Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75

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

Contents

Accipio Mitis Frux[edit]

No action necessary after self-revert.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Accipio has undone his own edit, and has restored the consensus language about the legality of the settlement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Accipio Mitis Frux[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Nableezy 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Accipio Mitis Frux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [1] See below
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [5] Notified of case
  2. [6]
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Whatever works
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
This is similar to the request about Shuki above. A user has removed the exact wording that has consensus for the lead, claiming that there is no consensus and that the clear close of the centralized discussion is not clear and resulted in no consensus. I informed the editor in question of the potential consequences of refusing to abide by consensus and the editor declined to self-revert the edit, instead saying that they refuse to be bullied by me ([7]). I hope this thread will not turn in to the circus we have seen above.
I have just added 2 more reverts to the list of diffs. The editor has now reverted 3 separate users who have added the line, violating both the clear close of the centralized discussion as well as the 1RR that applies to the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 21:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Tim, all the things that you say should have been linked to in my initial comment on the user's talk page have already been linked to at the talk page of the article. I did not threaten the user with a lengthy topic ban, I informed the user that another user was about to receive a lengthy topic ban for the same behavior and that I would seek a topic ban if the user refused to abide by consensus. nableezy - 00:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[8]

Discussion concerning Accipio Mitis Frux[edit]

Statement by Accipio Mitis Frux[edit]

My position is very basic. I am not an individual who has been overly invested in pages regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict, and use Wikipedia as a source to receive information on this topic, not bestow it. However, I make edits when I think it is appropriate and I saw a need here.

I hate to get personal, but I've had some interaction with Nableezy on a prior page some months ago and it was by far the worst experience in my nearly five years on Wikipedia. There was no room for a real conversation, just insults to my intelligence straight from the get-go followed up by an immediate attempt to restrict my access. Once again, we have the same pattern of behavior.

I have a problem with this approach. After the edit that he saw as problematic, had he posted to my page that he would be changing it back in 24 hours with a respectful explanation, it would not have been an issue. Instead, I got a message to "self-revert or else." I am not going to be strong-armed I can't believe that this is appropriate behavior for Wikipedia. In any case, I disagree with the insistance that there is consensus for this change. However, I do not have vast quantities of time to devote to this topic and am just going to let the chips fall where they may. Meaning, I am voluntarily taking a break from editing the page in question and am bowing out of the debate.

However, with what little time I do have I'd like to return the favor and lodge a complaint against Nableezy for hostile behavior. I would appreciate instructions on the best way to do this as I do not have any experience in this area. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I self-reverted. Cancel what I said about bowing out of the debate. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Accipio Mitis Frux[edit]

And s/he has just reverted the edit for the third time today.[9] RolandR (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And note that the editor made a further two reversions after Nableezy's warning mentioned above. RolandR (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The editor has explicitly refused to self-revert, [10], so their 1RR-breaching reversion remains in the article. RolandR (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I did not specifically refuse to self-revert. I'm making the presumption that people will actually read what I wrote and not speed ahead with agressive action against me. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Have you reverted the edit which breaches the one-revert restriction? Will you do so? RolandR (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I self-reverted, as stated above. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I confirm that the editor has indeed self-reverted. I have explained to them how and where to continue the discussion of this text. I think they now understand the process, and have learned a lesson in Wikipedia, and that this request can be closed. If they make similar breaches in the future, there will be no wriggle-room to claim that they "did not know". RolandR (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Accipio Mitis Frux[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
MastCell has explained to the user what is going on. As the user has not edited since before MastCell's edit, I say we wait a bit longer for them to self-revert. If they refuse, then a block would be in order, both for 1RR violation and disruptive edit warring against consensus.

Also, I'll add that I do not find Nableezy's initial comment on their talk page to be helpful. Linking to a voluminous discussion does not really help anything, nor does threatening lengthy topic bans for a first violation. It is much preferable to link to LHvU's closure of that discussion, the admin comments at the AE request, and to include a better explanation why the revert was inappropriate. T. Canens (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Accipio Mitis Frux self-reverted the contested passage about legality of the settlement, at 10:13 UTC on 30 November, subsequent to the discussion here. Since this appears to take care of the problem, I'm closing this request. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Athenean[edit]

No action taken against the respondent or the filer. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Athenean[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Decorum
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  • I'm not including October in the report but only November, so you can review the frequency of reverts of my edits on Albanian-Greek topics:
  1. [11]

[12][13][14][15][16](partial)[17] [18] [19][20][21][22] [23] [24][25] These are the vast majority of my edits that are related to Albanian-Greek issues in November(not including vandal reverts etc.). In Krokodeilos Kladas he hadn't made even one edit, until I made an edit, which he reverted.

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

Warning by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): [26]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Interaction ban with ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Since the beginning of my interaction ban Athenean has been following and reverting a large number of edits I have made in Albanian-Greek topics. Aware that I can't even reply to any of his reverts sometimes he doesn't even explain the reverts:

regarding their source, which isn't John Shea

Discussion concerning Athenean[edit]

Statement by Athenean[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Athenean[edit]

Statement by Athenean[edit]

I find this report frivolous and filed in bad faith, for the reasons below:

  • All of the above mentioned articles, with the exception of Krokodeilos Kladas, are on my watchlist, and have been so for a long time, well before the edits by Zjarri which I reverted (most if not all were watchlisted by me before Zjarri ever edited wikipedia). This can be easily verified by looking at the edit history of those articles - I have edited them before Zjarri did. Though I do check zjarri's contribs every once in a while, most of the time Zjarri's changes simply show up on my watchlist, there is absolutely no stalking as he seems to imply.
  • In his haste to compile this report, Zjarri included the same diff twice (the first two diffs in his report are identical), and it is from October, though he claims I'm not including October in the report but only November.
  • In the above report, I'm thus counting 11 reverts by me, in the period of one month. That's approximately one every 3 days, hardly taking advantage of Zjarri's interaction ban on my part. If anything, I am reverting Zjarri less frequently these days than before he was sanctioned with the interaction ban: In July of 2010, I reverted ZR a total of 15 times (diffs omitted for brevity, though I can produce them on request). Similarly for previous months prior to July. If we look at the period of August 29-September 29, immediately prior to Zjarri's interaction ban, for example, I reverted Zjarri 9 times: [36], [37] (partial rv of this [38]), [39] (rv of this [40]), [41], [42] (partial rv of this [43]), [44], [45] (rv of this [46], though it is also an rv of several intermediate edits of other editors), [47] (partial rv, removal of "of Albanian origin", which ZjarriRrethues had added previously [48]), [49]. In other words, about the same frequency consistently. I am not reverting Zjarri more frequently these days compared to prior to his interaction ban, and am being extra careful to do so only when I feel it's absolutely necessary. This is because I knew he was itching to game his interaction ban to file yet another AE report against me [50] for some time now (the diff from T. Canens follows a discussion between him and Zjarri in IRC).
  • Regarding the reverts themselves, I stand by them, as I feel they are solidly grounded in wiki policy which is explained by me either in the edit summaries or in the article talkpage. These were reverts of edits I considered tendentious, using shoddy sources, or else "creative misinterpretation" of non-shoddy sources on the part of Zjarri.
    • [51]: I actually reverted because I found "isolated mountain village", which was added by User:Alexikoua [52] rather odd-sounding, particularly for the lede. I felt that the lede was stylistically better in its previous version, that is all.
    • [53] W.W. Tarn is considered heavily outdated and thoroughly unreliable as a source, for obvious reasons, and to anyone with an even cursory familiarity with the subject.
    • [54]: John Shea is yet another unreliable source, a Balkan polemicist with no academic credentials, again something well known to anyone familiar with the subject. Edits such as this and the above are thus either the result of either incompetence or tendentiousness. I admit I was quite annoyed when I reverted, and my removal of Mackenzie was probably a mistake. I have no problem whatsoever restoring Mackenzie, which seems reliable enough even though it is just a snippet. I will however not restore Shea under any circumstances and stand by that removal.
    • [55]: Yet another instance of using a partisan source.
    • [56]: Source falsification, the person is Turkish, as the name makes obvious.
    • [57]: Completely off-topic addition. The number of Albanian migrants in Greece is never mentioned in irrelevant as far as Greater Albania is concerned, and is moreover far from unknown. There are plenty of estimates, some quite accurate, and Zjarri knows this full well, which is why I was annoyed in my talkpage posting.
    • [58]: I felt Zjarri was clearly misinterpreting this source.
    • [59]: Misuse of a source: Zjarri introduces a figure of 700,000 as if it's sourced to the source he provides, even though the figure comes from activist organizations, not the claimed source.
    • [60]: Same here. He is either misunderstanding or misquoting the source.
    • [61]: Shoddy sourcing: The Ukrainian Quarterly is not a reliable source for such a claim, nor is using a book's index as a source (the second source). That is not how we source things around here. As should by now be obvious, Zjarri has a history of backing his claims with shoddy sourcing, something with which I admit I have lost my patience after so many months of the same thing.
    • [62]: Follows naturally from my previous rationale.
    • [63]: Utterly inane, WP:LAME edit, as made clear by the discussion in the talkpage [64]. Kostas Botsaris fought in the Greek War of Independence and was a member of the Greek Parliament for crying out loud. How can anyone not revert something like that when they see it?
    • [65]: The NPOV and OR tags placed by Zjarri on this article have been removed many times, by many users, some of them not from the Balkans [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]. My revert is the last in a long line of tag removals by other editors, I felt I was enforcing community consensus. The article is solidly sourced, and no valid rationale has been presented on the talkpage for the tags, only WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments. Yet, the tags are continuously re-added by Zjarri, even though there is zero community consensus for them [73] [74] [75] [76] [77], a clear case of long term edit-warring. It is interesting to note that ZjarriRrethues has something of an obsession with this article, having been at it since March of 2010, within a week of his joining wikipedia [78].
    • [79]: I find the edit by Zjarri tendentious, and against the spirirt of WP:LEDE. We typically include in the lede things that attest to the notability of the article's subject, and this is not one of them. Arvanitic communities are quite common throughout Greece. Mind you, I have absolutely no problem with the content itself, I just don't feel that placement in the lede is warranted. Regarding the Greek-speaking village in Albania mentioned here [80], the reason the Greek dialect is mentioned in the lede is due to the fact that it is a unique, archaic dialect (see Himariote Greek dialect) spoken only there and in one neighboring village. It is notable, and makes the village notable, if only for that reason. Such a rationale does not apply to the case of Methana.

To sum up, I only reverted Zjarri when I felt it was absolutely necessary and well-grounded in wiki policy. There is absolutely no gratuitous, spiteful reverting, or inappropariate taking advantage of his interaction ban on my part, nor is there going to be.

  • Zjarri is omitting the month of October in his report, the first month of his interaction ban: This is not out of lazyness: I reverted him even fewer times in October than November, thus further weakening his case.
  • A bit of background: Zjarri was sanctioned with a 3-month, single-sided interaction ban against me beginning September 30th, 2010. This was the result of a frivolous, non-actionable AE report filed by him against me, in which he made false claims and had crossed into WP:HOUND territory in his eagerness to get me sanctioned (at one point digging up diffs from 3+ years ago, my first in wikipedia). He has previously broken this interaction ban twice, getting sanctioned the first time [81] and warned the second. Barely 3 weeks into his ban, Zjarri was already itching to have another go at me at AE, as evidenced here [82]. This was quite soon after the imposition of his ban, during which period I barely had time to revert him at all. This shows this user never understood the reason behind his interaction ban, but merely saw it as another tool to try and get me sanctioned. He is now gaming the interaction ban to portray himself as a victim in the hope of getting me sanctioned. It's incredible, it's as if nothing's changed with this user. I can empathize with Zjarri that he is occasionally frustrated by his inability to revert me, but I feel this report is frivolous and hence a blockable violation of his interaction ban. Athenean (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Mkativerata

I can certainly live with having to discuss reverts on the talkpage more often, however, I prefer that it not be imposed as a "restriction" but rather on an honor system basis. As an indicator, I have generally abided by a voluntary 1R rule since September, even though the 1R restriction I was under expired two months ago. If it to be imposed as a restriction, I would ask that some sort of editing restriction against using shoddy sourcing by ZjarriRrethues be put into effect as well, as after all my admitted brusqueness was largely due to frustration at persistent tendentious editing by ZjarriRrethues, which has been going on for months now. By the way, by "frivolous" I meant non-actionable, as in the claims of this report do not add up, the (n+1)th such AE report by ZjarriRrethues. Athenean (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to T. Canens

I see three new diffs [83] [84] [85], which I have now addressed. I stand by my actions and believe I was acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia.

Further comments

Incidentally, this brings up my total to 14 reverts of Zjarri in November, still not a significant increase compared to before his interaction ban, and nowhere near the vast majority of his edits on Greek-Albanian topics in November. The pattern here is the same as his previous report: A largely non-actionable report is filed, and when it looks like it is about to be dismissed, he digs deeper and deeper, playing the victim even more and making yet more false statements [86] (I am not calling for him to be sanctioned for his articlespace edits), [87] (I didn't revert him 15 times in November, and it's still not a "significant percentage" of his edits to Greek-Albanian topics), [88] (Thimi Mitko lived in Greece), [89] (he is not editing less frequently), [90] (as the article makes clear the two towns next to Himarë, Dhërmi and Palasë, speak a semi-northern dialect, which is sourced). It is plainly obvious he really wants to see me sanctioned at any cost, and simply won't let go no matter what. This is exactly the kind of behavior that resulted in his interaction ban in the first place. Athenean (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Athenean[edit]

@Athenean: I have a question about one of your reverts. You explain this as saying Shea is an unreliable source. Why remove the material sourced to Mackenzie? There may be a good answer but it's a point specifically raised by the AE filer. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Answered here. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
A couple of things concern me here. Having had a detailed look, Athenean's reverts appear generally to be justifiable, at least those diffs the bases of which can be understood by an outside observer unfamiliar with the conflict. But brusque edit summaries and talk page contributions aren't helping matters. I'd like to see fuller contemporaneous justifications for the reverts and perhaps a sensible editing restriction could deliver that (eg a requirement to post a 50-word justification for each revert on the relevant talk page). The removal of the Mackenzie-sourced material indicates a lack of care that could have been avoided had proper justification been given. On the other hand, I don't see any basis to think that Athenean has been hounding Zjarri or gaming the interaction ban, even in light of the admonition at the earlier AE.. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the direction of this AE: having expressed my view above that the reverts generally appeared justified, the filer has followed it up by including new complaints, and doing so without edit summaries. It does not support the view that this is a well-founded "good faith" request. At this point I'm leaning towards the view that this is an unhelpful and groundless request warranting sanction (WP:BOOMERANG). But Timotheus Canens will have something to say and I'll wait for him to say it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think sanctions against Athenean on the basis of the diffs are warranted. On reflection, my vaguely suggested editing restriction above is not going to help matters at the moment. I expect that Athenean understands that better explanations for reverts would help take the heat out of the conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll close this out following T. Canens comment below. No action taken against the respondent or the filer. No change to existing sanctions. Informal cautions have been given in respect of the filer's conduct of this request and the respondent's explanations for reverts. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Awaiting Athenean's response to the diffs added in these edits. T. Canens (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

According to [91], in the one-month period immediately preceding the interaction ban, ZR has made ~525 edits. In the following two-month period, they have made ~825 edits; considering, however, that the interaction ban necessarily prevented them from reverting Athenean or participating in discussions in which Athenean has participated, that does not sound to me like a substantial decrease in activity. Nor is the number of reverts per month a substantial increase from before the interaction ban. Whether or not they are otherwise sanctionable, the evidence presented so far appears to fall well short of substantiating the claim that Athenean is gaming the interaction ban in order to gain an unfair advantage in content disputes. Since that's the only question for which ZR is allowed to file a complaint, I think this request should be closed without action unless an uninvolved administrator wishes to impose sanctions sua sponte on Athenean based on the contents of those diffs. I voice no opinion on whether any sanction is appropriate. I'll get to the frivolity question later. T. Canens (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
In order to be frivolous, a request needs to be more than not actionable. It needs to have no colorable basis in fact whatsoever. I think it is possible for a reasonable person in ZR's position to find Athenean's reverts troubling, especially when viewed in isolation; I would imagine that the effect of a revert that one is not permitted to undo is far more strongly felt than a revert that could be readily undone, resulting in greater subject weight being attached to those reverts even when, as the objective evidence indicate, there is no actual attempt to exploit the interaction ban. I therefore do not think it appropriate to consider the original request frivolous or in bad faith. T. Canens (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Finally, I agree with Mkativerata that the practice of silently expanding requests without noting in edit summary or on the page that the request has been expanded, when an uninvolved administrator has already commented on the original request, is highly inappropriate. T. Canens (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces[edit]

The Four Deuces is warned, outside of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions, for an inappropriate edit summary. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning The Four Deuces[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Martin (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned, Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [92] I am highly offended by User:The Four Deuces's edit comment "Reverse pro-fascist edits" when he made a blind revert of my good faith edits. By "pro-fascist" he must be referring to me as the sources Griffin is RS and Renton is actually a Marxist. Fascism is commonly associated with Nazism, and accusing me of being "pro-fascist" is tantamount to accusing me of harbouring Nazi sympathies. This is a egregious violation of WP:DIGWUREN
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. Formally placed on notice [93]
  2. [94] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
block
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

If TFD had offered an apology as suggested by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling then it might have been the end of the matter, but evidently he does not understand the offensiveness of his comment. Instead he offers an unapologetic "I do not refer to editors, only to edits." Edits do not happen in a vacuum, editors make edits, and he states himself "Some edits present a POV, which this one obviously does", in other words I hold a pro-fascist viewpoint. Not only does this remain deeply offensive but this is disruptive to any good faith attempt to edit an already difficult article in a neutral fashion, as I have attempted to do. As TFD appears to be unapologetic it is highly likey he will continue to characterise anyone he disagrees with as harbouring pro-fascist sympathies. This is unacceptable. --Martin (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD explanation is misleading (I note he still hasn't offered an apology). Let's examine the edits I actually made which TFD claims were "pro-fascist" in detail:

  1. Removed a cite to the statement "Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right", nowhere in the source does Griffin call fascism "far right", he calls it "ultra-nationalist". Given that there are five other cites it was pointless having a sixth that failed verification in any case.
  2. Expanded "Fascism is normally described as "extreme right"" with "however the left-right terminology fails to describe the "spectral-syncretic" aspect of the ideology", since the single cite used for this sentence is called A Spectral-Syncretic Approach to Fascism by Rodger Eatwell.
  3. Expanded "There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right" with "conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational", since the cite used for this sentence The Palingenetic Core of Fascism by Rodger Griffin says "the ideology of a particular form of fascism has often been synthesized from a bewildering range of ideas, both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational."
  4. Added the paragraph "Fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s as an intellectual movement that absorbed and synthesised socialism and nationalism and created a new ideology of "a socialism without the proletariat"", because the current article reads like Fascism was invented in 1933. Even Britannica [95] indicates that the intellectual origins of Fascism were related to the 19th Century French intellectuals such as Joseph de Maistre, Charles Maurras, and Georges Sorel. Note that whatever criticism Renton has of Sternhell, nowhere in his book does he actually refute the 19th century origins of the ideology.

TFD claim "The rest of what I reversed represents "the fascist view of itself" which was inserted into the article as factual rather than as an opinion" is clearly at odds with the actual edits. All my edits were sourced to existing RS, unless he is claiming that Eatwell, Griffin and Sternhell hold a fascist view point, he is clearly referring to me as holding "the fascist view". Now TFD may believe I had misinterpreted the sources and he could have discussed this on talk in a collegiate manner, but to blindly revert everything and characterise my edits as "pro-fascist" is unacceptable. It was this kind of behaviour of characterising other editors as holding pro-fascist viewpoints and Nazi sympathies that lead to the original WP:DIGWUREN case. --Martin (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

@Will Beback: Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned makes no limitation with regard to applicable topic area and is adjunct to the EE wide discretionary sanction. --Martin (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: Given the significant involvement of fascists in Eastern Europe during WW2 and that this region, including the Soviet Union, generally describe the Nazis as "German–Fascist Aggressors" (thus making no distinction between Nazis and fascists), there is no less a link than there is between Communist terrorism and Eastern Europe. But I am not going to wiki-lawyer over AE's jurisdiction. Fascism is an ideology I find abhorrent. TFD's claim that my edits were pro-fascist is grossly uncivil and deeply offensive. TFD's previously characterised myself and others as "far right", which is also offensive. Someone needs to make TFD understand that his edit comments are unacceptable and that he should apologise, as the majority who have commented here have concurred. Whether it was posted here or at ANI, nothing precludes an admin from taking regular action as opposed to AE enforcement action. But if the admins think it is preferrable that I take this to ArbCom for what may potentially result in summary ban, then so be it. --Martin (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[96]

Discussion concerning The Four Deuces[edit]

Statement by The Four Deuces[edit]

I do not refer to editors, only to edits. Some edits present a POV, which this one obviously does. Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has said I must be referring to him. I will post a note on the article talk page so that other editors familiar with the article may comment. TFD (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Part of what I reversed began, "Fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s...." and is sourced to Renton.[97] But what Renton actually wrote was "[Zeev Sternhell] has argued that fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s and 1890s".[98] He then writes that Sternhell and others "are then free to emphasize what they perceive to be the essentially non-destructive nature of fascism. The historians suggest that it is time to rescue fascist Italy from stigma.... [T]hey fail to generate a non-fascist understanding of fascism. Their readers are led to the conclusion that the fascist view of itself is the most important factor in the definition of the ideology." The rest of what I reversed represents "the fascist view of itself" which was inserted into the article as factual rather than as an opinion. TFD (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Question to Martintg and Sander Saeda: Do you not see any difference between, "Fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s" and ""[Zeev Sternhell] has argued that fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s"? TFD (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning The Four Deuces[edit]

TFD is a frequent thorn in my side, including filing procedural actions against me. Indeed, that's why I noticed this. However, I do try to be fair. Given that I have not read the policy involved that may require a block, would it be acceptable to allow an admin to remove the history comment and extract a promise that TFD will not do something like this again? Everyone's always trying to block others. TFD got me banned for a few days. Don't we have better things to do? In my opinion, one history comment like the present one does not look to me, not having read the policy, to be a reason to block someone. Would Martin accept an apology and the administrative removal of the history comment in exchange for dropping the block request? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Martintg failed the mention that the article in question is Fascism. I agree with TFD that the edit reverted presented a positive point-of-view on the topic of the article. I do not know if that alone would have been reason enough to revert them. However, Martintg himself seems to be saying that Wikipedia should favor an anti-fascist POV, lest it be accused of "harbouring Nazi sympathies". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary may not have used the best form of words, but in the context of the article it is no major issue. The editor raising this against a three year old Arbcom ruling seems a little over sensitive. I've seen far worse handled on the talk page without running to enforcement. Further given this block history its obvious that the filing editor is no stranger to controversy; The lady doth protest too much, methinks. --Snowded TALK 04:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

'Fascism is commonly associated with Nazism, and accusing me of being "pro-fascist" is tantamount to accusing me of harbouring Nazi sympathies.' Really? Can I suggest that anyone involving themselves in topics of this kind should really be aware of the distinctive features of Fascism and Naziism, and not automatically assume they are one and the same? Even though I often agree with TFD, I still find him a little awkward sometimes, but then I'm sure he feels the same about me. I'm sure his political opponents have stronger views, but we are discussing politics here, not Pokomon characters, so maybe a little less feigned 'sensitivity' might be in order? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think in cases like these, if someone takes offence (and it was certainly a careless use of words, regardless of the article topic), then an apology for having caused inadvertent offence is entirely in order, and no one loses face. I keep seeing cases on this page where apologising - even when it can be understood that nothing bad was intended - seems to be a phenomenal strain for people. The thing is, it can serve really well to improve the standing of the editor and the overall editing atmosphere.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, TFD has a habit of doing this sort of thing repeatedly. He regularly ascribes views to those that disagree with him that they do not possess. He more or less accuses them of having extremist or fringe or worse (as in this case) views, which is completely unsupported by, well, anything. Here is a recent example [99]. I asked him to redact it and explained that no, I do not have extremist political views (I resent the fact that I even have to say this) but he did not redact the edits. There are also other instances, some older, like this one [100] where he's making up some stuff about "far-right Russian bias" (he did redact that one after being told to do so). There's also other examples but honestly, I don't have time atm to go digging for more diffs. These should be enough to establish evidence of a pattern. It also shows that TFD's claim that I do not refer to editors, only to edits is generally false.

And seriously, calling edits based on the work of a Marxist historian, Dave Renton, "pro-fascist" just takes the cake.

Also, regardless of what the distinctions between Nazis or Fascism are, and what the subject of the article is, calling another editor's edits "pro-fascist" is simply insulting. No way to weasel out of that one. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But socialist is not the same as Marxist, let alone fascist, except perhaps on Wikipedia. Let me see: Renton said that socialism and nationalism were merged to produce fascism, ergo he is pro-fascist? His book is published by Pluto Press. TFD says that the view needs to be attributed to Zeev Sternhell, who Renton cites. Sternhell doesn't seem like pro-fascist to me based on his Wikipedia biography, unless there's some hidden argument here that Zionists are pro-fascist. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On its face, the edit summary states that the edits were "pro-fascist." Using such strong language in an edit summary is extraordinarily ill-advised, to say the least. TFD was well aware of the likelihood that such an edit summary woul;d be brought here - he is a regular at making complaints about others on this and other noticeboards. Collect (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would just like point out that we do have to put up with a hell of a lot of crap just maintaining the articles on Fascism, Nazism and other related subjects. There is constant ill-informed editing and POV pushing, some of it egregious but some of it quite subtle. Occasionally this actually is by those seeking to rehabilitate Fascism or Nazism but more commonly by those with other objectives (e.g. seeking to taint other ideologies by asserted association). It is not surprising that those working hard to prevent these articles sliding into a complete mess of POV sometimes make mistakes, possibly out of sheer exhaustion, or let their annoyance show. I guess what I am saying is that TFD shouldn't have said what he said, but he is one of the good guys here and there is no way he deserves to be blocked over this. He should apologise and that should be an end to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree about TFD being one of the "good guys", but I understand what you mean. However, rules apply equally to everybody - and this is just the latest incident in a long thread of similar problems. What makes it worse is that TFD apparently doesn't even realize that his comments are often highly insulting to the others - and never apologizes, just justifies himself with weirder and weirder reasons. --Sander Säde 20:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted)...

Even under a broad interpretation, is Fascism related to Eastern Europe any more than to other parts of Europe? I don't think so.   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Marting: (8) refers to "the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee", not discretionary sanctions through arbitration enforcement. Discretionary sanctions, empowere by (12), are limited to the "area of conflict". I'm struggling to see AE's jurisdiction here. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

  • As much as I find the suggestion by TFD that an edit (not the editor, but the edit) can have a POV to be puzzling, I think that editors Legit, Vsev, and Will hit it on the head. An apology would to my mind be the best course, rather than a block, and closure so people can address more productive pursuits.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The continuation of the EE topic. Adequate people vs nationalists. I think action should be taken against Lvivske, not TFD. Artem Karimov (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It does not matter if this is Martintg, Lvivske, TFD or anyone else. User X makes comments like this, he claims edits by user Y to be "extremist" or "pro-fascist", exactly as he did previously with regard to other people in the same article [101] (and who knows how many other articles), and he tells that he did everything correctly in his statement, hence he does not own an apology. Is that OK? If so, no action required.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning The Four Deuces[edit]

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

Time to bring this to an end. In my view this AE request falls outside the scope of discretionary sanctions in Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions (note: this is not a binding view. Other admins in other cases may disagree.). That of course does not stop general action being taken to prevent disruption of the project (as if this was an ANI report). In that respect, TFD is formally warned that such edit summaries are unacceptable.[102] Even if the "edit vs editor" distinction is made in good faith, it is a distinction that will be lost on many other editors who will understandably be offended by the edit summary. In light of the lack of evidence that this is a significant ongoing problem as opposed to one or two isolated edit summaries, a block would be inappropriate. But any further such edit summaries may attract sanctions, the nature of the sanctions depending on whether the action falls within the area of conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions authorization states that:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

There is no explicit requirement that the failure to "adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" needs to be related to the area of conflict; a literal reading suggests that the fact that this editor works in the area of conflict is sufficient for the discretionary sanctions to apply. I seem to remember at least one arb interpreting the provisions this way, though I couldn't provide a diff at the moment. I have no opinion so far on whether the literal reading is appropriate, either. T. Canens (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That literal interpretation seems ugly to me: eg just editing in an area of conflict can tar you across the project. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, since people are not supposed to "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" anywhere in this project... T. Canens (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course although applying, say ARBPIA discretionary sanctions for, say, engaging in an edit-war on Sesame Street can't be what ARBCOM had in mind. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
True. A reading this broad is probably absurd. Hard cases make bad law, I suppose. T. Canens (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, perhaps one day this question will become ripe for a request for clarification from Arbcom. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I'm inclined to agree. I also think this request is out of scope, in that fascism is too far detached from Eastern Europe that editors there can't be expected to realise that that DIGWUREN sanctions apply. Finally, I don't think the edit summary is egregious enough to warrant anything more than a caution, unless the editor makes a habit of using such edit summaries and does so on a regualr basis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lvivske[edit]

No action. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Lvivske[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
MathFacts (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, WP:Advocacy, WP:Battleground Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
Coordinated reverts with misleading, offensive or no edit summaries in Roman Shukhevych:
  1. [103] Revert by Lvivske, changed alegnance of Shukhevych from "Ukrainian National Government" to "Ukraine"
  2. [104] Revert by Lvivske, removed information of the annulment of the award of Hero title from the template (but not from the text), changed alegnance to "Ukraine", offense towards Donetsk court in edit summary.
  3. [105] Revert by Galassi, false, misleading edit summary.
Coordinated reverts in Holodomor:
  1. [106] by Galassi
  2. [107] by Galassi
  3. [108] by Lvivske
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [109] Warning by Toddst1 (talk · contribs) (for personal attacks)
  2. [110] Warning by Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (for edit warring in Jewish Bolshevism)
  3. [111] Warning by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) (for misleading edit summaries)
  4. [112] Warning by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  5. [113] Warning by MathFacts (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
  1. Lvivske: Block or topic ban from articles related to Soviet Union
  2. Galassi: Warning against edit-warring and coordinated reverts. Compulsory participation in discussions, enforced by an administrator may be sufficient.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
This request concerns two users, Lvivske and Galassi. I am not sure if this case fall under the previous arbitration restrictions concerning Eastern Europe, but I see no better place to report this issue. User Lvivske removes from article about Roman Shukhevych notice that the award of Hero of Ukraine to Roman Shukhevych has been annulled in the court [114], the edit is accompanied with offenses towards Donetsk court "donetsk court means jack"[sic]. He also changes the allegnance of this Nazi collaborator from "Ukrainian National Government", a pro-Nazi puppet state to "Ukraine". It is known that at the time the only internationally-recognized Ukrainian state was Ukrainian SSR and Roman Shukhevych fought against this entity. Labelling his allegnance as "Ukraine" thus creates confusion. That said the reverts in my impression violate Wikipedia's policies WP:Advocacy, WP:Battleground and WP:NPOV. I placed an edit-warring notice to his talk page [115] but after about 10 minutes I was reverted again by user Galassi [116] with an edit summary that the court decision was not binding (this is a false edit summary because all sources agree that the Hero of Ukraine award was annulled).
I asked why he reverted me on his talk page [117] but it seems he is not interested to respond.
The edit history of other articles show that users Lvivske and Galassi participate in coordinated edit wars (for example, in article Holodomor [118]). That's why I do not want participate in this edit war any longer and rely on the community to decide. MathFacts (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Lvivske noticed this report before I completed it. He then notified Galassi [119]

Discussion concerning Lvivske[edit]

Statement by Lvivske[edit]

There are so many problems with this...where to begin...first, edit summaries should suffice, you don't have to warn me of being block for "edit warring" after one revert. You could use the talk page, you know. Next, the award was not stripped, it was annulled by a Donetsk court which had no binding power, it was favor done for Yanukovych, it means nothing - it should be in the body of the bio but doesn't change any facts. Finally, "Ukraine" is a short form since the other form goes over. Considering he won the "Hero of Ukraine" award for his allegiance to this "Ukraine", and his allegiance was to a government/potential state called "Ukraine", the name "Ukraine" should suffice given that it links to the 1941 state, not Ukraine itself. I really don't see the beef here or why you are trying to pull Galassi into this for fixing a good faith edit on your part that was misinformed. PS: Claiming that Galassi and I take place in coordinated edit-wars is just silly and without base. Him and I have fought against eachother at times, there is no cronyism going on, we just watch the same articles (and with the Holodomor article, one of the guys we've been at dispute with is TFD, a few disputes above this one)--Львівське (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Lvivske[edit]

  • I've had my own disagreements with Lvivske, but the current charges are frivolous, if not retaliatory.--Galassi (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Mathfacts' comments indicate that he is himself pushing a particular (Soviet) POV and that his coming here is part of a content dispute.Faustian (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    Is it a Soviet POV that the Hero of Ukraine award to Shukhevych ‎was annulled? The sources are already in article, so deleting this information from template is vandalism.--MathFacts (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    Your comment in your compliant, "He also changes the allegnance of this Nazi collaborator from "Ukrainian National Government", a pro-Nazi puppet state to "Ukraine". It is known that at the time the only internationally-recognized Ukrainian state was Ukrainian SSR and Roman Shukhevych fought against this entity." strongly suggests your own pro-Soviet POV in this matter.Faustian (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Lvivske[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This all seems to pertain to a slow-burning edit war over a Ukranian Army officer. While it would seem to fit within the scope of DIGWUREN, I don't see any evidence of egregious or persistent disruption that would warrant action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. There's certainly no evidence for the basis of the report, being allegations of tag-team edit-warring. I'm closing this out as "no action". Consider pursuing the usual dispute resolution options for disputes on the inclusion of the material in the relevant articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam[edit]

Captain Occam and Ferahgo are indefinitely banned from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages. Several editors advised.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See result at #Sanction, below. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Captain Occam[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Captain Occam topic-banned
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [120]
  2. [121]
  3. [122]

This user is discussing matters concerned with

  1. his views of the content and quality of articles covered by his topic ban
  2. how other users should manage imposing restrictions on others editing the articles covered by his topic ban
  3. the close of WP:ARBR&I and his battleground attempts to have sanctions applied to other users

Whether or not his editing history prior to his topic ban is being discussed, he should not intervene or attempt to exercise influence in any way whatsoever. This is a violation of his topic ban.

Recent harassment-only accounts

There is also a concern that two recently created accounts are acting as proxies for Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, during their topic bans. The evidence of meatpuppetry so far is purely circumstantial. Like Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, both users are targeting WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs). Both are following his edits and and lobbying for editing restrictions. For recently arrived wikipedians, this does not seem quite normal. [123]

  • SightWatcher (talk · contribs) has misquoted and misrepresented the findings of the arbitration case on multiple occasions, in the same way as Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin. He has added identical material [124] to Race and health that was previously proposed unsuccessfully [125] by Ferahgo the Assassin for Race (classification of humans). He has lobbied on her behalf.[126] Here in his user space is a draft RfC/U, as suggested by Captain Occam. [127] The statements in this draft RfC/U continue to voice the same misunderstandings of the outcome of WP:ARBR&I. For a user to start discussing sanctions against another user within a week of arriving on wikipedia [128][129] after less than thirty edits is concerning. Like Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, he has been given advice by administrators (Maunus and RegentsPark) which he chosen to ignore. He has, with Captain Occam's advice [130], started an RfC/U on WeikiBaikeBianji.[131] One of the main topics contained in the RfC/U concerns the removal of spam links on an article High IQ society (an article not connected with WP:ARBR&I). On that article Dirk Beetstra, the WP expert on spam and blacklisting, has been removing link spam in exactly the same way as WeijiBaikeBianji.
  • Woodsrock (talk · contribs) has made a series of personal attacks on WeijiBaikeBianji in postings and edit summaries (here is one example [132]). Apart from the template he created very soon after the creation of his account and its use, his other edits to articles consist entirely of splitting paragraphs or moving images: no content is being added or modified. In a number of cases, probably without realizing it, he has made these arbitrary changes to the ledes of articles which have already been selected as GA and FA (examples include RNA, DNA and evolution). In this cosmetic change to DNA sequencing [133], the change indicates that Woodsrock does not read the text he is editing (which refers to an image on the left, which he moved to the right without altering the text). Today he made yet another unprompted personal attack on WeikiBaikeBianji, coordinated with the RfC/U. [134]
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block of account for one week or more for Captain Occam; official warnings for SightWatcher and Woodsrock for harassment-only accounts; possible block of Woodsrock for personal attacks.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
There are other issues of off-wiki harassment, possibly connected with these incidents, which ArbCom has been informed of. A checkuser has confirmed that the two accounts above are not sockpuppet accounts. I have discussed some of these matters with a member of ArbCom.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[135] [136] [137]
Reply to EdJohnston 
My topic ban on articles and their talk pages connected with race and intelligence, broadly construed, was by mutual consent (initially voluntary) and lasts until the end of time, unlike the topic bans of Mikemikev, Captain Occam and David.Kane. It does not involve process pages, but, as far as I am concerned, does involve not discussing the subject matter of the dispute or other people's views on it in any way whatsoever. The timing of other users' edits is beyond my control: that includes Ferahgo the Assassin's recent violation of her topic ban; Mikemikev's continued sockpuppetry (including an edit by him that had to be deleted in this request); and also the issues of meatpuppetry and wikihounding mentioned above. In the latter case an arbitrator requested, after I made this request,that information from me be passed on to other members of the committee. Any modification in my topic ban would presumably have to be through an amendment of WP:ARBR&I and be approved by ArbCom. I cannot see any relation with EEML. But just to be safe I will make a public declaration: I have received a phone call from Roger Davies and we did have a long and enjoyable chat about matters totally unconnected with wikipedia. On the other hand that might be a cue for somebody to start WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/French connection. Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Further clarification 
I have no connection at all with WeijiBaikeBianji. Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin have continued to cast aspersions that we are somehow collaborating. However, similarly unreasonable assertions to these have been summarily dismissed by arbitrators. Their repeated attempts to have sanctions imposed on WeijiBaikeBianji on previous ArbCom pages were seen as a failure to come to terms with the closure of the ArbCom case. Unlike Captain Occam and his girlfirend, I have no interest in the subject whatsoever. I have made critical but constructive remarks about WeijiBaikeBianji's general method of adding sources to "further reading" to wikipedia articles in his RfC/U following the report below on Ferhago the Assassin.[138] At no stage have I commented on the content of WeijBaikeBianji's editing. Obviously I very strongly defend his right to edit without being wikihounded or harassed. I have been wikihounded myself in unconnected topics: that wikihounding ceased after mediation off-wiki by an arbitrator. I am on a wikibreak at the moment—that means a break from editing articles—since in RL I'm completing a long article on mathematics and was rather burnt out after 1000+ edits on Clavier-Übung III. Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Additional statement concerning request for clarification 
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I/scope of topic ban of Mathsci
  • I have requested a personal clarification from ArbCom about the nature of my topic ban, which I believe is different from that of other users mentioned, for those administrators unfamilar with the outcome of WP:ARBR&I. In my case there have been no violations of my topic ban and I believe that administrators are ignoring the voluntary nature of my topic ban. Arbitrators themselves have encouraged me to contribute to noticeboards and to correspond with them. In my request for clarification about my topic ban, I have also requested some guidance for administrators. Mathsci (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Move to close 
Since Newyorkbrad and Shell Kinney have now commented at the above request for clarification, it is is probably a good idea for administrators to close the discussion here and continue it in the more appropriate place linked above. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

<moving commment> VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please move this comment to your own section and take a look at what arbitrators have said.You might also like to review what are called "personal sanctions". Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions#Personal sanctions Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments 
Captain Occam seems quite occupied with my editing at present.[139][140][141][142][143][144] I am personally quite happy with the advice offered by EdJohnston and Timotheus Canens below. It is good advice which I would follow even if the topic ban is lifted. I have explained privately to them why matters do not seem to be quite normal at the moment. As far as Captain Occam's latest demands go [145], as a matter of courtesy, I would feel obliged to send the same short wiki-email message to any uninvolved administrator commenting here, assuming they had activated an email account (not all admins do so).

Discussion concerning Captain Occam[edit]

Statement by Captain Occam[edit]

This report seems completely frivolous. Mathsci and I were both topic banned from these articles by the same arbitration case, and he and I have both been engaging in the exact same type of discussions about other users’ conduct on these articles. Recent examples of this from Mathsci are [146], [147] and [148]. More importantly, there was recently a request for clarification about this case in which the arbitrators specifically stated that topic bans from this case do not apply to dispute resolution about user conduct issues. In that thread, Mathsci actually defended the right of topic banned editors to engage in these discussions! Quoting what Mathsci said there: “I have twice communicated in private when irregularities have occurred connected with WP:ARBR&I. On both occasions the irregularities were not of my making, but I had what I perceived to be useful input to offer in discussions. Wikipedia processes are not covered by my voluntary but binding topic ban.”

Now, do the diffs that Mathsci provided of me purportedly violating my topic ban show anything other than what Mathsci has done himself, has defended his right to do, and what the arbitrators have given both of us permission for? The first is me pointing out to Maunus that he had misquoted me; in response Maunus apologized and struck out the part of his comment which was a misquote. The second and third were a follow-up to a discussion between myself and Coren, in which Coren suggested starting an RFC about WeijiBaikeBianji, and also that I bring this suggestion up with the other editors who have been involved in disputes with him. These diffs are from the discussions that I initiated with these editors at an arbitrator’s suggestion. This certainly does not have any resemblance to the behavior for which I was topic banned, which according to my finding of fact was edit warring and false claims of consensus. Mathsci, on the other hand, has been described by ArbCom as engaging in behavior that is “unduly aggressive and combative”, and seems to be displaying the same attitude here and in the earlier diffs of his behavior provided above.

There are three important questions that need to be asked here:

  1. In his effort to demonstrate that I am violating my topic ban, why has Mathsci not linked to the discussion between me and Coren in which Coren was suggesting this RFC, and also that I contact other editors about this suggestion? Is it because it does not help his case to show that the second and third diff are from discussions that I was asked to initiate by one of the arbitrators?
  2. Why has Mathsci defended his own ability to participate in discussions related to these articles, including posting this arbitration enforcement request, but claims that it is a topic ban violation when other topic banned editors act similarly?
  3. How did Mathsci get a checkuser to be run on Sightwatcher and Woodsrock without starting an SPI? Is it acceptable that he apparently has privately contacted an administrator with checkuser permission, and persuaded them off-wiki to run a checkuser on these accounts?

Echoing VsevolodKrolikov’s comments below, when one considers the number of editors who have taken issue with WeijiBaikeBianji’s recent behavior, it should not be such a surprise that this includes a pair of relatively new users. From the links and diffs provided in the RFC/U which was recently started about WeijiBaikeBianji, I can identify at least four other users who feel similarly about WeijiBaikeBianji’s editing. In addition to VsevolodKrolikov himself, there is also Andy Dingley, Victor Chmara and TrevelyanL85A2. All four of these users have been registered for over three years.

I’m reminded again of this principle from the recent Climate Change arbitration case: “An editor who brings forward the same or similar view as a blocked or banned user should not automatically be assumed to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the absence of other evidence.” On these articles, Mathsci and a few other users who share his viewpoint seem to consistently ignore this principle. When a pair of new users are among six users disagreeing with someone whom I’ve also disagreed with in the past, should sockpuppetry or meatuppetry be considered so likely that admins are privately canvassed to run checkuser, and after checkuser fails to find evidence of sockpuppetry, the accusation is brought to AE? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Captain Occam[edit]

Comment by VsevolodKrolikov[edit]

I have been part of these discussions through being caught up in WeijiBaikeBianji's editing campaign against template:human intelligence. I agree that there is something slightly suspicious about the sudden appearance of the two new users and their familiarity with wikipedia. That said, WeijiBaikeBianji is being rather disruptive and it's not only these two who have problems with WBB's continual reverts and slow edit warring, so I don't know how much can be read into their behaviour there. (But certainly Woodsrock has been uncivil.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  • comment Oppose move to close cited above by Mathsci. EdJohnston and other admins are still going to clarify the issue of participation in RfCs. Btw, can someone explain what it means for MathSci to have a "binding" topic ban? Isn't that the same in practice as the bans applied to Captain Occam and Ferahgo, only that his consent would reflect better upon him in general? I looked at the discussion and it's not clear to me that there is a material difference. For the record, I'm not happy about any of the topic-banned editors participating in the RfC on WBB. It's too close to having an impact on content and thus it's topic-related. It's dispute resolution (about a user, but clearly relating to the topic) not arbitration enforcement. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment by WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]

Certainly something very odd is going on here. I have no trouble discussing issues calmly with VsevolodKrolikov, and I expect that discussion to result in further improvements in several articles we both are watching. As Mathsci, the moving editor, notes, some of the edits by the two presumptive meat-puppets don't do anything at all to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I invite multiple editors to take a look at this, especially editors who are experienced with what are at bottom conduct disputes, and I am happy to learn from any conscientious editor how best to respond to this situation. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

MastCell has correctly noted in his comment as an uninvolved administrator that the issue here is editor conduct, and each account's contributions should be looked at for its overall pattern of building the encyclopedia and adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Reply to the latest several posts by EdJohnston I am losing track of the procedural issues here and how they relate to the substantive issues. (And that is worrisome, as I am a lawyer by training, and usually the first thing I do in analyzing any case is make sure of the procedural posture. But I'm not devoting as much time to this case as some disputants are, and as the unfortunate administrators must.) I think there is considerable gaming of the system going on here and distraction from the issue of editor conduct and building an encyclopedia. The newly registered accounts mentioned here are rightly regarded as "harassment accounts." They have very overtly been harassing me and wasting the time of other conscientious editors (e.g. VsevolodKrolikov). Only one of the two accounts has been warned. I call on all the administrators looking on to reexamine the discretionary sanctions already decided by ArbCom and ask yourselves whether the conduct of either presumptive meat puppet is consistent with the editor conduct expected under that decision. Is how they behave how editors are expected to behave on Wikipedia? Are they contributing quality content to the encyclopedia? I must get back to looking up actual reliable sources for further article edits. I regret that conscientious editors and administrators have had so much of their time wasted by the editor misconduct that Mathsci has helpfully reported. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Tijfo098[edit]

This request appears to be a sort of SPI investigation. What is alleged here is essentially that two accounts who recently opened a RfC/U on WeijiBaikeBianji are meat-puppets of a topic banned user. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course this belongs at SPI rather than here. But since Mathsci has apparently already gotten someone to run a checkuser on Sightwatcher and Woodsrock, and determined that they’re unrelated both to me and to everyone else who’s topic banned from these articles, I think he already knows that an SPI would be unlikely to produce the result he wants. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Maunus[edit]

I don't see how this can be enough evidence to sanction Occam. I am also suspicious about those two editors, but I could not possibly support any sanctions on Occam untill there is actual positive evidence that he has any part in their sudden arrival. It is not a crime to arrive at wikipedia with prior knowledge of its workings and it is also not a crime to agree with topic banned editors. Nothing we can really do here except keep the argument based on sources and policies going.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by SightWatcher[edit]

I originally joined Wikipedia wanting to edit film related stuff. I had been browsing race and intelligence-related articles out of curiosity and an interest in learning more, and first got involved when trying to remove something that looked like obvious original research to me. This first R&I edit of mine was reverted by WeijiBaikeBianji, restoring the original research (someone else later removed it). I never would have guessed that making a single edit would suck me in like this, but I thought the articles could benefit if I stuck around. It only took me a few days to notice that a few other editors also had a problem with WeijiBaikeBianji's behavior. Due to how prolific WeijiBaikeBianji's editing was, it was hard for them to deal with everything he was doing. If anyone else has experienced something similar here, they might understand how easy it is to get pulled into disputes like this.

As part of trying to rapidly familiarize myself with this topic, I've read through much of the arbitration process and findings. I find it pretty weird that one of the topic banned editors has made this thread. Mathsci, who WeijiBaikeBianji defended as "a thorough and conscientious editor" [149] despite this user's apparent penchant for edit warring and personal attacks pointed out by arbcom in his finding of fact. [150] Mathsci posted this thread less than three hours after I started the RFC/U about WeijiBaikeBianji. After this thread was posted, WeijiBaikeBianji immediately linked to it from the RFC/U, claiming that it "shows that this request for comment very likely is a continuation of an edit war by a topic-banned editor that began before I became a wikipedian." [151] Mathsci's intimate familiarity with my editing history in an area he's banned from is also disconcerting to me.

I don't think I need to respond in detail to all of Mathsci's accusations- seems there's no point. All you have to do is click on the diffs that have been presented in this thread to see that reality doesn't support his claims. For example, read the thread in Coren's talk to see that the suggestion to start the RFC/U originally came from Coren, not from Occam. Mathsci certainly knows this, because he participated in the discussion where Coren suggested it. Interestingly, this deliberate misrepresentation seems similar to some stuff I've read about through arbitration that Mathsci was doing- Ludwigs2 provided a good example here [152] of how he tends to do this (check out the "Fake Mathsci-style criticism of itsmeJudith for example purposes only). This thread smacks of being a very similar sort of thing...

But anyway, whether other editors or myself have done anything wrong here does not really seem to be the point of this thread. The point is that as long as this thread exists, it can be used to undermine the legitimacy of my RFC/U about WeijiBaikeBianji. In his comment on the RRFC/U that I quoted, WeijiBaikeBianji is milking this thread for all it's worth. So what I see is a very suspicious link between this, the timing of this thread in response to my RFC/U, WeijiBaikeBianji’s eagerness to defend Mathsci, and Mathsci's intimate familiarity with my disputes with WeijiBaikeBianji on these articles. What this looks like to me is WeijiBaikeBianji collaborating with a topic-banned editor to try to prevent his questionable editing behavior from being examined. I hope that admins can recognize this and close this pointless thread as soon as possible.-SightWatcher (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What you’re describing about how you got “pulled into” this dispute sounds pretty similar to what caused Mikemikev and Ludwigs2 to become involved in the race and intelligence article in December 2009. What was happening at that point is that User:T34CH tried to get rid of the race and intelligence article entirely, by turning it into a disambiguation page and dividing up all of its content between other articles. Mikemikev and Ludwigs2 had not been involved in the article before this, and Mikemikev had barely been active at Wikipedia before this at all. But what T34CH was doing attracted their attention, and once their attention was attracted both of them remained involved in the article for several months after that.
The general principle here is that when someone tries to make highly visible and contentious changes to several articles at once, it’s always going to attract editors who disagree with those changes, who might not otherwise have gotten involved in the dispute. Acting in a way that causes this outcome is bit of a wild card, because there’s no way to predict ahead of time what the editors whose attention it attracts are going to be like. Most people seem to agree that Mikemikev’s eventual incivility on these articles was disruptive. Ludwigs2 was also pretty strongly opinionated, but I don’t think anyone (except possibly Mathsci) regards him as having been an overall detriment to the articles, and he wasn’t sanctioned in the arbitration case. I would hope that Woodsrock and Sightwatcher are going to turn out to be more similar to Ludwigs2 than to Mikemikev, but the possibility of attracting editors similar to Mikemikev is a risk that WeijiBaikeBianji is taking by acting similarly to how T34CH did.
Either way, the most important point is that even if Mikemikev ended up being disruptive, he and Ludwigs2 clearly weren’t sockpuppet or meatpuppets of another user or users. So now that history is repeating itself, and a situation similar to what attracted them to these articles has now attracted Woodsrock and Sightwatcher, their having shown up in this situation is not a good reason to assume sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry about them either. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Don’t worry, nobody’s accusing you of having done anything wrong. This thread is mostly just more accusations of wrongdoing from Mathsci against the editors that he disagrees with, this time being directed at me as well as two fairly new editors. But one of the new people has apparently read several of the arbitration pages, and is taking some of the advice that you offered about Mathsci there to heart.

There is something slightly wrong here. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? I figure that if we’re going to be talking about Ludwigs2 in this thread, he ought to know about it.
I hope you’re not going to claim that contacting Ludwig was “canvassing”. It’s never canvassing to contact a single user to tell them they’re being discussed somewhere. Canvassing is also contacting a selected group of users to try and influence the outcome of a discussion, but since Ludwig isn’t an admin, he can’t influence the outcome of this thread anyway. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments by uninvolved Ludwigs2[edit]

I only have two comments with respect to this issue:

  1. I don't really see what it is that Mathsci is complaining about. I suspect this is just more of the same pugnacious behavior that he exhibited during the R&I dispute and arbitration.
  2. If Mathsci is returning to the behavior that he displayed before, then he himself is clearly in violation of the spirit of the arbitration, if not the letter of it. I would suggest that that be addressed here as well, assuming anything needs to be addressed at all.

I am on a short work-related break, and probably will not participate in this further unless my name is mentioned in some way that I feel calls for a response. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment The problem of meatpuppetry is a real one and I believe in this case has been and is being taken seriously by ArbCom. Meatpuppetry is harder to investigate or prove than sockpuppetry. It has necessarily to take place off-wiki and that is the case here.
(clears throat, about to say something important) I regret Ludwigs2's absence from wikipedia in the last 8 days. His unique and forthright style, often irritating, was actually extremely helpful on Communist terrorism and he was a vital part of the chemistry there. If he could look at the Collect case above, I think he could do a lot of good by commenting there and watching over what happens to the article if and when it is unlocked. Peace, Ludwigs2. Mathsci (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Mathsci: are you suggesting that all 15000+ of my edits are meatpuppetry, or that I (somehow) suddenly lose all free will and independent thought with respect to Occam? He must be one damned charismatic guy...
I tend to see Occam's message as a proper notification that I was mentioned on an administrative page (something which both SightWatcher here and Collect above neglected to do). I can see how you might see it as a mild form of canvassing (all things considered), but even you have to admit that's a stretch, and I would have hoped that you would AGF on it. Instead, you leapt all the way past common sense to veiled accusations of meatpuppetry, and that is in appallingly bad taste.
So fine, whatever: you indulged in hyperbole, I asked you not to, and I will AGF that the matter is closed. I have nothing more to say in response to this, so if you'd like a last comment, feel free. I'll take a look at the above 'collect' issue (which I just learned about this moment) later this evening. --Ludwigs2 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
?? The meatpuppetry case concerns those mentioned in the request (see the section above). Please take a look, if you haven't already done so. There's no reference to you there, unless it's hidden in some kind of subliminal bible code. But getting back to serious matters, it would be extremely helpful if you showed up at communist terrorism. You would be a voice of reason. Mathsci (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Response to EdJohnston[edit]

I should remind everyone that there has already been a request for clarification about the R&I case, in which arbitrators expressed the view that topic bans from this case do not apply to dispute resolution about editor conduct. However, I think it’s still reasonable for there to be some concern about how closely Mathsci is following all of the disputes over these articles, his and WeijiBaikeBianji’s seeming cooperation to defend one another, and whether he has been engaging in the same battleground attitude which was one of the things he was sanctioned for in the case. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

I think that admins now have enough information to make an effective response to the string of new issues that have arisen here concerning Race and Intelligence. From reading enforcement requests of the last two months I single out these comments as being especially informative. Both are from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71#WeijiBaikeBianji:

Quoted comment by Maunus[edit]

I don't think that this petition should be considered, especially not since the editor making it is not directly affected by WeijiBaikeBianji's behaviour as she currently is not allowed to edit in the area. If editors that actually are interacting with WeijiBaikeBianji agree with Ferahgo's judgement then they can and should start an RfC or arbitrartion enforcement case. Ferahgo doesn't need to act as protector of other editors' interests in the area that she is no longer editing - I am sure everyone there is capable of taking steps to resolve their own disputes with out help from previous participants.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Quoted comment by Shell Kinney[edit]

I'm afraid you've grossly misunderstood the Arbitration ruling; it was a matter of conduct, not content... If you'll re-read my comment where I indicated that, as far as I know, editors aren't prohibited from making reports while topic banned, I also strongly suggested that you stop monitoring the topic area and work productively elsewhere. It's disappointing that you only heeded part of my comment. About Mathsci, I find it hard to believe that you think the advice you were given by myself and NuclearWarfare somehow only applies to you. He made some very good points about your participation here - if you find that incivil and a "battleground attitude", I'd have to suggest again that you need to spend some time understanding how really Wikipedia works rather than continuing with the rather skewed interpretation you've learned from Captain Occam. Shell babelfish 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  • In the section below, 'Result concerning Captain Occam', I've proposed how this case should be closed by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment on proposed sanction[edit]

Before this thread is closed, I think administrators should look at these two comments from Mathsci earlier today. [154] [155] These comments were in the discussion about the ArbCom election, but since an admin who disagreed with him in the RFC was commenting there, Mathsci still used this discussion as a platform to snipe at him about it.

As a way to avoid further conflict in this area, I would consider it reasonable for topic bans from this case to be extended to all discussions related to race and intelligence articles. But if this extension is going to be made, I think it should be applied to all topic bans, including mine, Ferahgo’s, and Mathsci’s. Making an exception in Mathsci’s case is basically an endorsement of more of the same behavior demonstrated in the two diffs linked above. Is this something that admins want to encourage?

I also think it would be helpful if some admins could comment here who Mathsci isn’t privately in contact with via e-mail. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Captain Occam[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This report was archived by the bot prior to receiving a formal close here. I have brought it back for one more look by the admins. The issue to be addressed seems to be: does conduct by Captain Occam and Mathsci infringe their topic bans from the area of race and intelligence? There have recently been some cases closed here at AE where editors from WP:EEML were told not to engage in any dispute resolution involving the topic from which they were banned unless they were personally named and needed to defend themselves. We also see a recent case (Climate Change) where Arbcom intended the topic bans to be observed very strictly, so that the named editors could not even hint to others as to what changes they would support in articles covered by the topic ban. The admins at AE have some discretion as to how bans should be interpreted, and it may be that the exact ban language needs to be studied. In my opinion the case may be closed without blocks if (a) the definition of these bans is made clear, (b) there is some confidence that the affected editors will follow them. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I propose that the admins at AE should take action to deal with the string of new issues and new AE filings concerning Race and Intelligence. I've added a new section, #Statement by EdJohnston, to present quotes from an earlier AE from a month ago, including a comment by an Arbitrator. I recommend that we instruct the recipients of topic bans under WP:ARBR&I that they should not comment on any matters concerning Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including talk pages. This includes participating in any RFC/U, including the one at WP:Requests for comment/WeijiBaikeBianji. They should not engage in any dispute resolution that is primarily intended to influence content regarding Race and Intelligence, and is not 'legitimate and necessary dispute resolution' concerning their own actions. The misbehavior of other editors in the area of R&I should not be their concern until their topic bans are lifted. The authority that admins have to do this comes from two sources:
  1. The traditional power of AE to interpret the scope of topic bans
  2. Discretionary sanctions, which are authorized by WP:ARBR&I
If any of the named editors (those already topic-banned by Arbcom, plus Ferahgo who was topic banned here at AE) argues against AE's ability to make this additional request, then the admins at this board may consider imposing new and more specific topic bans under the discretionary sanctions. Editors with existing topic bans that are affected by this new interpretation are: David.Kane (talk · contribs), Captain Occam (talk · contribs), Mikemikev (talk · contribs), Mathsci (talk · contribs) and Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Note WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I/scope of topic ban of Mathsci. Editors have been adding statements there that may shed light on what ought to be done here. I recommend delaying the close of this AE a couple more days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Mathsci and Vsevolod[edit]
See [156]. The behaviors that I think have caused the most concern recently are those of Captain Occam and Ferahgo. If AE chooses to make the topic bans include dispute resolution as I've suggested, I think we should modify all the topic bans which are still technically in effect. If Arbcom chooses to lift Mathsci's topic ban, then our added restriction would go away as well. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that we have the authority to expand the topic ban under the ARBR&I discretionary sanctions provision, and I think we probably should do so, from what I've seen here. Note that nothing would prevent them from participating in necessary and appropriate dispute resolution processes involving themselves (such as an RFC/U against themselves), but there's no compelling reason for them to involve themselves in other discussions related to this topic. The latest clarification request may have carved out AE requests as a special case, but I see no justification to expand that exception further. T. Canens (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Sanction[edit]
Under the discretionary sanctions that are authorized for Race and Intelligence
  • Captain Occam and Ferahgo are indefinitely banned from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages. This includes RFC/Us about other editors where the behavior of that user on R&I is one of the major topics. These two editors should not participate in noticeboard discussions where the main topic is an article that is under R&I or the behavior of an editor who is closely associated with R&I. They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned.
The following is advice, and it is not compulsory
  • Captain Occam and Ferahgo are advised not to make enforcement requests at AE that concern R&I where no question about their own editing is on the table.
  • Mathsci is advised to limit his new filings about R&I at AE in the future, especially when no question about his own editing is on the table. (This advice will no longer apply if Arbcom decides to lift his topic ban from R&I).
  • Mathsci is welcome to continue making reports at SPI, even when he is reporting socks that may be active on R&I.
No action taken regarding David.Kane et al
  • David.Kane hasn't been much involved with R&I since the case closed. There seems no need to change his topic ban.
  • Mikemikev is out of the picture since he is under an indefinite block for pretty bad stuff, including nasty sockpuppetry.
EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks reasonable to me. T. Canens (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikifan12345[edit]

Topic banned for eight months.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wikifan12345 is topic banned from the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for eight months. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Wikifan12345[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Sol Goldstone (talk · contribs) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, via BLP and tendentiousness
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [[157]] The heart of the matter: Wikifan wants to insert a quote from Finkelstein. Except Finkelstein didn't say it.
  2. [[158]] Wikifan quotes Finkelstein as declaring Hezbollahs "right" to kidnap individual soldiers. Except the source is talking about prisoners of war and doesn't mention rights in the source, nor kidnapping, nor individual soldiers. Despite recieveing no support on talk page, Wikifan ignores calls of BLP violations to reintroduce the edits. Here Wikifan admits Finkelstein never talks about the "right", and continues to argue for its inclusion.
  3. [[159]] " [DePaul]University Board on Tenure and Promotions, the organization responsible for revoking tenure, ruled Finkelstein violated the 'professional ethical norms'. Except they never said that. The source is a letter from the President of DePaul and does not seem to contain the phrase 'professional ethical norms'.
  4. [[160]] Here Finkelstein is said to express solidarity with the perpetrator of the 2009 Jerusalem Bulldozer attacks. Except the source says nothing about expressing solidarity with terrorists. Here is Wikifan's long defense.
  5. [161] The month long RFC which occurred to prevent Wikifan's addition of a sentence expressing Finkelstein's unqualified support for terrorist organizations: "Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas.", despite objections that it was an over-simplification of the source and a BLP violation. Wikifan against the rest of the talk page.
  6. [162] I invite every interested editor to thoroughly peruse this talk page and explore Wikifan's one-man campaign, starting in September, to include many serious BLP violations in spite of resistance from a whole host of editors and receiving virtual no support. A careful look at talk page and edit dates reveals that some of this material was reintroduced after consensus declared the material unfit.

Everyone makes mistakes, it's nothing to get excited about, but Wayne alerted me to another time in the same article where Wikifan had taken some words out of context to make a Frankenstein quote of sorts (here) and I got curious and uncovered numerous instances in this article where Wikifan had significantly deviated from the source, misrepresenting the speaker and the content, to slander Finkelstein. In these examples alone he has used Wikipedia to accuse Finkelstein of expressing solidarity with a terrorist, conviction for violating "professional ethics norms", and stating a belief in Hezbollah's right to kidnap Israelis, all while using two direct quotes that don't appear in the sources and grave misrepresentation of speakers. These are gross violations of BLP and where not uncovered at the time, leading to protracted talk page wars in which Wikifan defends, at length, his disingenuous additions. I had to file a BLP report before he would even acknowledge that the quote wasn't from Finkelstein.

This is only the latest in a long, long string of tendentiouess and combative editing from Wikifan. If you care for more examples they can be provided easily; these are just the ones from the Finkelstein article. It's not the first time he's had trouble editing the BLP's of Israel's critics (Judge Goldstone) nor is it the first time he's engaged in protracted IDIDTHERETHAT, consensus filibustering and general combativeness. As to the results, I ask for a topic ban from the I/P articles; there isn't much hope of reformation here. Mentorship was unsuccessful and we have already spent far too much time dealing with fabrications. Sol (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
In Closing

My thanks to all involved and my gratitude for the fair dealing with a long-running issue. Given the nature and repetition of the offenses and the failure of other measures to curb them I think the 8 month topic ban just. I don't relish bringing administrative action against other editors but there was simply nothing else to be done. Sol (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
There ya go.

Discussion concerning Wikifan12345[edit]

Statement by Wikifan12345[edit]

Update: Sole keeps updating his statements above and it makes it difficult to keep up with what is he accusing me. Are editors allowed to revise their accusations again and again post-discussion? For example, here is what he says:

Sole: Wikifan quotes Finkelstein as declaring Hezbollahs "right" to kidnap individual soldiers. Except the source is talking about prisoners of war and doesn't mention rights in the source, nor kidnapping, nor individual soldiers. Despite recieveing no support on talk page, Wikifan ignores calls of BLP violations to reintroduce the edits. Here Wikifan admits Finkelstein never talks about the "right", and continues to argue for its inclusion.

  • See a problem with that edit? I did. Hamas and Hezbollah do not have a legal right to respond where "Israel violates international law." The fact that Finkelstein said this (not his exact words if I recall) does not mean we attribute it as a factual statement. Get it? The fact that I attempted to amend the edit should be applauded, not twisted as a violation. I'd imagine for an uninvolved admin it is pretty darn overwhelmingly to sift through the discussion, so it would be far more convenient for an editor involved in the dispute to supply the evidence for him/her. But Sole is being dishonest in this example. I've only made 8 edits to the article in the last month. Disputes over edits made 90+ days ago, disputes that have been either resolved or ended, should not be used as evidence here. I feel like I'm being stalked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I ask again what rules have I violated, explicitly. If this is a BLP issue well breezing through the discussion it is clear several editors were complicit in promoting original research and inserting or attributing statements to Finkelstein he never actually made, including editors making accusations against me here. Even if we assume a maximum number of three of my edits contained BLP vios, that is not grounds for a topic-ban. The fact that Sole filed this under the request of a topic ban should reveal his own partisan bias in the I/P arena. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I already expressed my views here. I don't feel like repeating myself as I do endlessly but I will try if an admin sees merit in Sol's selective card stacking. I do hope Sol will take a moment to explain why he supports Wayne's removal of consensus-edit. That is was prompted the incident report. Sole and Wayne continue to dodge the issue and that is by far the largest dispute going on. IMO these attempts here and at BLP are designed to avoid facing the fact that Wayne has a long history of removing my contributions instead of dealing with the actual content. This was demonstrated quite clearly here. Perhaps editors are trying to cover-up, probably unintentionally, the reality that Wayne and his supporter Sole removed my edits not because they violated policy, but simply because I am the editor who added them.
Why else would Wayne remove a consensus edit? He didn't it mean to of course, he saw my name and as always reverted my edit with a dubious rationale. I do find Sole's request for a topic ban from I/P articles quite telling. Clearly this was the goal he had, not actually resolving BLP and content issues - or else he would have recognized Wayne's culpability. But I digress. It's unfortunate editors rely on the system to resolve legitimate disputes. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Numero Uno: I appreciate the lengthening of my name but I assure you I have no need for donated "e"'s.
Numero Dos: Please, for the love of toast, stop trying to bring in issues that have no bearing on this. I am, in fact, not in league with Wayne, nor have I removed any of your edits from the article, nor have I stacked the deck against you, or engaged in a cover-up. I honestly have no idea what edit Wayne has or has not removed nor do I recall voicing my support or disapproval for it. The talk page has become a muddle mess of editors objecting to your various misquotes. Casting aspersions is a good strategy but it's most effective when some of it makes sense. This was prompted solely by you trying to attribute a quote to Finkelstein he never said and the revelation that you engage in this with great frequency. Whatever disputes you would like to bring up, do so on talk. The basic fact is that you have been distorting sources and then arguing vehemently against anyone who challenges these slanderous edits. It's very tiring and gets in the way of editors who may have interests beyond accusing Finkelstein of supporting terrorism and professional misconduct. It needs to end. You were given a nearly unanimous topic ban last year and it doesn't seem like a stretch to return to it if nothing else works. Sol (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the E. Sol, please - the content dispute evolved into this weird BLP/AE noticeboard situation. I suggest you refrain from behaving as if you were forced to do this. You know what the content dispute is and yet selectively ignore facts that conflict with the "topic-ban Wikifan" approach. The content disputes you post above were already debated at length and mostly resulted in a dead-end or resolved. It is silly to hit an editor with BLP vios for dated content disputes that are no longer relevant. I gather the goal of this is to topic ban an editor you clearly disagree with. First, assuming the most extreme interpretation, it is highly unlikely an ordinary content dispute would end in a block, let alone a topic-ban. Second, you should know your submission of this AE is predicated on the following:

Anyone requesting enforcement who comes with unclean hands runs the risk of their request being summarily denied or being sanctioned themselves.

Sol, you are not a passive victim or uninvolved third party. You were part of the dispute and decided to file a BLP incident report on edits made more than two months ago. Edits that are not in the article. Interestingly, you decided to file this right when I showed Wayne gutted a consensus-edit without even reading it. An edit you supported.
Just answer the question - do you or do not still endorse Delia's proposal that was agreed to in the RFC? If I am topic-banned, which would be truly shocking, for the sake of the article I encourage you to honor and acknowledge your original agreement. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you get it. This is about you distorting and marring sources to libel biographies of people you don't like. You got caught. Instead of admitting a mistake, you ignored the falsity of the material and pushed to include it. It wasn't until you got reported that you finally admitted that the quote was false. You won't admit the truth until the authorities get called in and that is simply ridiculous. You've systematically created slanderous material targeting things you don't like and defended your actions with barrages of counter-accusations and non sequiters. This needs to end. Sorry, dude, I'd rather spend my time not fighting with people on the internet but enough is enough. I'm done, if anyone else actually shows up I'll clarify what I can. Sol (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Got "caught?" What? Your diff show nothing. Changing words or questionable paraphrasing is not simply a BLP violation. I recognized the last edit I made was wrong, but you failed to AGF. The fact that we are forced to rely on primary sources make it hard to keep track of what Finkelstein is saying opposed to what people say about him. I mistook an email he received on his website as his own. Look at the way his site is set up, it's easy to make mistakes like that.
You hijacked the content dispute and turned it into a behavioral dispute. This all started after I explicitly asked you and Wayne if you still supported Delia's revised edit, which is what the RFC revolved around principally. Instead of answering, and admitting Wayne removed my edit without actually checking it, you go back in time and lawyer up a case to prove I'm not contributing honestly to the discussion. If anyone should be penalized, it is users who abuse the system and are incapable of resolving disputes when faced with tough questions. So whatever this leads to, I hope you find the stones to answer whether or not you still endorse Delia's proposal that you and everyone else originally agreed to. Unless you prefer me being topic-banned opposed to honoring the RFC you and Wayne rallied for. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
As it's not germane to your fast-and-loose approach to BLP I've asked you on your talk page to identify what removed RFC content you keep referring to. You have refused. As it seems impossible to communicate with you without admin oversight I've brought this here. If it is what you say it is, I'll restore the incorrectly removed content and then this discussion can continue. Sol (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
To George
Sole, you see what you want to see. You know what went on in the discussion. You know what Wayne did and you know this isn't just about me. Taking the content dispute to the system was the last thing you should have done. I could have just easily spent hours collecting edits made by Wayne months ago to force an intervention by an administrator. It is very suspect you "had" to make this (your claim) only after it was revealed that Wayne is removing my edits simply because they are my edits and not because the edits themselves are flawed. What this AE and incident report essentially does is de-legitimize my legitimate arguments and contributions to the article which are vast and much of the content still remains. If we want to talk about behavioral issues it's pretty clear who was doing the edit-warring on a dedicated level and it was not me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I only count three true reverts. This was not a revert. If you reviewed the talk discussion you'd know the the first sentence is the revised intro all editors agreed to in the RFC.
This also isn't a revert. Adding a quote for clarity does not qualify as a revert. And anyways, I don't think it is fair if this AE is going to be a list of crimes Wikifan has committed in the last 48 hours supplied by uninvolved editors. Or editors who have been involved in content disputes with myself in other articles. For the sake of time I would like to see Sol, Wayne, and Roland honor the RFC they supported and restore the edit they all originally backed. I'd say this is acting as an unintentional distraction from legitimate content disputes. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(Response to specific administrator actions) Can an admin please review my posts above? I did not intentionally "misrepresent" BLP has inferred by HJ Mitchell. Administrators should consider reading through the lengthy talk discussion as this is a shared content dispute. In any case, I have not been engaging in personal attacks, edit-warring (conclusively) suggested by Philknight and I have no history of misrepresenting sources or BLP vios. I don't have a lot of experience with BLPs anyways. I have positively contributed to numerous articles since my ban expired without issues. This AE is predicated on a selective portrait of what went on. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Comment moved from results section. PhilKnight (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban - questions for administrators[edit]

  • What am I being topic-banned for? I'd like to see some evidence of consistent edit-warring. I've spent many hours discussing the content at length in talk. The issue here is about BLP disputes, not edit-warring.
  • The 1-revert ruling was not in effect during this conflict last I checked.
  • What precedent exists to support such an extreme penalty for an obvious content dispute? Can anyone challenge what I've written above?
  • We all know the I/P area is most hostile than others and POV-warriors are looking to remove editors they get into content disputes with. Veterans should be aware of this and users itching to ban a user for a dispute like this must consider all the facts.
  • It should be recognized this content dispute is a shared responsibility. I was the one who originally exposed a serious BLP violation by Wayne, and his edit-warring to protect it. I explained it once again here
  • Before this ends, I would like to see the RFC be honored. It is beyond me how the issue graduated all the way to incident boards claiming I am being disruptive when Sole and WAyne fail to honor the RFC they demanded. An admin should should restore my edit or at least recognize my edit was consistent with the consensus and Wayne unfairly reverted it.
  • If it possible, I would prefer an admin I have not been in content disputes weigh in.
  • Philknight immediately endorsed the complaints of User:Haberstr even though he was actively edit-warring not only my edits, but several other editors as well and removing entire paragraphs of cited information claiming anti-Hamas "POV". Most of his edits have been reverted and the content is restored, for now. I feel like my complaints are not being read I really would like a response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345[edit]

Comments by George

This article is under the topic-wide 1RR restriction, but it seems to me that Wikifan12345 has reverted fives times in the last few days, violating the 1RR restriction four times (each revert was less than 24 hours from the previous):

  1. 08:41, November 28, 2010 - revert of text added November 6 by Matrixnaz
  2. 12:12, November 28, 2010 - straight up revert of text added 7 minutes earlier by Delia Peabody
  3. 07:24, November 29, 2010 - revert of text added 15 hours earlier by Delia Peabody (note the phrase "alleging that Israel had invaded Lebanon as signal of rejection" that Delia added, and Wikifan12345 removed).
  4. 08:36, November 29, 2010 - straight up revert of WLRoss from 32 minutes earlier.
  5. 07:16, November 30, 2010 - re-adds quote about "satanic state" that WLRoss had removed 3 hours earlier.

EdJohnston points out below that the 1RR notice was added after all this edit warring. However, I do believe that 5 reverts in less than 48 hours (4 of them are within 24 hours) constitutes edit warring and a violation of 3RR as well. I would add that the fourth of those reverts within 24 hours was made by Wikifan12345 while logged out, which raises concerns of possibly intentional sockpuppetry as an IP address to avoid 3RR. With the 1RR notice going up, I don't think fully protecting the page necessary, though it probably won't hurt. ← George talk 06:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Wikifan12345 - sorry, I still view the edits you mentioned to be reverts. If you're simply re-adding information someone else removed, or even if there's consensus for your revert, you're still reverting. I haven't looked at the content of your edits at all, and some or all of them may have been quality improvements, but on contentious topics there's no need to edit war. If there is a consensus and the material can stand on its own, it will (eventually) get added. When editors on both sides believe that they're in the right, and engage in an edit war over content (each fully believing that they are improving the article), it leads to nothing but problems. ← George talk 22:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The edits you posted above are being taken out of context. I was simply honoring the RFC Wayne agreed to. If he decides to remove an edit he supported simply because I made it, that's on him. That's not a revert, that's being bold. I asked Wayne nearly a dozen times why he removed the edit that was agreed to in the RFC. I've admitted the latest edit was an obvious BLP vio but it was not intentional, but there really is no excuse to remove edits unanimously supported. Is that not a behavioral issue? Am I so bad for daring to follow the consensus? I don't want to see Wayne banned, or anyone punished. I rarely ever rely on the system to deal with editors I have content disputes with, but if I am removed from Finkelstein I would hope an admin or someone involved actually read through the discussion and revert Wayne's edit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, who is Wayne? And of the five edits I listed above, which do you consider reverts and which do you consider to not be reverts (I've numbered them for simplicity)? I'm not asking which reverts were good or which were bad, and I'm not asking which were inline with consensus or which were against consensus, just which do you consider to not be reverts? ← George talk 23:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Given the IP's history it is either Wikifan or a very helpful anonymous editor who stumbled across his personal works-in-progress page and shares a similar passion for charts. Sol (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
George, I already explained the context of the edits. The burden of proof rests against those making baseless accusations. I was not engaging in systematic edit-warring. There were maybe two or three incidents of moving edits (with sources) into the article that were subsequently reverted by Wayne and myself over a period of maybe two months. Hardly a war. Perhaps you should consider reading the talk before involving yourself in the discussion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Wow, I just read through (too much of) that lengthy RfC. It appears that just about every editor involved disagrees with you:

  • "You edit is so far from what the source is saying I'm wondering what source you are reading. There is no consensus for your edit and the current version is exactly what NF is saying" - WLRoss, November 6
  • "This is exactly why your edits are so bad, you have little understanding of how sentence structure works in English. NF did not say or even remotely imply that the kidnapping and murder of several Israeli soldiers was a noble gesture." - WLRoss, November 8
  • "Your edit has been challenged by every editor who has comnented here and several have also stated that NF did make that analogy." - WLRoss, November 10
  • "I think that Wikifan's edit is a BLP violation" - Gatoclass, November 10
  • "You're actively pushing for us to exclude information that contextualizes a politically sensitive issue in a BLP and not addressing valid challenges to your proposal... this is getting tendentious." - Sol, November 11
  • "...excluding information that misconstrues Finkelstein's limited support of Hamas/Hezbollah is dishonest and violates WP:BLPSTYLE in this context." - Sol, November 12
  • "Wikifan, I can't help but notice your undisguised hostility toward Finkelstein, which makes me think that this may not be the most suitable article for you to be editing." - Delia Peabody, November 13
  • "I am troubled by your paraphrase of the long quote above, which I don't feel is justified by what is in the quote" - Delia Peabody, November 25
  • "I feel that your summaries often distort what is in the sources you are summarizing, and it appears that many other editors feel the same way" - Delia Peabody, November 27
  • "FYI. This discussion has now exceeded 10,000 words. One editor Vs everyone else. Let's wrap it up please." - WLRoss, November 27
  • "One could get the impression that you are really quite hostile toward Finkelstein, and it's not a good idea to edit biographical articles where you might be tempted to injure the reputation of the subject." - Delia Peabody, November 28
  • "That paragraph currently has the support of everyone who has commented (apart from you). If you have a problem with it that is what this RFC is for and you cant keep restoring the most negative spin you can find." - WLRoss, November 29
  • "Let's cut to the chase; I'm now looking at Wiki's past quotes inserted and comparing it to the source and there's a trend of distortion." - Sol, November 30

Initially I thought that this was just a problem of some minor edit warring, maybe a little POV-pushing, and had intended to suggest that admins consider a shorter topic ban, something along the lines of a month. However, after reading through literally pages of other editors not just disagreeing with you, but calling you out on multiple instances of distorting sources to smear the subject, I would suggest a permanent topic ban from this specific article. Though if administrators believe the editor's history warrants a broader sanction, I wouldn't be opposed. ← George talk 04:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to George

George, I don't understand why you're this dedicated. Wait, I do. Cherry-picking statements to demonstrate a trend that does not exist. This simply an attack on my character right now. Regardless, the RFC was about several edits being debated. There was no edit-warring going on. Just because a series of like-minded editors disagreed with me does not prove a behaviorial issue that warrants a topic ban. I did not violate any policy (NPA for example) during the RFC. To prove your bias in this case, it seems you clipped Gato's statement. Perhaps providing the DIFF will provide a more honest context, but naturally that would defeat the goal:

It's hard to believe this issue has yet to be resolved. For the record, I think that Wikifan's edit is a BLP violation but that he is also correct that Wayne's edits have been OR-ish. There should be a happy medium somewhere; I think a good place to start would be to revisit DailyCare's suggestions above.

.

Wayne continued to force content that he invented himself, which was defended by Roland and others as well. The content is no longer in the article (for obvious reasons). My edits on the other hand have been challenged for misrepresenting the source material, which I've debated heavily. That is not a behavioral issue or a violation of policy. It's like I edit warred the content into the article. The vast majority of my contributions took place in talk. And lest I remind everyone here I was the one trying to honor the RFC and include the edit that we all agreed on. I feel like I'm being surrounded here and am beginning to lose track as to what this AE is all about.

Can an authority figure explain what I'm being accused of specifically, you know - like what rules and policies I have violated? Specifically please. I wasn't edit-warring, I did not engage in any personal attacks. I discussed virtually all my edits extensively cordially (for the most part). Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to read the RfC. I wish I hadn't, but I did. After doing so, I came away with the conclusion that other editors strongly felt that you were violating WP:BLP, arguing your case, over and over, for a month. I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to counter accusations of violating BLP by quoting an editor who explicitly accused them of violating BLP, then dismissing it as a non-issue because you "debated heavily", but hey, that's your call. I'm not an authority figure by any means, but based on the complaints of others about your edits and behavior in the ensuing discussion, I would guess that you would be blocked for violating WP:BLP and tendentious editing. Others might see things differently. ← George talk 06:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hm. Did you read my post? The diff you provide paint a false picture. The RFC was about several edits that were discussed. Some contributions made by Wayne and his supporters were ruled out in the discussion because of my points. Notice how Wayne's analogy no longer sits in the article? Taking quotes from an editor that was caught promoting original research and editing into the article as evidence of behavioral issues is quite dubious. WP:TE is not a policy, and my presence in the actual article (or lack thereof) is hardly proof of such action. The fact that several editors disagreed with me is not grounds for a topic ban or even a block. The issue over BLP is about hypothetical or debated edits, nothing systematic.
If the issue is BLP, then a comprehensive topic ban is laughable at best. The vast majority of the conflict took place in talk. And as heated as it was, I did not violate any of the core policies. I did not attack any users. I did not edit war. Claims that I am "distorting" Finkelstein's words are troubling but not yet proven. Lots of my edits and contributions still remain in the article. I don't see any conclusive evidence supporting a topic ban. What I do see is a lot of editors I've gotten into content disputes with, including yourself George, that see an opportunity to remove an editor they dislike. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Where did we get into a content dispute? My memory is foggy. And yes, WP:DE is a guideline, not a policy. But I note your avoidance, shifting the topic to other editors (Sol Goldstone, WLRoss and his OR, "his supporters", myself) while flatly ignoring the accusations of violating BLP as "not intentional" and "not yet proven". I do think a topic-wide ban would be a bit much (unless your block log warrants it, which I haven't checked), though I don't see any reason you shouldn't be topic banned from the article on Norman Finkelstein. There are plenty of articles out there not related to Finkelstein that you could help improve, and if there's something really critical missing about Finkelstein, someone will surely add it sooner or later. ← George talk 07:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Your memory is foggy? Really? Tell me, what inspired you to join this discussion? I can't find any contributions to Norman Finkelstein. Am I one your watchlist or something? Obviously we've had a content dispute somewhere. Or have a bias against me on a personal level, which could be argued considering the content on your userpage. I am not avoiding anything here. If you're going to cherry-pick data and use false captioning, you can't seriously accuse me of avoidance. The issue is editors twisting the context of the discussion, clipping diffs (as you did numerous times), or linking dated content disputes to this unrelated incident report. The reality is the evidence you have provided is predicated on commentary from involved users. Clearly you chose suspicious edits not because of their relevance but because they serve an ulterior purpose.
TE is not a policy (and I have not violated it), please explain to what part of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing I violated. All I see is a long, loud, boring talk discussion that has taken the span over several months involving legitimate content disputes (some of which have been revolved). Like I showed above with Sol, most of the debate has been me challenging the edits of others - not the other way around. Some editors are very possessive and have been shown to be very protective of Finkelstein, accusing editors have trying to "smear" him as inferred by RolandR and Wayne. I don't know why you had to "re fracture" your edit when you first came bolting in demanding a topic ban. I have not added a whole lot of content to Finkelstein lately and spent the majority of time on other articles without issue. Meanwhile, Wayne is butting heads again at Hamas claiming mainstream authors are "POV." He had already removed entire pages of cited information. Just look at my three month history. Someone please tell me I am a prime candidate for topic-ban. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Yup, my memory is foggy, and I don't see a content dispute in the link you provided. It looks like I replied to you in two separate discussions, once each, and you didn't reply? Shrug. This noticeboard is on my watchlist. I came here to check on Cptnono's appeal above, which I commented on earlier. You're claiming I have a bias against you at a personal level because of what exactly..? For the record, I have absolutely nothing against Jews, Israelis, or homosexuals (I'm assuming from your user page that you're all three, and I mean absolutely no offense if I'm mistaken). I clipped quotes from editors because this discussion is already getting needlessly long, and many of the lengthy quotes weren't relevant to you or your behavior, but the ones that were were alarming. It certainly sounds to me like you're grasping at straws to avoid addressing the issue.
WP:TE is one type of WP:DE (and vice versa). I didn't "re-fracture" my statement, I refactored it (rewriting something to improve its readability without changing its meaning) because you have several times misinterpreted it as "demanding a topic ban" while I only suggested a topic ban on this specific article (while expressing that I don't oppose stiffer sanctions, if warranted). I believe the commentary from pretty much every editor you were in discussions with in that RfC stands on its own, and don't think there's much point in either of us further wasting each others time in this discussion. The administrators can decide for themselves what actions should be taken. ← George talk 08:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I never said you had anything against Jews. WP TE is an essay, and your "evidence" does not demonstrate TE editing in a way consistent with WPDE. Or in a way inconsistent with other users in the discussion. The commentary in the original discussion is widely available. So if an admin wants they can browse through and see for themselves. But you went to the effort to select suspicious quotations out of context. If I truly am a criminal here, editors shouldn't have to spend so much time and effort trying paint a picture that does not exist. So again, I'll repeat: I've only made 8 edits to the article in the last month.
No evidence of serious edit-warring (your five examples were less than persuasive), no evidence of personal attacks. The fact is numerous editors violated rules, original research being the most blatant, and yet those editors are portrayed as victims to my "disruptions" by you and Sole. Nevermind that those same editors have been caught red-handed forcing OR, deleting cited material, and attacking other editors and claiming they are promoting a "POV." I showed above one edit Sol failed to represent honestly. It wasn't too difficult, I just read the diff and my response - which he didn't link, but rather summarize with his own interpretation. So George, please tell me why you clipped Gato's edit? An administrator's statement no less. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Because most of the quote wasn't about you. Regarding other editors, two wrongs don't make a right. ← George talk 08:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

George you are grasping. This isn't about right and wrong. We're talking about a multi-party content dispute, not some playground teasing. The quotes you listed were snipped, cut, edited, and taken out of context. You went to the effort in taking suspicious quotes without linking their location, and edited full sentences or removed them. I ask again why did you remove Gato's statement? Perhaps because it implicates editor Wayne, which you cite as evidence for disruptive behavior? The burden of proof rests against you here George. The level of analysis here is close to propagandic. Editors are begging for a topic ban and there is very little evidence to support it, considering my rather minute contributions to the article space. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm so in love with WLRoss (a.k.a. Wayne). That's why I originally cited both you and WLRoss for violating 1RR in this very discussion, before someone noted that the article was lacking the 1RR notice during your edit warring, eh? Continue ignoring other editors, lawyer more, and maybe administrators will buy your story. Thankfully, I have more pressing matters to attend to. ← George talk 09:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Facts wrong again. The 1RR was not put in effect until after the edits were made. December 1st notice, pre-November 30th. The article was also not classified under the strict [Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles I/P general sanctions laws] during the edit-wars at least according to the talk template. So no, I did not violate 1RR. And I demonstrated above how the examples you gave above were hardly reverts in the disruptive sense. No evidence of systematic warring has been provided, and even assuming I violated the 1RR rule that would mean a block at best, not a comprehensive topic ban which is what you lobbied for from the get-go.
And you accusing me of ignoring you? Projection much? You still refuse to respond to my post, why you modified Gato's edit and passed it off as a full def and why you did not provide the locals for your selections. I know why you did, I stated my case above quite clearly. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a small taste of Wikifan's style of cooperation. Now imagine it continuing for 3 months and 20,000 words; that's the Finkelstein talk page, about 50 pages worth of text, single spaced, with one editor against everyone else, engaging in this same pattern of WP:HEAR and non sequitur arguments. Sol (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Tijfo098

I think Wikifan12345 should be topic banned from Norman Finkelstein. His POV pushing and WP:OR in that RfC was just ridiculous, and we're talking about a BLP here. Top that with one month worth of WP:IDHT. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether due to ulterior motives or simply due to lack of competence, we should not allow editors who have repeatedly violated WP:BLP to continue unabated. I find it interesting that the cohort who praised SlimVirgin's preening of Horowitz's article of all the (presumably accurate but) silly quotes doesn't say anything here, when the violations here are of WP:V rather than just "merely" of WP:UNDUE. Alternatively, can we have a list of BLPs that are AE-approved mud targets? Tijfo098 (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Commend by EdJohnston

Slim Virgin added the 1RR notice to the talk page at 01:15 on 1 December, which is *after* all the above edits by Wikifan and WLRoss. EdJohnston (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by RolandR

I fundamentally disagree with the proposal below by EdJohnston for full protection and a continuation of discussion on the article talk page. It is precisely because this process has failed that Sol has felt obliged to make this submission. The fact is that we have been conducting this discussion on the talk page for several weeks now -- some 20,000 words over the past three months. There is clear consensus between half-a-dozen or more editors -- all of the editors on the page except for one. But Wikifan is stonewalling and filibustering, in an attempt to prevent any outcome other than her/his preferred BLP-violating smears of Finkelstein. To adopt Ed's proposal would merely condemn us to several more weeks of this, with no possibility of a conclusion. The only way this can possibly be resolved is through a topic ban or other sanction against Wikifan, so that other editors can proceed with the article. This submission is not about a content dispute; it is about the disruptive behaviour of Wikifan. In addition to the instances noted above by Sol, Wikifan has repeatedly, and falsely, accused Wayne of "inventing an analogy", despite clear evidence to the contrary. S/he has edit-warred to include demonstrably false assertions about Finkelstein's views, and to remove reliably-sourced facts. S/he has refused to cite sources, stating that "Finkelstein supports Hamas does not need support. It is a true statement." The quantity of disruption, denial of good faith, "I didn't hear that" and outright obstruction from this one editor is unacceptable, That is the problem, not the content. RolandR (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

RolandR, do you even know what the dispute is about? If you did you'd know I'm not filibustering anything. The content is still in the article, I haven't removed it. The fact that I disagree with an edit does not mean I should be topic banned. I have good reason to question the contributions of Wayne when he (recognized by an administrator) designed an analogy Finkelstein never made but attributed it to Finkelstein. It took pages of discussion for this to be fleshed out and to this very day you as an editor still defend the edit even though it has been ruled out of the article.
To me, it seems the purpose of this is not to recognize BLP vios but to end this content dispute by removing another editor. I've made a colossal number of 8 contributions to the article in the last month. I request an admin cite an edit that warrants a block, let alone a topic-ban. Disagreements in talk discussions does not mean users get banned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by PhilKnight

Wikifan12345 has edited on many articles that have been tagged as indicating the entire topic is under 1RR, and in this context, I don't think we should ignore the edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of edit warring? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Mbz1

In his book Alan M. Dershowitz says: "...Nasrallah and his anti-Semitic organization Hezbollah that Norman Finkelstein praised and regretted not having supported more forcefully" There are many more quotes in this book and in other books and articles that show who norman finkelstein really is.Will this be BLP violation to add those quotes to the article? No, it would not be because it is the truth supported by reliable sources. I do not believe Wikifan should be banned at all. And, no, topic bans should not necessarily be escalated. Please seeUser talk:Nableezy topic bans as an example. And, if Wikifan was edit warring, it takes at least two user for this. Even, if he will be topic ban for I/P conflict for 3 or 4 months, it will be a punishment unheard of. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If this were just about reliably sourced criticism of Finkelstein I wouldn't have brought it up. If you've got a good source and add material properly then all is right in the wiki-world. Sol (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Once again Wikifan could not possibly edit war with himself/herself, and a long topic ban in the situation is an absolutely unwarranted punitive sanction. Besides you contradict yourself, when you said: "If this were just about reliably sourced criticism of Finkelstein I wouldn't have brought it up". You have started that discussion on BLP notice board , and it where it should have stayed. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
They told me to bring it here. So I did. I'm not sure how having a BLP notice means I'm contradicting myself but if you inspect the diffs you will find that this is not a problem arising from reliably sourced criticism but from false portrayals of sources and general tendentiousness. A long topic ban may strike you as punitive, but I think that's the point; it's not getting better. Sol (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)No, there is no contradiction here. If there was only a content dispute, this could be resolved on the article talk page. But it is clear, after three months and 20,000 words, that it cannot be resolved there. And the reason is that, although most editors (eight, I think, though there may be more) agree on how to proceed, just one (Wikifan) is filibustering and edit-warring to prevent this agreement from being put into effect. It is indeed possible for just one editor to be edit-warring, which is why most such blocks are for just the culpable editor, and not those they have been disrupting. RolandR (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Roland, I am the one who was attempting to honor the RFC that you and everyone else endorsed. Here is you removing the RFC consensus edit: evidence. Sole and Wayne did the same thing. All three of you are complicit in violating the RFC and yet here I am being accused of preventing the agreement from being implemented. Do you disagree? This is the biggest issue going on and I hope an admin recognizes this. The topic has become too Wikifan-centric and the actions of others are being totally ignored if not outright victimized.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Link it. Right now. Link where I remove an RFC edit. You can't. But you don't let the facts stop you. Hence why we are here. If you want to bring up an AE against other editors, go for it. I haven't accused you of impeding the RFC; throughout this entire process you have yet to present any substantive defense against the allegations. If you don't understand what's wrong here or even what you're accused of then a temp ban is just delaying the problems for a few months. Sol (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
@roland Why are you so loud? Isn't this because you yourself are edit warring on the very same article? And it is really a strange approach, I mean yours "If there was only a content dispute, this could be resolved on the article talk page. But it is clear, after three months and 20,000 words, that it cannot be resolved there." So, in your opinion, if a content dispute cannot be resolved the best way to proceed is to punish an editor, who disagrees with you? It is the same approach that was used in communist ruled Soviet Union, the very same communists you are so fond of.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want to accuse me of edit-warring, that was a very odd edit to choose. It was quite obviously removal of spam links, to a site selling a book I like and have myself cited. The edit had absolutely no political implications or effect. Is that really the worst edit of mine you can find? Talk of scraping the barrel...RolandR (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
And now I tried to add two different sourced informations to the article. It was removed 2 times by pro-Arab users, who will stand for their man no matter what: here by Nableezy and and here by NSH001, the very same NSH001, who did not hesitate comparing Israelis to nazis, which according to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights expressed in its working definition for antisemitism "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is considered to be an antisemitism. And you are telling me that consensus could have been reached on that article with such an approach? No, and there's nothing to punish Wikifan for.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The Working Definitions document says: Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: ... Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy with that of the Nazis. The document says could include, not does include and therefore it is a misrepresentation to claim that it says: "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is considered to be an antisemitism.     ←   ZScarpia   17:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Mbz, you aren't doing your case any good by accusing someone of "antisemitism" who is basically sympathetic to Jews, and very, very strongly opposed to actual, real antisemitism. That is an outrageous, malicious and dishonest lie about me, and I ask you to withdraw it. --NSH001 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Her diff speaks louder than your denial. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. NSH, while it is certainly possible for you and others to make an analogy that is seen as antisemitic without actually being antisemitic yourself, you can hardly be surprised if people are not entirely charitable about your POV. This is a content dispute which means, like all IP content disputes, this board is the awesomest place to have the debate. IronDuke 01:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Mbz, NSH, No More, and IronDuke, you seem to be displaying a great deal of animosity towards each other and it appears to be impeding effective collaboration and compromise between you all in the Finkelstein article. Would you agree that this is the case? Cla68 (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, your question was not phrased properly. It should have been asked like this:"Mbz, No More, and IronDuke you seem to be displaying a great deal of animosity towards NSH while NSH seem to be displaying a great deal of animosity towards you..." Anyway to respond your question. I personally have no interest in touching that article at all, and I will not any more. I mean, when I am reading something like that: "Articulating the key Holocaust dogmas, much of the literature on Hitler's Final solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud." "The Holocaust Industry" p. 55 or ‘If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one,’ my mother used to exclaim, ‘who did Hitler kill then?’”“The Holocaust Industry,” p. 81. it literally makes me sick to my stomach, and I literally feel a strong urge to take a good shower. You see, Cla68, I used to live 20 minutes bus ride from w:Babi Yar, I also visited w:Auschwitz concentration camp, and I have heard many stories about the Holocaust, the real stories of the real people. So there's nothing for me to compromise about on that article. As I said I will never touch it again.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, I have never edited that article, so my answer would have to be no. That said, I hope I never have to edit an article with NSH as I find his views quite disgusting and symptomatic of a problem Jews editing wikipedia have to deal with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Aren't editors supposed to respond in there own category? this is becoming extremely difficult to navigate through and for an administrator to review. I prefer this dispute not be spill over into a general I/P war. The focus should be on Norman Finkelstein. I would of course agree that a topic ban for a content dispute would be a major precedent considering this is a shared issue. Wayne has a long history of edit-warring at Hamas and Norman Finkelstein while I've largely relied on talk to explain my edits. The real issue is when uninvolved editors, say like RolandR restore his edits every time. I'd say it is still edit-warring even though users take turns. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


Yeah, right, there was edit warring, wasn't there? Except Wikifan had nothing to do with that. user:NSH001 and user:Nableezy were edit warring.Are you going to ban them too?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Comment moved from result section. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Mbz, please stop lying about me. I wasn't edit-warring, since I have only made ONE edit to this article in many months (except possibly vandalism reverts). Good night. --NSH001 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
NSH001, I am proud to inform you that I never lie. As you probably have seen the article was protected, and why it was protected, NSH001? It was protected because of edit warring, NSH001. And who was edit warring on the article, NSH001? You were, NSH001. Now, I have never accused you in being an antisemitic. I only provided the links to your rant and to the working definition for antisemitism by European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Please do be reasonable, will you? I have no authority to withdraw anything adopted by European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. On the other hand I'd like to remind you please about this thread from your talk page concerning the difference of yours I linked to above.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Mbz, one single edit to remove a BLP violation is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "edit warring". (I see that, overnight, Nableezy has, on the Finkelstein talk page, saved me the trouble of explaining why it is a BLP vio - thanks, Nab.) And you have no need to remind me of that bizarre piss take (about the most charitable description I can find) on my talk page, since, in disgust, I took a few months off editing. No drama, no fuss, just a silent protest, in the Quaker fashion, against outrageous lying and intimidation. --NSH001 (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
To be more precise, you said you were busy and it would take you time to respond, and then disappeared, probably to avoid having to explain your deliberately hurtful comments. I doubt that's "the Quaker fashion". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
NMMNG, well I was busy, and by the time I was able to formulate a proper, full, response, it was stale. There was nothing "deliberately hurtful" about my comments, since they were just an incomplete factual summary of the sufferings and humiliation of the Palestinian people, some of which are reminiscent of some of the sufferings Jews themselves have experienced throughout history. They were expressed in such a way as to make the point that Latuff can legitimately draw such cartoons without being antisemitic. I'm sorry if that offends you, but that remains my opinion. --NSH001 (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The sufferings and humiliation of the Palestinians are reminiscent of some of the sufferings of many other peoples throughout history. To compare it to the Nazis who tried to kill partically every Jew they could get their hands on and largely succeeded in this endavor, is highly offensive, particualrly to Jews. I'm sure you know this. It's the reason you chose this comparison rather than comparing it to, say, the suffering of the Jews of Morrocco. You chose your words to be hurtful and you do so deliberatly.
You are of course entitled to your opinion. But don't act all surprised and offended when you chose to state your opinion on a talk page and people call you out on it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1, I would like to simply echo what Sol said. There is a big difference between adding reliably-sourced criticism to a BLP, and manipulating quotes from the subject. The latter is irresponsible editing and a conflict with Wikipedia:ASF#ASF, by making the views of critics into an official Wikipedia POV. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Polargeo

T Canens idea of an 8 month ban seems to me to be reading the consensus wrongly. There is no general consensus amongst uninvolved users (even admins) for a ban of this length. Polargeo (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Who were the uninvolved users ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Look at the result section just below, Few uninvolved admins commented, and nobody,T Canens suggested 8 months topic ban!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I am an uninvolved user. Uninvolved admins are in the section below as Mbz highlights. Presently there is insufficient support for T Canens preferred action. There is far more support for a three month topic ban with the possibility of extension if justified. Polargeo (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
AE does not operate on consensus. "Any uninvolved administrator" can impose sanctions on "his or her own discretion" (emphasis mine), not "any consensus of uninvolved administrators". If there needs to be consensus for every action, there would be no need for discretionary sanctions at all, since community consensus can impose any sanction necessary. Besides, EdJohnston, PhilKnight, and myself supported 8 months, and Slp1 thinks 3 months is too short. MastCell and KillerChihuahua supported 3 months, and HJ Mitchell thinks there should be an indef ban on I/P BLPs and has no opinion on a broader ban. Looks like enough support for 8 months for me. T. Canens (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not so. Look at the posts again, and note that EdJohnston, PhilKnight, T Canens and myself all thought it should be longer than 3 months, and the first 3 all agreed with the proposal for an 8 month topic ban from I/P article. And for what it is worth, so do I. --Slp1 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Wikifan12345[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I suggest that this be closed with full protection of the Norman Finkelstein article for a suitable period, like one month. The participants are doing a semi-decent job on the talk page of working out the issues, and they've opened a BLPN discussion which is still running. The problem I see is that they aren't listening to each other very well and so you see constant misunderstanding of the other parties' positions. Reverting-while-discussing doesn't work very well either. Full protection would still allow consensus changes to be made via {{editprotect}}, so this should enforce a better quality of discussion. The protection can be lifted as soon as the issues are sorted out. Editors are cautioned to supply diffs if they think someone else has made a statement they consider false, since personal accusations on the talk page could be viewed dimly here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A more detailed check of the recent edits at Norman Finkelstein does not increase my sympathy with Wikifan12345's behavior. It does appear to me that Wikifan12345 continues to restore his preferred versions to the article when it should be 100% clear to him that his changes don't have consensus. That goes well beyond WP:BRD. I invite other admins to comment on whether a 3-month topic ban if Wikifan from the Finkelstein article is the best course. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I think a 3 month topic ban sounds about right. PhilKnight (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
When I review Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs), I see someone who has racked up 4 previous blocks for edit-warring (along with several for personal attacks); who is edit-warring right now; who is wikilawyering over the definition of a "revert"; whose editing often seems agenda-driven and involves selective use of sources; who is currently editing a BLP in a slipshod manner; and whose behavioral patterns were troublesome enough to warrant a prior 4-month topic ban in this area. During the topic ban, it seemed that this editor had little or no interest in other areas of the project outside of this specific political controversy. This seems like the kind of editing that the discretionary sanctions were designed to deal with. So yes, a 3-month topic ban would be reasonable from my perspective. MastCell Talk 17:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Aren't topic bans supposed to escalate? If so, I don't think 3 months on Finkelstein only is long or broad enough, given the history. In 2009 Wikifan12345 was banned for approx 4.5 month topic area from the entire I/P area for similar problems.[163]. He has also received shorter topic bans from other articles. I take very seriously the misrepresentation of sources in a BLP article, and that his mentor has given up the job because of ongoing behavioural problems[164]. There does not appear to be a steep enough learning curve here.--Slp1 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that the four-month 2009 topic ban from I/P should be seriously considered as part of the background. Doubling that should be considered, since there is no evidence of reform. How about a eight-month topic ban from the I/P area for Wikifan. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure, I have no problem with a longer ban. Obviously, if after 3 months Wikifan12345 can show a track record of responsible editing, then we could review the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Personally prefer a year, but 8 months is fine. T. Canens (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I would support an indefinite ban on editing BLPs in the I/P topic area. I've no strong opinion on non-biographical articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In response to continued warring, I've fully protected the Norman Finkelstein article for 3 days. Whoever closes this request might lift the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A three month ban is surely sufficient, at least for three months. If not, we can extend the ban or revisit the situation and consider other options. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is time to close this. It is my view that a long topic ban is needed to prevent further disruption to this already fragile editing environment. If good work in other areas can be demonstrated, we can always lift the ban early on appeal, but given the history here, the ban should stay until shown to be no longer needed. Accordingly, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for eight months. This sanction may be appealed as provided in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shuki[edit]

Overtaken by events.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Shuki[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Mkativerata (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions and Topic ban
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [165] Wading into an AE discussion concerning the area of conflict that does not concern Shuki at all.
  2. [166] Dittos
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Not relevant.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
The topic ban covered all discussions related to the area of conflict. Clearly that should cover weighing into AE requests concerning the area of conflict, especially where they do not concern Shuki personally.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[167]

Discussion concerning Shuki[edit]

Statement by Shuki[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki[edit]

Shuki has just been blocked for 6 months for abusive sockpuppetry in the topic area. I think that makes this request moot. nableezy - 23:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does (although Shuki seems to be under the misapprehension that he is blocked because of this AE rather than the socking). In any event, this can be closed out. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Shuki[edit]

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

Overtaken by events, it seems. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuki. T. Canens (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy[edit]

Jiujitsuguy topic banned for 3 months and Nableezy topic banned 4 months
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Nableezy[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Jiujitsuguy
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

The 1948 Palestinian exodus is currently under a 1r restriction per recent enforcement action and warning of same is amply noted on the article[168]. Nableezy, an experienced editor whose rap sheet on Wikipedia evidences recidivist tendencies has now violated the 1r restriction by making two reverts in rapid succession, reverting myself as well as another editor.

Alternatively, he engaged in WP:GAMING by using his reverts in a tactical manner to circumvent the spirit of the 1rr.
I am amending this claim again to add a charge that Nableezy has engaged in additional Uncivil conduct by referring to my goodfaith edit (reasons for which I articulated at Talk) as a "Bullshit edit," in his comments below. It seems that he can not utter a retort without spewing vulgarities about edits effectuated by others.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
And now, adding insult to injury, he belittles my "newly found sensitivites"[169]
I needn't remind any admin reviewing this case that Nableezy has a history of engaging in uncivil conduct. Indeed, he had been recently blocked for this and is currently under an interaction ban with 3 editors due to incivility. It is ineresting that he couldn't even contain himself during this AE when he is under admin scrutiny
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block or topic ban
Additional comments by user bringing request

Though the reverts relate to two different edits they are both within the same article and are still deemed reverts per Philknight[172] and an experienced editor like Nableezy should know better. He will undoubtedly claim ignorance and engage in extensive wikilawyering as he always does but I’m sure that those entrusted with upholding and dispensing equal justice will see through his shenanigans once and for all. It appears that Nableezy has withstood many AE’s brought against him while others in the topic area who do not share his view have been subjected to overly harsh topic bans. I hope that in light of Nableezy’s prior record, a sanction, consistent with those recently issued against Shuki and Wikifan (whose records are far better) is issued.

It has been brought to my attention that Nableezy reverted User: Hmbr and after I made an edit, he undid his revert of Hmbr so that he could "save" his 1rr for me and accordingly, reverted me. If ever there was an example of gaming, it's this and it is contrary to the spirit of 1rr. Nableezy is a sophisticated user, well-versed in the intricacies of Wikipedia's rules and regulations and so his actions here should be viewed with some suspicion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@T. Canens, Philknight,HMitchel. I didn't violate 1r, I didn't game, I discussed my single revert on Talk, I was never accused of being uncivil and I think my record is a bit better than Nableezy's. May I ask why I would be given a sanction equal to Nableezy?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@HMitchel. I wasn't trying to use AE "to gain the upper hand." I recognized what I thought was a violation of the letter if not the spirit of the new 1rr restriction and so I filed an AE. Am I now being sanctioned for bringing a violation to the attention of the community?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
@T. Canens. It wasn't me who engaged in the "self-revert a revert so that I can revert again" tactic. I recognize that I am not an angel but I don't believe that my conduct rose to the level of Nableezy's. I believe that equal sanctions here for unequal offenses seems inequitable. I ask all admins who commented to reconsider--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
@HJMitchell, I've always respected your opinions though I've not always agreed with them. However, I take issue with this comment "It seems to me that both the filer and the respondent are attempting to game the system and are certainly attempting to use AE as a weapon to gain the upper hand" that you made. In the past week or so, Nableezy filed at least two AEs. One against Shuki that resulted in a six-month topic ban adverse to Shuki, with no sanction applied to the filer, Nableezy. And the second against Cptnono resulting in a 3hr block against Cptnono, again with no sanction to Nableezy. It seems illogical that Nableezy can file as many actions as he please with impunity but suddenly, when someone files an action against him, the filer becomes the object of scorn. Something is very wrong here unless I'm missing something. Please consider this appeal before applying a sanction against me. Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
@HJMitchell. Please note that I attempted to engage in amicable relations with Nableezy and I tried to put aside our personal and political differences. Please see this exchange where, following the issuance of a 1rr restriction against him, I offered to voluntarily restrict myself to 1rr in articles where both he and I edit so as not to gain an unfair advantage against him. That is anti-gaming. Also, in the same thread, see how I attempted to resolve a dispute (in a gentlemanly fashion) that ultimately resolved in his favor and the edit that he was objecting to was removed--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Notification

[173]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

I self-reverted one revert, so I have made exactly one revert on this article, part of which was rewording the line to appease those editors who had a problem with saying something has been widely called ethnic cleansing when the source says Abu Sitta is a leading expert on the nakbah and what is nowadays widely described as the "ethnic cleansing" it involved. I also added sources for the statement among which was a leading historian saying that what took place was ethnic cleansing. So in sum, I made exactly 1 revert, rewording the sentence to comply with the objections posted by others on the talk page, expanding on the material in the body to comply with other objections posted on the talk page, and Jiujitsuguy defines that as "gaming". Lets take a look at this charge, because it is an interesting one.

Jiujitsuguy has since Nov 29th made all of three edits to the article along with 2 edits to the article talk page. Those three edits, one on the 29th, one yesterday, and one today, were all removing this line. Those edits are all the edits he has ever made to this article. The two edits he has made to the talk page are as follows: yesterday he says he doesnt understand why the term "ethnic cleansing" is placed in quotes in the sources, and uses that absurd reason to remove the line. Today, he again asks this question and again removes the line from the article. Prior to him repeating the question, an answer was given and additional sources were provided for the statement. Yet Jiujitsuguy plays WP:IDHT and repeats the same silly question as though it absolves him of providing a real reason for removing the content.

There are users here that are simply playing a game, using whatever thread they can pull from a policy, guideline, or essay they think supports their immediate goal of removing content that makes a certain place look less than perfect. They do this while knowingly and purposely ignoring NPOV, and they do it spectacularly well. The arguments so far advanced for completely removing this sentence was that contained a "word to avoid" or that it was not expanded upon in the body. Instead of changing a single word or adding material to the body, multiple editors remove the sentence under the guise of following this style guideline or that essay.

Yes, I self-reverted a different edit so that I could use the revert here. That is not gaming, that is the opposite of gaming. I dont intend on waiting for 24 hours so that I am allowed to revert an <redacted> edit made without even a wave at Wikipedia policy, I dont intend to play that game. Ask Jiujitsuguy to explain how either of the two edits he made to the talk page justifies the 3 reverts he has made, 2 of them within 28 hours. As of this point, I have made a single revert on that page. I dont intend to make any more, and each of the editors here who oppose the edit has yet to see fit to respond to my replies on the talk page, which as of right now nobody has responded to in the past 3 hours. Yet they somehow are able to spend time here making several comments. I wonder why that is. nableezy - 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I say that above having already read Mkativerata's comments. I respectfully disagree. nableezy - 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To accommodate Jiujitsuguy's newly found sensitivities, I've redacted a single word in my initial response. nableezy - 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Im not trying to "game" around anything. We are allowed 1 revert per day. If you want to say that I cannot choose which revert to make, that once one is made then thats is fine. Ill respect that in the future. I felt when I made my self-revert though that set the number of reverts that I had made to 0. "Gaming" is a reference to playing policies against one another, trying to subvert their intent. That is not what I am doing, it is what the users making such inane arguments that having a "word to avoid" justifies the removal of an entire sentence rather than removing or replacing that single word. nableezy - 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
All right, if it is not acceptable I wont do it. If you would like, I'll restore the article to where it had been at the time of Jiu's revert. nableezy - 23:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand how self-reverting to perform a different revert can be characterized as gaming. It is entirely transparent, and Jiujitsuguy certainly seems to take advantage of what a 1RR "entitles" him to on a regular basis, see for example the 28 hour revert cycle on this article [174], [175], or the recent edit history of 1982 Lebanon War, or Preemptive war, or really any article Jiujitsuguy edits. nableezy - 03:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the most telling thing about this process is that two users who have removed the contested sentence from the article, Jiujitsuguy and No More Mr Nice Guy, have each made several edits to this page since my revert. They have not however made any comments in what is now going on 27 hours to the talk page of the article. Yes, I made a revert. But the revert that I made was not simply a straight revert. NMMNG raised 3 issues on the talk page. 1. there are "words to avoid" in the sentence, 2. the material is not expanded on in the body, and 3. BRD was not followed. The first 2 of these are valid objections, the last is a transparent attempt at filibustering. In my edit, I addressed both 1 and 2. I then asked on the talk page if there were any further concerns. NMMNG has yet to respond there, but has the time to make several comments here. Jiujitsuguy's reasons for reverting on the talk page are laughable at best, but even those reasons have been addressed. Neither party seems interested in the actual content here, as evidenced by their apparent willingness to completely avoid the discussion. You can say what you will about my use of AE, but almost all of the AE requests I make are based on editors acting in an unacceptable manner in article space. That is, my concern is the content of the articles. Here, the user is concerned with eliminating an "enemy", not in making sure that the content of the article be compliant with the policies of this website.

A number of admins have been calling my use of a self-revert to be an example of "gaming". I've already said why I dont feel this to be the case, but if yall see it that way then so be it. But a bit of advice, if I might be so bold to assume you might listen. If you dont want this to be looked at as a game, try to make this more than an exercise in counting. Jiujitsuguy makes a revert on the 1st and makes a comment, note not an actual reason, at the talk page. He waits 28 hours so that he may perform another revert, making the same comment at the talk page without so much as acknowledging the response to his initial comment. If this isnt a game, the rules shouldnt allow for these nominal gestures of making a comment and then waiting for 24 hours to do the exact same thing. For some reason that I have yet to comprehend, you all seem to think that the number of reverts a person makes determines whether or not that person is a "disruption". Its as if you believe that because you must remain "uninvolved" that you cannot actually look at the content of the reverts. You follow a simple formula, if the revert was not removing the word "fuck" inserted by a vandal or an obvious BLP issue it counts as 1 strike. The strike count is reset after 24 hours. If you have 2 strikes at any point you are a "disruption" and will be sanctioned. Honestly, do the rules I describe resemble anything more than a game?

I dont want to play this game, which is why I simply self-reverted a different revert so that I could perform this revert. I think the idea that waiting 24 hours makes a "bad" revert into a "good" one incredibly stupid. I knew there was more than a decent chance that we would end up here when I made the edit. I object to the idea that I purposely gamed the 1RR. This will sound arrogant, in fact it is arrogant, but I really am much smarter than that. If I wanted to game around the restriction I would be much more clever in doing so, I wouldnt simply make a self-revert then label a different revert as a 1 revert.

One more request, can yall please try to resolve these issues more quickly? nableezy - 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]

Comment by (involved) Mkativerata

Didn't nableezy very quickly self-revert one of the reverts? This self-revert reverted this revert --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He undid the self-revert for reasons best known to him. Look at the revision history. There is a clear violation--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If he reverted himself why are we here? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course, and perhaps I'm making your case for you, is the suggestion that nableezy, after seeing your revert, self-reverted his earlier revert of a less controversial edit, so that he would able to revert your more controversial edit withing 1RR? In other words, there's no 1RR violation, but the case could be framed as an charge of gaming 1RR (which I have no views on yet as nableezy hasn't commented). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears so. He's using his reverts in a tactical manner. He first reverted Hmbr and when he saw my edit, he viewed that as the greater of two evils so he undid his last revert so he could revert me. It's quite devious behavior and in my opinion wholly contrary to the spirit of the 1RR--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to make it clear because the request as filed focuses on a 1RR violation, which I don't think is the issue:

  • [176] 04:44 (my time): Nableezy reverts the removal of a category by User:Hmbr.
  • [177] 05:17: Jiujitsuguy reverts the addition of material he/she finds contentious.
  • [178] 05:43: Nableezy has a sudden change of heart about the category and self-reverts his/her earlier revert with no reason given in an edit summary.
  • [179] 05:49: Nableezy reverts Jiujitsuguy presumably believing his earlier self-revert allowed for it under 1RR.

The issue seems to be whether Nableezy was gaming 1RR. But of course there could be a good explanation - it seems to me that Jiujitsuguy's edit removed the basis for Nableezy's revert (removing the material in the article that supported the category). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@George: I take your point and it is difficult to read too much into it before Nableezy responds. But prima facie, I would think that self-reverting oneself to use a revert in a "more deserving" circumstance (a) would be gaming; and (b) treating 1RR as an entitlement to one revert, promoting a battleground mentality. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It could equally plausibly be argued that Jujitsuguy waited to make his contentious edit (for the third time in four days) until after Nableezy had made a revert, in order to prevent him from reverting this. This unfounded allegation would have as much validity as Jjg'sown speculations about Nableezy's motives. RolandR (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
@George and RolandR: I am very mindful of this. Hence my comment above that the two reverts actually seem related. Nableezy justified the category restoration on the basis of sourced material in the article. Jiujitsuguy then, it seems, removed that sourced material. There may have been a high degree of opportunism there. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy restored the material that justifies the category with his v2 revert, so that excuse doesn't seem to work. It's pretty obvious he undid one revert so he could do another. Now the only remaining question is whether that's legitimate or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that there could be an element of fault lying with the filer of this request, for deliberately pulling the rug out from under Nableezy's first revert while Nableezy was barred from responding because of 1RR. Obviously I have the requisite degree of cynicism to start actively editing in this area. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting point: hmbr's deletion of the "ethnic cleansing" category was incorrectly done as the article had material justifying its presence in the cat. Once the cat was restored the supporting information was removed, making the category inclusion nonsensical and thus rightly deleted. If your previous revert is rendered moot by another edit, can you undo your outdated revision and restore the supporting information necessary? Guess not. Sol (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Obviously that is mere speculation without any evidence supporting it. Nableezy's actions are supported by diffs. Like I said above, the only question is whether what he did is legitimate or not. Admins should keep in mind that their decision here will set a precedent that others will follow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The filer's actions need to be scrutinised. As I see it J's revert was based on the view that there was "No consensus for contentious, problematic edit" (edit summary). It is disruptive for editors involved in active talk page discussions to, at the same time, be involved in reverting on the article due their self-proclaimed view of where the consensus lies. It's tendentious and to be quite frank I'm seeing prima facie cases for sanctions on both sides of this. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If there has been a discussion going for a day or so, with 3 editors wanting to include something and 3 editors objecting, it is not legitimate to think that there is no consensus to include at that point? Consider me enlightened. The way I understood things work here is that if an edit is challenged with legitimate policy based concerns it stays out of the article pending reasonable discussion. This sort of thing happens all the time. I think it's called BRD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
BRD doesn't justify editors involved in the discussion pre-empting the discussion by reverting at the same time based on their self-proclamations of consensus. Especially not in a highly disputed area of conflict like PIA. When a discussion is open, editors should stick to the discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, the way I understand it is that the edit stays out of the article pending discussion. The onus is on the editors who want to include material. Someone "pre-empted the discussion" by restoring it after it was objected to and removed the first time. Anyway, I'll wait and see what other admins think. This might be another precedent. It's something that happens very very often. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, it's something that in my view needs to be stopped. In addition to my and Nableezy's concerns is reverting with "per talk" edit summaries, which is classic trench edit warfare.[180] If the reviewing admin would prefer that the issues raised in respect of Jiujitsuguy be handled in a separate AE I would be happy to open one. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Presumably, the editor referred to by NoMoreMrNiceGuy as having pre-empted the discussion by restoring the text is me. I restored similar text after looking at his deletion of what was there previously as a pending changes review. The way things looked to me was that a properly sourced statement had been removed for specious, even nonsensical, reasons. For example, using NoMoreMrNiceGuy's reasoning, if a source said something like Spanish is widely spoken as a first language in the United States we would have to omit reference to the word widely and represent the statement as Spanish is spoken as a first language in the United States in Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I said the editor who restored it the first time. That wasn't you. And as I said in my reply to you below, I'm very much open to my actions and arguments being scrutinized. If I am told by an uninvolved admin that I misunderstand policy or that my arguments are not valid, I will correct my editing accordingly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mkativerata, Nableezy just took me to AE on a very similar revert issue so he should stop belittling others. He should know that my punishment was supposed to calm things down, but he is apparently still on the warpath. You trying to justify his very poor judgement is unbecoming of an admin like yourself. Why get yourself burnt? Nableezy is claiming that Jiujitsuguy is using whatever thread they can pull from a policy, guideline, or essay they think supports their immediate goal of removing content. I laugh. What did he do to me? On two reverts the book was thrown at me. Nableezy knows the rules better than most of his and should have merely relaxed. Shuki 6 month ban, Wikifan 8 month ban. Who's next? --Shuki (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, aren't you topic-banned? I'm not justifying Nableezy's actions - I think he has done wrong here and more so than the uninvolved admin does. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@Amatulic: I agree that a number of editors are out to "get" Nableezy and have him removed from the area of conflict. However, that doesn't change the fact that these AEs may on occasion throw up real, actionable, violations of policies and norms. I think we need a clear view one way or the other on whether Nableezy's actions are acceptable - a warning to avoid actions that other involved editors may perceive to be violations leaves us hanging a bit. Nableezy's statement and my own comments above also raise questions about the filer's own actions which I think warrant interrogation. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record I agree with what HJMitchell is proposing.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@Jiujitsuguy and Mbz1: In my view, the sanctionable conduct is the ongoing reversion of material from the article during an active discussion about its retention. Expected standards of behaviour go beyond formal compliance with reversion rules and extend to seeking consensus instead of engaging in tendentious editing to pre-empt and disrupt consensus-building processes. If there is a discussion on whether to include certain content, discuss and don't revert. Although I agree it would be useful to whoever closes this out to make it quite clear why sanctions will be imposed on Jiujitsuguy. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about what it is said that J did wrong. It is more than an issue with one edit:

  • Revert 1: [181] J removes an entire sentence because of a problem with one word in the sentence. Inappropriate use of a reversion as a weapon. No message left on the talk page.
  • Revert 2: [182] a "per talk" revert. At the time J's only contribution to the talk page debate was this, one minute earlier. The BRD cycle is broken here by engaging in multiple reverts during an ongoing discussion.
  • Revert 3: [183]. Reverting based on a self-proclaimation of a consensus in an ongoing discussion. Tendentious edit-warring. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Amatulic - with respect I think that is a whitewash of what is going on this article. Nableezy states "We are allowed 1 revert per day". Wrong. That is part of the mentality causing so many problems. On the other hand, the evidence I've pointed to above shows a clear pattern of tendentious editing and edit warring by Jiujitsuguy. This is trench warfare and it needs firm sanctions in response. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by George

It appears that Nableezy self-reverted their first revert 6 minutes prior to making the second revert? ← George talk 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He self-reverted and then undid the self-revert. Look at the revision history--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not seeing where he ever undid his self-revert. It looks like he reverted, self reverted, reverted a different edit, then made an unrelated edit. I don't think that counts as violating 1RR. ← George talk 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that Nableezy decided that Jiujitsuguy's edit was more deserving of his revert than was re-adding the Ethnic cleansing category, but I'm not sure if that counts as gaming. That seems like a bit of a stretch, but I'm curious to hear administrator's views on the matter. ← George talk 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
@Mkativerata - My concern is that the reverse could become a gaming tactic as well. Wait until an editor reverts a (relatively minor) change by someone else, "spending" their 1RR coin, then follow up with a more controversial edit of your own, knowing that they would be unable to revert you. I'm not saying Jiujitsuguy did that here, but if WP:GAME is interpreted the way you're describing, I'm concerned that we might see more of that in the future. ← George talk 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ZScarpia

I came to the article through a pending change notification of an edit by NoMoreMrNiceGuy in my watchlist. As the change was clearly not vandalism I permitted it. I thought that the edit was an illegitimate removal of a sourced statement, however, so I re-added text similar to that removed, but slightly lower down in the Lead. My re-wording was an attempt to more closely reflect what the source had said. I think that the article history and the talk page contents will both show that NoMoreMrNiceGuy and Jiujitsuguy both removed a validly sourced statement for illegitimate reasons while baselessly claiming to have consensus.     ←   ZScarpia   20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if an admin or two would read the talk page discussion (it's the last section) and let us know what they think of the behavior and adherence to policy of everyone involved. As long as we're here already, let's learn something. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Comment by RolandR

Jujitsuguy's summary of Nableezy's edits is seriously misleading by omitting the intervening self-revert[184] at 18.43. By submitting such a seriously distorted case and omitting evidence apparently fatal to his claim, Jjg is underhandedly gaming the system. This submission should be speedily rejected. RolandR (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have amended my claim to include a charge of WP:GAMING. I didn't see the intervening revert until it was brought to my attention and that is why I have amended the claim--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Shuki

Amatulić, please be fair and do a similar investigation for the number of AEs Nableezy has pulled against his opponents. I welcome you to AE, but be careful before having mercy on this editor. I'm sure you can see for yourself Nableezy's bans and blacks, including 1RR before the general 1RR was in place. I've lost count of his multiple 24+20 minute reverts. You are right, enough is enough of this battleground and remorseless mentality. --Shuki (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've participated in, and monitored, this page for several months now. I've already observed the activities of the involved parties, and wrote my comments accordingly. I am not advocating mercy; rather, I am assuming good faith as required, giving them credit for knowing their own history and consequences of past actions, and trying to work within the restrictions they are currently under. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Mbz1

Phil, what are you going to ban Jiujitsuguy for? And how about agreeing with Timotheus Canens? And why only one month for Nableezy? Aren't topic bans supposed to be escalated as you've done with Wikifan?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Here's a copy of the message I posted to Tim's talk page: "Hi Tim, Sorry for posting here, but I am not sure you'd pay attention to my post on AE.You topic banned wikifan for 8 months because of editor's prior history. Now you said this, but IMO it is not exactly correct statement about Jiujitsuguy. He has not nearly as bad prior history of topic bans as Nableezy does. Nableezy has at least 6 month topic ban for I/P related articles. As much as I could see Jiujitsuguy has never been banned for the whole topic. Besides what exactly Jiujitsuguy done to deserve to be banned. He filed a valid AE request, and that's it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)"--Mbz1 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Lol don't draw me into this please. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy violating npov

Jiujitsuguy is constantly violating npov with his edits within the Arab-Israeli conflict, here are just some examples: Claims the Mount Hermon ski resort in the Golan Heights is "in Israel": [185]. Refers to Syrian soldiers in Golan Heights as "during the years that Gamla was under Syrian military occupation". he uses this as an argument to use a map of Israel for a place that is internationally recognized as in Syria. Ads a map of Israel for a Cave in East Jerusalem:[186][187][188][189]"Undid revision 398232226 by activist editor". Claims Gamla in the Golan Heights is "owned" by Israel:[190]. Removes that Rachels Tomb is in the West Bank and ads that its "owned" by Israel:[191]. Claims Mount Hermon which is 100% in Syria and Lebanon and no part of it is in Israel, is "in Israel" and says: "Part of the Hermon lies in Israel and in fact, it is a magnet for tourists w/ ski resorts & lodges, while the Syrian Hermon lies in waste". Claims that territories that Israel occupied in the Six day war is "Israels territories":[192] This is clearly someone who has severely failed to adhere to a neutral pov, and is inserting his personal pov into articles, instead of a neutral pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not to do with POV, rather fact v. fiction. The Golan is in Israel. To state otherwise is a lie. Chesdovi (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Your comment is in violation of npov: [193] and it is based on your own personal believes. If you cant follow npov and instead resort to adding your personal pov into articles like Jiujitsuguy, then you should refrain from editing within the topic area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Between 48-67 the West Bank was "in" Jordan: [194] even though the IC did not recognise Jordans annexation. The same goes for areas now controlled by Nothern Cyprus. The villages are in the Turkish republic. Pages discussing the legal disputes can go into to various viewpoints. Places in EJ & the GH, annexed by Israel, are viewed as in Israel like any other places on the planet, even if this move is not recognised. Chesdovi (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The Golan Heights issue needs an ArbCom ruling like the West Bank/Samaria issue. We've seen fights on every possible article about whether or not it's part of Israel. I'd be perfectly happy if Israel got the Golan Heights in a peace agreement but until that happens and the world recognizes it, pushing Golan as Israeli sovereign territory is putting the perspective of one county above all the others. We've been over this many times in many talk pages; you don't have to change your personal opinions but recognize that they aren't what WP reflects. Sol (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore I have now found an article written by Jiujitsuguy where he says some pretty disturbing things, including "Islamofacist influence on Wikipedia" and refers to Wikipedia editors as "hordes of Jihadists and like-minded anti-Semites." This is clearly not someone who should be editing within the topic area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A now-deleted version of your userpage at one time stated opinions such as "This user knows Israel has no right to exist" along with several very anti-Israeli comments & flags; in addition, you have made some unsettling comments in the past on non-political food articles [195],[196][197]. Would you say that those comments are much different from those which you are attributing to Jiujitsuguy? --nsaum75!Dígame¡ 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I have already received a topic ban for those kinds of comments I made at talkpages and for the comments at my userpage. I also removed the things from my userpage a year and a half ago.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
If memory serves me correct an Admin, not you, removed the items from your userpage citing WP:SOAP. True, your topic ban has since expired. But you clearly espoused such opinions & viewpoints at one time, and you have continued to argue against the inclusion of photos from Israel in non-political food articles by saying that it is not neutral to have photos from Israel in articles about Arab food. So how are those article and userpage comments different than statements that you are attributing to Jiujitsuguy from outside wikipedia? --nsaum75!Dígame¡ 17:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
My topic ban was not for supporting inclusion or exclusion of photos from countries, admin said "the most compelling and disturbing behavior adduced here is nearly a year old. (The June 2009 edit seems to hit the high watermark for bad behavior)." It was certain types of comments I made, and I said that I would not say those kinds of things again, and I have not. Jujitsuguy has on the other hand not received a topic ban for his problematic behavior. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
So then when you say "This is clearly not someone who should be editing within the topic area." do you mean a short-term ban or an indefinite ban? Because I still see little difference in the comments you have made and the ones that you say Jujitsuguy has made. --nsaum75!Dígame¡ 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I received my punishment for what I did, and I learnt my lesson, Jiujitsuguy has not recived anything for what he have done, and his probleamtic behaviour continues. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
@SupremeDeliciousness. Let me explain the difference between you and I. I expressed genuine remorse for making stupid and immature comments that were made on an off wiki forum. The contrition came after I was reinstated which means that I didn’t have to say it because I was already reinstated. The reason why I expressed regret was because I genuinely meant it. You on the other hand made vile racist statements referring to people of Jewish faith as "culture thieves" and land grabbers and you made these comments on Wikipedia. What’s even more disturbing is that you stated, while appealing your topic ban, that you would not repeat such offensive words on Wikipedia again but you never offered an apology for those hurtful, overtly racist views nor offered a retraction. You merely stated that from a tactical position, it wasn’t in your interest to repeat those views if you wanted to continue to edit. I asked you, as many as four times to retract those abhorrent statements and you refused which only means that you still subscribe to them. And that my friend is the difference between you and I. I recognize my shortcomings and try to improve myself whereas you’ve never demonstrated such a proclivity--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not only talking about those comments that you made of wiki, Im talking about your problematic pov edits at Wikipedia as I have shown above in diffs. I have never seen an apology from you. Also the things you are saying here about me are inaccurate, I never said "people of Jewish faith as "culture thieves"". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The diffs speak for themselves and incidentally, aside from reverting edits with edit summaries like "remove Israeli POV," what content have you ever added to Wikipedia?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Sean.hoyland

Setting aside the technicalities of 1RR policy/gaming, I don't think it is the case that 'Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy have been at each other's throats for quite a while now'. Jujitsuguy was given the opportunity of a fresh start after his unblocking following the investigation into his off-wiki activities and publications (with my help). I think peace has largely prevailed between Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy since then and Jujitsuguy has refocused his efforts on trying to get Supreme blocked/topic banned (apparently requiring some use of double standards on his part User_talk:PhilKnight#Shuki given statements he has made off wiki). It's disappointing that Jujitsuguy has decided to revert to his previous belligerent approach towards Nableezy. What seems pretty pointless about this incident is that the content will almost certainly eventually say what Jujitsuguy and others are working hard to prevent it from saying simply because that will be the inevitable result of applying the rules that govern content decisions to the information present in reliable sources. Contrary to popular belief in some circles, blocking editors does not erase information in reliable sources. One set of editors are adding sourced content, the other set are removing the content together with the sources. They seem like quite different types of behavior to me. The discussion on the talk page should be allowed to take it's course without being disrupted so perhaps protecting the article and forcing everyone to resolve the issues through discussion might work better. I'd also encourage admins to take a look at the discussions and compare the natures of the arguments being used. It's a pity that everyone didn't just stop editing and talk about it rather than start another report-fest. This case is different from Shuki's. That was an example of someone simply refusing to abide by the result of a centralized consensus decision that will result in changes to a large number of articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Tiamut

Amatulic is correct in pointing out that there have been many reports filed against Nableezy with the hopes of making some stick. This should not be one of them.

Nableezy has said above he did not intend to game the system. He has also stated that if undoing a revert to make another revert is unacceptable, he will not do it again (even offering to restore the page to where it was before his interventions). He has taken great pains to follow the numerous restrictions under which he is permitted to edit. A sanction now would be punitive and serve no purpose. Tiamuttalk 09:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass[edit]

While I am tempted to add some commentary on the behaviour of the respective parties in this dispute, I think I will refrain on this occasion. However, I must take issue with tariqabjotu's comment about users "who seem to always be in the vicinity of battleground disputes". That strikes me as guilt by association. Just because two (or more) users find themselves commonly engaged in disputation, doesn't necessarily mean that both are equally to blame for it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Enigma, perhaps you should leave this AE request to more uninvolved admins since you yourself had a war of words with Nableezy not so long ago. Gatoclass (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Come on,Gatoclass. It was not a content dispute.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
That's quite irrelevant. The two were recently involved in an unfriendly exchange, which calls into question Enigma's impartiality here. There are plenty of uninvolved admins here capable of adjudicating this case. Gatoclass (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

While I initially declined to comment on the merits of this case, talk of escalating sanctions prompts me to reconsider. Firstly, I agree that Nableezy's self-revert constitutes gaming the system, and in a way that I think indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (in that he couldn't even wait 24 hours to make his next revert). His recent flurry of initiated cases against other users also indicates that his levels of frustration have currently reached breaking point. So I accept that he might benefit from a brief break from the fray.

On the other hand, I am concerned that some administrators have apparently chosen to completely ignore the evidence of tendentious editing on Jiujitsu's part presented by Supreme Deliciousness. It does appear to me that on this board the actual goals of the project are frequently lost sight of. The goal of this project is not to teach people to be nice to one another, or to enforce rules about 1RR, it's to build an encyclopedia. Tendentious editing is far more harmful to this project than petty breaches of such restrictions. When users insert demonstrable falsehoods into articles such as that the Sinai or the Golan Heights are "in Israel" or "Israel's territory" that should ring very loud alarm bells. So I must repudiate any notion that Nableezy deserves a longer sanction than Jiujitsu; if anything, the opposite is the case. Moreover, one must consider not only the offence, but the provocation. Gatoclass (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To that I will add that I endorse Amatulic's most recent comment. We need to keep a sense of perspective. I think at most, we should be looking at a month long topic ban for an offence like this, in keeping with PhilKnight's original suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

If reverting/restoring while discussion is ongoing is an ARBPIA enforceable violation, could you guys state that clearly somewhere so editors could be pointed to the ruling? It would also be helpful if you let us know what state the article should be left in once discussion is open. Should contested material be left out of the article pending the conclusion of the discussion, or is the version that is in place when discussion is open kept, or what? These things need to be made clear, since this situation happens very often indeed.

It would also be helpful if admins let us know to what extent prior behavior and prior sanctions come into effect when determining enforcement here. I noticed the two admins who commented in the previous request saying prior behavior (in that case over a year old) should be taken into account have yet to make a statement. I await their opinions on this case. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that you won't get any hard and fast answers to your first question. If disruption were to occur, I assume that each editor's behaviour would be examined to determine the extent to which they were contributing and whether their actions were justified. If an editor was removing obvious vandalism or something that looked like a BLP issue, their behaviour would likely look clean. If an edit war was kicking off, the editors who prolonged it would tend to look like the guilty parties. In general, in such a case, it would probably be best to leave the article in whatever state it had arrived at and turn to the talk page. It wouldn't improve the appearance of your behaviour if you've been trying to insert invalidly sourced text, or, conversely, completely remove validly sourced text without good reasons. In the latter case, unproven claims that the statement being removed is "controversial" would hopefully not add up to anything of a defence. When it comes to taking ARBPIA issues to the Arbitration Enforcements Requests page, I've gained the very strong impression that it's not a good idea to do it if it might look as though you have any degree of responsibility for causing the issue you're reporting. I would say that it would look better if you've made a reasonable effort to resolve the issue before turning to Arbitration Enforcement. For 1RR violations that might include giving the culprit an opportunity to revert themselves first.     ←   ZScarpia   20:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I completely disagree. I think the admins can and should let editors know when reverts are legitimate. I have no problem with them saying that when discussion is open reverting is not allowed (obviously with exceptions for vandalism/BLP). That's fine. Let us know what state the article should be left in, and you have a clear rule everyone can follow. That would cut down the edit wars significantly. Right now it seems JJG is going to get punished basically for bringing an actionable report to AE, since what he did is very common. There were at least 6 other editors reverting while discussion was open, including you and me, and I think we all know that sort of thing happens here all the time. Looking at my watchlist, I can give you examples for 3 articles where people are reverting while discussion is open, and that's just from the past few hours. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps there is no single clear rule governing the situation you're asking about? In any case, no admin would be able to give you a definite answer over how such a situation would go because other admins might interpret things differently. On the subject of Jujitsuguy, as any editor who's been following the ARPIA area should have realised, an editor bringing a case here risks having their own part in the issue judged; if it looks as though they haven't behaved reasonably themselves, they stand a good chance of being sanctioned too.     ←   ZScarpia   22:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Nice of you to acknowledge I had valid objections. On the talk page you called my concerns a charade. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for replying here. The charade was pretending that your concerns merited the complete removal of the sentence, which is what you did. The charade was saying WTA applied after the "WTA" had already been removed, which it had been at the time you removed the rest of the sentence. Your concerns were valid, but not to the extent that the sentence should have been completely removed. A slight rewording, at most, was necessary, but you used easily solvable style issues to justify the complete removal of the content. nableezy - 00:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I think a reading of the actual discussion doesn't support what you're claiming above. You dismissed my concerns completely, in your usual friendly manner. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I encourage everybody to read the discussion. Especially where I write WP:WTA does not justify completely removing the content, if you have a problem with the word "widely" you could have removed that. I will be happy to expand on this material in the body, rendering moot your other wikilawyer-esque objection. And then they can see the edit where I address both issues in my revert of Jiujitsuguy. And then maybe even see me asking if anybody has any objection to the current edit. And then maybe they will see that none of the people who removed the content has bothered to respond to that question. But since I have your attention here, and I may not be allowed to engage you on this subject in the very near future, are there any problems with the edits I made, or did I address all of your policy or guideline concerns? nableezy - 01:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You dismissed my objections, saying they are not grounded in policy. You did so in an unpleasant manner, as usual. After making sure I'm reminded why I don't like talking to you, you made some changes to the article. Now apparently you want me to go back there and what? Say "thank you"?
NoMoreMrNiceGuy, I thought that your stated reasons for completely removing the text were completely worthless and it certainly looked to me as though you were making a pretty poor attempt at rationalising the removal of a statement you simply didn't like. Even new editors here would probably realise quickly that they can't completely delete sourced statements just because, without presenting evidence, they deem a statement contentious (nor could they do the opposite, reinsert an unsourced statement just because they deemed it obviously true). Unlike Nableezy, I don't believe that the use of the word "widely" by a source is covered by the WTA rule. If a reliable source says that something is called something widely, I think that it is legitimate to say that in the article. I think that there was a good case for moving the "ethnic cleansing" statement into the body of the article. In fact, I'm not keen on pinning labels on things and would rather just let the facts speak for themselves, but I thought that the reasons you gave for your deletion were so poor that I felt bound to reverse you.     ←   ZScarpia   01:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
As I told you several times already, if an uninvolved admin tells me I did something wrong, I will certainly take that to heart. You couldn't be considered uninvolved by any stretch of the imagination. To the point, I presented several objections and per BRD I reverted for discussion. I just had another look at BRD and it says nothing about not reverting "sourced statements" or anything similar. It says Bold->Revert->Discuss. I was reverting to the version before the bold edit, per my understanding of BRD. I think you felt bound to reverse me based on our prior interactions, but maybe I'm just being cynical. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Which previous interactions do you have in mind? If I was going to start pursuing vendettas, why would I choose you?     ←   ZScarpia   03:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Who knows why people do stuff. Is it not a fact you never edited the article before I did? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment by BorisG

I think (in fact it is obvious) that both editors are making numerous valuable contributions in this area and therefore the proposed lentghy topic ban is detrimental to wikipedia. Esteemed admins below surely don't need to be reminded that our common goal is to build a solid encyclopedia, not to create a gentlemens club. We need to find a solution that does not damage wikipedia. I think that this small violation should result in no action (ok maybe a very short ban, of, say, 24 hours), however both users should be banned from using AE for a set time. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment by Mbz1

Why everybody here believes that Jiujitsuguy has been on nableezy throat? No he has been not, just the opposite. Please see what he wrote to nableezy: "Third, I do not wish to gain any advantage over you during your 1R restriction and I will attempt to voluntarily restrain myself to 1R in articles that you and I have disagreement, for the duration of your restriction"--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Petri Krohn

I find Nableezy's actions reasonalble and Jiujitsuguy's actions unreasonalble. In fact, an argument can be made that Jiujitsuguy's removal of the sourced content constitutes vandalism – thus restoring it does not count as an revert per WP:3RR. At the very least I suspect it was done in bad faith in an effort to undermine Nableezy's actions.

I am also worried by the current trend to see 1RR restrictions more restricting than they are or should be – as exemplified by the resent WP:AE request against User:SlimVirgin. The current atmosphere makes any reasonable editing or use of the WP:BRD cycle almost impossible. The aim of the game is for editors to negotiate on the content. This is exactly what Nableezy was doing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

After reading the talk page, I think you are on to something. Whether or not it's gaming the system as done, the material is well-sourced (straight from the Guardian) and the opposing editors made no effort to amend the offending material to meet their (pretty weak)policy complaints but continued to delete something after BRD. So the editor who actually made the article more informative is punished more for a technicality then the editor(s) who removed the information on flimsy grounds? I'm not pushing for complete amnesty (I really don't know much on the RR policy) but it seems the rules are getting removed from the aim. Sol (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Nableezy[edit]

I observe that Nableezy cases have appeared here rather frequently, almost as if someone has an objective to create a case for every archive of this page:

Perhaps I missed some. In any case, of all those Nableezy cases above, only a couple resulted in any significant action. The rest are not actionable or no action was required.

This observation leads me to believe that a group of editors have been trying to use this Enforcement page as a tool against Nableezy at any opportunity, where any good-faith action on Nableezy's part that can be interpreted as a violation is reported here as a violation. The impression given by the list above is as if there's some coordinated effort to use this enforcement page as a weapon.

Enough, I say.

At the most, given the statements made by involved editors above, Nableezy should be warned about using self-reverts to make a more desired revert. Whether or not Nableezy believes that is gaming the 1RR restriction, the fact remains that it appears as gaming by others.

I would also warn other editors to refrain from making frivolous accusations on this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  • This is ridiculous. It seems to me that both the filer and the respondent are attempting to game the system and are certainly attempting to use AE as a weapon to gain the upper hand in this long-running content dispute. I would suggest a 0RR restriction or topic ban for both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This "self-revert a revert so that I can revert again" tactic is not acceptable. T. Canens (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with HJ Mitchell - this is ridiculous. I suggest a 1-month topic for Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think a longer ban is needed - neither party has a clean history here. 3 months, at a minimum, I'd say. T. Canens (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Sure, I'm ok with 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I think that's a tad excessive in the context of this specific report, but I'm OK with it too. I'm also OK with banning the involved parties from AE for a while, although others may think that's excessive. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy have been at each other's throats for quite a while now, but I'm not sure I understand why Jiujitsuguy is getting as stiff a sanction as Nableezy. As T.Canens said, self-reverting a revert to do another revert is blatant gaming of the system. 1RR is not put in place so that editors can feel entitled to various reverts, and then decide whether or not to "spend" them in various places. Enigmamsg 02:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Reverting while discussing is not quite as bad as reverting without discussing, but neither is acceptable. All reverts must cease when a related discussion is active. T. Canens (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure what you're referring to. Do you mean the 1948 exodus page? Enigmamsg 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
                • See Mkativerata's comment above. I agree with their analysis. T. Canens (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with lengthy topic bans for both. At what point do we stop giving second... er... fifth chances to people who seem to always be in the vicinity of battleground disputes? -- tariqabjotu 07:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • @Enigmaman, it seems the JJG intentionally waited until Nableezy had made a revert (on a page restricted to 1RR) to make an edit he knew Nableezy would revert. That's just as bad as Nableezy's self-revert one revert so he can make another tactic imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • So Nableezy has no self-control; that he has to make certain reverts? Anyway, given Nableezy's more serious sanction history and the behaviour noted here, I think he should be the one to receive the stricter punishment. Similar to when the NBA issues double technicals to when two are fighting, I don't believe that just issuing a blanket punishment to all parties is an equitable solution. Enigmamsg 16:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Both have been at each others' throats for many months, both have attempted to game the system and the filer is now attempting to use AE as a weapon to gain an advantage in their dispute, so both should face sanctions. Whether one is topic-banned for longer than the other, I'm not bothered, but, if both are topic banned, the levels of disruption in the topic area will be reduced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree with topic-banning both, but I do think the lengths should not be the same. Enigmamsg 16:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm inclined to agree with you. JJG left me a note to the effect that he hadn't intended to game the system by waiting until Nableezy had already made a revert. I'm inclined to AGF for now, though I wouldn't oppose sanctions against JJG. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Per recent comments above this section by Sol and BorisG, I stand by my original view that a warning is sufficient for both. The encyclopedia is not improved by topic-banning constructive editors who happen to have disagreements, and also not by banning one on a technicality in which he was trying to make improvements. AGF applies to both parties here. Maybe Nableezy wasn't consciously gaming 1RR in spite of how it looks. Maybe Jiujitsuguy isn't gaming the AE forum in spite of how it looks. AGF, guys. I propose that the 1RR restriction apply not to individuals, but to the topics that Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy work together in, which seems to be mostly P-I stuff (hasn't this been done already? I thought PhilKnight went through these articles). Then there would be no issue with one editor who isn't under 1RR to gain the upper hand over another who is. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That has been done. Every article in the I/P topic area is under 1RR, so it's not a case of one editor being under such a restriction and another not. I agree with Mkativerata that sanctions are required. We have a 1RR restriction and it hasn't stopped the tendentious editing and the general battleground mentality, so now other measures are required in the name of preventing further disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Several points:
  • Once a related discussion is open, the page should remain as is, whether or not the disputed content is in there. That is, act as if it has been fully protected. Only in cases of egregious BLP violations or situations of comparable gravity should any revert be done once the discussion started.
  • I agree with HJ Mitchell that the topic-wide 1RR restriction has been so far unable to control the battleground behavior, and stronger measures are required to contain the disruption. This should come as no surprise, given my recent comments in several recent AE threads related to this topic area.
  • This does mean that we may be compelled to impose seemingly draconian sanctions, but we are not left with much choice here. The alternative would be to ask arbcom to open ARBPIA3, which, if the more recent cases are any indication, is likely to result in a series of indefinite topic bans. I seriously doubt that anyone wants to go down that path.
  • Nableezy's history is indeed more problematic than JJG's. Their most recent area-wide topic ban was for two months. I'll agree to a four-month ban for Nableezy and three months for JJG, in the hopes that we can reach some agreement here. T. Canens (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd support that. Hopefully three and four months respectively will cool tempers and allow these editors to remain on opposite sides of the street from one another and, if not, we can revisit it in four months. I also concur that ArbCom are unlikely to do anything that would be perceived as less draconian than this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree the imposition of a topic wide 1RR hasn't resolved the problems, and I'm ok with the 4 month ban for Nableezy, and 3 month ban for Jujitsuguy. PhilKnight (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This can now be closed, I think. Based on the discussion above, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:

  • Nableezy (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for four months.
  • Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for three months.
  • All participants here are reminded that revert warring during an ongoing related discussion, except when a revert rule exemption apply, is unacceptable whether or not the revert warrior is also participating in the discussion. T. Canens (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)