings was not harassment in my view, but common courtesy. And alerting the community to an apparent violation of an ArbCom sanction is certainly not any sort of civility violation (as long as it is done in good faith, which appears to me to be clearly the case here). As I said before, if GoodDay feels this AE request should be dismissed as frivolous, and/or that DJSasso should be sanctioned for generating it, GoodDay first needs to convince people that the concerns about his recent behaviour are unfounded, and then put forth his harassment claim, backing it up with evidence (not simply reiterating it with frustration). — Richwales 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If an ArbCom case specifically about you isn't enough to change your ways, I can't see how a lenient sanction would effect much of any change. This sort of sneaky infantile attitude has no place here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    This is a very poor choice of words. I suggest striking them. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This enforcement action seems like form over substance. When I saw GD's edit summary referring to DJ's censorship attempts, I thought he was exaggerating. Silly me. We are talking about a six-month ban for such innocuous comments that only someone who had been doing battle with him for years and was looking for an excuse to get him blocked would even guess what the hell he was talking about.

What was the point of the topic ban? IIRC, it was to stop disruptive editing at articles and WikiProjects, and associated talk pages. What difference does it make if GD makes veiled allusions about the topic at his talk page? Editors who can't stand it don't have to have his talk "My stuff"" page in their watchlists. If his talk page were to become an alternative venue for diacritic discussions, there would be some rational basis for action. As it stands, the only people taking any notice of this at all are people who know (or assume they know) what he's referring to and don't agree with him, so what he says will have no effect but to gratify him and annoy people who needn't read what he's saying anyway.

But if people want to be formalist, let's be formalist. Here's what the ArbCom result says: "GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia." The first part is clearly talking about substantive edits, as opposed to discussions. Otherwise the second part of that sentence would say "including participating in any discussions". This is made clearer by the other sentence: "This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics."

Now, what did GoodDay do? First he said, "I'm enjoying reading up on the discussions at those places." That was said below a section header saying, "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)". That clearly doesn't constitute an edit concerning diacritics in the way the result from ArbCom was written. But was it a discussion of it? It's frankly hard to see that. He not only doesn't mention diacritics, but he avoids even mentioning any particular discussions at those pages. It would be wrong to start blocking people because others read things into innocuous references to talk pages.

The other three diffs deal with additions to that same thread on his talk My stuff page. First he said, "PS: Thumbs up for the efforts of [two editors]". Then he adds editors with the two other edits. In none of those edits does he mention diacritics or participate in a discussion about them. Nor does he say what it is about the efforts he approves of, or even what the efforts are. Leaving aside that diacritical marks aren't mentioned, a monologue is not a discussion.

The thrust of the actions involved here is to say he is enjoying two discussions and compliment some of the participating editors. Is that really the basis on which we wish to take drastic enforcement actions? If GD is testing the boundaries, so what? That only matters if he crosses them, and if he has done so here, then Wikipedia is truly not what it is supposed to be.

The reality is that GD received the topic ban then was blocked for saying things at his talk page. He was surprised, given the wording, that a one-sided rant, as opposed to actually participating in a discussion was against the topic ban. Frankly, he had a point. If the topic ban was really supposed to sweep so broadly, it should have been more broadly written. Sure, "anywhere on the English Wikipedia" is broad, but the wording, especially the implication, of actions banned was not. It reads like he can't make diacritic edits and he can't participate in the discussions about them. It arguably also takes in making his talk page an alternative forum for those discussions to move to.

It does not, however, on its face include a ban on noting his displeasure with the broad thrust of what is happening with diacritics across the project or commenting on the pleasure he is getting from reading other discussions and his appreciation for the unnamed efforts of specific editors. If he had, rather than commenting on his page, given the listed editors barnstars that didn't mention diacritics would he have been brought here? Would he be facing a six-month ban? If so, ArbCom needs to make sure going forward that people can be punished for saying that they are enjoying discussions at talk pages, without mentioning the particular discussions, and showing appreciation for the "efforts" of other editors, without mentioning the efforts or their general thrust of those efforts.

This whole muzzling attempt is squalid, and I hope the administrators who have comment below, and those who come along later, will read what GD actually wrote and think on the implications of taking the sort of action they are currently talking about. -Rrius (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that this was on a user page called "My stuff" rather than a talk page of any description makes the case for enforcement even weaker. He clearly wasn't changing diacritics or participating in a discussion since the page in question isn't one where a discussion would take place. I really hope no one who's supported a long block has actually read what GD said. While slipshod, it is certainly better than having full knowledge of this and still thinking his actions conflict with the block. Making veiled comments shouldn't be viewed as "participating in a discussion". Making veiled comments in a place that isn't a forum for discussion certainly shouldn't. Again, if you want to ban him from saying anything in anyway in any place that anyone could possibly view as having something, however distantly, to diacritical marks, then make the ban say that instead of telling him he can't change diacritics and participate in discussions about them. -Rrius (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Am I the only one who feels that six months is way too drastic? If GoodDay had actually made "main space" edits or had joined a discussion, that would have been clearly out of bounds of the ArbCom decision, but given the fact that these edits were far from any of that and were clearly meant for his user space only, and may have passed unnoticed if not for the fact that some editors tend to overdramatize the simple, I think that a simple amendment to the original Arbcom ruling would do the trick. And as long as GD abides by that, there shouldn't be any need for a long term punitive block.--JOJ Hutton 03:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    I might find it too drastic if not for all the other behavioural issues, some of which I note below. But I think this diff is a good example of the problem. GoodDay is willfully blinding himself to the fact that it is his own actions that have gotten him to this point, not the actions of "bad intentioned editors". I think what we are seeing here is a community that has finally gotten tired of watching him play the victim, watching him always assume bad faith in other editors (several sections of his my stuff page are written in that vein), tired of dealing with his "I didn't hear that" replies to everything, and tired of the battleground behaviour. In some ways, we may have done a disservice by focusing the arbitration case on diacritics rather than his overall behaviour. But the truth is, if we had, he would have been banned already. When he was facing bans in his arbitration case, GoodDay promised he would stay out of the diacritics issue. He didn't. When he was told, in no uncertain terms, after his first breach to stay out of the issue, he said he would. He didn't. So here we are again, and once again, he is promising to stay out of it entirely. Frankly, he won't. He has already shown that he simply can not, or will not, drop the behaviours that have gotten him to this point. Mostly because he simply refuses to look at himself, choosing instead to blame "bad intentioned", "prideful" or "home-country pride" editors. Is six months too drastic? Maybe. But frankly, what else is left to try? Block him for a month, and we'll be right back here in two, I guarantee it. Resolute 13:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Well when GoodDay continues to be taunted by others, its only natural for him to want to defend himself against personal attacks. He couldn't comment on the threads, so he took the only natural course he felt he had left.--JOJ Hutton 20:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe "anywhere on the English Wikipedia" means "anywhere". And everything we put in user space is supposed to be relevant to development of the encyclopedia (see WP:NOTBLOG) — so material in a user subpage called "my stuff" is properly considered to be related somehow to one's work or interaction here (otherwise it doesn't belong here).
Note, further, that the ArbCom ruling warned GoodDay of substantial additional sanctions "in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies" — not exclusively related to diacritics. So, any sort of allegedly nonconstructive conduct on GoodDay's part is fair game in this forum, and IMO it's perfectly appropriate to evaluate current behaviour in light of past (mis)conduct.
Whether GoodDay has exhausted the community's patience (and deserves a lengthy block), or whether he may perhaps be deserving of one more chance (and thus a shorter block) to show that he really can behave, is something the community — many of whom have dealt with GoodDay in far more depth and breadth than I have — will need to decide. But I believe it's perfectly appropriate for this discussion to proceed. — Richwales 03:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by a nobody[edit]

It seems many of the commenters have lost their sense of why we are all here and are caught up in some Stanford prison experiment style mentality where they believe it is their duty to beat down those who make any infraction, while losing all perspective of reality. Sure the man made an infraction, but one so small no one would have ever noticed unless they were watching his every move. Not a single article, talk page, project page, etc was affected by his infracting edits, that's how insignificant this is. Yet look at his contributions, he does a large amount of work to create a better encyclopedia (in case you forgot, this is why we are here). His blocking would be detrimental to our cause of building an encyclopedia. Perhaps the complainant should learn how to remove the infractor from his watchlist and as long as the infractor does not edit on diacratics outside of his personal space, or ask others to edit on his behalf from his personal space, let him be, don't take this so seriously y'all. Canadian Spring (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems the editors - besides the OP who is trying to remove an ideological enemy - are all questioning how such insignificant edits could deserve a block while all the admins are calling for high punishment, it is unfortunate that so many admins are sadists who live in ivory towers. Canadian Spring (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Resolute[edit]

One of the concerns I raised at one point in the arbitration case was that locking GoodDay out of the diacritics debate could cause him to simply move his issues to other arenas. His sly support of fellow anti-diacritics editors on his /My Stuff page is not something I would have been too concerned about in isolation, though I did also notice it. But his continuing tendencies to foster disputes and edit war, running afoul of WP:POINT, WP:IDHT and WP:TE are simply not going away. He apparently edit warred on some American political articles in mid-July, according to this, and over the last month has fought numerous editors over a little banner at Adam Oates, Joe Sakic, Pavel Bure and Mats Sundin (3-5 reverts on all articles over that period). And after seemingly accepting (with poor grace) that his preferred version was not accepted, attempted to undermine a GA nomination. That led to this exchange at my talk page where I finally reached the end of my rope with GoodDay. I've given him the benefit of the doubt far too often as it is. The truth is, There is no reason not to believe he is going to continue to exhibit battleground behavour as long as he is a Wikipedian. You kick him out of one arena, and he'll just go find another. I am not sure that there are any solutions left that don't involve long-term blocks. Mentoring has failed, short blocks have failed, topic bans have failed. Honestly GoodDay, what is left for us to try? Resolute 03:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If an enforcement to be imposed for the stuff you bring up in that paragraph, it is should be part of the request. The edits in question here are the only basis for deciding whether to punish, and they just aren't enough. They certainly don't rise to the level of the punishment being discussed. What is being discussed here is monstrously unfair. It may well be that behaviour you bring up fits the ArbCom ruling or reopening it or whatever, but the veiled comments certainly do not warrant a six-month ban. -Rrius (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason to not consider overall behaviour when deciding on a sanction here. — Coren (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Not sure I follow. DJSasso started this enforcement request on the premise that GoodDay violated a sanction and lists a few edit diffs which he claims demonstrate that. That is the only reason why this procedure exists and it should define the scope of what we are discussing here. Rrius claims the evidence given is insufficient to show that Goodday violated the terms of his sanction and therefore there is no ground for any (further) punishment. I see no reason why we should now also, as you state, 'consider overall behaviour'. That is not what this is about, although apparently some would like it to be. It amounts to saying "Well, regardless of the merits of this case while we are here let's see what else we can throw at GoodDay". Really, is that how it works?--Wolbo (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It does seem kind of strange that it would work that way. First it would be "did he violate anything" and if no or insufficient, then we are done and move on. Nothing else would matter at all. If there is no question of his guilt then and only then would you look at past sanctions. But 6 goodness, you'd think he bugged the Watergate building or lied to a grand jury about screwing an intern. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I certainly find it depressing that the proposed sanction is based on something other than what is alleged. This forum is supposed to be about enforcing Arbitration rulings, yet the question of whether what GD has done actually constitutes a violation requiring enforcement has become secondary, and the arguments that his conduct doesn't actually violate the ruling has been ignored. He didn't edit a diacritic, and he didn't "participate in a discussion about same". Only one admin has responded to that point, and it was with a reference to the irrelevant phrase "anywhere on the English Wikipedia". The only sense in which the location of the edit is relevant is with respect to whether posting what he did in a forum that is not a place of discussion constitutes "participating in a discussion".
Yet admins are ready to blithely impose a six-month ban based on "overall behaviour". If some sense of his "overall behaviour" is what he is to be judged on, then that should have been the basis for this enforcement action, with diffs. Instead, admins seem perfectly willing to simply ignore the text of the actual ban to punish him because they think he's an asshole. It is one thing to look at overall behaviour in assessing the punishment after making a rational determination of guilt on the actual conduct alleged, but it is another to just declare him guilty without actually bothering to show how in the hell his conduct actually violates the ban. To show in those four diffs how he edited a diacritic or "participated in a discussion about same".
If people want to impose sanctions for overall behaviour, how is this the right forum? Something like that should be at AN/I or the like. -Rrius (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Overall behaviour is always discussed in these requests. Especially when the overall behaviour is listed in the second part of the sanction against him. The reason I linked directly to the diacritics is that it was the most obvious example and I knew that overall behaviour is always discussed in these sort of discussions so it wasn't necessary to list that section above as well. If it upsets you that its not listed above and wasn't alleged (even though I quite clearly allege it in my comments that were part of the request) I can easily edit my request up at the top, but that seems overly bureaucratic when it is quite the norm to investigate an editors entire conduct when they come to requests like this. His conduct very clearly violates the part of his ruling that tells him to no longer engage in battleground behaviour and that if he does so he could be blocked without warning. To argue that he hasn't violated his sanctions because I only linked to one part of his sanctions is quite a stretch.
And it didn't go to ANI because he was already under Arb Com warning about his overall behaviour so this was the most appropriate venue. That being said, this discussion would likely already be over with him site banned had it gone to ANI, this was by far the less harsh way to take this situation. Considering he is under a topic ban for the British Isles which he violated and was blocked for once and he is under a topic ban for diacritics which he violated once and was blocked for. This being the second time now. That is 4 separate times he was told by the community or the arbs to stop engaging in battleground/disruptive behaviour. ANI tends to crucify editors in those situations. Not to mention editors with two distinct topic bans are often site banned to begin with, he was given mercy in the original arb case when the arbs didn't site ban him. So a 6 month block is a very very light block for someone in his current situation. If two different topic bans and blocks after he violated both of them once didn't give him the clue he needs to just drop the stick and walk away then longer and stronger ones are needed. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Rrius, most of the arbs commented on this before I submitted my comments, and several continued to focus on what DJSasso brought after (i.e.: Calil). Personally, I am not saying we need to block GoodDay for six months, but I am saying that there are overall patterns of behaviour that need to end. I have tried to impress that on him myself - especially during his arbitration case - without success. If we can find a way to stop that behaviour without a long block, I'm all ears. Resolute 12:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by MakeSense64[edit]

I have been watching this saga from a distance. First of all I would like to say that I learned something new here: the mere act of posting a wikilink to a discussion I enjoy reading, now makes me a "participant in that discussion". I didn't know that. I am already looking forward to the next great "invention".
More generally on what is going on here. I don't know GoodDay very well, but from what I have seen he may well be the type of person who does not have the arguing skills that some of us have, who doesn't know by head which policies to quote, and who has the heart on the tongue, as we say. It's not an art to "needle" such people with minor annoyances until they are angered and have an outburst and violate some "rules" of civility or other. So, such "rules" are very nice in theory, but basically all they lead to is a flourishing culture of passive aggressive tactics, which wp is now full with. Some people cannot deal with such tactics very well, they feel they are being wronged but they cannot argue their case, and let their heart speak. You can then proceed to get that person sanctioned on the basis of some written rules. Wunderbar! But rare is the judge who also takes a proper look in all the "needling" that has been going on before the problems started.
It is wikipedia's failure if it cannot find a way to let such people perform a useful function, if they want to. GoodDay has been mostly gnoming and is listed as one of the 400 most active wikipedians. So what we see here is basically this scene: the most active gnome in the community has been fitted a straightjacket, and now they are even trying to fit him a gag ball. Well, our admins can be proud of that. Let's wish them good luck in their ivory towers.
In the middle ages we were more advanced. This type of people was allowed to take the role of clowns, they would do small jobs around the castle and they were the only ones who could directly criticize the king and the ministers, point out when they were without clothes, or let the population know about all the little corruptions and things like that. They were not silenced, and they were respected. Now we are "much more evolved", of course... Be well MakeSense64 (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to Courcelles[edit]

The issue is not "anywhere on the English Wikipedia", but with whether what this enforcement request is based on violates what he was banned from doing "anywhere on the English Wikipedia". If you intended to include edits that don't involve edits to diacritics and don't involve discussion of them, then you did a poor job of drafting. The actual wording of the ban should give the editor a clear understanding of the conduct that will result in punishment. The text of the ban does not give adequate warning that vague comments saying he is enjoying reading two discussions will fall within the ban. Imposing a six month ban for the actual edits involved here is so far beyond reasonable that it is hard to believe you people are actually considering it. -Rrius (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to those calling for 6 months[edit]

Why are you (plural) seeking to have me blocked until February 2013? I didn't go around diacritics anywheres on main space or their corresponding talkpages. I didn't take part in any diacritics discussion atall, nor have I influenced any diacritics discussions. I merely stated what I enjoyed doing (and continue to enjoy), when not gnoming - is that violation? I praised 4 editors involved in the thing I enjoyed observing- is that a violation? Anyways, I just want to continue gnoming & if necessary, I'll simply avoid posting anything on my talkpage, as it's now apparent that my own space is under a microscope. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: I wasn't aware (until Djsasso reported me) that I was barred from making the posts-in-question, at my (now deleted) secondary page. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

GoodDay obviously violated his topic ban; that is not in dispute. It is also clear that GoodDay did not help himself with his opening comments. Why it's taking so long for GoodDay to understand what a topic ban is, I don't know. But I think that Canadian Spring makes some excellent points. In getting caught up in enforcing the rules, it's easy to forget why we're all here: creating an encyclopedia. As Canadian Spring points out, GoodDay's violations were so inconsequential that nobody would have ever noticed if they weren't astutely following his contributions. A 6 month ban is far too excessive. A 1 month ban seems more than enough for a first-time violation. Subsequent offenses can dealt with more harshly. Further offenses can be dealt with more harshly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a second time violation on this particular topic ban. Not sure if that is what you meant in your second last sentence. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I stand corrected. A month still seems more appropriate than 6 months, but splitting the difference might also be reasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning GoodDay[edit]

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

The phrasing of the topic ban explicitly says GoodDay is "indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia." The question seems to be whether this extends to GoodDay's own userspace, as the edits in question seem to be in some way marginally concerning diacritics. I would have to assume the answer is "yes," as they qualify as a form of discussion about diacritics, but do not know whether they rise to the level of sanctions or, if they do, how strong such sanctions should be. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a pretty clear infraction to me. Several recent comments on his user talk page and his "my stuff" page are not-so-veiled references to his diacritics crusade ([5], [6]. The intent of the Arbcom sanction was for him to disengage. That's why it explicitly says "anywhere on the English Wikipedia". You don't disengage by continuing to stand at the sidelines of the discussion and cheer or sneer at those still engaged in it. Fut.Perf. 20:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We covered the same ground in the previous AE that closed on June 30. Some participants in that AE predicted that GoodDay would continue testing the limits. This prediction has come true. It appears that the choice now is between a longer block than one week or a complete ban from Wikipedia. Unfortunately there does not seem to be much chance that GoodDay is going to willingly accept the Arbitration decision. Since negotiation is unlikely, the question is what block length is best. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: The consensus here is leaning toward a long block, so it is not clear why a referral back to Arbcom would make any practical difference. If you are thinking that the case needs a block of more than a year, perhaps you could clarify. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay the maximum block under authority of the case is one year. It is common for some admins to issue an indef by imposing one year of AE block and a non-AE block for the rest. I would support anything from six months to indef, subject to others' recommendations. If it is a year or more, we should include a provision that the sanction can be appealed after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the previous AE covered the limits of the ban, and it was made crystal clear to GoodDay that "topic ban" meant to stay away from the subject entirely, I'm not seeing much hope here, especially given that GoodDay can't even maintain civility on this thread, instead referring to people as "miserable" and "dick(s)". I would say the absolute minimum here should be a month, but I'm strongly considering longer. GoodDay seems to be inclined to keep putting a toe over the line and smirking rather than staying well and completely away from the subject as the ban requires. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Seraphimblade pretty much said what I was thinking above. I tend to err on the side of generosity, but would agree that at least a one month block is called for, combined with a clear statement that the next sanction, if there is one, will almost certainly be an indefinite ban. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • To clarify my above, I have no objection at all to a longer sanction (I was saying a month is the minimum I would agree with), and indeed, given GoodDay's steadfast refusal to accept that he is the reason this is happening, I'm in favor of a more substantial sanction. At this point, I'm ready to take AGK up on his suggestion and ask ArbCom to pass a siteban by motion—it was a whisker away from it before, or so I understand from reading the case, and I think it's pretty clear that patience is rapidly becoming exhausted. Since GoodDay will not accept responsibility for what's transpired here, I really don't see any hope of it changing after a block, be that for a month or a year. Unless any of my colleagues object or think another solution is preferable, I'll file such a request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Support filing of request. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    I don't really see why we would need to involve the committee again here. The committee is only the tie-breaker for when the rest of the community can't agree on something. Since there seems to be a pretty solid consensus here that a sanction is in order, whey don't we just do it? On the other hand, I personally find six months or longer a bit draconian, especially since (1) the actual disruptive effect of what he was doing has been fairly minor; (2) it should be easy enough for him to comply with the restrictions in the future – and equally easy for us to block him again swiftly if he doesn't; (3) he's now promised to actually heed the restriction, if only grudgingly, and (4) he's presumably been doing constructive stuff elsewhere. In these circumstances, I don't really see why we'd be compelled to diverge from the normal pattern of enforcement as provided in the decision: "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year". Last block was a week, so why not do a simple escalation pattern from there? Fut.Perf. 15:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It doesn't seem clear to me that we can expect him to follow a restriction he was already under and failed to follow in the first place; but I've no objection to a month. I'm pretty sure we'll be here again less than 60 days hence, but it does give him a chance. — Coren (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
      We don't actually need to come here again at all. If he gets away with a not-so-horribly-long block now and then offends again, any admin should simply reblock him on sight, without the need for lengthy deliberations. But in any case, I won't stand in the way of consensus if you all think it should be a long one right now. Fut.Perf. 16:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • @EdJohnston: At this point I'm not seeing a time-limited remedy as something that's going to solve the issue, it's just going to delay it popping back up for a while. If you disagree though, we can certainly try a longer time-limited option first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I closed the previous RFAE, and I agree with the above. Perhaps a month will be enough time for GoodDay to finally understand that he needs to leave the topic alone. Com...ple...tely. I certainly hope so. But once again his response - blaming others rather than accepting responsibility - is uninspiring and unencouraging. I'm willing to give it one more shot, but agree that after that we need to be looking at much longer spans of block time. --Slp1 (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above; it was me who predicted GoodDay's continued testing of the limits, based on his ongoing pattern of doing so, even while the very ArbCom case about his conduct was under way. I'm not seeing anything at all from GoodDay's comments in this thread that suggests his behaviour would be any different after a one-month block. The maximum AE block is one year. But "escalating" blocks are recommended, so I will now suggest six months for this infraction. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I largely agree with Resolute's comments above at 13:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC) which conclude with "Is six months too drastic? Maybe. But frankly, what else is left to try? Block him for a month, and we'll be right back here in two, I guarantee it." Also, where I disagree a little with Future Perfect is that it would be a simple blocking him "on sight" if there is a future infraction. That is not in keeping with GoodDay's pattern I pointed out at the previous AE discussion of testing out the limits, so it's more likely there will be something that is not so blatant on first examination, and a discussion similar to this one and the previous long one will ensue. I really do think a very lengthy preventative block is needed here, as we have exhausted other options. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur with the above: "anywhere on the English Wikipedia" doesn't leave much wiggle room; it's a clear violation. GoodDay needs to drop that stick and back away. For real. Six months seems required and, even then, I hold little hope that GoodDay will drop the subject upon his return. — Coren (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • GoodDay, there is no cruelty involved. Your entanglement with the diacritics issue is highly disruptive, and you simply refuse to budge an inch or drop the matter. You've been warned and sanctioned repeatedly, and yet every time you return to your war horse. Given that you are unable or unwilling to desist, there is no choice left. — Coren (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with Coren here. Six months seems like it might finally get the message across, and although I admit I'm generally very cynical I have my doubts over whether even that will make him get it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    Rrius; your comments here are not helpful. You can make your point, but stop with the accusations. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Six months seems appropriate to me. T. Canens (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • (I drafted this particular arbitration decision.) Please remember that GoodDay was also "strongly warned" in this decision, and instead of ongoing enforcement an Amendment request can be submitted so as to prompt the committee to re-examine GoodDay's conduct. Also of note is that GoodDay was within touching distance of a site-ban at the time of the arbitration case. AGK [•] 00:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • To follow up, I wrote the specific topic ban in play here, and to my mind, there's no logical way the "anywhere on the English Wikipedia" can NOT include the user and user talk namespaces of this project. As AGK states, an amendment request to revisit this conduct would be appropriate, as well. Courcelles 06:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur with Coren, Tim, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Courcelles. I've given GoodDay a lot of rope in other topic areas only for it to end up with him being Topic Banned from them. GD is behaving in the style of a conflict junkie generally, diacritics is just the worst case of it, and the 4 diffs that DJSasso posts are indicative not only of his inability/refusal to stay away from the topic area but also show him encouraging a partisan/battleground mentality for that topic area. Regretfully I see little hope that a block of a definite duration could solve this. 6 months is a reasonable enforcement measure but frankly at this point I'd support an indefinite (but not infinite) block especially in light of GD's response to this thread--Cailil talk 16:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, it is hard to not to agree that GoodDay's statements above indicate that there might not be some sort of serious narcissism and denial of reality from that individual. If one were to seek an indefinite (but not infinite) block, what would be the terms for ending the block? John Carter (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To my mind he have to agree to a talkspace restriction everywhere and anywhere on WP, so that he engages in no ad hominem, no discussion or mention of other users, and no edits or comments relating to MOS issues, or the indef gets reinstated. But right now I don't see consensus for indef--Cailil talk 14:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm in broad agreement with all the others here who have noted a clear violation of the topic ban, but also more specifically in agreement with FutPerf that six months seems extreme. I would think a normal progression to a month or so would be more suitable, largely per the same reasoning as FutPerf. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I am largely in agreement with Future Perfect at Sunrise above that one month is a reasonable block length in this case. If others feel a stronger sanction is warranted, perhaps splitting the difference and making a 2-3 month block would address the concerns of those who feel that one month is to lenient for repeated disruption as well as those who feel that six months is draconian for a minor (in the grand scheme of things) though crystal clear, violation. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like there is broad consensus that a sanction is called for, but no consensus for a block length greater than a month. Unless anyone objects, I'll close as such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
One other point. Since the overall problem behaviour here has included abuse by GoodDay of his own user space, any block should (IMO) include a block of his talk page. The primary reason, as I understand it, for allowing a blocked user to edit his talk page is to permit unblock requests — but under these circumstances, if GoodDay does decide to appeal a block, he can just as effectively do so by e-mail (including e-mailing ArbCom if that's what he wants to do). — Richwales 18:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • GoodDay, defending yourself when accused of violating a topic ban (or appealing it, requesting clarification on it, etc.) are not considered violations of the topic ban. You won't be sanctioned for posting in your defense here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


No block. Flexdream placed on notice. T. Canens (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2012 (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 Flexdream[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
2 lines of K303 10:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Flexdream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
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 
  1. 10:04, 2 August 2012 Revert #1
  2. 10:38, 2 August 2012 Revert #2, within 24 hours (34 minutes to be precise) of revert #1
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 09:20, 13 July 2009 by O Fenian (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Editor is labouring under the misapprehension that the entire BBC archive is accessible to the public, it isn't.
Since there is some confusion below, the status of the BBC archive is actually irrelevant to this request. But to clear it up there is a discussion on the article's talk page about the source being unverifiable except for the use of a copyright violating video on Youtube which can't be linked to. Flexdream chose not to take part in this discussion yet chose to revert twice based on a flawed understanding of policy, and without providing any evidence that the source cited is indeed verifiable according to policy (including the copyright policy). 2 lines of K303 14:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not extending the scope of my complaint at all, I'm clarifying something that has come up in discussion below so there's no confusion. The "complaint" is the 1RR breach, always has been and always will be. 2 lines of K303 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Flexdream[edit]

Statement by Flexdream[edit]

Yes, I shouldn't have reverted the edit like that. Apologies.--Flexdream (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with this process. At the intro above it states "Enforcement requests against users may be brought if a user is likely to be acting in breach of the remedies in a closed arbitration case, or a passed temporary injunction (for open cases). Enforcement is not "dispute resolution". ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that the actions and behaviors in the remedies are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether or not that prohibition was breached."

If this here is an 'enforcement request' then it seems to have been a 'first stop' not a 'last stop'. Is it really necessary when a reminder of the 1RR rule either in the article talk page or on my talk page would have worked? I don't know what a 'closed arbitration case' or 'passed temporary injunction' is, but they don't seem relevant. --Flexdream (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The complainant is now extending the scope of their complaint, which seems even more unnecessary than the original complaint. The 'confusion' they complain of arises from the irrelevant remarks they made originally about the BBC archive. They are wrong in what they say. They maintain that a BBC programme is not verifiable. I disagree and said so in my comments with the edit. However, that's a content dispute and is irrelevant here. I think its a distraction in what already seems an unnecessary imposition on the time of administrators. What would be better for wikipedia - a reminder for me about 1RR as I'd clearly forgotten, or this ArbCom process? Is this really how we want to spend our time? How does it improve wikipedia? I don't imagine any uninvolved administrator wants to start trying to decide how verifiable the BBC is. That is better left to the article talk page.--Flexdream (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Flexdream[edit]

Whilst the complainant is labouring under the misapprehension that his wikilawyering is more important than --feline1 (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what Flex said above about taking this to Arbcom, but if the dispute is over whether a source is accessible online, this Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources may be helpful (unless I'm getting the dispute wrong). --Activism1234 13:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not what the dispute is "really" about, no ;)--feline1 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps. I got that impression from the original request about the BBC archive not being accessible. I'll leave it to more capable people and admins to look over. --Activism1234 14:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Flexdream[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This is fairly straight forward case: Flexdream broke 1RR. Given that Flexdream was warned in July 2009 & removed (and thereby acknowledged) that warning in October 2011[8] and given that the article itself carries the Troubles notice Flexdream should have been aware of the single revert restriction and frankly I find it quite difficult to believe that this user did not know about this ruling. But given the sporadic nature of Flexdream's edits to WP I'm inclined to assume good faith and place this user on final notice that any further edits in breach of WP:TROUBLES will result in sanctions. I'm not against a block in this case if consensus forms that one would be appropriate but I prefer the above solution--Cailil talk 15:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • For the scope of this complaint, I would agree with Cailil that given the lack of a troubled history in this area, a final warning for Flexdream is in order. Flexdream is now clearly aware that 1RR applies to Troubles articles, and will be sanctioned if that line is crossed again. If it is also being claimed that the verifiability/copyright issues brought up breached the Troubles restrictions, I would request that those claiming so open a separate request to examine that; otherwise I'd request that the discussion of it be taken elsewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cailil and Seraphimblade that this case might be closed without a block. Flexdream's name should be added to WP:TROUBLES#List of editors placed on notice since a motion last year placed Troubles under standard discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ed. Closing. NW (Talk) 17:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


Blocked 24h. T. Canens (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Crystalfile[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy 21:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Crystalfile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Violation of 1RR at Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

  1. 22:08, 4 August 2012, partial revert of this
  2. 22:19, 4 August 2012, straight revert of this

Violation of 1RR at Yasser Arafat

  1. 21:58, 4 August 2012, straight revert of this
  2. 20:39, 5 August 2012‎, straight revert of this
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Informed of the 1RR and the violation at CAMERA here (the user did not self-revert)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) detailed several instances of distorting the sources cited at Yasser Arafat at the talk page (here). The user has not answered any of the concerns and instead reverted to include the poorly sourced polemic material. In addition, the user's edits in the topic area show very obvious signs of off-wiki coordination. No "new" user makes a series of reverts across a number of articles without being directed to (see the following series of edits, all reverts that were under discussion about material that was under discussion at article talk pages:

  • [9] restores, word for word, material removed here, first added here by Jiujitsuguy
  • Immediately followed by this, revert of this (listed above)
  • Immediately followed by this, revert of this
  • Immediately followed by this, revert of this (listed above)
  • Immediately followed by this, revert of this.

The editors 17th edit was to ANI in a discussion about topic-banning Shrike, a "pro-I" editor, from a different topic. I hate to break the news, but "new" users dont find pages like these out of the blue. "New" users do not go on a revert spree spanning multiple articles. "New" users do not use the exact same sentence that was inserted weeks prior without somebody telling them to. Besides the now two 1RR violations, there are several instances of distorting cited sources (as discussed by Zero in the talk page section linked above), and clear evidence, or as clear as possible, of meatpuppetry.

And immediately after being informed of this report, this "new" user makes this edit to a page that I largely wrote, reinserting largely the same material added here and discussed here. nableezy - 21:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

After being reverted, the user re-reverted, making it now three 1RR violations in the span of one day. nableezy - 21:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And finally, in response to the excuse making below, the user was explicitly notified of the 1RR, and explicitly told how their edits to CAMERA violated that 1RR. That doesnt even begin to get into the behavior of a spree of reverts, or the behavior at al-Azhar Mosque. nableezy - 22:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

One last point. The 1RR violating edit at Yasser Arafat still can be self-reverted. The user has neglected to do so. 'nableezy - 22:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Crystalfire[edit]

Statement by Crystalfire[edit]

I am trying to help with the article and he is not helping me. I asked him which is undo number 2 but he ignored me. I never knew I was undoing anyone at Al Azhar. I did one undo which changed it because of Maliks comment. Where is the second undo? I am sorry and will be more careful to listen to the rules. Please help me as I am trying to be a good editor.

At Al Azhar I did one undo to fix a problem and not two. Nableezy is not being fair as I am editing properly after he told me this rule. I also asked him for help but he does not want to.

Comments by others about the request concerning Crystalfire[edit]

Comment by Activism1234[edit]

Crystalfire clearly didn't understand what he did wrong, and a simple explanation of it to him would've sufficed. Nableezy is also making assumptions that he's a sockpuppet, which I doubt he can back up, although is similar (but not exact) to accusations he made about me in this closed ARBPIA request. The admin there also advised Nableezy "to be more circumspect about what cases he brings here."

And actually, I can see how new editors wouldn't know about 1RR (the same was true about me when I first joined, but once I found out about it I stopped and self-reverted). That's not some out-of-this-world scenario.

Just explaining to Crystalfile what 1RR is and how it applies should be enough, and good-faith edits certainly shouldn't be brought here. --Activism1234 22:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Aren't there big boxes on top of Talk:Yasser Arafat and Talk:Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America that warn editors about ARBPIA—including 1RR? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Malik, yes there are. And their whole point is so editors don't violate 1RR. Unfortuantely, at least in my case, I just wanted to get into editing and ignored the big box at the top, which was very stupid of me, and I make sure not to violate 1RR after I was notified... It was a good faith edit, and that's what I brought up here - we should probably assume good faith for now, explain to him what 1RR is, and if he violates it again, then do the necessary whatever it is.
But that was just me... I don't intend to get overly-involved here, I was just giving my 2 cents. --Activism1234 22:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Malik I only undid you because I thought I was fixing the reason why you undid me by making it clearer in the article. I thought I was helping and I only did one undo on this article after Nableezy told me about this rule. I am discussing this on the talk and will be very careful. I didnt understand this rule because I thought I only did one undo. Thank you.

Crystal, I think you need to comment in your own section, and also please sign your posts so Malik doesn't accidentally think your comment was from me. --Activism1234 22:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Crystalfire[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Looks to me like a straight up case of a 1RR violation, so a 24 hour block would be in order here; I'll do it myself in just a couple minutes, because it looks like my connection is finally coming back and I can log into my admin account. I don't think we need to jump to topic bans just yet, though; let's see if a short block works first. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 23:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GoodDay[edit]

Appeal declined. T. Canens (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, I've been banned from the topic of diacritics across Wikipedia, the ban apparently includes my own userspace. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

I wasn't fully aware of the extent of the topic ban, concerning my secondary page (since deleted). Imho, the block can be ended, as I wish only to make gnome edits. I was blocked (see block log) after this report was tabled. It concerned content on m (now deleted) My stuff page. I will not make anymore direct or indirect posts concerning diacritics - period. I will not praise or condem editors involved with the 'said' topic. Also note, along with deleting my secondary page, I've removed my 2 conditions for which posts I'll allow on my talkpage. Furthermore, I've added links to my Rfc/U, ANI case & Arbitration case, for easier access & study purposes - in order to change my behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Coren[edit]

Copied from GoodDay's talk page without comments on the substance. Given that I both expressed an opinion in the original AE request and closed that request, I'll recuse from further involvement. — Coren (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by snowded[edit]

I was one of the editors in conflict with GD on UK related issues. Overall the pattern of behaviour over the years has been that when he gets involved in a subject he has no sense of proportion. Edit warring, provocation of talk pages and the like are all well documented. One suspects however that Wikipedia is his life. However a brief examination of his talk page indicates that there is no understanding on his part that he has in any way done anything wrong. The opposite if anything, he blames his woes on politically minded editors against whom he stands as a martyr to whichever cause he is advocating at the time. Even now his reason for wanting to be restored is that he didn't understand the nature of his ban, which to any reasonably minded editor was very very clear.

My recommendation is that he should serve his time, it may be the only way he can start to understand the level to which the communities patience has been exhausted. As long as he claims martyrdom any readmission which just (as it has always done in the past) lead to a repetition of the same behaviour. To my mind the only reason he has escaped a permanent block is the mind numbingly trivial nature of his interventions. ----Snowded TALK 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Djsasso[edit]

He says "I wasn't fully aware of the extent of the topic ban". However the first time he violated the ban he stated "I still disagree with being barred from mentioning certain topics on my pages, but I will refrain from mentioning them in future". Which indicates he was fully aware of the extent of his topic ban since he was specifically told in his first enforcement request that he wasn't allowed to discuss them on his user pages. This is him just pushing the boundaries yet again and wasting editors time yet again. I wouldn't be opposed to reupping this to arbcom for a full out arb case on his behaviour overall not just in the topic of diacritics per the comment by Br'er Rabbit below. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by GoodDay[edit]

In the discussion the led to this block two sitting arbs suggested that the issue be referred back to the AC for review. That's what should happen here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

Good grief, didn't we just finish this a few days ago? GoodDay says, "I wasn't fully aware of the extent of the topic ban." But shouldn't they have made themselves fully aware when they were originally topic-banned? Or when the first RfE was filed? Or the second RfE? Considering there was some support for a 6 month ban, I would say to let GoodDay complete the 30 day sanction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by One Night In Hackney[edit]

Suggest speedy decline as he was aware of the scope of the topic-ban per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive117#GoodDay, in particular "I still disagree with being barred from mentioning certain topics on my pages, but I will refrain from mentioning them in future". 2 lines of K303 06:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement from Resolute[edit]

I'm sorry my friend, but you knew the range of your prohibition after your first AE block. I myself tried to impress on you what it meant: [10], [11]. Consensus at the first AE supported that interpretation. You need to accept that you are banned from this topic. That you may not comment on it, anywhere in any way. Please, just take the summer off, then return with a fresh purpose. As I said in one of those comments, I can think of plenty of projects for you to gnome about that won't put you afoul of your topic bans. Resolute 14:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to add, simply for the record but requesting no action, that I feel the four anti-diacritic editors on your talk page after you were blocked are doing you no favours by attempting to impress the martyr-complex on you. I think they would be well served to let you be as my impression is their comments led you into this appeal, which has no hope of success and can only further test the community's patience with you. If my impression is accurate, then they have done you a great disservice, even if their intentions were noble. Resolute 14:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by GoodDay[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
For information: here is the RFAE discussion that ended with GoodDay being blocked on August 3, 2012. There seem to be two possible reasons why a RFAE might be overturned after 3 days.
  • One would be that it was an inappropriate sanction: a review of the discussion shows several editors suggested a 6 month block, and in a rare intervention at AE, two arbitrators suggested it be sent back to ArbCom for more serious review (and perhaps even more severe sanctions); so it actually seems that 1 month is a mild sanction indeed.
  • The second possible reason would be because GoodDay convinces the assembled populace of administrators that the message has been received nd that the block is not required to prevent disruption. Unfortunately, it is once bitten twice shy in this regard and there is a limit to how many epiphanies are convincing. After an editor has been told multiple times by arbitrators, administrators and other editors to leave a subject entirely alone, saying "the ban apparently includes my own userspace" seems the epitome of I didn't hear that because I had my fingers in my ears.
In short, I don't see any reason to overturn the block. It's good that you have the links to various pages of arbcom etc on your talkpage, GoodDay, but I suggest you simply take a good break from Wikipedia and enjoy the all too short summer. Read them and then act on them when you come back in September. --Slp1 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
GoodDay, one month was about as short as it was going to be. You were about a whisker away from either a six month or indefinite sanction. I would strongly urge you to consider what Coren said when placing the block, and as Slp1 states, enjoy the rest of your summer. Hopefully when you come back, we won't need to see you here again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


Blocked for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:56, 9 August 2012 (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 POVbrigand[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Cardamon (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
POVbrigand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

The Arbitration enforcement decision can be found in this diff: [13]

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. August 5, 2012

POVbrigand was "indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to cold fusion or fringe sciences".

Briefly, POVbrigand's edit to the article on Martin Fleischmann violates his or her ban because the page edited is related to the topic of cold fusion, and because the reference added is about cold fusion.

The article about Martin Fleischmann is related to cold fusion because Martin Fleischmann was the senior member of the pair who kicked off the cold fusion furor in 1989, and because much of the article is about cold fusion.

The source added is about cold fusion because “cold fusion” is part of its title, because most of it is about cold fusion and other supposed free-energy technologies, and because it is non-neutral enough (it takes the point of view that cold fusion is real) that adding it could be considered POV pushing. (There are more neutral articles available such as this [14] and this [15], which also say much more about Martin Fleischmann.) Cardamon (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Informed of ban here [16], by The Blade of the Northern Lights, on June 25, 2012.
  1. Warned on August 6, 2012 by Cardamon Here, I warned POVbrigand and suggested that s/he self-revert.
  2. Warned on August 6, 2012 by Cardamon after POVbrigand rejected my warning, I explained in detail why his or her edit violated of his or her ban.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The discussion at User_talk:POVbrigand#Warning, shows that POVbrigand does not recognize that s/he violated his or her ban from cold-fusion related topics. Cardamon (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notification is here.

Discussion concerning POVbrigand[edit]

Statement by POVbrigand[edit]

My motives were only to help by providing a source that was explicitly requested [17].

I understand that this is technically an edit of an article under my topic ban.

It was explained to me that I should have presented the source I found at the talk page of the editor so s/he could edit it in. I could have done that, it would have saved us this enforcement action. I would use that approach in future, but I am not sure if I am allowed to even talk about "cold fusion" topics on user pages. Can somebody explain if I am allowed to use this proposed flow in future ?

I was asked to self revert my edit, but at that time the edit was already edited further by other users. So self reverting would have been "destructive" / disrupitve (cure worse than the illness) and therefore it didn't seem a good approach to me.

It was highlighted here that I only made 2 edits since the topic ban. I would like to highlight that that is very much in line with my normal frequency of editing in the years before I stumbled upon cold fusion early 2011. I do not see any relevance in bringing that up here.

I am sorry for the disturbance. I have no problem to accept with whatever Arbcom will sanction.

However, I would kindly ask Arbcom to define how serious this violation was, because I expect that many editors will use this forfeit in their argumentation to keep me topic banned in case I would like to ask for a lift of the ban in the future. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

@EdJohnston "my explanation makes no sense" - did you actually look at the edit I made ? After Cardamon suggested I self revert and I got back to the article this had happened in the mean time [18] - How can I self revert when all these editors build upon this edit ? Tell me why my explanation "doesn't make sense" --POVbrigand (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

WOW - I just realized that the comment from Cardamon above makes absolutely no sense "(There are more neutral articles available such as this [162] and this [163], which also say much more about Martin Fleischmann.)" Those articles where not yet available when I found and provided the source.

To finalize my comment:

  • I acknowledge that it was a violation of my topic ban
  • I regret that I did it
  • I did not want to self revert because many edits had happened in the mean time, otherwise I would have taken that deescalation step.
  • I will strickly adhere to the topic ban from now on.
  • I am truly sorry that it caused this enforcement request. I apologize.
  • I meant no harm, I only wanted to provide help.

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning POVbrigand[edit]

A clear violation of the topic ban. It does not matter what POVbrigand added or deleted from the Martin Fleischmann biography; the whole thing was off limits to him. Fleischmann is, you know, the godfather of cold fusion. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit was unambiguously a violation of the topic ban, wherein POVbrigand was " indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to cold fusion or fringe sciences". The biography in question was Martin Fleischmann's (one of two scientists who started the whole cold-fusion kerfuffle in 1989), the edit added a source with the title The State of the Cold Fusion Market. Instead of immediately proceeding with enforcement of the topic ban, Cardamon generously offered POVbrigand the opportunity to self-revert, and Cardamon (and Gaijin42, and SteveBaker) made good-faith efforts to explain to POVbrigand why his edits were inappropriate. After close to two days of POVbrigand continuing to fail to 'get it', Cardamon brought the matter here.

I will note, in passing, that POVbrigand has made only two edits to article space since his ban was enacted on 25 June: one to the article of financier Viktor Kozeny, and the current topic-ban-violating edit to Martin Fleischmann. This wasn't an inadvertent slip by an otherwise-productive editor; in the roughly six weeks since his ban was imposed, he was only able to make one constructive edit outside the topic of his ban.

At this point, POVbrigand has received ample – indeed, extensive – opportunity to avoid sanction for his edit. While in many circumstances this board tends towards lenient, short blocks for 'first offenses', it is apparent that in this case POVbrigand either truly does not understand the scope of his topic ban, or he is deliberately ignoring it. In the former case, POVbrigand just isn't competent to edit here; in the latter, strong measures should be taken to discourage further disregard for the community's decision on this case. Either way, a substantial block would be appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

General agreement with the above, although I will note that I think the original ban was overbroad, not allowing him to discuss the topic even on user talk pages. However, if that is the general standard for such bans then I guess its normal. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That is the general coverage of a topic ban. Considering how many articles there are on wikipedia, it should be easy to avoid breaking a topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think clarification is also needed if possible: Is POVbrigands comments on the MfD of his own subpage which is about Cold Fusion, covered by the topic ban? i.e here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:POVbrigand/list. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Errrr, I am one of the editors who changed his edit[19], thus preventing him from self-reverting. Lesson learned. Next time I'll revert the editor, then make a new edit with my edits, making clear the text is now my sole responsibility.

POVBrigand has already said that he won't do it anymore. Next time he sees a problem, he can leave a note to Blade of the Northern Light, or send me an email. At this point, I think that there is nothing that a block would prevent, so it's getting into "punitive" territory. This time the rules have been set much more clearly. If he breaks them again, just block him then. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning POVbrigand[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • A week, perhaps? T. Canens (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that a one-week block is reasonable. Someone whose conduct has been sufficient to earn a topic ban at WP:AE ought to be careful. The editor declined to self-revert. In answer to his question above, he is banned from the topic of cold fusion on talk pages also. So unfortunately there was no way he could have got that reference into the article except by leaving a note for the admin who imposed the sanction, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. He should be aware that he is free to appeal his topic ban any time he is willing to reveal his previous accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler[edit]

Editors involved are strongly cautioned that reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior. If this continues to occur, we will not hesitate to formalize discussion of all reverts in the topic area as a requirement and/or issue sanctions. All involved are also reminded to approach such negotiations in good faith. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:13, 11 August 2012 (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 Plot Spoiler[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 26 July long term edit warring without discussion, see below.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Notified of the case by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 6 April 2010
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Plot Spoiler has been, for several months now, repeatedly removing material from the lead of an article without making any comment on the talk page. He has removed this sentence the following times:

  1. 28 December 2011
    29 December 2011
  2. 30 June 2012
  3. 23 July 2012

And then again 26 July. The user has exactly 0 edits to the talk page (see here)

The specific material was first added in June 2011, and discussed on the talk page at the time (see here). The user was directed to that talk page discussion following one of his other reverts, also involving this same sentence (see this edit summary). And there is in fact a discussion on the talk page right now that, among discussing the actual sentence, notes that the editor has yet to make a single comment on the talk page, despite repeated edit-warring. The material was unchallenged between June 2011 and this editors first revert at the end of December 2011. Since then, in what I can only describe as tag-team edit warring, it has been on occasion removed, with not one single editor having discussed its removal prior to my opening a section on the talk page on 23 July. It is unreasonable for people to have to debate the air as a user uses his 1 revert and leaves. At the very least, a restriction requiring the user explain and back up his reverts should be imposed, barring an article or topic ban. nableezy - 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, the material you claim that somebody has "glossed" over is completely irrelevant to the topic of the article. Kindly try to stay on topic here. The use of "several" was discussed on the talk page at the time the material was added, something that you, up until making one glib comment yesterday, and Plot Spolier had never done. nableezy - 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

@admins, I am sorry if you have ARBPIA fatigue. I dont know what you would have me do about that, other than not bringing such blatantly disruptive actions as long-term edit-warring and game playing to AE. nableezy - 14:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yall may be frustrated, but please trust me on this, your frustration pales in comparison to the frustration of people who deal with this crap. Since coming back from my last topic ban, I have done all that I can to correct any missteps I have taken in the past, and I have tried to be as accommodating to the complaints of "the other side" in articles. I have sought out compromise, and there have even been productive discussions with users that I am quite certain despise me, or at least did in the not too distant past. But things like this, if anybody is at all serious about correcting the problems with this topic area, cannot go unanswered. This material was in the article for 6 months, unchallenged, until Plot Spoiler first removed it without making a single comment on the talk page. Once returned it remained for another 6 months before Plot Spoiler, again without a single comment, attempted to remove it once more. At that point AnkhMorpork, who only even saw this article because he checked Nishidani's contributions, shows up to tag in, and, again without making a single comment on the talk page removed the material. After it was returned, AnkhMorpork waits for an opportunity in which the revert rules will favor him. After a revert was performed an an unrelated issue, AnkhMorpork steps in to immediately, once again, remove the material, knowing full well there is not anything near a consensus for such a removal. Two other users (Plot Spoiler and Noon (talk · contribs), neither of whom have said one word on the talk page) join, in true tag-teaming fashion, to expunge this long-standing material, material for which there was a talk page consensus for inclusion when it was first added, and not even a hint of discussion coming out of any one of them up to that point. Yall talk about "GAMING" and "BATTLEGROUND" non-stop. This right here, this is the game. You play it with your pals and systematically remove whatever happens to be on the agenda for the day. No attempt at seeking consensus, no attempt at even discussing the issue or saying, beyond "its POV", what the problem is. Yall want to fix the topic area? Then fix things like this. Thatd be a start at least. Just look at the history of the article, look at the talk page, and tell me how exactly you would have somebody deal with things like this. nableezy - 04:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. And if you want a suggestion on a discretionary sanction that will actually do something to fix most of the "behavioral" issues in the topic area, here's one. Any edit that reverted may not be re-reverted by anyone without a talk page consensus, with the standard BLP exemption. This is the most frustrating thing about the topic area, it plays out like a numbers game. The 1RR did not change the game, it just changed the math. If you want to fix something, change the formula. nableezy - 05:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Plot Spolier, AE is the board used for enforcing arbitration decisions. As you are well aware, the topic area is under discretionary sanctions as a result of an arbitration decision. Your actions violated that arbitration decision, and this nonsense about AE being my personal battleground is just that, nonsense. I have said, several times, that I do not want people who are said to be on "my side" to comment in these cases. I am not responsible for any of the comments in the section below (save for one short reply to NMMNG). You however have continued to disregard the requirement that editors justify their reverts. Days after this request was opened, months after you first attempts at revert-warring without consensus, and you still have yet to make a single comment on the article talk page. You have still yet to make even a token attempt at justifying your repeated reverts. Eluchil404 recommended an admonishment, and if thats how it is decided then fine. But the fact that even after being brought here you continue to refuse to justify your revert makes me believe that stronger action is required. The pattern of behavior of revert-warring without discussion is readily apparent to anybody who even briefly looks at your contributions. A useful exercise for any admin is to count the number of Twinke reverts shown here and compare that to the number of comments on a talk page. You routinely revert-war without so much as saying a word on a talk page. It is unreasonable to allow people to use their 1 revert and vanish into the wind, waiting for the next time to tag back in. That such actions constitute the majority of your contributions in the topic area should not go unanswered. nableezy - 17:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler[edit]

Statement by Plot Spoiler[edit]

Under no condition does this belong under WP:AE. There are many other methods of recourse he could have pursued, like WP:AN/I. This is just another manifestation of Nableezy using AE as his personal battleground. This is silly and I will only respond at the request of the administrators. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy once again plays the part of the righteous victim when he is in fact the problem. He believes that the louder he screams (by taking more and more cases to AE), the more sympathy he can elicit from the admins... which I expect they can see through. I also request he immediately strike this offensive statement that violates WP:AGF and WP:Attack: "You play it with your pals and systematically remove whatever happens to be on the agenda for the day." He's directly leveling the charge that certain editors are colluding offline to "game the system." That is a very serious charge without any merit whatsoever of course. It is just a part of his delusional fantasies that he's fighting some sort of dastardly cabal. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems clear that Nableezy should have never brought this complaint to AE. AE should be the last stop and not the first stop to resolve issues. There are many other forums he could have used, such as WP:AN/I, but he chose not to. The admins must warn and dissuade Nableezy from continuing to use AE as his personal battleground in which he knows all his counterparts will come and bandwagon with him. If Nableezy sees that AE is effective in aiding his battleground crusade, the admins should be aware that there will only be more and more cases that they will need to adjudicate on this board... and these insanely long threads of bitter acrimony. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Admins, I respectfully request you enforce WP:AGF and WP:NPA here. @OhioStandard's comments are malicious, false and out totally out of line (e.g. "radical Zionist, territorially expansionist POV"). @OhioStandard, I have barely interacted with you and I have not encountered you on Wikipedia for lord knows how long. Your comments about me reveal a lot more about you than they do about me. Please strike your malicious personal attacks against me. I edit far beyond the topic area if you bothered to look at my contributions or user page (User:Plot Spoiler). The same goes for @BaliUltimate's conspiratorial musings. Please close this case as soon as expeditiously possible so we don't have to deal with any more of this battleground nonsense... Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Plot Spoiler[edit]

  • Diff 1 and diff 3 removed the sentence "Several UN officials have said that Israel's actions are tantamount to apartheid and ethnic cleansing". This was agreed to be misrepresentative and Nishidani here specified that in fact it referred "two UN human right consultants".
  • Diff 2 is of no relevance and seems a 'padding' diff.
  • Diff 4 makes the valid point regarding well-poising and the stuffing in the lead of marginal views of two insignificant people to create an unbalanced picture. Currently the lead makes no mention of the EU's view, the UN's view but instead Nableezy is insistent that it specifically contains the view of these two human right consultants that are already mentioned later in the article. Despite my request for balance, he chooses to gloss over that the source he cites also states,"

"Dugard was appointed in 2001 as an unpaid expert by the now-defunct UN Human Rights Commission to investigate only violations by the Israeli side, prompting Israel and the US to dismiss his reports as one-sided." and that "Israel's UN Ambassador in Geneva slammed Dugard's analysis."The common link between al-Qaeda and the Palestinian terrorists is that both intentionally target civilians with the mere purpose to kill,""

Can Nableezy please explain:

  1. Why the view of two UN human rights consultants are more lead worthy than the EU's or the official UN view?
  2. Does he thinks "several UN officials" accurately describes two human rights consultants?

This is a serious breach in NPOV and an experienced editor should know that inserting sound bytes which mention the words "Israel", "apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing" into the lead of an article should be done in a very careful and balanced way and the presentation of the views of these two human right consultants was hardly that. Ankh.Morpork 11:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I'd prefer not to waste my time on being drawn into this. But you are making this into a content dispute. It is a behavioural dispute, and (to reply to TCanens) there is specifically a problem in the use of 1R as an entitlement without the burden of doing some work to explain one's behaviour on the relevant section of the talk pages. That is the crux ARBPIA hasn't resolved, and concerns the creation of workable conditions in a work-hostile area. Both Nableezy and I and some others collegially spend a perhaps inordinate amount of time on talk pages (48 edits building that page) endeavouring to find common ground, or justify edits (84 edits). In this case a rapid sequence of reverts by User:Plot Spoiler, User:Noon, User:Brewcrewer took place after you challenged a piece of information in the lead, and I corrected it and named the two distinguished international jurists, John Dugard and Richard Falk, who held that view. Leads summarise sections, and they are in the sections, with others. The rapid mass reversion is commonplace, as is the fact that, save Brewcrewer, none of the reverters has deigned to explain their view on the talk page. This is not collegial. None of you appear to have contributed to the page either. You are all active in reverting on it. So please keep your comments, if any, focused not on the content you dispute, but the behavioural patterns, if any.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
"as is the fact that, save Brewcrewer, none of the reverters has deigned to explain their view on the talk page." False. I did explain my objection on the talk page. And as to your 'content dispute' obfuscation, the sentence in question was patently unbalanced and did not require a treatise to explain why that was the case. Neither of you have explained why your edit was not a gross breach of NPOV and
  1. Why you consider the views of two UN human rights consultants are more lead worthy than the EU's or the official UN view?
  2. Whether you think "several UN officials" accurately describes two human rights consultants?

Ankh.Morpork 13:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Am I missing something obvious or does the first diff point to simple removal of unsourced content? I believe that's allowed per WP:V, specifically WP:BURDEN. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It was sourced in the body of the article, as per WP:LEAD, and when it was restored sources were added to the lead. nableezy - 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment by ZScarpia[edit]

According to AnkhMorpork, the professors of law and United Nations Special Rapporteurs John Dugard and Richard Falk are insignificant individuals and mere human rights consultants advising the UN rather than individuals with official positions in the UN. A rather swingeing, begrudging assessment I think.     ←   ZScarpia   17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant to this AE, or that you didn't bring it up for the sole purpose of mudslinging, but "human rights consultants" is Nishidani's wording [20], not AnkhMorpork's. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
My response to AnkhMorpork's comment is more relevant than your cynical speculation about my motives.
AnkhMorpork is responsible for the arguments he is presenting here. One of the arguments he/she is presenting is that the Special Rapporteurs (and it's worth reading the Wikipedia article) are outside the UN (that is, it is incorrect to call them UN officials) so that, therefore, their opinion has no more value than its being their opinion. Although, in UN parlance, they may not be officials in a constitutional sense, the Rapporteurs are appointed and work for the UN, albeit in an unpaid capacity. They are very much part of the UN. Part of the confusion has arisen because of the use of the word 'independent' in a UN source used in the article. However, what the word 'independent' signifies, as the Wikipedia article on Rapporteurs explains, is not that the Rapporteurs are independent of the UN, but that they are independent of the governments of the countries constituting the UN.
    ←   ZScarpia   21:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you know that a definition of several explictly states: being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind. That you can continue arguing in this being an accurate description of the two rapporteurs is baffling. What is even more worrying is that this inaccuracy was being used to make highly controversial claims in the lead of an article and several editors chose to restore this edit.Ankh.Morpork 10:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Ankh. As I re-edited all ambiguity was removed. Since the point was stable, removing it required at least a minimal amount of discussion. If you consider that an edit brings controversial claims, normal civil practice is, (a) introduce an edit to balance that claim, a counter-claim (b) take it up on the talk page. Just sequential reverting gets us nowhere, except, unfortunately, to AE. Peremptory reverting without the courtesy of explaining it to editors perplexed by a vague editsummary is not helpful.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
And yet you understood the point I was making when I reverted and you set about rectifying it without the need for lengthy discourse. Some edits self-evidently require fixing and the removal of these gross NPOV violations in the lead should not have led to their prompt restoration. Ankh.Morpork 11:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I corrected your objection to (and misapprehension about) it (UN personel) by naming the people as, in fact distinguished jurists in international law, not a bunch of POV-hawks bureaucrats in that disreputable organization. Had you disagreed with me, a word on the talk page was all you needed to do to find me receptive to discussion. Instead 3 different editors blow-in and revert it, without discussion. I think this peremptory, basically silent swooping to drag editors into revert wars is what we need rules for to avoid. Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
AnkhMorpork, with reference to your response to my last comment, you'll notice that the online dictionary page you linked to actually gives four separate definitions for the word 'several'. I should think Nableezy was using the third definition, separate or distinct, which corresponds with what seems to be the main definition of the word given in my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary. However, on Wikipedia it's best to be as precise as possible, so, if we mean two, it would be better to write two. From your point of view, what exactly is controversial? Are you trying to say that the comments by the two Rapporteurs aren't important enough to mention in the Lead? If that's the case, I've seen too many rent-a-bigots' comments being defacated onto articles to give you much sympathy.     ←   ZScarpia   17:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler wrote something very curious: "The fact that neither you nor your counterparts here can even being to understand why the views of two extremely controversial and dubious UN figureheads should be in the lead clearly demonstrates that. Bear in mind that nobody is trying to excise their statements from the article. It simply doesn't belong in the lead. That simple."
The Lead, of course, is supposed to summarise the contents of the article. Plot Spoiler seems to think that if the body of the article contains a description of comments made by people who he finds disagreeable, that disagreeableness is enough to proscribe mentioning those comments in the Lead. Using weight as an argument for not mentioning the comments might be reasonable, but Plot Spoiler doesn't mention that. In any case, the comments he doesn't like do figure fairly prominently in the body of the article. A second curious feature of what Plot Spoiler wrote is that it shows no awareness that, to successfully make the changes he wants, he would have to engage on the talkpage as requested and argue a case to try and establish a consensus in his favour. Instead, he seems to be driven by a sense of certainty in the correctness of his cause, that certainty making it desirable to ignore all opposition in order to make the necessary changes.
    ←   ZScarpia   01:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

When you say the comments "figure fairly prominently in the body of the article", you mean a whole 3 sentences in the last section. Or in other words, less than a 1/5th of a section that's less than a 1/5th of the article. Fairly prominently indeed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Then, that being so, you have a legitimate argument to bring to bear on the talkpage in favour of summarising the article differently. But, I think it's obvious, this is a dispute that should have been resolved on the talkpage rather than through edit warring.     ←   ZScarpia   10:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Sean.hoyland[edit]

No comment on this particular case but I'd like to say something about the admin comments regarding the number of AE reports and ARBPIA3. Compared to the number of events in the topic area that seem to me to violate the sanctions, I think the number of AE reports filed is very low. If you maintain a sufficiently large sample of the articles in the topic area and check them often enough you are pretty much guaranteed to see something AE report worthy everyday. I could have filed plenty of AE reports but it's tedious to prepare them. A large proportion of them would have been against editors who come and go, people who wouldn't be within scope of ARBPIA3. You could indef block everyone who edited an article in the topic area over the past month and it would probably be just as bad next month because there is a seemingly endless supply of people who shouldn't be editing in the topic area + socks (e.g. a quarter of the edits to this article since the end of March are by socks. The topic area is broken but I don't think less AE report filing or having ARBPIA3 would make it better. I don't know what would. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I want to comment about socks I think new users without 500 non-minor contribs and one year of experience shouldn't edit this area at all or DS area in general.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion, Shrike. Other practical things, any of us could give a list, as I've often suggested to Ed Johnson. One would be IR is not a right. (2)If you use IR you are obliged to add something uncontroversial and constructive to the article and (3) if your revert is questioned, you are obliged to explain it collegially on the talk page. It may look tough on admins, but check any talk page. The amount of work one has to do there is an enormous sacrifice of time better spent actually building this encyclopedia, and those who are writing stuff rather than engaging in unconstructive editwars by people using their revert rights and little else over numerous articles need some practical guidelines to at least make it a level playing field.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Cla68[edit]

Here are the relevant "discussions": [21] [22]. I put "discussions" in scare quotes, because none of the editors participating in those discussions or involved in the edit warring appear to have managed any civil, productive discussion on the talk page about that particular line of text. All I see is unhelpful acrimony. Administrators, I think you know what to do. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I.e. permaban Nableezy, Nishidani and Tiamut? In link 3, Benwing argued his case fairly, and was answered fairly and civilly. There was no acrimony. On the other there was no 'discussion' because, when two pleas for discussion from the reverters were posted, only one of 4 reverters turned up (excluding Ankh who just repeated a claim/meme about 'well-poisoning' and exited). There was an edge of annoyance that unclear policy and misleading deductions were being raised by just one editor of the four, but you are effectively saying that people requesting that edit disputes be argued on the page, and that those who revert and disappear, actually return to help article construction, are being acrimonious and deserve banning. The one thing some appear to have learnt tactically from the earlier ARBPIA judgement is that the phenomenon of reverting will form the basis for banning people who are actively engaged on several talk pages. That can be gamed by only reverting and then disappearing so that your presence there is otherwise not noticeable when the talk page is reviewed by Admins engaged in arbitration, who will only see dispute, and link reverts to disputatiousness.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Benwing argued his case fairly, and you reverted him without participating in the discussion, in what you'd call "tagteaming" if it weren't you and Tiamut doing it.
Then in the next section, other than making accusations, you didn't participate in any meaningful way in the discussion either.
Also, somehow it seems that the fact Huldra reverted (to the version you like) without participating in the discussion either doesn't seem to bother you at all.
Your accusations ring quite hollow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does look evil, doesn't it. As I've always said, you can insinuate anything from diffs, ignoring context. Benwing came in editing out material with edit summaries like damn this article is full of bias, see talk page I restored yes, the deleted text because it contained three RS removed by previous editors, Moshe Ma’oz (no wiki article, but a very strong authority if you are familiar with his background and books), the IDMC and the ICAHD, with the edit summary Restoring improperly deleted RS. No policy motivation in the deletion. Benwing and Tiamut were discussing the issues on the page quite adequately. Where reverters start talking to one another, and do not miss essential points evident to a third party, I generally try as a rule not to intervene, because it can't help but look like swarming the argument. When Benwing, turned up after 9 days silence on the talk page, and remarked that he found my failure to show up 'frustrating', I duly turned up that day to discuss the issues. He disappeared, and the others did not show up. Please examine however who is actually building the page there, as opposed to those who appear to cancel or revert without actually showing up on the page often. That is the gravamen at issue. Hulda's revert restores well sourced information, with a plea that those who cancel it address their points on the talk page. That said, some way has to be found to avoid the mechanical use of 1R without due explanation if challenged. Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Nishdani, yes, you've built the page in a certain manner and now you're clearly seeking to WP:OWN it to maintain a certain POV for a very biased article. The fact that neither you nor your counterparts here can even being to understand why the views of two extremely controversial and dubious UN figureheads should be in the lead clearly demonstrates that. Bear in mind that nobody is trying to excise their statements from the article. It simply doesn't belong in the lead. That simple. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I won't reply to the 'own'. It's silly. The article is certainly on a touchy issue. But it is one that is widely examined in mainstream newspapers, books and UN reports. First it was immediately up for deletion, and survived. When this happens, what those who dislike it should do is roll up their sleeves, and work on it, using the usual policy grounds. Very little that is bad, poorly sourced or POV-tilted can survive a master editor (which I am not)'s scrutiny. If one has a complaint of structural bias, just sitting and reverting something in the lead is no solution to the complaint, and silent reverting only engenders edit-warring.
(2) When now for the umpteenth time you join others in saying John Dugard and Richard Falk (please read the links) are 'two extremely controversial and dubious UN figureheads,' you should recall that John Dugard got banned under the Internal Security Act in South Africa in 1976 because of the government of the day regard his use of international law as not only 'extremely controversial' but subversive. You don't get to Princeton University (Falk) by being a 'controversible figurehead'. You get there by peer-review working your arse off in your chosen field. Rats, I've missed the opening of the Olympics.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Nishidani[edit]

Eluchil404. It is surely absolutely out of the question that User:Plot Spoiler be singled out for a ban or suspension type of sanction. I don't read much policy, but the 'discretionary' in discretionary sanctions I've always taken with the emphasis on 'discretion'. A general reminder to all editors, on whatever side, not to abuse the 1R by exercising it as a right devoid of an obligation to join the talk page, and respond to queries, is the maximum I would think any of the plaintiffs here would like to see expressed by admins. Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have said, several times, that I do not want people who are said to be on "my side" to comment in these cases

Since this may be doubted, Nableezy has my full permission to send a copy to any administrator of one of the few emails we have exchanged these past months, in which he more or less tells me to fuck off and keep clear of commenting on any AE dispute he is involved in. I probably owe him an apology as well.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Im pretty sure Ive said the same on-wiki several times. nableezy - 17:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Seraphimblade. Just a minor note on a nicety. There are a lot of I/P reverts we all do uncontroversally, and I think none of us challenge them because they are patent examples of abusive, mostly one-off IP editing. This note just to refine the point. I don't think anyone here asks that that sort of anonymous POV stuff requires more than an edit summary, rather than a talk page, explanation. Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Tiamut[edit]

Is anyone looking at Plot Spoiler's contribs here? While he has had time to revert twice (once since the opening of this case), and comment here four times, he has not made a single edit to the article talk page. That's part of the reason we end up here. There is no collaboration, only revert warring and then explaining why the revert warring is justified to admins. Also, any honest review of the article history shows that its not those removing material who open discussions, but those who revert to restore. And no discussion by those deleting takes place until after cases are filed here. again, part of the problem. As to NMMNG's allegations of tag teaming, I have made exactly one edit to this article, restoring material deleted Benwing (not the current material under discussion either). Throwing around false accusations isn't very collegial and prevents identification of the root problem. I think Nableezy's suggestion is a good one that might help change the formula. Tiamuttalk 20:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no issues with your behavior here. You made the first revert, which is fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Above, you state differently, but all of that is really beside the point. The text should be retained until a real discussion can take place about whether or not it should be in the lead. It should not be revert warred out and then when editors restore it and open a discussion on the talk page continue to be revert warred out without participating in the discussion. I mean its amazing ... the section on edit warring on talk was opened by Nableezy, commented in by Nishidani and no one else bothered to write a thing there for two days. Random editors just kept popping in to delete the same text again, without explaining why until after this AE was opened. I find that very revealing. I would have restored the text myself, but have been busy and unable to respond to Benwing's comments and did not feel I should intervene on this dispute without addressing his earlier points first. Those restoring the text are doing the right thing. Until a new consensus is forged, the old version stays up, as it did have consensus from a previous discussion. Tiamuttalk 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Bali[edit]

Just a drive by comment. Strategic reverting, coordinated by email, to put the other "side" in the soup for naughty, naughty "reverts" has been taken to an art form in this topic area (by one "side" far more persistently than the other). This is plain as day to anyone who's been paying attention. A new approach is needed, but the senior editors ("admins") are reluctant to take an empirical look at the reality, and craft appropriate, grownup remedies. So what has been going on for years, will continue for years. Account names come and go. The game remains the same.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Yes, blade my good man, I have a solution. But you won't like it, and if you did, the rest of Wikipedia would not allow it. Evaluate the use of sources, the commitment to representing both majority views of this matter (as reflected by a literature review) and a fair consideration of minority ones. Observe behavior - who is more interested in engaging the literature and higher quality news sources, who relies on marginal ones. Look for patterns of reversions by groups of editors without discussion (as I said, private coordination). And then ding the editors who come up lacking. Completely ignore shows of temper and OMG! 1rr violations in isolation. You're welcome.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have to level such extreme claims that there is some cabal that is using "strategic reverting, coordinated by email"? Please strike those statements which constitute a violation of WP:AGF and WP:Attack. You've heard of a watchlist before, right? Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Why do you blindly revert without using the talk page [23]?

Comment by Ohiostandard[edit]

I used to be quite active in this topic area. I've stopped participating in it largely because of just the kind of aggressive, non-collaborative, anti-consensus-building behaviour Plot Spoiler has (yet again) demonstrated here.

More broadly, the topic area operates like the opposing parties in the historical film, The Gangs of New York. The level of disrespect, contempt, and blatant aggression is utterly ridiculous. In addition, throwaway sock accounts abound: used for only a few days, or intermittently, every few months, they constitute something like 20% of edits in the area. When coupled with the 1rr restriction, that means that the effect of edits by would-be contributors who refuse to sock, like myself, can very easily be negated. In addition, tag-teaming is very much the rule rather than the exception.

If admins are content with the status quo, and are willing to accept the continued domination of the topic area by what are, in effect, partisan gangs who care nothing for the goals of the encyclopaedia itself, and by the very aggressive behaviour Plot Spoiler and friends have demonstrated in this instance, then they should do nothing. The result will be that editors who have greater allegiance to the integrity of the encyclopaedia than to personal "pro" or "anti" POV re the Zionist cause will continue to shun the topic area in the mean time.

Full disclosure: I disapprove of Plot Spoiler extremely, and think the project would be much better off without him, and without similarly zealous partisans: It's my personal opinion that his interest in Wikipedia is exclusively in the platform it allows him for promoting a radical Zionist, territorially expansionist POV. It's been my unfailing perception that when it comes down to a decision between the best interests of the encyclopaedia and the best interests of the current Zionist-dominated government of Israel, that he will ALWAYS choose the latter. He was a close confederate of one of our most disruptive editors, now permabanned, thank goodness, Mbz1, and once labeled me as "psychotic", albeit indirectly, for having objected to his efforts to hide the fact that a book depicting Israel as a marvel of entrepreneurial innovation, much against other non-partisan evidence, was written by an extremely active advocate for AIPAC, the Israel Lobby in the United States, often described as one of the top three most powerful in the country. In fairness, I should note that he quickly reverted that "psychotic" characterisation after Ed Johnston noticed it, and warned him that it could result in a block.

If admins want to see the persistent problems in this topic finally resolved, and want to attract editors to it who are actually committed to the goals of project itself, instead of only being interested in the project as a platform to push their own POV, they'll need to exclude editors like Plot Spoiler, who lack one or more of the patience, collaborative ethic, or just the maturity to work collaboratively and respectfully with others of very different political perspective to develop mutually acceptable and balanced presentations of admittedly complex, controversial topics. And some effective measures to exclude day-use and sleeper socks will likewise need to be implemented. Otherwise, it's my opinion that our articles in this topic area will simply function as vehicles for propaganda, as so many of them do, at present.

I conclude this with an expression of my great respect, and my very (!) great appreciation for those of you who've tried for so long to regulate this extremely contentious topic area, and who have used the very limited tools and measures you currently have available to try to exclude the unscrupulous, POV-driven editors who make most of its edits. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

PS - Except for admins, if you want to reply, do so in your own section, via an "@Ohiostandard" comment. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Perhaps the Golan Heights restriction should be considered? The main objection appears to be failure to engage in talk page discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Plot Spoiler[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Am I the only one who is rather disturbed that the vast majority of AE cases we have recently involves ARBPIA? T. Canens (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    The thought crossed my mind as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    And me three. I'm not overly fond of the thought of WP:ARBPIA3 turning blue, but if this continues, it might be necessary nonetheless. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Make me four. And I am sure that the ArbCom itself is probably even less fond of the thought of ARBPIA3. But it is beginning to look kinda inevitable, isn't it? John Carter (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Nableezy et al, we're not saying you did something wrong by bringing a complaint or discussing it, and we'll address it once we've had a chance to carefully research what's been said. But given the amount of trouble in this area, it does seem some discussion of next steps is needed as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • @Bali ultimate; if you have a solution here, by all means say what it is, but don't snipe at everyone here. That's not helping anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    That's more or less what I try to do already; that's why I haven't commented on the substance of this issue yet. I want to make sure I get the best solution; I can't guarantee success, but I strive for it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Reading the comments on this request, I notice that quite a few are addressed to the underlying content dispute (i.e what the appropriate wording and placement of the sentence in question might be). Please don't do this. It adds length to the request without adding useful context. AE will not decide the wording of the article lead, it will decide what of any sanctions to hand out to Plot Spoiler and perhaps other editors. On that note, my initial inclination, having reviewed the diffs is not to block but to admonish Plot Spoiler to discuss article wording on Talk pages rather than in edit summaries. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In order to uphold good focus in this complaint, I suggest that discussion about ARBPIA3 be moved to WP:WPAE or another appropriate venue. After this complaint is dispatched (which I hope will happen soon), more general discussions about long-term strategy will be easier to conduct. AGK [•] 16:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not terribly impressed whenever I see a revert-and-run, and in this area it's just gasoline on the fire. I propose that we first, then, offer a crystal clear final warning here—if you revert, you're expected to (preferably without prompting, at the very least upon request) explain why you reverted, be willing to come to the table to discuss what you saw as the problem with the edit, and make a good faith effort toward finding a way to come to a wording that satisfies both sides (or at least to some reasonable extent satisfies both). Slo-mo edit warring combined with refusal to discuss is disruptive, and is grounds for an article or topic ban. That being said, it's expected that all parties involved will negotiate in good faith, and we won't tolerate "I didn't hear that" type behavior, nor veiled (or outright) nastiness. I'm still weighing whether any sanctions beyond that are needed here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • On this particular request, I agree broadly with Eluchil404 and Seraphimblade. I can go with either a warning, or a formal restriction to explain all reverts on talk page. T. Canens (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
    • This has dragged on long enough. Unless any uninvolved admin vehemently objects, I'm going to close this with a warning per Eluchil404 and Seraphimblade in 24 hours. T. Canens (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Slovenski Volk[edit]

Indefinitely topic banned from all articles and discussions related to ARBMAC, broadly construed, and may appeal the restriction after 6 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:13, 12 August 2012 (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 Slovenski Volk[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Athenean (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Slovenski Volk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia
  1. August 5 Brightline violation of 0RR restriction
  2. July 2 Brightline violation of 0RR restriction
  3. July 2 Brightline violation of 0RR restriction, done as an IP.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Slovenski Volk is under a 0RR restriction in Ancient Macedonians since January of 2011. He has violated that restriction several times since then, sometimes getting blocked for it [24], sometimes not, at one time coming close to being banned from the article [25]. He again violated his revert restriction on July 2 2012, not once, but twice (the first time by editing unlogged). He again did so on August 5 [26]. While I don't necessarily mind the content, what I find disturbing is a certain I-am-right-therefore-I-revert-as-much-whatever-I-want attitude. In addition, I am disturbed by the way he baits editors on the talkpage [27] [28] [29] (the "deeply engrained nationalistic tendencies of certain editors" is clearly a dig at me), and especially this [30] (a reference about the ongoing Greek economic crisis - really below the belt). Athenean (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


New comments by editor filing request

To the admins: How about an (indef?) article ban instead of a block? I agree with Slovenski Volk that the problem is strictly localized to this article. Athenean (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Slovenski Volk[edit]

Statement by Slovenski Volk[edit]

I cannot agree with Athenean's statements for several reasons. It is not I who has reverted, but I am the one who has 'been' reverted [32]. I made a good-faith, well- referenced edit which was blanket reverted by another used (and collaborater of Athenean) for no good reason other than his own, dislike of the content, under the guise that it was a "pointy edit". Whilst his action is unjustified and counter to Wikipedia spirit, I made an effort to appease his concerns by modifying the sentence by adding the qualifiers "could be interpreted" and adding further references (from another, excellent quality, specialist piece of literature). So this was not merely a re-reversion of his (blanket) revert, rather my actions clearly illustrate that I had recognized his concerns and addressed them by re-introducing the sentence in a modified way. I do not think this to be inappropriate action.

With regard to Athenean's examples from 02/07/12, he has again misrepresented the evidence. The first edit (which he calls a revert) was in my mind a primary edit (done by me under IP - I had forgotten to log in). What had happened was: someone had added a second (redundant) geographical qualifier for the openeing sentence of the lede at some point (who know's when, I certainly did not know), repeating exactly what was already included at the very start of the sentence (Ie "The Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were a tribe from the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, in the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axios, nowadays in the region of Macedonia, Greece".) This is tantamount to my saying "I live in western part of Australia, in what is now western Australia" Now, any native English speaker recognises that this is grammatically poor, containing a redundant second geographic adjective. So I , in good faith, amended it; to be reverted. So again, it was I who reverted by a different user (" A Macedonian"), with edit summary stating that he could not see the initial error (" Where is the second one (ie geographic adjective)?") [33]. In my re-edit, I made him aware that what he wrote simply made no sense in the English language. Essentially, content was not removed, nor was the meaning of teh sentence changed in anyway, either. The sentence still stated what it had always stated, minus the circumlocution. This is not, as Athenean argues, a case of me arrogantly thinking I am right- the issue was not content or lay-out, but correction of frank grammatical redundancy. NB I have absolutely no issue with discussing otherwise more profound, complex content issues, as can be seen by the voluminous TP discussions here [34]

To re-iterate, I have not reverted any primary material added by the other editors, merely wish to be able to re-introduce material (which i modified to bridge an agreement) which had been unjustifiably blanket reverted without my being accused of reverting. Athenian seems to be unphased with the injustice and irony of his charge.

As for his other concerns, they're just silly. He is offended by "Well, as I have stated earlier, that wording ("generally considered")sounds WEASALish and somewhat counter to what a sizable, even a majority of specialists currently conclude". What's wrong with that ?? I think his accusations are becoming desparate and really undignified. Rather it is Athenean's henchmen who makes personal accusations agains me, and blindly revert and decline ideas proposed by me on the TP based on their personal viewpoints without an academic leg to stand on (in fact, i doubt those chaps have even read 5% of the literature with which I am acquainted). They are ill-equipped to debate in any academic, meaningful, content-focussed way with me because (i) the volume of literature supports my edits (ii) they simply lack the capabilities / effort to even read any meaningful literature; so they're entire appraoch has been to mass-block any of my efforts and make it nigh impossible for me to continue making meanigful edits. The very reason I was placed on the 0RR in jan 2011 (for a probable 3 month period) was due to their tag-teaming efforts at edit-reverting. I was guilty for succumbing to their tactics, however, I feel that i am a competent, non-disruptive, and in fact , very positive editor, and should be able to make minor modifications of edits within good faith and reason without the threat of being accused of reverting; and (as above) I am more than happy to first go to TP for more potentially contentious issues ( as I have been doing)

Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

-> I wish to re-iterate, if I may, that in my view I do not see the action I performed a "revert". I made an edit, it was reverted. I then modified, changed and added extra references to my original edit to appease whatever original concerns were voiced in the revert notes, and re-submitted the contribution. Surely this action does not constitute a blind, malicious "revert" ? Moreover, if I might propose, I will happily take a break from editing the article in question, and related articles, for 3 months; yet my account be not blocked so I may be involved in other areas (I have had no 'issues' anywhere else except the article in question) Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
@T Canens- If it is acceptable to the admins: I will take a wiki break from ancient Macedonians (and related articles - incl language & kingdom) for these 3 months, but ask to be allowed to participate in other areas , eg medicine, genetics and other European history articles (many of which I have written, have had nonissue in , and am a respected editor with significant knowledge and often a 'moderator ' amongst parties ). The unfortunate events here , I maintain, are more the result of the attitude of a certain cartel of difficult editors. Nevertheless , I accept your feedback and will take leave of the subject matter for 3 months Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
T Canens: why have you now modified your suggestion from 3 month block to 6 month or indefinite article ban ? I can only, humbly, ask that you consider a block for the month-period of your consideration, and not an article ban. I give my word that I shall henceforth adhere to the 0RR religiously, and not make my intepretations of what an 0RR might be. Lastly I would like you to take into consideration that my contrbutions to the article, and to Wikipedia in general, have been great. Through enormous effort I improved the article from this [35] to this [36], and my other artilce and maps are featured not only on English Wiki [37] and maps in Commons, but also other language Wikis. I'll let you be the judge, lest I finally re-iterate that I acknowledge to abide by 0RR no matter how superior I rate my knowledge and sources to be, and shall not 'rush' back into the article when the block is over. I only wish to periodociallly, in the more distant future, add further data and references to the article given the ever-growing quality of literature now devoted to the matter which 'deconstructs' "ethnic" questions and defuses questions of history in the region. That had always been my goal. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd happily take the 3 - 6 month block rather than article ban. As stated, I ask for a final chance, and promise to abide by the 0RR stipulation scrupulously upon eventual return to Wiki. But I leave the judgement to you, and shall accept and abide by whatever is decided Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for input, NW. Whether there is a restriction as to when I can appeal or not, I will nevertheless, not appeal and take a WIki break from the article for some time. Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

NB the original suggestion was topic ban or 3 month block; not a topic ban (there has been no issue whatsoever in other pages, related articles )— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slovenski Volk (talkcontribs) 09:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Slovenski Volk[edit]

Result concerning Slovenski Volk[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This appears to be a pretty straightforward 0RR violation, so I'm fine with either a 3 month block or an indef with the first year covered under ARBMAC. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Since the last block was one month, three months would be appropriate. Not particularly sure that an indef is needed here. T. Canens (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • @Slovenski Volk: What other articles/topics do you have in mind? T. Canens (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm open to a six-month or indefinite article ban in lieu of a block. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

@Slovenski Volk: please note that this section (as it clearly states at its top) is for uninvolved admin comments ONLY. Please do not comment here--Cailil talk 11:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  • There is clear violation (3 times) of 0RR within 5 weeks by SV and a clear refusal to get the point re: reversion going on in their replies here so I'd concur with a 3 month block under the terms of ARBMAC--Cailil talk 12:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur with Tim, an article ban might be sufficient. Personally I'd favour an indefinite (but not infinite) ban that can be appealed after 6 months?--Cailil talk 11:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If no one objects in the next 24 hours, I'll implement that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    I object to the appeal restriction (see my comment here) but have no objection to the topic ban (as I haven't looked into it that much). NW (Talk) 05:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Fair enough NW - I see your point. I'd be happy leaving it at just the topic ban--Cailil talk 13:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@Slovenski Volk: this section is for discussion by sysops only do not comment here-Cailil talk 13:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I support the above suggestion by Cailil and Blade for an indefinite ban that can be appealed after six months. The editor has been extremely persistent at Ancient Macedonians but he has older blocks in his log for edit warring at Scythians and Kosovo. This suggests to me that a topic ban from WP:ARBMAC is justified, rather than just an article ban from Ancient Macedonians. I would support either of these alternatives (topic ban or article ban). EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


Blocked 48 hours for 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Alssa1[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Domer48'fenian' 13:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Alssa1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
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 
  1. 15:22, 9 August 2012 Revert #1
  2. 12:04, 10 August 2012 Revert #2, within 24 hours of the first
  3. 12:43, 10 August 2012 Revert #3, within 24 hours of the first

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 12:24, 10 August 2012 by Domer48 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I made the editor aware of the 1RR which the instantly removed. They have been inserting their opinion into the article, without using the talk page at all. With all the nonsense going on at the moment, this is very disruptive and flouts both 1RR and the Arbcom who instated it to prevent editwarring.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Alssa1[edit]

Comments by Alssa1[edit]

If someone would someone like to explain what the problem is, it would be greatly appreciated. Alssa1 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • MOVED by KillerChihuahua from the Results section. Allsa1, keep your comments HERE. Do not comment in other sections. KillerChihuahua18:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I have requested information about what the fuss is about and I have received nothing. No one has told me that I had to stop editing entirely.
What are you wanting me to say? Alssa1 (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Restored content: part of a botched edit[39] which was reverted[40]
It is "flippent" because I have no idea what the problem is and rather than explaining it to me you reprimand me for putting my question in the wrong section. Alssa1 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Alssa1[edit]

Statement by Flexdream[edit]

It seems to me that Alssa1 has broken 1RR. I suggest they be advised by an admin of the rule, warned not to breach it again, and asked to open a section on the relevant talk page to discuss the proposed edit. Then I suggest that this case is closed and we all go back to what we were doing before.--Flexdream (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevant article talk page amended for discussion [[41]]. I suggest this AE now be closed as above.--Flexdream (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Domer has accused me of "offers of support and the suggestion of yet again oops my bad, followed by their assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks" [[42]]. Where have I done any of that? Quite the contrary. --Flexdream (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
@KillerChihuahua. I think Alssa just doesn't know how the system works. I've found them responsive to guidance[[43]]. There is now a discussion there which I started, and the 2 editors are participating [[44]]. Although either editor could have started this earlier, I think it might be an idea to see how that goes before imposing any sanctions. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Son of Setanta[edit]

I agree with Flexdream. Here we have an ordinary Wikipedian being set upon by a known gamer who has raised more 1RR requests than I've had hot dinners. There has been no discussion on the article talk page about this and no attempt to guide Alssa1, just a bludgeoning by 1RR. As someone who fell victim to the very same trick once I would appeal to sysops to issue guidance rather than a ban. The Wikipedia experience needs to less stressful otherwise we will lose some good editors when they stray into contentious zones they have no experience of. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

I'm not really following this dispute closely, but I am disturbed that Alssa1 is marking (some) contentious edits as "minor".[45][46] Contentious edits should not be marked as minor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Alssa1 has responded to my comment on my user talk page.[47] I consider their response a positive step forward. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by aprock[edit]

Given Alssa1's contribution history [48], only 237 edits over the last three years with none in "WP" space till now, it appears that WP:BITE applies here. Given the cryptic nature of the enforcement request ("1RR", "AE Case", "Arbcom", communication through templates, etc), I suggest treating Alssa1 to clear guidance, offering a clear explanation of what the problem is and what the editor should do in the future. aprock (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Alssa1[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I note with some concern that Alssa1 has removed[49] the notification of this discussion at least twice[50] without making it clear whether he or she plans to respond. Has the need to respond been made clear? Are we certain Alssa1 is aware that non-response will almost certainly lead to more serious sanctions? If we have no response here from the editor, we must assume that the editor is not taking this seriously and has no plans to cease any possible problematic behavior. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • In addition to the concerns KC brings up, Alssa1 also attempted to blank a part of this request: [51]. Choosing to attempt removal of the request, rather than response to it, does not give me a lot of confidence that a warning alone will do any good here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for posting that, I did not see that. This does give me pause. I will attempt to explain the seriousness of this to Alssa1. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    I have left a notice here. KillerChihuahua?!? 08:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Moved comment by Alssa1 to the appropriate section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Alssa1 has continued to edit on other topics without responding to KillerChihuahua's warning. It seems to me that a 48 hour block is a reasonable way to get their attention. This might persuade them to wait for consensus before making controversial changes. Check their recent contributions for a small edit war on articles about various Saudi notables. Alssa1's changes to those articles seem to have been reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur with EdJohnston. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Allsa1 has asked a question, which seems a bit flippant, but which also leads me to believe s/he has not even read the complaint against him or her. Allsa1: please scroll up to the beginning of this section, just below your name and just below "Attention: This request may be declined without further action if ..." and read all the written AND linked content. If you are still confused, ask a specific question regarding the charges against you, and do not ask for someone to "explain it" as though detailed information were not already provided here. Meanwhile, I advise you cease any editing which might be considered at all controversial, and concentrate on this AE case until it is resolved. You must take this seriously and give it your attention and efforts in order to provide us with a workable response which addresses the allegations. Failure to do so may be met with sanctions, as you can see by the comments above in this section. Do NOT comment in this section. Comment in YOUR section, above, which I made for you. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Please note that prior to placing a complaint that I failed to explain to her the issue, I did not only advise her to read the content contained in this AE request, but also took the extra step of linking to that precise edit here[52] on her talk page, to ensure she was aware of it. I'm beginning to think we're being trolled. She clearly read up to the word "flippant" but apparently doesn't want to be bothered reading the case, the allegations, or bothering to respond to the charges against her at all. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur with Ed a 48 hour block might help here. I don't think Alssa1 is taking any of the RFAR remedies seriously. Their behaviour here as well as their continuing inappropriate conduct in the topic demonstrate either a lack of competence, or an unwillingness, to abide by site standards for behaviour--Cailil talk 21:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Closing with a 48-hour block of Alssa1. See also this edit, in which Alssa1 blanked part of the AE discussion at 19:49 on 12 August. Someone who has trouble editing a talk page without doing damage should not be making aggressive changes to multiple articles. They should get more familiar with Wikipedia first. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)