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


Silver seren[edit]

Communist terrorism is fully protected for a period of three months. No action against respondent. Courcelles 12:53, 17 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 Silver seren[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Petri Krohn (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Silver seren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [1] Blind revert to previous version, without participating in the open discussion – done four minutes after my edit. Joining edit war started earlier by user Collect (talk · contribs).
  2. [2] Earlier revert of my edit by user Collect.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. Silver seren has actively participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism (3rd nomination) and the article talk page. He should have seen the warnings.
  2. I do not think Silver seren has recieved a DIGWUREN warning.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
DIGWUREN warning
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
The article was placed under a one revert per day DIGWUREN sanction on 25 November 2010. Additional editing restrictions were placed by Sandstein when he closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism (3rd nomination).

The current article makes claims not supported by any sources. Specifically it makes the claim that "organized violence used by Marxist, socialist, or similar left-wing groups is called 'Communist terrorism'". In fact, all sources refer to this type of violence as left-wing terrorism. The arguments for removing the synthesized content have been presented at length on the talk page and the deletion discussion. Despite repeated and extensive searches, no one has been able to find source that would define what "communist terrorism" is, or even to provide any sources for the concept's existence.

So far in this edit war I have not made a single revert. In my first edit on December 12. I added tags indicating the disputed content. After my tags were removed by Collect I started a discussion on the talk page, indicating that I would remove the content anyway, unless sources for the content were provided. Today I removed the disputed content, only to be reverted by Silver seren four minutes later.

Note that my second edit consists of two parts, done with a 5 second interval. The first part restores tags, the second part self reverts the addition. This is done so, that the article history and the diff would clearly show what was removed and why. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Response to Volunteer Marek

Yes, I regularly do two-step edits with tags in the first step. This is done for two reasons:

  1. To clearly mark the extent and motivation for my real edit in step 2
  2. To provide anyone reverting my edits a compromise version to revert to. (So far I have not seen anyone taking this offer :-(

You will see, that the two-step edits are clearly marked as such in the edit summary (Step 1 of two-step edit:...) and have the same time stamp. The tags are not intended to start a discussion, unless of course that becomes the version reverted to. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Silver seren[edit]

Statement by Silver seren[edit]

I'm a bit confused about why this section was opened, considering I only made a single revert. This is within the 1RR restriction on the article, which I am already fully aware of (considering it told me so in bright red letters when I edited the page). I felt that more discussion needed to be made on the talk page for these changes, since Petri has only opened a talk page discussion section, but had not responded to others yet. Thus, I reverted him, directing him to the talk page, where I also left a comment a few minutes later. As far as i'm aware, this is all within policy and our rules on the article, so i'm not sure what i've violated. SilverserenC 18:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

Petri Krohn: Blind revert to previous version - false, the edit was not a "blind revert", in fact it had a detailed edit summary [3]

Petri Krohn: without participating in the open discussion - also false. Silver seren's edit was at 2:05, Dec 15th. He made the relevant talk page comment almost immediately explaining the edit at 2:12 [4]. This request was made by Petri at 3:32, hence he had plenty of time to check the talk page.

Petri Krohn: So far in this edit war I have not made a single revert. - also false. Petri's addition of tags to the article [5] at 19:38 on Dec 12 was continued with a following revert at [6] at 2:05 Dec 15 [7].

Basically Petri's adding any tags he can think of into the article to make it look like crap, after the AfD for the article failed. This, along with this edit [8] (removing the text he tagged only seconds earlier before allowing for discussion to take place (note that this is another standard tactic of "tag/remove seconds later", [9], [10], [11], which is a clear violation of WP:DR) is part of the strategy he previously outlined here [12] which aims to purposely sabotage articles so that they can be deleted/merged/moved.

This appears to be another in a recent line of frivolous AE requests and it seems some people are not getting the message. I'm getting the sense that the situation's slipping out of control here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Biophys[edit]

This looks like a content dispute. Why bring it here? Unlike many others, I never had content disputes with Petri during all these years. It was only once that I tried to have a meaningful content conversation with Petri. The discussion was about quoting a Russian philosopher of 19th Century, as I tried to explain [13]. But that is what Petri responded [14] [15]. Osama bin Laden? No wonder, a lot of people have problems debating content issues with Petri.

Now, looking back at this discussion, I can tell that he probably did not discuss anything at all, but only tried to "prove" that I was making a topic ban violation by quoting an old Russian philosopher, a claim as "legitimate" as his non-administrative closure of an AE tread by Colchicum, as giving me a "trout" [16] and a lot of other claims he is making about Dojarca and others. Does it help creating the encyclopedia? Biophys (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Collect (who just found himself being accused without notification)[edit]

I find my name bandied sans any notice here. Petri Krohn is a long-term edit warrior in this area, and has unclean hands. The "reverts" do not violate the 1RR restrictons by a mile or so. Nor did I have an "edit war" going on. Ths whole affair is related directly to acts by Petri et al to delete by POVforking the article (Left-wing terrorism), by AfDing the article, by tagging the article (including tagging of single simple English words), and by dab-ing the article. [17] is a falkse use of a "failed verification tag" and Petri had been told that the tag has a specific use noted in the template page. [18] etc. [19] shows the type of Petri's edits clearly. And [20]. And [21]. I would like to AGF that all of these were earnest attempts to improve the article. Others might not do so. The AfD is at [22] in which Petri participated, and where discussion took place regarding all of this. In short, the person who ought to be examined here is Petri, who has an extensive history of notifications, warnings, blocks and bans concerning the topic. Collect (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Silver seren[edit]

Comment by BorisG[edit]

I think the filing party need to be sanctioned (at least with a warning) for bringing totally unfounded request to AE - BorisG (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Silver seren[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Here are the article and user templates that are relevant:

The remedy requested above is to notify Silver seren under DIGWUREN. I don't see why we would do that. The Arbcom sanction which is listed above as being violated is the 1RR rule on Communist terrorism. Silver seren made only one revert, so he didn't break that. Suggest closing with no action against Silver seren.

Can something more be done to limit the warring at Communist terrorism? How about three months of full protection? Any changes that have consensus could then be made via {{editprotect}}. Its current 1RR restriction was imposed due to a complaint filed here at AE on 17 November. Two admins already supported full protection at that time. The article has just survived its third AfD, which was closed by User:Sandstein on 10 December. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Full protection might not be a bad idea, but there's certainly no need for any enforcement action against the respondent, who made only one revert (I can't see another one going right back to the start of the month). Suggest closure of this thread as frivolous/inactionable and full protection at admin discretion or request at RfPP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Done - full protected for three months. I was going to propose one month, but we can always unprotect if this somehow gets worked out in the meantime. This report could be interpreted as an attempt to use discretionary sanctions as a weapon in a content dispute, but I think on balance it is better viewed as a symptom of stalled negotiations. Based on the talkpage discussions at the time, I do not see a need to sanction Silver seren, Collect, or Petri Krohn, nor any of the participants who have been discussing without editing the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


Both users warned by Lar (talk · contribs) per WP:ARBSCI#Discretionary topic ban. Per WP:ARBSCI#Uninvolved administrators, "[a]ny disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee". This is generating a lot of heat and virtually no light at all. Claims of post-warning misconduct should be brought in a separate thread. T. Canens (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Cirt[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors instructed

8) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:

...(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding;

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

(For the sake of brevity, I will not reproduce the evidence already presented in this ANI discussion or the discussions related to this in earlier AE requests. I have linked the most relevant sections under "Background" and assume that anyone commenting here is familiar with that evidence and not simply making judgements based on the limited evidence presented here.)


A relatively concise and relatively recent example:

In May 2010, Cirt created the BLP of Michael Doven. Doven is a movie producer and the former assistant to actor Tom Cruise who is well-known as a Scientologist. From the very first edit, the article was riddled with BLP and POV issues. Among the sources used in this BLP:

  • "New OT VI Hubbard Solo Nots Auditing Course" - CoS publication
  • "Cruise control - Exclusive - Scientology insider reveals the bizarre truth about superstar's cult-like 'religion'; Interview". News of the World - Yes, Cirt used News of the World as a source in a BLP
  • Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography - An "unauthorized biography" by author Andrew Morton who is not generally considered to be a reliable source. Note that the book was not published in some countries, allegedly because of the "strict libel laws" in effect. It should be no surprise that Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography was created by Cirt.
  • "Tom Cruise, o fanático" - Portuguese-language article which seems on par with News of the World, used to source Doven's connection to the leader of the CoS.
  • "TomKat Wedding, Part 2 On Its Way". FOX News - Fox News' "Celebrity Gossip"

In the infobox, Doven's "organisation" is listed as "Scientology". There is a rather large "Scientology" footer, and the article includes the "Scientology portal" tag. A few edits later, Cirt adds Category: American Scientologists. This is an apparent violation of WP:BLPCAT.

This article had so many gratuitous references to Scientology and Scientologists that it was almost comical. I put this article forward as an example on ANI, but no changes were made as a result. I raised it on WP:BLPN (a suggestion made on ANI). User:Bbb23 reorganized the article into two sections, one covering Doven's career and the other covering his involvement in Scientology. Cirt simply reverted. As Bbb23 said on BLPN, "no one has commented on the changes I made. Cirt, however, reverted them, so I guess that means he didn't like them". User:Maunus, Cirt, and Bbb23 made some changes but left it largely as it had begun, with all of the sourcing and most of the POV problems intact. Maunus, an admin, commented at ANI that "I agree that this article was problematic. It did have the appearance of a Coatrack. I think that it has improved drastically now, with Cirt's colaboration".

In a discussion on Jehochman's talk page, Cirt raised the article as an example of their good-faith efforts, saying "As one case study example: Delicious carbuncle raised concerns both at ANI and at BLPN about the page Michael Doven. I worked to improve the page collaboratively, and my efforts resulted in successfully addressing the concerns raised to the satisfaction of Maunus ...". When I questioned the lede included a reference to the sister of Beck (himself a Scientologist), Cirt removed the literal phrase, leaving the sister's name (unlinked, since she does not have an article here). This article is nothing but a coatrack to identify Doven as a Scientologist and to imply that his career is inextricably linked to Scientology.

A really short and pointed example:

Amy Scobee is a former member of the CoS and now a critic of that group who has published a book about her experiences with them. Cirt interviewed her for Wikinews ("Author Amy Scobee recounts abuse as Scientology executive"). In this edit Cirt identifies the genre of Scobee's writing as "destructive cults" and the subject as "Scientology".

An example of mind-boggling pettiness:

Knight and Day is a movie starring Tom Cruise. Even before its release, Cirt was already adding negative press ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]). Following the release, Cirt makes dozens of edits, adding negative reviews ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], etc). All of the additions have cherry-picked quotes such as Lexi Feinberg of Big Picture Big Sound gave the film a rating of one and a half stars, and characterized it as an "asinine, action-adventure dud", with a "stupid plot".

Having not seen the movie I can only speculate about its quality, but both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic suggest that there are about equal numbers of positive and negative reviews. I can see no reason for Wikipedia to have such a long and detailed negative article about what is a very unimportant movie. The history of the article is useful for examining Cirt's ownership tendencies.

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


Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
topic ban on editing Scientology-related BLPs, ban on use of admin tools on Scientology-related articles (widely construed), 1RR restriction on all Scientology-related articles (widely construed)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Although I may currently be under sanctions regarding Scientology-related articles, there is an appeal pending, and per Jehochman's comments I believe I am free to file this request for arbitration. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Addendum: Some of the same information in diff:violation format

  1. [42]: violation of WP:BLP (use of obviously unreliable sources in a BLP) hence also a violation of WP:ARBSCI#Editors instructed (point C) & WP:ARBSCI#Editing environment (editors cautioned)
  2. [43]: violation of WP:BLP (specifically WP:BLPCAT) hence also a violation of WP:ARBSCI#Editors instructed (point C) & WP:ARBSCI#Editing environment (editors cautioned)
  3. [44]: violation of WP:NPOV hence violation of WP:ARBSCI#Editors instructed (point C) & WP:ARBSCI#Editing environment (editors cautioned)
  4. [45]: violation of WP:ARBSCI#Editors instructed (point C) due to advocacy & WP:ARBSCI#Editing environment (editors cautioned)
  5. [46]: WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violation hence violation of WP:ARBSCI#Editors instructed (point C) & WP:ARBSCI#Editing environment (editors cautioned)
  6. [47]: violation of WP:NPOV hence violation of WP:ARBSCI#Editors instructed (point C) & WP:ARBSCI#Editing environment (editors cautioned)
  7. [48]: violation of WP:ARBSCI#Editors instructed (point C) & WP:ARBSCI#Editing environment (editors cautioned) (3 December 2010 reversion of good edit as vandalism)

Addendum 2: Violations made after formal warning given

Cirt copied a section of List of Scientologists to List of Scientology officials (leaving the material duplicated in the original article). According to the policy WP:VERIFIABILITY, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Despite all of the discussion here, Cirt made no effort to ensure that the article they created used only reliable sources and was not in violation of WP:BLPCAT, which states that inclusion in lists or application of categories "regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief...". Additionally, there is the use of clearly unrelaible sources (including the "unauthorized biography" already discussed in this request). Gratuitous references to Joseph Feshbach in the section on his daughter seem to violate WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Cirt[edit]

Statement by Cirt[edit]

I would have very much liked to have discussed the substance of the individual and specific complaints about various articles raised by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), and I would have appreciated being given an opportunity first to work to address these issues. Unfortunately, Delicious carbuncle refused to even attempt to address any of these issues at their respective article talk pages. This problem was pointed out in replies to Delicious carbuncle at BLPN, by multiple editors including Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) diff and Bbb23 (talk · contribs) diff. I reached out to Delicious carbuncle multiple times, requesting that he be more specific in his complaints about certain articles, but unfortunately he refused to discuss at article talk pages, see diff and diff. Though I really would like to help cleanup the pages in question, it becomes very difficult to do so when the only time Delicious carbuncle brings issues up is when escalating them to ANI, BLPN, or AE - and repeatedly refuses to engage discussion, content talk page engagement, or prior dispute resolution of any sort - on article talk pages. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Update - Good faith cleanup edits

I really would have liked to have been able to discuss these issues with Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) on the respective article talk pages. However, as he has raised them here, I have tried to address them:

  1. Amy Scobee - I removed "Scientology" from the infobox. I added "Non-fiction" as genre, and "Religion" as subject. diff
  2. Knight and Day - I removed a significant amount of sourced material critical of the film, from the Reception sect. diff
  3. Michael Doven - I removed info from the article cited to sources questioned by Delicious carbuncle. I removed the Scientology portal from the See also sect. I removed the Scientology navigation template from the bottom of the article. I removed Scientology from the infobox. I removed info from the lede that was mentioned above by Delicious carbuncle. diff
  4. Category:American Scientologists at page, Michael Doven - I am currently supporting editor Maunus (talk · contribs) at a discussion at the article's talk page, at Talk:Michael Doven. Multiple editors wish to add this category back. Delicious carbuncle has neglected to support its removal at the article's talk page. I have. diff

I will strive in the future to be more receptive to feedback and open to pursuing forms of dispute resolution such as Third Opinion processes (I recently received a barnstar for work in this area diff) and Request for Comment - however at no point did Delicious carbuncle even attempt to pursue resolution of any of these issues through talk page discussion or content dispute resolution. -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Unomi

I was motivated to report Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) to AE, due to WP:BLP violation at page Jamie Sorrentini and then reverting against consensus from multiple editors at WP:RSN diff, diff, diff (later found to also be WP:POINT violation deliberately as an attempt to provoke me diff), and WP:FORUMSHOP issues on the same topic, and disruption on the same topic at ANI diff diff. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of admin tools on Scientology-related articles

To my knowledge, there does not appear to be any evidence about this particular issue presented by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs). The only instance in which I was mentioned by the Arbitration Committee in the Scientology case ruling was to state: "From careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee concludes that, since his request for adminship in September 2008, Cirt does not appear to have deliberately misused administrative tools." I appreciate that ruling from ArbCom. Since that case, I have strived to avoid using admin tools in relation to this topic. I will continue to avoid acting as an admin in this arena. -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Delicious carbuncle

This comment is incorrect, this is not a violation. I would appreciate if we could move on from this. If concerns are brought to the talk page, I will swiftly address them promptly. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have promptly responded at the talk page diff. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Delicious carbuncle[edit]

I had intended to let this run its course with contributing further, but I feel the need to comment on Jehochman's attempt to unilaterally deny this arbitration request. Based on comments they made in the appeal request of my sanctions, I asked Jehochman if I would be allowed to file an arbitration request about Cirt's actions. Their answer was:

I believe you have every right to file an AE request as a matter of reformatting evidence already presented so that the controversy can be ended. Given what I have seen, the likely endpoint is for both you and Cirt to receive warnings. The sanction you received is void as far as I am concerned because it did not comply with the arbitration remedy's specific requirements. You can copy and paste evidence regarding Cirt that was already presented. There is a value in you gathering, organizing and summarizing the evidence. We need to keep these threads concise and filter out as much of the bickering as we can. A fresh start of the discussion would probably do that. Feel free to link to this comment if anybody suggests you are doing something wrong. Thank you for your understanding.

In an attempt to keep this as concise and clear as possible, I provided links to the evidence already presented at ANI, and focused on three examples which I felt were representative of the issues. This could have been an extremely lengthy filing, but I did not want to overwhelm anyone.

I find it perplexing that Jehochman would encourage me to file an arbitration request and then attempt to summarily quash it. I also question his impartiality, given the circumstances. As for his reasoning, he is incorrect. Under remedy 8 of WP:ARBSCI (which may be remedy 7 mislabelled), there is no requirement to warn editors: "Any uninvolved administrator may on his or her discretion apply the discretionary sanctions specified in Remedy 4 to any editor failing to comply with the spirit or letter of these instructions". Additionally, it says "In case of any doubt concerning application or interpretation of these restrictions, the Arbitration Committee may be consulted for guidance". I believe it is time to involve ArbCom in this matter, since we all know that is where this is heading anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot judge your request without seeing it first. You have every right to file the request, and it is still possible that some other administrator will come along and issue a warning to Cirt. I personally don't see the case, but somebody else might. AE Sanctions are impossible at this time given the formula ArbCom specified, perhaps unwisely. Jehochman Talk 00:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
You seemed to know that it would be at least the evidence that I had already presented at ANI, but perhaps I misunderstood. Did you and Cirt discuss this arbitration request prior to your attempt to close it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe you already asked me, and I already answered -- No, not at all. Jehochman Talk 02:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I asked, but you did not answer. So, just to be clear, you and Cirt have not communicated offwiki about this request for arbitration? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Question for Cirt: Cirt, I asked Jehochman this question but have received no reply as yet, so I will ask you - did you and Jehochman discuss this arbitration request prior to his attempt to close it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Simple diff:violation format: As requested in a comment by Jehochman, I have created an addendum with some of the evidence as simply diffs and identification of the specific violations. It strikes me that this is a terrible way to lay out a case about what is a larger pattern of actions, but obviously from comments like those of Shell Kinney or Jusdafax, people seem to be glossing over the fact that there are obvious BLP violations included in that evidence, among other things. I didn't want to waste too much time on this so I only included a representative sample. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You can lead DocJames to water, but you can't make him drink: DocJames, perhaps you missed the sentence where I said "The history of [Knight and Day] is useful for examining Cirt's ownership tendencies"? I assumed anyone who was interested enough to comment would actually take the time to look at the things I have singled out, rather than talking out of their ass. If you had done so, you would have quickly come across the edit I have added to the diffs section. An IP editor changed the runtime of the movie from 110 minutes to 109 minutes (the time given by IMDB, Box Office Mojo, and Metacritic). Cirt reverted that edit as vandalism and gave the IP a "level 3" warning. Is that appropriate? It wasn't vandalism, it was a valid correction.

If you looked a little further into the history, you would have seen this edit by an IP cutting down the ridiculously long "critical reception" section with the edit summary ("way long"). It was reverted by another user who apparently thought better of it and restored the edit. Then Cirt reverted and warned the user for "vandalism" (which it clearly wasn't). I encourage you to actually look at the history of that article, although it is clear you have already made up your mind and will not be swayed by either evidence or sound arguments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at this IPs other edits? [49] And did you notice the warning that it had received shortly before? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be suggesting that Cirt's actions would be acceptable if the IP had been engaging in vandalism on other articles. That is an astonishing attitude for an admin to take, but I am unsurprised to hear you take it. Incidentally, the IP editor was changing the runtime to agree with Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, and AllMovie, so it clearly was not vandalism in that case, either. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Cirt[edit]

I wish to add the following diffs to those provided by Carbuncle above for the community's consideration.

  • This edit strikes me as a clear-cut BLP violation -- we don't insert self-published YouTube videos making very serious allegations against living persons into articles. Note: This diff is >1 year old. Jehochman Talk 23:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • These repeated insertions (and re-insertions after they were deleted) of links to self-published websites in List of Scientologists strike me as violations of WP:BLP:
    • (this is the site Cirt argued only a few weeks later was unreliable in the dispute with Delicious Carbuncle),
    • [50] (the personal website of a WP user who is topic-banned from Scientology),
    • [51].
  • This BLP edit was marked as a vandalism-revert. It restored unsourced material with a Citation needed tag, as well as a slew of private Scientology websites and the Scientology template. The changes this user made mirror the changes now made by Scott MacDonald and FT2. Cirt reported the user as a BLP vandal and they were blocked as a result.
  • Here a novice user tried to remove Jada Pinkett-Smith, Will Smith's wife, from List of Scientologists. She was listed as a member, even though there are plentiful and easily sourceable denials by her [52]. Cirt reverted, marking the edit as vandalism and posting vandalism warnings to User_talk:Passomouse. Passomouse advised Cirt they had contacted Pinkett-Smith's PR office, who had confirmed she is not a Scientologist. Cirt's response was to accuse Passomouse of a violation of NOR. Pinkett-Smith was removed from the list some time later on, along with other non-Scientologists such as Gloria Gaynor and Chaka Khan, after an RfC, BLPN threads, input from Jimbo, and lots of halfway-house solutions and wrangling on the list's talk page.

I believe there is an ongoing and serious problem here, comprising both BLP violations and advocacy. Under Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas,

The Dickson case and other evidence posted by DC establishes that there is such an agenda. It involves writing puff-pieces on perceived Scientology opponents – see e.g.

and it involves writing consistently unflattering portrayals of Scientologists, or scholars asserting that Scientology has religious character, per

What remains is to establish that Cirt is "focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists". This is arguably so: per their top 100, Cirt is mostly focused on Scientology and Werner Erhard/est (a Scientology offshoot), both here and in other Wikimedia projects (see e.g. [53]). Indeed, perusing Cirt's contributions history in sister projects shows a remarkable body of work that is acknowledged in the anti-Scientology community. --JN466 20:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

While the above-quoted ARBSCI remedy authorises a full topic ban, without warning, I am unsure if this is in the best interest of the project. There are several reasons for this. For one, it is undeniable that Cirt has authored some top-quality content in this area. While still often combative, Cirt has shown signs of being more responsive to feedback, and of having acquired an ability to write more neutrally than in former times. In my perception at least, these were the result of a good-faith effort that can't have come easy to someone with such strong views. When Cirt first arrived here, first as User:Smeelgova, then User:Smee, then User:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage, they quickly acquired block logs and within weeks were involved in an est-related arbitration case. The development since then has in many ways been a positive one. The sanctions proposed by DC above, i.e. a topic ban on editing Scientology-related BLPs, ban on use of admin tools on Scientology-related articles (widely construed), and a 1RR restriction on all Scientology-related articles (widely construed), may serve the project better. However, it would be nice to see an honest acknowledgement of the problem from Cirt. --JN466 21:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Jose Peralta is another flattering bio of a politician whose opponent anti-Scientologists did not like. --JN466 23:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  • est is not Scientology. Nor is the Unification Church or Rajneesh. Cirt clearly works on a variety of topics within the broad field of new religious movements. So do you. Scientology appears often in your top 100 edits as well.[54] Unfortunately, the Arbcom did not define "focused primarily".   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • 16% in my case; well over 50% in Cirt's, the top 4 being 1. Project Chanology, 2. List of Scientologists, 3. Battlefield Earth (film), and 4. A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant. --JN466 23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Here Cirt and Jehochman discuss the possibility of having ARBSCI sanctions apply to Werner Erhard/Landmark Education articles, given that "Landmark Education is considered by multiple scholars to be an outgrowth of that other group". In Cirt's mind, they are clearly related, to the extent that Cirt feels ARBSCI sanctions could legitimately be applied to these articles. Even without the 5 or 6 Erhard articles, 50% of Cirt's top 100 articles are about Scientology, Scientologists, Scientology spoofs, or Scientology opponents. That is "focused primarily", and with a clear agenda. --JN466 23:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Abraham Lincoln told the riddle. "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a calf have?" Answer: "Four, because even if you call a tail a leg that doesn't make it one." (Excuse my poor paraphrasing). est is not Scientology, even if Cirt has associated them in some contexts.   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
        • You tell riddles, while ignoring a consistent pattern of BLP violations -- despite your assertion on Scott's talk page that there are few editors who "get" BLP better than you. It would be nice if you could comment instead on the evidence that has been presented. Are you okay with puff pieces for one side, and BLP violations for the other? --JN466 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I was only addressing the narrow issue of whether Cirt "primarily" edits the Scientology topic. I think Lincoln's wisdom was on-topic, but you can ignore it and change the subject if you like. I don't have time or interest to review this complaint, and since you claim I'm involved (despite not having made any significant edits to the topic in years) my commentary wouldn't matter much anyway.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • user:Cirt has made a total of 37086 article edits. Looking at just the top ten articles in his edit history, it appears he has made 2514 edits to Scientology-related articles. That represent 6% of his editing. User:Jayen466 has made a total of 14045 article edits. Looking at his top ten, 1870 of them have been to Scientology-related articles. That is about 13% of the total article edits, or twice as much as Cirt's percentage. Using those metrics, Jayen is more of a primary purpose editor than Cirt. Just saying.   Will Beback  talk  12:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments by unmi[edit]

Cirt writes "Though I really would like to help cleanup the pages in question, it becomes very difficult to do so when the only time Delicious carbuncle brings issues up is when escalating them to ANI, BLPN, or AE" This is a somewhat curious framing as it was Cirt who escalated:

  • 07:52, 8 December 2010 [55] Cirt opens ANI thread. archive
  • 04:22, 13 December 2010 [56] Cirt opens AE request. archive

I would like to ask Cirt what moved him to open the AE request. unmi 21:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Shell Kinney[edit]

It's always disappointing to see reports that feel the need to include phrases like "mind-boggling pettiness" and only have ANI reports to show for attempting to resolve the dispute. Since Cirt seems to have responded to feedback in a variety of those cases, it's confusing that a ban is being asked for rather than simply addressing any concerns directly first. Shell babelfish 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You may not have the full picture of what's transpired over the years. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep, quite possibly. If an overview of that was here somewhere, I've missed it. Shell babelfish 03:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Momento[edit]

Could Jehochman explain what format the "prior warning as required by WP:ARBSCI" takes.Momento (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The exact requirements are at Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary topic ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas does not actually include this requirement. The question is whether "single-purpose" applies. It is perhaps more like "main focus" in this case. --JN466 22:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The usual disputants arguing for sanctions as an extension of their editorial disagreements is not the least bit helpful. Jehochman Talk 23:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman, I truly appreciated your olive branch the other day. But belittling me as a "usual disputant" is not helpful either, in the face of documented evidence that you refuse to acknowledge or address – BLP violations, and consistent bias. You are a "usual litigator" in these disputes, and one selected by Cirt. --JN466 23:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The olive branch was sincere. I was very surprised you turned up on this thread to advocate for sanctions. It seems difficult to collaborate, on the one hand, and request sanctions on the other, especially when the sanctions are not authorized by ArbCom in the absence of a prior warning. Rest assured that if Cirt turns up on any thread seeking to sanction you in the future, I'll be very unimpressed. Jehochman Talk 00:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I had hoped to stay away from this thread. It was your attempt to close the thread as quickly as you tried to, citing "a lack of concise evidence and diffs", that made me feel there was something really wrong about this. I had meant to do something else today. And on re-reading WP:ARBSCI I noticed Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas, which this could be thought to fall under, and which does not in fact require a prior warning. I am not out to "get" Cirt out of personal spite. It is just that Cirt is an immensely active and combative editor who personally controls practically the entire topic area, across multiple Wikimedia projects. That would be fine if Cirt were supremely neutral as well as knowledgeable, but they're not. I am fine with a warning here, rather than a sanction, but something has to be done. --JN466 02:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any comment to make about Cirt's edits on Scientology but in one case [57] when I asked him why he closed an AfD he refused to supply a reason and became aggressive. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC).
Coincidently my most recent experience with Cirt was his reverting of my well sourced edit on Prem Rawat (another non-Christian BLP to be controlled) with the edit summary "contentious edits and disruptive behavior by User:Momento, should be discussed fully on the talk page." [58]. Soon after without any warning on my talk page and without making another edit I was topic banned for a year at Will Beback's request. Clearly there is one rule for admins and one for the rest of us.Momento (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Statement by The Resident Anthropologist (talk)[edit]

I am trying to avoid conflict as much as possible here and trying to stay out of this. I said much earlier a WP:RFC/U could do a lot of good here. I am not sure Arbitration Enforcment is the proper venue.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: There have been no attempts by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) to have tried to resolve the dispute with me through talk page discussion - whether that be at my user talk page, through content-based RFCs, Third Opinion-requests, or any form of dispute resolution whatsoever. -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Cirt, I agree Delicious carbuncle has not gone about this in an appropriate manner. It does seem as if he instigated this conflict as a WP:POINT with the original edit Jamie Sorrentini. What I see here is Jayen466 and Delicious carbuncle are focusing on long term pattern of behavior which is too broad to appropriately cover in this WP:AE request IMO. I think a RFC/U is the most appropriate venue to discuss long term behavior patterns.
Comments by Jusdafax[edit]

I discovered this matter because I have Cirt's talkpage watchlisted. I have not been contacted on or offwiki regarding it, and indeed have not communicated with Cirt at all for many months, though we have found areas of agreement in the past. Cirt's many contributions [59] are extensive to an amazing degree, and I am hardly alone in respecting his accomplishments. As Will Beback notes above, Cirt edits across a wide range of articles. I feel strongly that Delicious carbuncle is clearly the dubious party here, and agree that the lack of talk page discussion by Delicious carbuncle is highly noteworthy. Because Cirt is a high-profile editor on one of the touchiest subjects in Wikipedia, he comes under various forms of attack for doing what I and many see as a very good job. He merits our deepest thanks, and I ask in all fairness that this matter be dropped as what it is... patent nonsense. Jusdafax 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Formal warning(s) given[edit]

I have given formal warnings to Cirt [60] and Delicious Carbuncle [61]. It is my sincere belief that they comply exactly with the requirements given at Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban but if someone wants to quibble, I'm certainly amenable to revising them to meet whatever jot and tittle requirements are advanced. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Cirt[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Request for sanctions denied. (1) There is no evidence presented of a prior warning to Cirt, as required by WP:ARBSCI. (2) There is no evidence presented of general purpose warnings to Cirt from uninvolved editors. (3) There is a lack of concise evidence documented with diffs showing recent bad edits by Cirt. Some of the edits referenced are contested, and some of them might even be incorrect, but I do not see glaring WP:BLP violations as alleged. We apparently have here a run-of-the-mill content dispute, or series of content disputes, dressed up as an enforcement request. Please, try the noticeboards or mediation to resolve editorial disputes. I see nothing here that can't be resolved through our normal editorial processes. Sanctions should be a last resort when dealing with good faith editors, especially those editors who have lengthy service records replete with featured content contributions. Jehochman Talk 19:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman this says "uninvolved administrators", you are not. You are (using your own words) "wiki-friends" with Cirt, and have been going about threatening to block me and others for bringing up his bad behaviour here. You are in place to close this - you shouldn't even be editing it.--Scott Mac 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm wikifriends with lots of people, but I'd still sanction them if needs be. That's not a disqualification. I never threatened to block you either. Jehochman Talk 19:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Request for sanctions approved. Substantial and serious evidence of improper editing of BLPs.--Scott Mac 19:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't do that. You're totally out of line. Cirt hasn't been given the necessary warning, and I don't see enough here to generate that warning. (Other admins are welcome to issue such warning if they see it). Scott. Cirt feels you've been in editorial conflict with him. Jehochman Talk 19:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, not nearly as far out of line as you are. You seem close enough to Cirt to speak on behalf of his "feelings". You've done nothing but act in a manner that has shown bias and an attempt to intimidate on his behalf, and now you claim impartiality? Your credibility is severely lacking here.--Scott Mac 21:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • No sanction is possible absent the required prior warning. I have no opinion whether Cirt should be given such a warning. T. Canens (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Any uninvolved administrator is capable of giving that warning at any time. I don't see it right now, but somebody might. Jehochman Talk 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well this sounds familiar. Does this happen often? If it does, there may be procedural improvements to be had to ensure people don't waste their time. If it's just this case, it does have an element of poetic justice, but it's hardly satisfactory. Could someone perhaps give both parties (Cirt and DC) the appropriate warning and tell them not to appear before the bench again? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure either needs a warning. There were some editorial disagreements. These ought to be resolved with dispute resolution rather than requests for sanctions. It does seem that Cirt fired the first shot in this battle. That ought to be a lesson itself. Jehochman Talk 00:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
JEH: I think you need to stay out of the "uninvolved admin" section on this and related matters, going forward. Your judgment is seriously skewed and you seem (to me anyway, based on appearances) to be employing procedural skullduggery to thwart any action being taken regarding Cirt. Which is distressing. As Scott said, knowing how Cirt feels (or claiming to) suggests involvement. Disengage and leave it to other admins to determine the appropriate outcome. ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Added after the close. Per Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Uninvolved_administrators JEH is not involved. I do think his judgment is skewed but he passes the test given in that section. Therefore I withdraw allegations of involvement, without withdrawing my concern over how he has acted. ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Lar, do you see that the section above, diffs of prior warnings, lacks the prescribed prior warning? If you have the diff, please provide it. Jehochman Talk 03:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
JEH: I've now given the warnings and gave the diffs. My concern is that you're trying to paperwork this to death... your point 3 is not valid and points 1 and 2 are process wonkery. ++Lar: t/c 04:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Lar has previously commented on a thread that was regarding Cirt at Wikipedia Review. Does that make this admin involved? [62] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you already try this line, and then admit you were all wet? Won't fly. JEH is involved. (not per Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Uninvolved_administrators so striken 01:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)) I'm not. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The only reason I bring this up is there is an effort to claim JEH is involved. Just providing a little context. Others can make with it what they will.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Say, are you an "uninvolved admin"??? if not, your comments don't belong in this section. HTH. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes...Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I see you're an admin, yes, and won't move you back again. Carry on casting aspersions. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Lar's warnings. The edits to Scientology-related BLP articles noted by Scott (as noted in the Delicious Carbuncle section above), Delicious Carbuncle and JN466 are indeed problematic. I agree, for example, that Michael Doven article had (and has) serious problems with WP:UNDUE, such as his wife's success at some Scientology level or other, sourced to a primary source. While I appreciate Cirt's willingness to respond to specific issues raised, I would be more impressed if I saw more proactive rather than reactive edits to solve the problems in the articles. Let's hope that a warning of a possible future topic ban is enough of a prompt to develop greater insight into the requirements of BLP-compliant editing, and to take a long hard look with some new spectacles both at past and future edits. --Slp1 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
What standard are we holding editors to? If Cirt of DC makes even one more questionable edit, any admin can topic ban them. There has to be room for bona fide content disagreements without immediately escalating to sanctions. Lar's warnings are severely deficient because they do not include any diffs. They just point to this monsterous thread and say effectively, "somewhere in this haystack I think there's a needle; go find it yourself". If a sanction or warning is needed, it should be possible to grab the three or four most egregious diffs and post them! If Lar read the thread and checked the diffs, he should have copied these and set them aside. I now request that he does this so that we can understand what the warnings are based upon. Jehochman Talk 20:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
"severely deficient" ??? They are based on the totality of evidence presented in the opening sections. Both editors have acknowledged their warning without questioning the validity. Another sign of your bias, I think, that you seek additional jots/tittles. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
4 of 6 diffs provided above are greater than 6 months old with one more than a year old [63] The newest diff is Oct 13, 2010 [64] which involved adding a link to wikinews regarding a book the BLP wrote. Is this what we are recommending warnings be based on?
Than we have the accusations of "Cirt's ownership tendencies" and "mind-boggling pettiness" which is supposedly proved by the the addition of some negative reviews to a movie. I am not sure how these diffs from June 2010 show either ownership or pettiness? I assumed that ownership would require showing that Cirt would not allow others to add reffed content to this article. The Rottentomato and metacritic comments are in the lead regardless. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It is precisely because of the history of problems that the warning is appropriate. But it is only a warning. There need to be further problems for any topic ban to be considered and hopefully that won't happen with either editor. If there are further complaints, then there will be time for analysis and discussion, to make sure that the complaints are not of the "bona fide content disagreements" type. Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are we still at this? Warnings are not appealable, and I could never think of an instance when a warning is "revoked" or whatever, so this discussion is not going to get you any meaningful result. If you think there's a problem with it, arbcom is that way. Something is seriously wrong when enforcing administrators at AE start to behave like the parties. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Than we have this dif [65] by DC regarding this revert [66] and this ref [67] that supports Cirt's version. But other refs also say 109 [68]. We had a previous anon change the time to 105 [69]. Who cares... I agree with T. Canens someone should close this as we should move on... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Cirt is claiming that Lar is not an uninvolved admin, on their talk page. Lar is the person who gave them the warning of the discretionary topic ban. Does a different admin want to go over there and re-state the warning? EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Cirt claiming I am involved does not make it so. Having a different admin go state the warning means Cirt gets to knock out whoever Cirt likes, which has already been repudiated as a general principle. Instead, it would be better to affirm my noninvolvement absent direct evidence to the contrary. ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have refactored my remarks suggesting that JEH is involved to remove that suggestion, based on Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Uninvolved_administrators. Sorry for editing a closed section but I felt it was important to correct myself. ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt II[edit]

No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Cirt[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
*WP:ARBSCI#Discretionary topic ban
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Cirt copied a section of List of Scientologists to List of Scientology officials (leaving the material duplicated in the original article). According to the policy WP:VERIFIABILITY, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Despite all of the discussion here, Cirt made no effort to ensure that the article they created used only reliable sources and was not in violation of WP:BLPCAT, which states that inclusion in lists or application of categories "regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief...". Additionally, there is the use of clearly unrelaible sources (including the "unauthorized biography" already discussed in this request). Gratuitous references to Joseph Feshbach in the section on his daughter seem to violate WP:BLP.

Although Cirt did correct ([70] & [71]) the specific violations that I highlighted after I originally posted this evidence, they made no attempt to prevent the situation even those they had been involved in several discussions of these very issues and warned about the possibility of sanctions. Cirt appears to have made no attempt to address the issues more generally and has left unreliable sources used in this list. It seems unreasonable that an admin involved in the creation of lists of living people associated with a controversial topic should be allowed to violate our policies unless and until someone tells them specifically that they have done so.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [[72]] Warning by Lar (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
topic ban
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Starting a new request for arbitration as requested.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Cirt[edit]

Statement by Cirt[edit]

Almost immediately after Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) made his complaints, I substantively addressed them. Please see post to the article's talk page, acknowleding this. Yet again, Delicious carbuncle has failed to attempt any form of talk page discussion or dispute resolution whatsoever. Please also note my recent comment on my talk page diff. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Update: Please note this update to my user talk page. I have removed remaining pages from my watchlist not related to prior quality improvement and WP:GA/WP:FA projects. I am going to avoid editing within the topic of Scientology, unless directly related to prior GA and FA projects. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Cirt[edit]

Seriously? Within seconds of the thread which resulted in a warning being closed? God forbid he trust other Wikipedians who created the page he copied part of - clearly that's something we should ban people for. </sarcasm> Perhaps removing the ban that prevented DC from making further reports on Cirt was a bad idea. Shell babelfish 01:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
That source list page is up for deletion as being problematic. So moving content to another place could be seen as circumventing the deletion request... That said, I do think this request is premature... but if someone is warned, and then repeats the behavior they were warned about, how long is it proper to wait before raising the matter? Cirt appears rather intransigent. Again, I don't think you have all the context here on Cirt's behavior patterns. (no one has put together a neat package of it, regrettably, you'd have had to have been watching all along) ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
When someone was warned a day ago and seems to be making strides to address the slew of complaints in the past 24 hours and going further to voluntarily withdraw from the area, what more can we really ask of them? Perhaps if there's an ongoing problem, there needs to be something put together so that the editor themselves understands what the overall problems people are concerned with are? Shell babelfish 01:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Nod. I think it's reasonable to wait a week, two, three, to see if there's substantive change. This request is premature. And yes, someone ought to put together a package (prior to the next request, if any). I too am cheered by Cirt's recent statement on their talk endeavouring to take the input on board and shift focus. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I have trouted Delicious carbuncle. This has shifted into a tit-for-tat dispute. Cirt is a great editor (though definitely not perfect one) and this whole dispute is really crossing the line of acceptable AE behavior. That being said i support some sort of interaction ban for 1 to 3 months as Delicious carbuncle has shown himself not to be able to behave as an Adult with the Enforcement requests. Lar, Scott Macdonald, Jayen446, and myself are more then able to Request any additional enforcements in the mean time The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't support such an interaction ban. I expect DC will take the feedback to wait and see how things play out. Because reviewing the chain of events, his actions were (absent awareness of Cirt's deciding to take a new tack and stand aside from this topic area) reasonable. He had his first request overturned due to 'paperwork' and saw continuing issues even after the warning given. I would have waited a bit longer myself, but I do not agree with your view. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Cirt[edit]

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

Please people can we not end this for a couple days. Cirt is obviously willing to address the shortcoming. Can people who are interested in this topic not work together and improve it rather than returning here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am encouraged by Cirt's statement here; more time needs to have passed, and more support and assistance needs to have been given, before it is possible to say that there are ongoing problems that merit further examination here. --Slp1 (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Per my comments to Shell, above, I too think this should be deferred for a reasonable period of time. Suggest a close, for now, without prejudice to reopening in, say, 2 weeks time if there has not been substantial improvement (as Cirt themselves undertook in their talk page comment) ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Move to close. We had a warning 24 hours ago, and absolutely no evidence of misconduct since the warning was issued is presented by filer. (This is said without comment on any older evidence.) Warnings required by the ArbCom are not hoops; they give users a chance to amend their behaviour and not be formally sanctioned. Requesting sanctions at this point is clearly premature. Courcelles 02:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This series of enforcement requests and counter-requests has been irreversibly contaminated by a few administrators bickering with each other on top of the basic failures in respecting the requirements for warnings. Barring strenuous objection, close without action, and a strong request that all previously involved and/or commented stay silent when this conflict returns to AE, and let fresh eyes look at the problem.--Tznkai (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is hoping it does not return... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos do exist[edit]

User:Jalapenos do exist is placed under a new 1RR restriction on all I/P topics for three months with details as provided within. EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Jalapenos do exist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [73] WP:GAME - see explanation in "Additional comments" section below
  2. [74] WP:GAME, see below
  3. [75] WP:GAME, see below
  4. [76] WP:GAME, see below
  5. [77], WP:GAME, see below
  6. [78], WP:GAME, see below
  7. [79], WP:GAME, see below
  8. [80], WP:GAME, see below
  9. [81], WP:GAME, see below
  10. [82], WP:GAME, see below
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. [83] Warning by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Topic ban. Preferably an extended one.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Substituted short version of evidence below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Last month, Jalapenos do exist submitted an article, Durban III, to WP:DYK for consideration for promotion to the main page. I happened to notice it in the DYK queue on December 4, about 16 hours before it was due for mainpage display, took a look at the article and decided it was POV. Rather than pulling it from the queue or requesting it be pulled however, I decided to delete the most objectionable items, and allow it to proceed despite my misgivings concerning the rest of the content. I also did some pruning of a related article, World Conference against Racism 2001, here, leaving a note at the article's talk page explaining my edits, here.

When I returned to Wikipedia the following day, I noted that Jalapenos had reverted my edit to the second article with the single word Nonsense, restoring some highly tendentious material to the lead which implied that an official UN conference distributed antisemitic libels and "portraits of Adolf Hitler".[84] Jalapenos completely ignored my reasons for deletion given on the talk page in doing so. Moreover, his reversion was made less than 40 minutes before the article was due for (proxy) promotion, leaving almost no time for anybody to see it and prevent it going to the main page.

Shortly thereafter, I noticed a second DYK nomination from Jalapenos at T:TDYK, Civilian casualty ratio, with a hook another user described as "agenda-driven". The article had been nominated at AfD by another user and passed, though 14 out of 22 users at the AFD either expressed concerns about or signally failed to endorse the article's content.

I too had major concerns about the article, considering it to be an obvious WP:COATRACK for showcasing a handful of carefully cherry-picked, albeit dubious, sources purportedly demonstrating Israel's humanitarian concern for avoiding civilian casualties - a conclusion that I consider to be WP:FRINGE since it flies in the face of a large body of evidence compiled by NGOs criticizing the same state for excessive use of force.

My initial impulse once again was simply to argue for disqualification of the article at DYK because the problems were too extensive to be remedied within DYK's short timeframe. After complaints from Jalapenos and one or two of his buddies, however, I decided, once again very much against my better judgement, to try and remedy the worst of the problems myself in an attempt to bring it up to DYK standard, in an effort to avoid Wikidrama (the entire discussion at T:TDYK can be reviewed here).

I started working on the article on 5 December. As I had feared, the job turned out to be substantial, requiring a considerable amount of research, and I only finished it on December 13. Throughout, I gave reasons for my edits, both in edit summaries and at the article's talk page. Not once during the entire 9-day period I was editing the article did Jalapenos express the slightest concern about any of my edits, or make a single revert or edit himself, apart from one minor tweak to a header.

When I finished, I checked with Jalapenos to ensure he had no concerns with my edits. Jalapenos' reply at my talk page was as follows:

I have no objections to the article in its current form that exceed the usual disagreements between editors. I think it should go to DYK.[85]

I took this statement, along with his failure to raise any concerns over the previous nine days, as confirmation that he had no substantial concerns about my edits, and on that basis, I withdrew my objection to its promotion at DYK, in spite of the fact that I was still very dissatisfied with the article. The article was promoted to the queue shortly afterward.

Yesterday, I returned to Wikipedia to find the article has come and gone on the mainpage. To my astonishment, I found that in a series of edits, Jalapenos with a little help from Mbz had reverted almost all my edits pertaining to Israel in the article, essentially restoring in its entirety the original version to which I (and a number of other users) had strenuously objected 9 days before. Once again, Jalapenos left his series of edits to the very last moment, only beginning them a few minutes after the article appeared on the mainpage, leaving the least possible time for those edits to be challenged.

I submit that this behaviour of Jalapenos represents a transparent and egregious breach of WP:GAME, in particular example 9 of the guideline, I quote:

Bad faith negotiating – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised.

That is precisely what Jalapenos has done in this case. He allowed me to sweat over his article for more than a week in trying to bring it up to scratch, with not a single complaint, assured me at the end of the process that he had no objections to the article in its current form - and then just made wholesale reverts the minute the article appeared on the mainpage.

This series of edits by Jalapenos also represents a blatant, and indeed successful, attempt to subvert DYK's established article review process. Jalapenos knew that his version of the article was heading for rejection at T:TDYK; he allowed me to bring it to a condition in which it could be approved, only to revert to the earlier contentious version once it made it to the main page.

To list just some of his reverts, all made just after midnight 14 December, a few minutes after the article appeared on the main page:

  • 6 December: I remove material with the edit summary dershowitz is not a reliable source.[86]
  • 14 December: J. restores dershowitz.[87]
  • 6 December: I removed Gordon as a "partisan source".[88]
  • 14 December: J. restores Gordon.[89]
  • 6 December: I remove dershowitz from lead as wp:undue.[90]
  • 14 December: J. restores Dershowitz to lead.[91]
  • 6 December: I refactor Katz.[92]
  • 14 December: J. restores "fuller version of Katz".[93]
  • 6 December: I add ref. to Goldstone report.[94]
  • 14 December: J. removes ref. to Goldstone report.[95]
  • 9 December: I remove Kalder from lead per talk page concerns.[96]
  • 14 December: J. restores Kalder to lead over talk page consensus.[97]
  • 9 December: I remove Oren per talk page concerns.[98]
  • 14 December: J. restores Oren over talk page consensus.[99]

Jalapenos knew that all this content was contested, but restored it all anyway - 15 minutes after the article appeared on the main page.

Finally, a look through Jalapenos' talk pages reveals that his main contribution to the encyclopedia appears to be as the author of a string of articles which have been nominated for AFD, most of them being deleted for lack of notability and many with POV concerns, as follows:

I am therefore requesting a substantial topic ban for this user. Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.


Short version of evidence[edit]

Since some users have complained that my evidence is too long, here's the short version:

  • November 23: Jalapenos do exist self noms an article, Civilian casualty ratio, at DYK.[101]
  • November 24: The article is nominated for deletion.
  • December 3: The AFD is closed as keep, but 14 out of 22 users express concerns about the content of the article.
  • Discussion about whether or not to promote the article to the mainpage continues at DYK. After a number of people including myself express POV concerns about the article's content, I eventually reluctantly agree to work with Jalapenos to try and fix the problems. The complete discussion at DYK can be read here.
  • December 6: I start working on the article.
  • December 6: I remove Dershowitz from lead as wp:undue.[102]
  • December 6: I remove Dershowitz as not a reliable source.[103]
  • December 6: I remove Gordon as a partisan source.[104]
  • December 6: I refactor Katz.[105]
  • December 6: I add some info about the Goldstone Report for balance.[106]
  • December 7: Philip Baird Shearer (PBS) complains about some of the article's content under two different headers, the complete discussions can be read here and here.
  • December 8: I leave a note at DYK stating that a new user is complaining about the article content.[107]
  • December 8: Jalapenos responds to my note at DYK as follows: I don't see any "holdup" or a new user objecting to any content. I see PBS objecting to section headings recently added by you. I tend to agree with his assessment that your additions are WP:SYNTH, but it's only section headings, no big deal.[108] Note that he doesn't mention any of my previous deletions. He just says the dispute between me and PBS is "no big deal", and that he sees no reason for a "holdup", ie he sees no substantive disagreements that would stop the article being promoted at DYK.
  • December 9: After a discussion between PBS and myself on the article's talk page, I agree that Kaldor is a dubious source, and remove her from the article lede.[109]
  • December 9: After another discussion with PBS on the talk page, I agree with PBS that Oren is also a dubious source and replace him with a better and more comprehensive source.[110]
  • December 9-13: I add a whole bunch more stuff about some other wars to the article.
  • December 12: I notify Jalapenos that I am just about done editing the article. Since he hasn't participated in talk page discussion or challenged any of my edits over the last six days, I ask him to confirm that the content as it stands is acceptable to him.[111] He replies: I have no objections to the article in its current form that exceed the usual disagreements between editors. I think it should go to DYK.[112]
  • December 12: Jalapenos also leaves a note at the DYK discussion: Let's do this. After making his own changes to the article, Gatoclass has told me that he thinks it should be promoted.[113]
  • December 12: Assuming from these statements, and from his lack of challenges to my edits over the last six days, that he has no problem with the content and the article is stable, I concur that the article is ready for an independent review.[114]
  • December 13: EdChem approves the current version of the article for promotion.[115]
  • 00:00, December 14: The DYK bot moves the next update containing the hook to Jalapenos' article to the main page.[116]
  • 00:14, December 14: Jalapenos deletes some criticism of Israel from the article.[117]
  • 00:19, 14 December: Jalapenos restores Dershowitz.[118]
  • 00:21, December 14: Jalapenos deletes more criticism of Israel.[119]
  • 00:24, December 14: Jalapenos restores Katz.[120]
  • 00:24, Decmber 14: Jalapenos restores Gordon.[121]
  • 00:26, December 14: Jalapenos restores Dershowitz to lead.[122]
  • 00:27, December 14: Jalapenos restores Kaldor.[123]
  • 00:31, December 14: Jalapenos restores Oren.[124]

So hopefully now the situation is clearer. Jalapenos nominated an article to DYK that numerous users found problematic; I worked on that article for 8 days to NPOV it so it could be promoted; J. made no attempt to challenge any of my edits for any of those 8 days, except to comment that he saw only one minor issue that was "no big deal". He confirmed at the end of that 8 days in response to my query that he had no objections to the article in its current form that exceed the usual disagreements between editors; EdChem approved that same version of the article on the basis that it was NPOV and stable; and then, 15 minutes after the article was promoted to the main page, Jalapenos made wholesale changes that essentially restored his own version of the article which had been headed for rejection 8 days prior.

Jalapenos subverted the DYK quality control process by allowing me to bring the article to a state where it could be approved at DYK, only to revert back to his own heavily contested version a few minutes after the article was promoted to the main page. That constitutes an egregious violation of WP:GAME. He also clearly negotiated in bad faith for an extended period, staying silent through all my changes except to indicate at one point that outstanding disputes were "no big deal", and leading me to believe at the end of that process that he had no substantial objections to the article "in its current form" in order to gain my consent for the article's promotion, only to restore virtually all the contested content when the article went to the mainpage. Gatoclass (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Question: JDE claims that you tagged articles as under dicretionary scanctions after JDE made his edits, and then reported his violation of these sanctions here, and without warning. Is that right? Thanks. - BorisG (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant. JDE has been editing in the topic area for two years, he was formally warned about the existence of ARBPIA sanctions six months ago, there's no requirement for him to be reminded of sanctions with tags at the top of talk pages in addition to that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
WAW! Arguably, these articles are not in A/I conflict area. Were not until you said so. As for warning: clearly, warning is ALWAYS the normal first step in seeking to stop behaviour you find problematic, in Wikipedia and elsewhere in life. In AE, a warning is a requirement. - BorisG (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
ARBPIA covers the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. This article is obviously related to the conflict, otherwise it wouldn't have information about the conflict in it. J.'s edits were unambiguously related to the conflict. There is no question these edits fall within the domain of ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
ARBPIA talks about articles while you are talking about edits. It's not the same thing. You are making rules on the fly. - BorisG (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm talking about both articles and edits. JDE's edits fall under ARBPIA in both respects. Gatoclass (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Tznkai[edit]

In response to your questions Tznkai - this case is not about the content of Jalapenos' edits. My references to the content were simply a means of supplying some background information about the origins of the dispute.

There are two issues at hand in this case:

  • Firstly, that J. subverted DYK's established quality control processes, taking advantage of my week's worth of editing to get the article passed at DYK, only to substantially restore his rejected version when the article appeared on the mainpage;
  • Secondly, that J. engaged in bad faith negotiating per WP:GAME in that he led me to believe he had no substantive issues with the edits I made to the article over a period of more than a week, even assuring me at the end of that process that he had no objections to the article in its current form, before restoring virtually all the content I had removed as the article went to the mainpage.

I consider the first issue above to be an egregious breach of process since it affects content which appears on the main page. His edits made a total mockery of DYK's quality control processes. If we were to allow this sort of thing, we might as well just ditch the DYK process altogether and allow users to promote their own articles with no scrutiny. The second in my opinion represents an unacceptable breach of faith. But both are clear breaches of GAME.

One additional clarification. J. and brewcrewer have both attempted to rebut my case by arguing that J. did not delete all my edits. But I never claimed that. What I said is that J. reverted almost all my edits pertaining to Israel. He restored almost in its entirety his version of the Israeli section of the article, which he knew had been protested at DYK by multiple users, which he knew I had deleted or refactored for NPOV reasons. The only part of that section which he did not remove, presumably because he could think of no grounds for doing so, was the subsection I added on the 1982 Lebanon War, but even there he made a deletion.[125]

However, he in fact went even further than that, restoring virtually all of the material he knew was contested - not only in the Israeli section, but also in the lead, restoring kalder and dershowitz, and in the NATO section, restoring Oren. Kalder and Oren, moreover, were disputed not only by myself but also by Philip Baird Shearer on the talk page, so that these last two edits were made not only in subversion of the DYK process and in violation of GAME as described above, but also against talk page consensus. The fact that he left some other material I added to the article is irrelevant. The point is that he restored virtually all the contested content, knowing that content had already failed to achieve consensus at DYK, doing so a few minutes after the article's appearance on the main page when he had had the opportunity to contest those edits for more than a week, and after assuring me disingenuously that he had no objections to the article in its current form. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Jalapenos' claim that the article appeared on the main page at 6:00 am 14 December is incorrect. The article appeared on the main page at 0:00 14 December,[126] and J. began his reverts 14 minutes later.[127] Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


Regarding the proposed remedies, why not simply make it that he can't edit articles in the topic area at all so long as they are on the mainpage? It's hardly an onerous restriction, and it would completely prevent any further attempts at gaming. Gatoclass (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to EdJohnston[edit]

First of all, let me say that I'm not fussed whether Jalapenos is sanctioned for his gaming or not. My primary concern in bringing this case to AE was to send a message to Jalapenos and any other editor contemplating gaming the DYK process as he did that it is unacceptable behaviour. In that regard, I will consider the purpose of this case served if J. is warned against any repeat of this conduct.

However, I must take issue with Ed's suggestion that the case may not fall under the purview of ARBPIA. I don't know what he means by this, but Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions clearly states amongst other things that serious breaches of any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process in the topic area are actionable. J.'s edits were self-evidently related to the topic area, so that's not an issue. The question then is whether or not his conduct constituted a "serious breach" of expected standards of behaviour or normal editorial processes. Obviously not everybody is familiar with DYK's processes but I would have thought the GAMEing aspect would be clear enough to anyone who gave it a moment's thought. If an article has been through a review process that clears it for mainpage promotion, and then someone comes along and restores large slabs of contested content that had previously been removed as a result of that review while the article is on the main page, of course that is gaming. Otherwise we might as well just scrap the review process altogether and let editors promote whatever they like to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I feel obliged to respond to some more of EdJohnston's comments, since I consider them to be quite misinformed.
First of all, Ed asks: This article was created by Jalapenos, but I wonder how it became his duty to fix all the perceived problems before it could become a DYK. Firstly, if you author an article and submit it to DYK, the responsibility is very much on you to ensure it complies with both content policies and DYK rules. Why on earth should it be otherwise? Does anyone nominate an article for promotion at GA or FAC and expect somebody else to fix it for them? I am totally mystified by this comment of Ed's. It is even odder given that Ed himself notes that I did substantial work on this article to bring it up to DYK standard. I was under absolutely no obligation to do so, and the article would have failed without my work to it. Ed's question would more appropriately be Why should Gatoclass have to work so hard to fix somebody's else's DYK submission? I can assure you I've been asking myself precisely the same question.
Secondly, Ed says The actual DYK hook was "... that according to a study by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the civilian casualty ratio in wars fought since the mid-20th century has been 10 civilian deaths for every soldier death?" That hook sounds innocuous and does not have an obvious POV. I very much agree. That's because the original hook submitted by Jalapenos was rejected as agenda driven, as a simple look at the DYK discussion demonstrates.[128]
These comments of Ed's along with some others indicate to me that he hasn't been paying much attention to the evidence presented in this case. Ed, if as you suggested you don't have the "patience" to give proper consideration to this case, then I request you leave its adjudication to those who do. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Tznkai's proposed remedy[edit]

While the issue of individual sanctions is very much a secondary concern to me in this case, in relation to Tznkai's proposed remedy below, I feel obliged to point out that a proposal to place J. under 1RR is no sanction at all given that all articles in the topic area are already covered by such a restriction. IMO it would be just as well to impose no sanction at all rather than a faux restriction of this type, which may end up sending entirely the wrong message. What I would like to see in any remedy is at least a clear statement that his reverts in this instance were "a clear example of disruptive editing" to borrow Slp's phrase, and for him to be cautioned against future misconduct of this type. Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]

Statement by Jalapenos do exist[edit]

This is my first time here, and I'm kind of taken aback, so I may be missing something. I understand that Gatoclass is accusing me of having violated WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions with one edit to World Conference against Racism 2001 and nine edits to Civilian casualty ratio, which I authored. But none of these edits were made to articles that were under ARBPIA discretionary sanctions, so how could I have violated them?

Civilian casualty ratio is about a general military history topic. Its only relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular is that one of the ratio's extreme values appears from the data and is explicitly stated by a notable observer to have been achieved within the Arab-Israeli conflict. Why should it be under ARBPIA sanctions? When I checked a few minutes ago, I did not see that anyone had ever put an ARBPIA warning tag on it or expressed in any other way the notion that it should be under these sanctions [129].

Similarly, World Conference against Racism 2001 is about a United Nations conference on racism, not about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here, too, nobody had ever put an ARBPIA warning tag on the article or expressed in any other way the notion that it should be under ARBPIA sanctions. After I made the edit in question, someone did put an ARBPIA warning tag on the article. The person was - you guessed it - Gatoclass himself [130]. I fail to see the logic of placing the tag on this article, but that's a discussion for another time. The point is that I had no way of knowing that Gatoclass would, in the future, put the tag there, and I had no other reason to suspect that anyone would consider this article to be within the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I should note that the third article mentioned in Gatoclass's accusation (in the additional comments section), Durban III, which I authored, is exactly like the second one in these regards. In no way is it evident that someone would consider it to be within the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, its only connection being peripheral. And nobody had ever expressed the notion that the article should be under ARBPIA sanctions until Gatoclass himself placed a warning tag on it after the edits for which he accuses me of violating ARBPIA sanctions [131].

Gatoclass's various charges in the "additional comments" section are as empty as the accusation itself. I'll respond to them, too, because I want to protect my reputation.

The edit I made to WCAR 2001, supposedly "highly tendentious", was: "The conference included distribution of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, portraits of Adolf Hitler, and expressions of hatred for Jews." This was virtually a quote from a news article by Gloria Galloway in the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, which said, in the voice of the writer: "The initial conference in 2001 included distribution of the Chronicles [sic] of the Elders of Zion, a fake text purporting to be a Jewish plan for global domination, portraits of Adolph [sic] Hitler, and expressions of hatred for Jews" [132]. (Interestingly, the Globe and Mail paragraph has since been changed online [133] to the point where it does not support my original edit. This may be why Gatoclass challenged it, and if that's the case he was right to do so.) The edit was improper, Gatoclass says, because it "was made less than 40 minutes before the article was due for (proxy) promotion, leaving almost no time for anybody to see it and prevent it going to the main page". Huh? WTF is "proxy promotion"? This article, several years old, was not up for promotion. A different article, Durban III was up for DYK promotion at around the same time, a fact that I was not even aware of. Am I supposed to constantly check DYK so that I can avoid making edits to any article related to an article about to be promoted there?

Next we have the suggestion that I gamed the system with my behavior regarding Civilian casualty ratio and the process of its DYK promotion. I'll ignore Gatoclass's extremely long prefatory attempt to discredit the article itself, because it's irrelevant. His point seems to be that I deceived him about my position on his series of changes to the article in order to get him to support it for DYK promotion. Here is my position, which has never changed and which is shared by other editors (who are not "one or two of my buddies", by the way): some of his edits were bad, but these bad edits were not so significant as to make the article unsuitable for DYK. I happened to have stated this position to Gatoclass, both on the DYK talk [134] and on his talk page [135] (cited, oddly, by Gatoclass). If I had wanted to deceive him about my position, I probably would have said something - anything - to him that was actually inconsistent with my position. I did not.

Gatoclass's notion that I deceived him also seems to rely on the fairly solipsistic assumption that his opinion is what decided whether the article would go to DYK. Since I don't and did not share this assumption, I had no reason to care an awful lot about his opinion, and thus no reason to try and change it through deception. In fact, seeing at the time that he was the only editor to object to the article's promotion (after I had responded to concerns by other editors), I thought that an article would not ultimately be denied DYK because of a single editor objecting. But I was frustrated that the discussion had been dragging on for so long because of it, so when Gatoclass came around, I happily reported it on the talk page. The idea that I was negotiating in bad faith by making treacherous concessions seems very odd to me, for the simple reason that we were never negotiating and so I made no concessions.

Next there are the edits that I made countering some of Gatoclass's changes to Civilian casualty ratio. There are so many falsehoods and half truths here that I'm going to have to move to bullet points.

  • He allowed me to sweat over his article for more than a week in trying to bring it up to scratch, with not a single complaint... Wrong, I did complain on the DYK talk page (diff provided above), and so did others, both on the DYK talk page and on the article's talk page.
  • ...assured me at the end of the process that he had "no objections to the article in its current form". This is a misleading fragment of what I said. The complete sentence was: "I have no objections to the article in its current form that exceed the usual disagreements between editors." What I actually said was an accurate description of my position.
  • I took this statement, along with his failure to raise any concerns over the previous nine days, as confirmation that he had no substantial concerns about my edits, Again, I did raise substantial concerns, including the specific concern that another editor was correct in characterizing some of his edits as WP:SYNTH (above diff from DYK talk). Even if I hadn't, I don't see how Gatoclass's inference would have been justified.
  • and on that basis, I withdrew my objection to its promotion at DYK, in spite of the fact that I was still very dissatisfied with the article. Baffling. Why is the question of whether I had any substantial concerns over his edits a reason to withdraw his objection to DYK? If he was "still very dissatisfied with the article" he could have continued to object. What does he want from me?
  • To my astonishment, I found that in a series of edits, Jalapenos with a little help from Mbz... There seems to be an insinuation here that I acted in coordination with Mbz. I did not. Mbz was simply one of the other editors who objected to Gatoclass's changes.
  • ...had reverted almost all my edits pertaining to Israel in the article, essentially restoring in its entirety the original version to which I (and a number of other users) had strenuously objected 9 days before. I didn't essentially restore in its entirety the original version. Many of Gatoclass's changes were good (i.e. they added relevant, sourced material), and I left them untouched. Perhaps I reverted "almost all" of his edits pertaining to Israel. I made a lot of changes, and I wasn't interested in what country the edits pertained to; I was interested in whether they were policy compliant or not.
  • Once again, Jalapenos left his series of edits to the very last moment, only beginning them a few minutes after the article appeared on the mainpage, leaving the least possible time for those edits to be challenged. Looking at the records, this appears to be false. I see that I made a series of changes slightly after midnight on 14 December, and that the article appeared on DYK at 06:00 that day (Wikipedia:Recent_additions#14_December_2010). My knowledge about the DYK process is shaky, but if my motivation were to keep the edits from being challenged before the article appeared on DYK, wouldn't it have been the worst timing to edit six hours before it went to DYK, when there would have been the most attention on it and more than sufficient time to change the edits? The reason I didn't make the edits earlier was because I carefully looked at all of Gatoclass's changes only on 12 December, after he told me that he was "pretty much all done" [136]. On 13 December I was busy and didn't edit any articles. On 14 December I sat down for a Wiki session and saw a template on my talk page that the article was going to be on DYK. I vaguely remember that when I sat down I intended to edit other articles and procrastinate on this one, and I was spurred to prioritize it by the pride of seeing the template. If my memory is correct, there was an indirect connection between the DYK timing and the timing of my edits, but I don't see anything improper about the connection.
  • To list just some of his reverts... Indeed, some. The selection and the inaccurate comments about the talk page seem to be an attempt to portray the situation as if I was the only person who had a problem with his edits. Boy, was this ever not the case. Not only did other editors object to his edits, but Gatoclass was clearly aware of this because he actually tried to stall the DYK process because of another editor's objections to his edits. [137] I'm going to repeat that because it's just so unbelievable. Gatoclass unilaterally made a series of edits to the article up for DYK. Another editor immediately objected to some of the edits. Gatoclass tried to stall the DYK process by saying that the objections to his own recent edits constituted a "dispute" that had to be resolved. A few days later, he tries to portray my objections as idiosyncratic and against consensus.
  • Jalapenos knew that all this content was contested But only by Gatoclass.
  • but restored it all anyway, 15 minutes after the article appeared on the main page. Again, this appears to be false.

His final point is that I've authored articles that have been nominated for AfD. First, a couple of minor corrections: I am not the author of Latma TV, and I requested deletion myself for Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti. More to the point: yes, I've done a lot of things on Wikipedia, and authored many articles. Some of my articles, especially among the ones that actually are about the Arab-Israeli conflict, have been nominated for AfD. (Gatoclass didn't list them all. I don't know what criteria his selection is based on.) Those who have had shared the misfortune of editing in this area know that pretty much every article is nominated for AfD at some point. I'm proud of the fact that the community consensus on most of those articles was that they should be kept.

After reading the accusation again and again, I can't escape the feeling that Gatoclass is making it with unclean hands. He is accusing me of violating ARBIA sanctions. Why did he omit the fact that he is the (only) one who said that the relevant articles should be under ARBPIA sanctions, and that he did so after the edits for which he accuses me? This fact is, after all, clearly important to understanding the accusation, and he must have been aware of it. For that matter, why did he place the tags after I made the edits for which he's accusing me, when he was involved in both articles and was clearly aware of their nature before I made those edits ([138] [139] and see history)? Finally, why did he immediately run here without so much as telling me that he thought my edits were improper? After all, we had recently interacted in a collegial way. And since he clearly did a lot of research on me before making this complaint, he must have seen that I've received compliments and barnstars for my work from editors with diverse POVs (the barnstars are displayed on my user page). If an editor is in good standing, wouldn't it make sense to at least talk to him before filing a formal complaint?

Jeepers, that took a long time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Interim questions[edit]
  1. Having read the discussion among the uninvolved administrators so far, I'm left with the simple question: what did actually I do wrong? EdJohnston asks a similar question, and has yet to receive a satisfactory answer. Tznkai previously said that what I did wrong was "riding roughshod over the opposition" instead of seeking compromise, by restoring an attributed statement by Alan Dershowitz to the article when four users objected to that content. But the thing is that nobody, except perhaps Gatoclass himself, objected to the content being in the article; these four users objected to it being in the hook. And, as a result of their concerns (despite disagreeing with them, explaining why I disagreed, and not receiving a response), I proposed two alternative hooks, one of which was then unanimously accepted. (Complete DYK talk here [140] and article talk at time of my last edit here [141].) Isn't this exactly how compromise is supposed to work? So, what did I do wrong?
  2. It seems that my stated concerns of unclean hands and dishonesty in Gatoclass's accusation are supported to some extent or another by four participants in this discussion so far: Brewcrewer, BorisG, Cptnono and Epeefleche. (Original version of the accusation before being "shortened", with my response, here: [142].) But, as of now, I don't see any treatment of these concerns in the uninvolved admin section. I'm wondering if we can expect to see any treatment of this before the case is closed.

Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Tznkai's response[edit]

To my mind, the response reflects and relies on a misunderstanding of what happened at the DYK talk page. The opposition to the hook was clearly an application of a standard that does not and could not apply to article content. Specifically, the standard that a significant view published in a reliable source should not be in a hook if it is partisan or arguably partisan. However, WP:NPOV directs editors writing articles to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. In my actions at the DYK I immediately accepted these editors' standard in practice as a matter of compromise, suggesting an alternative that was unanimously accepted, and upon reflection accepted it in principle as well. In my actions at the article I operated according to a clear and consistent principle of including all significant views on the topic of the article published in reliable sources (and available online), according to WP:NPOV. None of my edits to the article were contrary to any view expressed by any editor other than Gatoclass, either on the article talk page or on the DYK talk page. The question "so what did I actually do wrong?", the core of this whole affair, still stands. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem[edit]

I was the editor who approved the DYK nomination and hook. I did so having previously expressed severe reservations about the article and its content. When I approved the hook, I checked to see that the material in the article that concerned me had been brought into compliance with policy. I congratulated Gatoclass on his work and also added a DYKmake credit for him, in recognition of the work he describes above. I would not have approved the nomination with the article changes that were subsequently made in place, and I consider the actions of Jalapenos do exist to be very poor editing behaviour. EdChem (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow Up, having read Jalapenos do exist's (JDE's) post, and having thought further...

  • I am not sure that this is the right place for dealing with the issues raised by JDE's actions – as in, whether ARBPIA provides the most apposite framework – but I am sure his actions call for a response.
  • I dispute JDE's claim that only Gatoclass raised objections. In this post at T:TDYK on the nomination of the civilian casualty ratio article, I noted that there were three dispute tags, on the page. I now know that they were added by Gatoclass, and were removed shortly after by JDE, but was not so aware when I posted my comment. However, my edit summary ("with three dispute tags (justified ones), not a chance this is going to get cleaned up in time") makes it perfectly clear that I was not just taking the presence of the tags as evidence of neutrality problems, but I had independently formed the view they were appropriate tags. As for timing, the nomination was already 13 days old at the time, hence my view that the problems would not be addressed quickly enough for DYK.
  • The AfD contains plenty of comments indicating concerns about POV, separate from those expressed by Gatoclass.
  • From my perspective, the article had two major flaws. The first was that it was not global in its coverage, devoting something more than half the article to Israeli / Palestinian / Middle Eastern issues. The second was that its presentation of Israeli material (especially) was not neutral. Gatoclass' changes addressed both of these problems, and the reversion / changes JDE made after the DYK nomination was approved left the new globalised content in place but reversed most of the Israeli coverage to restore the highly POV perspective.
  • When I approved the hook and article I explicitly approved the neutral hook ALT1, credited for his Gatoclass contributions and I indicated that my earlier concerns had been addressed ("I am now satisfied with the article"). To be 2000% clear, I would not have approved the version with the changes JDE made subsequently, and whether or not his actions are sanctionable here they certainly warrant discussion at DYK. Nominating a POV article for DYK, allowing the neutrality to be fixed enough for the nomination to be approved, then re-adding the POV for main page exposure is unacceptable behaviour. No matter what else, JDE has seriously damaged the extent to which I will be willing to AGF on any future DYK nominations of his with POV problems. DYK has been criticised recently for material which we have allowed to reach the main page, and in some cases justifiably. Gaming the system to try to put POV material onto the main page is a serious matter and DYK has a serious issue to address irrespective of what is decided here.
  • This diff compares the last version from Gatoclass with the present JDE version (nearly 24 hours and 25 edits later). I contend that it demonstrates the POV being added. Note particularly that very similar comments from Dershowitz appear in the lede and twice in the text, and his name appears 5 times in the text in JDE's version. The section Israeli air strikes in the Gaza Strip appears to entirely omit any Palestinian perspective; I have the suspicion that the Palestian view of the Israeli Defence Forces is less rosy.
  • I regret that I did not say more at T:TDYK to make explicit that I agreed with Gatoclass' concerns about the article, and those expressed in the AfD, and I was awaiting the progress he was making. I did not comment when the dispute tags were removed because I thought it would just provoke disagreements, and I felt whether the tags were on the article or not, the DYK nomination would still not pass without problems being addressed.
  • To address a couple of other concerns:
    • No, I have not been canvassed in any way either about the DYK nomination or this AE thread.
    • No, I am not anti-Israeli... one of the only other DYK noms I have !voted be disallowed was this post about the Jewish lawyer article... I considered the proposed hook / nomination to be "gratuitously offensive", and I even raised the article in a post to Jimbo.

EdChem (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC) copy edited EdChem (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]

I was involved with the World Conference against Racism 2001 and Durban III articles and the AfD and DYK nominations of the civilian casualties articles and endorse Gatoclass' account of Jalapenos do exist's conduct in relation to these articles. My proposal to add some balance to the Durban III article by including a mention that the references quoted in the article [which were added originally by Jalapenos and were, in several instances, conservative opinion pieces rather than neutral RS] had stated that most UN members had voted in favour of the conference being held were dismissed by Jalapenos do exist as part of me "being silly": [143]. I walked away from this article as I've got no interest in being involved in the Arab-Israeli edit wars. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I too have worked on articles that JDE has submitted for inclusion at DYK as well as elsewhere. I also endorse Gatoclass' report and would like to also point out this edit made to exploding animal which was extremely POV and unsourced and which they were happier to edit war over than discuss (see their talk and the article history). The changes made to the CCR article, partcularly reinserting the comments by Alan Dershowitz, whilst on the main page represent an unbelievable gaming of the system. SmartSE (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Brewcrewer[edit]

Gatoclass says: essentially restoring in its entirety the original version to which I (and a number of other users) had strenuously objected 9 days before. This does not appear to be true. JDE's final edits to the article appear to have included many of Gatoclass's substantial edits. See the difference in nine days of Gatoclass's and JDE's latest edits.[144]

Also JDE's comment "I have no objections to the article in its current form that exceed the usual disagreements between editors", gave a greater indication that he was unsatisfied rather then satisfied with all of Gatoclass's changes to the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Unomi[edit]

Collapsed responses to comments that are now removed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Please note that the actual recommendation was given in this AE request, which simultaneously resulted in Mbz1 being topic banned for 3 months from all content and discussions related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, broadly construed and without exception for reverting vandalism or BLP violations. In any case the recommendation was for Gatoclass to not use administrative tools to gain an advantage, something which I have not seen evidence presented for him doing. Please note that Mbz1 was precisely topic banned for casting aspersions. unmi 01:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment regarding Mbz1[edit]

I did not intend to contribute further to the AE thread than to clarify the context of the particular recommendation that Mbz1 misrepresented. But now I am compelled to respond to Mbz1's charges.

I have previously had disagreements over article content with Gatoclass and Mbz1, where Gatoclass supported and collaborated with Mbz1, that discussion is here if anyone is interested, from this I got the impression that Gatoclass cares deeply about DYK in and of itself, as he was trying to avoid a unilateral retraction by Mbz1. Any editor can look at Mbz1's comments to Gatoclass on his talk page and its archives, example: "You are really doing a great job on Tub'a Abu Kariba As'ad, and I mean it! I will for sure ask for your help next time I write an article :) Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)" and "Hi Gatoclass, I am glad you liked my new article. ☺Don't understand how could I have forgotten to ask you to copy edit it ☺? Glad you found it anyway ☺. I'd like to ask you a question please. If after your copy-editing something will be left out of the article ☺, would you mind, if I am to promote you as a creator in the DYK nomination for the article? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)". The current vilification of Gatoclass by Mbz1 strikes me as opportunistic in the extreme and seems to serve only to run interference and avoid scrutiny of the matters brought here by Gatoclass.

As for the diffs that Mbz1 present regarding Sol Hachuel, please read the article, it is not long. I think that they precisely show why Mbz1 is incapable of working on articles where there is risk of her becoming emotionally attached - The main sources are Folktales of the Jews, Volume 1 which has 2 parts on it, the first is a rendition of one version of the folk tale, and the second is a commentary on it, crucially mentioning that a. various accounts of events differ and b. that the person telling the tale to them, had variations of their own. The commentary also uses language such as legend, tale and rendition, the article that Mbz1 would have us think above critique has not the slightest mention of such concerns. Note that above Mbz1 says that she was burned alive, I have yet to find a source that doesn't claim that she was beheaded, clearly Mbz1 either confuses herself or drastically misread Moshe Ben Sa adon's text, with its reference to leviticus 1:9. The sources can't even agree on which year it was supposed to have happened in, some saying 1834, others 1831 or even 1830, likewise the age of Sol changes from 13 - 17. The most 'serious' source I could find, Sharon Vance, "Sol Ha-Saddikah: Historical figure, saint, literary heroine looks at the underlying framing of the different renditions for different audiences and narrator intent, particularly politics and stereotypes, acknowledging that none of the renditions available are 'professional histories' but are rather "historical documents for the images of Christian, Muslim and Jewish men and women that were current in their literary traditions at the time these texts were written."

I have documented similar willful neglect of conveying the content of the sources at the Yolande Harmer article where she, in a 3 page source used 10 times in the article, studiously ignores what Benny Morris and Ian Black presents as: "She did, however have one notable success in this period, penetrating the US Embassy and obtaining secret cables sent by Jefferson Patterson .. to the State Department in Washington. One of them, which reached the Israeli Foreign Ministry in August, contained militarily useful information about the numbers of Tunisian and Algerian troops fighting with the Arab forces in Palestine" - one notable success and it is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I added that information when checking the sources, but I see that she later removed it with the ES of "not confirmed by other sources" the gall of which beggars belief considering the stature of Benny Morris, the apparent lack of sources contesting it and the fact that half of the article is sourced to only that particular source, yet was left untouched.

Let me be blunt here, it is my impression that Mbz1 does not care one iota for the empiric quality of our articles, certainly not when they touch on matters which she seems to have a compulsion about. Rather, she abuses wikipedia and DYK to promote a narrative that she finds valuable.

I understand that these are "content issues", individually, and I certainly do not expect resolution of them here, however I do believe that they show a tendentious approach to editing which show why Mbz1's contribution in this field cannot be left without scrutiny. Framing my concerns as a "personal vendetta" is convenient, but false, I would take any editor behaving in this manner to task. unmi 05:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Jalapenos and Civilian_casualty_ratio[edit]

03 December AfD concludes, noting that there was not a strong consensus for keep.
There are a large number of editors raising concerns regarding npov specifically regarding the presentation of Israel, both at the AfD and at DYK.

According to the DYK thread:

17:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Jalapenos states: "Let's do this. After making his own changes to the article, Gatoclass has told me that he thinks it should be promoted[1]. So do I. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)", at that point the article looks like this.

19:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Mbz1 states: "I see no problems with the article. It should be promoted.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)"

It would almost be ABF to not understand that as Mbz1 and Jalapenos considering it in a state where it can be considered stable. No tags are added, no concerns seem raised on the article talk page at or around that time.

10:45, 13 December 2010 User:EdChem accepts the article on behalf of DYK stating: "I am now satisfied with the article and with ALT1 about the international red cross. I have also added a DYKmake for Gatoclass, who has made a substantial contribution to the article. EdChem (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)".

At that point the article looks like this.

The diff between the state of when Jalapenos intimated consent and EdChem granted DYK is negligible

Thoughts on Jalapenos Comments[edit]

Jalapenos seems to plead ignorance on the requirement that articles to be shown on the frontpage are relatively stable and uncontested, this seems an unlikely condition as he, at the very least, must have read "The article has three dispute tags, and the DYK rules disallow any dispute tags in articles going to the main page. EdChem (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)" on the DYK thread, reinserting information that he knew was contested prior to a discussion that settled the matter would certainly achieve that.

Jalapenos writes above "Again, I did raise substantial concerns, including the specific concern that another editor was correct in characterizing some of his edits as WP:SYNTH", but submits only:
16:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC) "I don't see any "holdup" or a new user objecting to any content. I see PBS objecting to section headings recently added by you. I tend to agree with his assessment that your additions are WP:SYNTH, but it's only section headings, no big deal. Jalapenos do exist (talk)".
Note that the synth was regarding whether to characterize some of them as conventional vs asymmetric.

At which point the article looks like this
17:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC) "I have no objections to the article in its current form that exceed the usual disagreements between editors. I think it should go to DYK. Jalapenos do exist (talk)", as mentioned above.

At no point in this period is "Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harward Law School" in the article, much less the lede, no additional content has been offered for discussion, none have been boldly edited in. Not a single comment regarding specific issues that Jalapenos, or Mbz1 wanted addressed seems to have been forwarded. The substantial concerns seem to have been the no big deal headings.

Yet, 8 days after the Dershowitz section was removed Jalapenos reinserts it verbatim, minutes after the article is on the frontpage[145]. Note that Jalapenos did not argue against Carwils objection to Dershowitz at the AfD, he did not contest the removal by Gatoclass nor the specific issues that spurred it. The same goes for the remaining edits that are plain to see from the recent edit history, I see no point to analyze them individually other than to say that they do in fact support Jalapenos statement of "Perhaps I reverted "almost all" of his edits pertaining to Israel." - all content related changes were to Israeli related sections, and the majority went directly against concerns raised at AfD and DYK, as well as the talk page itself. unmi 08:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment re proposed remedy

I find it welcome that new options for remedies are explored, I do think that it will leave the parties that felt directly wronged in this unsatisfied, I know I would ;) Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see how it ends, so how can I not support it. Welcome to the ARBPIA grind Tznkai. unmi 19:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment re what could be a better remedy

The proposed one. Have a look at the state of the article when it was mainspaced. Compare that to the current, which was the state that it was in when it was on the frontpage, the material relating to Israel is nearly identical, terrorists has become millitants, at least in some cases, and the lede has become slightly more fluffed, that is *all*. None of the issues raised at the AfD, were addressed, at least not long enough that it mattered for the 1.8k viewers that now might be led to believe that this is the standard to which we hold ourselves. If we really think that this is a Hanlons razor issue, we should likely issue a topic ban out of sheer WP:COMPETENCE concerns. If on the other hand we accept that the user had no intentions of letting other people influence the parts of the article that they were concerned with, and that they also did it solely for the purpose of maximizing exposure, (as he would know they would be reverted when discovered) then where are we at? unmi 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment Re EdJohnston writing
"This article was created by Jalapenos, but I wonder how it became his duty to fix all the perceived problems before it could become a DYK."

The DYK process concerns both the hook, but also the article as it will have maximum exposure on behalf of wikipedia. It was not Jalapenos responsibility to fix them, it was not anyones responsibility, but as shown here, if the issues were not fixed then it would simply not be suitable for displaying on the main page, by consensus of the editors there as noted by Schwede66. Gatoclass took it upon himself to fix the issues, and the editors involved seemed to agree that there were no outstanding issues, including mbz1 and Jalapenos, so it was approved by EdChem. 14 minutes after the article has gained maximum exposure, Jalapenos starts editing it away from the consensus version, and after 26 minutes of being on the front page all the Israeli related contested elements are restored. unmi 11:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Jalapenos Interim questions

Jalapeno writes: What did actually I do wrong? I think that this statement shows that Jalapeno has no intention of taking editor concerns seriously.

He downplays the extent of the text reverted, reducing it to the Alan Dershowitz quote, when it has been shown that within 26 minutes of being on the front page all the Israeli related contested elements are restored. He also stated that only Gatoclass objected to that content, which is specious framing. Excerpts of comments from the AfD regarding issues:

  • Most of the material currently in this article is a selective, biased, inaccurate content fork from those pages. -- Timeshifter
  • Further, dispassionate research, where available, should displace polemicists like Dershowitz .--Carwil
  • It appears to be a content fork specifically designed to discuss a particular POV about the civlian casualty ratio in a specific conflict. --Another clown
  • Delete, per nom, very dubious soapboxing. There probably is a notable topic in the subject but it would have to be written from specialist sources treating the overall topic, not cobbled together from sources about individual conflicts as this puff-piece is. --Misarxist
  • Delete As per Misarxist. -- Nwlaw63
  • The POV and undue weight does need some work, but cleanup can fix that, as can the bias towards recentivism.-- bahamut001

So, what did I do wrong?
-- The answer is: the same thing you are doing now, blatantly trying to game the system.

He goes on to write: It seems that my stated concerns of unclean hands and dishonesty in Gatoclass's accusation are supported to some extent or another by four participants in this discussion so far: Brewcrewer, BorisG, Cptnono and Epeefleche. (Original version of the accusation before being "shortened", with my response, here: [117].) I am a bit confused at these allegations to be honest, I would like to ask Jalapenos to distill evidence of "unclean hands and dishonesty", as near as I can tell they center around 2 items:

1. Gatoclass did not immediately add the ARBPIA tags.

I have to wonder how jalapeno could think that ARBPIA wouldn't cover the article when the article as he created it was almost entirely within ARBPIA. The fact that the tags weren't added is irrelevant and doesn't excuse his actions.

2. Gatoclass stated that he believed that Jalapenos had no objections, to which Jalapenos states that he did say he had substantial objections.

As shown just above, Jalapenos does not specify any objections, he merely notes at DYK that PBS has some, and refers to them as 'no big deal':

I don't see any "holdup" or a new user objecting to any content. I see PBS objecting to section headings recently added by you. I tend to agree with his assessment that your additions are WP:SYNTH, but it's only section headings, no big deal. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos seems to argue that this statement:

I have no objections to the article in its current form that exceed the usual disagreements between editors. I think it should go to DYK. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

combined with the statement above should have given clear indication that he meant to revert to his preferred version within 30 minutes of it being shown on the mainpage. I do not think that this level of contempt for other editors and our community norms should be tolerated, much less go without sanction. unmi 22:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment re Tznkais proposed resolution

All of Arab-Israeli articles are already under 1rr. Please see this discussion and this notice. So at best it simply means that it takes effect for him even if the template has not been added by a user yet, not quite sure of the net value. Anyway, I too grow weary of this AE. unmi 05:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sol[edit]

In regard to the below question of actual damages, I think the idea is that editors agreed to the removal of the POV material only to side-step administrative procedure and quickly re-inserted it after the article was put on the main page which, if that's the case, would be blatant gamesmanship. Regardless of how it happened, WP ended up featuring an article with a healthy serving of POV-pushing. Whoops. Sol (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BorisG[edit]

When I read Gatoclass's statement, I thought it was a serious attempt to game the system, but upon reading JDE's defence, I see this is not so at all. The whole thing is very confusing (with walls of text from both sides), but it seems that Gatoclass has deliberately misquoted JDE at least on one occasion. If that happenned, then he may not be with clean hands. Not to mention that there is nothing wrong with writing articles that are later deleted upon consensus. I think there is no obvious case against JDE.

The misquoting is now removed, but it seems that Gatoclass tagged articles as under dicretionary scanctions after JDE made his edits, and now claims violation of these sanctions, and without warning. Something is not right. - BorisG (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The articles in question are outside the scope of ARBRIA (or were outside until Gatoclass tagged them so) and no warning was given to JDE. Thus this request is inappropriate and should be dismissed. Gatoclass needs to be sanctioned for bringing inappropriate request here. I know it's unlikely to happen (I doubt admins even look at comments here) but I think the rules need to be followed. - BorisG (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
If you file a new request for enforcement with details about the improprieties in the AE request, I for one will very happily examine the matter in full and take action where necessary. I am especially keen to hear about the whole 'tagging of articles after J. edited them' thing. AGK [] 12:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cptnono[edit]

I can see how gaming could be interpreted from the actions of both editors. Not sure what (if anything) should be done about Gatoclass but this being the second time DYKs in the topic area have brought criticism of him here, Sandstein might have had the right idea if he was being a little wary.[146] Removing him from DYK or topic baning him would not be beneficial to the project but restrictions on his work (not talk page use) on DYKs in the topic areas might be something to consider. Not sure if that is even warranted but there were some concerns raised that appear to be partially valid.

In response to Tznkai's suggestion, AGF could show that JDE was not gaming the system but AGF can only go so far. You are correct that the insertion of material after multiple objections was a problem even if it wasn't gaming. Since multiple reverts can be a bad thing, as NW brings up, it could be simplest to make it a 1rr/48hr while editing DYKs in the topic area. It will be easy enough to tell if he is gaming if he pops in a minute after two days have elapsed.Cptnono (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: And if Gatoclass is going to be an uninolved admin sometimes but not another as seen on this page[147] then there is a problem that touches on this whole gaming issue. Cptnono (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Epeefleche[edit]

First of all, this does not seem to be the correct forum for this complaint. Secondly, having parsed through this great deal of material, I don't see an actionable violation. I am also concerned with the misquoting of what J actually said, but would simply caution that editor to be more precise in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mbz1[edit]

I concur with Boris."that this request is inappropriate and should be dismissed. Gatoclass needs to be sanctioned for bringing inappropriate request here". I also believe that Gatoclass should be topic banned on reviewing I/A conflict related articles. He is gaming the system and holds DYK nominations for those article hostages. There are many even recent examples of such behavior.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MalcolmMcDonald[edit]

Unless there's something I'm missing then Jalapenos is incapable of editing responsibly on this topic. Almost anyone who has defended his conduct over this affair must be nearly as unfit. The personal attacks on those trying to deal with the problem is particularly disturbing. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]

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

Question. What exactly is the harm complained of here? I've looked at the evidence, and I'm still confused. The diffs paint the picture that Jalapenos do exist (from now on "Jalapenos") has some sort of editorial "take" on the Israel/Palestine conflict, which while moderately annoying, is a content disagreement and thus generally dealt with outside of AE until it gets too bad. The part I'm not understanding is the involvement of DYK. Is the argument basically that Jalapenos waited for the article to be linked from the main page and then started editing with his/her editorial take?--Tznkai (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, in case you didn't know me, and there is no reason you should, I take a very dim view of editors who come in swinging casting wild aspersions and insults at other editors. Stick to the facts, please.
Similarly, I don't need a blow by blow of past case history either Unomi, and if I'm interested I can review the logs myself.
Jalepenos, "broadly interpreted", which the Area of Conflict provision is, can include articles which discuss at length the Arab-Israeli conflict. The most useful construction I've discovered is to focus on edits that focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In this case the edits complained about focused on your edits - additions and removals that have to do with the Arab Israeli conflict.
Still reviewing evidence, but still waiting to see why this is within AE's jurisdiction. I'll be back to review in 13 hours, and I'd take it as a personal favor if you could keep any comments concise. (Other administrators can of course, as always, may have something to say as well).--Tznkai (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Upon careful review, the sections from Unomi and Mbz1 are both irrelevant to the topic at hand, and they should be removed. (You are, as always, free to open up a new complaint with all the risks that entails) Alternatively, if their authors insist on making me read through their bickering as I continue my due diligence, I will evaluate whether either of them should be prevented from treating Wikipedia as a battleground.--Tznkai (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
wordy statement on the role of AE and administrators
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Even if I operate under the assumption that Jalapenos did cause significant problematic edits after the DYK hook was approved, the case being laid out here is essentially asking me to peer into Jalapenos' mind, discern a fairly nefarious intent to subvert the DYK process and the goodwill of other editors, in the service of some sort of partisan point of view. I am of course, not a mind reader.
Thats added on top of the use of an Arbitration remedy to protect DYK, outside of normal administrative processes. On the other hand, the purpose of these remedies is to prevent or ameliorate the effects of "deep-seated and long-standing real world conflicts between the peoples of Palestine and Israel" from being "transferred to Wikipedia."
Neutrality is a core goal of Wikipedia, but it is not a rule in the sense of "rules for other people," but the constant exhortation for us editors to do our best, whenever we can,to achieve that goal. Administrators are charged with protecting neutrality by protecting the process by which neutrality is achieved: the slow painful grind towards consensus and cooperation. We do not, and cannot in good faith decide what neutral content is, and enforce it by fiat. Such is not only an invitation to the abuse of power, but the antithesis of a ground collaborative project. Thus, we restrict ourselves to the conduct of individual editors, controlling abuses when we can, while simultaneously (and perhaps paradoxically) trying to avoid turning our own administrative tools into weapons by proxy in interpersonal disputes.
With those concerns in mind, my review of the evidence suggests that User:Jalapenos do exist has a topical focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, specifically the portrayal of Israel, and that this topical focus, combined with admiral energy for editing, threatens to transfer emotions and difficulties from the "deep-seated and long standing real world conflicts" surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly understood) and destabilize the editing environment. I am not here speculating on intent or motive, but making an empirical judgment on effect. There not however, enough evidence to suggest a malicious attempt to subvert the process, and the application of the assumption of good faith and Hanlon's razor and simple responsible judgment demands I do not speculate that far.
At this very moment however, the Alan Dershowitz quote is the lead of the article, because Jalepenos do exist added it after the DYK hook was approved. Regardless to the timing relative to the DYK hook, in the DYK discussion four separate users directly brought up the quote's bias problem: Schwede66, Volunteer Marek, Nick-D, and Gatoclass. This suggests a critical failure on Jalapenos do exist's part to conform to the basic rule of a collaborative editing environment. Seek compromise instead of editing roughshod over opposition.

It is therefor my intention, as a discretionary sanction, to bar Jalapenos do exist from the repeat insertion or removal of any text concerning Israel, Palestine, or the Arab-Israeli conflict, on any article page, whether by simple reversion, or in essence, disputed by any 3 users in an on wiki forum, with the usual caveats for clear vandalism and BLP violations. Jalapenos do exist is not only allowed, but encouraged to seek compromise language on talk pages. Users abusing gaming this restriction will be blocked. Jalapenos is encouraged to seek review of this restriction every 14 days in this forum, to display successful compromise, and/or activity in other topic areas and/or other factors indicating the restriction is not needed. Any uninvolved administrator in good standing is encouraged to conduct this review.

I encourage any and all interested editors to briefly and concisely comment.--Tznkai (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Three editors have to oppose him before he stops? It is bad practice to continue editing if even one person opposes your edits; broader consensus should be sought at that point. I'm not a huge fan of this particular sanction, though I agree that one is probably necessary. I'm not really sure what type of sanction would be best though. NW (Talk) 19:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, thats a fair point, but considering the wording of the restriction precludes Jalapenos from reverting the material for the life time of the restriction, I'm very concerned about letting a smaller group game the system. If you have even the vaguest semblance of an idea I'd love to hear it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm just thinking aloud, but what about having your sanction that for normal articles and demanding that J. get an opinion on IPCOLL if he wants to make an addition to a main page article. NW (Talk) 22:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
That sounds workable. Jalapenos would need to offer his proposed change for discussion at WP:IPCOLL or WT:DYK at least three hours before making it, if it is a change to a DYK which is either currently on the main page or less then three hours before it is due to appear. The spirit of this rule is that he would need to express any major concerns with the wording of a DYK during the normal discussion period and not spring them at the last minute. This restriction would not apply to reverting vandalism or to minor spelling/grammar fixes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Here are the article links for one of the discussed articles:
Having dug into the evidence, I'm no longer convinced that this enforcement request shows a violation of WP:ARBPIA. Someone with more patience than I (perhaps Tznkai?) might be able to get to the bottom of this, but the Durban III business I no longer see as persuasive. The people at WP:Articles for deletion/Civilian casualty ratio did express a lot of ideas on how the article could be improved. This article was created by Jalapenos, but I wonder how it became his duty to fix all the perceived problems before it could become a DYK. The actual DYK hook was "... that according to a study by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the civilian casualty ratio in wars fought since the mid-20th century has been 10 civilian deaths for every soldier death?" That hook sounds innocuous and does not have an obvious POV. Also the articles wasn't tagged for ARBPIA until later on in the process. It was created by Jalapenos on 23 November and it's been worked on by 22 different editors since that moment. In the history I notice the names of editors from both sides of the I/P conflict. Since Jalapenos created it, it is understandable he might want to take the article to DYK. He has made 41 edits to the article and Gatoclass has made 69. I did notice this removal by Jalapenos on 14 December of a sentence added by Mbz1 Gatoclass: "Israel's conduct of the war, particularly its bombardment of Beirut, was heavily criticized, not only by the international community but in Israel itself, where large antiwar protests took place.". Jalapenos edit summary was "General povs regarding actions are outside the purview of this article." That seems logical to me, given the topic.
It is not obvious to me that the data presented here by Gatoclass show misbehavior by Jalapenos that needs to be sanctioned under ARBPIA. I might change my view if somebody can capture in a very small set of diffs exactly what the misbehavior was. If there was actually a violation, it should not take many hundreds of words to explain it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The diff you mention is a good example: here Jalapenos removes a description of criticism of Israel because "General povs regarding actions are outside the purview of this article." Twelve minutes later, he adds Dershowitz's claim to the lead. So in the space of 12 minutes, "general povs regarding actions" are suddenly not only appropriate for the article, but belong in the lead. This user's editorial rationales seem rather flexible, depending on whether the material in question reflects positively or negatively on Israel. That's as good an illustration of agenda-driven editing as any, compounded since, as Tznkai has identified, Jalapenos is a single-purpose account. Whether the ARBPIA sanctions can, or should, come into play here is a question I'll leave to my fellow admins. MastCell Talk 06:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) It would have been better if Jalapenos held off on the Dershowitz quote. Still, his quote is at least germane to the topic of the article, since it talks about the civilian casualty ratio, while the general disapproval in the press of Israel's war in Lebanon is not a statement about the casualty ratio. Whether it makes sense to include the Dershowitz claim could be discussed on the article talk page, where so far it is not mentioned. The article's talk page seems fairly cooperative.

Regarding what to do next, I hope that Tznkai will make a further proposal. I note that Unomi made this suggestion on my talk page: "Ok, how would you feel about an instruction that all I/P related articles submitted to DYK, that a given editor works on, must be listed by them at WP:IPCOLL at earliest opportunity?" This is a reform that would best be left for the community to make. Somebody who feels that DYK is being abused due to controversial I/P articles could open an RfC and recommend a new policy or guideline. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think any sanctioned targeted at protecting DYK is outside of our mandate at AE. As EdJohnston suggested above, Jalapenos's conduct may actually be outside the strictures of ARBPIA as well.
Where I am right now is that I'm certain that Jalapenos needs to have some sort of editing restriction within the Arab-Israelli topic area because of a topical focus concern, combined with demonstrated lack of concern for certain editing norms (not reverting to your preferred version). I'm not certain that we've reached the point of an outright topic ban. The issue with DYKs I think isn't the real issue - it is just the case that brought enough eyes on the problem that we now have noticed. At this point I'm leaning towards some sort of reversion restriction, on a time limited sanction, barring someone coming up with a better idea.--Tznkai (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
As it happens, I'm leaning towards the view that topic banning a number of editors on both sides including Jalapenos is necessary. However, whether that's justifiable, at this stage, within the WP:ARBPIA framework is debatable. Also, I'm uncomfortable with imposing a restriction on the DYK process - I'd prefer that a discussion was held amongst Wikipedians who volunteer in that area, and they decide for themselves whether a change in the rules is appropriate. In this context, I agree with Tznkai that some sort of revert restriction could be applied. Perhaps 1RR/week? PhilKnight (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I see lots of discussion relating to this complaint, and that confuses me: this affair is really not very complicated.

    Anyway: Jalapenos (hence 'J.') observes above that this complaint centres around "one edit to World Conference against Racism 2001 and nine edits to Civilian casualty ratio"; it has not been demonstrated that there is a serious pattern of disruptive editing by J. in this topic area. Compare that with the discretionary sanctions remedy we are applying, which is prefaced with a statement that it is designed to be used against (and thus only against) editors who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Would it be justifiable to action this request with anything more stern than a caution?

    I do agree that the behaviour of J. in relation to the DYK incident the complainant cites was grossly inappropriate, and I should think that, were my attention drawn to it at that time, I would have blocked him immediately for disruptive editing—especially in light of the high-profile nature of DYKs selected for display on the Main Page. But the incident remains, so far as it has been demonstrated, a singular one; and so in my mind there is no case for topic-banning Jalapenos. AGK [] 18:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Reply to Jalapenos: In response to your point about 'unclean hands', please see my remark at #Statement by BorisG[148]. AGK [] 12:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tznkai that these articles do indeed come under the ARBPIA "broadly interpreted" criteria given the material under dispute, and noting JPE's singular focus on this topic area. I also agree with AGK that the DYK reverting incident is a clear example of disruptive editing. In this I take seriously the view of the other DYK regulars including EdChem, Smartse, Nick-D that gaming that went on; plain and simple it was incredibly inappropriate to stand by for days, without protesting or commenting on Gatoclass' edits, only to revert them once the article hit the main page. The POV problems that Gatoclass attempted to solve, without much if any help from JPE, had been noted by multiple other editors at the AFD and also at DYK (edit summary[149]), contrary to JPE's assertions above.

    The question is what to do about it. A revert restriction has been proposed. I've taken a look through the editor's last 500 article edits (back to September) and have found only two other obvious edit sequences involving reverting [150][151]. Reverting isn't the core of the problem.

    I've always been struck that WP's WP:NPOV policy requires all editors to edit from a NPOV. "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." Editors need to have a neutral encyclopedia as the goal, seeking out RSs that reflect all perspectives on an issue, not just their own. It has long been unclear to me why WP tolerates for so long editors who manifestly fail this central point of policy, apparently seeking to (mis)use WP as a platform to promote their views. Based on a review of JPE's edits, I think it is clear that his/her editing falls into this category - including writing articles that independent editors see as POV [152][153][154][155] - but then so do many others in this area of conflict and in others. On the one hand, I obviously support Phil Knight's view that a number of topic bans may be necessary, but the highly disruptive actions at DYK notwithstanding, I am not sure that JPE is the person to start with. So I suggest a strong warning and reminder to JPE and all those involved in the area that neutral editing is required; if you can't do it, you'll need to find another website to edit, one way or another.

    As far as DYK, I encourage those involved to try and sort out some procedures there. I agree with AGK that a swift block for disruption would have been appropriate; another time WP:ANI might be the right place to deal with the issue. Or perhaps the admins associated with DYK, who might understand the dynamics a bit more easily, would be willing to intervene. --Slp1 (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Jalapenos' questions:

1. While they did object to it specifically as a hook, they also described the statement as "agenda driven" "potentially not meeting NPOV" and "obviously wrong." Furthermore there was the comment that "Given the serious concerns raised about this article in its AfD, I don't think that it's at all suited to appearing as a link from Wikipedia's main page." An editor working at Wikipedia must pay attention to concerns like this.

2. The principle of unclean hands comes from the maxims of equity, a fine and under appreciated tradition in common law jurisdictions. We are not such a jurisdiction. Separately, my review of the incident did not suggest that Gatoclass has crossed boundaries that would invalidate this complaint or justify to a separate sanction on Gatoclass. And, in so far as borrowing from the Maxims of Equity is a good idea, the balance of the equities weighs against you in this case.

At this point, we need to close this issue and quickly. Aside from the interests we all share in having quick and resolution, I don't know about the rest of you, but I spend the waning days of the year with family and friends when I can.

Because of the split in administrator opinion on this issue I'm going to go with the following:

A sanction that Jalapenos falls under 1RR for all edits within article space, so long as the content of the edit has to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. This would essentially extend the global I/P article 1RR to I/P content in general, which is probably how the sanction should have been devised in the first place. This sanction would run three months.

In the alternative, Jalapenos can agree to not edit any I/P content at all, broadly construed, linked from the main page for 9 months, in which case this enforcement request would be formally closed without action.

Unless there is a strenuous objection, I intend to invoke the traditional privilege of AE admins to enact measures without waiting for consensus--Tznkai (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with AGK and Slp1. Tznkai's restriction is mild and I could live with that as well. He is asking for a 1RR on all I/P *content* that would apply to Jalapenos. This is stronger than the per-article 1RR that currently applies to all editors. I suggest that closing a case with a restriction based on large walls of text runs the risk of an appeal, at which point we will be back here with more walls. Another option is just a warning to Jalapenos, using the reasoning of Slp1 and AGK. Keep in mind as an alternative that we could actually widen the current I/P restriction to be this new version, and it would apply to *all editors*. (That is, a 1RR on I/P content in articles generally, and not just a per-article 1RR). EdJohnston (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Goodness yes, I suspect we would be back here soon with more screeds of text to wade through. You know that there is a lot to read through when the headers above each statement and reply begin to become so small that a magnifying glass is needed to read them… AGK [] 12:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I prefer Tznkai's proposed restriction (above) over AGK's caution (below), especially as Jalapenos is still attempting to justify his conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed result (1) concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]

  • Proposed, in succession to the above:

    Jalapenos do exist (talk · contribs) is strongly cautioned to in future always use constructive, sensible consensus-building discussion to resolve disagreements over the content of an article. We accept the complainant's assertion that Jalapenos do exist (hence 'J.') did allow edits that he disagreed with to be made to the Civilian casualty ratio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article so that that article could pass an assessment for acceptance into the Did You Know? (hence 'DYK') section of the main page. We also accept that J., once the article had been published prominently on the Main Page, then reverted the article to his preferred version of the content—thereby undermining the work that had went into making it qualified for DYK status. To edit in this way was grossly inappropriate, and he is reminded that such conduct is not acceptable on a consensus-driven project.

    Putting aside this isolated incident of misconduct at the DYK article, there is no evidence of a wider pattern of misconduct in the Palestine-Israel articles (P/I) subject area, and we pass no sanctions against J. other than this caution. However, we note that he has been placed on notice[156] of the existence of discretionary sanctions being active on this topic, and we caution him that future misconduct on these articles can result in him being excluded from the topic area, blocked from editing, or otherwise restricted.

    This caution will be logged on the P/I arbitration case log of sanctions as a caution.

    AGK [] 12:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I support this in general; I confess to being discouraged by JPE continuing to argue that s/he has done nothing wrong, which does not bode well for the future. I do, however, see other problematic editing, including apparent single-purpose, POV-driven editing affecting multiple articles, including article creation, as well as the WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour just referred to. As a result, I propose rewording the first sentence in paragraph two. "Putting aside this incident of misconduct at the DYK article, there is evidence of other POV editing in the Palestine-Israel articles (P/I) subject area, but we ...."
I would also be interested in clarifying once and for all whether the 1RR applies to all I/P article content or just to articles. I would prefer the former. --Slp1 (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
At the moment it's the latter. I wouldn't have any objection to the restriction being modified so it became the former. PhilKnight (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the totality of the evidence presented, and the totality of Jalapenos do exist's conduct, I believe that a 1rr restriction is appropriate. This is specifically in response to the combination of inability and/or unwillingness to recognize the proper way to handle controversial material when multiple users point raise concerns, especially in forums designed for such purposes, such as Articles for Deletion and Did you know nominations. Therefore:

  • Jalapenos do exist is restricted to one revert per 24 hours, on any edit concerning Israel or Israelis, Palestine or Palestinians, or the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed, so long as that edit is within article space.
  • Reverts of clear vandalism is or problematic material on biographies of living people are exempted from this restriction as usual.
  • This restriction is to run for 3 months.

This restriction is no way a comment on the conduct of any other parties in this enforcement request, nor to preclude whatever actions the community wishes to take.--Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)