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



Request withdrawn. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning M.K[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
M.K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

It is my belief that since being warned that Eastern European topics are under general sanctions ("if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process... and engages in further inappropriate behavior in this area... that editor placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban.") last year, M.K has failed to improve his attitude. His editing has been disruptive (long pattern of slow edit warring on naming and nationality claims), (occasionally) incivil, and thus should be addressed by the community.

This request is a follow up on the uncivil comment made by M.K: [2]. In that comment, M.K has commented on me thus: "Old WP:EEML is not gone, at least the most of it. I believe that no one can honestly doubt VolunteerMarek, Piotrus and other members have changed their ways.", citing however no proof of any wrongdoing on my part. This is a clear assumption of bad faith with regards to my editing, particularly when I have even not been involved in the Baltic-related conflicts that MK joined and commented on. I have asked him to refactor his mention of me (User_talk:M.K#Refactor_request), but he has ignored my request, despite his continued activity on Wikipedia and in that AE thread where the comment has been made. While I would usually let such a comment slide (I have thick skin and've been accused of worse), given his disruptive content editing, I think more action is needed.

What I mean by disruptive editing is, simply, the fact that majority (~75%) of M.K's edits are slow edit warring, focusing on removing Polish and Belarussian names and nationality adjectives, and replacing them with Lithuanian ones, and commenting on others at dispute resolution pages; neither of which makes for a more friendly editing atmosphere. I have coded his edits since last Spring, when he received admin and arbitration warnings about his behavior. See here for the table and the graph (or just look at the pics in the gallery I added). The bottom line is that about 65% of his edits fall under the slow edit warring feeding into nationalist battleground mentality (warring over names and nationaloties), 10% under participating in complain threads about others (such as AE), and only 25% are "other" (AGF, let's call them constructive edits).

I don't want to post 100-200 diffs here showing his reverts, they are clearly visible from his contribs. But I'll post an illustrative sample: his edits from this June and July, edits total:

  1. uncontroversial edit
  2. [3] - rm Polish spelling of a locale, replace with Lithuanian (@Lothar: I have no problem with the Lithuanian name being added, but this is a Polish-Lithuanian noble family, and the removal of the Polish placename is worrisome; a neutral edit would add the Lithuanian, but leave the Polish one, per WP:NCGN)
  3. [4] - rm claim about Polish ancestry (@Lothar: I have no problem with removal of an unref or SPS claim; the problem here is that M.K habitually removes such claims, while adding similar ones about Lithuanian ancestry/origin, sometimes w/out a ref, too, ex. [5] cited here)
  4. [6] - changing Belorussian spelling (I think) to Lithuanian (@Lothar: again, I think the proper neutral edit would keep both)
  5. uncontroversial fix
  6. [7] - adding "Lithuanian" (@Lothar: I actually agree with the edit, and I've just went and restored most of it (anon undid his edit a while ago...), and added the correct nationality link (Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) - which, sadly, M.K refuses to use, preferring to add just the Lithuanian part of it); the point here is - this illustrates the pattern of what type of claim he ads)
  7. talk page edit, AGF
  8. [8] - adding "Lithuanian" (@Lothar: rv a rv - my point exactly; also - restoring unref claim...)
  9. [9] - rv; replacing "Polish" with "Lithuanian" (@Lothar: pattern...)
  10. [10] - uncontroversial wikilink (AGF)
  11. [11] - moving an article so that it includes "Lithuanian" in the name (instead of moving it back to the established name that does not mention either nationality)
  12. [12] - rv (AGF)
  13. [13] - replacing an image which uses Polish name (File:Wilno.panorama.jpg) with one using Lithuanian name (File:Vilnius 11.JPG)
  14. [14] - editing the text to add word Lithuanian (@Lothar: wile I agree with the first change, which restored the proper name, the second change is not helpful; majority of historical sources use the short version, i.e. "partition of Poland", and not "partition of Poland-Lithuania(n) Commonwealth". While I am a big proponent of using Poland-Lithuania(n) Commonwealth instead of just Poland in many cases, I think trying to coin our own terminology, such as partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, is going to far).
  15. [15] - as above, changing a name locale name from neutral to Lithuanian (this was acually led to a revert war and discussion in the past, and the consensus in the article is to mention all variants, see Vilnius_University#Changes_of_the_name, and look how the Imperial University one is phrased, and referenced)
  16. [16] - editing the text to add word Lithuanian (while it would be actually interesting to discuss the correct usage of the term of King of Poland vs the King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the bottom line is that the latter is a term unused in literature, and even still a red link on our project, and this again represents the rather disruptive pushing of new, "nationalistic"/"politically correct" terminology - for those concerned with the matter is sounds as incorrect as if someone was changing instances of American Dream to United States Dream or British Empire to United Kingdom's Empire)
  17. two talk page edits, AGF

Submitted by --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 17 March 2011 by Sandstein (talk · contribs) and added to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#List_of_editors_placed_on_notice
  2. Warned on 21 March 2011 by Sandstein (talk · contribs) about his edit warring pattern
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I think it is clear that M.K's contribution to Polish and Belorussian topics are not constructive, and taken together with his recent comment on me, indicating he is still reliving the "old battles", show an unfortunate persistence of the battleground ("national-OWN") mentality. I would suggest, given the demonstrated pattern of M.K's disruptive edits, focusing almost in their entirety on reverting and nationalist POV-pushing in naming and nationality claims, and the fact that he has ignored the previous warnings to change his editing focus away from such edit warring, that M.K is placed on a topic ban from Poland and Poland-related and Belarus and Belarus-related topics. This would follow a precedent on Matthead (talk · contribs) and Space Cadet (talk · contribs), two users whose edits primarily focused on exactly such edit warring over names and nationalities. See Matthead topic ban and Space Cadet topic ban. This would let M.K focus on Lithuanian topics, such as Vilnius Castle Complex, to which in the past he has contributed good content (even writing a GA or two), while removing the temptation to war on Polish and Belorussian topics, which leads to battleground creation and fosters nationality-themed conflicts and OWN attitudes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to MK's defense

The point is not about individual edits, because taken apart, they are fine. The point is about a pattern which over many months (years) creates a battleground. Since the presented diffs have been called insufficient, here is a selection of most problematic diffs from this year:

  1. [17] - naming edit on article that has seen naming edit wars in the past. This violates WP:NCGN, and is an edit from just few days ago.
  2. [18] - removing Belarusian name and claim because "no source". Fine - but nothing else in the article is sourced...
  3. [19] - removing Polish name, again in violation of NCGN. If you look at at article's history, practically all of it is warring over that name (added by the bot). Nobody cared to discuss the issue on talk as I proposed... the history of this article is exactly the reason I am talking about the need to deal with editors who focus primarily on maintaining such battlegrounds.
  4. [20] - removing Polish name. Exactly the same case as above.
  5. [21] - removing Polish name. Ditto.
  6. [22] - changing nationality for no apparent reason (sure, reverting unreferenced change by an anon - to an equally unreferenced version before)
  7. [23] - this is more than just anon reverting, this changes "Polish-Lithuanian" to "Polish"-"Lithuanian". The distinction is important though obscure. (The difference is that "Polish-Lithuanian" refers to modern countries, but "Polish-Lithuanian" refers to the old, more mixed culture, which is however less popular in Lithuania, which tends to view the period of the Commonwealth unfavorably.
  8. [24] - removing Belarusian name. More name warring against NCGN, this time on Belarussian articles.
  9. [25] - Ditto.
  10. [26] - removing Belarusian name...
  11. [27] - removing Polish name but adding Lithuanian name. Why not just have both? This would be a good compromise outcome (like NCGN for names). Removing one version encourages reverts and battlegrounds.
  12. [28] - changing name, nationality without discussion. Sure, reverting anon unref change - to an unreferenced prior version. This does not solve things constructively (I just added a text comment to the page endorsing M.K's version - this is how we can put the battleground to end, not through personal attacks on others... and I am still waiting to hear an admin opinion on the personal attack that I mentioned earlier here, which I think is as important for creating battlegrounds as the revert pattern discussed here.)

I hope that this set of diffs adds more context. Again, I am not asking for anything but for a remedy that would put an end to this slow edit warring that contributes to the battleground mentality on Polish-Lithuanian topics. Perhaps even better than my earlier suggestion of a ban on PL-LT topics would be simply a ban from removing Polish and Belarussian names and claims of nationality/origin/etc. Or at the very least require him to start an RfC on talk if he does that. Such a remedy would allow M.K to allow all articles he wants, revert clear vandalism, but would stop him from contributing to those slow edit wars that have done so much to create battlegrounds in this area. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning M.K[edit]

Statement by M.K[edit]

A ground on which this case is opened is completely baseless. Simply put it this is retaliation not only for my strict criticism of user:Piotrus’ long time friends Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount, but he has long personally grievances against me, because I started arbitration case against him back in 2007; and participated in the second arbitration case regarding him; there I presented undisputed facts, that already in 2008 these editors engaged in coordinated tag teaming, long before notorious WP:EEML.

I really find difficulty to understand what I am accused off. I suspended my major contribution on wiki, because of continuous harassment as outlined here, for this reason my edit number of thousands dropped to only few. And this case only prove the need to protect me from such harassment and slandering campaign of my good name which is taking place for years now. I repeated asked to do so [30].

So called evidences against me is embarrassing to read[edit]

Piotrus ”forgot” to mention, that actually an IP made complexly unexplained edit [32],
the main name of article is Pac not Pacowie,
Place name Jieznas, is the Lithuanian town. Yet Piotrus also mute that, same IP made a revert of me [33] , which I ignored. So where is my revert warring and why Piotrus is not complaining about that IP at all?
I correcting gross violation of WP:BLP. Policy clearly allows such edits, like removing not sourced claims and unreliable sources without any delay. This is my fault, because I following stick rules made by community?
Editor made unexplained edit [36] (again Piotrus mute about that), Vytenis is the most popular English name and the title of the main article. Again nothing against the rules.
I am accused because I PROPERLY SOURCED article with WP:RS: Alvydas Nikžentaitis; Stefan Schreiner; Darius Staliūnas (2004). The Vanished World of Lithuanian Jews. Rodopi. p. 156. ISBN 978-90-420-0850-2.
And from when editors should add links and materials according to Piotrus POV?
"Lithuanian" is used form the start of the article creation and not by me
Accuser forgot to mention that Lena Valaitis is needed Lithuanian-German, instead looking for source in internet he brought this as evidence against me. Internet Is full of WP:RS regarding this: BBC Lena Valaitis is a Lithuanian-German Schlager singer.
The only mistake I made that I not introduce a source back then. Yet how many times PIotrus made reverts without adding any sources should we count?
As typical to Piotrus he forget to mention that IP made edits without ANY rationale by changing to "Polish", and alerted sourced text[40].
Actually, I was WHO ENTIRELY SOURCED THAT ARTICLE on those details back in 2009 [41][42].
This is sound demonstration how desperate Piotrus was trying to make this case against me.
I was accused for adding “Lithuanian”, the fact is a country was Poland-Lithuania, not single Poland.
Piotrus is again mute that to move article to Polish-Lithuanian was proposed by Polish editors themselves. Yet I only corrected mistake with this compromise. Have I reverted it back? Have I participated in edit warring there? NO.
And finally user:Piotrus (as typical to him) forgot to mention “unimportant” detail, that it was I who proposed to name that article as “Constitution of May 3, 1791”back in 2006. Seriously, this guy could at least try to make his report look neutral.
  • Image replacement. [44]
This is among the silliest evidence against me:
IP made completely unexplained edit by changing image [45],
IP introduced artistically less valuable image (compare IP image and Aitvaras image),
Original image was introduced by different editor me back in 2011
During my carrier I worked with various images, changing, removing, adding (that is an editorial process!).
Heck I even included completely Polish ones [46]. Where is my nationalistic editing?
The main article of state is Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth not "Commonwealth of Poland" . And Lithuanian element is undeniable. SO where is my nationalistic editing?
"Imperial University of Vilnius" is by far more popular then "Imperial University of Vilno" only 2 English sources . Following WP:PLACE for widely accepted English name.
This is the silliest “evidence” against me.
Prior editor made zero effort to explain himself why he is removing Grand duke form the article [50].
Now I am accused of “represents the rather disruptive pushing of new, "nationalistic"/"politically correct" terminology” just because I reverted to term “King of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth”. Really? This term was originally introduced by Piotus himself back in back in 2004!

Such evidences are embarrassing to read.

Comments by others about the request concerning M.K[edit]

Comment by Lothar von Richthofen[edit]

Well, you could have pulled better diffs. A lot of the ones you present above are fairly benign—look at how many times you yourself had to put AGF in! I'll go through the ones you have provided individually:

  1. ——
  2. This is on a page about a Lithuanian family, so I don't see how it is terribly improper to have Lithuanian placenames.
  3. Removal of a blogspot source; from my experience here, such sources are treated as WP:SPS and therefore not to be used for anything potentially contentious (if it had been a more reliable source, then you might have a case).
  4. This is him changing the name from the less common Belarusian variant Vitsen to Vytenis, which seems to be the most common name and is the name of the article itself.
  5. ——
  6. This is sourced and would require evaluation of the sources to determine if they are contentious, though the individual's connections to Lithuania as detailed in the article make me think that it isn't so improper to have the Lithuanian form of his name (even if he is ethnically Polish).
  7. ——
  8. Memel always had significant Lithuanian influences, the surname Valaitis is rather Lithuanian, and the Litauisches Gymnasium Hüttenfeld (which she attended) is I think the only Lithuanian school in Western Europe.
  9. Appears to be a reversion to a change of sourced material.
  10. AGF (per you).
  11. Poland-Lithuania was Poland-Lithuania and not just Poland.
  12. AGF (per you).
  13. Not a "replacement", but a revert of an IP changing from Vilnius to Wilno (nationalist conflicts always go both ways).
  14. See 11.
  15. Ditto, but does seem a bit improper given the particularly Polish nature of the subject.
  16. Same as above.
  17. ——

Maybe I am wrong about some of these, and I do welcome your feedback. But given that M.K was involved in the recently-frozen VM-Molobo request, I'm not sure how the administrator response will go.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I will admit that my grasp of the relationship dramuh between Poland and Lithuania is lacking, so I'm afraid I don't have much more to say about that, other than that I still don't find the diffs provided to be that strong. One thing I should point out here is that M.K moved Polish constitution of May 3, 1791 to Polish-Lithuanian constitution of May 3, 1791, which—though it was not the original, nationality-less title—does not seem to be all that objectionable and could just as easily be viewed as trying to make a compromise title.
With regards to Lena Valaitis, I still don't think you have much of any case there, sorry. The diff you present is a reversion of an edit with the summary of "lithuanian nationalist trash", which honestly I would have done the same had I seen that. That Valaitis is Lithuanian has been in the article since its creation, and is also included in the German article.
I don't see reversions of reversions as being per se problematic, as you seem to. WRT Charles Bronson, I would again have to see what the sources in that version of the page say, but it would seem like they say "Lithuanian" given that the IP snuck in and changed the wording to Polish. It's entirely possible that M.K was misrepresenting sources, but without being able to view them it's hard to say. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
WRT Vytenis/Vitsen, I'll just leave you with these search results. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning M.K[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I largely agree with Lothar above me; I've seen editors do what you're describing M. K. as doing, but I'd need more than what's linked above to go for sanctions. While the stuff on Adam Mickiewicz does seem a bit unnecessary, I wouldn't sanction anyone who wasn't already topic banned for that. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 04:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing anything sanctionable at all. Is there anyway to clarify precisely what is considered sancionable here? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
For the definition of what is sanctionable, it helps to read the language of Template:uw-sanctions. It seems that a user can deserve sanction if either (a) they don't respect the intended purpose of Wikipedia, (b) they don't follow the discussion steps required by Wikipedia policy, or (c) they behave badly toward others. The phrase 'repeatedly or seriously' is in there, which implies that a one-time lapse might be forgiven. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my question, Ed. I was asking what MK had done that Piotrus considered sanctionable. I believe Piotrus may be withdrawing this, based on current discussion on my user talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


One month topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Nishidani[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Activism1234 04:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Nishidani (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. 26 August - As brought below by No More Mr Nice Guy - Nishidani reverts an edit made by NMMNG.
  2. 26 August - Reverts No More Mr Nice Guy, related to a different passage
  3. 26 August - reverts me by placing a reference in the article I removed before on that day, and which two other editors objected to. I can't say whether it was intentional or not, but Nishidani has been told a number of times (on the article talk page and on his/her talk page) to kindly self-revert and did not.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

He/she has been blocked before for 8 hours, 24 hours, 72 hours, and 1 week.

Nishidani has also been blocked indefinitely from I-P, and was also topic-banned for a certain amount of time on I-P (both cases are over now and he is allowed to edit).

I also warned him/her to self-revert here. A short amount of time before that, I warned about 1RR and asked to self-revert here as well (that was solved). --Activism1234 04:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Strikingly, I've had this problem a few times before with Nishidani, but never took it to 1RR. I understand people sometimes make mistakes, and I'm not interested in the drama and attacks that results from an AE (now it's become too much though). But what's surprising is that during those cases, such as this, Nishidani said "Thanks for the tip-off. I'll never understand that rule [1RR]" and "I never could understand these revert niceties." I think I thoroughly explained it to him/her on those threads (as did some other editors). Based on the editor's talk page here, it still seems that the editor doesn't understand what 1RR really is, and thus is refusing to self-revert.

This, I feel, is also surprising when you consider that Nishidani was topic banned for violationg 1RR. Has nothing been learned? And this is regardless of whether or not Nishidani violated 1RR here, as Nishidani has openly admitted he still doesn't "get" 1RR.

It is my understanding also that penalties can be enforced even for a first 1RR though.

Not looking to receive full-blown drama and attacks here, so crossing my fingers that it won't. This is just a case about a violation of 1RR.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

See here.

@Nishidani - my interpretation of WP:1RR is, as I've said on your talk page, straight from the 1RR page - any edit, whether in whole or in part, that undoes the work of another editor. Hope that clarifies it. You don't need an "authority" to explain this either, it's straight there on the 1RR page, and you've been here long enough, which is why it's surprising that you haven't understood - openly admitting that here - what 1RR is all this time, especially when an editor like yourself focuses heavily on I-P articles. --Activism1234 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

@Nishidani When I woke up, my talk page contained an edit on the article from something you wrote. I checked it out, noticed you wrote a passage from a fringe unreliable biased reference, and removed it, with a very clear edit summary explaining why. A bit later, I noticed activity on the talk page, where I saw your comment about removing it. I also, once again, explained very clearly, along with links to mainstraem news site, why the referene was unreliable, so saying I didn't explain it on the talk page is ridiculous and not true. Later on, another editor, NNMG, voiced support as well for removing it, explaining his/her reasons too, and yet while you were asked for a number of hours to just self-revert, you refused to do so. --Activism1234 15:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

@Pluto - This is a different scenario. This is not a case where an editor X writes a passage referencing The New York Times, and another editor Y removes that passage (for any reason related to the passage itself, such as distorting the source, not being accurate, etc). X then goes, and writes a different passage in a different section of the article, using the same reference. Great. Here, however, X writes a passage in the article with a reference from a certain website, not a reliable media outlet. Y removes the passage because of the reference itself - such as being unreliable or fringe or heavily heavily biased. X then goes, and writes another passage in a different section - but uses the same reference that was previously removed as problematic, and which a number of editors supported removing. --Activism1234 15:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

@All/admins - I added another diff as supplied by another editor below to the list of diffs of edits above, which should be helpful. --Activism1234 22:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

@Mac - Please don't strike out other editor's comments on a talk page without their permission... That's often frowned upon, and can change what an editor was meaning to fit what you want, which isn't right. Thanks. --Activism1234 17:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

@JohnCarter, in regards to Nishidani violation 1RR but not sure which sanction to give: Nishidani's violation here isn't his/her first. Indeed, Nishidani was blocked for 8 hours for violating 3RR and edit warring on Hebron, blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR on Haj Amin al-Husseini, 72 hours for edit warring on Norman Finkelstein, 1 week for personal attacks on an editor (the latter two cases, however, were lifted before the time expired). Moreover, Nishidani has been previously prohibited from editing I-P at the original ARBPIA case, and at another AE, Nishidani was topic-banned from I-P articles. Since the original ban from I-P in the ARBPIA case, Nishidani has continued to reoffend, as shown in the topic-ban and now this case. --Activism1234 05:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@Nishidani - please don't try to frame editors like myself as being hired by someone or paid... Everyone can say that about someone else, it doesn't make it true, and I find that very offensive. Thanks. --Activism1234 15:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@Nishidani - That's pretty simple. There aren't any intermediate edits - it's 1 revert. People who are familiar with WP:3RR or 1RR would know that - "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." It's distressing that even after being sanctioned multiple times for 1RR or 3RR, you still don't get this. --Activism1234 16:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@Nishidani - that's an admin decision, not mine. --Activism1234 16:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Nishidani[edit]

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

Eric Berne,[Games People Play].

User:Activism1234 is quite an activist in this complaint, see also here, particularly when I am in mid-stride building a defective page rapidly. I freely admit I am not a stickler for the reclusive hermeneutic niceties of the 1R rule. I call its use in circumstances like these the 'stick in the spokes' tactic in edit-warring that aims to block article composition, but I may be wrong. The first instance I cite looks as though I did inadvertently make such an infraction. At the risk of WP:TLDR, since this is recurrent in my regard, and some editors are pressing for my permaban on piddling issues like this (see archives), I am obliged to ask for clarification.

  • In the first instance, I was bewildered and asked for input, which Activism, kindly, did provide. I took her word for it.
  • In the second instance I asked Nableezy, the nabob of rule interpretation in my parts, and his response - he's not a brownnosing POV-pal truckler on technical matters -was:

Nish, unless you actually removed something that somebody else wrote in your first set of edits then you did not perform a revert.'

I took note. Perhaps it was wrong for me to accept Activism's sphinctural interpretation of 1R, given another authority disagrees.
  • On this third occasion, when grumbling circulated on the talk page, I explained exactly what I was doing, and why I failed to see the logic of an accusation I had made a IR infraction. I made two edits in two open windows on the article in succession, one of which was this, which was particularly important because the connotation of 'lynch', borrowed into modern hebrew and endemic in our sources, is not clear to editors or readers, and led User:DGG to change the title. I closed my first (lead) edit, and then looked at the second window, did this second edit, wholly unaware that Activism in the meantime had shown up on the article to remove the source I was using there precisely at that moment, complaining it was from (absurdly) an antisemitic source, namely Mondoweiss, a summary accusation that is, to any one familiar with Philip Weiss's web page not only nonsense, but tantamount to a WP:BLP violation, since Activism was saying effectively that Weiss is a self-hating Jew, an antisemitic Jew, and anything, even by a tenure-track Israeli-American academic anthropologist appearing on his webpage was likewise just 'Israel-bashing'.
  • The most serious thing in this absurd kerfuffle is the revert practice I complained about in an earlier A/E case. Reverting without deigning to discuss the objection on the talk page, until the editor whose work has been undone insists on an explanation, is improper. It is worth noting that before I introduced the source, I explained it on the talk page in depth, and for 3 hours no comment was forthcoming. Activism simply deleted the material and the source, with an absurd edit summary. User:Shrike said it was WP:Undue after 20 minutes, though it's hard to figure out from his Englkish why and Activism , not to justify this deletion, but to complain I had reverted it, turned up half an hour after making her IR deletion, and in what followed there is no serious attempt to justify the deletion or respond to my initial points.

Technically this is called preemptive use of 1R to make a "fait accompli" irrespective of one's obligations to the talk page where prior explanations have been given.

Activism notified me on my page. I engaged in a dialogue, though it was very late: I was in pyjamas, and would examine it (under Nableezy's reading it is not an infraction) on getting up and do whatever was required, hoping input from third parties who know about these things became available to my page in the meantime.

I woke up and found that, instead of the courtesy of waiting, as I asked, Activism had preempted all and made a formal complaint here. The worst of it is, (s)he insist I remove material that is actually totally neutral, an objective remark on what everyone familiar with Hebrew and English knows to be a truism. To save the bother I actually did revert the questioned edit

In brief, apart from Pluto's comment below, Nableezy's clarification that Activism's prior complaint of this type is questionable, and several stray remarks Activism made yesterday refusing to apologize for insinuating I was abetting antisemitism and genocide, see here and the exchanges that ensued (I could have raised this at wikiquette. I decided not to. I dislike this relentless pettifogging to score points)

I've reverted and this could be ignored. But for once I would like some neutral specialist to clarify for me if Activism's latest complaint is correct. I simply cannot see it, and think this is POV badgering to disturb another editor. One should not allow work here to be bogged down continuously by such trivial pursuits. Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Preemptive clarification.Her is a 'politically correct' variation on standard 'him', which I have adopted because an author I respect and am reading challenges my conservative prejudices in this regard.Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
@'any edit, whether in whole or in part, that undoes the work of another editor. Hope that clarifies it.'
Precisely, and Nableezy and Pluto, both very experienced editors who know what I don't, the niceties of rule interpretation, differ with the way you construe that. I myself am clueless. I cannot see how I undid anything you touched. I was simply using up the page a source reference which, unbeknown to me, you not only challenged but removed elsewhere. Do you realize the implications of your interpretation (perhaps correct, I don't know)? It means operatively that any editor who has made one revert on a page (I reverted NMMGG's incomprehensible deletion of substantial material from an excellent source when he could have copy-edited if that was the problem) cannot continue to work the page with an open window serenely for fear that someone might in the meantime pop in and remove a source he is using, so that any edit he does within those minutes will automatically qualify as a violation of 1R. This morning as I did a few edits, I had to keep thinking, 'heck, if in the meantime someone removes the source I'm using, I'm up excrement creek'. Perhaps the rule works out that way, but it would make, if lucidly formalized thus, work hell for editors like myself who usually sit down and write a page in at least a dozen or more edits over consecutive hours.
@'When I woke up, my talk page contained an edit on the article from something you wrote. I checked it out, noticed you wrote a passage from a fringe unreliable biased reference.'
In layman's language, you reverted me without looking at the talk page where every objection you made in your edit summary had been addressed by adducing relevant policy. When I protested, neither you nor the two other editors supporting you troubled themselves to respond to my detailed explanation. Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ed. I'm terribly sorry to bother admins on this, but since Activism believes(s)he has identified a recurrent problem in my editing, and the interpretation of 1R on which (s)he bases this has been challenged by (a)Nableezy and (b) Pluto who come to the I/P area from quite distinct perspectives, I wonder if I could prevail on you to wait a little, until this specific 1R interpretation is clarified, in whoever's favour. I'd prefer not to work here with the shadow of that threat looking over my shoulder. Surely someone up there can give a call on this specific interpretation as it was applied to what I did, since at least three of us are confused? Sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
John, look at the time stamps. The contested edit occurred within 10 minutes of Activism's deletion, i.e, while I had 2 pages open, and was slowly checking my source file, and the net, to make two distinct edits. I had absolutely no knowledge of what Activism had done (ignorance is not an excuse but) a few minutes earlier. I find this intensely unfair. 1R rules are not meant, surely, to lend themselves to use that may make consecutive edits impossible. This would never have happened had the plaitiff followed best usage, and replied to my explanation for using that source on the talk page, where I could have noted it beforehand. Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
John. This page is the first time I've applied the -ref name =""/ - template, and had to (a) copy the Mondoweiss ref (ref name = "Benjamin"+Jessie Benjamin(Zion Square) at Mondoweiss, etc (b) then use it for my second edit up top, then reduce it to just ref name =Benjamin"/ref below which had, unknown to me, been removed except for the article as it existed in my window. That's what happened, but there's no obligation to believe me. But the point is, the guilt thesis assumes, perhaps reasonably that I must be a complete fucking moron, after 6 years, and after repeated attempts to get me permabanned, to note Activism had, after NMMGG, deleted another source, and persist consciously in a defiant 1R violation. Perhaps in the psychology of deviant self-haters, there is room for such a deduction, but despite some years in Japan, I have never espoused the cause of suicide (except for a natural form of assisted extinction, like smoking). Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
NMMGG. As someone who implied I am a congenitally dishonest by saying wikipedia needs people (like yourself, one presumes) to keep me honest and, some while back, looked forward, with a prediction, to the permaban you thought inevitable for someone like myself, you have a remarkable talent for reading malevolence into whatever I do. I rather admire your ability to put the worst possible spin on most of the things I do round here. The gravaman of your charge that I am somehow a POV warrior editor requiring minute surveillance relies on the fact that you affirm I described the Palestinian victims as children, while their adolescent Israeli assailants are 'youths'.
It's true for the infobox which I did rapidly while concentrating on the complex narrative. Knowing nothing about infoboxes, I pilfered one from the Bat Ayin ax attack, which spoke of the victims accurately as children, but gave no indication of the age of the perpetrator. I put the perpetrator in as youths, because everywhere in the text I drafted before you raised this charge, the neutral narrative default term for both groups of adolescents is 'youth'. Your suspicions are disgusting. Read the text. I have gone out of my way to record every instance of generosity and kindness from Israelis in the sources, rather than ignore them, as some drafters of terrorist articles customarily do.
As the history will show, I'd written, over 20kb of material in two days in almost consecutive edits. Working off a long file, and from memory, at speed will by the normal logic of things lead to slips, oversights or whatever. Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
NMMGG. Just a brief course on the hermeneutics of suspicion, which your remarks in my regard consistently ignore, while evincing the defects that discipline documents. All suspicions are based on facts. The problem is not in the facts, but in their interpretation. Objective assessment of "facts" means setting aside assumptions and a priori hypotheses in order to allow "the facts to speak for themselves". They rarely do, of course, since facts are meaningful only within a framework, and if you wish to "frame" someone, or find facts to corroborate a preconceived impression, you'll find them everywhere. This is what fringe theorists do, and, unfortunately, many amateur psychologists. Wikipedia's principles are based on "Randian objectivism" which, in its original form, is sheer epistemological nonsense, but, as consensually formulated in working principles, fairly functional for governing (a) interaction between individuals in an anonymous multitude of aspiring editors (b) to arrive at the construction of informed articles. While checking my memory of Goethe's dictum, which I think true:"Höchste wäre, zu begreifen, daß alles Faktische schon Theorie ist," I noted that Raymond Firth is also quoted appositely: "There are no brute facts".Bref, you're at liberty to suppose the worst, but suppositions are not evidence, and, as a working rule, despite the predictable antipathies, we should be looking at the quality of sources, the material used and the style adopted to represent the "facts", and not assess edits invariably according to our personal profiles of the "opposing" editor. Even bristling pricks can be (pro)creative.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, yeah, add racially prejudiced Israelopaedophobe to the charge sheet. Every editor on the wrong side of the I/P border who is worth her salt should come to, and work in the articles, fully and patiently aware that she's going to cop a lot of provocative flack, just as happens in the real world. The game is to keep baiting preemptively until the unlucky gudgeon bites back and then gets him or herself into the agonies of a death struggle as the angler on a fishing expedition wriggles the line. Even if unsuccessful, it makes for a good spectacle. I've no problem with that. At my age one feels sufficiently squamous to brush off the scratches as mere aesthetic exuvious streamlining on a thick-skin. It's part of the job, and I won't be intimidated.
You assumed the dour prophetic mantle a few months back and looked forward to the inevitability of my being permabanned over what was a single stubborn but I think principled refusal to revert what every editor knew was sheer crap reintroduced into an article in what turned out to be a 1R violation. The damage I refused to restore was done by a POV jokester who was then almost immediately permabanned for his chronic disruptiveness.
Here, despite my doubts as to whether the 1R rule was infringed, I did as requested, and reverted. No, the amicus curiae is not satisfied. let's go to AE and get the nuisance properly jugged in perpetual porridge, somewhat like the fraudulent Geryon. In this c(h)ase, you are now actively nudging to make the prophecy come true, and you are grasping at straws to build a molehill of innuendo.
User:Activism1234 herself managed to insinuate that I regarded editors who opposed me mechanically as vermin, and, when asked to retract a serious NPA violation, ratcheted up the innuendo by openly asserting that I was using genocidal language typical of Holocaust activists, i.e., that I was behaving like an anti-semite,perhaps intentionally, and against further remonstration at the suggestion I was intimating people here should be exterminated, piled it on by adding my innocuous use of a metaphoric term in English meant they were mushrooms and cockroaches, while refusing to accept the forthcoming evidence that she had grossly confused the meaning of the word in English with its connotations in Hebrew. Were I the usual run of POV-warrior tactician that thrives here, I could have jumped at this to take the editor to court. I didn't. It's a waste of everybody's time, as (apart from a request for clarification for my own enlightenment) I suggest, this thread is.
As I say, no one is obliged to accept my good faith, or the record I have for spending most editing time constructively building articles rather than bitching or snitching. But there is a point hyperbole becomes farcical, intemperant innuendo rather vulgar and tactical troublemaking a waste of everyone's time, as here.Nishidani (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
To refocus, the issue here requiring clarification is:-
  • (a) A source whose rationale has been explained in detail on the talk page remains there without challenge for several hours.
  • (b) The editor who used the talk page preemptively to explain his intended introduction of that source, seeing no one challenge it, opens the page to make one further edit from it (of a purely uncontroversial nature), to a wholly different section of the page.
  • (c) A second editor at that very moment, who hasn't troubled, by their own admission to look at the talk page, reverts the first edit from that source on sight, on waking up in the morning, while the first editor is making his second edit from it. The second editor finds, when his version of the page comes up, that the source he used has been elided from lower down in the page, while his second edit is preserved. Has he "reverted" in the sense of "undoing" the second editor's edit, or has he simply used a source that, as the time stamps show, he had no idea had been removed some minutes beforehand? It's important to know if there is a difference because if this is a 1R infraction, it opens up, for the future, inadvertently, considerable margins to finesse WP:GAMING, though I am certain that was not Activism's intention. This was a freak, and the malice spun out of the coincidence is rather depressing.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Since Activism's last edit, the evidence does look on surer ground at last. I might add that I suspect a fourth revert could be added to the score. I reverted the cluebot here. There again I had nothing in mind other than the integrity of the text, and the coherence of edits being made to it.
So technically, since the law is uninterested in whether a person is intentionally disruptive or inadvertently makes an error, a sanction does appear fair. I don't want exceptions made on my behalf.
But one final comment, concerning the other three as now ordered. But I'll do that after breakfast, in about 2 hours time.Nishidani (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just permabanban or suspend me. I really am missing the beach, and a good book. This malevolent nonsense has already devoured more time than it took me to write a 30kb article. I’ll have to do this in sections because it risks WP:TLDR, but the points have to be made, if only for the record.

A general reflection. If rules are clear, they are either followed or, when broken, applied. I know my edits are placed under the microscope to make life difficult. In three days, examining just a few edits over one day's span of time, the original plaintiff who just found what is putatively one 1R infraction, then combed out, with NMMGG's help, another, and now, sieving and resieving has found a third. It's absolutely weird that the plaintiffs never saw this when making the original complaint. I can't understand it as it is being interpreted, but neither can the two plaintiffs, for they keep on adding examples of ostensible infractions they missed the first or second time round. At this rate every edit other than one I make over 1 a day on any page will be some infraction by the end of the thread. As I note below, it looks to me like NMMGG, by the same reading, broke 1R.

User:Activism1234’s novel rearrangement of events, placing her own initial accusation third, while showcasing the rather complicated interaction between NMMGG, myself and another editor above it, leads to misapprehensions. I have trouble figuring it out, but I'm notoriously bad at things like this. Let me examine what NMMGG was doing on the page, and how other editors reacted.

    • A
  • (1) I reverted (07:32, 26 August) this edit made by NMMGG at (00:47, 26 August 2012‎), which I personally viewed as vandalistic, since the edit summary is arguably false, and the reason given in bad faith. To justify his deletion of a large swathe of text reporting what a notable figure said, NMMGG wrote he was ‘removing possible copyright violation’. I.e. he acted on a personal suspicion which he did not trouble to argue on the talk page preemptively or afterwards. He struck, and I reverted. Very effective, restoring the text ('wholesale removal based on a suspicion, not on evidence') I used up my revert rights for the day. Privately I think, without evidence other that that it is a repeated pattern, that this is what that sort of bad editing basically intends to do. The source is The Forward, the writer is rabbi Jill Jacobs, a distinguished figure in American Jewish life. You don’t in my book go about deleting information sourced to a respectable mainstream journal or magazine, written by a notable public person as an op-ed. IPs do this every day. Experienced editors know it is intolerable practice, and my revert was sensible. I then rewrote the text more closely to elide any suspicion that there might possibly be a cv problem. That is how you fix texts, by building them, not by sitting around and hacking them.

Two east Jerusalem teens are claiming they were assaulted by three men in Tel Aviv earlier this week in what could be another case of racist violence after last week's Jerusalem lynch.

  • I.e. The journalist makes the connection. Tibi himself is then quoted as remarking

"Imagine Israel's response had the tables been turned and a Jew was lynched at an Arab town. We are outraged and appalled over the wave of racist violence sweeping the country sponsored by the Right."

Tibi’s remark about the Tel Aviv incident concludes by making an analogy which, though expressed as an hypothesis, explicitly uses and alludes to the Arab lynched in a Jewish town, meaning The Zion Square assault which is the object of the article. That is as plain as day. It is simply not opinionable given (a) the journalist's use of another and the obvious allusion in Tibi's words.

In other words, NMMGG has been (a) quite within the law, his two reverts being on successive days (b) But these two substantial and wrongly motivated or at least highly questionable removal-reverts of large amounts of material from the page, concerning the views of notable people cited in mainstream newspapers or magazines, are only with the most lenient interpretation defensible as oversights. They were restored because either argument or checking showed that his edit summaries were wrong, misleading or question-begging.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I personally have no idea whether or note NMMGG's alteration of the lead I wrote and, a minute later, removal of the Tibi section which I wrote, qualify as two reverts in several minutes. From Activism's interpretation of IR, they certainly would qualify as two reverts surely? Personally, I couldn't care less, and didn't think of it that way, until now, and even if it were true I would not regard it as anything but piffling. But since he is adding his voice to the sanction, I'd like some clarification, as requested, since the interpretation used by Activism1234 for sanctioning me seems to apply to him as well.
  • When I saw both NMMGG's edit and Bali Ultimate's revert, I didn't stand by happy that the version I had written was defended. I re-examined the merits of the two edits NMMGG had made, agreed with Bali's revert of the Tibi reference, but, on doing a word check through my downloaded file of 40 odd articles on the incident, thought NMMGG's alteration to the lead reasonable (severely beaten), if questionable, and therefore I restored it, while altering the language. I did this, though I thought NMMGG's challenge to that wording underplayed what several sources confirm, that the lad wasn't simply 'beaten unconscious' but kicked repeatedly in the head, left without a pulse and, when both the medics arrived and the police roped off the area, thought by the police to be dead. The facebook account, carried in Nir Hasson (Haaretz) of him 'being almost beaten to death' written by an eyewitness who saw the assault, the paramedics, and what the police stated, was not 'sensationalist' but congruent with what later reports confirmed. The BBC doesn't say just that he was 'severely beaten'. It said: An Israeli policeman said Jamal was beaten so severely that he lost consciousness and was thought to be dead. I take the force of that so . .that far more seriously than NMMGG. Still, I accommodated NMMGG's point. This is now being used, in the updated accusation, as proof of my delinquent behaviour, rather than as evidence for scrupulous attention, as an editor. Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • @Activism. That strike out was actually a very humorous touch. Maculosae tegmine lyncis and I rarely interact but when we do, it is by obscure allusions, and his strike out reorganization of my remark was an allusion to Mallarmé's 'il se promène,...lisant au livre de lui-même,’ (S. Mallarmé, Oeuvres complètes, Paris, Gallimard, Pléiade, (1945) rev.ed. 1984, p1563-1564, p.1564), which I appreciated. A laugh's needed when the going gets tedious.Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
      • @Activism. Reminding admins that they have to consult a block log already in the complaint, and what they by training look at first, is rather pointless, esp. when you've now taken the trouble to dig up the links that point out User:Amoruso, User:Zeq or even User:Luke 19 Verse 27 as plaintiff (see their block logs) that make my record look angelic. Though responding to my block log's impression here, I have never had a problem in promptly suspending myself whenever someone has had the courtesy of notifying me of an oversight, except on one occasion, and this is not it. I am not in the category of POV-pushing settler- victimist, (or Palestinian-victimist, for that matter) article creators, disruptive reverters, and tagteaming gamesters in this troubled area. I'm already at risk of winning by default the prize editors are vying for, so I'll be brief. I posed an additional request, which should interest you. If your interpretation is correct - I cannot see it - then why are these two reverts, here and here within minutes of each other by No More Mr Nice Guy exempt from your concern about putative disruptiveness of inadvertent IR lapses? Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Activism. Where did I try to frame you as 'hired' or 'paid'? You appear to have misread a joke directed at myself about being a blow-hard, and the article has, even if taken that way, no mention I recall of people being "hired" or "paid". In a short time, It's been insinuated, on the strength of a simple word, that I am a Israelopaedophobe: someone who calls people vermin: a supporter of Holocaust-inciting language - neither you nor NMMGG find insinuating these things offensive, you use a link to insist I am given to 'personal attacks' when it was a deeply ironic comment to shake a person I thought an excellent editor and a 'friend' out of his self-destructive complacency which everyone but an admin in a hurry understood to be an amicable remonstration, and now I'm also framing you? You're losing a sense of proportion. Back to focus. Please tell me why your disputed interpretation of the 1R rule does not apply to NMMGG's two edits (perhaps there are more, but I don't waste time combing people's contribs for a page) to the same page. Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, you may have a point. Operatively you're saying that if you want to avoid 1R just make a series of edits at an ungodly hour when no one is around. People like myself, then, if, as is my practice on pages I set to build, make dozens of edits in daylight hours, they're dead set to be caught up, because all it takes for them to break 1R is for a few other editors to drop in (a) make a revert which will almost inevitably be rereverted it is so patently bad, so (b) that any consecutive work is then under a 1R sanction. I.e., the whole process of page building becomes hugely complex as, at each consecutive edit, one has to pour over the intervening edits to determine if one's next correction or edit will hit the trip-wire. If that's the case, well, (a) I deserve a sanction for the inadvertent trip (b) I can't build pages as I used to do, because given the speed I work at, it's child's play to make me inadvertently hit the trip wire. I had a month last time, for stubbornness. I reverted myself even if in genuine perplexity this time round. Whether those who want blood will be satisfied with another month or want, as an escalation, a stronger penalty, should be clarified. What length of sanction would you like (if admins see your point)? We should try to help out here, because this is a massive waste of everyone's time, since you refused to be courteous and accept both my GF and my promise I would revert, and preferred petitioning AE, before I could obtain clarification, or indeed do the revert. Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Ankhmorpork. As is my practice, I wikibanned (not I/P topic-banned) myself 2 days ago, and though that would include therefore this page, I really must protest at the abuse of the use of my log for specious argumentation. Your first two diffs, show my suspensions for edit-warring with abusive reverters in 2007, five years ago, who showed consistent utter contempt for RS and collegial editing (no excuse for my neophyte naivity in combating their deletions by breaking like them the 3R rule). By the way I went on and brought both the articles on Hebron and Haj Amin al-Husseini up to informed, academic RS-based articles of quality with a further several hundred edits. The third, re Norman Finkelstein should never be cited for the simple reason that I was blocked by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry for a 3R revert which never occurred, and this fact, without my actually addressing A/1, was unblocked by User:Haukurth, who even had the courtesy to apologise for the poor way this was handled after unanimous agreement I had neither violated the 3R rule nor edit-warred.
      • Outside of that, the crucial piece of evidence for my permaban was not that I revert-warred (8 reverts in 45 days over several articles, far lower than the average of those indicted there. It was that I was uncivil and indulged in personal attacks, and for this serious charge the following diff was adduced, that I had viciously attacked and offended Ashley Kennedy. User:Jehochman not noticing the date April 1 in whose spirit it was written to a fellow editor and 'friend, got upset and sanctioned me. Several editors complained that he had completely misunderstood my remark. User:Sandstein, as usual, read it with great precision and found nothing objectionable. and the block was immediately overturned.
      • It's very easy to distort impressions by marshalling a block-log in the natural expectancy that no one will take the inhuman trouble to familiarize themselves with context. That happened in the the Arbcom decision leading to my permaban, where the log note by Jehochman was specifically cited as proof of my putative tendency for incivility and personal attacks. I took it on the chin. I haven't protested these oversights, and I suspend myself usually if I slip-up, without bothering AE or A/I. I have a problem, and it is not evidence of malevolent approach to wikipedia. I don't keep in mind 1R except as a blanket revert, and when notified on my page, my practice is to self-revert and self-suspend when that happens. The problem can be solved by the courtesy of notifying me, and I will self-ban myself after reverting if this happens again. I think 1 month is fair. The rules are to further the composition of encyclopedic articles, not to make their construction impossible by alienating people one dislikes. Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
        • WP:EW - Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".
        • NMMGG. Whatever the verdict, I will stick to my one-month self-ban. I know there's a lot of pressure here to get the escalator going, from a prior one month for obstinacy to three months, till I get the permaban both you and Shrike (and I think Ankhmorpork and several others) would prefer. But please read the policy you cite. I was not repeatedly restoring my preferred version. I was writing and rewriting the page fluidly with an eye to whatever people (yourself included) questioned, with a regard simply to the weight of what sources reported. If I had had a preferred version, rather than a regard for the weight of sources, I wouldn't have backed your judgement against Bali Ultimate's (who restored my prior version) in the lead. Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nishidani[edit]

Comment by Pluto2012

Activism1234 complains because Nishidani used somewhere in the article a source that Activism1234 had removed somewhere else and to refer to another material and he counts this as a revert! Activism1234 should be forbidden to come and complain on this page per WP:GAMING, WP:LAWYERING and WP:POINT until he copies 100 times WP:AGF (with a pen, scan this and upload thi son wp:commons). Pluto2012 (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

@NMMNG : aren't you tired of coming again and again with such details and making a world of this ? What is your point ? That somebody who tags Israelis as 'youth' and Palestinians as 'children' whereas they are roughly the same age is biaised or a dangerous pov-pusher that should be topic-banned ? Somebody made a mistake. You corrected this. Great job. Would you have done this with a little bit more WP:CIVILITY would have been even better. For the remaining, any clever reader will understand that in this event, all these 'teenagers' are victims. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Actually, what Nishidani is "semi-graciously" talking about is the first part of that edit, which was sourced to a Haaretz article that mainly quotes from Facebook. I removed it Here and asked for sources on the talk page since only one source in a verbatim quote from Facebook used this terminology, he restored it Here. Then, about 12 hours later he made the first edit mentioned in this report. So if you're looking for a 1RR violation, that's it.
Personally, I'm more concerned about stuff like this where 16-17 year old Palestinians are called "children" (not a single source calls them that) while 13-19 year old Israelis are called "youths". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My "suspicions" are based on fact. As usual, you were "working in haste" or "from memory" or you pressed a button and something completely unexpected happened or whatever. The fact is that you put that infobox in the article, and edited the text above, below, and right next to the problem. This is not the only place where you preferred sensationalist terminology, from the original title of the article through the facebook quote to the extensive use of blogs, op-eds and editorials. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
@Nishidani - Let's look at the facts. 1. The article called 16-17 year old Palestinian "children" while calling 13-19 year old Israelis "youths". 2. No source calls them children. 3. You copied the infobox from another article, then proceeded to edit every single line there, including the word right before "children". These are the facts. You say you didn't notice (the word right next to something you edited). If this was one slip that would be one thing, but the general tone you've given to the article, the original title, the extensive use of a direct quote from facebook, blogs, editorials, and op-eds, often unattributed, not to mention the fact that just a few days ago you said articles like this shouldn't exist (and that was in relation to an event where a child was actually murdered), paints a different picture. I doubt the admins will bother to look into this, but those are the facts. There's also the pesky business of the 1RR violation (not including the Mondoweiss source).
@Ed, BK: WP:EW - Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".

Are you guys setting a precedent that if someone was "trying to improve the article" then edit warring (and that's what 1RR is supposed to prevent) is not so bad? In most cases of edit warring people think they're trying to improve the article. I don't really care what you decide, as long as the decision will be applied similarly in future cases, both in regards to the 1RR violation itself as well as how much weight a history of similar infractions influences sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Maculosae tegmine lyncis
cui bono? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Plus, I guess, how much time and energy is being wasted here, how much enthusiasm-sapping diversion from the real business of article-building? All this petty gaming makes me sick of the place; can sense please rule, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I struck a comment above, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, mature, dispassionate, neutral article building carries on. Here for example, the Benjamin Netanyahu article is, according to the complainant's edit summary, expanded to include important info, A copy of his evaluation from his 6th grade teacher Ruth Rubenstein revealed that Netanyahu was courteous, polite, helpful, Netanyahu's work was "responsible and punctual," and that Netanyahu was friendly, disciplined, cheerful, brave, active and obedient. Gotta love the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
hmm... anyway, short of clarification on points of principle, the matter is perhaps now moot, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment by AnkhMorpork
Nishidani has a long history of disruptively editing IP articles. He was blocked for This culminated in Nishidani receiving an indefinite IP topic ban. This indefinite topic ban was lifted after two years in 2011 topic-banned from I-P articles. Since his unblock, he self-blocked for Violating 1rr at Jerusalem, In my view, he should receive at least a 3 month topic ban for persistent disruptive editing and as an escalation from a previous 1 month ban.

Result concerning Nishidani[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • It seems to me that on 27 August Nishidani removed the citation to Mondoweiss, with a semi-gracious acknowledgment in his edit summary ("Actually for once NMMGG's is right.."). So he undid the material that was objected to by Activism1234 in the head of this report as 'Revert #2.' At present no citation to Mondoweiss remains in the reference list. Unless there is more to this, I suggest closing the report with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I really hope I'm following this correctly. I tend to agree with Ed above that this discussion could be closed. In response to Nishidani's question above, if I'm following this correctly, he is asking whether adding material sourced from a source whose acceptability is disputed by another party, after that other party has already removed that source and the information it sources from the article, qualifies as a reversion. So far as I know, the answer there is I think a qualified "No." In some cases, if, for instance, substantially the same material that had already been removed were added elsewhere in the article, like perhaps a description of an individual, that might qualify as a form of reversion and gaming the system. But, if I'm following this, and I hope someone tells me if I'm wrong, the complaint seems to be that 1RR was violated by adding different material than has been deleted from the article elsewhere in the article, with the alleged "reversion" being about using a source that is objected to. If I'm right in the above, I think I would have to say that is probably not a reversion per se. It might be some other form of sanctionable activity, but I don't think it qualifies as a reversion. I think. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • @Nishidani: Obviously, others are free to jump in here as well, and I hope they do. With the added information about the time frame involved, I regret to say that, at least theoretically, it could be even more confusing. An apparent "reversion" of a source within minutes of that source being removed from the article could be seen, by some, as a form of unacceptable behavior, if one assumes that the edit adding the material was made knowing about the prior edit removing the material, and as some form of response to it. We are supposed to AGF of others, but in contentious areas we also know that some editors don't. We also know, that in some cases, some particularly, well, malevolent, people might do something like this in full knowledge of the situation, out of spite or vindictiveness, and assuming AGF of them is unreasonable. If there were good cause, taking into account such things as the nature of the edit, the prior history of behavior of the editors involved, etc., to think that the restoration of the source was or could have been done for base reasons, that would be potentially sanctionable in some way. And I suppose it could possibly be seen by some that adding a comparatively brief amount of text like the edit in question could conceivably be seen as being done with prior knowledge of the reversion, and thus unacceptable. I can also see how in some cases the very quick turnaround could be seen by some as being a form of retaliation, and how, in some cases, with some editors, it might be reasonable to see it as such. I can also believe that someone who might be outraged by what they might see as the temerity of such a quick retaliation might bring it here. But, in this case, I cannot see that there is any reason to believe that the edits were necessarily retaliatory in nature. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • With the addition of the third link by Activism above, there is clear evidence that there was a violation of the 1RR rule. I was myself one of the editors who spoke to lift the topic ban on Nishidani, because the existing sanctions would also apply, including discretionary ones like those posted here. So, yeah, I have to assume that I would support some sort of appropriate sanctions here, although I admit to not being myself sure what is appropriate in this case, regarding this subject. Unfortunately, like I said above, I am comparatively new here, and I don't know the history here as well as others. I am also, honestly, a bit of an easy mark once in a while, and a bit more "generous" than others in general. Would appreciate any comments from others, particularly any familiar with previous actions in this subject area, regarding what sort of sanctions, if any, to apply in this case. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm now convinced from reading Nishidani's edit summaries that he knew that #1 and #2 were reverts:
  • Edit #1 — 07:32, 26 August 2012 (Undid revision 509170884 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) Rt wholesale removal based on a suspicion, not on evidence. I'll rewrite it. Don't do that again)
  • Edit #2 — 12:27, 26 August 2012 (Restored almost to death as per source because Nir Hasson's account has an eyewitness mentioning police soon after marked the site as a murder scene.)
Nishidani might have an argument that he was unaware that #3 was a revert. In any case to see a violation you would have to interpret "addition of a cite to Mondoweiss" as the thing being reverted. Nishidani was adding different material than the the text previously removed, although his newly-added text cited Mondoweiss. It is unnecessary to reach a conclusion about edit #3 being a revert to verify that 1RR was broken, since #1 and #2 are adequate, given that they are two reverts and they happened within 24 hours. I propose that Nishidani's sanction for the 1RR violation be a one-month topic ban from the I/P conflict on all pages of Wikipedia, both article and talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
A question, though: in Edit#1, Nishidani restored a section removed by NMMNG (who claimed it was a copyvio); with his next two edits he "fixed" the possible problem. If those three edits had been made in a single one, would it have been claimed as a revert? I suspect not, because the "copyvio" was being replaced by something that wasn't, even though it shared some text. On that basis, and given the doubt about Edit#3 I am unconvinced that this should be sanctionable. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Edits #1 and #2 are the reverts that establish the case. Neither #1 or #2 is removing an alleged copyright violation. It was some text *added* by Nishidani that needed to be fixed, and he did fix it in some later edits, but that doesn't cure the original 1RR violation. Though N's revert #2 is in a sense 'understandable', since he intends to fix the copyvio, it still counts, in my opinion. If we were to give Nishidani credit for good intentions we might not be here, since he was trying to improve the article, but he technically broke 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, which is my point really Ed ... would we block someone for a technical 3RR under normal editing if it was clear they were trying to improve the article? WP:IAR sort of applies here. If we're going to sanction Nishidani for this, I would suggest it should be a "technical" topic ban that matches the "offence", i.e. one day or something. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
If you have an idea for closing this, please go ahead. I won't object to a shorter sanction. Since the case has been open so long, it's clear there is no strong feeling one way or the other in the admin corps. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Closing. Nishidani is banned for one month from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict anywhere in Wikipedia. The ban covers articles, talk pages, user talk and Wikipedia-space discussions. He is allowed to appeal the ban itself in the usual way. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Esc2003[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
George Spurlin (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Esc2003 (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. September 3 Discrimination against the origin of the source
  2. September 3 Discrimination against the origin of the source
  3. September 3 Discrimination against the origin of the source
  4. September 3 Discrimination against the origin of the source
  5. September 4 Discrimination against the origin of the source
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Looking over at the Esc2003's talkpage, he has been briefly blocked as a possible sockpuppet and warned numerous times for adding unreferenced controversial biographical content, removing sourced sections in controversial articles, removal of text and references, making unilateral obviously contentious moves, making unilateral edits, marking his edits as minor when they're not, attempting to move without discussion, attacking other editors, adding inappropriate categories etc...

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Esc2003[edit]

Statement by Esc2003[edit]

  • I'm not a sockpuppet. This is an administration error. Admin apologized to me. You speak with assumptions. Nobody didn't answered for original source. Web page shows the national characteristics.

Other comments:,

These are all propaganda sites. They are one-sided. It is unethical situation for an encyclopedia. -- Esc2003 (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So, according to you all Armenian sites are propaganda sites. is a rating website, that ranks all the Armenian websites. George Spurlin (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not say. "all armenian websites are propaganda sites." I didn't also say "sources shouldn't Armenian". I wonder to main source of information. This is so difficult for you? You say original source is Hungarian. No doubt! Source already logically must be Hungarian. But where is it? If can not this. The purpose of propaganda comes to my mind. -- Esc2003 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
What's propagandist about the source? It's a website specifically dedicated to the incident, with lots of useful information. So far your only objection to it has been because it was made by Armenians. George Spurlin (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I give an example from website. here. --Esc2003 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Esc2003[edit]

The question raised by user ESC2003 in the talk page is fair and meet Wiki rules WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Indeed, the translated version of the interrogation is questionable and non-verifiable. Therefore, it can hardly be used as a reference. Moreover, the web pages,, unverifiable rating site seem to be WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY, and do not meet the notability, verifiability and reliability criteria of Wiki. It is a normal practice that ESC2003 requests the independent, third party and verifiable version of the interrogation in original Hungarian language from independent and reliable source meeting Wiki rules. I do not see a reason that discussion is taken up here, while his request on the talk page to provide a verifiable source of interrogation has been ignored. The worrisome thing is that the big part of the subject article is built on unverifiable and, most likely, self-created (or self-modified) fake document. I suggest the admins decline this request for arbitration, instead it would be highly appreciated if an uninvolved editor or an admin joins in the relevant talk page and facilitates discussion between editors to avoid edit-warring and unnecessary disputes. Thanks Angel670 talk 17:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think he was warned about the sanctions. Perhaps this is a good time he is officially warned? George Spurlin (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Why? Because he has a modicum of understanding of WP:RS, unlike the filer of this complaint? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • With the amount of coverage this issue had in international media, resorting to WP:SELFPUBLISHed web sites is quite a fishy practice. "Discrimination against the origin of the source" is indeed quite permissible, actually demanded by Wikipedia policies, like WP:RS. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Esc2003[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • To start out: I'm not seeing that Esc2003 has actually been given a warning of the existence of discretionary sanctions in this case, which are required before any sanction can be given. If I've missed that warning, could we have a link to it? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This section is only for the use of uninvolved administrators--Cailil talk 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm seeing this as a WP:RSN case *not* an ArbCom enforcement issue. While it would be unreasonable to place verify tags spuriously across multiple articles I don't see quite where User:Esc2003 can seen as straying into disruptive territory. The website is questionable, as to me it looks like a blog - but that discussion needs to go to WP:RSN not here. Suggest close without action unless further improper tagging is occurring (or if I've missed something)--Cailil talk 19:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cailil that this is an issue for WP:RSN. In any case the article has been fully protected for a week. Since the time that Esc2003 made his last edit at Ramil Safarov, the article has been edited sixty times by others. This suggests that Esc2003 is unlikely to have a disproportionate effect on the outcome of the debate. He is not the only person whose comments about this controversy are less than ideal. Any sanctions given out here ought to be even-handed, and the amount of data provided in this request doesn't give us a balanced picture of who might need sanctioning. This request should be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Another day has passed without further comments. Closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


Indefinitely blocked for clear legal threats, can be revisited if/when said threats are retracted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:52, 7 September 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 פארוק[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
asad (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
פארוק (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 09/03/12 Violation of WP:TBAN with insulting and racist denial of Palestinian existence
  2. 09/03/12 Violation of WP:THREAT
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Topic banned on 08/23/12 by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs)
  2. Informed on what what WP:TBAN means on 08/23/12 by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
  3. Informed again on 08/26/12 by Nableezy (talk · contribs)
  4. Warned on 08/26/12 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) for inappropriate discussions for this comment (Note: this could have also been considered a violation of the topic ban to which Nableezy addressed above)
  5. Warned on 09/01/12 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) for violation of WP:NPA where this user claimed that another user "hates" Israel
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I informed the user of their violation here. Instead of choosing to self-RV, the user threatened me on my talk page (see the diff above). I asked that admins really consider the content of the diff of the violation. Outright denial of Palestinian existence should not be tolerated. I find the comments especially racist and disgusting. This kind of rhetoric is not at all new for this user, as one can tell from the original A/E thread. I request that this user receive an indefinite block, not only for the topic ban violation and legal threat, but for the continuation of and rehashing of racist commentary.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning פארוק[edit]

  • I can't understand why this user is being given a 24 hour period before a decision is made to be honest. Despite the original ban and the several warnings issued to him, he has shown no clear signs of learning the consequences of his actions, nor does he appear to show signs of every going to cease making similar actions in the near future. I'd support immediate action to be taken without hesitation. Wesley Mouse 02:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by פארוק[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning פארוק[edit]

Result concerning פארוק[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Unless I hear a very compelling reason not to indef פארוק in the next 24 hours, I'll do exactly that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have gone ahead and indefinitely blocked for the legal threat. If he withdraws the threat, that rationale goes away and my block can be rescinded. I'd support a long-term block/ban for violating the topic-ban, attacks, and battleground mentality, but a consensus needs to be established. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    Fine with me; I was going to hold fire until the next editing session, but I have no objection to your actions. I'll close this up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


Blocked 48h for disruptive editing, warned explicitly about discretionary sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:32, 11 September 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 Espor[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Fut.Perf. 07:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Espor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions
Offensive edits after prior "final warning" from 2 September
  • [52] accuses opponents of "vandalism"
  • [53] describes opponent as "extraordinary low educated"; expresses blatant battleground attitude (" If we unite we can win over over this crowd")
  • [54] describes opponents as "jokers"
  • [55][56] canvassing in support of battleground agenda ("we need more defenders of the cause")
  • [57] hostile battleground attitude, speaks about "exposing" his opponent's "true intentions"; deliberately misspelling his username
  • [58], [59] repeated personal-attacks warning by admin Canterbury Tail
  • [60] edit-warring warning by Tourbillon
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Espor is a recently created single-purpose account engaged in battleground/tag-team behaviour (together with fellow SPA Ximhua (talk · contribs)) over a dispute at Bulgaria. His misbehaviour was even more crass in the first days and brought him several warnings; the links above are only those edits made after the latest "final warning" by an administrator.

Re Heimstern: I don't think the fact that the warning didn't explicitly mention the discretionary sanctions regime needs to hold us back here. It was a final warning by an uninvolved administrator, clearly implying that he would be blocked if he continued. He clearly did continue. The least thing that should be done at this point is imposing that block. It makes no difference whether you do that as a "normal" admin measure or invoking the discretionary sanctions rule. Fut.Perf. 09:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Espor[edit]

Statement by Espor[edit]

Dear Comittee,

I do not agree with the attempts of Fut. Ref. to ban me. If you pay attention to the so called offensive edits you will see that the quoted passages are not even offesive at all( there is not even a single vulgar word). Furthermore, Fut. Ref. tries to ascribe me crimes that I have not commited such as "deliberately hiding my username", as if this is possible on Wikipedia. Before making decision whether I deserve a ban, I ask you to go first through the whole conversations and not just through the carefully selected and taken out of context passages presented by Fut. Ref. Most of the things said are responses to provocations made by the opposide side. Of course, being a new editor, I tend to be more direct and honest than some of my opponents who have learned to express themselves in a "politically correct manner". In completion, I want to declare that I stand 100% behind every word, every statement I made no matter how harsh it may sound in the sensitive ears of some editors. Besides, I do not think that an attempt to silence someone else's opinion under the "just" pretext of usage of harsh language (but not offensive) does any good to WIkipedia. After all, I brought up an old and unsolved problem regarding the Bulgaria page and thanks to the dispute that I initiated now the whole board of editors found an agreement that satisfies all sides for the first time since 2006. Not like the last "consenus" which was only between several editors (among which Fut. Ref.) leaving the other side completely confused, this time we have a true consensus among all participants. Now the other side wants to express its rage "shooting the messanger". No thanks. This will not work out. Regards, EsporEspor (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Espor[edit]

Result concerning Espor[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Espor's behaviour is clearly inappropriate. I'm not seeing that the warning required for the enactment of discretionary sanctions has yet been given. Assuming I'm not mistaken, I can give that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, I misread the warning by Canterbury Tail and didn't notice that he was an uninvolved admin. I'll come back and look at this again later when I'm not right on my way out the door, as I am now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Indefinitely blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:06, 12 September 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 Talknic[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Activism1234 20:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Talknic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions (I think, not sure... An admin recommended simply extending talknic's topic ban to Israeli-Arab articles and articles on the future of a Palestinian state or articles which state the views of any political leader who refers to Israel as the "Zionist regime." I don't mind that.)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 18 July This is the diff showing that Talknic was indef blocked from I-P articles, broadly construed, in July 2012. Also note he was previously indef blocked from I-P articles in 2011 as well.
  2. 13 August Here Talknic was blocked for 72 hours for violating his topic ban, by making this edit.
  3. 23 August He was warned by an administrator for violating his topic ban again by editing his namespace in an edit that violated the topic ban.
  4. 27 August Again warned explicitly against violating the topic ban by editing his namespace in an edit that violated the topic ban.
  5. 8 September - makes a disruptive edit to the article (and the talk page) of which he was blocked for 72 hours for editing. Although here it's an edit where he inserts a POV template (w/o exactly explaining why...), rather than make an edit about a UNSC resolution directly tied to I-P, the article itself as a whole is about Ahmadinejad's views on Israel, and his comments, which stem as a direct result of I-P, and should thus fall under broadly construed. Two different administrators have agreed that Talknic has been pushing the limits of his topic ban and testing the edges here, while there are millions of other unrelated articles Talknic could edit (but doesn't), and one of them suggested I should go to AE, so here I am.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

All is noted above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Admin Malik made a very good point. I don't have any preferences over indefinite ban or broadened topic ban, but I would like to point out that talknic's claims of consistently only maintaining NPOV seem superficial, when one takes a quick look at his YouTube page of his, devoted entirely to I-P and blatant POV against Israel (which is fine for YouTube, but not for Wikipedia), as well as his website. His Wikipedia account just looks to me like an extension of his online activities devoted solely to I-P. So honestly, I don't see a broadened topic ban being any different than an indefinite ban, and Malik is completely right when he/she says that talknic isn't interested in contributing to other areas of Wikipedia. --Activism1234 00:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)”

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Talknic[edit]

Statement by Talknic[edit]

I hope admins will at least give me time to prepare a reply and then take the time to read my comments on the matter, before reaching a decision. Shan't be long. Thx ... talknic (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the complaints
1) Part a. 18 July This is the diff showing that Talknic was indef blocked from I-P articles, broadly construed, in July 2012.

The TBan was not specifically across "all NameSpaces" and only dealt with the I/P issue. The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article is not under the same ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES as the I/P Issue. I sought clarification here & here

1) Part b. Also note he was previously indef blocked from I-P articles in 2011 as well.

False accusation. It was a six month TBan not an "indef block" and was specifically across "all NameSpaces".
Likewise I was pursuing the same, continued, purposeful breach of NPOV, which did not go away in my absence.
In both instances, the blocking administrators did not take into consideration the actions of the complainant in maintaining breaches of WP:NPOV for 16 months.
Oddly, the blocking administrator and complainant considered my dogged pursuit of an obvious and long standing breach of WP:NPOV to be tendentious. However, it is surely an inherent responsibility of all editors to address such breaches of policy, no matter how long they stand. It remains an inherent responsibility even after a TBan has expired.
Tendentious: is a continued and deliberate contravention of WP:NPOV perpetrated by the complainant over 16 months and his coercion of others to breach WP:NPOV policy, by consensus and other means, across all the following discussions [63] - [64] - [65] - [66] - [67] - [68] - [69] - [70].
Instead they based their TBan decisions on prior determinations which had nothing to do with the new complaints resulting in those two TBans.

2) 13 August Here Talknic was blocked for 72 hours for violating his topic ban, by making this edit.

Quite so, just and accepted. I've not since mentioned the I/P issue

3) 23 August He was warned by an administrator for violating his topic ban again by editing his namespace in an edit that violated the topic ban.

The TBan was not explicitly to "all NameSpaces". I sought clarification of this issue from The Blade of Northern Lights [71] [72]. As it stands, it is now self imposed [73]. I have not mentioned the I/P issue since.

4) 27 August Again warned explicitly against violating the topic ban by editing his namespace in an edit that violated the topic ban.

As before the TBan was not explicitly across "all NameSpaces".

5) Part a. 8 September - makes a disruptive edit to the article

False accusation. There is an obvious breach of WP:NPOV on the article. There are no Israeli statements against Iran or Ahmadinejad. Despite this obvious breach and it having been appropriately taken to the Talk page (before inserting the POV template), User:Activism1234 has removed the template [74]

5) Part b. (and the talk page) of which he was blocked for 72 hours for editing. Although here it's an edit where he inserts a POV template (w/o exactly explaining why...), rather than make an edit about a UNSC resolution directly tied to I-P, the article itself as a whole is about Ahmadinejad's views on Israel, and his comments, which stem as a direct result of I-P, and should thus fall under broadly construed.

A) I made no edits in the 72 hour period.
B) ..he inserts a POV template Of course there's a breach of WP:NPOV
C) (w/o exactly explaining why...) Another false accusation. I took it to the Talk page 02:51, 9 September 2012 before the template was added 02:52, 9 September 2012
D) Opening line of the Lede -- "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel refers to the relations between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Israel..." This could include non I/P issues where there have been contentious speeches and statements by Israeli representatives. Iran's Nuclear industry, Human rights, elections, Iran's Jewish population etc etc, none of which are I/P issues.
E) The Blade of the Northern Lights "I have to agree with Talknic here; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't inherently about I/P (although certain parts of the article are, that wasn't what Talknic was editing), so I'm really not seeing it" 16:38, 9 September 2012

5) Part c. Two different administrators have agreed that Talknic has been pushing the limits of his topic ban and testing the edges here, while there are millions of other unrelated articles Talknic could edit (but doesn't)

Pushing the limits and testing the edges is how policy is refined

Further comments on the complaint
This complaint was lodged @ 20:32, 9 September 2012
Activism refines his sanctions request @01:52, 10 September 2012‎ after a bizarre request by EdJohnson @ 22:23, 9 September 2012 ... talknic (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Replies to Caili
It has already been determined by The Blade of the Northern Lights that the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article is not inherently related to the I/P issue "I have to agree with Talknic here; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't inherently about I/P (although certain parts of the article are, that wasn't what Talknic was editing), so I'm really not seeing it" 16:38, 9 September 2012
"The battle ground mentality demonstrated here on this board only agrevates the issue" A) Blatant breaches of WP:NPOV are battle ground mentality. Whereas drawing attention to breaches of WP:NPOV or any other breach of policy is an inherent responsibility for all editors. B) My comment to EdJohnson contains nothing even close to battleground mentality. Given the circumstances, his request is quite bizarre ... talknic (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Replies to Heimstern Läufer

I have already sought guidance and was eventually informed "I have to agree with Talknic here; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't inherently about I/P (although certain parts of the article are, that wasn't what Talknic was editing), so I'm really not seeing it" 16:38, 9 September 2012
Opening line of the Lede -- "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel refers to the relations between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Israel..." This could include non I/P issues where there have been contentious speeches and statements by Israeli representatives. Iran's Nuclear industry, Human rights, elections, Iran's Jewish population etc etc, none of which are I/P issues. "relations between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Israel", go two ways. The issue I raised in the article is the blatant breach of NPOV! ... talknic (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
"and since the POV tag was attached to the entire article. "
The "relations" throughout the entire article go only one way! "relations" go both ways. There are no Israeli statements towards Ahmadinejad/Iran in respect to elections, nukes, human rights, offers of earthquake relief, other allegations/accusations etc, not related to the I/P issue ... talknic (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
"we're OK to go ahead with blocking now"
Why on earth is there a place here for me to make a statement on the AE request? It seems no one ever reads the evidence I've given? ... talknic (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply EdJohnston

Broadening the ban, after the fact, after the ARBPIA tag was posted, while admitting the admin imposing the TBan didn't see it as a violation? What on earth for? Some minor 'testing the edges'? The article is completely biased. "relations between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Israel", go two ways. The "relations in the article are only going one way!]] There have been contentious speeches and statements made by Israeli representatives on Iran's Nuclear industry, Human rights, Elections, Iran's Jewish population etc etc, none of which are I/P issues.
I should get banned for pointing out a glaring, bias laden, one sided, blatant breach of NPOV? (Oddly enough the same as all the past discussions [75] - [76] - [77] - [78] - [79] - [80] - [81] - [82]. Sixteen months of No More Mr Nice Guy "tendentiously" maintaining a breach of NPOV, coercing other editors to breach policy by consensus, having to eventually admit a breach of NPOV existed,[83] suddenly collaborating with Nishidani and based on much the same arguments I'd presented, made the edit himself, almost precisely as I had originally suggested. The issue was completely resolved to everyone's satisfaction at 20:35, 9 July 2012, vindicating my determination pursue the issue, even on return from being banned. A full six days later No More Mr Nice Guy then had the audacity to launch an AE request 20:35, 9 July 2012, accusing me of being "tendentious")
Answer me this if you will please: As long as there is a breach of NPOV, is it not an inherent responsibility for editors to deal with it, no matter how long it takes or over how many discussions? I should have faith in such a system that previously, after 16 months of trying to have a breach of NPOV addressed and; on eventually being vindicated by No More Mr Nice Guy's admission of a breach of NPOV, which he maintained and coerced other editors into consensus to maintain, I am again banned? Now here having a previous ban extended retroactively, for a non-violation and 'testing the edges', after pointing out a gross violation of NPOV over almost an entire article? ...talknic (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Ed "What he has done at the Ahmadinejad and Israel article is add a POV tag."
The POV tag was explained on the talk page, then added to the article because article is in breach of NPOV. It is an inherent responsibility for editors to deal with NPOV issues. The "relations" throughout the entire article go only one way! "relations" go both ways. There are no Israeli statements towards Ahmadinejad/Iran on elections, nukes, human rights, offers of earthquake relief, other allegations/accusations etc, not related to the I/P issue ... talknic (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Ed "There does not seem to be any proposal for content work in this case" ... "His activity at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel is likely to cause turmoil but no actual improvement of the article"
A) I deliberately took the matter to Talk in order to collaborate, so as to address the breach of NPOV. Then added the POV tag. Is that not a recommended method for addressing issues and developing content? Instead we are almost immediately here! Opportunity to suggest, discuss, collaborate, NIL!
B) Addressing the blatant, over all POV issue in the article, would not be an improvement?
C) Articles where there has been improvement through my involvement. [84] & [85] & ([86] via [87]/[88]/[89]/[90]/[91]/[92]/[93]/[94]/[95]) & [96] & [97]. The prolonged laborious nature of the discussions being generated by those who REFUSED to collaborate on any material they didn't like, despite their every criteria being met and the continuous moving goal posts. In each case edits were made almost as I first suggested. In each case "turmoil" was generated by attempting to prevent "actual improvement of the article" ... talknic (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Replies T. Canens
As you agree with EdJohnston, and as you have also been involved in previous bans, please read the above reply to EdJohnston. Thx ... talknic (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Replies to Shrike
"I have marked article in question with ARBPIA tag as it clearly belongs to the I/P conflict."

I sought guidance and eventually informed "I have to agree with Talknic here; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't inherently about I/P (although certain parts of the article are, that wasn't what Talknic was editing), so I'm really not seeing it" 16:38, 9 September 2012
Furthermore, a belatedly added ARBPIA tag, after the fact, has no bearing on this particular AE request.
We've already seen one instance of an administrator attempting to have the current TBan modified, 22:23, 9 September 2012 after the fact! and;
The complainant belatedly nominating the sanctions they'd like 01:52, 10 September 2012 After the fact!

"I think to stop Talcnic wikilawyering the ban should be from all Middle eastern topics and Jewish topics broadly construed"
I'm sure you'd be delighted. However there are guidelines administrators are bound to follow, complex as that might be ... talknic (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Replies to Malik Shabazz"
"Why is everybody pussyfooting around the real issue? talknic seems to have no interest in contributing to the project except with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict."

A) The Blade of the Northern Lights "I have to agree with Talknic here; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't inherently about I/P (although certain parts of the article are, that wasn't what Talknic was editing), so I'm really not seeing it" 16:38, 9 September 2012 B) Is it obligatory that one edits other areas on Wikipedia when one's time is limited and one would like to weed out dis-information and un-helpful POV on a matter of importance to ones Jewish fellows in Israel and Israel's neighbours? Peace will not come about as long as people are mis-informed and subjected to completely biased articles such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel.

"Why block her/him for one or two weeks; we all know we'll have to take action again in a month."

Because another breach of NPOV needs maintaining? ... talknic (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Replies to Activism
".. I would like to point out that talknic's claims of consistently only maintaining NPOV seem superficial"

I have given documented evidence of it here numerous times and in previous banning statements. None of which appears to have been read very thoroughly

"when one takes a quick look at his YouTube page of his, devoted entirely to I-P and blatant POV against Israel (which is fine for YouTube, but not for Wikipedia), as well as his website."

A)Irrelevant to my actions on Wikipedia and; B) Far from being blatant POV against Israel, it is in fact entirely FOR Israel, as an Independent State, living in peace with it's neighbours by upholding the International Laws, UN Charter and conventions it has ratified, as required by the UN and as a UN member state. Satire aimed at Israel's leaders who DO NOT live up to the UN obligations in no way represents an Anti-Israel POV.

"His Wikipedia account just looks to me like an extension of his online activities devoted solely to I-P."

Israel, being my Homeland State and; having a burning desire to see it and my fellow Israeli Jews living in peace is naturally at the top of my list of online activities. Peace will not come about as long as people are mis-informed or presented with biased POV articles
As you have already seen fit to reference my blog "All I ask, as do the numerous UNSC resolutions against Israel, is that it abide by the Laws and uphold it’s VOLUNTARY obligations to the UN, which in no way threaten Israel or diminish it’s right to protect itself in accordance with the UN Charter, the Laws of War or the Geneva Conventions" [98]

".. talknic isn't interested in contributing to other areas of Wikipedia"

It is not in itself a bannable offense or obligation. It is however an inherent obligation to address inaccurate information and blatant breaches of NPOV for as long as they stand. If they're still there after a topic ban (for attempting to address them) has expired, there is still an obligation on ALL editors working in the subject to address them again and again and again until they are resolved! ... talknic (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW "Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be." and; "Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." ... talknic (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Replies to The Blade of the Northern Lights
We were in fact making headway until Activism launched this AE request. We had already agreeing that the article in question was not entirely an I/P issue. I had already agreed to self ban from mentioning the I/P issue and from that moment did not. I don't envy your position BTW, at least you took the time to read my arguments and admit to there being gray areas and a less than explicit TBan. I just wish someone, anyone, would seriously look at the POV issue saturating the article ... talknic (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Notes to all administrators
This is the second time an ARBPIA tag has been added AFTER I've made an edit to an article. The first being by No More Mr Nice Guy here for which there was no sanction EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2011
Now an ARBPIA tag has been added by Shrike here after this AE request was made.
Furthermore, the complainant has removed the article POV tag [99], without discussion in Talk, while the issue is still unresolved in Talk and while the article is still very clearly in breach of NPOV. No one but myself has seen fit to do anything constructive towards rectifying it. No collaboration what so ever, just a feeding frenzy to have me banned! ... talknic (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

T. Canens/ Heimstern Läufer -- I feel my reaction to this AE is quite justified. I've pointed out a blatant breach of NPOV. In my statement I have given evidence of false accusations in the AE request. I took the POV issue to Talk as recommended and then added a POV tag as recommended. If I am banned and the breach of NPOV is allowed to remain (as the breach of NPOV stood for over 16 months in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article), you will all have done Wikipedia a dis-service ... talknic (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Talknic[edit]

Comment by Shike- I have marked article in question with ARBPIA tag as it clearly belongs to the I/P conflict. I think to stop Talcnic wikilawyering the ban should be from all Middle eastern topics and Jewish topics broadly construed .That will save the trouble for everyone.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Malik Shabazz — Why is everybody pussyfooting around the real issue? talknic seems to have no interest in contributing to the project except with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Why block her/him for one or two weeks; we all know we'll have to take action again in a month. I recommend an indefinite block. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

When I first heard the complaint that Talknic was violating his ban, I didn't want to take action myself because Blade seemed to be giving him some latitude. However the repeated appearances of Talknic's name in connection with articles which are not well chosen for a person working under such a ban indicate to me that admins should take reasonable steps. My proposal is: "Talknic may not edit any article which mentions the Arab-Israeli conflict or the future of the state of Palestine, or states the views of any political leader who refers to Israel as a Zionist regime." The point of this is to broaden the scope of the ban to include the entire common-sense definition of the Arab-Israeli conflict. If Talknic seemed to be using common sense, this fine-tuning of the ban would not be necessary.

We also have been known to adjust the scope of bans if it seems that someone wants to do actual content work. There does not seem to be any proposal for content work in this case. What he has done at the Ahmadinejad and Israel article is add a POV tag. His activity at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel is likely to cause turmoil but no actual improvement of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Talknic[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Under the terms of WP:ARBPIA the discretionary sanctions apply to all articles related to the arab-Israeli conflict. Not only are Talkinc's edits to the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article in violation of this, but so to is his reply to Edjohnston here. The battle ground mentality demonstrated here on this board only agrevates the issue. Recommend block for 1-2 weeks--Cailil talk 10:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • At this point I agree with TC and HL an indefinite block may be required here--Cailil talk 11:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There appears to be some dispute about whether this edit falls under the ban, as Iran is not an Arab country. I would submit that the edit does fall under it, as the article is clearly relevant to the Israel-Palestine dispute (the article speaks of how Ahmadinejad's opposition to Israel relates to the Palestinian people etc.) On those grounds, I see a violation and agree with Cailil's suggestion of a block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Another issue being raised is that the article in question is not exclusively about I/P issues; that seems quite beside the point, what with the "broadly construed" and since the POV tag was attached to the entire article. I agree with KC that it would be good to hear from The Blade before closing, though I don't think I agree with TC entirely, and think it would be appropriate to close with a sanction if a consensus of admins deems this a violation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
      • After The Blade's comments, it seems there's agreement that this was a violation, so I don't think the ban needs to be tweaked; I think it already covers what's necessary. I would also suggest that we're OK to go ahead with blocking now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm tending to agree with TC now. Given talknic's reaction to this AE thread, I can't imagine we're not just going to end up back here again once any fixed-duration block is over. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If it were up to me, I'd say that this is a violation as well, but when the admin imposing the ban didn't see it as a violation, I do not think it is appropriate for us to overrule him. On the other hand, we should consider broadening the ban, as EdJohnston suggested on Blade's talk page. T. Canens (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • You are really not doing yourself any favors here, talknic. Given Blade's view below, my first preference is an indef block per Malik above. Second preference is a two week block per Cailil. T. Canens (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I find I disagree with TBotNL; we generally interpret "broadly construed" broadly indeed, as the term indicates. I'd like to hear from him before we close this one. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    In retrospect, I think I'm the one who misread things here; looking over it again, it looks a lot more obvious than I initially thought. Since I think I've botched this one enough for now, I'll hold fire and let other admins figure out what to do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


User blocked 24 hours. NW (Talk) 03:15, 19 September 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 Aslbsl[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy 18:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Aslbsl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR rule
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 23:49, 15 September 2012‎ Revert of this
  2. 08:23, 16 September 2012‎ Second revert, again changing location from East Jerusalem to Jerusalem
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Informed of the 1RR violation and given an opportunity to self revert. The user declined
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The user did the same thing earlier in the month (here). Repeatedly removing the well-sourced location of this settlement as being in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem and instead obfuscating that to appear that it is simply a neighborhood in Jerusalem. A prior 1RR violation also went unreported, see the following:

  1. Initial revert (of this)
  2. Next revert
  3. final revert (which violated the 1RR with the above revert)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Aslbsl[edit]

Statement by Aslbsl[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Aslbsl[edit]

Result concerning Aslbsl[edit]

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


Blocked for three months. T. Canens (talk) 18:09, 22 September 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 Ximhua[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Fut.Perf. 22:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ximhua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions
Disruptive edits

(these are just the ones from today)

  • [100] frivolous "vandalism" accusation
  • [101] ditto
  • [102] refusal to retract vandalism accusation; general hostility and incivility
  • [103], [104] revert-warring without talkpage engagement
  • [105] announcement of intent to edit-war
  • [106] tag-team scheming, battleground mentality
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  • Formal Arbmac warning, 30 July [107]
  • Warning about canvassing, 15 August [108]
  • Warning about frivolous vandalism accusations, today [109]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Ximhua has been on a persistent campaign of disruptive tendentious editing mainly regarding the Bulgaria page, but also elsewhere. Virtually all his contributions in article space have had to be reverted as tendentious, OR, or just plain false. His behaviour in the context of a request for medition was so bad that the mediation failed before it could start, largely because of him [110].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Ximhua[edit]

Statement by Ximhua[edit]

Obviously Future is unable to accept even a simple edit made by me - to an article about a word - Troika, which is a standard word shared between Bulgaria and Russia. He reverted the mention in the article that the word is Bulgarian three times, without providing any evidence/arguments or source to back his reverts. That is far from civil. After his reverts I did post on the talk page of Troika. I hope the committee will review his behavior as well.

As for the requests for Mediation, it failed, because the other side declined to participate. I've also submitted another request, but again the other side failed to participate. As I'm certain the committee will review the actual request for mediation, it will quickly become evident what happened.

As for Bulgaria's page, I was the one who was looking for a compromise and who initiated a DRN and Mediation request (links below), thus I've always have been looking for a compromise. - look for Bulgaria

Indef? In light of my numerous attempts to use the official channels to resolve the dispute on Bulgaria and the other side's attitude and actions, would this be justified? Wouldn't you need to ban all of the participants in this dispute then? Ximhua (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Just saw the comments by Tourbillion :) and how are my edits about Vlad the Impaler or other edits inappropriate or not true? As for the investigation, it was initiated by Tourbillion for Ceco31 not me and was rejected by the committee, for lack of evidence. Tourbillion's behavior on the other hand has often been far from civil, as he's declined participation in the request for mediation on the topic and has made statements outright false statements like the bellow, where he states that the First and Second Bulgarian Empire were not sovereign states.

"They only include prior states if there is some political continuity between them. That is the case of Germany, France and Russia. That is not the case of Poland or Hungary (not really good articles), nor of Bulgaria. You used a very good description there - the Medieval Bulgarian empires were "political entities". But post-1878 is a sovereign state. The two empires were not sovereign countries. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)" Ximhua (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

@Eluchil404, can you please explain which standards have I broken to justify such a harsh punishment (1 month)? On the Bulgaria's discussion I've initiated DRN, Request for mediation, Request for Comment, etc. On the troika edits, did I use harsh language or did I revert someone's edits. Quite the opposite, my edit was reverted 3 times with no explanation? I engaged on the talk pages on both topics. Please, provide justification for your suggestion, as otherwise it would make sense to ban everybody that is involved in Bulgaria's discussion for example. Obviously, I want to follow the rules and if you look thru my contribs you will see that I've engaged with moderators during the DRNs and Request for Mediation to ensure I'm doing the right thing. Thus, please help me understand better what am I doing wrong, so obviously I don't do it in the future as well as provide justification for the proposed 1 month ban. Best, Ximhua (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

@Eluchil404. OK, I got it. I can assure you that I will make sure I engage on the talk page after first reverts. No warnings either. Do I still deserve a month's ban?Ximhua (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Ximhua[edit]

Some additional points on tag-team behavior: [112][113]; examples of edits of the same nature on articles outside the Bulgaria topic field: Genetic history of Europe and Vlad the Impaler. Even though the second example has a source added, the user has shown that he is prone to misinterpreting sources to prove a point:[114]. Was also subject of a sockpuppetry investigation. No sockpuppetry was confirmed, but meatpuppetry was suggested by the checkuser. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Future Perf.'s request is unfounded. Evidently, he wants to ban everyone who does not agree with him, which in itself is a battleground and far from civil behavior. Maybe we should soon consider the behavior of Fut. Perf. as well. As for Ximhua, I could say that his statements and edits speak for themselves. He uses references unlike other editors who just use "logical thinking" and make claims without providing sources which back up their claims. This request is waste of time. I recommend rejection of the request since no evidence for uncivil behavior has been presented.Espor (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we get a closure here? The consensus for sanctions has been essentially stable and without opposition for more than a week now. Fut.Perf. 17:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Ximhua[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Indef? T. Canens (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, maybe. At the very least, some action is going to need to be taken, as there's a long pattern of battleground behaviour. And topic ban vs. block seems to be a trivial distinction since Ximhua's editing is almost exclusively about Bulgaria. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the clean block log, I'm not sure that an indef is warranted at this point. I'd start with 1-3 months to give him a chance to understand that we are serious about enforcing our standards. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Eluchil's suggestion is good by me. I have a sneaking suspicion we'll be back here when the block ends, but just maybe I'll be proven wrong. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not actually an optimist by nature; I just believe in giving users some rope. But every once in a while someone will surprise you. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the one to three month topic ban is a good idea, leaning toward a three month topic ban. It may be, maybe, that the editor in question might find something else to edit in that time, where maybe the behavior problems won't arise. And, yeah, also, if after the ban the behavior recurs, it would make for a stronger case that an indef ban would be called for, and also make such less likely to be seriously questioned or pointed to as unwarranted. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I can't think of a good way to craft a topic ban that fits the conduct without being overly lengthy or wikilawyerable, which is why I was - and am still - leaning towards a block. T. Canens (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
          • That makes sense, actually, considering that the apparent problem area is kind of ill defined. I suppose it might be possible to try to apply mandatory edit review in this case, which would only allow him to edit articles after a review of the proposed changes by others, but a block might prevent talk page abuse. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I tend to agree that a block is preferable to a topic ban as a sanction in this instance. The question in my mind is an appropriate length. I am not seeing the kind of pure trolling that would lead me to favor an immediate indef, but am willing to defer if an indefinite block with leave to appeal is considered a preferable sanction to a simple 3 month block. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Ximhua. I'll take the Troika edits as an example. You reverted twice, before going to the talk page. WP:BRD, which while not a policy documents a widely endorsed practice recommends that after you have been reverted you go directly to the talk page without reverting back even once. Secondly, Future Perfect did give explanations "Bulgarian is irrelevant here" and "it's irrelevant in how many other languages the word exists. English got it directly from Russian; that's the only reason for mentioning it." which make clear why he believes that only Russian need be mentioned. Your response "This word has been around for 10 centuries, how do you know where English got it from? Why are you denying facts?" is needlessly personal and accusatory. No one is denying facts (i.e. that the word exists in Bulgarian) but merely asserting that the Russian use is the only relevant one for English etymology as can be confirmed by any English dictionary. Your related edits to Future Perfect's talk page are also very troubling. Content disputes are not vandalism. It is not appropriate to issue "WARNING"s, or make demands of other editors in the way that you did. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Going with a three month block for now. The next block, should it become necessary, will likely be indefinite. T. Canens (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


Blocked indefinitely. T. Canens (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Extended topic ban

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [115]
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

Not applicable. Arbitrators have repeatedly reminded him of his topic ban, even if he has repeatedly ignored their advice. He has banned me (and others) from his user talk page, but I have nevertheless notified him.[116]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

TrevelyanL85A2 is topic-banned from commenting on me. He has not added any useful content to wikipedia for a long time. His sole purpose this year, judging from his edits, seems to be to act to create trouble for me in any way he can manage. He is prohibited from commenting on me and arbitrators have spelled that out to him (e.g. Newyorkbrad). The latest posting refers to two threads on WP:BLPN one of which I started today and another where I participated. From his comments in the diff above, TrevelyanL85A2 has made it clear tbat he wishes to make mischief concerning me through The Devil's Advocate. He has done so previously, communicating in private with The Devil's Advocate (as he is suggesting now). That has led to the current highly disruptive and time-wasting amendment request. In the current circumstances, with no edits to mitigate his conduct and where he is still giving the appearance of acting as a henchperson for two site-banned editors, a lengthy or possibly indefinite editing restriction seems to be the way forward. His excuses for not contributing have been lame. At the moment his editing has regressed to that of a disruption-only account, in this case acting on behalf of two site-banned buddies. The diff above is a graphic illustration of that: administrators should read the two linked threads there, one started today by me,and see who commneted there. They have nothing at all to do with TrevelyanL85A2. He is trying to evade his topic ban yet again through The Devil's Advocate in an even more evasive way than before. In this case he is trying to create havoc away from arbcom pages, where he has previously enjoyed some kind of protection while motions have been formulated. The comments on me in the diff above fall outside arbitration processes and appear to be purely malicious. If his only aim is to game the system, he should do so elsewhere (provided that he's not been banned there) without fooling around on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

I was really hoping this wouldn't become a big deal, which is why I wanted to discuss it with TDA via e-mail instead of posting about it in public, but I guess I have no other option now.

I brought this up with TDA is because it's my fault Mathsci is following him to places like WQA and the Wikipedia UK article. It was at my request that he posted the amendment thread about me, and now he's experiencing the consequences of that. I feel really guilty for not having warned him, because it is something I knew was a danger. It's how Mathsci tends to handle him himself in disputes, such as his dispute last year with Miradre, which resulted in (for example) following Miradre to the Groupthink, article where he made four reverts of Miradre and no other edits. [117] But TDA was not familiar with this danger, and it's my fault he didn't know about it.

I know it probably looks like I was jumping into something that wasn't my business, but please look at the whole situation, and what I can understand about my responsibility for what's happening to TDA now. He tried to help me, and as a direct result he's experiencing something I should have warned him about but didn't. Therefore, it's my responsibility to try to help him if he wants it, and if he doesn't want it then at least to apologise. I tried to do this in a way that was as inoffensive as possible, and without mentioning Mathsci directly. If that's still a problem, please at least understand what my goal was. It was not to cause conflict, but only to do what seemed like the only kind thing I could do for TDA in this situation.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@T. Canens: Now that I understand this is a problem, I've removed my post from TDA's user talk. I would like to avoid causing conflict here, but it's difficult to know how to reconcile the restriction I'm under with the course of action that seems like basic kindness to me. I'll remember this lesson in the future. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I have not disrupted anything. I am trying to move on with trying to edit things, but I am constantly being hounded by people and harassed, as are people who want to help me improve. I want to go and edit back to what I usually edit, without being harassed by anyone. This AE request is just another form of harassment just because I was trying to help someone. I really want people to understand this is the major issue. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

Result concerning TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

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

Sigh. While I'm not sure it was a very smart move on Mathsci's own part to follow TDA to that article and take it to that noticeboard, that's really not at issue here. What I find clear is that Trevelyan had no business sticking his own nose in too, and his edit is clearly a comment on Mathsci, even if he didn't explicitly mention the name (he said "has been reported", in the passive, but of course it was plain obvious that the agent of that verb was Mathsci; also, the intention of writing an e-mail to TDA that "also relates to what happened" in the other event he mentioned could only refer to that editor, because his and TDA's presence was the only thing that linked the two events.) Given the fact that Trevelyan had lots, lots of warnings, and that he has not contributed anything to the encyclopedia for over half a year but spent an insane amount of time and energy skirting around the edges of his topic ban instead, I think a longish block is the logical consequence at this point. Fut.Perf. 22:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Longish to indefinite, yes. I would prefer the latter. The point of the topic ban was to get Trevelyan to go work on, say, the War of 1812, not stick around any peripheries of the earlier dispute. NW (Talk) 22:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Future Perfect & NW. There is really no point having someone involved in this site who wont abide by policy, heed warnings or take their opportunity to engage positively elsewhere on site. I see indefinite as the only option as what ever length of time we've given TrevelyanL85A2 to adjust his conduct he hasn't done it. So until he does so he should remain blocked--Cailil talk 22:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Also agree with an indef block, which I'll implement in 24 hours unless another uninvolved admin vehemently disagrees. In less than 300 edits, TrevelyanL85A2 has managed to generate a ridiculously disproportionate amount of disruption. Enough is enough. (Technically, it would need to be a one-year AE block with a concurrent "normal" indef block.) T. Canens (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with an indef. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I've imposed the indef per the above comments, as I think the situation and the consensus here is quite clear, and in light of what happened at previous related threads I think there is value in discharging of this thread quickly before it attracts yet more disruption. Fut.Perf. 00:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


Blocked 48h by SilkTork (talk · contribs); topic banned 3 months. T. Canens (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Factocop[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Mo ainm~Talk 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee#User:Factocop unblock conditions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 09:28, 11 September 2012 Revert, therefore a violation of "Factocop can make no actions as described in WP:Revert"
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

Not required

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The edit has previously been made by Hackneyhound (talk · contribs) here (and at User talk:Hackneyhound#Hackneyhound there is a "distinct suspicion" voiced by a member of the Arbitration Committee as to Hackneyhound being a sock of Factocop). It was also made more recently (May 2012 for the last identified socking) by (talk · contribs) here, and that IP was subsequently blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factocop/Archive#18 May 2012 for being a known sock of Factocop. See also these additions, the entire discussion is worth looking over as well since there is no doubt the IP is Factocop. So given Factocop's socks have made this particular edit before, there can't be an argument he was unaware it was a revert since he's reverting to his preferred version. Mo ainm~Talk 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Factocop, the issue isn't just "making the same edit as an IP made 18 edits ago", but that he, Factocop, was the IP referred to so he, Factocop, was obviously aware it was a revert. Mo ainm~Talk 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
@ Factocop, I didn't see the post you made on the talk page, I noticed a comment you made on another users talk page. But the fact of the matter is that you restored the page to a version you previously wanted as evident by your socks making the same edit.Mo ainm~Talk 09:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
So if you do not have a watcher set up for the Lough Neagh Page, how did you come across my edit?
This is in an email response from silktork:

You can make an edit of the current version of a page and manually add sourced material, and/or remove inappropriate material, and/or amend current text in a constructive manner.

If you have any doubt as to if your action may be challenged then I strongly suggest you raise the issue on the talkpage and either get support for your action, or see if there are no objections after a reasonable amount of time has passed (the amount of time would depend on the significance of the edit and the page itself, but I would say at least 24 hours).

I think I have followed these instructions. I can not do much more. I think the case here is that Mo seen my name and thought gotcha which is completely the wrong attitude to have. I have not tried to game anyone. I have simply tried to make a constructive edit, thats all.Factocop (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Question for admins Is it seriously being claimed that reverting to your own sock's preferred wording isn't a revert? Mo ainm~Talk 12:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Diff of notification about this request

Discussion concerning Factocop[edit]

Statement by Factocop[edit]

So making the same edit as an IP made 18 edits ago is a revert???? I started a discussion topic 5 days ago on WP:Lough_Neagh and outlined my proposed edit. Had Mo been concerned with the edit, he/she should of raised the issue there. Instead no response came and now he/she is trying to have my blocked again by gaming my sanction. What a waste of admin time.Factocop (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That IP was judged to be YOU. Meanwhile, you were blocked for nearly 2 years, and just 5 days after being unblocked, you're just begging to get blocked again. How does that serve your purposes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I have not done anything wrong. If you actually looked at my edit on the Lough Neagh talk page you would see that. And I have not made a revert. I don't see what issue you have with this. This is just Mo trying to get me blocked again. I had already warned arbcom of this gaming of my sanctions prior to my unblock. Is an edit made 4 months later and either side of 18 other edits a revert? seriously? Factocop (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Reverting to your sock's version is indeed a revert. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
@Mo, its not a revert so I am not in breach of any sanctions. If you were so concerned with my edit why did you not raise this at the lough neagh talkpage?Factocop (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@Cailil: Just out of curiousity....Those accounts are dead. And their edits were deemed null and void and were discounted in discussions and votes because they were supposed sock accounts. So why are they discounted then but counted against me now?
And in any case why would anyone want to block a user for making constructive edits? Are we saying that I can only make edits that do not agree with previous edits and so should only make non constructive edits to avoid a block? Advice from Silktort was to leave it 24 hrs before making an edit previously proposed on the talk page to be on the safe side in this case ive left it 5 days.Factocop (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Cailals last comment. I did nit request aid from Burundi, nor is that user blocked. You say assume good faith yet no good faith was shown in me after only one single edit. I'll take note of your comment but assuming good faith is a two way street and I have yet to see you fire of a warning at Mo, though pointless now as thst user has since retired. I think this should be marked to close. It clear that I have not broken my sanctions.Factocop (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

@Cailil, Sorry but I was not aware of WP:POLEMIC, and I cleaned my talkpage [118] as soon as silktort notified me. Also posting 1 single comment on a user talk page is not Hounding!!!. @EdJohnston, as Elen has already confirmed, I did nothing wrong by making an edit after waiting for 5 days on a talkpage. Also Elen also highlighted that it was a sensible edit. Why if changing 'United Kingdom' to 'Northern Ireland' is a sensible edit would you want to have me blocked for making this edit? seriously? Help me out here.Factocop (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently my behaviour is appalling yet Admins don't even respond to questions [119]. Thanks for the help. This isnt an enforcement case, this is a witch hunt.Factocop (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Factocop[edit]

OK, someone explain to me why changing it from United Kingdom to Northern Ireland is a bad thing, given that Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle both say Northern Ireland. Why edit war to keep this one at United Kingdom? I note that Factocop even asked on the talkpage if anyone objected to bringing it into line with other articles, days before he made the edit. I came here ready to block Factocop myself, but appears a perfectly sound edit, should never have been changed to United Kingdom in the first place. I think this is a specious complaint. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is Factocop, or anyone else guilty of sockpuppetry, allowed to return an article to their own sockpuppet's preferred version? There was no compelling reason for Factocop to make this revert himself... unless he was gaming the system, to see what he could get away with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The revert restriction is designed to prevent potential conflict with dissenting editors. Since this edit was proposed previously to no objection, and Factocop's infringement appears inadvertent, I think a teleological interpretation of the restrictions should be employed and some lenity provided. Ankh.Morpork 23:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not "inadvertent". He reverted to his own sockpuppet's version. He's gaming the system. And if you fall for it, he's gaming you as well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe. But I don't have a problem in being 'gamed' if it involves editors discussing their edits 5 days before they are made and acting according to that response. I agree that it was a revert, I still think common sense should prevail.
I do note that the nature of this edit has previously been fiercely contested on the talk page, although 2009 seemed the last time it was discussed, and it is probable that the editor was aware of the significance of his change. Still, I am hesitant to advocate sanctions for ill-advised but possibly well-intentioned editing. Ankh.Morpork 23:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
He didn't "discuss it" with anyone. He posted a comment on the talk page, waited a few days, probably hoping no one would notice, and then reverted to his sockpuppet's version. If he were sincere about staying within his restrictions, he would go to some of the other recent editors directly and discuss it with them. That wouldn't do, of course, because they might say "No". Better to just do it himself, skirt his restrictions, and see if gullible sorts like yourself are willing to let him get away with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
obviously Mo noticed the comment on the talk page or we wouldnt be here. So the question is why did he/she wait for me to make my proposed edit before doing anything about it? probably to try this stunt. Wikipedia should be about making content better, not getting user blocked to keep your own preferred content as Mo has employed here.Factocop (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
@Bugs, I was actually ready to block him - I still believe Hackneyhound and Gravyring were his socks, and the IP is definitely him. But then I spotted the note, and the fact that other articles use the formulation he was adding. So what is the problem with the edit that it keeps being contested here, but not on the other two articles? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea. Maybe it should be reverted. But not by Factocop. Put it this way: I myself am under an arbcom restriction. I have no problem staying within the restriction. If I can, anyone can - unless they are deliberately trying to erode the restriction. There was no compelling reason for him to change that item, except to try to chip away at his restriction. If he were honest and sincere, he could ask someone else about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes thats correct Bugs, I only wanted access to Wiki again to flaunt my restrictions. Dont be so daft! The majority of editors are here to improve articles. My edit improved the article. I posted on the talk page of which I am sure has a number of involved 'watchers'. I left it 5 days before making the edit. What more can I do? Should I go to every user watching the page and force them to join the discussion? No, that just isnt possible. Mo was obviously watching the page and chose not to join the discussion, and still hasnt passed comment at the page. So please be more reasonable. Factocop (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Your being in denial about your socking is what you call reasonable? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Since I have been unblocked I have not denied anything regarding my past. And to my knowledge this is not an SPI case so whats your point? Jumping on the bandwagon and trying to get me blocked for going about things in the correct mannner is hardly reasonable. Factocop (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, then you're admitting that it was your own sockpuppet you reverted to. Very good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thanks bugsy for your constructive input.Factocop (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
That was a typo, now fixed. But as you continue to deny sockpuppetry, you're in no position to be demanding "assume good faith" from other users. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I would of expected a grace period before being accused of breaking my sanctions. Not after 1 single edit, so I apologise if my back is up but I didnt appreciate being hounded so soon after a 2 year block. I'm sure you would feel the same in my position.Factocop (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking to me... No, I wouldn't "feel the same", because unlike you, I don't do sockpuppetry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Well if your ever falsely indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, you would probably set up alternate accounts aswell. Ohh well, not going to give you anymore of my precious time.
Move this to close. Factocop (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't. Unlike you, I do have some integrity. Move to keep it open until Factocop explicitly owns up to violating the rules against sockpuppetry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Difficult to grasp but this isn't an SPI case, this is to determine whether I have broken my sanctions. Guess what? I haven't. Move to close. And Bugsy please refrain from personal attacks.Factocop (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You reverted to your sockpuppet's version. That indicates a lack of integrity. And it also indicates why you shouldn't be allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a path of honor for you, though. You could go to the blocking admin and/or to your most trusted admin, and tell them what your IP address is and let them verify it. Then you'll demonstrate integrity. If you're unwilling to do that, then you're guilty as charged and should not be allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
huh???? Blocking admin? But I'm not blocked. And what am I charged with? The only thing you have highlighted is your incivility. Please refrain from further personal attacks.Factocop (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You're funny. Must be that Irish sense of humor. You made an edit under your IP while you were blocked, and it was reverted. And as soon as they unblocked you, you reinstated that edit. If that's integrity, then I'm the King of Sweden. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
re_instated what edit? ohh do you mean the edit i had announced 5 days before in the talkpage, outlining my rationale. no objection came so i made the edit. do you mean that edit? ok you got me. guilty as charged. Factocop (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
When or if you decide to demonstrate some good faith and stop jerking everybody around, be sure and place a notice on your user page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see what any of your comments have to do with this case and whether I have broken my sanctions? Please refrain from personal attacks. Factocop (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I think take everything Baseball_bugs says with a pinch of salt. It seems that Bugsy has a habit of disruptive editing on arbitration/ANI pages. see here [[120]].Factocop (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jon C.[edit]

Hardly a revert, is it? Whose actions has Factocop undone? Jon C. 15:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

According to this, if the editor's edit summary is on the mark, (and this indicates it was), Factocop was putting it back to where a sock of his own had put it, some 4 months ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken[edit]

  • The solution here seems quite easy. If the change made by Factocop was, as Elen saya it was, an improvement, then some other editor not under any applicable restriction should take on the WP:BURDEN of that edit. Then Factocop should be sanctioned, to whatever degree the examining admins think is appropriate, for clearly breaking his restrictions and making a revert. (It is what it is.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by SilkTork[edit]

  • It is not a revert under the terms of Factocop's conditions. It was an edit. It was made after Factocop initiated a discussion on the talkpage and waited a reasonable length of time for a response. He has complied with the terms imposed on him. He is, as is any other Wikipedia editor, allowed to "amend current text in a constructive manner". There is now a discussion taking place on Talk:Lough Neagh which is how it should be, and how it should have been in the first place. I'm a little disappointed that nobody responded to a discussion for over five days, but the edit is reverted within 31 minutes. Problems arise when people revert rather than discuss. It is not in the spirit of Wikipedia that anyone is sanctioned for initiating a discussion on an edit, waiting for five days for a response, and then actioning the edit because nobody has objected. That can never be the wrong thing to do. It is also noteworthy that Factocop has not reverted back, but is discussing the edit on the talkpage. This is exactly the sort of behaviour we want from all editors. My only comment to Factocop would be in future to ensure that discussions are started in new sections rather than tagged onto existing discussions. That makes them clearer and easier to see. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Regarding previous edits made by Factocop. I'm not sure what difference it makes if Factocop is making a constructive edit after raising a discussion on that edit if the edit is based on material he had previously placed in the article and was then removed, even if it was by a alternative account or an IP account. The point of the conditions is not to prevent Factocop from editing, or tying him up so that if anyone removes material he adds that he can never again use that material in that article. The aim is to stop edit warring, and to encourage discussion to take place. It can never be edit warring if someone pauses to seek consensus for an edit, and enters into discussion. The essence of an edit war is someone reverting without thinking or without listening to alternative viewpoints or without putting forward reasonable rationale for an edit. The aim of the conditions is to encourage the pause, the reflection, the discussion and the listening.
    • Regarding other behaviour by Factocop that is causing concern. Factocop's conditions are on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Other than that he is to be regarded as any other editor who is subject to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and also to assumptions of good faith. If there is reasonable concern about disruptive editing then those concerns can be raised through the usual channels - while there isn't a fast path to sanctions, nor is there any special protection.
    • When unblocking someone with previous poor conduct there is a risk that the user will return to poor behaviour; however, there is also the chance that the account will be productive. While the user is mainly responsible for ensuring they regain the community's trust, they can be assisted by the community assuming good faith and granting them a little space. Having said that, it would be worth offering a little word of advice to Factocop to concentrate on editing rather than editors, to move on to other matters if there is no progress in getting consensus, and to work on building up trust rather than returning to articles where there has been some history of conflict. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by The C of E[edit]

  • I don't think that there was anything wrong with that. Stating what he intended to do on the talk page and waiting for any objections for 5 days before carrying it out seems perfectly reasonable to me and doesn't seem like a use of a revert to me. I think the unreasonable thing came from the fact that the edit was just reverted without engaging in a discussion on the talk page that was opened in anticipation for any objections that failed to arise. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant comments by banned editor removed.

Is this true? If so, that's got to be a boomerang-and-a-half. Jon C. 22:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Factocop[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Ok wrt to SilkTork's point that this is not a revert per se - this is a real can of worms. If the IP (that Baseball bugs points out) is Factocop (and Elen indicates that it "definitely" is) then Factocop's edit is an effective revert to text that his block evading sockpuppet added. I'd like some clarity from Elen and SilkTork on this. That said I don't see Factocop's action as explicitly breaching the letter of his ban and thus a sanction would be far too harsh, given as Elen and SilkTork outline that Factocop went about this edit the right way only to be hot button reverted himself.
    The most I'd suggest is issuing two warnings:
    1) Factocop is cautioned to avoid restoring edits made by his sockpuppets (disclosed/discovered or not).
    2) Other parties are reminded that reverting without cause is itself disruptive and attempting to use other editor's sanctions against them in battle ground fashion may WP:Boomerang--Cailil talk 15:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

this section is only for the use of uninvolved sysops. Please do not post[121] here--Cailil talk 17:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty much on board with Cailil here; I don't think we can sanction over this, but if it keeps happening we can revisit it. Factocop, you really do need to make sure you're avoiding even the appearance of impropriety here, as any hints of the battleground mentality that got you blocked in the first place will lead to swift sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Factocop, User:Borundi 499 is a) indefinitely blocked, and b) a block evading sock puppet; all this can be seen at that account's block log. It is very unwise to take the attitude you're taking here and engage in the kind of conduct you have since your unblock. That is what is being noted.
    Furthermore what is alarming is that you seem either not to realize or not to care that the user, Mo Anim (who, although not named, was cautioned above not to game your sanctions) is subject to cyber-stalking by this banned user. You engaging with them to attempt to discover Mo Anim's previous (disclosed) accounts is thoroughly unacceptable, and demonstrates to me that you haven't let your battleground issues go (as do your other comments about Domer48). I suggest you step back and reconsider your conduct on site--Cailil talk 17:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cailil that the diffs provided are entirely unacceptable. While SilkTork makes a good point that we should allow more room for recently unbanned users, I don't think it makes sense to give them more room than what we would give to a new user. This conduct would have more than justified a topic ban even if it were a new user, and so I think a three-month Troubles topic ban is needed. T. Canens (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    Given that days after my above post Factocop continued to hound others[123][124] and use his talk-space for WP:POLEMIC (see SilkTork's comment here) - I have to agree a ban from this area is the only way this user will adjust their behaviour--Cailil talk 16:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above proposal for a three-month WP:TROUBLES topic ban. If you check what got Factocop into difficulty in November 2010, and led to his indefinite block, it began with this edit at Carlingford Lough. The article on the Lough had recently been quiet, so his edit kicked off a long revert war. The material he was changing was 'United Kingdom' to 'Northern Ireland', just like the diff reported in this AE complaint. I recommend that whoever closes this AE should amplify the topic ban to prevent changing 'United Kingdom' to 'Northern Ireland' or vice versa in any articles. It should also prevent Factocop from making *any edits at all* on articles that have a Troubles 1RR restriction marked on their talk page. It is best to be very specific because his unblock discussion from fall 2010 suggests to me that Factocop did not fully understand the Troubles 1RR or how revert restrictions work. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, this section is only for the use of uninvolved sysops. Factocop please post in the appropriate section not here--Cailil talk 18:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • For ease of reference it should be noted that on the basis of the above comments by 3 sysops today Factocop has appealed for "help"[125] to User:Jon C. and requested that SilkTork step in to overrule this board[126] and close this case. I've concerns at this point about this user's WP:Competence--Cailil talk 20:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
@Factocop: for clarity the proposed topic ban by Tim and myself is due to your conduct *after* the edit Mo Anim raised here. You were advised by SilkTork that: "If you are going to edit in sensitive areas, then you need to control yourself. If you can't control yourself, then don't edit in sensitive areas." and indeed in your conditional unblock it states: "It will be your responsibility (same as it is for all Wikipedia users) to ensure that your own actions and edits are constructive and helpful and follow Wikipedia ethos, guidelines and policies. Part of that is to avoid any drama.(emphasis mine)" You are not living up to these requirements - and this is your problem nobody else's. If you don't understand these conditions I suggest you re-read them and reacquaint yourself with the policies you quote to others (i.e WP:5).
The point Ed is making is that your edit fits a pattern of behaviour going back beyond your unblock, this is a separate point to Tim's and mine regarding your actions--Cailil talk 20:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore in light of the issues about WP:POLEMIC I note this[127]. Factocop you plead ignorance above yet you've done it again. Seriously stop behaving in this manner. Also your comments were replied to[128]. You may not like the answer but that's not anyone else's problem--Cailil talk 20:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You have been told several times to comment in your own section already, Factocop. Any more comment you post in this section (including the one you just posted) will be removed without being read. T. Canens (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Closing with 3 months topic ban, then. T. Canens (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)