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



Shalom11111 is blocked for 24 h by Heimstern Läufer.  Sandstein  18:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Shalom11111[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Shalom11111 (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. [1] First revert on Palestinian political violence
  2. [2] Breaks 1RR on Palestinian political violence, uses blog to present fringe view as equal to mainstream view - the blog even states what the mainstream is, though it seems Shalom11111 skipped that part
  3. [3] Third revert on Palestinian political violence
  4. [4] First revert on Naftali Bennett
  5. [5] Breaks 1RR on Naftali Bennett, as well as taking terrorist out of quotes in violation of NPOV
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 25 Oct 2013 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The editor is also engaging in tendentious editing at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy, and was the subject of an ANI thread last week - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Shalom11111 must stop with his bad behaviour.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Shalom11111[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Shalom11111[edit]

There are so many wrong things here.

EdJohnston, I'm afraid you may be confused because this wasn't a warning - you just told me to write my thread in a different place. You said: "Hello Shalom11111. Your complaint at WP:ANI seems to fall in the domain of WP:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. To be sure that you have the full story about that arbitration case, I'm leaving you the WP:ARBPIA notice." How can that possibly be considered a warning?

Now, Sepsis says that here I broke the 1RR - which is not true - I did not revert him there, I added new information. And the same thing goes for this edit, it was not a revert as I only added part of the information back. Please check the history page to see for for yourselves [7].

On the Naftali Bennett page, again, I did not break the 1RR here like Sepsis claims - I only added new information! I even said it in the edit summary: "adding info. you can't just tell a part of the story. it's called pov-pushing". Please see the page's history for yourselves [8].

Lastly, how is politician Naftali Bennett part of Wikipedia:ARBPIA? And how is Palestinian terrorism part of Wikipedia:ARBPIA when it's not mentioned and doesn't even have a link in the main Template:Israeli–Palestinian conflict and any of its sub-templates?

Sepsis must be embarrassed now by this completely false report. I would like to know what are the sanctions an editor gets for wrongly reporting another user. Thanks -Shalom11111 (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

Shalom11111 said "EdJohnston, I'm afraid you may confused because this wasn't a warning", but my post to his talk page in October was in fact the required notice of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. It was generated by Template:ArbCom-Alert. Anyone can verify that this is a DS notice by careful reading. It contains a large white box with a standardized notice inside it, which is hard to miss. I also logged this notice in the case (you can search the case for Shalom11111's name to verify this). EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

I'll take just two of these, which highlight what is problematical about Shalom11111's editing generally.

  • No The edit summary is ostentatiously false, i.e.WP:Undue. A major statement, one that Bennett repeated and defended and which got extensive press coverage, is not undue. Yamabaram simply cancelled uncomfortable information, which was widely and reliably reported, while rigging up an ostensible policy justification.
  • No.5 here. Shalom11111 makes no defense of the WP:Undue argument he had previously adduced, and thus implicitly accepts that the statement he eliminated is due, but contextualizes it. He adds:-

'However, Bennett was widely condemned for these words, and Chief Rabbi of Israel David Lau said bennett's remark was just a joke.' (Larry Derfner, 'Israel's Everyday Racism — and How American Jews Turn a Blind Eye to It,' at The Jewish Daily Forward, August 12, 2013.)

In the source,

  • (a) No mention is made of of Bennett being 'widely condemned for these words', a wording that implies some general cross-community blanket condemnation. 'The media, the left and the Arabs' are a restricted and predictable community, outside of which no one complained. ('The media, the left and the Arabs made a big deal out of it, nobody else. Bennett defended what he said, and so did countless talkbackers and Facebookers'.) and
  • (b) David Lau is reported as saying no such thing in defense of Bennett. The reference to a 'joke' is a defense of his own distinct and racist remark, one of several cited by the Forward article. I.e.,

'Two days later the newly-elected Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, David Lau, was seen on a video telling an audience of yeshiva boys that they shouldn’t watch European basketball games in public. “What difference does it make,” Lau said, “if the kushim who get paid in Tel Aviv beat the kushim who get paid in Greece?” Kushim, especially when used in a dismissive context like Lau did, is a well-understood derogatory term for blacks. Again, the media, the left, some Ethiopian Jews and presumably some African refugees were outraged. But Lau defended his words, blaming the media, saying “they made a big deal out of a joke.” Who else defended his remarks about “kushim”? Bennett: “The media are pouncing on him for a joking, insignificant remark”.'

It is obvious Shalom11111 grossly twisted or distorted the source twice, after first trying to delete the quote. Lau defending his own comments re kushim (niggers) is made out to be defending Bennett's words about the need to liquidate Arab "terrorists" when you capture them. The source says Bennett defended Lau, not, as Shalom11111 has it, Lau defended Bennett. Contexts where Israeli politicians talk of shooting Palestinians ('“I have killed lots of Arabs in my life – and there is no problem with that.”) obviously comes under WP:ARBPIA and Shalom11111 has been around enough to know that.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the assertion I'm part of an anti-Israeli lynch mob, I actually try to stay away from these cases, and only thought I'd make a comment to correct what a rapid glance suggested to me was an incorrect dismissal of the The Jewish Daily Forward as a blog, and not as a first-rate newspaper. When I began then to look closely I realized I was confused, not Sepsis, on this, and since I'd in the meantime taken the trouble to read all the links, realized Shalom11111 had really done something far more devastating to wikipedia neutrality than a mere 1R infraction (which in my view should be handled by editor page notification rather than administrative appeal - we all slip up). Since no one had remarked on it, I thought it best to use the material I'd gathered, rather than binning it. For the record, Shalom11111 here definitely altered sources to falsify wikipedia (something he excoriated me and Zero for putatively doing in October 2013 at this or the other board). As long as he apologizes I'm fine with the 24 hr sanction. No, I'm fine with the sanction, apologies or no. But he needs a warning added to the suspension, that takes cognizance of the last part of Sepsis's evidence. Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ravpapa[edit]

I saw this request this morning, shortly after it was created. I had been mulling it over, thinking if I want to contribute a comment, when, to my surprise, I found that action had already been taken.

Without expressing an opinion about the merits of the decision, I feel that a bit more time for editors to comment would have been appropriate. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, explanation accepted, and sorry for writing in the administrators' section. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]

I'm curious what would have happened if this case had been filed based on Nishidani's evidence rather than Sepsis II's and there had been no 1RR violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably in that case the usual anti-Israel lynch mob of editors (some of the usual 'enforcers' here) would have got lucky and managed to topic ban another editor whose views don't fit into the Wikipedia anti-Israel mindset. And you all would celebrate another victory in the ongoing Wiki-war against Israel. Ubie the guru (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I know. I hate those guys. All their post-lynching celebratory noise, overflowing ashtrays and red wine stains on the furniture. Animals. And the Electronic Intifada Secret Mailing List office cleaner only comes once a week. Cheapskates. So you think that evidence presented alone here would have probably resulted in a topic ban. I don't think that would be the case, or at least only a very short topic ban because the editor hasn't been blocked before. The reason I asked however is because AE tends to focus on technical violations, I guess because they are bright line/easier to deal with, so I was just curious about what would happen here without the 1RR. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Shalom11111[edit]

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

  • Contrary to Shalom11111's assertions, the 1RR violation at Palestinian political violence is clear, as both the first two diffs linked by Sepsis show him reverting "Palestinian terrorism" back into the article. So I've gone ahead and issued a 24-hour block per the usual practice for a first offence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Ravpapa, in general I do allow more, but for a 1RR violation, which generally leads to a 24-hour block, this would defeat the purpose, as it would fail to be preventative by the time the discussion concluded. It's also not really necessary in clear-cut cases, any more than it is to wait for more input at the edit warring noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Shalom11111[edit]

Hi, I read your comments above and would like to respond now, since I was almost immediately blocked and didn't have a chance to say anything.
EdJohnston, even you didn't call that notice you left on my talk page a "warning", you wrote "notified" as can be seen at WP:ARBPIA on October 2013 and that's why I think it's a bit misleading. Since it turned out to be a warning, and in order to prevent other misunderstandings in future times, I just ask that when you leave such notice messages on editors' talk pages, please tell them it's no less than a warning.
I also find it relevant to note that apparently Sepsis II had been notified/warned 3 times at WP:ARBPIA before some action was finally taken against him on his 4th violation and he was blocked for 24 hours. Overall, Sepsis is mentioned in WP:ARBPIA 6 times, but has never been blocked for more than two days. In addition to that, what's surprising the most is the fact that somehow the sanctioned he received on his 6th offense changed from this serious restriction to that much softer one.
To Nishidani, yes, I thought that statement by Naftali Bennett was under WP:UNDUE, and when I realized it was a major one, I didn't revert again but instead added more information to balance to the report, which is the proper way of doing that. I then glanced at that The Jewish Daily Forward article and accidentally misused that "joke remark" quote wrongly (mistakes happen when one edits hundreds of pages - should I remind you of some of your mistakes?). Believe me, besides the principles I have as a person that would restrict me from telling false information like that, why would I risk doing that? It just wouldn't be worth it in so many aspects, and I'm glad it's fixed now. Regarding your second point, I wrote that "Bennett was widely condemned for these words", well, because he was widely condemned for these words. I personally watched him being condemned and criticized on Israeli TV. It was reported in various news websites, and that condemnation is clearly proved by articles such as this Jpost article titled Bennett under fire for comments about killing Arabs, or this Call to prosecute Bennett for killing Palestinians. I would expect an experienced Wikipedia editor like you to know that a source given at the end of the paragraph doesn't have to explicitly say (in this case) "he was widely condemned for these words" in it, as long as it's implied in the article and other sources show this. Furthermore, as a side note, Bennett claims that he never said those exact words and denies these allegations against him ([9] that's the article, it's in Hebrew but you could use Google Translate. I tend to believe him, since there're always records of what they say in the Knesset so why would he want to lie like that). And to the last part - what should I apologize for? That report about you and Zero0000? Some users, maybe even admins, agreed with what I wrote there, should they apologize too? In fact, I'm sure a few of them think they deserve an apology from you.
Ravpapa and Sean.hoyland, thanks for your comments, I guess, and to Ubie the guru, in this forum I prefer to refrain from saying what I think about what you said... - Shalom11111 (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


Warned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Summichum[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
IRISZOOM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Summichum (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. 18:34, 21 February 2014 Summichum had 20 minutes earlier changed from "Shi'a Islamic militant" to "Shi'a terrorist". This got reverted by a user, who also told about the policy about this. So Summichum came back and reverted it, now adding sources more sources to that it is a "terrorist" group (while it is still not acceptable, it is not what is the topic here).
  2. 16:50, 22 February 2014 I reverted him and then he reverts again, saying that I should take it to his talk page. I said to him why this is not the correct way. I also said to him that he has violated 1RR and that I would report him if he did not self-revert now. He did not self-revert but got reverted by another user. He did not respond to my message there and obviously thinks it is more important to impose the "terrorist" label. Today, he reverted again. See below.
  3. 06:06, 23 February 2014 Here is his latest revert. He changed it from "Shi'a Islamic militant" to "alleged Shi'a terrorist".
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

In addition to what I have explained in the number 2 of the Diffs section, I want to add that the Hezbollah article has this notice: Template:Editnotices/Page/Hezbollah. So it is very clear that the article is under ARBPIA.

Okay. Then he should be issued a warning about it. Good that he has learned why the wording is unacceptable. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Summichum[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Summichum[edit]

I had updated to "alleged Terrorist Organisation". Is it not true?. This allegation comes as an official decree from multiple major countries like USA, EU, Canada and Gulf ?

O I just checked other articles on AlQaeda etc , even they are not written as Terrorist, hence I accept the claim by IRISZOOM and also I am a new user and was not aware of that Arab-Palestine protection tag.

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Summichum[edit]

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

The request lacks the required diff of a warning per WP:AC/DS#Warnings.  Sandstein  18:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  • This is the closest I could find to a warning; however, it lacks a link to the arbitration decision, and does not explain the term "1RR", so it seems insufficient. So I've left one that clarifies this. I think that's all we can do here for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement appeal by Ivan Štambuk[edit]

The appeal is dismissed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
Ivan Štambuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
Sandstein was notified here by EdJohnston.

Statement by Ivan Štambuk[edit]

I have 45 modern English dictionaries installed for Abby Lingvo and not a single one has derogatory or offensive label next to the definition of the word nationalist. nationalist is not a national epithet either (that would be Croatian or Serbian). Croatian nationalist means "They have Croatian-centric view and I do not agree with it". I asked User:Shokatz where exactly does he see personal attacks [11] but he ignored it. I'm troubled by the blocking admin not being a native speaker of English but German, and the negative connotations that the word nationalist (that also shares the root with Nazi) existing in German but not in English. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. Sandstein apparently thinks that everything not being a compliment is ipso facto derogatory. There is also another possibility that hasn't crossed his mind: neutral. No English dictionary has (derogatory) or (offensive) label next to the definition of the word nationalist. However, in Sandstein's native language the word nationalist does have a derogatory undertone. Here is the link to the definition of Nationalismus in the most authoritative German dictionary (Duden), where it has a label (meist abwertend) which translates into English as "mostly pejoratively". In German it's used as a pejorative, in English it isn't and it belongs to the neutral register. I suspect that Sandstein mixed two entirely different usage contexts for otherwise related words with the same meaning, in two different languages.
  2. It was not my intention to make any kind of personal attack. If you look at my edit history you can see that my behavior has been nothing short of exemplary. I have never heard anyone complaining about being offended by calling them nationalist. More often than not, it is I who is on the receiving end of abuse which sometimes provokes abrasive responses. If someone said that they are offended I would've stopped.
  3. Sandstein's condescending comment about me apparently failing to understand something (what?), justifying the "educational" component of the block by such lack of understanding is borderline insulting. Perhaps Sandstain trains his dog by taking punitive measures when puppy does something wrong, but may I remind him that we're dealing with human actors here that are not Fachidioten with blinders that only respond to Pavlovian stimuli dispensed by the master with his block stick. An administrator should not be making such comments when blocking other users. They shouldn't probably be thinking of editors as offenders that ought to be subject to corrective measures (blocks) for their infractions (policy violations), but at least they could keep it to themselves.
  4. OK, let's say I crossed the line with nationalist name-calling. I didn't mean to use derogatorily, but I can accept that it is not an appropriate conduct. But what does that have to do with ARBMAC and the excessively long block? As I far I can see the guidelines on the WP:PA require posting a message on user's talkpage and seeking mediation. None of that happened. PA is a community-approved policy which takes precedence over anything ArbCom decides, or any admin "broadly interprets". A week is something that trolls and bad-faith editors get. Surely it's too excessive?
  5. This whole circus is a result of content dispute with the user who submitted the enforcement request. It was not made in good faith and his ulterior goal is to remove me from editing a set of low-importance articles that are currently not in a NPOV state. He also submitted a sockpuppet investigation against me with evidence such as last-year's sarcastic comment of mine on a sister project, as well as edits that I made years ago. With all that in mind, I must say that Wikipedia community has become very effective at giving partisan editors tools to target undesirable editors - a Byzantine collection of policies which admins overzealously enforce without a second thought, and without thinking of a big picture. Admins in fact are incentivized not to involve themselves, which basically gives the enforcement gun to POV-pushers which are intimately acquainted with all the glorious details of the relevant wikilese. I urge admins to think outside the policy-enforcing request-observing mode and think whether blocking me in any way helps to resolve the pending content disputes. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

The block was a response to personal attacks as described in my response to the enforcement request, above. WP:NPA, a core conduct policy, requires editors to not make comments about another editor's person, rather than about the content at issue. This prohibits editors from calling each other nationalists, or any other kind of -ists. This applies especially if editors do so, as Ivan Štambuk did here, in a dismissive and confrontative manner: it is clear from the wording and tone of Ivan Štambuk's comments, as cited in the enforcement request, that they used the appellation "nationalist" in a derogatory sense and certainly not as a compliment; and this was also how the term was understood by the editor at whom it was directed. Because this appeal indicates that Ivan Štambuk does not understand this, the block continues to serve the purpose of preventing similar interactions by Ivan Štambuk. The appeal should therefore be declined.  Sandstein  18:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Shokatz[edit]

Since I was involved in this and the user specifically refers to me I will reply. You have repeatedly labelled me a "Croatian nationalist", while I have warned you (as have others) several times that such behavior is unproductive and personally insulting and derogatory, yet you have continued to do so even on WP:ANI. I consider it a blatant ad hominem personal attack, especially in the context and the manner in which you used it. Not only have you used "Croatian nationalist" you have also labelled me "POV-pusher" and similar other derogatory terms which clearly implies that you have meant it in a manner implying I am some extreme nationalist, impartial and unable of NPOV. If you really have 45 English dictionaries you should definitely know that the term nationalism is in modern-day context associated and synonymous with Chauvinism -> [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. If you really think that you haven't done anything wrong then you really need to re-read some of the Wiki policies such as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Shokatz (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Wiki policies on incivility and I always try to be civil in discussions. Your whole case on my alleged incivility builds upon the misguided interpretation of the term nationalism which is not derogatory in English language. None of the links provided define it as such. Yes it can be argued to be semantically close to chauvinism, but chauvinism is a pejorative term, nationalism isn't. There are many related terms which overlap semantically, one having pejorative connotations, other one being neutral. I've asked you where exactly do you see personal attack and you failed to respond. Ignoring Serbian POV on the article on Gundulić is POV-pushing regardless whether you perceive it as such or not. One week block is way to excessive for calling somebody a nationalist. Balkans-related talk page discussions abound in liberal usage of that word by multitude of involved editors, and no one ever felt hurt about it. What is even more appalling is the enforcing admin's inability to see the larger picture - i.e. you ignoring your fellow Croatians' provoking insults at me, while at the same time pushing for a POV in articles, and using completely unrelated policy to get me blocked. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Let me just state this and then I am done with this -> I am not going to discuss semantics with you, in fact I am not going to discuss anything with you since this is your appeal on the block and you should deal with that. Your issue now is with the admin who dealt with this case. I don't think it will help you in any way if you constantly try picking fights with me (even on your appeal...really?!?) and especially you implying that the admin in question is somehow involved in some grand conspiracy against you or even worse "pointing out" his or hers alleged "inability", quite the opposite. Shokatz (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I haven't implying anything, let alone any kind of "conspiracy" - you're imagining things. Just like you imagined that I am a sockpuppet of PaxEquilibrium/PrvadRuss which will prove false. Paranoia is BTW a common characteristic of nationalists who see fifth columns and domestic traitors in every corner.
The only "fights" I have with you are on talkpage discussions on which you persistently push pro-Croatian POV, disregarding and belittling important Serbian sources. Of course I'm going to pick those fights with you - if I don't do it nobody will. It's a topic of minor importance - not like Ustashi or Croatian language which have high exposure - so normal editors don't care and nationalists can numerically overwhelm and push their POV into those little articles.
Yes it's either inability or disregard. In any case blocking someone for a week for calling someone a nationalist, and doing it by invoking a policy (ARBMAC) that doesn't even deal with personal conduct is a joke. If blocking admin doesn't understand that then he shouldn't be an admin. ARBMAC also seems fundamentally broken - created by a decree to give godlike powers to admins in arbitrary topics, and arbitrarily expanded in "maintenance motions" (as one ArbCom member described it). It should be repelled because it's being abused by nationalist gangs who eagerly collect "evidence" to block rare NPOV editors such as me or User:Slovenski Volk who rather take time editing articles than waste it making enforcements, sockpuppet investigations and debates where interlocutors such as yourself simply dismiss sources because they are not Croatian (or whatever). I can't even blame Sandstein, he's probably acting in best faith and "keeping order", but this block is such a travesty. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ivan Štambuk[edit]

The use of the term nationalist as in the supplied diffs is indeed problematic, and continues even here in this appeal: "Paranoia is BTW a common characteristic of nationalists who see fifth columns and domestic traitors in every corner". This, clearly, is personalizing the dispute. Ivan was warned here that "Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block". I don't know how you could receive that warning and then expect to be able to say "The problem with nationalists such as yourself is that they believe that their own particular interpretation of history is the 'truth', and the rest is pseudoscience, nationalist quackery etc." However, I disagree with Sandstein's claim that any labeling of a group with an -ist term would be problematic. It was here, but it wouldn't necessarily be. Also, I agree that Sandstein's quote from WIAPA, "national ... epithets ... directed against another contributor", is not quite relevant: a later line from WIAPA is more to the point here: "Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor." I don't have any problem with the term in general, but Ivan was grouping people together ("They have Croatian-centric view and I do not agree with it"), ascribing negative qualities/etc to them, and using that broad generalization in a discussion about content. Don't do that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree with the above here. Ivan received a fairly clear and obvious warning, linked to above, about personalizing the dispute, and apparently did so anyway. Calling another editor a "nationalist" regarding a content dispute clearly qualifies as such. It may or may not be the case that Sandstein behaved less than optimally as well, but that is irrelevant to the matter of the block of Ivan. Based on the evidence presented, I have to say that I personally don't see what would seem to me to be the required evidence to overturn the sanction applied. John Carter (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

After reading Ivan's appeal text, and having been caught in irritating arbitration processes before myself, I read all of the diffs referenced critically. My clear and honest impression is that Ivan does seem to be working towards NPOV, making constructive arguments, as evidenced in his primary statement (regarding the lack of primary evidence for a writer's self-identification as Serbian or Croatian, and the fact that the modern political geography did not yet exist and therefore categorization either way is rather ridiculous, and that dual categorization is a viable alternative to bickering). If the cherry-picked complaint diffs cannot succeed in giving a more negative opinion, then I think this is an essentially frivolous accusation and his appeal is valid. The root of this whole issue appears to be the use and interpretation of the term nationalist, where in fact replacing this term with the Wiki-ese word 'partisan' would remove the offense and generally clarify the comments that appear to lie at the root of the offense here. As someone writing a history book, I think the entire argument about national identification of a dead person before one or more of the modern states even existed is ridiculous - the person should be identified with the policial state in which they lived at the time, and bracketed statements like (located in modern Country) are the full extent of post-facto national referencing that would appear to be useful or defensible. Capiche? prat (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, using partisan instead of nationalist does nothing to remove the offense: "Paranoia is BTW a common characteristic of [partisans] who see fifth columns and domestic traitors in every corner"—that's not any better. It's not constructive to talk about others you disagree with like this during a content dispute, even if you're right. Simple use of the word nationalist isn't really a problem, you are missing the point. I'm glad you've found that Ivan is generally working constructively toward NPOV/etc, but this kind of thing is not OK. 1 week might be excessive, but you're missing the point if you think the simple use of the word nationalist is the only problem here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Ivan Štambuk[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm not seeing any case for unblock here. Ivan's effort to justify his rhetoric is unconvincing: "I am getting overrun on this article by several Croatian nationalists." The underlying issue is whether Ivan Gundulić, a famous 17th century poet who lived in the Republic of Ragusa, should be called Croatian, Serbian or anything else. The article has been fully protected by User:Callanecc per a complaint at ANI which is evidence that the dispute is serious. Ivan Štambuk's personalization of the dispute appears to be battleground editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I think Ivan wasn't personalizing the dispute, just talking about it in ways that other people interpreted perhaps differently to his intent. I can't see any deliberately non-constructive comments or edits here, only discussion using the term nationalist where perhaps partisan would have been more wikippropriate. I really can't believe there's even a discussion on this issue, as it's blatantly obvious to me as a historian that the entire underlying issue is absurd and the list of supposedly inappropriate edit diffs clearly shows Ivan sharing this perception and pushing for real evidence. I see no cause for enforcement and in fact I would rather suggest the accuser should be put in place for raising obviously frivolous arguments about name-calling on a ridiculous issue in a language with which they are not natively familiar. prat (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
      • By way of example, we could draw a parallel to the similarly geographically located issue of whether Marco Polo should be viewed and categorizaed as Italian or Croatian. Factually, he was neither (neither yet existed), but could be viewed from certain circles as both. The current Marco Polo page re-asserts the popular and factually incorrect simplification that he was 'Italian'. Well, I guess from that logic I am from Gondwanaland. prat (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
        The content issue is 100% irrelevant. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
      Prat, how is this not personalizing the dispute: The problem with nationalists such as yourself is that they believe that their own particular interpretation of history is the "truth", and the rest is pseudoscience, nationalist quackery etc. (here) Does changing nationalist to partisan even help, at all? I'm not seeing it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Can this appeal be closed now as moot? Ivan's one-week block has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


Interfase (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic-banned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Interfase[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Hablabar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Interfase (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 
  • 25 February 2014 Unfounded accusations in vandalism while having full knowledge what vandalism is not because Interfase was warned by Sandstein (and put under sanctions) not to use frivolous accusations in vandalism [17]
  • 25 February 2014 Continued unfounded accusations in vandalism, disregarding a reminder to review what vandalism is not
  • 26 February 2014 Continued unfounded accusations in vandalism and displayed battleground attitude, disregarding a reminder to review what vandalism is not [18]

History of warnings and sanctions:

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Interfase has a long history of edit warring and unfounded accusations. As of late he was in dispute with me, User:Divot and User:Roses&guns, among others. On October 16, 2014, not so long ago, Interfase was put under sanctions for his conduct [19] through a complaint filed by User:Yerevantsi. Among reasons to enact sanctions administrators cited unfounded and repeated accusation in vandalism. User:Sandstein explained to Interfase what is vandalism and what vandalism is not [20]. The sanction has apparently had zero effect on Interfase. He continues disregarding WP:NPOV, fails to meaningfully engage with other editors, and above all continues to accuse his discussants in vandalism. Plus, his latest edit displays a battleground attitude ("Go and put this warning on your talk page …).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Interfase[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Interfase[edit]

I don't agree with user Hablabar and the descision about topic ban. User Hablabar removed whole informative section based on reliable sources from the article. His actions is against improvement of the article. Without any discussions he just removed whole section. --Interfase (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Interfase[edit]

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

It looks like the request has merit. The background is apparently that Interfase introduced content to Azerbaijan on 17:06, 24 February 2014. Hablabar undid this addition with an edit summary indicating neutrality concerns. Interfase undid that removal on 11:39, 25 February 2014 with the edit summary "WP:VANDALISM. Don't delete information based on reliable sources". Then there were some more back-and-forth reverts by others, and the talk page discussion mentioned in the complaint.

Considering that the previous warning to Interfase not to refer to content disagreements as vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND) was not successful, and that inaccurate accusations of vandalism are personal attacks (see WP:NPA), I am of a mind to impose a topic ban regarding Azerbaijan on Interfase.  Sandstein  10:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I began reviewing this before seeing Sandstein's comment. I came to the conclusion that this appears actionable. Interfase's accusations of vandalism are false, which constitutes battleground behaviour. Futhermore, Interfase has been duly warned. This is sufficient for a sanction to be considered. As the 1RR already in place hasn't solved the problem, I think a topic ban is probably the only way to go. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Just as a clarification that the OP's reference to October 2014 is meant to be 2013 instead. But yes, I agree there's merit here and we probably need to go to 0RR and/or topic ban. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 17:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


Not actionable as a complaint. If an appeal was intended, please use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} or talk to the sanctioning admin.  Sandstein  18:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Hablabar[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Interfase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Hablabar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 24 February 2014 Removed the section based on reliable sources from the article
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 25 February 2014 by Interfase (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 25 February 2014 by Interfase (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

When I tried to improve the section about Etymology of Azerbaijan article adding the historical map as an illustration some users were against this map in the section. User Hablabar also wrote that he is against the map. I filled a request in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where the coordinator wrote: "I don't see what that argument has to do with the meaning of the word "Azerbaijan" which is all that the Etymology section is about. It's not about what territory the term includes, it's only about how the word originated." After that I added new section in the article, where the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" for the territory of Azerbaijan was described. The section was based on reliable sources. After that the coordinator in Dispute resolution noticeboard closed the discussion with statement "Filing editor has created a new section and intends to discuss whether the Caucasus map is appropriate in that section. The dispute for which this listing was made, dealing with the Etymology section, thus appears to be resolved". But user Hablabar without any discussion on the talkpage and without any arguments against the authority of used sources removed the section. I think he do this because the discussed map could be used in this section to illustrate the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" as it was mentioned in the article. Also user Hablabar did nothing to improve the article. That is why I claimed that the edits of Hablabar was a vandalism against "Azerbaijan" article, trying to hide from the readers historical facts.

After that user wrote a request against me and without waiting my statements the descision about my topic ban was made. I claim this sanction as unfair action against me, because the descision was made without waiting of my explanation of my position. Thus, the issue should be reviewed and sanctions about Hablabar must be done.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Hablabar[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Hablabar[edit]

Please note that Interfase continues violating his topic ban despite the warnings, e.g. article Nijat Rahimov. Hablabar (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Absurd. There is no any violations by creating the article about weightlifter. --Interfase (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification for administrators. User Hablabar tried to show my "violations" by linking to the article about weightlifter. Actually, there is no any topic ban, claiming that I couldn't create or edit any article. This his action (as previous in Azerbaijan article) shows that the purpose of this user is to stop the improvement of Azerbaijani topic in English Wikipedia. That is why I think that the topic ban on editing the articles of Azerbaijani topic for this user must be sanctioned. --Interfase (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that Interfase continues violating his topic ban despite the warnings, this time it is the article Abbasgulu Bakikhanov. Hablabar (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:HAR. --Interfase (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I am getting tired of Interfase's expressions of vengeful anger. Hablabar (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I've asked Mitchell and he said that topic ban doesn't cover Azerbaijan topics in general—just topics related to the conflict with Armenia and similar geopolitical/ethnic disputes. So my edits in Nijat Rahimov and Abbasgulu Bakikhanov articles are not a violation. --Interfase (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EtienneDolet[edit]

This edit seems to be in violation as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What violations are you and Hablabar talking about. First of all, these edits is not discussions as it was mentioned in topic ban sanction. Secondly, this sanction is unfair and disputed here, because the descision was made without my participation and explanations. --Interfase (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
According to Sandstein's statement below, it appears that you'd have to file an appeal first and explain your situation there. As of now, you are topic-banned so these edits are in violation of it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I will wait the final decision of this request because the previous one was done without my participation. --Interfase (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Hablabar[edit]

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

Not only is this complaint about a content dispute (about whether some text is reliably sourced enough to be retained in an article) and as such not actionable, but it is also a rehash of Interfase's conduct that caused them to be topic-banned in the section dedicated to the complaint about them, above. Consequently this complaint is made in violation of Interfase's topic ban. In addition, it appears that Interfase continues to make other edits without heed to their topic ban, such as at [22]. Perhaps this reflects a lack of understanding of their sanction, considering that the ban message did not include the explanations found in the template {{AE sanction}}.

To the extent the complaint also contains an objection to the fact that Interfase was topic-banned without giving them the opportunity to make a statement, which I agree is not good practice in most cases, this objection would need to be submitted and examined separately as an appeal, per WP:AC/DS#Appeal.  Sandstein  21:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you really believe that banned from making any edits or participating in any discussion related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, including related ethnic conflicts is more ambiguous than three paragraphs of tempaltese? From the discussion I had with Interfase on their talk page, I was under the impression that they were going to appeal their own topic ban; I'm not sure whether this is an attempt at an appeal or just an attempt to have Hablabar sanctioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It certainly seems like Interfase doesn't understand their topic ban, considering that they continue to violate it. But I'll leave any enforcement up to you, as you are in discussion with them. What seems clear is that this request concerning Hablabar is not actionable as a complaint, and I'm closing it accordingly. Interfase may still file an appeal.  Sandstein  18:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom Butler[edit]

Tom Butler is topic banned from Rupert Sheldrake in accordance with the terms at WP:TBAN. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Tom Butler[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Second Quantization (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 23:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Tom Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 18:19, 26 February 2014 WP:SOAPBOX
  2. 17:38, 26 February 2014 Downplaying rejection by the scientific community
  3. 17:55, 26 February 2014 Unreasonable demands on references by demanding very specific text. Rejection of 8 sources which support the text.
  4. 26 February 2014 inserting citation needed tag when 19 sources follow the sentence, demonstrating the range of rejection. (See the notes in the article)
  5. 17:27, 26 October 2013 WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality
  6. 21:16, 13 October 2013 Removal of a sourced statement critical of Sheldrake.
  7. 16:35, 13 October 2013 Attempts to make Morphic resonance appear like a scientific hypothesis
  8. 15:47, 13 October 2013 Further Attempts to make Morphic resonance appear like a scientific hypothesis (edit warring)
  9. 11 October 2013 Bold addition of a citation needed tag after the previously mentioned list of 19 sources an deletion of material. Followed by edit warring to force his edits: 11 October 201311 October 2013
  10. 01:56, 28 January 2013 Removal of sourced statement discussing the link between spiritualism and insanity.

This is a continuation of a trend which has been going on for years:

  1. 18:07, 24 December 2011 Removal of sourced criticism. (Repeat)
  2. 17:53, 23 December 2011 Removal of sourced criticism.
  3. 16:42, 3 July 2011 Removal of sourced medical articles
  4. 17:25, 25 January 2011 POV push at pseudoscience with the edit summary: "This article has turned into a skeptical billboard".
  5. 17:43, 24 November 2010 Fringe promotion
  6. 20:04, 27 December 2008 Removal of criticism of a fringe proponent.
  7. 17:32, 15 January 2008 Fringe promotion.
  8. 19:13, 27 January 2007 Removal of mainstream point of view.
  9. 17:42, 4 December 2006 Further fringe promotion, rewording beliefs into "hypothesis"
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 13 January 2014 by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 17 June 2011 by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

See [23] and [24] for explicitly laying out of battleground behaviour/worldview. This editor has been problematic over a prolonged period in the topic area of pseudoscience and fringe science. Second Quantization (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC) (talk · contribs) did much of the leg work for the diffs: [25].
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Tom Butler[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Tom Butler[edit]

There is little point in responding in detail. I think diff # 7: 16:35, 13 October 2013 provided by Second Quantization pretty well sums all of this up. His statement for that diff: " Attempts to make Morphic resonance appear like a scientific hypothesis." In fact, the subject is "Hypothesis of Formative Causation." That is what the still living subject of the biography calls it. "Morphic resonance" is what he has named as one of the possible mechanisms. This is a simple fact that should be disclosed in the article. Interestingly, there seems to be no place in Wikipedia for a reader to discover the details of the hypothesis ... only that the man is a pariah of science.

A modern curse: "May you have a biography article in Wikipedia."

The real issue is a group of cooperating editors (see here for example) are working to avoid words in articles they think add special significance to the subject because they have managed to classify the subjects as pseudoscience.

"Broadly interpreted" (does it actually say "construed" anywhere?) has been taken to mean "Anything that sounds scientific." Reading the Pseudoscience arbitration report, I do not see that there was an intention of the admins to block balanced reporting in articles or open discussion on talk pages concerning alternative views of science.

The other two arbitrations that seem to apply to this question Fringe and Paranormal also leave room for reasonable exchanges and disclosure. It is simply not encyclopedic to give the reader only half the story or to couch the subject in terms intended to bias the reader. Yes, it is important to explain the amount of community support, but you have to at least disclose what is being talked about in a fair manner.

All of my edits have been intended to balance articles and certainly not push an agenda promoting the subjects. All of my comments on talk pages revolve around the same intention. Yes, I get a little testy, especially on a talk page that have seen several admin charges and blocking of editors. The Rupert Sheldrake talk page certainly is not a cooperative place, and as Simonm223 noted here, I did say as much to him. My apologies Simonm but you did petty much get in my face with those references.

Simonm, take a look at the comments by Barney: "... he has somewhat bizarre beliefs about the paranormal and his own competence to investigate the paranormal" and "His does not seem to have a great grasp of reality." I am going to guess his idea of " to become competent" means to repent, denounce pseudoscience and pledge myself to scientism. And then he attacked PhiChiPsiOmega. Do not wonder that I say it is not civil around here.

Oh, and Barney, it is insulting that you assume, after all I have said, that I intend to use Citizendium as a platform for biased articles. Have more respect for me as I do for the editors there! I do hope to see articles that are balanced and fair. If not, then I will host the subject area in the Collective. It is important that the public is at least aware of these concepts, but believe me, I am the last person working with paranormal subjects to want to see faith-based articles. But then, I doubt you can comprehend that.

To all of the editors here, consider the embattled atmosphere you have come to think of as normal. Look at how many editors supporting balanced articles have been banned. Then look at the likes of super skeptic ScienceApologist who openly edits and even talks to support banning others. One of his major campaigns under his earlier screen name was to get rid of civility rules. Many of you look up to him, else he would not be around.

One of the funniest exchanges I have seen on Wikipedia is also a sad demonstration of the poised waters. it is here. You have to ask yourself why there are so many seemingly well educated people coming along to say that the articles are not balanced, and why it is necessary to spend so much time defending yourselves and your idea of Wikipedia. It is irrational to not question yourself, as well.

You will succeed in banning me, if not now, certainly later. As it happens, I was staying away to write a book but someone poked at me and here I am again. It is necessary that I get back to work in the real world, and yes of course, this action will be in the book :-). Tom Butler (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

talk's comment is a fair one for an editor who does not understand my objective for balanced reporting, so let me explain a little. Most of the useful bio information in the Dean Radin article has been removed and there is a pile-on of negative comments about him instead.
A while back, Rupert Sheldrake article was some 82% negative and a good number of the supporting references were (are) from people who are either known critics of all things paranormal and their comments are only peripherally applicable to Sheldrake or by people who are, as talk observed, likely not well acquainted with the subject, other than the usual "Not only no but Hell no" response.
I have a great deal of respect for informed opinion from anyone and believe that it is essential for a balanced article to show what Sheldrake's demonstrably informed peers have said about his views. A 80-20 article is not balanced and clearly shows a piling on of opinion which can only be seen as guiding the reader to discount the ideas. Say some people think it sucks but also say that some of his informed peers in the fields relevant to his hypothesis--psi studies and whatever field studies morphogenesis--see some reason to consider they hypothesis. That is the scientific way. The official policy today is to interpret the pseudoscience arbitration to mean any mention of the peers who understand the psi implications of the theory must be excluded in articles.
How can you possibly present the whole story about the theory if you refuse to include the whole story? As I have asked many times, why is the theory even in the bio and not in its own article? Is condemning the theory a good way of condemning the man?
Finally, People are very poor students of human nature if they think I only live in Wikipedia and am not capable of expressing myself elsewhere. I think Wikipedia has (still) the potential of being a very important builder of civilization and I wanted to help. I first came to Wikipedia in good faith to try to help improve the Electronic Voice Phenomena article, which is my specialty. I was attacked on and off Wikipedia and was finally forbidden to contribute after being soundly beaten about the head by the same kinds of editors who have become so good at attacking opposition here.
@Goblin, Citizendium has been around for years but has never come out of the backwater. If you are worried about what I might do there, come on and help. But remember, you have to use your real name and I can ask for your qualifications. The rest is, I hope, fact- based. At least I am trying to find a constructive outlet for my concerns. Tom Butler (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223[edit]

Tom Butler came to my attention on February 26 when I noticed him attempting to change language regarding the scientific consensus surrounding Sheldrake's morphic resonance concept. He stopped short of WP:3RR but responded on the talk page with rather hostile comments.


I asked him to be careful about personal attacks and his response was to tell me that the article was never civil, suggesting WP:BATTLEGROUND sentiments.


That was the last I heard from him on this thread. However he reappeared during a discussion with a new user PhiChiPsiOmega who also had reservations about the consensus view regarding parapsychological articles. I have suggested elsewhere that PhiChiPsiOmega would benefit from mentorship somewhere away from these articles to learn the ropes.


Instead Tom Butler reached out to him and made statements that first assumed no good faith and second appeared to be aimed at recruiting him to act in a WP:MEAT fashion with conversation off-site.


Tom Butler also made statements that walked the edge of WP:NLT.


I cautioned him about using words like slander on his talk page (because the decision had been reached already that WP:AN/I was not the appropriate venue for the conversation) and he responded to me insisting I take the converstion back to the AN/I page. When I declined he did anyway, directly breaching WP:NLT.


I'm concerned that when you combine his contentiousness, threats of legal action and tendency to assume bad faith with his actions trying to drive a wedge between editors he may see as kindred spirits and the Wikipedia community you create a dangerous combination.

One final note - I'm confused by Tom Butler's comments (listed in a diff above) that I was upset about him recruiting people for Citizendium. I'm not sure where he got that sense from. Simonm223 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Liz's suggestions that I was canvassed - I have been involved in this particular dispute since Feb. 26 and would have participated in it regardless of whether I was notified, as I monitor this noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A note - dif 55 is not Tom Butler. Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]

Penwhale@ - while he may have specific COI issues re: Sheldrake, and that is where much of his current editing is also focused there, the evidence above is from a number of different pseudoscience articles and their talk pages such as Mediumship, Energy medicine, and Pseudoscience itself. Without a ban on all p-sci topics, it seems likely that the troublesome editing will just shift to a different article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by PhiChiPsiOmega[edit]

If I may say something to Penwhale (nice to meet you, BTW), I do not find any problem with Tom Butler, despite some of the bizarre beliefs he holds. Simonm's argument about him doesn't seem supported, and I would really like to talk about parapsychology more objectively, perhaps in a more formal setting? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 8:25 pm, Today (UTC−5)

OK. Simon's statement above is wildly inaccurate. Mr. Butler may have bizarre beliefs, but he's not "latching on to me", and there is absolutely nothing in those posts of his implying legal action. He's only saying Rupert Sheldrake is thinking of suing. If Simon can point out where exactly TOM's threat lies, I would be glad. Until then, this framing of Mr. Butler doesn't work, and I think the committee should reconsider its decision. If not now, then sometime in the future. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

He also exhibits no battleground mentality. Like me, he simply thinks this has gone far enough, and that the other side of the academic debate on psi -- the proponents -- needs to be included. Here, you are only representing one half of the articles and literature and completely ignoring the other half, including their replies to the first. My case stands that the literature on this is labyrinthine, and labeling it "pseudoscience" is not an easy task, especially for a Wiki article. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(Removed long list of names that had no apparent relevance to this request.  Sandstein  21:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC))

Statement by Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[edit]

It is my opinion that a ban from all fringe/pseudoscience articles, broadly construed, is appropriate. Tom Butler (talk · contribs) is simply not WP:COMPETENT to edit. The reason for this is that he has somewhat bizarre beliefs about the paranormal and his own competence to investigate the paranormal. His website [33] which he's posted a link to on his user page, is extremely enlightening. His does not seem to have a great grasp of reality.

The strange thing is he seems to recognise that he's not going to get any traction on Wikipedia for his bizarre ideas, yet continues to surreptitiously try to make edits here. Maybe he wants to turn himself into some kind of martyr, I don't know. Best that he just goes away and stops wasting people's time. It's low level disruption, but it's persistent.

He also thinks he and other editors can go over to citizendium and contribute there. Although I understand that that project is (1) dead in the water (2) I understand that citizendium has realised its previous errors in allowing self-appointed "experts" to WP:OWN articles (thus an expert with training in homeopathy can prevent critical commentary on what clearly is WP:BOLLOCKS). Citizendium needs Butler about as much as Wikipedia does, which is not at all.

My suggestion would be for (1) an indefinite ban and (2) a ban from all fringe articles. I believe that (1) Tom isn't going to change his world view any time soon, and is unlikely to become competent (2) any half-hearted subject bans will steer him into being disruptive in slightly different areas. Anything less than a full whack will in the long term inevitably result in further low-level disruption on different pages, and will end up back here again.

I have already predicted that PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs) will go the same way for WP:IDONTHEARTHAT on WP:FRINGE. It is telling who his supporters are. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by iantresman[edit]

I think that most admins who do some basic fact-checking, will find that the criticisms are (a) misleading (b) not supported by the diffs.

  1. 18:19, 26 February 2014 Butler is explaining himself, as you would expect from a talk page discussion. There is not one sentence consistent with any part of WP:SOAPBOX
  2. 17:38, 26 February 2014 Butler is not downplaying anything, and is well aware of the rejection of Sheldrake by members of the scientific community. Butler is critical of (a) the phrase "scientific community", being used to suggest that it speaks unanimously with one voice, (b) based on a finite number of sources.
  3. 17:55, 26 February 2014 Makes no demands or rejections, and makes reasonable points.
  4. 26 February 2014 Butler does not dispute that the 19 sources offer a range of rejections. He is asking for a single citation that the "scientific community" as a whole, reject Shelrake.
  5. 17:27, 26 October 2013 WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? He's editing his user page. He makes no aggressive changes.
  6. 21:16, 13 October 2013 Butler removes a sourced statement critical of Sheldrake, preumably because the article text is misleading and inaccurate (in my opinion too)
  7. 16:35, 13 October 2013 Butler is using the same term as is used in many sources
  8. 15:47, 13 October 2013 As #7, the same term as used in peer reviewed papers
  9. 11 October 2013 As #4.
  10. 01:56, 28 January 2013 Butler removed a section on "Mental Health" which makes no connection with any of Sheldrake's work.

There is no doubt that members of the scientific community have rejected Sheldrake, and many have rejected his work, and even called it pseudoscience. Suggesting it is unanimous and absolute is a gross mispresentation of the facts (sources), and Butler has already acknowledged that there "many" who reject Sheldrake (#2 above). --Iantresman (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Goblin Face[edit]

I already filed a complaint against Tom Butler and PhiChiPsiOmega on the Administrators' noticeboard [34]. Butler is not on Wikipedia to edit articles, his entire existence is to just stir trouble for Wikipedia because his fringe beliefs are not being supported on this website. His agenda is anti-Wikipedia to cause problems here about his conspiracy theories regarding "censorship" and skeptics. I am very surprised this user has not been banned considering all the damage he is trying to do to it off this website: Not only does he have part of his own website attacking Wikipedia and it's policies [35] but he spams anti-Wikipedia comments and conspiracy theories about "skeptics" high jacking wikipedia articles on paranormal blogs and websites:

Tom Butler anti-Wikipedia comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"After being remained about the futility of trying to reach consensus with Wikipedia editors, my natural reaction is to take my efforts for balanced reporting elsewhere. Perhaps a wiki titled: “Wikipedia Truth Watch.”

In their devotion to mainstream ideals, skeptical editors are well organized and help one another while more moderate editors are not inclined toward activism nor are they inclined to organize.

Reliable sources are required for every statement of substance; however, that rule is used to say that virtually all publications supporting the study of things paranormal are not allowed as references while virtually any publication negative toward things paranormal are allowed–This is a result of skeptic control of the encyclopedia." [36]

"I would like to add my two cents worth. I have been an editor for a number of years and was involved in the decisive administrative action that resulted in a permanent ban of probably the last truly effective editor who was a supporter of fair treatment for paranormal articles." "Editing Wikipedia is truly an exercise in futility. I let myself be drawn in from time to time to at least put my point on record, but also to see how the problem has evolved. I learn more about people each visit, but my wife Lisa and I have otherwise concentrated on countering Wikipedia with education."

[37] and he has an entire anti-Wikipedia website here: [38]

"The problem is that Wikipedia policies have made it possible for Skeptics to dominate parts of the online encyclopedia. These faceless people have run off virtually all of those of us who think an encyclopedia should say what something is without characterizing it as good or bad. Those who persist in making what they consider more balanced entries are often subjected to abuse that is more like the Lord of the Flies than a collaborative community." [39]

What I find hilarious is that he constantly claims to be "neutral" and "objective" and has the aim of allegedly making Wikipedia "balanced" but in actual fact all he wants to do is delete any critical or skeptical material on paranormal related articles. He openly rejects the scientific consensus. If anyone adds anything critical about these subjects he calls that editor "biased". I look through his edits and there's nothing constructive. He seems to be mostly using this website as a forum for his conspiracy theories.

Butler's "alternative" to Wikipedia that he has been promoting on here and encouraging users (see his comment to PhiChiPsiOmega) to join has been open for a few months and since that time he has created only two articles, one is selectively copied and paste from the parapsychology article on Wikipedia and the other is an article on near-death experiences with 0 critical or skeptical content. So much for balanced articles. Goblin Face (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by[edit]

@Penwhale – If you don’t think that enough evidence has been provided to show that Tom is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and that Tom has exhibited a pattern of disruptive behavior then please tell me what evidence you would consider sufficient to meet the burden of proof. Tom Butler’s editing history chronicles seven years of fringe pushing behavior and more diffs are easily supplied. Alternately, you could open Tom’s history and just look through it. Fringe pushing is essentially all that Tom has ever done at Wikipedia so you won’t really have to search for problematic edits, you can just click on them at random and the evidence will present itself. (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Liz – Barney, Red Pen, and Roxy were all involved in Sheldrake. Goblin Face named Butler in a complaint at WP:ANI. Simon encountered Tom on Sheldrake’s talk page. And jps encountered Tom when he was editing Electronic voice phenomenon. Everyone I alerted has a history with Tom Butler. (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Liz[edit]

I think it should be mentioned that, who originally wrote up this request case (although Second Quantization submitted it on his behalf) was canvassing for this request for enforcement to Barney, The Red Pen of Doom, Goblin Face, Simonm223, jps and Roxy the dog, all editors who were likely to post statements against Tom Butler and have been known to agree in past debates. These were the only individuals he notified about the case. Liz Read! Talk! 16:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by olive[edit]

Context:Tom Butler has made 3 comments (4 edits) in 2 1/2 months (since December 23)

Does he have a right to feel frustrated. For example this personal attack on him

  • because the point of the game if you're a self-appointed BLP warrior is to create BLP violations out of nothing, apparently. [40]

Butler's response despite the personal attack is even and measured [41]

  • He is one editor in the last over-2 months among the group of well-known fringe fighters.
  • The syntax of a phrase which is specifcally supported by policy, that is, we can never with out a specific source saying so, say all of anything ....all scientists, all artists, all do so is weasel wording. That he is arguing with people who refuse to adhere to that principle sure could be frustrating.
  • That as long as we have articles about fringe topics we also have to have sources about that content. Again if you are dealing with people who refuse the sources that describe the topic , but want the topic to be discussed, and will only allow criticism of the topic then WP has a situation that must create non neutral content, and in a BLP article.
  • In conclusion.

One editor against many in the last over- two months, with legitimate concerns per our guidelines and policies, facing personal criticism has made three comments in over two months yet he has been dragged here. This whole situation bears on-going watching rather than a sanction to one and walking away as if the problem is solved(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC))

Disclaimer: I'm probably as skeptical as many about some of the fringe topics. My concerns is that these topics and most especially BLP articles be treated fairly if they are to be a part of a legitimate and reputable encyclopedia.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC))

Result concerning Tom Butler[edit]

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

  • @TheRedPenofDoom: For the last 6-month period almost all of Tom's edits in the topic area are to Sheldrake. If he causes problem elsewhere we can deal with it with a more blanket ban, but since there's so much focus on Sheldrake it's a better solution to just ban him from that page at this time. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 00:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Penwhale's assessment. The confrontational attitude reflected in these diffs is problematic.  Sandstein  18:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I also agree that a topic ban from the Sheldrake article is the best way to do; there's no evidence that Tom has caused (recent) disruption on other articles. If problems move to other articles after the narrow ban, we can broaden it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


Kafkasmurat is subject to a standard one revert per twenty four hours rule on all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts. Kafkasmurat is also subject to a personal attacks parole, if any uninvolved administrator believes Kafkasmurat makes a personal attacks they may block Kafkasmurat pursuant to the standardized enforcement provision. Kafkasmurat is warned that they will likely be topic banned for any further violations of Wikipedia's norms. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Kafkasmurat[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Kafkasmurat (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 

Kafkasmurat is a denier of the Armenian Genocide and displays a disruptive editing pattern that is overtly nationalist. Although the user is entitled to his opinions about 1915, he has nevertheless spilled his WP:POV all over Wikipedia articles.

The user has a long history of disruption dating back to 2007. In his first three edits as a Wikipedian, the user blanked the entire Armenian Genocide article with an edit-summary that calls it an "unnecessary article" and has edit-warred over it bypassing the WP:3RR limit (DIFFS: [42][43][44]). Surprisingly, the user was only given a 3RR warning.

After taking a break, the user has returned in December of 2013. He continued his disruption even after he receives a formal warning:

Removes sourced information on the Armenian Genocide

  • 17 February 2014 Edit summary: "Controversial subjects with bad intentions"
  • 17 February 2014 Removes external link of Armenian Genocide on the Genocide article page with an edit-summary "Irrelevant Link..."

Incivil and racist remarks:

Copying and pasting information about genocide denial in numerous articles to make a WP:POINT:

Misuse of sources to make a WP:POINT

  • 21 February 2013 Complete misuse of source. Adds that Soghomon Tehlirian was 'a terrorist in public opinion' even though the source makes no such conclusion. In the talk page of the corresponding article, Kafkasmurat repeatedly says, "When did terrorists become assasins?" and "How can you make a hero from a psychopath?" (DIFF: [45]). Clearly, this recent edit was guided by his personal convictions. The source itself is highly questionable since it appears to be an essay of an undergraduate student given to his professor as a class assignment. To top it all off, there is no edit-summary.

P.S. The FORUM-like edits on the talkpage were reverted by Drmies with an edit-summary by him stating "language not really appropriate for talk pages of articles". If this language is inappropriate for talk pages, I could safely assume it is inappropriate for articles as well.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 23 December 2013 by Drmies (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The disruption the user has caused the past month is considerable. Although he has already been blocked for his conduct, he continues to disrupt Wikipedia extensively. Most of his edits are driven by his own personal opinions and often times fall contrary to the general consensus Wikipedia has instilled. I propose that Kafkasmurat be banned from all topics related to Armenia and Turkey.

@Kafkasmurat: I advise you to remain WP:CIVIL in your conduct towards me and to remember WP:NOTTHEM. My edits are not "black propaganda edits" and neither are they "anti-Turkish". I have already advised you awhile ago to stop saying that I'm anti-Turkish. You continued immediately after and now you're continuing to do it again.
@EtienneDolet: I remain nice to every thing. It's up to your perception. I've been contributing for 9 nears(especially Political attitudes like yours, kept me away from I don't harm any information. I don't want to ban or forbid anything. We need to tell possibilities for reliability.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
@ErikHaugen: All the diffs I provided are actionable since they were made after the warning on December 23. There are, however, an exception of two diffs (the ones of 23 December) which were made minutes before the warning. I provided them nevertheless to show that the user disregarded the warning and continued his uncivil remarks towards his fellow editors. I am also very well aware that the 2007 diffs in the introduction of the report are non-actionable. I provided those diffs to show the consistency in his disruptive editing pattern from past to present. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
@Kafkasmurat: I have already advised you not to use phrases like "Political attitudes like yours" towards your fellow Wikipedia editors. So please stop lashing out on me. Remember WP:NOTTHEM and WP:CIVIL. As for harming of information, we will have to let the admins decide that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
@EtienneDolet: Lashing out? :D You've rummaged everything about me, complained, reverted and i am the lashing one. Congratulations on your discoveries. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I hope the results here will effectively reduce the personal attacks towards me. I will, as always, display a WP:GOODFAITH towards Kafkasmurat. I am optimistic that he will positively contribute to the topic area and help build a bigger and better encyclopedia on that end. Thank you admins for your time and effort in handling this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Kafkasmurat[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Kafkasmurat[edit]

Hey, i lost hope on Wikipedia with a 24 hour block: because of saying something at talk page. After that i tried to make minor adjustments while reading. Everything i did have trusted references. The user who complained about me, Étienne Dolet, has hundreds of black propaganda edits. All of this users' edits are anti- Turkish editions. That's meaningful. I should remind that blocking or humiliating users don't prevent anything. Only break down the hope. Thanks for objective reviews.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Kafkasmurat[edit]

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

"Sanction or remedy to be enforced" just links to the arbcom case, I'm assuming Wikipedia:AA2#Standard_discretionary_sanctions is meant. I'm not seeing much of anything recent in these diffs; i.e., since the warning in December. Maybe the "You always contribute anti-Turkish additions" line, but I'm not sure there's anything we can act on here in this forum. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There's also the "Article consists of hate speech by Armenians" comment on December 26. That's a bit stale, but together with the response to this request, which alleges "black propaganda" on the part of the complainant without evidence, I get the impression of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Considering also that the response is so poorly written as to be almost incomprehensible, I get the feeling that Wikipedia won't lose many good contributions if we enact a topic ban. (Disclaimer: I have made content edits about the topic of the Swiss court cases concerning Armenian genocide denial in the German language Wikipedia. I don't think that makes me involved here, as I've never interacted with either party, but I'm mentioning it just as a matter of transparency.)  Sandstein  18:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there's bad blood between the two parties, but Kafkasmurat does seem to be displaying a battleground mentality. I'd have no qualms about a topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see much here. A topic ban seems disproportionate to me. I realize these DS cases seem that way sometimes, but I'm just not seeing much harm here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You don't think accusing somebody you're in a dispute with of "black propaganda edits" and "anti-Turkish editions", in an area that's under discretionary sanctions, is problematic? To me, it's suggestive of a battleground mentality, even if none of the respondent's individual edits are inherently problematic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree it's problematic. It was clumsy and unnecessarily combative (and altogether unnecessary, really: it doesn't matter that Etienne writes a lot about, e.g., the Armenian Genocide) but keep in mind that this is in response to being accused here—I think that while yes, it is problematic, some defensiveness is at least understandable. I'm not saying there's nothing, but an indefinite topic ban for that seems disproportionate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • What about a 1RR in the topic area, as well as no-warning blocks if Kafkasmurat makes personal attacks? I'd like to note that Kafkasmurat was blocked Drmies for personal attacks (and it is NOT logged on AA2 page), and thus I agree that I am unsure whether an indefinite ban is the solution here. IBAN obviously would be equivalent to TBAN in this case and thus not recommended either. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable to me. There is plainly evidence of disruption especially though edit warring however I agree with the other admins who have commented that a TBAN seems a bit extreme but believe that 1RR is appropriate and has a greater likelihood of preventing issues. If it doesn't I'd warn Kafkasmurat that a topic ban is looming. In addition to that the personal attacks linked by users above are problematic, unacceptable and especially disruptive in this topic area, given that I think a sanction to prevent, or deal with quickly, the personal attacks is necessary and will be helpful. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


No enforcement action taken.  Sandstein  14:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Pigsonthewing[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Pigsonthewing and infoboxes :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. See generally Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 2
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

A user recently wrote to me to point out Andy Mabbit's recent deletion nominations of a number of navigational and informational pages in the template namespace. I am concerned that this breaches the relevant Arbitration remedy linked above: "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes". However, I wanted to get other opinions before taking any unilateral action. NW (Talk) 17:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The comments here are all very reasonable. The user who initially emailed me also pointed to [47] as evidence of misconduct, but I disagree and ask that this request be closed. NW (Talk) 03:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Pigsonthewing[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Pigsonthewing[edit]

Statement by Harry Mitchell[edit]

Andy's a personal friend of mine in real life, so I won't take any part in this as an admin, but I was under the impression that the remedy concerned additions to and removals from articles—the case came about as a result of persistent rows on article talk pages (and associated edit wars) about whether a given article should have an infobox. I wouldn't have thought that making infobox-related edits (such as nominating infoboxes for deletion) that aren't about whether a particular article should have an infobox would be in violation of the remedy. Perhaps a clarification/amendment request is needed—the remedy should probably end with "to or from articles" or spell out exactly what it means. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: read the fucking case. Andy's edits to TfD or to the template namespace were never brought into question. The problem that the remedy (and indeed the case) was intended to solve was the disruption caused by edit warring and arguments over whether a particular article should have an infobox. Andy's conduct in those discussions at least exacerbated the problems, for which he was sanctioned. There was never any suggestion that his misconduct extended to technical issues to do with the consolidation of templates (infoboxes or otherwise). Now, even if the remedy were to be (mal-)interpreted as applying to such edits now, Andy can hardly be sanctioned for what is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the remedy, so this request needs to be closed. Between ArbCom's shoddy drafting; Sandstein's shoot first, ask questions later approach; and the first-mover advantage to AE actions which you so championed when you were an arb, it's a wonder the whole of Wikipedia isn't banned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS[edit]

Over the last month Andy and a couple of other editors have cleaned up Wikipedia:List of infoboxes, classifying 4000+ templates. This effort identified about 400 templates that are used in less than five articles. Some of these will be redundant to other highly-used templates and replacing them would be a step towards improving the maintenance of templates, since changes (like re-writing into Lua) then need to be done fewer times. Andy has been looking at a number of these and proposing some for deletion over the last few weeks. In several cases, these have led to replacement of virtually unused templates with equivalent ones. In other cases, debate has thrashed out the issues and discussion is continuing. Here's an example:

On one occasion, Andy Dingley decided to direct his argument at Andy, rather than the issue of keeping a template that's only used on two pages:

You'll notice that Andy does not rise to the bait and respond to the off-topic ad hominem at that point. The closing admin considered that two transclusions were enough to justify keeping that template. All of Andy's activities at TfD have been aimed at maintenance of templates - a far cry from the focus of the Infobox case that went before ArbCom.

So I am astonished that anyone is attempting to widen the scope of the already broad ArbCom remedy "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes" into the area of infobox templates, specifically the arena of Templates for deletion. ArbCom's deliberations during the case criticised Andy's involvement in content matters, but recognised his technical expertise and value in maintenance of templates. It goes completely against the spirit of last September's remedy to attempt to find yet another area from which to ban Andy and this request needs to be dismissed as mistaken. --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein: No, Andy is not suggesting that anyone remove infoboxes from articles, only that the present infoboxes be replaced by more common ones in an effort to reduce the unnecessary proliferation of little-used templates. Your second argument is meritless as it would prevent Andy from, for example, replacing Template:Stable isotope with Template:Isotope in an article and ArbCom certainly never suggested that Andy should be prevented from changing one infobox into another. More importantly, even then, Andy would not have to be the editor who replaced infoboxes in an article. That's not how TfD works - this is a wiki and there are plenty of other editors who can carry out the decision of the closer at TfD. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
@SirFozzie: That's nonsense. First of all, deleting a template doesn't remove an infobox from an article. Secondly, the 'deleted' template often becomes a redirect to its replacement as MontanaBW illustrated. Finally, you should be aware that Andy isn't banned from removing infoboxes from articles - so even your inaccurate argument leads nowhere. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw[edit]

There is no violation; Andy's restriction was specifically limited to articles, and only to the adding and removing of infoboxes in articles. Here, we are talking cleanup and technical work on the underlying templates that infoboxes use, not the "adding or removing" of infoboxes to articles. Nothing in the Arbcom decision stated that Andy was banned from all discussions, broadly construed, about infoboxes - and definitely not infobox templates. His competence in this area is unquestioned and he does some very critical cleanup work. Further, this is one of wikipedia's best-known contributors with known technical competence - though perhaps being interviewed on all tech considered by NPR counts for nothing? This is nothing but scapegoating of an editor who is trying to remain a content contributor and useful member of the community while working with the constraints of an arbcom decision. Do not read into the decision what isn't there. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein: deletion of a template doesn't "remove it from the article" due to redirecting. For example, {{Infobox thoroughbred racehorse}} recently became {{Infobox racehorse}}, and not one single infobox disappeared due to this change. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda[edit]

Andy deserves a barnstar. RexxS, Floquenbeam and others explained well why. (I said at some point (back in 2012) that nothing surprises me here anymore, but this did.) Lets look at an example: there was {{infobox Bruckner symphony}} with ten inclusions, it was replaced by {{infobox musical composition}}, the other was deleted. The original infobox was added on 10 August 2007, the replacement was done on 10 June 2013. The reader sees the same as before (actually more), especially today. To clean up like that, replace little used infoboxes by more general, well maintained ones, is excellent gnomish work for the higher quality of Wikipedia and deserves a barnstar, not this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: The above example of his effort to cleanup little used infoboxes is dated before the arb case, why should he stop his beneficial work? He can work well with me, check your premises, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley[edit]

Andy Mabbett does not have a topic ban because of his view that infoboxes either should, or should not, be used. He has a topic ban because he finds it perennially impossible to work with others and this came to a head over infoboxes. The topic ban is not there because "his answer is wrong", but because his methods and attitude are disruptive overall. It is a regular problem on WP, especially around topic bans, that a particular editor becomes fixated on some topic and there is trouble in that area (If you have had a topic ban imposed, it's clearly not all sweetness and light). Such editors are commonly most reluctant to move away from their same area of fixation, even after repeated warnings, and this is not something likely to end well. Another regular occurrence is the banned editor wikilawyering to be just outside the ban's scope, as close as they can possibly get without breaching it. That is not an act that recognises the wisdom of the ban overall and is instead sticking two fingers up at the banning community to say, "You were wrong to exclude me".

I'm here now (even on WP I have better things to do than waste time discussing Andy Mabbett) because I was cited above for making ad hominem attacks. It is not an ad hominem to note that someone busily engaged in infobox template deletion is under a closely related topic ban, even if careful study does show that they're acting just outside the boundaries of such a ban.

As to the basis of these deletions, yet again WP finds itself discussing "programming" issues in a way that would make any experienced coder weep (It is regular WP practice to exclude expert template coders from working on templates because templates, via protection, are seen to, and are made to, require an admin's skillset, not a template expert). Useful principles like abstraction are ignored, in favour of trivial bean counting. "We should delete {{Infobox material}} because it is only used twice" is nonsense. It is firstly easy to measure that it is used twice, but a lot harder to judge whether the template is useful. A much better question (per WP:IMPERFECT) is instead "How often can this template be used?" {{Infobox material}} offers a lot of potential uses in mechanics and materials science, whether it is currently used much or not. Judging it based on current uses is just pandering to Andy Mabbett's need to work on infoboxes, and an easy metric for choosing which to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda. Congratulations on being able to work with Andy Mabbett. If you can extrapolate your ability to work with him into the non-existence of a larger group of people who have found it impossible (and hence the topic ban), then you might have a point. Do you dispute that there is in fact a topic ban in place? No-one claims that it is impossible for anyone to work with Andy Mabbett, simply that it has already proven impossible for a substantial majority to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@NE Ent. I'm in the "pro infobox" camp too. Doesn't mean that Andy Mabbett gets a free Eric-card, just because he's on the "right" team. This sanction was imposed for behavioural issues, not for being a Guelph instead of a Ghibeline. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by olive[edit]

..."adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes".

Andy's sanction per NW's quote above does not include removal of infoboxes it includes discussion of removal of info boxes. Further, he didn't remove info boxes as has been explained multiple times in this AE. Even if he wasn't an incredibly valuable editor as has been pointed out here still, we cannot allow the support of incorrect interpretations of sanctions most especially to harm any editor.

This is a simple case of misreading the sanction. I hope those who have mis read will have the good will to admit a mistake and close this AE.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC))

Editors have the right to demand the wording of sanctions be adhered to. Asking that first, the sanction and what it includes be precise (the arbs job), and second, that editors who question extrapolation of that sanction are pursuing legalistic wording, is wrong and unfair. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC))

NE Ent[edit]

Checking .... not bureaucracy ... still a pillar! Common sense ... alas ... just a "may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints" essay. Arbcom exists for for "serious conduct disputes". Trivial tech work on templates don't qualify. NE Ent 02:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Despite the fact the top of the page says "Most editors under Arbitration Committee sanctions are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still assume good faith," Guerillero feels it appropriate to state "While I have a strong feeling that Andy is trying to skirt around the outer edges of his topic ban, I don't feel that these edits are worth the time of this venue or the server space that this discussion takes up." But it is worth the time to post personal speculation about another editor's motivations? Ya'll know that Andy is in the pro infobox camp per the finding? NE Ent 10:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Pigsonthewing[edit]

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

As far as I can see, PotW is not opening up issues over whether or not to include a box in any given article, but is concerned merely with the technical question of weeding out some extremely rare and presumably redundant templates for them. It seems like a harmless enough thing to do. Was it really the intention of the committee to ban this kind of activity too? Fut.Perf. 18:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The remedy in question is Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes. I would say that putting up items in TfD (despite this D standing for Discussion, it's obvious what he suggests the fix is (to remove them). (Especially where he states A valid reason for deletion [49]. So yes, I think that this is a violation of the restriction. SirFozzie (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In my view, the request has merit. The relevant remedy reads "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes." By creating numerous deletion nominations for infobox templates, Pigsonthewing is discussing the removal of the corresponding infoboxes in the affected articles, in violation of the remedy. This should be acted on per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Enforcement.  Sandstein  18:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but he isn't actually trying to "remove" anything from the articles, is he? He just wants to exchange one technical means of implementing it with another. No actual change in page content. Or am I missing something? Fut.Perf. 18:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
He's asking for the deletion of the templates, which would remove the infoboxes from the article. To the extent he might want to replace them with something else, he's discussing the addition of infoboxes, which he's also banned from.  Sandstein  18:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, gotta say, while your logic is somehow formally valid, it does strike me as rather a bit over-formalistic. If I'm banned from adding or removing the word "poo" from articles, and I make a proposal of exchanging the wiki-code <emph>poo</emph> against the wiki-code ''poo'' somewhere, then of course you might argue that my edit has first "removed" poo and then "re-added" it. But in reality it has neither; it has merely exchanged one method of packaging it against another; what's on the page for the reader to see is still the same poo, unchanged. Fut.Perf. 19:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If there was no harm done, then I don't think sanction is suitable. I do think that once the current categorizing effort is done though that Andy should refrain from doing so in the future. Or at least ask people before hand. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I usually stay out of AE (true even when I wasn't on AC), but to prevent a mistaken sanction that could bring an infobox-related request to the committee yet again and cause me to run screaming into the night: This is not a breach of the remedy. He's not allowed to add infoboxes to articles (the "to articles" is implied, but is clearly the intent if you read the rest of the case). He's not allowed to discuss the addition or removal of infoboxes to or from articles (again, the "to articles" is implied but fairly clear). He actually could technically remove an infobox from an article (as long as he didn't discuss it!), but that will happen, well, when pigs fly. He can certainly nominate an infobox for deletion without violating the remedy, especially when what he's really doing is proposing to absorb one kind of infobox into a different kind of infobox. He could also create some new kind of infbox out of whole cloth, as long as he didn't add it to an article. Now if there was disruption of some kind involved in all this, that could be handled without going through AE, but it doesn't look like anyone is claiming that. Surely this doesn't require a clarification request? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I have to disagree with you Floquenbeam, so yes. To turn FPaS's words around, saying that deleting infoboxes doesn't remove them is.. overly formal and legalistic. SirFozzie (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • While I have a strong feeling that Andy is trying to skirt around the outer edges of his topic ban, I don't feel that these edits are worth the time of this venue or the server space that this discussion takes up. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering that the editors who have commented as uninvolved administrators disagree about whether the reported conduct violates the arbitration remedy at issue, and that no admin action appears imminent, I'm closing this discussion per the complainant's request without conclusion.  Sandstein  14:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Tabled for now, with the understanding that there is a low bar for reporting newer disruption. NW (Talk) 20:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Askahrc[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Vzaak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Askahrc (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 

There is some administrative time lag here. I planned to submit this AE upon the closing of an SPI, which was expected to be contemporaneous with the ANI Askahrc recently initiated. However the SPI backlog has been so large that it has taken a full two weeks for the SPI to be closed.

  • Per this SPI, Askahrc has been strongly admonished for using an IP sockpuppet to harass users and waste the community's time.[50]
  • Askahrc's harrassing behavior -- issuing threats behind an IP sockpuppet -- was used to support the arbcom case he brought, which begins, "This request for arbitration is to resolve recurring threats..."[51]
  • That SPI is for old behavior, and Askahrc has already been sanctioned for that old behavior. That might be water under the bridge were it not for Askahrc's continued disruptions. The purpose of this AE request is to address recent behavior (not the past sockpuppeting behavior). To wit:
  • Askahrc sought to reinstate Tumbleman's first edit to the Rupert Sheldrake article, described in the first paragraph of my statement in Tumbleman's AE[57]. I and others patiently discussed the matter with Askahrc on the talk page.[58] The case against Askahrc's proposal was quite strong, and he didn't seem to understand or address the arguments presented against it. When he failed to gain consensus for the change, he began an ANI[59] (which was dismissed).
  • In the ANI, Askahrc cited the threats he made from his own IP sockpuppet to support a claim that editors are being reprimanded (the link is "reprimanding").
  • There are many issues in the ANI, for example Askahrc twice accused me of WP:UNCIVIL and WP:HARASS.[60][61] When I asked for evidence of such,[62] none was forthcoming.
  • The ANI also indicates incompetence on Askahrc's part. For example, prior to the ANI, I politely gave Askahrc a pointer to WP:LQ[63] because his edit[64], with comment "Periods go within quotations", is against the MOS. The sources do not contain the periods that Askahrc inserted into the quotes. Yet in the evidence he supplied for his ANI, Askahrc denounced my revert, mistakenly thinking that he "actually corrected a violation" of WP:LQ.[65]
  • Askahrc has been promoting the idea that "a large number of innocent editors have been blocked as collateral damage" as Tumbleman sockpuppets (same links as the proxied aspersions: [66][67][68][69]) and has accused me of "an inappropriate tendency to accuse people" of sockpuppetry.[70] Askahrc contests, for example, this SPI, for which the evidence was called "overwhelming" by the admin evaluating the SPI.[71]
  • Askahrc has additionally written WP:POLEMICAL stories on his talk page. For example one says, "I set out seven shots on my desk, one to go in my belly and six to go in my revolver",[72] where "revolver" is a (mis-formatted) link to the recent ANI he started. Obviously I don't interpret this as a "real-life" threat, but it may be the most uncomfortable WP:BATTLEGROUND statement I have ever seen.

vzaak 17:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 22 November 2013 by (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 5 January 2014 by Callanecc (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • To address the shopping accusation, this AE request is orthogonal to the SPI. Nobody would expect action to be taken on months-old sockpuppetry. The SPI is simply to establish past behavior. This AE request addresses recent behavior. vzaak 19:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Penwhale: the SPI isn't for the behavior in February, and the result of the SPI isn't for the behavior in February. All but the first two bullet points are about recent behavior. vzaak 21:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've modified my statement to address the SPI confusion. Consider the alternative: submitting an AE request with an open SPI. That would amount to asking AE admins to evaluate a relatively large AE request and a large SPI case, and I can well imagine AE admins saying, "Please respect our time; come back when the SPI is complete." The SPI backlog was unfortunate, but it shouldn't prevent admins from evaluating the AE case. vzaak 22:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein: @HJ Mitchell: Only the first two bullet points refer to the SPI; the rest of the bullet points are recent activity.
Askahrc's sockpuppeting could charitably be called trolling, serving no purpose but to stir up conflict. The SPI establishes that behavior, and I wouldn't have brought the AE request without having established that.
Now, recently, we see similar deception in his citing of his own sockpuppet as evidence in his ANI. Askahrc continues the pattern of provoking needless conflict. As shown above, this recently involves making baseless attacks on users, proxying aspersions from a blocked user, spreading misinformation about past SPIs, not listening/responding to arguments regarding content decisions, not even recognizing simple things like MOS:LQ, and bringing a frivolous ANI case when he couldn't get his way.
I am frankly uncomfortable with a user saying that he is loading up shots into his "revolver", with his "revolver" being an ANI. (It doesn't matter that Askahrc changed it to shots being loaded into his "hip", meaning into his gun.) vzaak 21:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • So many of Askahrc's points are not true; I could respond to each one, but the overlong response would probably put people off. For instance it's not true that "the edit in question has been one of the most frequently changed on the page by nearly a dozen editors". Over the course of seven months the quote was removed by only two people, Tumbleman and David, and David restored the quote himself after realizing his replacement was inaccurate.[73] It's amazing that Askahrc would make a claim that is debunked by just looking at the article history. Askahrc's promulgation of falsehoods and other recent behaviors are consonant with Askahrc's past trolling activities. vzaak 02:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Presumably a final note: I suspect at least one reason Callanecc has agreed to a topic ban is that he is familiar with Askahrc's record of activities, not only Askahrc's past trolling but his recent SPI defense, where another admin expressed concern about deception.[74] This AE request presents evidence that this pattern of behavior continues elsewhere. With 191 edits to article space over six and a half years, Askahrc is unlikely to suddenly become an active contributor. Rather, Askahrc is here for the drama, and few besides Tumbleman (with whom Askahrc has teamed up off-wiki to cast aspersions on WP editors and admins) have done more to stir up needless conflict than Askahrc. Please direct Askahrc to cease making baseless WP:ASPERSIONS and balmy WP:POLEMICs. Further, I believe it has been shown that Askahrc seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia and the expected standards of behavior per Wikipedia:Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions. vzaak 13:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Askahrc[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Askahrc[edit]

Let me get this straight, half of the AE is spent discussing an SPI that Vzaak then concedes has no relevance to this AE except as some sort of character reference? I've already agreed to respect and abide by the SPI admin's judgement, whether or not I agree with their conclusions, and have done nothing to violate those terms. It seems Vzaak was hoping for a harsher SPI result and is now shopping for that ban.

As for the rest of this AE, what exactly am I being accused of?

  • Disruption: The vast majority of all of Vzaak's diffs are instances where I disagreed (civilly, I would add) with Vzaak on content or procedural decisions, without a single diff showing any actual disruption or abuse. When consensus went against me I always conceded, never edit-warred and proposed very moderate changes that were based on balance, not some parapsychological belief system I do not possess. As far as my "polemics", the verbiage in question on my openly fictional allegory was immediately changed when I realized it could be misconstrued as inflammatory, and it is disingenuous to present that diff as if it were my displayed talk page. I have never promoted a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and denounced partisanship even in my ANI against Vzaak, a position I've upheld when other editors responded to that ANI on my Talk Page by literally declaring war on me.
  • ANI: As best I can tell the only issue Vzaak takes with my ANI is that one of my dozen or so diffs was to the IP referenced in the SPI case, and that I didn't provide diffs for my charge of WP:UNCIVIL and WP:HARASS. This is easy to address: Disregard the IP diff and note the CIVIL diffs primarily reference Barney, not Vzaak, because he is the editor in the ANI who had been uncivil. I felt Vzaak had displaying harassing/WP:OWN behavior, so the diffs to Vzaak highlighted that.
  • Proxying: Last and most serious, this accusation appears to be based on the fact that I have continued to look into the Tumbleman issue and made occasional edits to Rupert Sheldrake. I have noted hostile behavior that has been referenced by many other editors besides Tumbleman, and the edit in question has been one of the most frequently changed on the page by nearly a dozen editors. I did email Tumbleman to find out more information and have documented all of the results of that conversation on my Talk Page in order to be utterly transparent. That's being informed, not proxying. It is ludicrous to accuse me of proxying when my conclusion was that Tumbleman WAS guilty of multiple accounts and that I supported his current ban. My concern is with current editors facing ongoing behavior like this SPI -> AE combo with the excuse of some similarity to Tumbleman's opinions, not with promoting Tumbleman himself.

To sum up, Vzaak's examples of my abusive behavior include: disagreeing with Vzaak, declaring that Vzaak's reactions to disagreement are excessive (which was immediately followed by a SPI and AE against me), and being upfront with getting more information on a banned editor. Are these AE offenses? There are no diffs of unreasonable edits, no abuses, no evidenced anywhere showing my behavior on Rupert Sheldrake itself to be inappropriate in any way. I have not and will not abuse the Sheldrake page and respectfully urge reconsideration of a topic ban. The Cap'n (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

  • To respond briefly to Vzaak's updated statements, I'll just bring up 3 points. First, Vzaak still has not provided any diffs of my supposedly disruptive behavior, simply saying it would be too long. The only new response was to claim I was trolling or "promulgating falsehoods," as the exact sentence they referenced was only directly edited by 5 people (Vzaak, myself, Devil's Advocate, David in DC and Tumbleman) instead of the roughly dozen I stated. Aside from being a specious accusation, this ignores the fact that this paragraph in the lead I was referring to has been edited countless times (ie. 1, 2, 3 different editors in less than a month) to AND the fact that my 'disruptive" edit was proposed on the Talk Page without dissent, when dissent arose I explained my reasoning, when that was rejected I accepted consensus and let the edit be reverted.
It has never been my intent to foster WP:BATTLEGROUND, and if people find even my edited Talk content uncomfortable I will take it down. That's a simple matter of asking me, not an AE.
Finally, Vzaak claims I am the most pervasive and disruptive editor on Rupert Sheldrake since Tumbleman (again with no supporting diffs). This is despite the fact that I've made 20 edits to the article vs. Vzaak's 646, and 50 comments on the Talk Page to Vzaak's 394, exactly how pervasive can I be when I've made 32 times fewer edits to Sheldrake than Vzaak? Further, I find the statement that because I have not made thousands of edits I'm not an "active contributor" worth keeping to be offensive. I've made more than 9 times as many edits to other articles than I have to Rupert Sheldrake, which may not be a lot compared to some but I'm doing what I can to help bolster WP and am no SPA. I work more than full time and make spare time to edit WP as a labor of love, not for drama. The Cap'n (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

The SPI was just closed with a discretionary sanction imposed on The Cap'n and there have been no further edits by the editor since then. It seems Vzaak is displeased that the sanction was not tougher and is now shopping for a better result.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite what Vzaak and SQ/IRWolfie say, it is clear the SPI was more than a mere sock-puppetry case. Nearly everything being mentioned here was mentioned in that case. This is just bludgeoning someone with the process. At least one of the admins involved in the SPI would have been more than capable and well within their discretion to impose a topic ban based on all the information provided. We are dealing with the essence of forum-shopping here. If Vzaak wanted to play for all the marbles then he should have come here and not try to prolong the pain with two different noticeboard trips in retaliation for being taken to a noticeboard.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed that Vzaak previously tried to get an admin to go after Cap'n concerning most of the non-sock issues being cited here. Many details are being rehashed in this AE that have previously not resulted in action despite being brought before admins with the intent of getting action.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Second Quantization[edit]

The SPI was about sockpuppetry and did not consider other areas of disruption by Askahrc. It is not forum shopping. What is the relevance of the date of the SPI filing to anything else? Second Quantization (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)=[edit]

I find that Mr Askahrc (talk · contribs) has been problematic, confrontational, condescending and failing to WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I can't work out if he's pro-Sheldrake or just a self-appointed BLP warrior. Credit to him for trying his best to present the pro-Sheldrake view. The thing is we've bent over backwards to try to make the Rupert Sheldrake article positive by noting his support within the new age/pro-psi parapsychology communities, even though this support is not at all in any way relevant to the quasi-scientific claims he's making. Either way he's not helpful and should probably be strongly advised to stay away from the article Rupert Sheldrake. Then we'll see if he's a BLP warrior or not by whether he (1) chooses to go to another controversial BLP and try to whitewash that or (2) will go and try to subvert Citizendium with Tom Butler (talk · contribs). He's had enough WP:ROPE by now though. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Liz[edit]

The Cap'n's main argument, as I've seen it, is that editors outside a tight-knit skeptics circle are chased off from editing certain articles, in this case Rupert Sheldrake. These repeated attempts to file charges against him by Vzaak help to make his argument for him. As far as "disruption", I've mainly seen him post an opposing point of view from the skeptics but having a different opinion from a small majority is the cause to begin seeking consensus, not to receive sanctions.

As for being problematic, confrontational, condescending and failing to WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, well, that charge could be levied against several editors who edit in the area designated "pseudoscience". It is a very polarized editing field on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I see this effort as an attempt to silence an editor with a contrary opinion which makes this a content issue, not a conduct issue. I think issuing topic bans because someone disagrees with the dominant editors on a subject, whatever topic that is, has a chilling effect that sends the message to other editors to "stay away" from editing articles in this subject area. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Askahrc[edit]

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

  • I see nothing even remotely actionable since February 16 which is when SPI is filed (and thus a good point in time to consider the merit of this request). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As the admin who issued the previous sanction, I've no problem at all with this being imposed in addition to my sanction. Given the behaviour vzaak has linked and described above that that which I saw when investigating the SPI I think a TBAN from Rupert Sheldrake would be appropriate. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not interested in references to stuff that has happened in other fora, and that's all this report seems to consist of. I'm interested in dated diffs of recent misconduct. No such diffs have been submitted here, and as such, I'd decline to act on the request as submitted.  Sandstein  18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What, exactly, are we being asked to assess here? There's a lot of old stuff from the SPI, which is probably too old to be actionable now. Its only use might be if the initiator were trying to establish a long-term pattern. The only recent diffs seem to be comments from Askahrc on noticeboards and talk pages, which do seem to indicate a battleground mentality, but there's not enough there to convince me that we need to act on this now, especially given that much of it appears to have been looked at elsewhere. Are there diffs for recent edits (preferably to mainspace rather than noticeboards and talk pages—we shouldn't [normally] sanction somebody for ranting on their talk page, and ANI is perfectly well-equipped to deal with misconduct at that board if necessary) that are so egregious that we should be considering sanctions, or which show an ongoing pattern of lower-level disruption? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm still not quite following. There's been some apparent trolling at ANI, and some venting on their talk page, which do suggest a battleground mentality, but is there any evidence of that mentality affecting editing by others or of it crossing over into disruption in the mainspace? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I think there's ample evidence of deception (in the SPI case) and also clear evidence of a battleground mentality at work. Both of those are examples of failing to adhere to the expected behavioral standards of this site, and thus potentially grounds for invoking the discretionary sanctions. That said, I understand HJ's and Sandstein's point about staleness; Asakhrc hasn't contributed to article/talkspace on pseudoscience-related subjects for several weeks, so there is no active disruption taking place. I think it would be reasonable to table this request given the staleness issue, but also to have a low threshold for invoking sanctions without jumping through another set of hoops if further disruption occurs. MastCell Talk 18:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Gilabrand (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked for sock-puppetry; one-year AE block to run concurrently (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Gilabrand). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Gilabrand[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
IRISZOOM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Gilabrand (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. 06:59, 10 December 2013 He removes (rm) a reference to one respected human rights organization (B'Tselem).
  2. 15:25, 26 December 2013 Rm info about Israel's assasination attempt on Khaled Mashal, which threatened the treaty, but keeps info from Arutz Sheva and what they wrote got misrepresented and other one used a fact.
  3. 17:31, 23 January 2014 It is "anachronistic" to write that Mohammed Assaf was born or his parents are from "Gaza, Palestine" but does not apply to the part about "Beersheba, Israel". He also rm that Beit Daras was depopulated, now only captured.
  4. 09:35, 8 January 2014 This was brought up in other AE case. Now again, both in the lead and below, rm that there was a massacre in Saliha. He says the sources are not RS. Falses as sources were Danny Rubinstein in Haaretz and Benny Morris.
  5. 17:36, 23 January 2014 Rm info about damage from Israeli operations, change the reason of the halt (and exaggerates it) from being the blockade to Hamas' takeover, and diminish what the source say about homes needed.
  6. 07:16, 10 February 2014 Rm info about a series of paintings on depopulated villages, Yibna being one of them. Without basis, he rm info about military assault and depopulation. Cherrypicks when only mentioning that they fled, but not why, before assault.
  7. 17:18, 3 February 2014 Rm Palestine. Gets reverted, then adds a fact tag as a last attempt to get Palestine removed. Explanations were given why it is there.
  8. 07:57, 10 February 2014 Not only about turning in the weapons but also accepting protection by Haganah. Rm the part about the soldier firing and Zarnuqa villagers getting expelled. Adds much about weapons and that they returned them but now what they had to do and endure before they turned over their weapons. Rm who ransacked and rm info about demolition.
  9. 20:34, 10 February 2014 Rm that the girl also (apparently) got killed.
  10. 21:04, 10 February 2014 Rm that it was depopulated. When I reinserted it, he added it was "later depopulated". True but why not write that first? His similar actions otherwhere makes me suspicious here.
  11. 19:28, 12 February 2014 Rm that it was depopulated, then only half-reverts when told he has confused them. That still gave the view that it was a current village.
  12. 10:16, 20 January 2014 Israeli expulsions etc. gets dimished.
  13. 10:01, 21 January 2014 Does not even seem to have the source he claims, because later he realized where it came from and then starts to diminsh the source. Anyway, he misrepresents what Israeli forces did. He got reverted, after this he starts with misrepresenting and diminishing where the claims come frome (only a comic book, where it originally came from is left out). Keeped pushing this view a month after too.
  14. 17:51, 28 January 2014 Unaccepted addition of "terrorist".
  15. 16:45, 24 February 2014 Rm sourced info that it is known for protests against Israeli forces and in the same time, he adds a image of Palestinian getting Israeli medical care. Changes to IDF's wording, that is "crossing" from "checkpoint". Rm that Israelis made the raid and who died gets unclear. He is doing the same thing, including one on the same checkpoint, on Commons, where we take descriptions from.
  16. 07:13, 26 February 2014 Rm from lead that Israelis captured it. Current localities gets changed to something according to Walid Khalidi. This does not need to be attributed but by doing it, statement gets diminished.
  17. 22:58, 26 February 2014 Rm refugees got interviewed, now it is only about about a villager and rm that the refugee said that Yishuv (Israeli) forces besieged the village and that it caused a lack of food.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

Blocked a dozen times. See also this, this and this.

See also the latest case here at AE against Gilabrand and the case at AN. In both cases, Gilabrand was informed by Georgewilliamherbert on the heightened scrutiny.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I think it is clear that Gilabrand is very biased. During the last month, it has been worse than usual and much of his edits have been on depopulated Palestinian villages. Since then, I have taken a look on his edits because, as evidenced above, he keeps making unjustified edits on articles. He also made massremovals on List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict, including one after an editor wrote in talk page why it is not acceptable and an another editor reverting him. In the talk page about Khirbat al-Tannur, he said for some days ago that "it is time to look closer" on "'Village' lists drawn up by Palestinian advocacy sites have been circulating for years now, and copied by everyone and his grandmother without question". Maybe that explains his edits but "looking closer" does not mean making such biased changes. But of course, it is more than his changes on depopulated Palestinian villages. It is about the whole topic area. It can not continue like this.

One thing I am happy for is that he is editing about a well covered topic. Just imagine if he was doing this to a much lesser known topic.

It is not about content dispute but about conduct violations. I will now start shortening it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The length should be acceptable now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is clear how Gilabrand's conduct is unacceptable. He constantly removes or misrepresents claims so that it favor Israel ahead of Palestinian and other viewspoints. Like as showed above, he removes that villages were depopulated, makes up why they were depopulated or cherrypicks, diminish Israeli military actions such as in Abu Ghosh, Yibna and Khan Yunis, changes a sentence from being that the Israeli blockade (imposed after Hamas's takover) to Hamas' takeover being the reason why reconstruction of homes on destroyed by Israel (that also got removed) was halted, removes that a girl was killed, removes that Israeli forces blew up homes in a village, adds "terrorist" label, removes that there was a massacre, who attacks etc. The POV pushing is big and clear. I see it is as very unfortunante if he can continue like this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It is an issue with NPOV, which I think Gilabrand fails to adhere to so many times in this topic area. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If the constant removals of relevant and sourced information and other violations such as cherrypicking showed here is not seen as punishable, I do not know what is then. But if this is allowed, then we all have to accept it and start play the same game. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


I am surprised by your statement, Georgewilliamherbert, and the others. I can not understand how you think it is content disputes, cleanup edits etc. I am surprised because I think the pattern is clear. Maybe some is unclear now that I had to cut down my request. For example, the diff I gave on Yibna is now only one though I wanted to show different info. I gave that info but it is not clear it is different edits. Like this one and this. Explanations are given above. This is the same problem type of problem everywhere so I ask you to look at the edits again and think if the constant removals, misrepresentation and cherrypicking is not unacceptable. Otherwise, I am afraid it is like Sepsis II said. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


Greyshark09, first of all, the evidence here is strong. Three editors and one admin agree with me. Secondly, this is my first AE case against Gilabrand. Do not make up things. I expect you to retract your claim about "wiki hounding" and to the next time, get the facts straight before making such serious allegations.

I am not a POV pusher, and certainly not a "extreme" one, and even if your examples were right, saying that this is something close to removing, misrepresenting and cherrypicking info, as shown above, is not accurate. But your examples is silly and mostly because it is about you making unilateral changes and then getting reverted and then you complain that others do not accept it. And while Palestine Remembered may not be a RS, it is used many times here, because most of it is based on people like Sami Hadawi and Walid Khalidi. Even Gilabrand has used it. Secondly, as told many, many times, to put a link in External links does not require it to be a RS. It is there on nearly every article (and was there in this article too before Gilabrand removed it twice and I told both in the the talk page and edit summary why it can be there) about depopulated Palestinian villages and many others. It is nearly 700 articles.

Zero0000 also brought up the issue about Palestine getting replaced. I have written several replies there and I also said that it is you, Greyshark09, who are mostly doing it but you never joined the discussion. The fact is that the region is called Palestine. This is how it is referred to by the the vast majority of of scholars. No one is referring to the State of Palestine here. The article itself is called 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine. The Arabs there are called Palestinian Arabs, which I reinserted and not "Palestinians" so again, do not make up things. Until 2010, this is what it was also inserted in the article. It is the same thing with 1915 Palestine locust infestation. You on the other hand unilaterally changed that and other articles. You have gotten reverted by atleast another user (Zero0000) on another article. When you have support to change it, do it. Now you have not and even the titles are clear on this. They are not named like that of an accident. But you are not caring about that and are imposing what you think is right and then complaining that others are not accepting your changes.

The same thing with the other example. Here it is you again changing something. You did it here too. You changed from "West Bank" to "[Jordanian occupation of the West Bank|West Bank]". This is wrong for two reasons. One is that when clicking on something visible like that (read about piping), a reader expects to go to the page about that. Secondly, nearly all articles state West Bank respective Gaza Strip. Both of them were created in 1948 so when you say that we could add "Jesus too", you are making a straw man. You would maybe have a case if I had changed to Palestinian territories (created in 1967, though it refers to the West Bank and Gaza Strip) or State of Palestine (created in 1988). Maybe you could add "under Jordanian/Egyptian occupation" before/after this but this and "West Bank/Gaza Strip, under Israeli-occupation" is very rarely done when stating birth place etc., which is on the contrary to what you claim. But this was not what you did, as you are trying to portrait it by saying that it was changed from "born in Jordanian-occupied West Bank" to "born in the West Bank" when it was the same thing but different link. Again, if you are trying to build up a case, be honest and do not make up things. It is silly to see you complaining because you are getting reverted for changes you do not have any support for. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


Ubie the Guru, an allegation and no support? It was sourced in the infobox, which Gilabrand and edited so he must have seen it. Furthermore, the removal of that it was depopulated was one of several wrong things he did on Zarnuqa. I advice you to read again. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I will shortly answer your comments, Ubie, but keep in mind that these diffs are just a part of mine and HJ Mitchell's analys. The incident with Mashal is known and the info from AJ doesn't come from the film maker but a retired Jordanian general who was the manager of the king's office then. And again, you can't remove this but keep info against the Israeli side given by the settler agency Arutz Sheva (Israel National News). Other change here mentioned above.

Here is the link to what you ask for.

It is clear that it refers to Israeli forces making an offensive against the Egpytian forces who were the defending part. There is nothing POV in saying that but if you think so, discuss or reword it instead of removing it and it doesn't matter if it is only the lead. Other change here mentioned above. You have confused the part about the edits on Kalandia and Raml Zayta. With regards to Khan Yunis massacre, that many were killed does not only come from Benny Morris but also residents and UN. Morris calls it a massacre. Other change here mentioned above, like this.

I think the pattern is very clear and this is not something new as evidenced by his block log. Just to give you an example of this problem, I will tell you about what happened yesterday. I was correcting ISBN errors to a book from Morris and edited 20-25 articles. When I was doing that, I found two instances where Gilabrand had edited the page and made these typical changes. One was in 2011, where he changed to "according to Walid Khalidi" and he removed "Palestinian". The other one was from last year, where he removed "depopulated". --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


Greyshark09, it is interesting that you ignored to take back your unfolded claim about "wiki hounding" and are now again discussing my conduct, while still ignoring to comment on Gilabrand, though HJ Mitchell was clear that you should file a separate claim for this. You speak about my conduct as very clearly wrong so why are you not going ahead? Is it because you maybe think it is safer to bring it up here instead of filing a separate complaint and risk backlash, as you want to happen here against me despite my evidence being strong? No matter what, you have been told about how to go forward.

I am not "clearly more pushy" and this is not an "editor disagreement". This is about an editor who is making changes such as from:

According to UNRWA several of the camp's residents have lost their homes as a result of operations by the Israeli military. UNRWA began reconstruction efforts in the early 2000s, but work has largely been halted due to the blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip following the Hamas take-over of the territory...


UNRWA initiated construction projects in the camp in the early 2000s, but work was halted by the Hamas take-over of the territory...

Protesting against that is not only right but also important. These type of changes don't develop Wikipedia but makes it less neutral and accurate. Constantly making such changes is why a sanction is correct. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


We have around 20 diffs with many of them including several distortions (to put it lightly). That is just a period in two month with most of them made in one period of month, which is so long I have closely followed Gilabrand's edits. These edits are typical of him, which is clear as others have shown here too. I would love to have seen him change, especially after the last AE case, but some are just like this. We can't just give a green light, or even orange, to editors like that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


Bukrafil, no one here is stupid... --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


Shalom11111, someone who thinks that a few of the edits shown are "somewhat problematic" and that most of them are "constructive" is just not reliable.

As I and others have pointed out, this is not some exception but Gilabrand is just like that. If you constantly violate NPOV, of course you should be sanctioned. Most, from both sides, understand that and don't falsify, distorts etc. things and certainly not regularly. Wikipedia is much better off without such editors. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You are trying hard but you are wrong on the few edits you have closely looked at and you are not seeing the pattern. And again, I don't trust anyone who thinks the edits are not problematic but constructive, neutral etc. I can accept nearly everything but to argue that the edits shown here are actually good is just way too much.

As you keep insisting on that my and Nishidani's examples are wrong, though he showed how wrong you were on one of them he just took as example, and as you want the the admins should look closer on them, I will answer to some of them and I can continue to clarify the evidence if that's really needed. The pattern is clear and if not the long and clear evidence by Nishidani is sufficient, I guess nothing will be.

The report in the Mapam daily is the one we have and to demand we somehow find another one is silly. What can be done is to not cite it as a fact, which wasn't done either. The fact is that Gilabrand had nothing against using the report. He used it and changed to "According to a report in Al HaMishmar six villagers were killed, 22 were taken prisoner, and 40 rifles were surrendered despite previous claims of having none". But he removed that three people were killed by a soldier and that the villagers were expelled. So he takes what he likes from the source but removes things he doesn't like from it or doesn't mention it (what the villagers had to do and endure before turning in their weapons). Furthermore, that 6 villagers were killed and 22 were taken prisoner didn't come from the Mapam daily. That was just another one of Gilabrand's falsifyings and distortions. The info comes from Haganah (Jewish/Israeli forces). So the Mapam daily that looked like this in Morris' book:

The soldier told me how one of the soldiers opened a door and fired a Sten at an old man, an old woman and a child in one burst, how they took the Arabs . . . out of all the houses and stood [them] in the sun all day – in thirst and hunger until they surrendered 40 rifles . . . The Arabs had [previously] claimed that they hadn’t [weapons, and] in the end they were expelled from the village towards Yibna.

and the two paragraphs after that by Morris (79x is the footnotes):

The Arabs protested that they were being driven towards their enemies, anti-Zionist Arabs whom they, in Zarnuqa, had not allowed into their village, ‘but this did not help, and, screaming and crying, they left . . .’.791
Altogether, six inhabitants (three men and two women and a girl) were killed and 22 taken prisoner.792 The following day the inhabitants came back, relating that the Yibnaites had driven them off as ‘unredeemable traitors unworthy of hospitality’. The returnees watched the Jewish troops and neighbouring settlers ransack their homes. Then, for the second time, they were ordered to leave. Zarnuqa’s houses were demolished in June.793

is told like this by Gilabrand who picked what he wanted from it (in addition to removing things that were already in the Wikipedia article, as explained above and below):

According to a report in Al HaMishmar six villagers were killed, 22 were taken prisoner, and 40 rifles were surrendered despite previous claims of having none. The next day, the villagers returned because they said the residents Yibna called them traitors. They watched their homes being ransacked and were evicted again.

Okay, Shalom11111, you think it sounds like that Israel didn't depopulate the village. But instead of assuming things, why not look closer in the source? The villages was depopulated on 27-28 May. This was sourced and he must have seen it as he edited exactly that parameter in the infobox. They were expelled two times, which Gilabrand removed in one case and distorted in another. Gilabrand also removed that Jewish soldiers and nearby settlers ransacked the village of Zarnuqa. In the way he changed it, it could also look like the Yibna villagers were the one doing it. After he had removed that they were expelled the first time, he then changed the other time to being an "eviction". But he wasn't done here. He also decided to remove that the homes were demolished, as he said there was "no source", though it was on the same page.

What are you trying to say? That when Morris write "They appear also to have raped and murdered a teenage girl", we can remove the part about "murdered"/"killed" because footnote 777 looks like the following?

Giv‘ati, Desert and Fire, 45–47; and Rami Rosen, ‘Col. G. Speaks Out’, Haaretz, 16 September 1994. Moshe Giv‘ati described a battle followed by a massacre. Rosen interviewed a number of elderly Haganah participants. All resisted the word ‘massacre’ (tevakh) but admitted to ‘killings’ (hereg). Or as Simha Shiloni, one of them, put it: ‘I don’t think one can call what happened there a “massacre” . . . But in effect what happened was a liquidation [hisul] of some of the adult males captured with arms.’

Of course this can't be done just because Morris doesn't expand the source. And what makes you think that removing the part about killing is correct but in the same time keep the part about rape? If we are going to apply your logic, both should have been removed. What a strained attempt by you to make it look like that this was correct. It only shows that using either logic, removing only the part about killing is wrong.

I also doubt that Gilabrand checked the source. If he had done it, he should have, as Nishidani said, noticed that Morris speaks about "appear" and "apparently". The source also speaks about the army-age villagers being "executed" but I wouldn't of course expect Gilabrand to accurately represent that part.

As both your and Nishidani's sources show, and the original ones which was in the article and Gilabrand edited on (that was Morris on p. xviii and number six on the list and Khalidi on p. 92), there is a connection between Burayr and Bror Hayil, regardless if it is "in" or "near" (Morris use both, for example, as Nishidani show). What Gilabrand did was to make it look like Khalidi only meant that Bror Hayil is one mile away from Burayr. He actually writes on the same page (92) that "Beror Chayil" was one of the villages established on Burayr's lands.

There is no doubt at all that Burayr was depopulated. All the inhabitants fled to Gaza when Israeli forces attacked in 12-13 May. This is in the article about Burayr, which Gilabrand had edited here before he made that edit to Bror Hayil, and sourced to Morris.

Another thing to note is that in the former AE case, it was brought up by Huldra that Gilabrand had earlier edited on Burayr, where he changed it from:

The kibbutz was established on the land of a depopulated Palestinian village named Burayr.< ref name=Morris#6>Morris, 2004, p. xx, settlement #6.</ ref>< ref>Khalidi, 1992, p.92< /ref>


According to Arab historian Walid Khalidi, it was established on the land of a depopulated Palestinian village named Burayr.< ref>Khalidi, 1992, p.92< /ref>

So what Gilabrand then did was removing the source to Morris and changed to that it was only something "according to the Arab historian Walid Khalidi". When it gets reverted, he comes back and tries another way, as shown here, to erase facts and Palestinian history. As I and others have said, he has shown that he can't edit in this topic area. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


Sean.hoyland, Gilabrand responded to the investigation by saying "Oh wow. What a nice welcome home. Thanks Iriszoom and HJMitchell. Seems like you really missed me". --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Bukrafil has responded here but of course, if Gilabrand dispute it is him, he has the right to do so and there is a standard way to appeal. And the AE case was opened 12 days ago so it's not like we are speeding up things. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


Take a look if you want. I am not the same person as Nableezy. That should be clear to everyone. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Gilabrand[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Gilabrand[edit]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]

I think Sandstein's instructions are unfortunate. The point here is the pattern, and without a significant range of instances and a thorough explanation it will be harder to see the pattern. If the OP cuts it down as instructed, it might well look like just a content dispute. The post at present does a good job of showing excessively tendentious editing, something that AE ought to deal with particularly in regard to an editor like Gilabrand who has a long history of it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The tendentiousness and POV-pushing is there for those who want to see it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert:: What do you think of IRISZOOM's example just above (diff here)? Note the edit-summary ("ce") -- thoroughly deceptive. This sort of thing is absolutely typical of this editor's engagement in the I/P topic area. I appreciate your concern about not wanting to tilt the balance towards people editing in that area from a different POV -- but surely this means that anyone who systematically does this sort of thing from a different POV needs to be dealt with similarly, rather than simply allowing it to carry on as at present. (And of course I'm perfectly happy to have my own editing scrutinised in those terms.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sepsis[edit]

It's obvious that Gilabrand consistently abuses wikipedia to further her POV through misrepresenting and removing reliable sources, removing facts that look poor on Israel, labeling, denialism, placing sites in incorrect countries, etc, but it's also just as obvious that AE has given up on stopping such editors. Sepsis II (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah[edit]

I hope the administrators will take the time to look into Gilabrand's problematic POV pushing. It's there in practically every edit related to Palestine. For another example, this one from earlier today, see this article move of List of Palestinian people assassinated by the Mossad to List of Palestinians allegedly assassinated by the Mossad with the edit summary "no proof". Of course there's proof. Most items on the list are sourced. The sources say the people were assassinated by the Mossad. After the move they're not "people" any more (that's not such a big issue) and they're "allegedly" assassinated. This is representative. I could add to the extensive list provided in the original request for enforcement with many more such examples. The policy they violate is WP:NPOV and the method by which they violate it is well-explained in the essay Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. If the POV pushing isn't clear from what's here, though, I don't guess more will make it more clear.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Greyshark09[edit]

Frankly it looks to me IRISZOOM is wiki hounding Gilabrand once again, as this is her second or third complaint without any strong evidence, while she herself is an extreme POV editor, which doesn't care much over wikipedia conventions. For example IRISZOOM is using PalestineRemembered as a source, while it was long ago considered as non-reliable; she is making massive edits to insert Palestine and Palestinians retroactively into history without specific reasons and without sufficient sources, like renaming the pro-Ottoman Arab clans of Nablus, Al-Quds and Halil to "Palestinians" who revolted in "Palestine" in 1834 (which obviously was an Arab Peasant rebellion is Southern Ottoman Syria and little to do with modern Palestinian nationalism), renaming the Ottoman administrative Syrian provinces into "Palestine" here once again. If i see this wiki-hounding by IRISZOOM going on further i will take a deeper look on this possible abuse myself.GreyShark (dibra) 23:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is another one by IRISZOOM - Rami Hamdullah turns from "born in Jordanian-occupied West Bank" to just "born in the West Bank", while we clearly tend to indicate nationality at-birth. I guess with same logic IRIS might tag Jesus as born in the "West Bank" as well. This is an ideological question of how much Palestine we should see in history and to what extent - IRISZOOM is clearly no the one to ask this question for a neutral answer.GreyShark (dibra) 23:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: the sanctions of ARBPIA were created in order to reduce edit-warring and create a more neutral wikipedia as a result. ARBPIA hence should balance views to create an NPOV version; banning a user for his/her views without strong reasons (edit-warring, extensive removal of material) is actually against the concept of ARBPIA. The one who is clearly more pushy in the described editor disagreement is actually IRISZOOM, who is very frequently reverting other editors on ARBPIA articles to the preferred POV version, which can be easily interpreted as propaganda - per ARBPIA the editor who issues topic-area complaint should also be sanctioned in case of violation. Hence, according to WP:ARBPIA rule, IRISZOOM might as well be sanctioned for massive reverts and tendency to edit-war.GreyShark (dibra) 05:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC) This is a very strange outcome, but i guess looking back into Gilabrand's obsessive editing we should have guessed it coming. Perhaps this is a warning to other passionate editors not to take the path of self-destruction. More concerning however is the rising claim that editors can be blocked for "POV-editing" per-se. There are clear problems with such claim, raised here by several editors and administrators (user:IZAK, myself, user:Brewcrewer, user:Sean.hoyland, user:Bus stop, user:Epeefleche and user:Georgewilliamherbert. I think maybe we should take this to ARBCOM, before a very problematic precedent it created and effectively most users might be forced to quit, making wikipedia from a democratic platform into a very fixed dictatorship, where only one view is considered "NPOV" and all others are banned.GreyShark (dibra) 16:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia[edit]

@Greyshark: Even in 1834, Palestine was the common name in English for what you are insisting should be called Ottoman Southern Syria. As for the edit of the Rami Handallah article, you should look at it more carefully: Iriszoom did not change it as you describe. You should probably also read up on the statuses of the areas controlled by Israel and Jordan between 1948 and 1967. Neither area was considered to be 'occupied'.     ←   ZScarpia   05:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Greyshark: Wikipedia policies prescribe what facts are, what points of view are and what the difference between them is. Crudely, facts are assertions which reliable sources agree on whereas points of view are assertions which one set of sources may regard as facts while others disagree. A major problem here is that some editors fail to realise that though some piece of information may be sourced, that doesn't make it a fact in Wikipedia terms, nor its presentation as a fact neutral. Some editors have pointed out that Wikipedia is not Al Jazeera; hopefully they realise that Wikipedia is NOT any source, including The Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva or The Jewish Virtual Library. You've suggested that an attempt is being made to block Gilabrand for her views. You should re-think that one.     ←   ZScarpia   20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I participated in the discussions on neutral editing in previous AE reports concerning Gilabrand that have been mentioned. One view, which I argued against, was that an editor who consistently only added one side's point of view, as it was claimed that Gilabrand had, was failing to edit neutrally. It is conceivable that there may be circumstances under which an editor is only adding one point of view where those additions are furthering the neutrality of the encyclopaedia, though that would require that the points of view are being presented as points of view rather than facts. To a large extent, the IP area deals with history and history is notorious for the diversity of opinions and interpretations it gives rise to. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect every editor to be able to give a full, neutral account of the subject area every time they edit Wikipedia. Every editor in the subject area will have limited access to sources and limited time to read those available. I would argue that, as far as neutral or unslanted editing goes, there are culpable failures to do so and inculpable ones. Failure to be totally neutral when adding wholly new material due to limit access to sources would be an inculpable one. What are the culpable failures? These would include: badly misrepresenting sources; removing sourced material for specious reasons; replacing sourced facts or points of view with points of view presented as facts. A question which should be asked in specific relation to Gilabrand is whether the condition for removing the IP-area block imposed on her, that she edits more carefully, has been fulfilled. In that regard I think it's worth considering Nishidani's observation about Gilabrand's lack of use of talkpages.     ←   ZScarpia   20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by IZAK[edit]

Agree that this is about a content dispute that nevertheless and obviously drives the anti-Israel and pro-PLO-POV-pushers crazy -- rather than edit they come to this forum. It seems that since User Gilabrand (talk · contribs) is just working a lot harder than her critics they take the easy way out and try to belittle her hard work and are trying to "cut her off at the knees" with WP:LAWYERING here. So I'll just repeat what I stated earlier but it is just as true: In a nutshell User Gilabrand (talk · contribs) is being subjected to not so subtle WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:CYBERBULLYING by editors who express a POV that can be summed up as waving a little flag called "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". The accusations against her are also a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED as well as an abuse of WP:LAWYERING.

There are so far few eloquent English speaking Israelis and Jewish editors to do the tough job that Gilabrand does -- to give an alternate explanation and defense to too much blatant pro-PLO, Pro-Arab anti-Israel pushing on WP that is mind-numbing and boring if not outright stupid in its results.

Bottom line: This entire debate is too hilarious for words because of course every editor has a personal POV but as responsible editors we adhere to WP:NPOV as best we can. There is no denying that User Gilabrand (talk · contribs) works to present an Israeli perspective but it is within acceptable bounds. It is absurd to accept that "all" editors who edit I-P topics should sound and act as if they are working for Al Jazeera (hey guess what guys, this may come as a shock to you, but: Wikipedia is NOT Al Jazeera  !) or as hired PR flacks for the PLO or Hamas or Hizubbullah or the Ayatolas of Iran etc.

Editors such as Gilabrand are obviously loyal Israelis expressing the standard Israeli view on these subjects cited by the complaint and they will always exist. Duh!!! Just as they cannot be dismissed or ignored or exterminated in the real world by Israel's enemies, they cannot be dismissed or ignored by punishing good editors on WP who come on board who should be debated but not crushed as this complaint is trying to do.

WP cannot be "holier than thou" than the real world by trying to crush any editor who comes along wanting to insert a healthy debate and alternate views that exist out there in the world, that no amount of WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:CENSOR will achieve.

It only cheapens WP to crush and humiliate Gilabrand rather than discussing points rationally. And it is a cop-out to take this short-cut rather than debate her point by point, that comes across as a "cyber thought control policeman" acting to enforce "UN resolutions" when WP is neither part of the UN nor does it belong to any majority or minority be they Arabs or Jews. WP has to be fair to all because it is an online ENCYCLOPEDIA and it is not a place to wage WP:WAR. Yes, editing WP takes skill and it is a tough job, but to take out the hatched and try to proverbially "kill off" your opponent rather than engaging in proper intellectual debate and work on the technical and policy aspects of WP editing is disgusting to watch, and soon there will only be anti-Israel editors running what is already a pretty well-known debacle and degradation as more and more (like a doomed sinking Titanic of verbal huckstering) WP takes on the default role as a front for the delegitimization of the Israeli POV (yes it's a POV, just as the PLO has POV and Hamas has a POV).

Okay, so let's imagine, tomorrow Gilabrand is banned or blocked forever. Does that make WP a better place? Will all the critics be happy talking to themselves now that political correctness and groupthink are enforced? It would be yet another Pyrrhic victory that only silly small-minded people could enjoy. Gilabrand is not an "ogre" -- she is a friend of WP as hard to believe that some here may find that to be, and she can be engaged on equal terms. She is smart and knows her facts, and just because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT it is no reason that she should be taken down. WP needs Gilabrand and more editors like her. IZAK (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ubie the Guru[edit]

Take #8 where Gilbrand is reprimanded for removing the allegation that Zarnuqa was a depopulated village. If you go to the article you see that there is no supporting source for that, so in fairness he was correct. The anti-Israel slant in that article is clear. It seems that in Wikipedia editors who are negative to Israel are considered unbiased and those who are positive are considered biased. Considering the massive amounts of disinformation that is out there that is negative toward Israel, it would be a good thing if the information in Wikipedia were seriously scrutinized to see if it is actually true, so that slanders against this small and beleaguered country were not encouraged and spread by Wikipedia. The amount of information/propaganda that is out there that is anti-Israel is analogous to the Nazi propaganda against the Jews in the thirties and forties, and as in the thirties and forties, is taught at Universities. During the Nazi years, anyone who stood up for the Jews against the Nazis was considered a "Jew-lover" and was in threat of joining the Jews in the camps. Wikipedia is getting a reputation of being a propagator of this anti-Israel mindset. Today every bigot in the world has access to media to spread their disinformation and propaganda around. I hope the administrators consider this position before they topic ban yet another hardworking editor whose sin is to see the I-P conflict from an unpopular (but possibly accurate) perspective. Ubie the guru (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I decided to take the statement by Arbitrator HJMitchell and see if my thesis held up, by investigating his specific differences that he used to accuse Gilabrand of biased editing. His first difference refers to "removal of material unflattering to Israel."

  • "this edit removed material regarding an assassination attempt by Israel (cited to Al Jazeera)" The first the Al Jazeera source is describing a movie, presumably a documentary, made by an Arab film-maker. True or not, has the film itself been vetted as fact? Has this film whose story is being told in Al Jazeera an appropriate historical source for an article on alleged treaty violations in the Israel-Jordan peace treaty? Arguably not.
  • I was unable to find the removal of sources with respect to a sentence which mentions 'an Israeli settlement in an occupied territory."
  • "this removed all mention of controversial actions by Israeli forces in the 1948 war." This is the sentence that was removed: "It was captured by Israeli forces in the offensive Operation Yoav against the defending Egyptian Army during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War" This could be considered a controversial edit. Was Operation Yoav an offensive action against the defending(?) Egyptian army? The police fort which had been under the British was now "occupied" by the Egyptians according to a later section. The Negev had been part of the UN's partition plan area assigned to a Jewish state. If my history serves me right, Egypt invaded Israel in 1948 and so would be the offending army, Israel the defending army, no? The original edit tries to imply the opposite, though it is not based on any source. Also, Gilabrand's edit does not remove all mention of controversial actions by Israeli forces in the 1948 war, only in this one edit in the lead of the article.

HJMitchell says:

  • "more removal of material unflattering to Israel: mention of alleged depopulation by Israel is removed; as is the statement that the village is the location of ant-Israel protests. "Israel" is removed from a statement about a controversial action by that country." Yet when I read the original sentence, this, "Raml Zayta was depopulated during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. According to Benny Morris, the causes and date of the depopulation are unknown," is not significantly different from this (Gilabrand's sentence): "Benny Morris writes that the causes of the village's depopulation and when it occurred are unknown.<ref name=Morrispxviii>Morris, 2004, [ p. xviii].</ref> "
  • "a "massacre" by Israeli forces becomes an "alleged massacre"; " Israeli soldiers shot dead hundreds of Palestinian refugees and local inhabitants in one of two massacres" becomes "...were shot in the search for people in possession of arms". This statement by HJMitchell does seem to presuppose or accept Morris' assertion of the fact of two massacres when according Haaretz, "Israeli historians dispute these figures. 'It's a big exaggeration,' said Meir Pail, a leading Israeli military historian and leftist politician. 'There was never a killing of such a degree. Nobody was murdered. I was there. I don't know of any massacre.'" [76]

While I was unable to find several references these I did find are arguably an attempt to be accurate and fair to Israel, instead of only to the Palestinian Arab side in this conflict. As you continually block and ban so-called pro-Israeli editors you will understandably eventually get a field totally dominated by anti-Israel propaganda, thereby literally becoming a part of the problem and adding to the conflict by putting your weight only on one side of the see-saw. Ubie the guru (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

HJMitchell says "I note that you dispute my interpretation of individual edits, but the point I'm making is that the pattern in Gila's edits is problematic. I'll happily listen to arguments that I'm wrong, but just re-hashing individual diffs isn't going to do it."

A 'pattern' is made up of individual edits. You claim that Gilabrand's 'pattern' is pro-Israel and that this is problematic and seem to be urging a topic ban. To make that determination you must look at individual edits and ask yourself if indeed these edits (eg the ones you used to condemn) are in fact pro-Israeli and if so, are they in fact untrue or worded in some way as to imply some untruth? Could you be seeing this out of your own prejudice, as we all tend to do? Is a pro-Israel bias defacto wrong; and if so is an anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian bias defacto wrong? If so, then the edits of opposing editors should be equally scrutinized for such bias, especially at the time they are attempting to topic ban an editor. To the pro-Israeli editors on Wikipedia it is clear that the anti-Israel editors view AE as a formula to rid Wikipedia of the virus (as they see it) of pro-Israel-bias editing. There is a highly entrenched group of anti-Israel editors on Wikipedia. They are very vocal, bring numerous AE's against both new and older "opponents," and vote administrators in or out based significantly on their expressed viewpoints in this conflict. This is not empty rhetoric on my part. I can provide evidence if required. I hope you will consider this because it is only a matter of simple fairness to both sides. If you ban one perspective or point of view, then Wikipedia will become (as many already say it is) a vehicle for propaganda for the other side only. It is in the tension of both points of view that the facts will come out and the truth will be discernible. Ubie the guru (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Shalom11111[edit]

Looking at all the selectively picked diffs provided by IRISZOOM, I only found 4 of them to be somewhat problematic. Considering the fact that Gilabrand has made thousands of edits in this very heated topic area, where every little change may look like a huge POV-attempt, in my judgement I actually find his/her edits rather constructive, even in most of the examples provided by IRISZOOM here, who is a user I'll not elaborate on now. So while he/she is evidently supportive of the so called Israeli narrative, I think it's absurd to expect perfection from such editor, and Sepsis definitely doesn't have a case for a topic-ban on Gilabrand.

Regarding a few comments raised above: Sepsis, I think you should have been referring to yourself as well when you said "AE has given up on stopping such editors", because as previous cases have shown, your edits are extremely POV-pushing with regards to the I / P area. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, your example is ironically bad. An article cannot be named "List of Palestinians assassinated by the Mossad" if it hasn't been absolutely proven that these people have been assassinated by the Mossad. You said "Most items on the list are sourced". Really? So if most 'items' are sourced (by some independent organizations/websites), that entitles all Palestinians listed there to be considered as people assassinated by the Mossad? Well, not only was Gilabrand's edit okay, it was necessary. Any objective editor would agree that the article should indeed be renamed. See this article for example. And then read Wikipedia's guidelines again, please.

Nevertheless, we must make sure Gilabrand and other editors for this matter are more cautious and careful with their edits, and therefore I think a warning of some kind or even a short block should be implemented, as admins shall decide, in order to deter this editor and other editors (well, maybe even including me) from future possible edits that may violate the Wikipedia's neutral-editing rules. -Shalom11111 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein and HJ Mitchell, a topic ban of Gilabrand would be a disgrace for Wikipedia. A few notes I want to say in response to Nishidani's first 4 points (and I'm sure there're good explanations for the rest as well) :
  • 1- The RS (BtSelem) does not support the statement. It simply does not say what the article said it says.
  • 2- Removal of the section entitled "Alleged treaty violations" that Gilabrand removed was sourced to an Al Jazeera article describing a movie, not a scholarly or journalistic source. The statement that Nishidani gives from a different source that ‘Amman saw the attack not only as a violation of Jordanian sovereignty but as a violation of the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty,’ is a far cry from "As Meshaal lay in critical condition, King Hussein condemned the assassination attempt in the strongest terms as a violation of Jordanian sovereignty and threatened to void the treaty if Meshaal died. Fortunately, international pressure on Israel forced them to hand over the antidote (which had incidentally already been determined and administered by Jordanian doctors treating Meshaal). Meshaal recovered, and the treaty remained intact." Doubtless had Nishidani used that sentence with a proper source, Gilabrand would have left it alone.
  • 3- Nishidani's comment that Benny Morris' account calls Beit Daras a massacre and/or a depopulation is just wrong.
  • 4 is about moshav Avivim, but instead of being about Avivim it was about Saliha, which has a whole separate article devoted to it. That article refers to a massacre in the lead of the article. Gilabrand attempted to restore the article to what it should be - about Avivim.
Shalom11111 (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
@Sandstein:, if may ask, did you actually go through Nishidani's edits yourself or do you just assume they are all accurate? @Georgewilliamherbert:, please take a look at these responses as well as the previous one I posted above.
  • 8- Read Morris carefully, as the newspaper reports that Morris cites this: "a graphic description of what happened next was sent to the Mapam daily: 'The soldier told me how one of the soldiers opened a door and fired a Sten at...etc'" So what we have here is a newspaper report that does not have an author, in which a (unnamed) soldier tells the (unnamed) author about what another (unnamed) soldier supposedly did. Is this real evidence or propaganda perpetrated during war? Just because it is included in Morris doesn't make it true. An objective person would demand another source for this at the very least. Morris does say clearly: "One of Zarnuqa's clans, Dar Shurbaji, wanted the village to surrender its weapons and accept Haganah protection. The others argued against and the village evacuated most of its old people, women and children to nearby Yibna. The Shurbajis stayed on along with several dozen armed menfolk from the two other clans." It sounds to me like the depopulation of this village was not Israel's doing.
  • 9 - the original dif given with Morris sourced: "Israeli troops killed a large number of male villagers who were of army age and raped and killed a teenage girl." Gilabrand dif: "A large number of army-age villagers were killed and a teenage girl was reportedly raped." Morris: "They appear also to have raped and murdered a teenage girl." What does footnote 777 say about the raping and murdering of a teenage girl? Nothing. Gilabrand's version more accurately reflects the source(s) given, and Nishidani is incorrect when he claims: "Gilabrand here again, works fast as a copywriter, but is not examining the source, or trying to improve article reliability and comprehensiveness."
  • 10 - This diff is given as an example to Gilabrand's bias. The question is whether it is accurate to say that that "The kibbutz was established on the land of a depopulated Palestinian village named Burayr, " or this "The kibbutz was established on a hilltop about a mile from the Palestinian village of Burayr." Both soured to Morris. Obviously those in favor of the worst interpretation against Israel are going to want to imply that Israel wiped out and "depopulated" this Arab village and then build directly on top of it. The Morris source says on page 371 "On the night of 18\19 April, the new outpost - eventually named Kibbutz Brur Hayil - was established near the village of Burayr (which harassed the Jewish construction workers with light weapons fire and was attacked and conquered by the Haganah a month later..." The Days and the Seasons: Memoirs by Evyatar Friesel- also says the same. "The name Bror Hail, meaning "selection of soldiers" was probably assoicated with the revolt of Bar Kochba against the Romans in the first half of the second century C.E. There was a large Arab village nearby, Brer (obviously an adaptation of Bror). Its inhabitants had fled during the War of Independence, and only the ruins remained".
At first I thought a short ban of Gilabrand would be the right "punishment". Now, I doubt any action should be taken. I encourage you to examine these (and other) edits for yourselves. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

Well I've tried to stay out of this, - one gets the impression that any comment in an AE action is read tendentially in terms of where the editors are coming from, and thus, since all are putatively POV-pushing partisans in administrative eyes, no contributor's comment is evaluated as anything other than a power-game. That's pretty depressing. I'd much prefer that any of us, whoever, might be dealt with harshly according to severe rules of conduct. As it is, bad editors cause time-consuming grief: one has to trail them esp if hyperactive and 'mop up'. Two administrative remarks are just, I think, inappropriate.

  • (a) 'We previously decided that a slant absent other disruption was OK for Gilabrand.'

I.e. At a minimalist readng, Gilabrand can do what a significant number of editors from both sides refrain from doing, because their reading of what policy allows one to do with articles that are reliably sourced is restrictive. More largely, and operationally, she alone has been given a free pass to mess up normative editing procedures in the I/P area by wilful removal of RS, pro-national rewriting, misleading edit summaries, suppression of facts,etc.

  • (b)'I don't want content disputes in troubled areas by sides picking off editors.' I can't recall, in several earlier cases, of my ever asking for Gilabrand to be chased off. She has been a productive ce writer. But she is a habitual eraser of properly sourced material in order to push an Israeli POV. I and several others may see things differently, but there is a tacit rule we can't erase information if it is RS-based, except under very exceptional conditions. If one does, one goes straight to the talk page and sort the problem out, which Gilabrand almost never does. Gilabrand tampers persistently with RS (her 'ce' appears to consist in rewriting without actually consulting the sources, and that is the difference. I can't see anyone 'picking her off'. I see her constantly, day in day out, stepping over a fine line between comprehensive article sourcing, checking and finding new or better ones, and copyediting that systematically removes RS in order to 'disappear' anything she diapproves of as inappropriate for Israel's image. The technique used in the edit-summaries is repeatedly deceptive.

For the record here's my reading of the first 5 diffs.

This is pure deception ‘The singular’ ‘advocacy site’ refers to one of the two sources, Americans for Peace Now, not to (B'Tselem). The former is an advocacy site, and must not be used. But Gilabrand also removed with it (B'Tselem).the B’tselem source here, with the other, which is not an advocacy site, and everywhere used in the I/P area. I.e. she used a pretext to elide an RS under cover of removing another. 10 seconds googling would have told her the data here are widely attested in usable sources.
So the edit summary was deceptive, and the effect was to remove an impeccable RS by sleight-of-hand.
  • (2) On the articled Israel–Jordan peace treaty, there was a section: ‘Alleged Treaty Violations’, which Gilabrand summarily removes as ‘off-topic’. There is nothing alleged about ‘treaty violations’. It is a well-sourced historical fact. No one familiar with the facts would challenge it.
It wasn’t off-topic. It was sourced reliably, and the sourcing could be improved, and the section expanded. P. R. Kumaraswamy , ‘Israel, Jordan and the Masha’al Affair,’ in Efraim Karsh, P. R. Kumaraswamy (eds.) Israel, the Hashemites, and the Palestinians: The Fateful Triangle, Frank Cass & Co, London 2003 pp.111-126. ‘Amman saw the attack not only as a violation of Jordanian sovereignty but as a violation of the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty.’
Edit summary ‘ce; anachronistic.’ The ce fixed a serious error. At the same time it (a) failed to control the RS (Benny Morris 2004, since that source has no pagination, and should have been supplied in revision). Had she checked Benny Morris p.256, she would have realized that he mentions the village was ‘captured and depopulated’ in a scorched earth operation, precisely the details she opts to elide from the text. Such details are not ‘anachronistic’ since the depopulation of Beit Daras is not an ‘anachronism’. It is true that you can choose to remove as excessive details from the lead, but Gilabrand’s pattern of editing is to erase all mention of massacres, evictions, deaths with the ‘neutral’ voice of ‘captured by Israel’. . .(silence)
The edit summary ‘ce; not RS’ is again wholly deceptive. For while copywriting, Gilabrand removed a key historical fact concerning an Israeli massacre, documented by Israel’s foremost historian of the era, Benny Morris, and by Israel jounalist Danny Rubenstein . This is widely accepted in Israel (Eyal Benvenisti, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (eds) Israel and the Palestinian Refugees, ‎Springer/Max Plank Institute 2007 p.121)
Edit summary.’ ce’
Nope. Source falsfication combined with failure to fix the link. The text she saw read:

According to UNRWA several of the camp's residents have lost their homes as a result of operations by the Israeli military. UNRWA began reconstruction efforts in the early 2000s, but work has largely been halted due to the blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip following the Hamas take-over of the territory after battles with rival faction Fatah. UNRWA states that at least 10,000 housing units are in need of reconstruction.'<ref name="UNRWA"/>

Gilbrand writes:

UNRWA initiated construction projects in the camp in the early 2000s, but work was halted by the Hamas take-over of the territory. UNRWA envisaged the construction of least 10,000 housing units.<ref name="UNRWA"/>

What has she done here?
The text she produced (a) elides housing destruction by the IDF (b) the blockade of building materials is lost from view, giving the impression Hamas might be responsible for failure to build ('work was halted by by Hamas takeover.' I.e. Hamas blocked UNWRA, not Israel)(c) the key UNRWA word reconstruction, implying building accommodation to replace housing destroyed by IDF operations is replaced by construction, as if this was some new real estate project starting from zero. The overall effect is to make Israel’s hand in events invisible, and imply the whole situation is autochthonous. This is the original source she distorts
edit summary.’ off-topic commentary’
Again, deceptive summary. A paraphrase of a source is not ‘commentary’, which implies WP:OR. It is a reproduction of sourced content. It is not a legitimate POV slant to remove obviously relevant information given in the cited source. On the village of Yibna it is not ‘off-topic’ to write:

Palestinian artist Sliman Mansour made Yibna the subject of one of his paintings. The work, named for the village, was one of a series of four on destroyed Palestinian villages that he produced in 1988; the others being Yalo, Imwas and Bayt Dajan.<

when the source, Gannit Ankori Palestinian Art Reaktion Books , 2006 p.82 reads:

‘Another series of four works from 1988 relates explicitly to the lost homeland through the titles given to eachy work by the artist. Mansour named each composition (Yalo, Beit Dajan, Emmwas, Yibna) after a Palestinian village that had been destroyed by Israel since its establishment in 1948. Thus, art became a way of resisting the eradication of Palestinian history and geography,’

It is not a 'content dispute', but a refusal to allow content that one dislike. To rewrite this as

Palestinian artist Sliman Mansour named one of his paintings for the village.

Is a major impoverishment, suppressing the whole point about why Mansour did that series. You get a meaningless factoid that begs explanation. The whole point of Mansour’s paintings was to evoke a past that Israel had erased. And Gilabrand appears to think her job or mission is to erase any mention of that Palestinian past.
I think it premature on wiki terms to replace West Bank with State of Palestine. The edit is POV, but so is what it reverted, arguably. This should not consitute evidence for AE.
An Israeli newspaper report cited in the fundamental work by an Israeli historian on the conflict states that ‘a soldier fired with a Sten gun at three people (one old man, old woman and a child)’. The original editor retained the detail. Gilabrand removed it. Conent dispute? No. In her version we are given the impression that 'Women, children and the elderly were evacuated to the nearby village of Yibna’.
So again, this 'ce' turns out to falsify history. Gilabrand has cherypicked the source and so remoulded it that ‘women, children and the elderly’ are evacuated. They were, but not all. The source says at least some of them were not evacuated, that one of the elderly, two women, and a little girl were apparently murdered by an Israeli soldier. By suppression the detail, she 'humanizes' Israel's narrative even when Israel's finest history has no problem with the full details.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
edit summary. 'ce for poor English' Ce it is. Unfortunately again, Gilabrand has not checked the source (when it would have been in favour of her POV to do so, since Morris writes ‘appear’ ‘apparently’ and does not write, as both she and the earlier editor did, that these are facts. p.258, but also n.777 p.306)
I said this at the other case. As any talk page analysis of the major articles will show, editors on both sides generally agree that rigorous source-control, googling for as much RS material as possible, and discussion on the talk page are integral to (a) making reliable articles in the I/P area and (b) determining content by consensus. Gilabrand here again, works fast as a copywriter, but is not examining the source, or trying to improve article reliability and comprehensiveness.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit summary ‘‎History: a mile away’ i.e. Burayr was not the site of the kibbutz Bror Hayil but a mile away.
WP:OR. (a) Amira Hass,Drinking the sea at Gaza: days and nights in a land under siege, Hamish Hamilton, 1999 p.150 writes ‘Burayr where Kibbutz Bror Hayil is today' (b) Morris 2004 p.371 writes that Bror Hayil was an outpost established near the village of Burayr’, sufficiently close for the villagers to shoot at its construction workers (thus not ‘a mile away’), and then on p.374 Bror Hayil is said to have been ‘constructed’ in Burayr'.' (c) The same point, that Kibbutz Bror-Hayil is in Burayr with is made by Aryeh L. Avneri,The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land-Settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948, (1984) Transaction Publishers 2009 p.220 (who also adds that 1,000 dunams of Burayr land had been bought by Moshe Smilansky in 1934).
These details are easily gathered up. Gilabrand simply didn' check the source, and in her haste to rewrite everything, didn't waste time doing what we editors are supposed to do, check in RS. Again, editors are left to mop up after her. Not a content dispute, but WP:OR against what at least one of the page sources states, confirmed by several others, rightly or wrongly.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary = (ce; add)

She was shown to do this in the lase case, i.e. say she is adding while at the same time she subtracts a key point. What did she add? That the village was ‘conquered’. What did she remove? That the village was depopulated (as Morris notes it was pp.482-3).
In principal one is not obliged to add stuff one dislikes if one reads it in RS. As a rule, however, one has no right to remove stuff in an article that is grounded in RS which another editor has verified. Morris uses the verb ‘conquered’, and he uses the term ‘depopulated’. Gilabrand adds ‘conquered’ and removes ‘depopulated’. I.e. she is altering a balanced text to ‘slant’ it into a one way narrative shorn of any fact or detail that might suggest ethnic cleansing took place.
Several points in the ce are spot on: removing excessive use (3 times) of the word friendly’, for example. But in rewriting

During the early years of the state of Israel the village was subjected to repeated searches by the army and anyone who had not registered as resident in November 1948 could be expelled.


During the early years of the state, military searches were conducted in the village to remove non-residents.

That, to an historian’s eye, damages the narrative by the elision of a specific detail that was of great importance at that time, i.e.the dating by which ‘infiltrator’ was distinguished from ‘resident’. Still, this is not an AE problem considered alone. It's just evidence that Gilabrand enjoys her now acknowledged right to 'slant' things-

Edit summary ‘Ce according to source’-

Adds ‘alleged massacre’. But the source does not say the massacre is disputed. The source right under her nose, again Benny Morris, says the massacre happened-
Some were probably killed during two massacres by IDF troops soon after the occupation of the Strip. On 3 November, the day Khan Yunis was conquered, IDF troops shot dead hundreds of Palestinian refugees and local inhabitants in the town.
That one late source challenges what several specialist historians state as a neutral fact is a matter of WP:Due regarding the sceptic's fringe view, arguably. It is not a warrant for introducing 'alleged', unless at least one makes a good case for that on the talk page, which Gilabrand failed to do.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (14) Adds terrorist
This is in the source, one of dozens available (Ynet has a middle-right POV slant). Yet, as an old-hand Gilabrand cannot but know,:-
The POV of Hamas is that they are ‘martyrs’ training camps’ (many sources)
The Israeli right wing POV is that they are ‘terrorist training camps’.(many sources)
Wikipedia’s standard neutral voice says neither (except with legal convictions for terrorism (Khalid Duhham Al-Jawary), or a politically motivated massacre is universally defined as terroristic (Baruch Goldstein) ). They are training camps for militants. We don’t choose sides. Most editors in the I/P area observe this convention. Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (15) Removes a source critical of the Palestinian leader and the PA which notes that

'The Kalandia checkpoint is best known as a flashpoint between Palestinian protestaters and Israeli security forces,’

and uploads a shot of Israeli ambulances taking Palestinians to Israeli hospitals. Both of these are true.
The intent is to erase any information from one side, expressive of conflict under the occupation, and highlight the humanity of the other side. Why both elements, reflecting all sides of the reality, cannot coexist side by side, is onscure. From my reading of WP:NPOV, one does not erase sourced information that is negative for an actor, while adding sourced information that is positive for that actor. Gilabrand's editing in the the Israeli ambulance image is in itself, perfectly correct. Editing out the Palestinian aspect of it being a flashpoint for conflict changes her addition into a piece of PR-engineering. I would not remove the image. It should be balanced by some matter which says that at Qalandia, most of the people regularly shot or gassed by Israeli troops during demonstrations there and elsewhere are treated in Palestinian hospitals, in the field, or at Ramallah, Nablus etc. In that sense, her edit unbalances, and is provocative.
This is not an either/or world, but a 'this-but-also-this-world'. Gilabrand can’t see that.Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
‘The village was destroyed.’ By whom? The 'by whom?' has been excised (It was captured by Israeli forces in the offensive Operation Yoav against the defending Egyptian Army during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.)
The edit impoverishes the text and creates a mystery not resolved in the body of the article.
Edit summary:’another name’ (This doesn’t explain what she actually did)
The original text ran:
'Raml Zayta was depopulated during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. According to Benny Morris, the causes and date of the depopulation are unknown,'
I.e. it was depopulated 1947-8 but the specific date (month, week) is unknown.
Gilabrand rewrote

Benny Morris writes that the causes of the village's depopulation and when it occurred are unknown.(Morris, 2004, [ p. xviii)

This is an obfuscative edit, for which there is no warrant in policy or good practice. Morris has (not as Gilabrand’s edit has it on p.xviii, but p.xvi) Raml Zayta in a list dealing with Palestinian villages abandoned and depopulated (for 6 different reasons, where ascertainable) in the war of 1948. If we take Morris, as she does, the date (1948) and circumstances (Israel-Palestinian civil war) are contextually obvious, and they were given in the previous version. Once the year and circumstances are cancelled the main body of the text becomes meaningless. Some Jews (sometime presumably between 1945 and 1992) came along and told the villagers to go away, and some died on the road (traffic accident?). She’s made the war disappear, the army disappear, the circumstances disappear. And there is absolutely no reason for her doing this, unless she wishes to erase any mention in this or other articles that the 1948 Palestinian exodus ever took place.
Worse still, in the source (Rosemarie M.Esber, Under the Cover of War, The Zionist Expulsions of the Palestinians,2008. Arabicus Books p.297) we have, a date is supplied. This is not just Gilabrand's fault, but of the previous editor. The oral history of survivors of Ramle Zaita recorded by Esber (published 4 years after Morris's book) clearly fixes the first weeks in March 1948 as the date when the 'Zionists' began to beseige the village. The actual assault took place on March 15, when the threats recited on our page apparently took place. Once more, a few seconds googling for the details would have solved the mystery ('According to the villagers' oral memories, the expulsion took place on March 15, 1948'). If she had troubled to check the source, she would certainly not have twisted Morris's words to suggest we haven't the foggiest notion of the time, date, circumstances or actors involved. But editorial laziness or insouciance to comprehensive reportage is not an indictable crime for AE. Twisting Morris to make out even he doesn't known this occurred in 1948 is however deplorable. Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
GWH. Thanks. I make a principle of not tracking other editors, or examining their contribs. I don't see Gilabrand's edits often, except on the few occasions where her ce takes place on one of my 800 watchlist pages. If you wish me to examine say her edits for February to see if the pattern is wider, I will, however. She is a very good copyeditor, I repeat. But she is not interested in assuring that articles are evenly balanced. To the contrary. As a result, some unfortunate has to watch her every I/P edit, or some mechanism should be devised to ensure that she does not persist in skewing by removal firmly-sourced RS material bearing on the Palestinians. Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
GWH. It looks like it would take ages to run through her February edits. I'm far too slow, far too crabby an editor to look at vast amounts of data quickly and efficiently. Just for the record, I'll give you the result of what I found when looking at just the last edit she made.
Edit summary. (nothing about this in the article)
This is the last of 22 edits to Fathi Shaqaqi, and removed a substantial amount of matter.
The edit summary is true and false. It is true that all of those details are not in the attributed Telegraph source, but it is false since some of them are.

'The two kidon waited for him to stroll along the waterfront. Ran and Gil drove up on the motorcycle and Gil shot Fathi Shkaki six times in the head. It had become a kidon signature.’

What she is doing here only becomes clear in examining how she rewrites the Telegraph's account of the kill. We are given the Mossad preparations, the check into the hotel, and the escape. She does not want any mention of the act of the assassination, w apparently, which however the Telegraph does report. Yet quite precise details of that hit are widely covered in many fine RS sources, as my editing of that page today now shows. Ronen Bergman, The Secret War with Iran: The 30-Year Clandestine Struggle Against the World's Most Dangerous Terrorist Power, Simon & Schuster 2008 p.215, which should come up immediately in any google search, contains precisely key details in the passage she removed as not in the Telegraph source. Good practice here requires editors to put up a [citation needed] note at least for a few days, and not automatically remove an wrongly attributed set of details, esp. when much of what is there can be found in google books. Whatever, it is odd that she takes out a description of the assassination, and leaves in the details of how it was set up. Is it that details of how a man was gunned down while shopping on a street in Malta strike her as not Israel-image friendly? I don't know.
Nowever, the terrorist in question had a brother, and when Gilabrand began working the page she found the following unsourced remark:

Fathi Shaqaqi's brother Khalil is director of the Nablus-based Center for Palestine Policy and Research, established in 1993.

Gilabrand here sourced this to a piece of speculative trash by a patently non-RS, and notoriously Islamophobic private think tank, i.e., Investigative Project on Terrorism. Despite the innocuous language of the text, the source is a smear piece branding the brother, still alive and thriving, also as a fanatic jihadist ('KHALIL SHIKAKI AND HIS ROLE IN THE FORMATION OF THE PALESTINIAN ISLAMIC JIHAD NETWORK IN THE UNITED STATES,'), which is an off-the-planet piece of fringe lunatic speculation.
Why use that new source when, on the page when Gilabrand started editing this article, one excellent book published by Princeton UP gave the same detail? (Christoph Reuter, My Life is a Weapon: A Modern History of Suicide Bombing, Princeton University Press,(2002) 2004 p.95)
She must have checked it. It was linked. Were it not for the fact that even the best of us fuck up, and quite often, the impression given is that Gilabrand ignored the book source because there Khalid Shaqaqi is described as an 'elegant' 'distinguished scholar' diametrically opposed to his fanatic jihad-pushing elder brother. He is an American-trained political scientist and scholar. In ignoring the immediate source to hand and introducing a crumy hate-site reference it does look like Gilabrand preferred to add a link to the islamophobic non-RS to tar him with the same brush. All very subtle, of course, seeding an islamophobic source for an innocuous piece of text. Not your rampant IP blowhard POV pushing, but perhaps for that, more dangerous because this kind of editing goes under the radar all too easily.Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

However, unlike nearly all problem editors in highly contentious areas, Gilabrand has actively reformed at least a minimal demanded amount after each sanction,

Perhaps since this impression is now recurrent and understandable, and comes up everytime Gilabrand is mentioned, one should use this opportunity, regardless of G. to clear the air, get all the suspicions, accusations, and details of unreformed POV pushing in the I/P area on 'paper'. I'm sick and tired of seeing such generic innuendoes, and I expect that admins who say this is the case to call for its documentation. If I or anyone else is a 'problem editor' wikipedia can do without us, and we ought to be brought to book. GWH is right that POV pushing in itself, in the sense of unilateral interest in a topic area where two sides exist, is not to be sanctioned automatically. The problem is editorial technique. If we all are required to use a restrictive reading of WP:RS, and not tamper with articles capriciously, but identify lacunae, weak documentation, use [citation needed] more frequently, raise issues about verification on the talk page, etc., administrative work would be reduced notably (and Gilabrand and others would not be in trouble). Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If we draw that particular line in the sand, nearly everyone editing the topic area will be gone.

GWH.I.e., we should save soldier Gilabrand because, if we don't, two platoons (both sides) of footsloggers will also get shot. Even in the worse case scenario User:Zero0000 would survive unscathed, and if his method of dry-fact excavation and neutral wording was all there was left, it would be a perfect signal to all and sundry that that is the only method endorsed.
I don't believe this for several reasons. She's consistently shot herself in the foot here, and, as I said elsewhere, I believe most regular editors would survive scrutiny because, unlike G. they may be POV-slanted, but they respect RS, engage the talkpage and know that removing good material is simply not done. I work here and look at this in practical terms. The only argument for ignoring the problem is that over the last three years, the I side has lost more 'militants', and there's a slight majority of editors who can be identified as caring more for the 'P' narrative. That's quite possible. But it's no grounds for softening the regulations which have produced the great improvement in the I/P area since ARBPIA. Since it's conflictual, people who wish to edit there have to learn that their every edit must stand administrative scrutiny, and abuse will be punished. Will that scare off potential new editors? Perhaps. Will it mean more editors, regular and new, will realize we/they all have to pull our socks up because on this street zero tolerance operates, esp. for repeat offenders. Yes, and that can only improve things. Nishidani (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Operatively, we all are subject to incremental punishment as the raps on our charge sheet get longer. No one just gets banned. They are incrementally warned by successive extensions of the period they are sent to 'porridge'. What is happening in these two cases is anomalous. In order not to have G permabanned (and that is certainly out of the question), she is now stuck with an effective no more sanction policy because she's good generally. That is not the right signal to send her, or our way, way because it translates as = 'if you are invaluable' you get a kind of tacit immunity despite regular messing about with articles. In the good old days, a year or so ago, if I fucked up or was thought to have fucked up, I found nothing wrong in a quick judgement that put me on hold for one or three months. I even sat out a permaban, until a few good folks asked for a review. It improved my editing. Nishidani (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am entirely happy with exploring Gilabrand's behavior on the edge in some more depth

As I said, this would be a huge task, and we've been asked to keep things short and sweet, and personally I have a dozen neglected fruit trees to prune if my summer menu is to be garnished with non-toxic fruit-salads, something far more important than doing the disagreeable detective work of snitching. But the pattern noted by some does exist, and is not hard to find. I dealt with the edits given by IRISZOOM, but checking successive edits on just two of them now, this pattern is obvious and does involve (a) deliberate removal of reliably sourced material and (b) the exploitation of the trade of 'copyediting' to falsify sources. I'll give you two more examples from the edit histories of 16 and 17 above, which were immediately evidenced by just a brief check yesterday.
Page Iraq Suwaydan This is a good example of what lies behind her copywriter's penchant for the narrative passive voice: in this context, it consistently elides the Palestinians as historical subjects-
the lead noted Israel had destroyed the village, when it did so, and in what circumstances. Gilabrand puts the text in the passive voice and elides Israel.
In a further edit there this is what she then does:
(1)’In 1942 the villagers established an elementary school' is changed to '1942, an elementary school was opened' (by whom? the Palestinian 'villagers' disappear.
The source Walid Khalidi says

’In 1947 Iraq Suwaydan shared its elementary school.which the inhabitants had established as a private school- with the neighbouring villages of ‘Ibdis and Bayt ‘Affa.’(p.109)

So this copyediting technique either reduces the Palestinians to inert objects of historical change, or elides them. Israel's historical 'other' is rendered invisible.
(2) Earlier draft
'On May 15 the British authorities gave the local population control over the police fortress.
In this area, legal transfer is a fundamental issue, everything is based on whether norms existed or there was a legal void, which Israel occupied.
Gilabrand’s rewrite runs
'On May 15,1948, the British authorities withdrew and 'the police fort was occupied by Arab forces.'
It's obvious what she has done here. The earlier text speaks of the legal passage from one authority (British) to another (the villagers). This happens to be inaccurate, but a legal transition of authority did take place. Gilabrand breaks the legal transition. The British go, and the Arabs ‘’occupy’’ (i.e. Arab outsiders came in and took the village, then Israeli (outsiders) wrested it from them). The 'subtle' message is:'there was a power vacuum, and Israel just filled it, which in this case, unlike many others, is false. The transition by the way did not take place on May 15, the day the war broke out. No. The hand-over occurred three days earlier, which makes the transition's legality, before hostilities, even more important in an objective narrative. The actual facts of what happened are in any number of standard texts on that war.

’As the irregulars moved east, they reinforced the Egyptian garrison that had received the police station at Iraq Suwaydan from the British, who turned it over to them on 12 May.’ David Tal War in Palestine, 1948: Israeli and Arab Strategy and Diplomacy,Routledge 2004 p.177

Page Raml Zayta.
Edit summary:'OR removed - the date and circumstances are unknown.'
She did with justification remove one piece of WP:OR (Morris 2004 p.98).
But at the same time seized the opportunity to remove a passage she apparently disliked, taking out lower down something that is not WP:OR but impeccably referenced. Namely

American historian Rosemarie Esber interviewed a refugee from Raml Zaita, Zakiya Abu Hammad, who said that Yishuv forces besieged the village for about two weeks, causing a food shortage:

That is again, as above, using an edit summary to do what is required by policywhile, while at the same time, stealthily removing material that is safeguarded by policy.This may seem petty, indee piddling, but it is what Alf for one called the greater difficulty caused by recourse to more subtle means of messing texts than was earlier the case. And it all means 'moping up' chores for editors who think we must build articles before 'copywriting' them. Copywriting is rapid, easy, if you are as accomplished at it as Gilabrand. Actually building articles with scrupulous care for source exploration, paraphrase and expansion of content is very hard, and having to cope with editors who can't be trusted and whose work has to distract one's time into repeated checking arguably harms the I/P area. These edits only regard a handful of the edits she made over a few days of wiki work, so it's a pattern, and not cherrypicked.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Not my business, but Blade of the Northern Lights, a general I/P ban would not be in wikipedia's interests, somewhat unfair given the excellent work she does on Israel. HUMitchel's suggestion she stay away from Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict is more precise. It's tricky because Israel overlays territory with a long Arab history, and Israel articles therefore have Arab/Palestinian content. Some wording that clarifies the ambiguity would be required. Perhaps she could be asked to check anything where the line blurs with User:Zero0000, the most objective and knowledgeable I/P editor in the history of wikipedia (if he would undertake to help out). A bridge like this is the sort of thing that, if constructive over six-months, a year, or whatever could lead to some appeal, which I would happily underwrite, to release her from whatever topic restriction is imposed, if one is.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
User:sean.hoyland. I'd agree, if the rules were tightened along those lines. Brewcrewer's point ignores something I didn't mention. While I did just analyse IRISZOOM's diffs that range over a wide time period, when GHW asked me to look, I started, but gave up after examining just several of the last 100 diffs because I'm as slow as a wet week. But of the 20 odd diffs above, 5 fit a two day period, the last 2 days she edited. Look at the time stamps.
That is not 'combing through' a vast amount of edits to fish up over a long period some damning evidence. It's seeing 5 troublesome edits in just one and a half days, intensive, not casual. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Shalom11111. I think you should read statements and analysis and books correctly, and retract or cancel your last remarks. It's quite serious, if you are screwing things up deliberately. On all four points you are wrong, and grossly misreport or distort what I wrote in my analysis of those edits. What's the point? You obviously have not examined the evidence or the links. It's past midnight here, but if proof is required you are dead wrong, I'll give it tomorrow on request.Nishidani (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Counter-factual assertiveness, Shalom11111, risks WP:Boomerang. It certainly doesn’t help Gilabrand, because, in implying I skewed the evidence, you force me to review the evidence in more depth and, the case would only worsen. I’ll give just one example, the first
(a)On (1) you assert or rather prevaricate:-
'The RS (B'tselem) does not support the statement. It simply does not say what the article said it says.'
The text linked to the B'tselem source Gilabrand saw and edited out ran:-

an additional 7,500 live in twenty-six Israeli settlements and five Nahal encampments that have been established in the part of the Jordan Valley that lies in the West Bank.

The B'tselem link she removed at that juncture in the article, while putting in a [citation needed] tag runs:-

B’tselem :’To strengthen its hold over this area, since the early 1970s, Israel has established in the Jordan Valley twenty-six settlements and five Nahal brigade encampments, which contain 7,500 residents.'

So Gilabrand, as I said, removed the legitimate link supporting the prior statement, and you now say, notwithstanding the evidence, that there is no evidence.
Earlier I didn't trouble to read before-and-after sequences in her editing strings but just checked IRISZOOM's discrete list of diffs over many articles. I have on this one, and her editing is even more confusing (POV). She removed B'tselem at one juncture, while missing the fact it was cited earlier and remained in the article. When she realizes this she makes
(b) a further edit, and challenges it [citation needed] as a source for the following statement:

'Some 47,000 Palestinians live in the part of the valley that lies in the West Bank in about twenty permanent communities, most of them reside in the city of Jericho. Thousands of Bedouins also live in temporary communities.'

Well? It’s in that very source. Neither you nor I can presume to understand what on earth she is doing here because she's had two occasions to read it, and evidently ignores the content. For it says:

The eastern strip of the West Bank is 120 kilometers long, and runs from the northern Dead Sea, in the south, to the Green Line south of Beit She'an, in the north. Some 47,000 Palestinians live in this area in about twenty permanent communities, including the city of Jericho . Thousands more live in temporary communities.

U.e.twice she is either removing or challenging a source which contains the very information her tags or edit summaries deny it contains. And it all deals with the Palestinian presence on the land.
A final point on this specific page she edited. By common consent we don't use Americans for Peace Now, (though in fact it is usually very reliable and full of documented details). Gilabrand was in her rights to pounce on that, and remove it. But in doing so in her ce review, she shows the incoherence of her reading of wiki principles. There are even stronger grounds for removing on sight two other references on the pages she was editing, namely
(i) this
(ii)And David Eshel Increasing Importance of the Jordan Rift Buffer
On purely technical grounds (i) takes me at least to a non-site. I had to check and find the proper link for the subject, which is an Israeli Kibbutz Website. In either case bohabayta thoroughly fails the RS criteria Gilabrand used to erase the pro-Palestinian APN
(ii) fails WP:RS on exactly the same grounds because it is a blog, 'Defense Update- News Analysis by David Eshel’ (David Eshel is a retired IDF Lieu.Col. writing a blog for his self-published website Defense Update.
Conclusion? Gilabrand weeds out pro-Palestinian sources on policy grounds that she does not apply to Israeli sources that have even lesser credibility.The same applies to the other three, which I won't detail here because it would only burden the page with the obvious.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Shalom11111. I suggest you desist from persisting in attempts to mess up the facts. This deliberate fudging of what occurred is, frankly, intolerable (and unreadable).
(2)' Removal of the section entitled "Alleged treaty violations" that Gilabrand removed was sourced to an Al Jazeera article describing a movie, not a scholarly or journalistic source.'
(a)It was not a movie. It is a reconstruction of the events surrounding the attempted assassination of the Hamas leader by Mossad. It contains interviews with the actors involved in the planning of the assassination, and in the political crisis it precipitated, al-Shukri, Danny Yatom and others. It was also a 'journalistic source'. See the accompanying page.
(b)The text synthesizing the filmed reconstruction explicitly writes:

King Hussein condemned the assassination attempt in the strongest terms as a violation of Jordanian sovereignty and threatened to void the treaty if Meshaal died.

(c) It contains all of the material elided by Gilabrand as 'off-topic'
(d) The video reconstruction, if you watch it, remarks that 'King Hussein was very upset especially since Israel and Jordan had signed a peace treaty.' 'The peace treaty would be dead if Meshaal died.' 'He told him the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel would be over if Meshaal died."(40:15- 41:53 minutes on the video's timer)
(e) Al Jazeera, Kill Him Silently is RS but, as I noted, far from being the best readily ascetainable. The facts that this constituted a critical diplomatic incident that threatened to rupture the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel is known to every Israeli, even Gilabrand. It is known to every student of the area. Pretending it was not so is playing the faux naif. f she wasn't satisfied with the source, all she needed to do was google, and get what I googled in 10 seconds from an academic source. She didn't. She just deleted it, because, one must presume, she doesn't want facts that spoil an image of national rectitude in I/P articles.
(3)Shalom11111 3
'Nishidani's comment that Benny Morris' account calls Beit Daras a massacre and/or a depopulation is just wrong.'
Nope. Your characterization of what I wrote is completely wrong. The link you provided to Morris does not work. You evidently have not read, or even checked, Morris.
I wrote:'Such details are not ‘anachronistic’ since the depopulation of Beit Daras is not an ‘anachronism’, and did not speak of a 'massacre'.
The operation in which Beit Daras was ethnically cleansed was a result of an objective in the Giv'ati's operational plan to 'create general panic and ..force the Arab inhabitants 'to move'.' 'In the case of Beit Daras, if it resisted, it was to be 'destroyed . .and dealt with in the manner of scorched earth' (which is what happened, the houses were blown up, the wells and granaries sabotaged') Morris 2004 p.256. The inhabitants were driven to despair and exodus (p.258).
One of the sad things in this sorry business is that editors like Shalom11111 and Tritomex, in my personal view, are far more obstructive, less productive and technically incompetent than Gilibrand, who has made genuinely important contributions to wikipedia on Israel-related articles, though she is untrustworthy and often deleterious with regard to the Palestinians. They defend her faults, since they share them: they lack her virtues (as do a number of 'pro-Pal' editors in here). If she is their model, then they could learn buckets loads by imitating her editorial mastery, rather than defending her tendency to fiddle with the facts.Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Just one last one, it does help attenuate the gravity of the charge laid against G with IRISZOOM's diff.(but not much, in my view). It is worth revisiting because it shows editors not talking to each other, and inadequate edit summaries in a revert battle are at fault.
(Shalom11111 4) 4
Gilabrand removed the following statement about Avivim, that it is located

on Palestinian lands of the Shiite village Saliha, abandoned after a massacre carried out by Israeli forces

Shalom11111 writes
['is about moshav Avivim, but instead of being about Avivim it was about Saliha, which has a whole separate article devoted to it. That article refers to a massacre in the lead of the article. Gilabrand attempted to restore the article to what it should be - about Avivim.]
I.e. as per Gilabrand, if an Israeli settlement replaces a village Arabs were evicted from, there is nothing problematical in erasing this foundational fact from the settlement's history.
Actually Gilabrand removed twice the fact that Avivim lies on Palestinian lands of Saliha (also earlier (here with the edit summary referring to Rubenstein’s article: ‘source does not say a word about this’. She at first puts in a [citation needed] request.
Sepsis II restored it with the edit summary
‘restore from whitewashing’
Gilabrand’s reaction was to revert him, insisting this time that the sources are not RS (changing the motivation). It is this second diff that IRISZOOM uses as evidence.
In the closer review both GHW and Shalom11111's challenge demands, it gets a little more complicated.
Gilabrand's first removal of the sources, Rubenstein and Morris, and replacing them with [citation needed] has a reason behind it, which she failed to supply, except when challenged. Instead of removing the two sources she should have tagged them with WP:OR from the outset, and gone to the discussion page to clarify to editors like Sepsis what the problem was.
Danny Rubenstein 'The seven lost villages,' Haaretz, 4 August 2006 says:

Southeast of Malkiya, on the northern highway near present-day Moshav Avivim, stood the village of Sal(i)ha.

So Gilbrand was right and wrong. Rubenstein and Morris are both RS, and she was deeply wrong to dismiss them. She made the wrong edit summary. Danny Rubenstein does mention one half of the facts Gilabrand removed (Avivim is near Saliha), but he does not mention that a massacre took place there which led the villagers to flee to Lebanon. What about Morris, the second source she removed?
Morris does not mention Avivim in connection with Saliha, and therefore on technical grounds Gilabrand would have had a case for asserting that the conjunction of these two sources consituted a violation of WP:OR. Whoever put that sentence in joined Rubenstein's fact about Avivim being built on Saliha, with Morris's facts about the massacre that took place there.
What do you do in these cases? Well, the 'Zionist' editor would demand a austere restrictive reading of WP:OR to keep Avivim clean of the tragic historical backdrop regarding the land on which it was founded. The 'Pro-Pal' editor will press for inclusion, on the grounds that historians, Israeli and Arab scholars, everyone who studies these things happen to know Avivim was constructed on Saliha's farmland (Lebanese descendants of the survivors (the Aoun family for example) of the massacre often go to the border to look down on their former village lands, now covered by Avivim's orchards). The history of the massacre there is extremely well-known in Lebanon (probably to those who conducted the Avivim school bus massacre, but you have to work your butt off to link Saliha village, the Saliha massacre and Avivim, in Western sources, which, overwhelming provide extensive coverage of Arab terrorism against Israel and are generally scrupulously insouciant when it comes to the microhistories of terrorism suffered by Arabs there). We have a systemic bias there, but this is no excuse for WP;OR. Apart from Zero, who added Asher Kaufman,Between Palestine and Lebanon: Seven Shi'i Villages as a Case Study of Boundaries, Identities, and Conflict", Middle East Journal, 60: 685–706 to resolve the problem at least of the Saliha-Avivim imbrication, neither Gilibrand, nor Sepsis took the trouble to cast their net more broadly (and this, in the final analysis, to use a cliché, is the problem with many editors in the I/P zone, who play politics with pages instead of building our historical informational base for each article. Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Since sockpuppetry suspicions have been raised, that should be cleared before any closure because the nature of the closing decision might be affected by it. For what it is worth, Ubie the Guru's remark on#8 is so radically counter-factual and patently silly it doesn't sound like Gilabrand (though the prose style is notably fluent) Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Roger Davies[edit]

I've formed no opinion on the actual editing here but I am concerned about an alleged accommodation to allow "slanted" editing. How does this square with core policy where it states: [NPOV] is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it?  Roger Davies talk 17:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Bukrafil[edit]

So much hot air to wade through here. More than the human brain can process. I just wanted to say that I come across this editor's work from time and time, and can only laud it. Some of the best work on Wikipedia, in my opinion. I looked at some of the complaints above and find it hard to believe how the editing of an excellent contributor is being dragged through the mud. Every article he has touched (that I have seen) has been greatly improved - and usually much expanded - while reducing what was often extremely shrill and blatant propagandistic writing. Some pages here are absolutely shameful, and downright embarrassing for something that calls itself an "encyclopedia." (Personal attack removed) Based on all the squawking and posturing above, if Wikipedia wants to scare off new editors or make others quit in disgust, it is doing a great job.--Bukrafil (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked Bukrafil for 24 hours for casting aspersions against another editor, contrary to my warning below. I have invited him to file an AE request against IRISZOOM once the block expires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Brewcrewer[edit]

Banning Gila would be a biased and wrong decision. Anyone with a lot of time on their hands can comb through the edits of myself and most if not all of the commentators here and selectively put together a report that would similarly conclude that the editor edits in a POV fashion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]

This discussion covers many interesting issues, but it's probably quite a good illustration of a bit of an uncoordinated and incoherent approach to dealing with issues that are fairly commonplace in ARBPIA. I don't normally find myself agreeing with Brewcrewer, but I tend to agree that "Anyone with a lot of time on their hands can comb through the edits of [many editors in ARBPIA] and selectively put together a report that would similarly conclude that the editor edits in a POV fashion". People usually can't be bothered to do that though and AE doesn't have a great record, in my view, when it comes to reviewing large volumes of evidence and acting on it. It's tedious to compile and review it and it's easy to not think about potential sampling issues. 1RR has been quite effective at getting editors to follow the rules, presumably partly because editors know that they will be blocked if they break the rules. It's fairly quick and easy to compile the evidence, file a report and it's processed quickly, usually without complicated discussions. I wonder what would happen if a similar approach were used for other policy/guideline violations in ARBPIA, like NPOV violations, source misrepresentation, biased source sampling, using poor quality sources/non-RS etc e.g. make 3 violations in an article and you are banned from the article or blocked for a week. In many cases, it's not very difficult to identify pretty unambiguous examples of these kind of violations. If people knew that a small number of policy/guideline violations in an article could trigger sanctions, perhaps they would be more careful. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Before this request is closed I hope Gila is given and takes the opportunity to comment, especially with respect to the SPI results. Perhaps WP:FAMILY and the extent to which it has been followed is relevant. If so, that may complicate matters given that this AE report (and the SPI) should really be about one person. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM, yes, I saw that and the use of a hatpin in that response is not unexpected. But it doesn't address the AE report or the SPI findings. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to clear up a point as my view seems to have been misunderstood, I fully support editors being blocked for "POV-editing" as long as it is very clear to editors and admins alike what that means in concrete terms. It needs to be as easy to compile the evidence, report and review the evidence of "POV-editing" as it is for 1RR violations and all editors should know that if they do something n times they will be blocked for a while or article banned. Topic banning long term editors whose editing exhibits some kind of systemic bias in ARBPIA doesn't work, or at least it hasn't in many cases. And since topic bans are essentially unenforceable in practice (or at least only enforceable at a high cost which is usually not paid by those who impose them), wouldn't it be better to make it clear, before applying any sanction, what a person needs to do to return to the topic area and ask people to explicitly confirm that they are actually going to comply with a topic ban and not sock ? Topic bans just don't seem to have been very effective in ARBPIA over the years, there is a widespread myth that systemically biased editing is okay, it will get fixed by magic pixies, and there seems to be too much inertia when it comes to reporting and dealing with it. The discretionary sanctions should make people better editors so that the ARBPIA part of the encyclopedia can improve. It's worked with edit warring via the 1RR restrictions. Perhaps it can work with other kinds of constraints that are easy to understand and enforce. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tritomex[edit]

(Personal attack removed) Gilabrand who is a highly skilled, neutral editor in my opinion will be overpowered by repeated group reporting. I will be honest and I will say what I see. The lack of equal measure for applying sanctions in context of Arab/Israeli conflict will turn away all editors who believe in balanced and neutral editing.--Tritomex (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked Tritomex for 24 hours for casting aspersions against other editors, contrary to my warning below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Bus stop[edit]

Same bullshit, different day. I think Izak, several posts up, said it well when he suggested: this is not Al Jazeera. We are discussing an editor representing an eminently defensible position. Sources support material presented, or even advanced, or even promoted, by editor Gilabrand. (Let me point out that in my humble opinion sources are the lifeblood of Wikipedia.) WP:TALK pages exist for reaching editorial agreement for the wording found in articles. I perceive this as an effort to curtail an editor's full participation in the writing of articles and an effort to curtail that editor's participation in the discussions that lead to the wording that is ultimately decided upon for inclusion in our articles. We diminish the encyclopedia when we remove good editors from the editorial processes. Final wording to be found in articles should be hammered out by editors primarily on article WP:TALK pages with recourse to our several dispute resolution processes if necessary. We should stop pretending that we are discussing a wayward editor or one who does not understand Wikipedia's commitment to the neutral point of view. But editors disagree. This is not the ideal venue for resolving editorial disagreements. Bus stop (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Epeefleche[edit]

Agree with the statement of Sean.Hoyland above, agreeing (as he points out, surprisingly) with Brewcrewer. When editors in this area on both sides of the aisle agree, that's something I take notice of, and think the closer should take notice of as well. Epeefleche (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Question by AgadaUrbanit[edit]

Could administrators reflect of the following question before the closure? I guess the question relates to proper scrutiny and due diligence. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Gilabrand[edit]

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

This complaint is excessively long (2700 words) and contains, at first glance, diffs of edits that appear to reflect content disputes. The arbitration process cannot adress good faith disagreements about content. The request should be cut down to the required size (500 words) and be limited to diffs that clearly show the violation of a Wikipedia conduct rule, such as vandalism, edit-warring, personal attacks or (excessively) tendentious editing. If that is not promptly done, the complaint may be dismissed out of hand. Gilabrand should not feel obliged to respond to all of this overlong complaint.  Sandstein  20:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree the length is excessive, and I'll admit I only skimmed the prose. The diffs, though, give me the distinct impression that Gila has carried on regardless since the last time she was here, despite the advice she was offered by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) (who closed the AE thread), Debresser (talk · contribs), and myself (see the last three sections of this oldid from Gila's talk page. Since then, Gila has been to ANI, where she was cautioned for other conduct that was a continuation of the sorts of issues that led to the AE thread. I think a topic ban is necessary, otherwise Gila will continue to carry on regardless, and the ensuing noticeboard threads alone will be an entirely avoidable time sink. Gila makes constructive and valuable edits to articles about Israel and Israeli culture in general, but her every foray into Palestinian topics ends up with a noticeboard thread, many of which have resulted in sanctions, as evidenced by Gila's extensive block log and repeated entries in the log at WP:ARBPIA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • You may well be right that Gilabrand's editing is problematic in some manner, but I can't come to that conclusion based on the evidence submitted here. Even in shortened form, it is a list of diffs the complainant disagrees with (perhaps legitimately) on content grounds, but with little or no explanation of why they represent misconduct, such as an indication of which Wikipedia conduct rule they allegedly violate. As presented, I'd decline to act on this request.  Sandstein  21:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    I'm also not seeing anything terribly problematic. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • On first impression, most of the first half of the edit diffs seem to be ordinary cleanup edits, ordinary content disputes, or something that the original cited sources should confirm or deny (for example, teenager "raped and killed" vs "raped" - cited to Woods - what does the source actually say?...). However, the list move seems problematic. There are sources for the 2/3 of the list entries that I have spot-checked so far. The sources could be wrong, but the sources say "were assassinated by" not "were allegedly assassinated by". The sources state it as fact. That by itself does not rise to actionable, but probably should be moved back. The last half of the edits I have not yet checked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • None of the edits, in and of themselves, rises to the level of sanctionable misconduct, and—viewed in isolation—it would be very easy to dismiss them as content disputes or other matters that are not relevant to AE. However, what the initiator has not managed to convey is that there is a pattern of edits by Gilabrand, which—taken as a whole—clearly show that she is pushing a pro-Israel, anti-Palestine POV. For example:
  • Removal of material unflattering to Israel:
  • this edit removed material regarding an assassination attempt by Israel (cited to Al Jazeera), but left other alleged treat violations (those allegedly committed against Israel), and indeed strengthened the wording of one such allegation from "Article 7 notwithstanding" to "in violation if Article 7". Most of the material Gilabrand edited is not supported by the source, whereas the assassination attempt (the only part which Gilabrand felt was "off-topic") is.
  • this edit removes sources (including an Israeli NGO) for a sentence which mentions an Israeli settlement in an occupied territory.
  • this removed all mention of controversial actions by Israeli forces in the 1948 war.
  • more removal of material unflattering to Israel: mention of alleged depopulation by Israel is removed; as is the statement that the village is the location of ant-Israel protests. "Israel" is removed from a statement about a controversial action by that country.
  • a "massacre" by Israeli forces becomes an "alleged massacre"; " Israeli soldiers shot dead hundreds of Palestinian refugees and local inhabitants in one of two massacres" becomes "...were shot in the search for people in possession of arms". Prefacing such words with "alleged" is arguably a constructive edit, but by contrast, Gilabrand is only too happy to label Hamas a "terrorist" organisation. Also, "men" become "militants".
  • Similar watering down or removal of unflattering material about Isreali forces here, as well as replacement of "refugee" with "villager".
  • Removal of mention of an alleged murder by Israeli forces, addition of "reportedly" to discredit unflattering claims about Israel, all under the edit summary "ce for poor English" for an edit that was clearly going to be controversial
  • removal of statement that Palestinians had lost their homes as a result of Israeli operations; removal of mention of Israeli blockade.
  • Removal or derogation of mention of Palestine:
  • That's as much analysis as I have time for at present, but I think it clearly shows a pattern of removing or diminishing mentions of Palestine (which is, at best, controversial) and removing or diluting material that is unflattering to Israel, particularly alleged misconduct by Israeli forces or alleged negative repercussions of Israeli actions or policy, such as with regard to occupied territories. Note also Gilabrand's block log, which is full of AE blocks for the same conduct, showing that this is clearly a long-term pattern. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hm, discussions about the neutrality of individual edits are a content issue, but a pattern of editing Wikipedia only to make articles read more favorably towards one side of the conflict violates WP:NPOV as a conduct rule. If you conclude, based on your review, that this is the case here, which I can well imagine, then a topic ban would be appropriate.  Sandstein  09:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
That is indeed my conclusion, and I think an indefinite topic ban is necessary, but I'd like to leave it for another day or two to see what others have to say and to see if any other uninvolved admins want to weigh in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ubie the guru:, I note that you dispute my interpretation of individual edits, but the point I'm making is that the pattern in Gila's edits is problematic. I'll happily listen to arguments that I'm wrong, but just re-hashing individual diffs isn't going to do it. Also, you're remarkably familair with Wikipedia for someone with four edits to their name; please log into your main account. @Greyshark09:, @IZAK:, the conduct of Gila's opponents doe not excuse her own; if you want to discuss the conduct of other editors, please file a separate request against name individuals; I will happily evaluate it with the same open mind as I have this request, and I will personally sanction anyone whose misconduct is brought to my attention, but sweeping assertions against a large group of editors are not relevant to the request against Gilabrand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The conduct of everyone sets a background level of tolerance on a given subject matter. When does innocent exiting become slanted to one side, when does a slant become editing to advance a particular POC, when does POV editing become disruptive.
We previously decided that a slant absent other disruption was OK for Gilabrand. Or, tolerable to the community. There was a specific name-calling claim after that which was ambiguous but only burned up AGF margin in my mind. My question - has anyone posted a diff demonstrating worse behavior since the prior decision than what we decided was suboptimal but tolerable?
I am not convinced. I am convincable, but not so far.
There is a line out there, but I don't want content disputes in troubled areas by sides picking off editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Everybody: Please keep your comments concise, on-topic, and restricted to whether or not Gilabrand's conduct is acceptable. Again, if you want the conduct of others examined, please file a separate request against named editors, providing diffs. The next person who posts assertions without providing evidence will be blocked.
  • @Ubie the guru: unless you log into your main account, I will block you; I, for one, will not have experienced editors evading scrutiny (or indeed evading sanctions) by pretending to be new editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to thank Nishidani for the much better analysis with context.
Regarding my comments above and Nishidani's interpretations, I think you misunderstood. Slant is not "editing to advocate a side only". Slant would be, editing in proper Wikipedia form and intent, but say 2/3 of the tough calls on copyediting, reliability of sources, etc. coming out on one side rather than another. Much of what was presented appeared to be slant, but you have rightly called out some things that go beyond that once you explain the context better.
Regarding picking off editors in contentious areas, some people in this area HAVE clearly been trying to do that, directly or indirectly. That does not mean you are or were. The better context you specifically provided here was more illuminating than others' analysis of diffs. I am particularly curious as to how often Gilabrand is deleting reliable sources, particularly in the context of an edit whose edit summary or main thrust is something else (i.e., where it might be credibly felt to be an attempt to hide removing the source). A careful campaign to remove RS which are critical of Israel would be disruptive. If Gilabrand has done that once every two or three months, that might just be slant again, but if it's multiple times a month AGF fails.
Regarding the bigger issue, with the idea that "slant" let Gilabrand feel entitled to fight a content disupte with dirty edits under careful cover of the prior "slant" decision here, we seem to have twelveish edits over roughly 2 months time. The prior stuff (prior to the earlier AE case where the slant was discussed) seemed to be more active than that. I am not yet seeing that activity level or type of edits has trended up. If that were happening, that would be disruptive. Can you give us a better idea of rate?
I am glad you did decide to post here; this was much better data to review and understand than what's come earlier. I am (still) not yet convinced, but you are providing a much more convincing case, and I look forwards to your response and elaboration on the RS removals and the timing/rate question. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
George, what you seem to be saying——and please, please correct me if I've misread——is that it's okay to push a POV as long as it's done politely, or that it would only be disruptive if it were (by some arbitrary definition) frequent enough. That's madness; that's absolute, sheer madness. POV-pushing is inherently disruptive in and of itself, regardless of how it's done or how often it's done. And as I've said above (that I have to explain this to an administrator is deeply disturbing), one person is not immune from sanctions just because their opponents have also engaged in misconduct; I have repeatedly invited editors to make a complaint about the filer or any other named editor, and promised to evaluate such and impose sanctions if the allegations have merit, but they have so far declined. Indeed, interestingly, after I pointed out the obvious sock-puppetry above and raised the prospect of blocks for further unsupported allegations, an IP came to harass me on my talk page. But I'm sure that's just a remarkable coincidence.

Now, the initiator has presented a series of diffs of arguably problematic edits (though he didn't manage to join the dots) which, when subjected to analysis by Nishidani (in much more detail than I had time for) and I, clearly show that Gila is persistently and habitually:

  • Removes material which is unflattering to Israel; for example removing or diluting material on alleged massacres, removing mentions of negative consequences of Israeli military operations, removal of mentions of Israeli blockades, removal of material about refugees allegedly caused by Israeli actions, etc, etc,
  • Diminishes or demonises Palestin(e|ians) by removing the term "Palestine", adding the label "terrorist", implying that Hamas rather than the IDF is responsible for negative consequences of Israeli operations (eg halting of constructions work at a refugee camp),
  • Uses extremely misleading edit summaries (commonly "ce") to obfuscate these actions
That Gila does not get involved in some of the edit-warring and dirty tricks that other editors have been known to use in the topic area is commendable, but pushing a POV is not somehow more acceptable because it's done politely. Further, Gila has an extensive track record of this:
  • She has no fewer than eleven blocks in her log, all for exactly the same sort of conduct, all related to ARBPIA
  • Of those, several have been modified to remove talk page or email access due to further abuse while blocked,
  • Several of those blocks were lengthy, and one was changed to indefinite for "Persistent evasion of AE sanctions and continued disingenuous response" (later modified by ArbCom after an appeal),
  • She was subject to a three-month topic ban from I/P articles in 2010 (repeated violations of which led to several of the aforementioned blocks),
  • She was then subject to a 1RR restriction (before the blanket 1RR for the topic area was introduced) and mandated to justify all reverts on the talk page (both were repeatedly violated, for which she was blocked),
  • She was subject to an interaction ban with Nableezy (talk · contribs).
This is an extremely long-term pattern (for reference: block log, ARBPIA log) of tendentious POV-pushing and a total refusal to adhere to the standards expected of encyclopaedia editors. An indefinite topic ban is needed here——the same sanction that would be handed down to a less established or less subtle editor with a much shorter record. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
HJmitchell, we have been here before many times, the most recent only three months ago in December [78].
In general; Gilabrand's behavior has certainly been problematic for years. The block and sanction logs and edit histories speak for themselves. However, unlike nearly all problem editors in highly contentious areas, Gilabrand has actively reformed at least a minimal demanded amount after each sanction, enough that appeals have consistently worked or that followup sanctions have not been needed for the exact same behavior in general. That does not mean that some final line has not been crossed, but I have two criticisms of the process here. One, without a doubt, a very large number of perfectly reasonable content dispute decisions have been portrayed in hyperbolic terms on admin and AE complaints re Gilabrand, a vast majority of which did not hold up as nearly as bad as they were claimed. Over and over again, we get cascades of complaints which are at least mostly poorly founded. Two, without a doubt, the line has been consistently shifting, with the conduct standards Gilabrand (and everyone else) are expected to adhere to becoming more restrictive over time. One can view this as Gilabrand gaming the system, pushing up to or just past the current limit until they are checked up by a sanction, or as them operating in a grey area until it resolves against their interests and then backing down some.
Additionally, of course they are editing with a Point of View. I have yet to find a human being who is educated and interested in the Middle East who didn't form a strong opinion on it. We do not expect editors to edit from a stance of imagined pure neutrality; we expect them to edit to standards, not fight external battles here, not seek to undermine consensus or process, etc. The line between having a POV and seeking to have it fairly represented in a reasonable, neutral POV article and between pushing that POV is not bright and sharp, and has not proven constant over time here on Wikipedia in general.
When is "I have an opinion but edit neutrally" sliding into "I have an opinion and it slants my perception of where neutral is", which slides into "I have an opinion and want to edit neutrally but also slightly promote my cause, in a fair and balanced manner", to "I want to promote my cause, but need to stay neutral and fair", to "I want to promote my cause, but other people will criticize me if I am not neutral, so I need to stay within the lines".
Beyond those, one finds more activist behavior. For the record, my opinion is that Gilabrand has at times in a widespread pattern, and with specific examples more recently, been past those descriptions into more activist behavior. The question is, how many times and how badly since December.
Until Nishidani posted, my opinion was that Gilabrand was likely " I need to stay within the lines" but was failing at times, in an excusable manner as they were not edit warring to defend transgressions and were alert to criticism of specific transgressions. Now, the better documented examples from Nishidani call into question whether it's potentially more clearly over the line into pushing or whether it's carefully covering up abusive behavior.
As I said in the December discussions, if we decide that we must absolutely draw the line against any slanted editing in PIA articles, and then applied that fairly and universally, there would be nearly no editors left who weren't topic-banned. If Gila is actually worse, due to lack of ability to conform, that is one problem. If they are actually worse, due to active attempt to covertly subvert the encyclopedia, that's a worse problem. If they are not actually worse than a substantiative number of other editors, but are a lightning rod due to high visibility and history, that's an even worse problem in a sense, because someone will come back in and insist we fairly apply the newly drawn line to everyone else, and then we're left with nobody not topic-banned.
It is extremely difficult to differentiate these cases. Nishidani has given enough context and effort to do so for a number of specifics; the other analysies largely have not to my satisfaction. My concern regarding your analysis is that you're possibly in the lightning-rod category, and missing the bigger picture of drawing a new line we'd then have to enforce on everyone else in a consistent manner. I am now halfway between lightning rod and worse because can't conform; the examples don't quite support a strong case on covertly subverting, though you can start to see a picture there and AGF is not limitless.
So, here's my fear. Irrespective of Gilabrand's specifics, if we draw a new line where people seem to want to, my read is that almost everyone (excepting Nishidani) who filed complaints this time gets topic banned when we come around to enforcing that line in a fair and even manner. And I think that ends up badly for the encyclopedia.
Convince me that my fear is wrong, and that it's really Gilabrand behaving badly by themselves, or even worse, covertly trying to subvert, in any statistically meaningful manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
@Georgewilliamherbert: that comment is excessively long and I recommend you seriously shorten it for exactly the same reasons people submitting requests here are told to be concise. On the actual merits of the request, there seems to be ample evidence submitted that Gilabrand has been persistently unable to edit neutrally with regards Palestine and the Israel/Palestine conflict. Whether other editors have been as bad or worse is irrelevant here, as is whether Gilabrand has been provoked. If you are unable to edit neutrally in a given area you should not be editing in that topic area full stop. If you are not able to resist being provoked into editing non-neutrally then you shouldn't be putting yourself in a position to be provoked. If you cannot do either (or both) on your own then it is the job of the community to do it for you. So I am inclined to recommend Gilabrand be topic banned with regards to Palestine and the Israel/Palestine conflict.
This is emphatically not an endorsement of other editors behaving badly, either in their editing behaviour or in their interpersonal behaviour. I strongly encourage anyone who has evidence of anyone misbehaving in this area, or any other area of the encyclopaedia subject to arbitration sanctions, to bring that evidence to this forum for evaluation and, if appropriate, sanction. We do not improve the encyclopaedia by appeasement. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Again - Re If you are unable to edit neutrally in a given area you should not be editing in that topic area full stop. -
The idea that we can draw a new behavioral line (differently than prior ones) and not have - and consider - secondary consequences of that is ludicrous.
If we draw that particular line in the sand, nearly everyone editing the topic area will be gone. We have, for whatever reason, allowed slanted editors who are largely behaving to keep being who they are, so that we didn't have to ban everyone. Show me the new line you want, and that you understand the consequences of having that evenly enforced, and that you are willing to accept those. I am not at all comfortable with the consequences I think come from the line you want drawn. If you think AE is controversial now, try imagining the blowback from us topic banning everyone from PIA. People *will* find equivalent examples of slanted behavior for the vast, vast majority of other participants in PIA, once they have motivation to do so. Last time this came up I did so I was able to find equivalent "bannable material" on nearly every topic-active commenter in about a day. And I was only doing it out of curiosity, not because I'm actually on one side or the other and trying to get the other side nuked out of the discussions.
This is appeasement in one way only - we have come down to the point where the distinctions involved are not purely behavioral; they become communal, and political within the community as a whole.
I am entirely happy with exploring Gilabrand's behavior on the edge in some more depth - Nishidani's work was a good chunk of that - and seeing if a less all-encompassing line was clearly crossed or not. In which case, it's not everybody, it's just Gilabrand who's topic banned. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
@Georgewilliamherbert: that's a huge post. How can we meaningfully ask those who comment in the sections above to keep their posts concise when we're posting 5500-character essays?
The issue is not that just a few of Gila's edits to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict are problematic; if it were, I could agree that we could let it slide provided there was no other disruption. But from what I see here, and what I've seen at the previous AE threads, is that Gila makes many constructive edits to articles concerned with Israel, Israeli and Jewish culture, etc, but when she occasionally makes edits concerning Palestine or the Arab-Israeli conflict, they seem to be almost always problematic. It is unreasonable to suggest that this can be dismissed as a series of "content disputes". Sure, some of them are judgement calls (though Gila's judgements seem to almost always come down in favour of Israel), but the combined effect of the edits is clearly to push a pro-Israel POV, even at the expense of reliably sourced material which doesn't fit Gila's preferred narrative.
With regards to "slant", of course we all have biases, and we're unlikely to edit about topics that we have no interest in. However, it seems reasonable to suggest that we should take steps to mitigate the effects of such biases, especially after concerns have been raised, or withdraw from the topic area if we're unable to write in a way that is compliant with policy—not just carry on, regardless of the complaints, and regardless of words of caution from admins and experienced editors, as Gila has.
Finally, let's think about the stakes here—this isn't Russian Roulette. I'm not advocating for a permanent site ban, a lengthy block, some cumbersome set of restrictions, or even a topic ban from Israel-related articles that don't relate to Palestine. I'm recommending a topic ban from articles relating to Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict, from which I would explicitly exempt Gila's many constructive edits to Israeli topics not relating to the conflict. That removes the problem and allows Gila to continue editing in areas where her edits do not cause problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
After reading through this (and yes, I read it all) I'd agree with you that an I/P ban would be best. Also, as stated above, a general warning that we don't make decisions based on word count would be good too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Nishidani's evidence is enough to convince me that Gilabrand has edited systematically in a manner that is not compliant with WP:NPOV, and that this warrants a topic ban, considering Gilabrand's prior record. Georgewilliamherbert's argument that we might as well ban a lot of other editors in the topic area is valid, but does not invalidate the sanction in this case. The way this sanctions system works is that we can only look at individual cases on their individual merits. The broader picture, if any, is not our concern, but ArbCom's. If our sanctions (or lack thereof) become in some way problematic in their aggregate, then anyone may seize ArbCom of a request for arbitration to take whatever remedial action they deem necessary.  Sandstein  17:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
─────────────────────────I would note that Brewcrewer and Sean Hoyland both have commented, and seem to share my concerns about selective evidence, etc. So it's not just me...
I am becoming more convinced by the totality of Nishidani's digging, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Then you should be submitting an AE request about Nishidani. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Chris, I think George means that he is becoming more convinced by the evidence presented by Nishidani (against Gilabrand), not that he suspects misconduct on Nishidani's part.
George, four admins (The Blade of the Northern Lights, Thryduulf, Sandstein, and me) believe that a topic ban is in order, Gilabrand's conduct has (as a matter of record) been problematic for years, and even you are "becoming more convinced" that there is a pattern of misconduct here. Again, I'm only advocating for a relatively narrow topic ban (Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict, not even all ARBPIA articles), which would not affect the majority Gilabrand's edits, so the stakes are quite low. I don't doubt the sincerity of your concerns, and I respect you for speaking your mind and challenging what you see as a potential miscarriage of 'justice' (so to speak), but no admin has thus far agreed with your position. Would you agree it's time to close this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

My first thoughts reading the SPI report are that the block should be at least 6 months (maybe 12), and that any return to editing should be accompanied by the topic ban discussed above and an absolute 1 account restriction. I want to hear the thoughts of other admins, particularly George and Harry, first though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  • In view of the SPI result, I definitely agree that Gilabrand should be topic-banned. I'm not sure that we may or should additionally impose a one-account-restriction or a one-year (concurrent) AE block, as our enforcement scope is limited by the area of conflict, and the topic ban already covers all of it. But I'm not opposed to it if an admin decides to takes such measures.  Sandstein  15:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-facto comment - Six-account sockpuppetry, including some evident good hand-bad hand behavior, exceeds any assumptions of good faith, regarding editing or other behavior. The behavior I was focused on required AGF; lacking that, the ARBPIA sanctions are entirely appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheShadowCrow[edit]

Appeal declined. TheShadowCrow may appeal again to WP:AE after 6 months as per his existing restrictions on appeals of his bans--Cailil talk 11:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Topic ban from the subject of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, and any others stemming from it.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
CT Cooper (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by TheShadowCrow[edit]

I would like to appeal an indefinite AA2 ban and all other Admin-custom bans that resulted from it, such as Sandstein's ban that I can only appeal once every six months. This ban has existed for about a year and a half now and I think it's time to finally take it off. I haven't edited an article specifically about AA conflicts since October 2012 following an edit war on an AA page, which I apologize for, and I have not had any conflict of any kind for what will be 7 months next week. But a lot of recent issue with it is if I should have a sports exemption or not (which I was given by original imposer CT Cooper but got taken away on a whim), so I don't think it's serving an original purpose anymore. I'd say there has definitely been enough time to give me another chance. In the meantime I have contributed a lot on the article Joel Osteen in particular and resolved a lot of change issues peacefully with another editor on the talk page, so I think this proves I can edit in a constructive manner and should have the opportunity to for AA2 articles again. I promise I will continue to resolve edit issues on the talk page and not in edit conflicts or anything in the future. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Sandstein So basically you want to give a technical definite ban for no reason? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
User:EdJohnston After Qwyrxian said that I explained things on his talk page and he said I don't know about the other times this has happened to, so I can't comment on them, so he is admittably saying he can't judge if I can edit Wikipedia or not. He also said a good portion of what you changed on Joel Osteen was for the positive, so it seems like you can be a good contributor. So no, it is a lie to say I was "in trouble" because nothing happened. There was a misunderstanding and it was taken to the talk page and resolved. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Here --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:CT Cooper User:EdJohnston User:Penwhale I have done everything I was asked to. I waited a long period of time, I contributed to other articles, and I demonstrated the ability to discuss on talk pages with other editors, but in the end it's still not enough to remove a long since redundant ban, and it's more obvious than it was 6 months ago that majority of the admins here plan to routinely ignore reason every 6 months until I give up. I already forced myself to contribute with others to an article I didn't care about to impress them and they completely ignore it.

The result mentions If you would voluntarily set some conditions if the topic-ban is removed then it may be easier to convince me. Can I at least have my sport exemption back then? There is at least one other editor banned from AA2 with it. Would it be fair if I go back to the old rules and if all is well after 6 months discuss removing the entire ban again? I have not been involved with anything Armenia-Azerbaijan related in almost two years. Please let me have the opportunity to prove myself in noncontroversial articles I care about. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Penwhale You are misinterpreting me. I was just informing you of Sandstein's gag rule because you are the only Admin here who doesn't know the background of my ban. And I specifically told User:Cailil, Since you seemed to be open minded to me editing again on AA2 articles. That's not saying "approve the appeal", it's saying "approve the appeal if you think it should be approved". So how about unstriking your statement and going back to it?
NE Ent is right. I'm being judged unfairly, strictly and biasedly. There is no rule that says how many edits I need to make. I was told to edit other articles and work with other editors. So I did. No one else here is getting this much demanded of them. Why not just give me an indefinite block if you are going to stretch the rules to give me a technical one? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Cailil Sorry I was gone a few days, but please don't close this when me and Cooper are in the middle of a discussion. I've had appeals where I've waited weeks for a response.
User:CT Cooper I respect the Admin point-of-view, but I don't think that is a possible scenario you just described. In the possibility of me causing trouble in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area, well, I haven't in two years. And the amount of edits since that time can't easily be counted. People here like to bring up six months and 70 edits, but they are forgetting this is an Armenia-Azerbaijan ban appeal, not Sandstein's special ban appeal which is rooted from the AA one. I don't mean to cry conspiracy, but I think it's pretty obvious Ed and Sand, and maybe others, want to skip the fair trial part. I have been extremely tolerant and patient of how things are. Most banned/blocked editors in my place would have given up over a year ago. The fact I'm still here and how badly I want to edit freely again should say a lot about how much you can trust me.
In the case of the Osteen article, I think you are over exaggerating things. I didn't break any rules, such as the three revert rule. I'm not happy it got off to a rocky start, but seeing as how another editor completely reverted my changes, including putting a dead link back that I replaced which makes me wonder how closely he read them, and didn't leave any intelligible objections thus making talk page use difficult, I wasn't given an easy position. That's why a warning was necessary, but not for me, and it cannot be said the other editor "choose only to respond to the substance". I wanted to edit open-mindedly and the situation didn't, but edit disagreements are natural, and one undo doesn't count as edit warring. It is frustrating to put a lot of time into an article to set a good example only for one small bad part to be remembered.
Armenia-Azerbaijan articles are my main focus, but I do have other interests. I'd estimate about 30% of my edits are focused on the sport of boxing and not Armenia at all. And I don't see what is wrong about having a goal topic. I mean there are a lot of people who just edit about one thing. Look at any of those users with edits focused on the events in Ukraine. They are literal activists, but there is no penalty against them. You can read my first paragraph in this response if you think I'm dodging anything. If this had to do exclusively with a topic I haven't edited in two years, I'd say my case is pretty good. I want to edit Armenian articles because they were pretty underdeveloped until the past few years. Maybe you would understand if the Edward I article was the same size as Gagik I. As you probably know, most of my edits will be centered around sports. The non-controversial kind. After I finish what I want to edit articles about Armenian history. At the moment I have my eyes set on middle ages articles (before Azerbaijan existed fyi), then eventually I want to focus on people who are important with Armenia today. Some may result in edit issues, and if they do I will do my best to settle things on the talk and I won't edit ware. I should know a lot better by now than to expect any mercy, so of course I'll be careful with my every edit.
I understand if you don't want me to edit the historical articles now. And I appreciate you want to give me a chance to prove myself with goals. So how about this: I officially get a sports exemption to edit pages related to Armenia involving sports that have no political controversy, and if I can contribute to them well and in the conditions you set, we can discuss removing the entire AA ban in a couple months. Does that sound like a reasonable idea? And thanks for your understanding on the canvassing thing. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Cailil, the page says appeals will be closed Once the issue is resolved. You are supporting your own conspiracy claims by being is eager to silence me.
User:CT Cooper Are you freaking kidding me? The reason I haven't edited AA articles is because I have abided to the restrictions I was given. That is the whole point of this review, so that my rule following can be recognized and given another chance for good behavior, but instead admins are turning the situation inside out. A better analogy would be a bank robber serving his sentence, and then the judge says "Well, the only reason you haven't caused any crime is because you were in jail, so go back until you show you can really prove you won't cause any more" (the loophole is he can't). This is exactly what my situation is, and what your 'reason' is. Please rethink what unreasonable logic you just used. To quote what you just said, I do count multiple reverts by you in the history, so you were edit warring, you are saying using undo is the same as an edit war. Reverting is not against the rules! Stop creating rules that benefit you!
Penwhale has opted to make some changes. And you admitted yourself 6 months is too long. What happened to that? Were you lying? Maybe you aren't aware, but Ed and Sandstein have actually given a sport exemption to editors banned from AA2. It is not unthinkable. They both gave it to a user with a picture showing Azerbaijan covering over Armenia on their user page even though he has violated the ban several times. You want me to get at least one article to a good status. And I can. Articles like Levon Aronian or Henrikh Mkhitaryan, I have both the sources and the passion to make them good articles. And neither of them contain any political controversy, nor has there been any edit warring on them. In fact I've already contributed a lot to the Mkhitaryan one, without issue. So why not give me the same privileges others are being given? Do you realize why it took admins a year and a half to notice I was editing Armenian sport articles even though your exemption wasn't serious? Because there was no conflict with other editors. I have already proved I can edit them peacefully. The only problem is I am not aloud to edit them peacefully. You promised me specific goals. If you go back on that, then you are pretty much forsaking me to a longer technical indef block for another year. I was "being friendly" to you because I knew you were a reasonable Admin, and so far you are the only past admin I have talked to who has even entertained the possible idea of this ban ever ending. Will you continue to be? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Cailil The admin I listed as the imposer said Cooper was the imposer. Stop making a crime out of everything. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
User:CT Cooper Lets think back to when we first met. I can't link the edits because you erased them, but I'm sure you remember. Do you remember the kinds of edits I was making? Do you really think I'm going to make more like those any more? It's very ironic that you agree with that analogy, because holding someone after they are supposed to have been released is a very controversial issue. Look at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp for example. Delaying a sentence to create an unofficial life sentence is plain corruption.
But I'm wasting my breath (or taps) because as I've already said, if you won't remove the ban, I'm screwed. But you did say one thing I want to remind you of. I accept six months is a long time, so I would support allowing another review in three months if we can agree on specific goals. This is the exact opposite of putting me on the 'right path' for six months later. You do realize Sandstein put this additional ban here to either get to indef block me for no reason or silence me for so long it is technically an indef block, right? In fact, even the mention of the ban is forbidden, so we won't be able to "hash this out" on any talk pages. There is no reason why this ban should still exist. I can accept not getting to edit AA pages now. I've been extremely tolerant and patient toward these admin games. But another half year might be my limit. The way I see it I've already done the time and now just have to do the edits on more non-AA articles, which I'm willing to do. But if I'm going to wait longer, I at least deserve reason to believe this ban can be removed, and having appeal rights taken away is not very promising. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
User:CT Cooper There is a community consensus. Both you and Penwhale are in favor of it and all the other admins have claimed reasons why I shouldn't be able to edit, not appeal. Your talk page is not open to me. You don't seem to realize I'm under a gag rule. I have included Sandy's add-on ban in my appeal and have gotten two people in favor of it and none against it. In fact Ed has called you the authority behind the ban. I won't ask for anything else, but there is no reason from any perspective why this can't be removed. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

  • From someone like TheShadowCrow who has been in so much trouble in the past we would expect a very persuasive appeal. For instance a clear change of heart. I'm uninvolved for purpose of this appeal since I didn't issue the sanction, though I have interacted with him in the past as an admin. (His current topic ban was issued by User:CT Cooper in 2012). The record suggests that he needs to be given very clear sanctions, since he misunderstood the sports exception and the vandalism exception. As recently as November 2013 TheShadowCrow was in trouble for edit warring at Joel Osteen. User:Qwyrxian stated, "It really seems to me that you are simply unable to adjust to the sort of collaborative processes needed to work on a wiki." This is not a good omen for letting him resume unrestricted editing on AA topics. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

I'm reproducing the entries in the WP:ARBAA2 log that pertain to TheShadowCrow:

  • TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) banned from all articles and discussions covered under ARBAA2 per this AE thread. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) blocked for just over six days for violation of the ARBAA2 topic ban. CT Cooper · talk 19:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) blocked for one month for violating the topic ban again by editing the Mount Ararat article where there was no obvious vandalism. Add to that edit-warring and incivility towards other users (accusation of racism). De728631 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles and discussions covered under ARBAA2 indefinitely per this notification. This is an extension of the previous 6 month topic ban above. CT Cooper · talk 11:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    • TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs)'s topic ban was modified by User:CT Cooper on September 2, 2012, in the following manner: "Sports men and women and other general sports articles which happen to be based in Armenia, as long as it does not concern any political or cultural controversy, should be okay although you should still exercise caution."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
      • The above amendment is rescinded as of the 25 July 2013 on grounds that the statement was intended to be a clarification to the topic ban, not an amendment, but it has become apparent that it was the latter in practice and furthermore, it is clear that TheShadowCrow is having difficulties following the topic ban, so it should remain as simple as possible. CT Cooper · talk 20:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Due to misuse, the de facto exemption to reverting obvious vandalism in the ARBAA2 area no longer applies to the restrictions imposed on TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs). TheShadowCrow may notify an active administrator if he notices obvious vandalism which hasn't been immediately reverted. "Obvious vandalism" is defined as vandalism of which no knowledge or commentary of the article topic is required to identify. Any vandalism reports which raise issue with the encyclopedic content of an ARBAA2 article will be in violation of the restrictions. Notification CT Cooper · talk 10:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) is blocked for 3 months for creating a sock-puppet account to evade ARBAA2 editing restrictions. CT Cooper · talk 13:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In view of this and TheShadowCrow's very long block log, I don't anticipate anything but more trouble if any sanctions are lifted, and would decline the appeal. (To the extent it matters, I consider myself uninvolved for the purposes of this appeal, except to the extent that TheShadowCrow also appeals my admin actions, which, it appears from the above, consist only of limiting the frequency of appeals against the other sanctions.)  Sandstein  17:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Bbb23[edit]

I no longer know whether I'm involved when it comes to TSC, so I'll err on the side of caution and post here. TSC's appeal should be rejected. He has never done anything to demonstrate that he is capable of editing responsibly since being banned. Over and over he asks for the ban to be lifted, promising to be better, but expecting others to take him at his word despite being told repeatedly that he must first edit outside of his topic area in a collaborative and constructive fashion. Nor does he respond well to such rejections, engaging in wikilawyering and unfounded accusations against those who do not agree with him. If he expended even half of the energy he spends on attempting to have the ban lifted on improving the project, he might find things would go better. This is a pretty straightforward case.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll add more "concrete" data, although some has already been provided. From September 2013 until now, TSC has edited six articles. They have edited two article talk pages. The majority of his edits have been to Joel Osteen, both the article and the talk page. He seemed to be combative in November of last year but has edited more constructively (that's based on a cursory inspection) this year.

It's an improvement, I think, over previous behavior, but not a particularly compelling record for six months. I understand if real life interferes with his ability to edit, but then it shouldn't matter that much to him if he can't edit the articles he wants to edit because he doesn't have that much time here anyway. Unfortunately, the burden is on him to demonstrate convincingly that the ban should be lifted.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by CT Cooper[edit]

I'm commenting here due to my previous extended involvement with TSC, though since July 2013 other admins have taken over the task of supervising TSC due to myself being inactive on Wikipedia. However, I have still kept a general eye on what has been going on and TSC has sometimes contacted me on my talk page to express frustration with the sanctions. I have advised TSC in the past that the best way to get the sanctions lifted was to prove himself in other areas, which hasn't happened, though I acknowledge that TSC has been busy with college. Despite the many bumps in the road I do think TSC has become a more constructive editor and understands better why some of his past behaviour was unacceptable – particularly when compared to when the sanctions were first imposed in July 2012. However, there are still issues which have already been highlighted by other users here, particularly when it comes to collaborating with other editors in contentious areas. It is clear that TSC has strong views on issues relating to Armenia-Azerbaijan and I think he should examine whether it would ever be appropriate for him to edit in those topic areas extensively, regardless of whether or not he is allowed to do so.

My overall view at this time is that I cannot say confidentially that if the sanctions were lifted, there wouldn't be problems, so I cannot recommend that they be lifted at this time. However, I remain open minded to narrowing them if the case can be made for that. CT Cooper · talk 16:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@TheShadowCrow: Well lets look at this from an admin point-of-view shall we, if myself or other admins recommend the sanctions are lifted, and then you cause a huge amount of trouble in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area, then said admins will at best get a heavy trout slapping, at worst a heavy whale slapping. This is as much about building trust than anything else, and continuing to push this idea that there is a great admin conspiracy against you, particularly when I have told you not to do so, does not help matters. Nor does emotional rhetoric about how we should give you an indefinite block. If you are unhappy about how things are, you are ultimately free to leave the project, or you can stay and edit any topic area except Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. These sanctions are hardly a terrible burden to bear.

Yes you were told to go and edit other article areas, and yes you have done so, however the Joel Osteen case is not exactly a gleaming example – your behaviour there was better than it has been before, but it was hardly commendable. You did listen to the warming that was given, but why was such a warning necessary in the first place? The concept that we discuss things on the talk page rather than engage edit warring should be one of the first things a new editor learns. You should have known better. It also appears you still don't know what vandalism is, despite having been told multiple times. Furthermore, while the conversation on the talk page was ultimately productive, some remarks you made, particularly your opening comment, were unhelpfully antagonistic in places – it was fortunate that other editors choose only to respond to the substance.

I notice you seem to very desperate for these sanctions to be lifted and your comments indicate you have few other interests. That in itself, worries me. My instinct tells me that you will behave differently when editing Armenia-Azerbaijan articles in which you are interested in and have strong views over, against those you don't care much about at all. I also notice that whenever I get onto whether it is appropriate for you to edit Armenia-Azerbaijan article, you dodge the issue. I have to ask myself why that is? Are your motives here that of an activist or that of an encyclopediaist? We could with me more of the latter, not of the former. Perhaps it would be helpful if you shared with us why you are so keen for these sanctions to be lifted. What articles do you want to edit and what improvements do you want to make?

You asked for specific goals; I think that's a good idea. As a start I would like you see you substantially improve at least one article with some contentious content, by moving it up at least one grade on the assessment scale and resolving any disagreements on the talk page, while not receiving any justifiable complaints of misconduct from other editors. The more articles you cover, the more improvements you make, and less complaints you receive, the more likely the sanctions will be lifted. I accept six months is a long time, so I would support allowing another review in three months if we can agree on specific goals. CT Cooper · talk 23:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

On the canvassing issue, I was also contacted about this appeal by The Shadow Crow. However, the use of my username meant I had already been alerted to this discussion via the notifications system, and I was already planning to comment either today or tomorrow. On this comment, I can see that it wasn't neutral but I don't see it as any more than a technical breach of WP:CANVASS, since he was after all, contacting an admin that blocked him. It most certainly isn't grounds, on its own, to dismiss the appeal and to make TheShadowCrow wait another six months – a mild warning on WP:CANVASS will be sufficient. CT Cooper · talk 23:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cailil: I did say it was canvassing, but I also said that dismissing the appeal purely on those grounds in general wasn't a good idea; a warning was sufficient, and I stand by that. I'm familiar with TSC's history and I did indeed have to let other admins take over supervising TSC as I was no longer able to on my own for reasons which I'm not getting into here, but I will make clear that were completely unrelated to anything that happened with TSC. Even before I handed things over, I had already decided that I wasn't going to lift the ban unilaterally due to the situation's complexity and the fact that I wasn't the original ban imposer – that being The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs). I have at no point in this discussion deviated from that position.

I believe my positions on this issue has been fair, and have and will express my opinions on this subject independent of anyone else, including TSC and yourself. With the greatest of respect, I am not stupid and I know what TSC was trying to do when he was suddenly friendly to me as soon as other admins took over supervising the sanctions. However, if we're only going to have an appeal every six months, then I believe it should be done properly and it should end when it's ready to end, not before.

I've been through it already, but since this issue seems to be lingering, the "sports exception" was just me attempting to clarify my interpretation of the ban, which I still believe was reasonable. However, at least a plurality of admins at the time interpreted the ban to have a wider scope than I had intended, and that's when the problems really started, as different admins were on different wavelengths. My mistake was not to make absolutely clear what I thought was imposing on TSC when I did so. I was also arguably wrong not to stand-up for my own positions and actions on the issue, but at the time I simply wasn't in a state to have a big argument over it, nor did I think this would help TSC become a productive editor.

I stand by my recommendation for TSC to be given general goals on how to get the sanctions lifted. Simply telling him every six months "it's not good enough" isn't fair, as NE Ent has rightly pointed out. I don't think issues around him thinking his entitled to have the ban lifted will be a serious problem if we made clear that the edits he makes are subject to our review and judgement before any sanctions are lifted or changed. I also stand by my open minded position on reducing the length between appeals to three months, if specific goals are given. Six months seems a long time to me and it being the "standard length" does not prevent exceptions.

Unfortunately for personal reasons and due to other Wikimedia related demands on my shoulders, I cannot give constant supervision to TSC, but I will advise him when he asks for it and comment in appeals, due to my past involvement.

@TheShadowCrow: The problem with the argument your making there is the reason you haven't caused trouble in the AA topic area for a while is because of the sanctions, so turning it into an argument for lifting them is analogous to arguing that because there hasn't been any recent bank robberies in a town for a while, the law against bank robberies should be repealed. Having passion doesn't make you any more of less trustworthy, as it's what your passion drives you to do that matters. To be clear on the activist vs. encyclopediast issue, I'm not saying that you can't have views on topics that you edit, as that's often unavoidable. The real issue is whether you let those views impact on your judgement. In some of your past edits, it's clear that it did. On Joel Osteen, yes I'm afraid in forums such as this people will tend to focus on the negatives, which is why you need to minimise them. I do count multiple reverts by you in the history, so you were edit warring. I think it would be best if you learnt the lessons and put it behind you.

It's good to hear that you intend to be more mindful on what AA areas you intend to edit, but just your reassurances won't cut it with me I'm afraid, and regardless of what I think, there is very little chance that a consensus will develop to repeal the AA ban at this time. Furthermore, I can't see a consensus developing to either narrow the sanctions or increase the allowed frequencies of appeals. The best that can be aimed for here will probably be some goals or similar to work for next time round. CT Cooper · talk 22:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cailil: There is no need for apologies, but thanks anyway. I see what you mean on the stick issue, but I think he'll claim a entitlement to have the ban lifted regardless of whether or not we set general goals. I'm also coming to the conclusion that this appeal is running out of steam and that other admins have no interest in changing the sanctions, so I now agree that there's little point continuing on this path, unless some other admins start speaking-up. I've got my own problems at the moment to sort out, and I would rather not take back primary responsibility for the sanctions, but it looks like I'm the only person in a good position to do so at this time. The saying "if you want something done, do it yourself" comes to mind and it is clear that TSC could do with my services, so I will talk to him on his talk page as soon as this appeal closes on a way forward.

@TheShadowCrow: I think your misreading what I'm saying in a number of ways. Please read my comments carefully before replying, preferably multiple times.

I'm not saying that your lack of edits to AA topics should be counted against you, that would be silly. What I am saying though is the mere lack of edits to that topic area is not grounds to lift the sanctions, since it could also indicate that they are working. Ironically though, I have little objection to your analogy. In many countries these days prisoners have to serve an indefinite sentence until they can demonstrate while in prison that they are safe for release. Similarly, you will have to demonstrate while under topic ban that you can be trusted to edit AA articles. I'm not saying that's easy.

This discussion with you over edit warring seems be very much like the one we had over vandalism, and shows you still have a problem with accepting and understanding policy properly. There is indeed no policy explicitly against reverting other's edits, but reverting other users multiple times when you know that there is disagreement with your edits is edit warring, even if the three revert rule isn't technically violated. Policy is very clear that there is no entitlement to revert three times. It's called the bold, revert, discuss cycle not the bold revert revert revert discuss cycle for a good reason. You should have taken it to the talk page after the first revert, not later.

On your second paragraph, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I've not backtracked on my views regarding the gaps between appeals and I have neither directly argued for or against giving you a proper "sports exemption" – I've simply explained the history behind the issue. The only other things I said was that it was unlikely the topic ban would be lifted or narrowed at the present time, regardless of my views on the subject. Given that no other admins seem interested in making changes to any of the sanctions and noting that this appeal seems to be running out of steam, that seems even more true now than it was yesterday. I'm afraid I'm not backtracking on my position that I will not make unilateral changes to the ban.

I didn't ask you to get any articles to good article status, my goal was just to simply improve one or more articles by one assessment grade. I didn't "promise" specific goals, but I did give my support to the idea. Regardless, it looks like we're going to have to hash this out on your talk page. I will try to put you on the right path for another appeal in six months, presuming you're still happy to make some improvements to some non-AA topics. If you're ready to have the sanctions lifted before then, I will give my support to an appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee. CT Cooper · talk 19:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@TheShadowCrow: I have told you very clearly that I am not a position to lift the sanctions. I cannot lift or modify the ban on editing AA topics unilaterally as the issue has become too complicated and another admin would likely re-instate any ban I remove. Furthermore, no circumstances could I unilaterally overturn Sandstein's restriction on appeals – it is strictly forbidden to reverse an admin's arbitration action without clear community consensus or Arbitration Committee approval. The reality, whether your accept it or not, is that you are indefinitely banned from editing AA articles. Indefinite means just that – the ban stays until it is ready to be lifted, whether that be in six months, six years, or never. There is no such thing as a right or entitlement to having the ban lifted; in fact there is no right or entitlement to editing Wikipedia at all. That is a privileged that can be withdrawn or restricted as the community sees fit.

It's unfortunate that in this discussion old problems have come back to the surface. One seems to be a tendency by you to read people's comments, particularly mine, in a way which tells you what you want to hear rather than what is actually said. I may have been less harsh to you on this forum than some other admins, but that never meant I was going to fight to the end to have the sanctions lifted or modified. Yes, I do remember saying "I accept six months is a long time, so I would support allowing another review in three months if we can agree on specific goals." and I know there is nothing I have said since which is inconsistent with that statement. One can support reducing the length between appeals while at the same time accepting pragmatic reality of the situation, which is that it will only happen if others agree, which they don't at the moment. Also note that by "we", I meant yourself, myself, and admins that have commented. Since we have not come to an agreement on specific goals, that comment is irrelevant.

I'm really not interested in emotional rhetoric from you over how you're apparently under a "technical indef block" and how you just can't handle being under the sanctions for another six months. At the end of the day TSC, when push comes to shove, you brought these sanctions on yourself and they're your problem, not mine. I've offered to give up my time to give you some support to improve your chances on another appeal in six months, which will involve you making improvements to non-AA articles. I don't accept your interpretation of Sandstein's restriction on appealing, and I can see no problem in us discussing the issue, making goals e.t.c. If you're not interested, fine. If you want to leave the project, fine. I'm not going to loose sleep over the issue, but if you change your mind, my talk page will remain open. CT Cooper · talk 13:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent[edit]

Wow. Tough crowd. So what it comes down to is due to a solitary screw-up in just under six months The Shadow Crow must remain sanctioned? Did you notice how they didn't whine and wikilawyer after the warning at User_talk:TheShadowCrow#Joel_Osteen. Did you see how they worked a making a GA (which I guess is supposed to be important around here), and used a sandbox to get their edits in place before moving in mainspace?

Well, if you're going to be setting hoops they have to jump through, ya'll could at least have the decency to be a little more concrete. How many drama free mainspace edits, or many articles do you want them to work on before the next appeal? Anything else? GA? FA? NE Ent 18:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Shadow Crow, I said strictly, not unfairly -- Wikipedia doesn't "do fair," sorry. How about we all agree Shadow Crow makes some non-trivial editing to at least twenty different articles over the next six months? We can define "non-trivial" as sufficient editing to remove some of those ugly tags from the tops of articles -- that will give them opportunity to interact with other editors to reach agreement enough work has been done to remove the tags. Obviously no edit warring. NE Ent 22:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC) (This would include, per Penwhale's interpretation, discussion on article talk page leading to such improvements) NE Ent 00:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Pinging the admin who blocked you is canvassing now? That's a reach ... I'm certainly not seeing the polite note asking TSC to stop the guideline suggest how to respond. NE Ent 22:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Result of the appeal by TheShadowCrow[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Eh... I'd like to see a bit more activity in other areas (there are less than 70~80 edits since September 2013, to which today would make exactly 6 months) before considering granting this appeal. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 20:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @TheShadowCrow: I understand there may be other underlying situations, but I still would like to see you being a bit more active in other areas as the lack of other edits make someone who is trying to assess the situation neutrally hard to do so due to lack of proof. If you would voluntarily set some conditions if the tobic-ban is removed then it may be easier to convince me. (Basically: Without edits in other area I'm not fully convinced that we should outright lift the existing restrictions.) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 00:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • For transparency, TSC posted [79] at my talk page. I do think there's a need for appeals to be only heard every X months, but I'm willing to offer this: That we will hear an appeal sooner than 6 months from now if it can be shown that TSC has made significant positive edits in other areas. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Replying to NE Ent, I see contribution to 6 article pages and 1 additional talk page of an article since TSC came off block. Among the 81 edits since the expiration of block, 27 were to main articles and 13 to article pages - of which 14/12 were to Joel Osteen and Talk:Joel Osteen. It's a good thing that TSC is trying to raise the Osteen article to GA, but when you make fewer than 50 edits on mainspace/talk page in a 6-month span - and that half of said edits are to a singular article (and its talk page), the activity level is simply not there to justify us loosening the current sanctions. If we count the sandbox edits (which there are 17), then the number comes out to 43 edits related to Osteen - and that's more than half of the edits during this time. I'd like to see TSC's edits spread out a bit more in the main space across different topic areas. It's unfair for me to ballpark a number, but I just think the edits are not spread out across different areas enough for me to suggest altering the sanctions. I also agree with Cailil that TSC's edits to people on their talk pages (instead of putting them here) is troublesome and can be construed as canvassing. Based on this, I have to strike my statement which suggested loosening the appeal intervals. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @TSC: The fact is, for an appeal process to be judged fairly everyone needs to be on the same page; there's a reason why I said that my talk page is not a suitable location in my reply to you there.
  • @NE Ent: I would have had no problem if TSC alerted CT Cooper and Cailil when the appeal is being made. The issue I have is the fact that TSC asked them (on their talk page) to post here after DangerousPanda's comment below that leaned towards declining the appeal. That being said, I would have no problem with your suggestion with one change to it: that non-trivial participation in discussions on the talk page would count towards the number (i.e. TSC doesn't actually have to make the actual edits on the article pages provided that significant participation on talk page can be proven). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 23:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Any appeal such as this must link to a) significant positive edits outside of the area of the topic ban, and b) positive interactions with others. I see very few edits, and I even see a handful of very problematic ones. The "readiness test" has not been met DP 21:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Under the apparent impression that I would alter consensus here in favour of his appeal TheShadowCrow has asked me to comment [80]. In so doing he's just breached WP:Canvass. That alone is reason to refuse - this is not a game TheShadowCrow.

    DangerousPanda has made an excellent post above me and I support their view. Contrary to Penwhale given the level of problematic behaviour here I do think a minimum of 6 months for another appeal is appropriate given the level of trust TSC needs to rebuild and given the time it will take to demonstrate the kind of change in attitude both I and DangerousPanda are outlining here. After that initial 6 months, on the basis that some objective, and evident progress is made, then and in that case I'd be happy to see appeals after improvement rather than definite lengths of time--Cailil talk 14:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • @Penwhale & @NE Ent, a looser wording but still within the same bracket would be "after 6 months of positive substantial contributions to wikipedia TheShadowCrow may appeal again." Indefinite topic bans cannot, by definition, be timed out & 70 edits (including his edits to this thread) is just not enough for a judgement reversing well founded AE actions. These actions are lifted when they are demonstrably no longer necessary. TSC needs to show consistently that he can keep cool and has indeed developed a WP:CLUE--Cailil talk 12:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless there is a major change to consensus here I'll close this thread in 24 hours with the result as declined and with the wording: "TheShadowCrow may appeal again after 6 months of positive substantial contributions to wikipedia"--Cailil talk 16:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    CT Cooper with the greatest of respect asking a sysop to "say something positive" (and thus change consensus) is obvious canvassing (or "asking the other parent"). Overall his behaviour here is also an example of the same pattern of behaviour indulged in by TSC since July 2013.

    TSC is appealing not just his topic-ban to AA2 but also the resultant sanctions based on his continuing misbehaviour after that ban was issued. TSC has made 70 edits since the last sanction. He has also had a history of wasting the community's time with appeals. Given all of this behaviour there is not sufficient evidence of reform to make any judgment over-turning either the topic-ban or (and this is important) Sandstein's restriction on TSC's appeals. Giving TSC six months in light of the above gives TSC a chance to work elsewhere on WP productively. How and ever, specific goals are less important than an overall and demonstrable change in attitude. TSC's use of the term "conspiracy" above is not a good sign and I would be extremely wary of laying out an apparent yellow brick road that on completion TSC would believe he is entitled to be unbanned - this is not the case. TSC's behaviour has to change first. As you outlined above even the recent positive edits by TSC are not up to scratch in terms of behaviour (conduct towards others).

    Also it is my view that the situation regarding TSC has become so complex (because CT you were not in a position to react to the situation in Autumn 2013) and other sysops had to become involved, and since then TSC has used your good will (as the original topic-banning admin) to attempt to frustrate policy and process with regard to teh subsequent sanctions. Things are confusing enough as is. It is my advice that it should take a consensus of sysops (both involved and uninvolved) to change or set any condition for modification of TSC's sanctions, now or in the future. There are too many well founded individual but interlocking AE actions taken by separate admins for one sysop to unilaterally reverse them all, or to give the impression to TSC that one sysop could do that. --Cailil talk 13:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

    As it stands there is no reason to overturn any of the sanctions appealed and in light of TSC's restriction on excessively frequent appeals 6 months (which btw is the normal length between appeals) remains appropriate. If you wish to give TSC general guidance on what might help his talk page might be a better forum. I will close this in a further 24 hours unless there is a change to consensus - I'm leaving it open purely so that TSC understands what's going on--Cailil talk 15:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • CT Cooper I apologize if my above comment to you came off as patronizing - that was not my intent nor is it my intent to "gag" any advice you wish to TSC but I'm wary of the impact that unintentionally giving TSC a stick to beat other admins with would have in such a complex web of AE sanctions. I'm just pointing out that TSC could (& in my view, given his last comment above, HAS already) misinterpret "general goals" as an absolute formula for unblock (look at his comment to penwahle and Ed "I have done everything I was asked to"). Also I'm not sure if other people noticed this edit[81] changing the grounds for appeal above - naming yours as the only admin action being appealed (which is not the case as it was heard or as it is expressed) while making a long comment.

    If he follows your good advice - great! But there's no reason for this appeal thread to remain open, that advice can be given via his talk page. I'll leave this open till midnight (UTC) 8/3/14 for replies. BUT consensus formed here 4 days ago. Finally in the case of an extraordinary reform on TSC's part he could appeal to ArbCom directly before the 6 months mark - his restriction is only to AE & community appeals, he can appeal to the Committee at any time--Cailil talk 09:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


Clarified that the topic ban is still in place until Interfase is formally notified otherwise on their talk page. Taking no further enforcement action as in good faith this is a simple mistake. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Interfase[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Hablabar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Interfase (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 

History of sanctions:

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Interfase has been routinely violating his topic ban from AA2 largely construed [83]. He has never admitted his misdeeds because of which he was banned, and never expressed any remorse for any misconduct in the past or present all the while continuing making most controversial edits in AA2's most controversial articles, such as Black January and Khojaly Massacre Memorial in Berlin.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Actually, there is no evidence that anybody has "vacated" Interfase's topic ban. Your topic ban is still in place. It looks like that HJ Mitchell was simply entertaining this idea, in a questions-and-replies session, as a theoretical possibility. That's it. But the thing is that even before HJ Mitchell was playing with this idea, Interfase had been violating the ban already. And vacating Interfase's topic ban would therefore be a reward for not taking the topic ban seriously. Hablabar (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: With all due respect to your privileges as a sysop, it should be noted that the principle of fairness is a cornerstone principle in AE. User:NovaSkola, for instance, was blocked for violating his AA2 topic ban [85] just recently. Why should Interfase be spared? Furthermore, in your own announcement of Interfase's topic ban one can read that Interfase is "indefinitely topic-banned from Armenia/Azerbaijan topics, including related conflicts for gross incivility, edit-warring, and repeatedly referring to good-faith edits as vandalism." Vacating Interfase from topic ban was not a well thought out idea, especially vacating him by skipping the formal appeal process. There are no precedents that anyone sanctioned within the AA2 area for "gross incivility and edit-warring" has ever been vacated from topic ban, with or without an appeal. Please take this into account. Thank you very much for your kind attention. Hablabar (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Interfase[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Interfase[edit]

Actually HJ Mitchell vacated the topic ban. Thus, I don't see in my edits any violations. --Interfase (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. My topic ban is not still in place. It was vacated by an admin, who made this sanction. Also user HJ Mitchell was informed about my edits as we had a conversation on his talk page. I don't still understand why do you want to isolate me from editing. The only reason of topic ban was my problem with conduct as I claimed your edits as "vandalism". But I was warned by Mitchell and I promised that I won't accuse somebody in vandalism. After that I didn't do this. So what is the problem?. --Interfase (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought that topic ban was lifted by Mitchell. But, OK. It was misunderstanding. Actually I agree with the restrictions by HJ Mitchell in lieu of topic ban. --Interfase (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that according to clarifications the topic ban doesn't cover Azerbaijan topics in general—just topics related to the conflict with Armenia and similar geopolitical/ethnic disputes. So this my edits[86][87][88] stated by Hablabar aren't violations. About others I thought that topic ban was vacated according to this. But as HJ Mitchell said after closing of this issue I will write on his talk page that I agree with his restrictions in lieu of the topic ban. --Interfase (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Interfase[edit]

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

This should be addressed by HJ Mitchell, who is the admin who issued the ban, and who has been in communication with Interfase about this.  Sandstein  09:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to say that HJ Mitchell offered to revise the restriction 3 days ago, but it was not acknowledged by Interfase formally and thus from an enforcement point of view the topic ban was not formally lifted. This doesn't take into consideration that Hablabar objected to it here and here, which did not receive replies from HJ Mitchell. I'm going to reimpose the topic ban for the time being until HJ Mitchell can address this. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 00:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
@Interfase: It seems very clear to me that HJ Mitchell did not vacate your topic ban but was asking for your opinion on the conditions he proposed (which is what he said). I'm happy to put this down to a misunderstanding, however you should note that if you make any further edits in violation of the ban until you are offically told that the ban has been lifted on your talk page will lead to blocks. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Interfase: I was willing to vacate the topic ban, but you had to formally accept the revised conditions that I proposed. The topic ban is in place until either I tell you on your talk page that it is not, or you successfully appeal it. I will leave it to other admins to decide whether you should be sanctioned for the violation, but at the very least, you're skating on thin ice. After this AE thread is closed, you can come back to my talk page and tell me whether you're willing to accept the restrictions I proposed in lieu of the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


This is not an arbitration enforcement request. No case that is to be enforced is identified. See WP:SPI or generally WP:DR for other options.  Sandstein  09:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning CammieD[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Newfsecuritygirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·