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


Miradre 2[edit]

Closed without prejudice pending resolution of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Race and Intelligence. Can be resubmitted if necessary.  Sandstein  19:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Miradre[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [1] Misrepresents material in the main article to suit POV
  2. [2] Original Synthesis of Material
  3. [3] Mis-use of statistics to to suggest Race is causation factor rather than simply on of the data sets.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on March 11 by 2over0 (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested

Topic ban from Race Related articles broadly construed

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I came across this discussion on WP:FTN#Race and crime and was horrified to find one the most POV articles I have ever seen. ITs at AFD now. Review of the talk page reveled alot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have checked several thousand edits back and cannot find something that was not Race or Intelligence related.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • @Miradre, I am addressing observable behaviors with evidence. Please state my POV that you accuse me of trying to push? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein since Miradre brought in the bag and let the cat out this indeed within the topic area. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I encourage people to read WP:REDFLAG part of the policy of WP:V
    • Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community ☑Y No one claim in Criminology, Anthropology, Biology, Criminal Justice, or Sociology would claim Race is tied propensity to commit crimes other than as point of correlation but certainly not as causation as the aritcle as put together by Miradre advances.
    • or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. ☑Y again. Look at Magnus comments and Miradre
    • This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. ☑Y Read this AE discussion here and examine the arugments about material and subject matter here that Miradre is bringing to the table.

@Timotheus Canens, I ask that Miradre also be officially warned of sanctions in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science topic areas. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

@Timotheus Canens This entire topic area of Racial differences in IQ, Criminality, and Racial theories we are dealing with here are WP:FRINGE at best and very often based on pseudo science. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
@Timotheus Canens right now as the ARBR&I sanction is written you have hand tied from acting on this issue. Until such time as the remedy is rewritten we need tool to prevent further harm to the encyclopedic elements of the project. The remedies of Arb fringe and Arb Psudeo science provide those tools The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
@Timotheus Canens, Admins agreed pretty ealier that Race and Crime was not in the ARBR&I topic area. If its not the topic area then how would would it be superfluos? Seeing as adding material to suggest that "Blacks are genetically prone to Criminality" is definitely both Fringe and Psudeoscience.... So I fail to see the problem... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Miradre[edit]

Statement by Miradre[edit]

  • Reply to The Resident Anthropologist: Race and crime is not even marked as being under any editing restrictions or active arbitration remedies. The 3 diffs does not show any violation of policy. The first diff is a summarization of material after I had moved the material to the main article. The two others are supported by the given sources. If anything, the nominating editor should be censured for this attempt to ban me. He is also trying to delete the article itself, certainly a notable and much discussed topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime (3rd nomination)‎. This is just another attempt to push his own POV.Miradre (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Further reply: Your POV? You expressed it quite eloquently in the AfD discussion linked to above: "linking race and crime is bullshit and ingoring the issue in favor of POV pushing.... It Needs to be cleansed with fire". Not sure what your point regarding the rK-theory study is. I corrected some errors and explained it better here: [4] Regarding your misunderstanding that crime rates are somehow correlations or causes. I have already tried to explain this in the AfD discussion. Not sure how it can be explained better to you. Crime rates are, for example: number of crimes/year/100,000 people. That is neither a correlation or a cause.Miradre (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Further reply: If anything you and several others editors should be censured as documented in my commments in several sections here. Wikipedia:I just don't like it for emotional reasons seems to be the main motivation for those objecting. I ask you again to look at the section "My motivation for editing these controversial topics" below. This is an emotional topic but emotional denial and exclusion of biological views is not necessarily the better alternative.Miradre (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply to AndyTheGrump: I am not clear exactly far the arbitration remedies apply. Does it applies to only the main topics about race and intelligence? Or every topic where IQ is one of many different theories for explaining racial differences? Maybe it does. But it is hard for me to know where the line goes. I only know that the article was not marked as all other main articles about race and intelligence have been. Anyhow, this does not matter because none of the given diffs is even remotely close to any policy violation.
    • Reply regarding Pinker on race: From The Blank Slate (p. 144): "Nowadays it is popular to say that races do not exist but are purely social constructions. Though that is certainly true of bureaucratic pigeonholes such as "colored," "Hispanic," "Asian/Pacific Islander," and the one-drop rule for being "black," it is an overstatement when it comes to human differences in general. The biological anthropologist Vincent Sarich points out that a race is just a very large and partly inbred family. Some racial distinctions thus may have a degree of biological reality, even though they are not exact boundaries between fixed categories. Humans, having recently evolved from a single founder population, are all related, but Europeans, having mostly bred with other Europeans for millennia, are on average more closely related to other Europeans than they are to Africans or Asians, and vice versa. Because oceans, deserts, and mountain ranges have prevented people from choosing mates at random in the past, the large inbred families we call races are still discernible, each with a somewhat different distribution of gene frequencies. In theory, some of the varying genes could affect personality or intelligence (though any such differences would at most apply to averages, with vast overlap between the group members). This is not to say that such genetic differences are expected or that we have evidence for them, only that they are biologically possible."Miradre (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Reply again: Pinker does not say that the differences must be minor. Nor does he state anything specific, denial or confirmation, regarding any specific mental factor. He carefully avoids that. Here he makes a very general defense of biological race and in the other quote defends very generally the idea that genes are important and that this does not have to lead to genocide. Am I a single-purpose account? Not sure. WP:SPA states "When identifying SPAs, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. For example, subjects like spiders, nutrition, baseball, and geometry are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA." While I have a focus it is quite broad. I have edited, for example, on how Malaria affects intelligence, Human Accomplishment, Evolutionary psychology, Race and sports, Intelligence and health, Theory of multiple intelligences, and Race and crime. Certainly a focus but according to the quote above it may be to broad for a SPA. Regardless, I agree with "If you wish to continue working as a SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly as regards sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information on-line. Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its reliability and neutrality. Reproduce it in the form of citations." That I have done and as noted below received praise for my improvements by experts on the subjects. I have made a lot of edits. Most of them are just simple, boring housecleaning edits in order to improve the articles. I do not see any of those wanting to ban me from the area making any large attempts to improve the articles there themselves.Miradre (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply to Jagiello: That is incorrect. If I wanted to include only the views of one side, then, for example, when I cited the Handbook of Crime Correlates, a literature review of 5200 studies and certainly not a racist source, I should only have mentioned official crime rates which all shows racial differences. But instead I also included the opposing views from self-reported offending. This occurred before the current dispute started and no one except me was interested in the article. On the other hand, some of those now disliking unpleasant views have simply mass deleted sourced information they dislike, not even added by me, or deleted links to entire subarticles on this topic.[5][6] If anyone should be censured, it is such editors.Miradre (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply to Aprock: Aprock again takes up the many months old SPI, as he did during the last AE. I deny Aprock's highly misleading descriptions of by now old editing that has already been discussed in an earlier AE. Aprock again implies I am a banned user. The truth is far simpler. Yes, I have edited under another username before. But I did not change the name because I was banned. Obviously when editing such a highly controversial topic I want to remain anonymous. I only edit under the current name now. I find it somehow strange that Aprock should accuse me of POV editing since he has consistently pushed his own POV and argued for social theories and against biological theories in his own editing. I include views from both sides if they are in the sources. See my earlier comment above on this. Regarding this situation at Race and Sports I note for example this diff showing that I have reached a mutual beneficial understanding with current main editor there.[7] Regarding my editing there causing disruption, I argue that even if the topic is controversial, there is now a rapidly improving and interesting article on Race and sports.Miradre (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Further repaly to Aprock: It is unclear what policy Aprock thinks I am breaking by discussing on the Fringe theory noticeboard if a theoy if fringe. This is automatically an emotional area where many objects to biological views for emotional reasons. There will inevitable be discussions. As another point I have also added some strong criticisms against the theory long before the current AE case.[8] Miradre (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply to Mathsci: Apart from the sockpuppet allegations, the many months old SPI, and general allegations of POV editing I discuss elsewhere, the main complaint at the previous AE was regarding talk page disputes between me and others regarding the existence of POV tags on articles. Link: [9] I have since avoided any similar protracted discussions regarding the existence of POV tags on the articles and have accepted their existence even when I personally have felt they have not been adequately explained. Still, I personally do not think that having long talk page discussions regarding the existence of POV tags was a very serious offense that should unduly affect future decisions. Regarding the other allegations made there by Aprock and repeated here again by Aprock see my reply to him as well as my reply here in general regarding the allegations of POV editing.Miradre (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Further reply to Mathsci: There is no synthesis. Only mentioning of what studies have found. I have also mentioned secondary sources like the Encyclopedia of Race and Crime in the fringe theory discussion. Furthermore, Mathsci misrepresents what I stated. I said that objections to the article about Rushton should be on the BLNP if they did not concern fringe theory status. The discussion regarding if a theory is a fringe theory should obviously be on the fringe theory noticeboard.Miradre (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply to Maunus: Regarding the r/K theory I changed to what the source states which anyone having the source can check for themselves. I changed an incorrect negative description to the neutral one which is in the source. Regarding the second diff, my edit summary explains it. Unsourced and a straw man. Regarding the content dispute, I note that no one has argued that the average IQ of US blacks can be applied to any group in the world with more or less African ancestry regardless of local environmental factors. Regarding the last diff, Maunus may think the r/K theory has been completely discredited, but this is not the case which the source in his first diff proves. An article mainly on crime is not the place to explain all the many arguments in support and all the many arguments against this rather complex theory. Indeed, if I did so I would instead be accused of undue weight on this theory. So I omitted explaining almost everything regarding the theory and mentioned none of the general evidence in its favor. I simply mentioned the crime aspect and a study specifically on the crime aspect and noted that there are general criticisms against the theory in the main article about it. Furthermore, Maunus is hardly the person to accuse others of not including opposing views. See this edit where he deletes all the sourced opposing views regarding the existence of biological races and leaves only the argument that it is a social construct: [10] Miradre (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • No, there were no "uninvolved user" who agreed with Maunus that there should be no opposing views. The only users who have edited the article after that time is Maunus and myself. Neither did I reinsert the material but instead voiced my opposition on the talk page. Maunus seems to argue below that the article should remain mostly a POV fork for his views because it is being considered for a merger with another article. That is of course not a good justification. Furthermore, no proper merger proposal have been done with only one template added and no talk page section for discussion of a merger. So it looks like the article will remain Maunus's POV fork for an indefinite time.Miradre (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Another example of inappropriate POV pushing by Maunus. He changes the lead of the article to a straw man and inappropriate summary of current evidence and theories by introducing a long description on an ancient, easily rejected theory.[11] Miradre (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Maunus continues with large scale POV pushing. Here he deletes opposing views from scholarly studies and books: [12][13] Miradre (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Even more: A complete blanking of a section: [14] and more deletions of opposing, sourced views [15]Miradre (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Reply to Maunus: Rushton's rK theory is controversial but there are a number of peer-reviewed studies finding support for it. It has a chapter of its own in the 2009 Encyclopedia of Race and Crime where the description is quite neutral. Regarding the NCF report so are Wikipedia's articles full of research report by think-thanks. Nevertheless, I replaced it with material from other sources drawing similar conclusions.Miradre (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Maunus continues his POV pushing with mass deletions of notable views and sourced studies with from the side he does not like.[16]Miradre (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply to T. Canens: That the racial IQ gaps may be partially genetic is not a fringe theory. It is one the major controversies in psychology. See also my point below on this being a major theory when one asks IQ researcher anonymously. Regarding Rushton's r/K theory so it not a fringe theory either. See Race, Evolution, and_Behavior#Later favorable studies At moment the article have 26 peer-reviewed studies by 11 lead researchers and a total of 39 researchers who have found support for the theory. See also the discussion on this as the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#J. Philippe RushtonMiradre (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I would also like to note that I have received much praise for my editing to articles such as IQ as can be seen on my talk page.[17] Including by academic researchers in the field as can be seen if looking who have added the remarks.[18] I have spent considerable effort and time in order to improve Wikipedia on these topics. The facts and proposed explanations may not always be as everyone would like the world to be. But I hope that Wikipedia is not censored also when the results may be unpleasant.Miradre (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Another point is that I am pushing fringe views. But when asked anonymously, the only poll ever done on the views of IQ researchers showed that the partial genetic explanation was the most common explanation for the racial IQ gaps.[1] Now this obviously does not mean that this view is the correct one or that there are not other significant views. But I do argue that this shows that this view is not a fringe one among the experts on the subject, when they are allowed to express their views anonymously.Miradre (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
My motivation for editing these controversial topics[edit]

Because the topic of biological differences between groups may be automatically automatically unpleasant and thus may be simply rejected because of this, I feel I must add why researchers on this think their research is important and not harmful to society. It will explain my motivation for editing in order to include these views, along opposing ones according to policy.

Researchers investing racial differences and arguing that they are biological are often accused of racism and that their research may harm society. In defense, Steven Pinker has stated that it is "a conventional wisdom among left-leaning academics that genes imply genocide." He has responded to this "conventional wisdom" by comparing the history of Marxism, which had the opposite position on genes to that of Nazism:

But the 20th century suffered "two" ideologies that led to genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn't believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it's not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It's the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.[2]

Jensen and Rushton point out that research has shown that also in a group with a lower average some individuals will be above the average of other groups. They also argue that when society is blamed for disparities in average group achievements that instead result from biological differences, the result is demands for compensation from the less successful group which the more successful group feel is unjustified, causing mutual resentment.[3] Linda Gottfredson similarly argues that denying real biological differences instead cause people to seek something to blame causing hostility between groups. In the US, examples being the views that whites are racist or blacks are lazy. She furthermore argues that "virtually all the victim groups of genocide in the Twentieth Century had relatively high average levels of achievement (e.g., German Jews, educated Cambodians, Russian Kulaks, Armenians in Turkey, Ibos in Nigeria; Gordon, 1980)."[4] Gottfredson has also disputed that a lower achieving group gains from denying or concealing real biological differences. An increasingly complex society built on the assumption than everyone can do equally well means that they who do not have this ability have increasing trouble functioning in most areas of life. They need various forms of special assistance which is not possible as long as the need is denied to exist.[4][5]

  1. ^ Snyderman, Mark; Rothman, Stanley (1990). The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0-88738-151-0.
  2. ^ "United Press International: Q&A: Steven Pinker of 'Blank Slate".(2002)
  3. ^ Jensen, A.R.; Rushton, J.P. (2005). "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability". Psychology, Public Policy and Law. 11: 246 248. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235.
  4. ^ a b Linda Gottfredson (2005), What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis Is True?, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2005, Pages 311-319,
  5. ^ Linda Gottfredson (2007), Flynn, Ceci, and Turkheimer on Race and Intelligence: Opening Moves,

Comments by others about the request concerning Miradre[edit]

Comment by AndyTheGrump[edit]

Can I point out that Miradre's comment that "race and crime is not even marked as being under any editing restrictions or active arbitration remedies" is rather disingenuous, given his contributions to an article that expressly refers to a (supposed) "relationship between IQ and crime" as one of the explanations. Indeed, in this diff [19] Miradre explicitly refers to the linkage. I cannot see how he can reasonably claim not to see that this came within the arbitration remidies remit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Miradre's use of the Stephen Pinker quote above illustrates his selective POV-pushing attitude to sources. In the previous paragraph of the same article Pinker responds to a question about genetic determinism:

Q: A common fear seems to be: "But if genetic determinism is actually true, doesn't that mean the Nazis were right?"
A: Genetic determinism is not true. Except for a few neurological disorders, no behavioral trait is determined with 100 percent probability by the genome, or anything else (we know this because identical twins are only similar, not indistinguishable, in their personality and intellect). Of course, even a statistical influence of the genes does not mean that the Nazis were right. Factually, they were wrong in believing that races and ethnic groups are qualitatively distinct in their biology, that they occupy different rungs on an evolutionary ladder, that they differ in morally worthy traits like courage and honesty, and that "superior" groups were endangered by interbreeding with "inferior" ones. Morally, they were wrong in causing the deaths of some 35 million innocent people and horrific suffering to countless others.

Miradre somehow manages to take this article as indicating Pinker's support for the study of 'racial differences' and crime as a legitimate subject, rather than as a commentary on the degree to which universals within human behaviour are subject to genetic influence. Pinker explicitly states that the Nazis "....were wrong in believing that races and ethnic groups are qualitatively distinct in their biology, that... they differ in morally worthy traits like courage and honesty". Can one assume that Miradre sees crime as other than "morally worthy"? I'd assume so. And yet he ignores Pinker's explicit statements... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And now Miradre responds to the above Pinker quote by quoting Pinker again. Remember, Miradre first raised Pinker when he wrote "Researchers investing [sic] racial differences and arguing that they are biological are often accused of racism and that their research may harm society". But is Pinker researching 'racial differences'? In Miradre's latest quote, Pinker states "In theory, some of the [racially] varying genes could affect personality or intelligence (though any such differences would at most apply to averages, with vast overlap between the group members). This is not to say that such genetic differences are expected or that we have evidence for them, only that they are biologically possible". Pinker is arguing that minor, average 'racial' differences are possible - not that there is any evidence for them. He is not arguing that such minor differences could possibly explain the dramatic differences in crime rates cited in the Race and crime article. This is once again a misuse of a source to back up an assertion that Miradre wishes to make. Blatant POV-pushing, and totally at odds with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Single purpose accounts: "Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project". I assume that Miradre will not contest an assertion that his is a 'single purpose account'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Here we go again. Miradre responds to the above with this: "Pinker does not say that the differences must be minor. Nor does he state anything specific, denial or confirmation, regarding any specific mental factor. He carefully avoids that". Is there any evidence that Pinker is 'carefully avoiding' anything? No. Miradre is claiming to be able to determine what Pinker's intentions are, without evidence. Or he is claiming to be telepathic. Nonsense of the highest order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Sandstein: Whether the article necessarily falls under the arb case remit may perhaps be questionable, but the fact that Miradre's edits have expressly concerned a supposed link between 'race' and IQ isn't. He knew full well what he was doing - indeed, he continues to argue the same points in his response here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Jagiello[edit]

Miradre uses remarkably elaborate tactics of discussion and editing to protect his/her white-supremacist POV. See the synchronic evolution of race and crime, discussion page, and admin reporting. Miardre resists any inclusion of non-racist (i.e. mainstream science) POV by covert agressive discussion tactics, making concessions to mainstream views only when faced with deletion procedure. Miardre has absolutely no interest for non-racist POV science unless it can be strategically used to protect his/her own POV-pushing. I assumed good faith at the beginning of the discussion but soon found it impossible. Jagiello (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Boothello[edit]

This thread needs to be examined by someone who's familiar enough with the source material to gauge whether Miradre's edits have actually violated any policies. I see a lot of indignation that Miradre would dare to include material about such an offensive viewpoint, and very little discussion about whether his edits are actually supported by the sources. I'll go through the diffs one by one:

  • In the first edit, Miradre said "There are large disparities in crime rates for the different racial/ethnic groups in the United States. A number of theories have been proposed as explanations." According to The Resident Anthropologist, this edit "Misrepresents material in the main article to suit POV." The lead section of the article that Miradre is summarizing, Race and crime in the United States, says "Since the 1980s, the debate has centered around the causes of and contributing factors to the disproportional representation of racial minorities (particularly African Americans, hence "Black crime") at all stages of the criminal justice system, including arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations." This statement has been in the article for over a year, and is cited to four different sources. Did Miradre misrepresent this article? It doesn't look like he did.
  • In the second edit, Miradre added the text "as well as an analysis showing that 52% of the variance of these as well as other factor (birth rate and infant mortality) could be explained by a single factor", which Resident Anthropologist says is original synthesis. The source being cited says "Violent crime was found to be lower in countries with higher IQs, higher life expectancies, lighter skin color, and lower rates of HIV/AIDS, although not with higher national incomes or higher rates of infant mortality. A principal components analysis found the first general factor accounted for 52% of the variance." Is it original synthesis to add an exact paraphrase of what's said by the source being used? I don't think so.
  • In the third edit, Miradre added some additional details from the Handbook of Crime Correlates. All of the material that he added is in this source, so it's difficult to tell what's the problem here. Most of chapter 2 ("Demographic correlates") in this book is devoted to discussing crime rates by race, and "crime rates" is both the term that Miradre used and the term used in this source. Anyone can verify this for themselves at Google books.

I notice that Resident Anthropologist has engaged in WP:CANVASSING to attract people likely to agree with him to this AE thread. [20] [21] [22] This is a fairly transparent attempt at using AE to keep information that he finds offensive off of Wikipedia, even though in all three of the diffs provided Miradre's edits are correctly summarizing what the sources say. If the information added by Miradre is supported by the sources used, he is not doing anything wrong by adding it. On the other hand, if Resident Anthropologist succeeds at censoring the viewpoint he doesn't like by means of canvassing and baseless accusations of source misrepresentation, that will be bad for Wikipedia.Boothello (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment by aprock[edit]

Miradre is a returning user, who's original identity was not found during a sock puppet investigation last October. He has not responded to requests for information about what previous account(s) he has edited under, nor explained why he has opened a new account to pursue his current editing. I think it is telling that his explanation for creating a new account is that he wanted to edit in this controversial topic area anonymously. He appears to have understood that his edits would be perceived as problematic even before he made his first edit under his new account.

Given the disruptive editing behavior detailed then, previous to the prior AE request, and now, it is quite possible that he is a sanctioned user returning to edit in a manner consistent with WP:CPUSH. A concurrent demonstration of his disruptive editing can be found at the AfD for Race and Crime, an article created by a user banned for racist edits, and now championed by Miradre. Another recent example of his disruptive editing can be found on the [talk page of Race and sports]. Because this is a case of civil pov pushing, simple diffs are unlikely to shed light on the full level of disruption, I strongly urge administrators to review the AfD discussion and the talk page discussion linked to above. Diffs of specific disruptive behavior from last October which match those supplied above can be found on the SPI page. aprock (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

note to Sandstein: From R/I Arbitration Remedies: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles. I guess it is an open question as to whether or not Race and crime, (and Race and sports), constitute "closely related articles", but as AndyTheGrump noted above, even Miradre seems to think that they are related in some way. I posit that using J. Philippe Rushton ("a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, most widely known for his work on intelligence and racial differences") as a source may well qualify as "closely related" regardless of article. aprock (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

second note to Sandstein: What you seem to be saying is that what an article should be about determines whether it is "closely related", and not the actual content of the article or edits. In such a sense, if an editor comes into the article Giraffe, and begins adding content related to the race and intelligence debate, then those edits are not covered by AE here. Is that correct? aprock (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

brief update: Miradre is now disruptively editing on the WP:FT/N in the discussion regarding a book by Rushton. As usual, no single diff can do justice to the gestalt of WP:CPUSH that is being pursued, so if time permits, I would suggest reading the entire section. (archived version: [23]) If anyone does read the thread, insight into the disruption is best gained by focusing on the interaction between Miradre and the completely uninvolved editor Hrafn. Interactions between Miradre, Manus, Mathsci, and myself may have too much baggage. aprock (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

response to Tijfo098: While there is certainly a content dispute going on here, it is the behavior of Miradre during the discussion of content which is the problem being discussed here, not the content. Please review the interactions on the fringe theories noticeboard. If you find his behavior during that discussion to be reasonable and constructive, please endorse it as such. aprock (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci[edit]

Miradre had received a warning about Race and intelligence as a result of a previous enforcement request here. 2over0's warning on 11 March 2010 stated:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Final decision. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It did not as Sandstein claims refer to articles in the category Race and intelligence, but on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. The material added by Miradre in Race and crime in the two sections Trait theories and Biological theories refers to three different books on Race and intelligence for its argument. These books are Race Differences in Intelligence, The Global Bell Curve and Race, Evolution, and Behavior. The topic Race and intelligence, broadly construed, is discussed extensively in those sections. That extensive material on Race and intelligence was added only days after the explicit warning above, so the warning would have been fresh in Miradre's mind.

Administrators should look at the terms of 2over0's notification when evaluating this request. Mathsci (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Sandstein seems not to have shown a very clear sense of what the notification entailed and has not sought clarification from 2over0, it might be advisable for him to leave the decision about closing this request to another administrator, His own conduct regarding WP:AE is under scrutiny at present, another reason possibly for a more flexible touchy-feely approach. Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The notification, which refers to "pages broadly related to ..." is misleading, since it is based on {{uw-sanctions}}, a template that uses the broader wording employed in most other discretionary sanctions remedies. What matters is not the wording of the notification, but the wording of the actual remedy that is to be enforced, and that remedy applies only to "articles closely related to ..." This wording is binding on administrators, even if it may be too narrow to adequately deal with this issue. But in that case you may make a request to the Committee to broaden the remedy.  Sandstein  19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If any of the editors currently topic-banned under WP:ARBR&I, but not site banned, had made edits of the kind Miradre has made to Race and crime, they would have been site-banned, probably for a prolonged period. I agree that there is a difficulty here as to how administrators can act; that has been discussed at length in the current ArbCom case, and the conclusion is far from clear. In this case, for example, can topic bans only be imposed by ArbCom if the editing technically falls slightly outside the category? If there are these grey areas, the person making the request, or others, can always seek clarification from ArbCom directly. If I understand you correctly, that is more or less what you have explained on your talk page; and I think I am in agreement with that. Mathsci (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As Newyorkbrad has said on the Requests for clarification page, input there from administrators involved in AE here, like Timotheus Canens, EdJohnston and 2over0, would be particularly helpful. This direct interaction with arbitrators, even if they do not necessarily agree amongst themselves, seems like the proper way to resolve ambiguities and grey areas that have been brought up in the current AE ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sandstein is correct above: my notification of discretionary sanctions followed this previous AE report. The text is drawn entirely from the recommended template, and the wording of the case itself must take precedence (I will have no opinion until I read further whether this report is actionable under that case). - 2/0 (cont.) 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Please leave a comment on the Requests for clarification page as NYB suggested. At the AE ArbCom case, some administrators have stated that sometimes they are not given sufficient guidance by ArbCom. In this case that guidance is being offered live and apparently, for the moment, not being taken advantage of. Mathsci (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment One of the most recent users to accuse Maunus of having a POV at variance with wikipedia policies was ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet account of a banned user (Polgraf = Satt 2). Mathsci (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Update Miradre's substantial recent edits to Race, Evolution, and Behavior [24] appear to contravene WP:ARBR&I#Correct use of sources, as his additions appear to be a synthesis of primary sources with no use of secondary sources covering them. On WP:FTN [25] Miradre has suggested that objections to his edits might require discussion at WP:BLPN. Recent secondary sources related to this topic do exist,[26] although they have not been cited in the article and do not support the point of view Miradre has expressed on WP:FTN. Mathsci (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Miradre's editing is definitely covered by the R&I provisions. Whether or not the article is in the particular category, Miradre's edits certainly are: As can be seen in edits such as these, where Miradre changes a neutral wording to a positive one regarding J. Phillippe Rushton's r/K selection theory which has been almost unanimously rejected by specialists and which holds that Blacks are more criminal and less intelligent because the ancestral African environement made that the best evolutionary strategy : [27]. And here where he removes material describing one of the main arguments from a psychologist who argues against the validity of Race as a psychological variable: [28]. The R&I provisions of course do not mean that editors are free to push POV's regarding race and intelligence as long as they do so in articles that are not currently in the R & I controversy category. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is another example of Miradre's editing style [29]. After having given an entire paragraph to Rushton's completely discredited theory he inserts a single sentence alluding to criticism's as a token neutralization. In fact it is obvious that the paragraph in its entirity gives undue weight to a fringe view as the "various criticisms" have in fact completely rejected the validity of Rushton's theory.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
@The diff provided by Miradre that allegedly shows me removing opposing views in fact shows me removing material about the biological view of race inserted by Miradre even in a context that is explicitly dealing with "social interpretations of race". The removed material was reinserted by Miradre and later removed again by an uninvolved user who agreed with my reasoning. Miradre accuses me of not including opposing views but the fact is that in fact the only reason I am even editing race related articles is to balance out the completely racialist biased influence that he is introducing - that is what can be seen in that edit where I have o remove undue weight to racialist speculations from an article that is describing a topic that has no reason to include that information at all. (the article is btw being now considered for merger because it is a POV fork trying to separate out the predominant social view of race from the main race article) ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Miradre is now again parading the Snyderman Rothman study which allegedly shows that there is a silent majority among psychologist who believe in the hereditarian POV (even thought psychologists have no special expertise regarding race in its biological or social senses). (in fact I think the fact that people will apparently only express this view anonymously is a good indicator that it does belong on the scientific fringe - otherwise they should not have any difficulties expressing it in public and in scientific works - just like presumably biologists would be reluctant to express favorable opinions of creationism in public) This widely criticized study by Rothman and Snyderman is used by Miradre to overshadow the fact that successive statements by the UNESCO from 1949 to 1978, statements by the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists have repeatedly rejected the possibility of any relation between race and differences mental faculties. If this is not pushing a fringe view I don't know what is.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Miradre is now getting desparate it seems and he is harping on the idea that I am somehow a POV pusher regardless of the fact that the POV I am pushing is shared both by reliable sources and a rather siezeable group of editors who are noticing serious POV problems with most of Miradre's contributions. My recent edits at Race and Crime have been aimed at balæancing the extreme racialist POV that have characterized the articles written by Miradre, including making sources say the opposite of what they mean, making "token" mentions of very substantioal criticisms without mentioning the substance or the actual status of theories etc. If Miradre is cotinued to allow to edit these topics me and many other editors will have a lot of work with keeping wikipedia from turning into The uninvolved editor that he says doesn't excist is Itsmejudith, who agree with me that ther was no reason to summarise all of the biological arguments in the article on "Social interpretations of race". And I agree with her that the article should be merged. It is of course not my POV fork, I would rather see the social constructionist mainstream view well treated in the main article on race. The article was created by User:Aucaman for god knows which reason. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Following Miradre I will also mention that I have received much praise for my particularly neutral stance in my past editing or R&I related articles, even by those editors who are now topic banned and who edited from similar pov's to Miradre.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

@Boothello. You apparently don't know what canvassing means. ResidentAnthropologist was discussing the issue with Andy and Jagiello because of they were both involved in the AFD that sparked this request for enforcement. I am watching Andy's talkpage and expressed my support uninvitedly, whereupon Resident anthropologist gave me a notice that the AE request was live. That is not canvassing.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I encourage ARBCOM to look into my conduct regarding the allegations of "Large scale POV pushing" by Miradre. What I am currently doing is weeding out a long standing bias towards the racialist POV which has been inserted by Miradre and his racialist predecessors into the entire scope of articles touching on race. The main way this bias has been achieved is by ignoring the large body of race critical literature and only mentioniing it accompanied by racialist "refutations" which get ide coverage in all articles on race no matter how little influence or impact these "critiques" have had in the scientific community. An example of this is Lewontin's argument which has been criticised by a few racialists who have failed to understand the argument, but which noenetheless gets devoted full sections instead of the actual argument and the ways in which it has been met with general acceptance by non-racialists mainstream scholars. Miradre is currently lobbying for the inclusion of data found in reports about "[[race and crime]" published by the White Nationalist organization New Century Foundation (the report was used in Moiradre's article as a neutral source untill someone noticed and removed it), and he is lobbying for the inclusion of a critique of noted geneticist Alan R Templeton's argument against the existence of subspecies in the Human race published by "John Goodrum" on a personal website that is linked from amply from the stormfront website, but is not mentioned anywhere else on the web. Who is doing large scale pov pushing here? What does someone have to do to get a sanction for being a CPUSHing SPA? Wikipedia's coverage of race related issues is degrading by the hour as long as Miradre is allowed to edit the topic area - soon we can replace our coverage with a link to David Duke's website.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • re: Timotheus Canens: Rushton's work is generally considered at least fringe science, it is documented above that Miradre attempts to put it in a quite different light. Also as already he has used a report by the White Nationalist think-tank New Century Foundation as a surce for his article on Race and crime - definitely not a mainstream source.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Miradre's latest edits tries to give Rushton creidbility by citing an entry in Encyclopedia of Race and Crime that describes the reception of the theory as mixed. The entry is written by a graduate student in criminology, who canoot beregarded as a reliable source about evolutionary anthropology. In reality the study is only backed by a small group of psychologists that have an economical interest in Rushton's Pioneer Fund. The reality of the degree to which Rushton's theory has been accepted can be seen by its universal rejection by geneticists, evolutionary biologists, and evolutionary anthropologists. This is shown in the article about the reception of Rushton's work Race, Evolution, and Behavior - that is if Miradre hasn't inflated it with quotes from Rushton's fellow Pioneers. This really shows the extent to which Miradre is pushing a fringe pov.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG[edit]

I find myself in disagreement with many commenters. It appears to me that in all the diffs Miradre has closely followed the source. We can debate how closely, but certainly such borderline cases are not cause for sanction. It seems that the filing party is trying to ban a user because that user is using the source which says things they find outrageous. And many others join in in self-rightous attempt to censor the article. I see no serious violation on the part of Mirarde. At the same time, I find the debate of whether the article is within the scope of DS to be of only academic importance. If the user violated policies, he should be sanctioned, either under AE or not. If he didn't then he walks free. My take anyway. - BorisG (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Tijfo098[edit]

Whether the articles edited fall within the mandate of AE or not, the evidence presented above is quite unconvincing with respect to policy violations. Despite the repeated assertions that the two or three edits somehow are POV or FRINGE, this request seems to be nothing more than another attempt to win a content dispute at AE from the usual suspects. Where is the evidence for instance that "In reality the study is only backed by a small group of psychologists that have an economical interest in Rushton's Pioneer Fund." I'm willing to WP:AGF that this is the case (and perhaps Miadre didn't know it), but just saying it on Wikipedia doesn't make it true. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Miradre[edit]

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

I have not examined the edits in question, but the case defines the topic covered by discretionary sanctions as "articles within the Category:Race and intelligence controversy". Because Race and crime is not in that category, this makes the request not actionable, unless the article is shown to have been in the category during the time of the allegedly disruptive conduct.  Sandstein  05:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, while the reminder is addressed to editors working in pages in that category, the discretionary sanctions are authorized for "'race and intelligence' and all closely related articles". T. Canens (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You're right. Still, Race and crime may be related, but is probably not "closely related" to Race and intelligence, and so I propose to close this request as not actionable unless another administrator disagrees.  Sandstein  18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note this edit by Miradre at Race and crime. He is adding a discussion of the views of J. Philippe Rushton, an author whose page is included in Category:Race and intelligence controversy. I don't see Arbcom choosing a narrow scope for WP:ARBR&I if an editor seems to be adding the kind of material covered in other articles in the R&I category. Besides, there could be an argument based on the article content that Race and crime *should* be included in Category:Race and intelligence controversy. See for instance the whole section called 'Trait theories' in the same article. The relationship of Race and crime article to the Race and intelligence topic is further underlined by the 'See also' link connecting the two. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a reasonable argument, but in view of how unclear even some arbitrators appear to be about the scope and the operation of their own remedies ([30], [31]), I prefer to err on the side of caution when interpreting the wording of an arbitration remedy, so as not to be yelled at again. You remain, of course, free to take any action you consider appropriate, but you may want to wait until the recently opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Race and Intelligence concludes.  Sandstein  21:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't see those diffs as shedding much light. (That case, I'm sorry, is like the Twilight Zone). It is my impression that the I/P case is now broadly interpreted to cover abusive editing on I/P material anywhere. It is possible that the decision reached in the present AE thread will itself set a trend for where the limits of ARBR&I ought to be set. That's a reason for us to do as good a job as possible here. If the Clarification elicits an answer from the committee about the limits of R&I, that's a benefit, but those requests sometimes take a long time, and the answer may turn out to be 'use your best judgment.' Any decision we make here can be appealed to the committee anyway, so they can overrule us on scope if they wish. A topic ban can easily be undone, if it gets overturned on scope. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The thing is that WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict says "broadly construed" while WP:ARBR&I says "closely related". A bit different. The problem is, sort of like Congress, I'm not sure arbcom thought long and hard about the little details like exactly how far the discretionary sanctions are supposed to go when they passed the remedy, so we are left to trying to guess what they intended when we are not sure that they intended anything in the first place... T. Canens (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Compare the doctrine of parliamentary intention. Perhaps, where things aren't clear, we ought to take a common-sensical approach and just try to sanction those whose approach is the most unhelpful. That is, of course, easier said than done :). AGK [] 15:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Barring objections, I'm going to close this as no action without prejudice to renewing the request when the pending request for clarification concludes. At its current state, I don't see obvious arbitrator consensus either way in that request, so right now the question of whether AE is empowered to act in the first place is clear as mud.

    @BorisG: we cannot take any AE action without satisfying ourselves that we have jurisdiction to act. If this is to be handled under non-AE procedures, then sanctions will need community consensus (a AN or ANI discussion, normally), and is not suitable for action here. T. Canens (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Where are the diffs for the pseudoscience/fringe science related edits? T. Canens (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm very interested in hearing why interpreting the pseudoscience/fringe science discretionary sanctions to cover the topics at issue here would not render the WP:ARBR&I discretionary sanctions superfluous. T. Canens (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
No, the presumption is that arbcom does not enact superfluous remedies. Therefore, if your reading of WP:ARBPS etc. will make the WP:ARBR&I discretionary sanctions superfluous - as in, all instances of cases covered under ARBR&I would have been already covered under ARBPS etc. under your reading, as it seems to me to be the case, then it is more likely that the ARBPS discretionary sanctions weren't intended to go that far. T. Canens (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. In other words, the ARBPS remedies cannot easily be construed as covering the "race and intelligence" topic, because if that were the case, the Committee would not later have enacted narrower remedies for that particular topic.  Sandstein  19:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As proposed by Timotheus Canens, I am closing this request pending resolution of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Race and Intelligence. If that request concludes that the edits were within the scope of the remedy, the enforcement request can be resubmitted.  Sandstein  19:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Blocked for 72 hours.  Sandstein  20:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Ryoung122[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
David in DC (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [32] 8 April 2011 The beginning of this MOS talk page instruction introduction explicitly references longevity related articles. They are the reason for the proposal is being discussed. RY's participation constitutes "...editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted."
  2. [33] 8 April 2011 The talk page conversation Ry joins here is explicitly about longevity-related aryicles. His comment constitutes "...editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted."
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 12 March 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested
Block, because the lesser topic ban does not seem to be working:
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

In my view, this editor is incorrigible.

Replies: I had understood ArbCom sanctions as being attempts to correct behavior. At some point, an editor proves correction impossible. That's the dictionary definition of incorrigible. I prefaced the statement "In my opinion..." I apologize for using an unhelpful word.
I noted the violations contemporaneously, in response to the posts. I notified an admin who's explicitly stated that he comes to the longevity suite of articles specifically to enforce the ArbCom decision. I had hoped that a) RY would acknowledge the mistake or b) Amatulic would step in. When neither happened, I sought ArbCom enforcement. Less than three days seems, to me, a decent interval to allow an editor to acknowledge a mistake or an admin to step in before going to formal enforcement. I'll note your guidance that I was wrong.
I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing this and thank Sandstein for pointing out complaints he's viewed and is considering. I gotta say, if one reacts with a hair-trigger, one is castigated (that's happened once to me in this case already.) If one waits a decent interval, one is castigated. Ah well, none of us supposes that we live in a perfect world. David in DC (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Ryoung122[edit]

Statement by Ryoung122[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Ryoung122[edit]

Result concerning Ryoung122[edit]

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

The newest of the diffs you provide is almost exactly three days old. I'm inclined to close this as stale unless someone can provide a compelling argument that a block would be anything other than purely punitive 69 hours after the fact. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

David in DC, please refrain from statements of opinion in the vein of "this editor is incorrigible". They are of no help or relevance at all for processing this request.
I've been asked about this matter on my talk page, where I've noted two other edits in violation of the topic ban: [34] and [35].
I do not think that the report should be dismissed as stale, because David in DC contacted an administrator within a day of the edits. Also, three days is still reasonably recent. I am considering blocking Ryoung122 for 72 hours.  Sandstein  19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with a block, even more so because this is an explicit ArbCom remedy that is being violated. I'd go for a week, myself, this was such a flagrant violation of a crystal-clear restriction. Courcelles 20:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
But a block three days after the fact id purely punitive and can't possibly be reconciled, in my view, with the blocking policy. Ryoung122 appears to have made four edits in violation of his topic ban three days ago and hasn't edited since. Judging from his recent activity levels, it's entirely possible the he might not even be aware of a 72 hour/1 week block until it's over because he hasn't edited in that period. If that's the case, then what exactly have we prevented? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The violation is obvious, and I concur with the proposed block - either 1 week or 3 days is fine with me. I don't give the "punitive" argument much weight - even a purportedly "punitive" block almost always have a preventative aspect, in that it deters and prevents future misconduct by making clear that such conduct is unacceptable. Only if it is obvious that the deterrence value is nonexistent is a block truly punitive (the prototypical example being a block for a 3RR violation 3 months ago). T. Canens (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocked for 72 hours and section closed.  Sandstein  20:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


No action taken at the moment. T. Canens (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2011 (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 Uruandimi[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Sean.hoyland - talk 21:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Uruandimi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

This report concerns the behavior of Uruandimi (who I think is also Special:Contributions/ when logged out) at Palestinian refugee. In a nutshell, Uruandimi appears to be an inexperienced editor who does not understand what is required of him with respect to article content edits and talk page use.

Things have gone downhill from there. There were a number of other problematic content edits (e.g. here and here) but the main problem seems to be the non-stop soapboxing and refusal to get the point on the talk page.


It's concerning that it's also at nl:Overleg:Palestijns vluchtelingenprobleem too. Both Carwil and I have tried to be patient, explain policy (repeatedly), ignore the occasional assumption of bad faith and soapboxing but we aren't really getting anywhere.

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

The user has not been officially informed about the sanctions by an admin. Carwil and I have informed the user about the sanctions amongst other requirements on the article talk page (here) and at User talk:Uruandimi. It didn't help.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Official notification of the sanctions, some kind of warning, whatever it takes.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Response to Sandstein. I appreciate that the problem may be too much information but all I can say is that that's one of the main issues that needs to be addressed, Uruandimi filling the talk page up with his own partisan opinions. There isn't a content dispute because there are no sources, nothing, just Uruandimi trying to impose his personal views on Wikipedia. The links to subsections in the article are diffs in the sense that they represent the difference between when a subsection wasn't there and it's current state. Each subsection could be presented as actual diffs with dates and well-explained descriptions but the diffs would contain exactly the same information as the subsections. Each subsection could be further broken down into individual diffs representing each sentence written by Uruandimi in principal and I could provide a date and well-explained description for each one spelling out how it fails to comply with the policies and guidelines of the project. Many of those descriptions would be identical and they would form sets of descriptions that demonstrate a pattern. But what would be the point ? The pattern is far more obvious by simply reading what he has written on the talk page. It can be summarized as an inexperienced editor who doesn't understand what is required of him with respect to article content edits and talk page use in an article covered by the sanctions. I think the problem is obvious if you read what he writes, even from one subsection picked at random. It's possible that he has walked away but at the very least I think he needs official notification of the sanctions and some kind of gentle reminder from someone he might listen to that there are rules and they apply to him. It doesn't seem much to ask. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to EdJohnston, yes, Uruandimi is certainly being highly tendentious and is clearly trying to push his personal POV. I could post diffs of some problematic statements he's made e.g. referring to the term "Palestinian" as "an odious national identity." which he had the good sense to reword here although he chose to retain his description of the identity as a "discriminatory, utterly fraudulent denomination" which apparently he would like to "cleanse" from Wikipedia. Then there is this edit where he argues that we are commiting "history fraud and a hideous act of discrimination" by using the term Palestinian refugee in the same way reliable sources use the term. However, I'm not trying to get the guy into trouble for the things he has said or the unsourced content edits he's made. He is welcome to his opinions, I just think it would be better for the project if he stopped putting them on the talk page and making content edits based on them rather than reliable sources, read the policies/guidelines/sanctions and started to comply with them. I'm prepared to start removing his comments from the talk page if he continues this way but I would rather not. It's looking more like he's walked away so perhaps the issue has gone away and no action is necessary anyway...hard to tell. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Uruandimi[edit]

Statement by Uruandimi[edit]

The issue is about including the PLO Covenant, which calls for Israel's destruction, in a new section called "attitudes and policies of the Palestinian Arabs" on this page. By including the text of this government document, I would like to show that (1) the Palestinian Arab community officially nurtures a negative and hostile attitude towards Israel and the Jews; (2) that this attitude has been a matter of Palestinian Arab policy for a long time (the page on Yasser Arafat's predecessor Amin al-Husseini shows that this policy actually dates back to the '20's of last century); and (3) that this attitude and policy possibly caused such large numbers of Palestinian Arabs to become refugees in the first place.

However, including the PLO Covenant would 'ruin' the current narrative on the Palestinian refugee page, whose authors seem to assume that Israel and the Jews initiated the expulsion or caused the flight of the Palestinian Arabs from their homes. Among other demands, Sean.hoyland and Carwil told me that for the PLO Covenant to apply to the Palestinian refugees, I must provide a reliable source stating that the Palestinian refugees are actually Palestinian Arabs. The sanction was announced just as I was about to suggest that the burden of proof is on them since in my opinion, the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian Arabs are one and the same.

If people want to continue to prevent a paragraph on the PLO attitudes and policies from being included on this page, they must quote a reliable source which says (1) that there is a difference between the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian Arabs; (2) that the PLO Covenant does not apply to all the Palestinian Arabs; and (3) that the PLO was not recognized by the Arab League (1964) and 100 nations, the United Nations General Assembly (1974), the EU, Israel and the USA (1993) to solely represent all the Palestinian Arabs.

With kind regards, --Uruandimi (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Uruandimi[edit]

I may comment more later, but for now I want to clarify one thing. Uruandimi alleges on this page, "Sean.hoyland and Carwil told me that for the PLO Covenant to apply to the Palestinian refugees, I must provide a reliable source stating that the Palestinian refugees are actually Palestinian Arabs." Sean and my comments are on the record at Talk:Palestinian refugees, but this understanding of our request lacks any basis I can remember. I did say, "If you want to discuss the political views of Palestinian refugees, most of whom cannot take part in PA elections, look for research on the topic, and don't quote documents written decades ago." This was one of many requests for reliable sources relating Palestinian refugees to the material that Uruandimi has posted from the PLO Covenant and Hamas documents. Neither Sean nor I have objected to Palestinian refugees being Palestinians or Palestinian Arabs (the term Uruandimi prefers). Instead, we have insisted that a chain of connection—Palestinian refugees to Palestinians to PLO/Hamas to PLO Charter/Hamas Covenant—is not sufficient to place contentious discussion of the Charter/Covenant on the Palestinian refugees page. At least not without reliable sources connecting Palestinian refugees to the Charter/Covenant.--Carwil (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for engaging here in some of the content dispute; my intent was instead to clarify something which I allegedly said (according to Uruandimi), but did not.
More importantly, I'm interested in being able to work with Uruandimi on the basis of shared adherence to Wikipedia policies, the avoidance of polemics and POV-pushing, the inclusion of material on each page that is strictly relevant to the topic at hand, and consistent reliance on reliable sources.
Sean and I have both tried to indicate these needs to Uruandimi, and have at various times tried to provide examples of what such behavior looks like. While we can continue to try, there is a sense that WP policies and practices are being willfully ignored or that our advice doesn't carry weight. For that reason, I think both an arbitration-related notification (to emphasize the seriousness of avoiding tendentious and repetitions editing) and further involvement from other editors (to clarify the meaning of WP policies for the page under discussion in particular) would be useful.
While I might have waited longer before bringing this material here to AE, I was strongly motivated to share the arbitration notice, and only did not because I learned it must be shared by an uninvolved administator.--Carwil (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Uruandimi[edit]

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

There is only one actual diff in the evidence section, and I do not see how it reflects more than a content dispute, which AE does not decide. The links to whole discussions are not helpful; evidence should be submitted in the form of dated and well-explained diffs. Without objection, I intend to close this report as not warranting a warning.  Sandstein  19:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I find that Uruandimi's comment above seems to go against WP:BURDEN: "If people want to continue to prevent a paragraph on the PLO attitudes and policies from being included on this page, they must quote a reliable source which says (1) that there is a difference between the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian Arabs;..." Should he modify his statements here in the AE to make clear that he understands our policy and will agree to follow it, I could imagine this report might be closed with no warning under ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland seems to be arguing that Uruandimi's argument at Talk:Palestinian refugee is ipso facto tendentious, and this is a plausible claim. It seems like Uruandimi wants to employ Palestinian refugee as a coatrack for things that could be treated in other articles. Uruandimi has attempted to insert his preferred material into the article seven times since April 5. Since there is no consensus yet to support these changes, this is starting to look like edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing as no action taken at the moment, since the editor reported has not been editing since April 10. If the situation recurs, feel free to re-report. T. Canens (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


Jaakobou warned not to make meritless requests.  Sandstein  06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Tiamut[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
User:Jaakobou on behalf of good order, despite not being involved/aware of the situation.
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
discretionary sanctions, more strictly, Further remedies
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [37] Revert
  2. [38] Revert
  3. [39] Revert

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

All Israel-Arab related articles are under WP:1RR, as noted in the further remedies. Both Tiamut and RolandR are experienced editors with a knowledge of the arbitration and its remedies.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

A) A slap on the wrist sanction against Tiamut, and B) A review of possible tag team mentality and consideration to impose a "tag-team" warning and/or ban on the people involved in the recent edit-warring. e.g. two editors who have helped each other break policy in a blatant manner will be placed on a deferred sanction to not repeat such actions for a time period under discretion by reviewers of this submission.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Refuses to accept anyone else's opinion on Talk page. Is editing against consensus.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Tiamut[edit]

Statement by Tiamut[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Tiamut[edit]

Hmm, it is regrettable that Jaakobou is restoring a half-baked and demonstrably fraudulent filing of a now-blocked sock.

Revert 1 was at 07:27, 18 April 2011. What is marked as "Revert 2" above isn't anything of the sort; it is a diff including "Revert 1" + a typo correction. What is marked "Revert 3", then, is actually #2. At it is time-stamped 10:34, 19 April 2011, that is outside of the 24h window.

Yes, edit-warring can still be sanctioned even if the edits are not technically in violation of policy or restrictions, but as this case involves a now-exposed mini sockfarm, one of which was apparently the initial creator of the problematic material, this case should be dismissed. Jaakobou should be cautioned against blindly restoring Arbitration filings without first investigating exactly what is being restored, IMO. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Please calm down. Arbitration committee restrictions, such as WP:ARBPIA:General 1RR restriction, are a serious matter. If one culprit was blocked, it is more of a reason to review the behaviour of others as well. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I am the epitome of calm, but I do not revert AE filings willy-nilly. I note the "I've now noticed..." line below, and hindsight is 20/20 and all, but it might've been a good idea if you'd looked first before you leaped to revert me. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Regardless if reverts were within 24 or 26 hours, you shouldn't have been deleting the thread to begin with. Mind you, deleting AE threads is a prerogative of the admins.
        Regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Sigh. Normally I would not, but since it was filed by a blocked-shortly-thereafter-sock, and since it contained an obviously false accusation, I took the liberty of doing so. It is not your place to lecture me on what I should or should not do. I will also note that User talk:Tarc is a blue-link, and that perhaps in the future you simply, y'know, ask "hey, why did you do that?" Tarc (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Question: I'm very concerned regarding behavior where multiple editors edit-war and, on the face of it, this seems to be such a case. Am I missing something that it is immediately dismissed and labelled as "frivolous"? JaakobouChalk Talk 21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Question 2: Does everyone who post here get threatened for being blocked if the situation reported does not result in a block on someone? Why am I being threatened over a situation where clear edit warring has occurred? JaakobouChalk Talk 21:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Side note: I've now noticed that the diffs overlap and that Tiamut has indeed made only 2 reverts rather than 3, and that they were made within 26 hours and not 24. I'm not sure this should be considered as good form, esp. considering 4 editors with 5 usernames were edit-warring, but it is not a literal violation of 1RR. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC) + 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Tiamut[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This is a clearly frivolous request, exactly per Tarc. I invite Jaakobou to explain why they should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous request, since by restoring the request they are taking full responsibility for it. T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and looking forward to Jaakobou's explanation.  Sandstein  20:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggest closing with no action and a warning to Jaakobou not to file clearly meritless requests. As Tarc says, there has been no 1RR violation, and it looks as though the only person recently edit-warring at Arab citizens of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was the now-blocked AFolkSingersBeard (talk · contribs). The report's allegations concerning tag-teaming etc. are unsupported by any submitted evidence. If multiple editors are reverting changes by one editor, this does not necessarily mean tag-teaming, but more often simply that the one editor's changes do not have consensus.  Sandstein  05:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable. Just to make it absolutely clear: when you restore an edit by a blocked sockpuppet, you take full responsibility for the edit. Therefore, before you restore it, you must verify that the evidence provided supports the alleged misconduct, and, at a minimum, that there is no obvious misrepresentations of fact. In this case, it is obvious, once one reviews the diffs, that there is simply no plausible argument for finding a 1RR violation. T. Canens (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


Closed without action, but please be more careful.
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 Jaakobou[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement Nableezy 13
29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 21 April 2011 Revert of edit made by me
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Notified of interaction ban on 29 November 2010
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Block or topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Jaakobou has not edited the Gaza War page since early May 2009. Shortly after I edit the page the user reverts my edit. WP:IBAN specifies that if editors X and Y have an IBAN in place, editor X may not undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Jaakobou[edit]

Statement by Jaakobou[edit]

I had realised the error a split second after pressing the 'save' button (to fix an issue of deleted content) and immediately clicked the 'stop' button on the browser. I refreshed the history page a number of times and also opened my user contribution page to make sure that the edit did not take place -- or, in the case that it had, in order to revert myself. Both pages showed that the 'stop' has successfully stopped my edit and I had no alternative but to assume I had successfully avoided possible drama. I would have reverted it then had it appeared on my browser and would have reverted it now, but it was already reverted. I have no plans on reverting or creating any IBAN issues regardless if I feel that content has been removed or any other issue. Apologies to everyone involved -- this will NOT happen again. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC) +fix 15:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC) +declaration of intent. 15:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC) + shorter, better 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou[edit]

Result concerning Jaakobou[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Jaakobou's response is fair enough, I think. Shall we close? NW (Talk) 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Multiple slips would of course strain credulity, but Jaakobou's response seems fair. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


blocked 48 hours for 1RR
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 JonathanGo[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy 12:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
JonathanGo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Violated the 1RR on Palestinian people

  1. 15:21, 24 April 2011 1st revert
  2. 16:31, 24 April 2011 2nd revert
  3. 10:09, 25 April 2011 3rd revert

Violated the 1RR on Palestinian nationalism

  1. 15:37, 24 April 2011 1st revert
  2. 10:11, 25 April 2011 2nd revert
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 22 April of 1RR by Nableezy (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 24 April by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Block or topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This account was registered in late January, though it only made 2 edits prior to April 19. Since then, the account has almost solely been focused on repeatedly adding unrelated material taken from another article into these two articles. The user has been notified of the 1RR multiple times and continues to repeatedly revert multiple users to attempt to force in this content.

The user acknowledged reading the first notification of the 1RR here. nableezy - 12:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
24 hours is still, as far as I recall, 24 hours. All of the reverts listed above are within the same day. A cursory look by a reviewing admin will show that all of these edits meet the definition of revert listed at WP:EW. nableezy - 16:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning JonathanGo[edit]

Statement by JonathanGo[edit]

this account was active since January and it's not a fake account. was trying to edit 2 aricles about Palestinian issues. the articles are used as a political propaganda withholding much relevant information concerning palestinian history, and on the other hand relying on fictional assumptions and beliefs.

about the restrictions. at first I was not aware of these restrictions. the second time I made an edit and when I came beck to the site I didn't see it on the history. so i re edited the article , I didn't revert it. in any case I didn't abused the editing rights. and as you can see I was trying to explain the necessity of the new sections on the conversations.

this looks like an organized, method of using the wikipedia as a political propaganda mean and spreading fictional information rather then facts, especially referring to Palestinian nationalism formation date, the editors are trying to promote a fictional theories about ancient as possible, Palestinian nationality establishment .--Jonathango 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As you can clearly see. Regarding Palestinian people , I made only 2 reverts on 24 April. The third revert that mr. nableezy regards to, is the same one like 2nd revert, he just copied it twice.I hope it was an unintentional mistake. As I stated, the second revert was made by mistake since I didn't see the edit history when I went beck to the page so I just put it beck again and didn't use the "undo". About Palestinian nationalism – as you may have noticed the reverts took place in different days. As I understand it 1RR rule means that one revert allowed per day. And please correct me if I'm wrong. this looks like an attempt to shut down any opposition view and I hope you are not going to give it a hand.--Jonathango 13:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

after my above remarks mr. nableezy edited his third time stamp Regarding Palestinian people. you can see it's on 25 of April - and that's a new day. additionally , the first edit that mr. nableezy refers to as an "undo", is in fact not a revert at all but a completely new edit , which is a significant shortening of previews section that I edited as a result of the discussion we had as you can see in this article. the same is applied to the editing were done on Palestinian nationalism. the first edit that mr. Nableezy refers to of 24 April is not an Undo but a new edit , which is a significant shortening of previews section that I edited as a result of the discussion we had as you can see in this article and the second edit was made only at 25 April.--Jonathango 16:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning JonathanGo[edit]

I suggest a topic ban or indef block for this WP:SPA. We don't need this approach to I-P topics in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to read a less firebrand account of this issue, Tom Segev's article in NYT is available. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that JonathanGo edit wars to keep that huge section full of who said what and what date at Palestinian people instead of (say) History of the Palestinian people or more appropriately at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni is tell-tale sign why he is editing here. The section at Palestinian people on al-Husayni, which JonathanGo edit wars to keep intact, is much longer than the one for 1948-1967, and slightly longer than the one called "1967 to the present" [40] (despite the edit summary). Nuthin' much of note happened since the Palestinians were all Nazi collaborators, I guess... Tijfo098 (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning JonathanGo[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • This looks to be a 1RR violation on both Palestinian people and Palestinian nationalism. The user has clearly been aware of the 1RR restriction since 21 April, and all the reverts listed in this report happened after that. He is trying to insert material about negotiations with Nazis during WW2 into both articles, and his idea has not yet attracted any support from other editors. I suggest a three-day block for the 1RR violation and a warning of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA using the {{uw-sanctions}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I went with 48 instead of 72 in recognition that there is at least some participation at the talkpage, but left the full uw-sanctions template and a warning that continuing to add substantially the same material without consensus could lead to a much longer block. The 1RR warning linked above quite clearly and properly stated "24 hours" rather than the more ambiguous "day", and I find the statement about calendar days disingenuous at best. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul Bedson[edit]

Closed. Paul Bedson warned of ARBPS sanctions Courcelles 05:27, 28 April 2011 (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 Paul Bedson[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
- 2/0 (cont.) 06:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Paul Bedson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Talk:Measuring rod: pretty much the entirety of the discussion page after the first section is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and fringe sources from Paul Bedson while other editors cite more reliable and modern sources.
  2. 04-19 "mindlessly deleting ... even if that is beyond you" (intervening edits in the link are all Paul Bedson over a period of about twenty minutes)
  3. 04-19: extensive post on his own talkpage tying everything together. This link is mainly given for background of the dispute, though WP:NOTTRUTH applies and it does include "how it can be labelled fringe, Doug only knows. Perhaps he wants to keep it secret."
  4. 04-22: introduces original research and synthesis to Metrological Relief, an Ancient Greek relief - [41], [42] (removed by other editors here and here
  5. 03-03 used a source without reading it (read the two comments preceding the one in the diff as well)
  6. Substantially copied an article during the abovelinked AfD: compare [43] with [44]
  7. 04-22 deletes necessary context from lead of a fringe article; unmarked revert of [45]
  8. 04-19, removed as "claim not supported by sources"
  9. 04-19 adds fringe assertion as statement of fact (WP:PSCI: Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should be proportionate with the scientific view. Likewise, the pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such.); Paul Bedson sourced this sentence a few minutes later to Sacred Geometry: Deciphering the Code (ISBN 9781402765827), see next diff
  10. 04-19 adds more fringe sources without necessary context; removed by other editors: [46], [47], [48], [49]
  11. 04-22 misuse of sources (see [50] and [51]
  12. 04-22 adds unreliable source: (removed by another editor here)
  13. 04-23 adds a self-published source (Thoth, Architect of the Universe, ISBN 9781905815173), a letter to the editor, and original synthesis (removed [52], [53], and [54]
  14. 04-22 edit summary: More reliable sources to stop deletion of mathematical truth based petty and personal opinions about sources; removed by another editor as rm as unreliable source/fringe/coatrack see talk page; link to referenced talkpage discussion
  15. 04-20 adds an unsourced comment (removed by another editor here)
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. 2010-03-22 extensive introduction by Dougweller (talk · contribs) to the WP:FRINGE guideline and associated policies, about a month after Paul Bedson started editing (Dougweller is an involved editor here, so this does not meet the warning requirement of ARBPS)
  2. 04-16 3RR and civility warnings from me
  3. 04-19 3RR warning from Dougweller
  4. Request from Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk · contribs) (04-23): Look, you really need to slow down. You're adding references at a tremendous rate and obviously not checking them. I've just seen a reference that turns out to be a Letter to the Editor in New Scientist, a self-published book, a reference that explicitly contradicts the text you added ...
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Notifications of the provisions of ARBPS, to be logged at that case page, and advice on the appropriate use of reliable sources and maintaining a collaborative and civil attitude.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

To provide context that the "Megalithic Yard" is not considered credible by archeologists (and hence is governed by the WP:FRINGE guideline), Dougweller added a quote to Talk:Megalithic Yard citing Archeostatistics: old statistics in ancient contexts (NRJ Fieller Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician), 1993 42, 279–295): "It is a sad fact that the megalithic yard hypothesis itself is of negligible interest to archaeologists. From what is known of the development and structure of prehistoric societies over the areas and time spans involved in the construction of the circles, the hypothesis that a strict mensuration system, based on a common 'brass-edged whalebone yardstick', was in widespread use is not worth entertaining. It belongs to the semi-mystical fringe of archaeology concerned with ley lines, Atlantis and the like."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Paul Bedson[edit]

Statement by Paul Bedson[edit]

This seems to be a direct attempt to damage mankind by hindering research into the central Levantine archaeological site of the neolithic revoluiton in Aaiha.

It seems based on this spiteful editor trying to promote his own pseudoscience opinions that vertical standing stones in the middle of England were positioned by Glaciers tens of thousands of years ago.

It is also an attempt to prevent coverage notable topics that has reduced coverage on Wikipedia on valid metrological and archaeological topics due to people's personal interpretations either not understood, or ignored and prejudiced against to protect personal reputations. If there has been some civility breaches, it is normally to do with wild and crazy POV pushing suggestions like the megalith-building-glaciers and those suggesting the pyramids were surveyed with a desk ruler.

This type of behaviour has led to other websites such at The Megalithic Portal, Quantitative Archaeology Wikipedia[56] and Archaeowiki [57] providing far better academic coverage of valid topics way ahead of Wikipedia. Due to certain editors failure to understand the relatively easy and widely covered statistical analysis [58] that has caused the unit in question to reach the mainstream with such an overwhelming number of sources including other archaeological encyclopedias. Barbara Ann Kipfer (2000). Encyclopedic dictionary of archaeology. Springer. pp. 344–. ISBN 9780306461583. Retrieved 23 April 2011.

If some sources have been debated, this is purely due to the massive and overwhelming number that represent the mainstream opinions on this outrageously uncovered topic.

I certainly won't resort to such petty and vengeful action as this editor when he deleted my posts and replaced with barmy glacier theories. I have no interest in covering such madness, or ley lines or atlantis for that matter. So I'll proceed to ignore this. Paul Bedsontalk 12:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would add that the entire basis for the subject area in question has no evidence whatsoever and is labelled with "Citation needed" on Alexander Thom's page "mainstream science which generally labels it as pseudoscience[citation needed]."

In response to Doug Weller's completely libellous remarks -

  • 1. I have never argued Sumerians or anyone built stonehenge or avebury - complete rubbish! I suggested well sourced material that Beaker People made the Dalmore bone and even this was immediately deleted! I am here because O'Brien first noticed the most important archaeological site on the planet, that could heavily revise our views on the neolithic revolution and is about to be destroyed. There are plenty of his theories that I have never represented here, this includes any speculations about "Shining Ones"
  • 2. John Neal's book "All Done With Mirrors" is one of the most comprehensive and up to date reviews of ancient metrology and is prominently featured with it's own section in the pseudoscientific metrology page, yet Doug deleted this as unreliable without deleting from pseudoscientific metrology. This is the one I commented on as improving the neutrality in my edit summary NOT "Celtic New Zealand".
  • 3. I have never run a tour to Aaiha, I have expended all my monetary resources in order to survey the tell where I recovered lime plaster from the surface similar to White Ware and saw the northwestern chasm that Edward Robinson didn't visit, which Josephus claimed was the source of the Jordan (and met Lebanese Red Cross who put red dye down it similar to his story of the "Chaff of Phiala"). I have also see the building work about to demolish the principle tell mound (similar to the hill at Tell Marj) and that is why I am writing here. To get archaeologists like Doug to pay attention and go survey, research and save that archaeological site for world heritage.

If you have archaeological training (and that goes for you too ResidentAnthropologist), shame on you for seeing the evidence [59] and sitting on your hands, or supporting this action. Paul Bedsontalk 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd add that now Doug has cleared up the John Neal issue on Pseudoscientific Metrology that led me to believe the source was notable, admitted that I do NOT run tours to Aaiha plain yet, understands I fund my research through working 48 hour weeks in a call centre and only support that specific view of O'Briens and not the majority, I withdraw the libellous allegation above. Paul Bedsontalk 05:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Paul Bedson[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(After reading Talk:Measuring_rod at several edits at Megalithic_Yard) It looks like Paul Bedson is trying to insert some fringe ideas into the articles, as if they were accepted scientific ideas, using outdated sources, refusing to consider more modern sources, and sourcing conclusions to sources that don't make those conclusions. Also, a fair amount of original research. Also, he seems to ignore any source that doesn't agree with his own ideas, and pushes any source that is in agreement with his ideas, independently of how good they are, as Tijfo098 points out above. Also, ending the patience of editors who make good edits and who have to clean up after him. He might cause knowledgeable editors to burn out and abandon topics where their work is necessary.

TL;DR: Paul Bedson is fringe POV-pushing. He needs a topic ban from the topic of "measuring-related topics in antiquity", broadly interpreted. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul Bedson is open about the fact that he is here to promote the ideas of Christian O'Brien who argues that the Sumerians built Stonehenge, Avebury, etc. Alongside this he is adding material about or creating articles about the alleged Megalithic Yard (generally if not always without noting that it is disputed) and has been using DYK to further these claims. He is aware of the difference between mainstream and fringe sources and our policy on reliable sources, including that to do with self-published books. Yet he continues to add sources such as a self-published [60] book on 'Celtic New Zealand' [61] which is both far out fringe as well as SPS (added before this case) and today (to make it more neutral according to his edit summary) another one [62] which is published by the author [63]. He has done some decent non-fringe work (although I haven't checked his sources and sometimes his sources haven't actually said what he thought they did) in areas related to where he thinks Eden was found by O'Brien (he also runs tours in those areas to fund research into the ideas he supports - he's been open about this also). It isn't just measuring related, it's also alignment-related, O'Brien ideas related, etc. I shouldn't have to spend the time I've spent chasing down his sources, trying to make his articles NPOV, making sure DYK isn't used to promote fringe ideas, etc. There are very few editors working in the area of fringe archaeology and yes, it's tiring and discouraging trying to keep this area in line with our policies and guidelines when you have someone like Paul Bedson.
Kharsag is the earliest example - it still has O'Brien fringe stuff -based on articles in a local (to Paul I believe) paper by a journalist who is also a fringe writer [64] - something I discovered while I was making this edit which now makes me doubt it should be used as a source, typical. The original article he created was pure fringe. He's recently created a series of articles which appear to have been created solely to push the Megalithic Yard concept without noting its contentious nature Dalgety bone bead and Patrickholme bone bead for instance. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
DougWeller hits all the issues I really dont have much to add other than I support action here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Libellous remarks? I'd appreciate it if you would fully retract that claim. Please read WP:NLT. I didn't say you argued that the Sumerians etc, I said you supported O'Brien who does make those arguments. Re-read my comment about improving neutrality, it says " today (to make it more neutral according to his edit summary) another one [65] which is published by the author [66]." You like it, fine. It's self-published thus not a reliable source for this, and probably should come out of the metrology article. I clearly didn't say you ran a tour to Aiha. As for your complaint about 'Beaker People' in the Dalmore Bone article, I don't know why the editor deleted it but it doesn't look as though he had any interest in fringe content being there or not - that edit is irrelevant to the issues being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I see you are still calling me a liar over your claim I said you ran a tour to Aiha. Perhaps someone else can find where I made that claim and if they can, I'll amend it. You've now stated for the first time that you don't fully support O'Brien (despite linking in the past to a website that does and that has used your work, and saying you are here to get O'Brien's work better known). Fine, but you are still linking to sites with ideas as fringe as his. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Citing: ''''probably does more to hurt you in this forum than anything Doug or I could really add to the this discussion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved on the Talk:Measuring rod discussion, I got tired of dealing with the relentless supply of fringe that was put forth and bowed out. I support action here as well. --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Paul Bedson[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Support formally notifying Paul Bedson- he is indeed pushing a POV and misusing sources. Would endorse a topic ban fairly swiftly if he fails to clean up his act in this area. Courcelles 01:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The evidence is persuasive. Since Paul Bedson has not yet been warned under WP:ARBPS the remedies allowed by that decision can't be imposed yet. Agree with Courcelles that we expect to see a halt to the POV pushing and misuse of sources. A warning using the {{uw-sanctions}} template is justified. A reading of Paul Bedson's comments above does not inspire any confidence in his understanding of Wikipedia policy or his willingness to edit neutrally. He views this AE request as "a direct attempt to damage mankind by hindering research into the central Levantine archaeological site of the neolithic revolution in Aaiha." There is not much risk that mankind will be damaged due to the actions here, but we can keep inappropriate material from being pushed into the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Given the only remedy available to us is a notification, there's little reason to let this grow moss under its feet. Courcelles 04:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


3 month topic ban under WP:ARBKOS. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Biblbroks[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Fut.Perf. 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Biblbroks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, particularly article-level 1RR/week imposed here
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 19 April removing iw link, partial revert of this previous edit
  2. 23 April commenting out iw link instead of simply removing it, but with same intended effect
  3. [67] related disruption: replacing several iw links with links to non-existent articles
  4. 26 April plain revert to version 2
  5. 26 April same edit on several other iw links, in effect now a full revert of [68]
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

Editor has stated himself that he is aware of the 1RR restriction and of the fact that he is risking a ban for his edits [69], hence no further warning necessary

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Topic ban on Kosovo

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The lameness of this conflict over interwiki links probably requires some explanation. Biblbroks' edits are motivated by a desire, driven by a pro-Serbian, anti-Kosovo-independence POV, to de-emphasize or hide references to Kosovo as an independent state from the main Kosovo article. The topic was recently split into a main Kosovo article which is nominally about the geographical region, and a Republic of Kosovo article which is about the partly recognised independent state on its territory. Biblbroks is now fighting to hide even the iw-links to all other wikis that haven't followed this model and are still treating both concepts in a single article. There has been an endless deluge of wikilawyering and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stonewalling about this on the talk page. Fut.Perf. 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Biblbroks[edit]

How about warning Biblbroks that if he continues to remove interwiki links that he will be banned for one year from editing the Kosovo article? User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There is something wrong with trying to control content on other language Wikipedia's. Their business, their problem. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I can consider myself warned even if the proposal by User:Fred Bauer is withdrawn. And then oblige to WP:1RR for that article if that is what will be imposed as a conclusion. But since this doesn't actually solve the issue, the issue of whether it is the changing of interlanguage that is a problem or the problem is the control of content of other wikipedias, i think either a discussion at the relevant talk page Talk:kosovo or here should occur. As for me changing the interwikis in the meanwhile, you simply have to choose whether to trust me or not. Best regards, --biblbroks (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Let us continue the discussion at Talk:Kosovo and see if there is a productive third opinion. You, Biblbroks, go on at great length, which makes it very difficult to get your point, but there was a point to your edits which are under active discussion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for that. I think i was brief here. And i think it was needed to be elaborate there. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
EdJohnston in most recent comment stated: "Biblbroks does not seem to realize that there is any POV problem with his edits." and in a previous comment "We need to be assured that he... will stop editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV." in the Result concerning Biblbroks subsection of this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Biblbroks request. I understand that Fred Bauder suggested we continue the discussion "at" Talk:Kosovo in the Discussion concerning Biblbroks subsection of this same request. Bob House 884 stated "...I'm working on a third opinion, will have it up as soon as possible but ..." at Talk:Kosovo#Interwikis subsection of Talk:Kosovo page (diff here). I apologize for the liberty taken when citing. I think i need to ask EdJohnston: what do you suggest where to continue further discussion? Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Biblbroks[edit]

Statement (by) --biblbroks (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Biblbroks[edit]


I would just love to say that during the wast and highly successful split of the article Kosovo into Republic of Kosovo, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and Kosovo, we all had unwritten administrators understanding that 1RR on Kosovo (and all new-old related articles) was temporarily suspended, until stable versions are created. While this edits regarding interwikis where also question of separation and split, it may be understood that that same understanding is under way for this edit too. Nevertheless, per that, and per situation in question, i would propose just a strong warning, as i don't think that situation is that dire that need topic ban. Actually, i think that situation is quite far from that. --WhiteWriter speaks 20:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Biblbroks[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • By a remedy authorized in WP:ARBKOS, Biblbroks can be banned from all Kosovo-related articles without further ado if the admins deem it necessary. There is no need for a previous official warning by means of the {{uw-sanctions}} template. I hope that Biblbroks will soon add his own response so we can see if he is open to changing his approach to Kosovo-related articles. The 1RR/week restriction on Kosovo has clearly been violated. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There has been more discussion with this editor at User talk:Biblbroks. Though an apology is good, his admission that he knowingly violated the 1RR rule is puzzling. We need to be assured that he will follow 1RR in the future, will stop adjusting the interwiki links and will stop editing Kosovo-related articles from a nationalist POV. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Biblbroks does not seem to realize that there is any POV problem with his edits. No admin besides FP has spoken up in favor of a topic ban. It may be necessary to close with a {{uw-sanctions}} warning under ARBMAC and a warning of a one-year topic ban from Kosovo-related articles if Biblbroks continues to remove interwiki links or violates the 1RR/week restriction again. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Under WP:ARBKOS#Modified I am banning him for three months from the area of dispute as defined in the arbitration case, and I'm issuing a {{uw-sanctions}} warning under WP:ARBMAC. Here are the concerns:
  1. 1RR/week violation about interwiki links as documented above
  2. Pattern of anti-Kosovo-independence editing, leading to his link modifications
  3. Lengthy and hard-to-understand postings at Talk:Kosovo suggesting he is not sincerely working toward a compromise
  4. He has responded above to my suggestion he is promoting a POV in the Kosovo articles but I do not see any proper response or even an acknowledgment of the issue.
  5. He did not volunteer to stop editing the interwiki links or promise to follow 1RR in the future
-- EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


Enforcement by indefinite ban of User:Vecrumba is declined. User:The Four Deuces is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to minority peoples of the Soviet Union due to repeated violations of the warning in Section 8 of the decision
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 Vecrumba[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
TFD (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. "Is there something you can come up with which is not guilt by association, implying that all Estonian-Australians were Nazis? Someone in a leadership position would have many contacts, look at all those that continue to try to smear President Obama based on prior associations." [15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)] [71]
  2. "I did note the dynastic element as well on doing some checking. The guilt by association angle per TFD's snippet speaks for itself regarding agenda, that is, painting out (generally conservative) Latvians out to be Nazist if not Nazis. Australia has a long history of this sort of politics. Part of Whitlam's motivation to recognize Soviet annexation of the Baltics was that he detested the Baltic immigrants in general and detested them more for being conservative." [21:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)][72]
  3. "@TFD, please come up with something constructive as opposed to making Looveer out to be a Nazi, and failing that advocating to delete the article. Otherwise, as far as this article is concerned, you're a WP:TROLL and we should simply stop feeding you. […] P.S. @TFD: Perhaps you'd like to go to Fran and Anna, also BEM recipients, and advocate to delete that article. And why stop there, delete the entire recipients of BEM category and all biographies related if that's the highest award they received. If you are advocating deletion based on policy here, then your path is clear. You can't just apply your criterion (BEM not significant enough) to one article. [16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)][73]
  4. "This is all your personal synthesis and interpretation regarding notability. Bring this up on the appropriate board to discuss notability. She was a broadcaster starting from before the war, the head of an émigré organization after the war, was the recipient of public recognition. That is sufficient significance. I don't understand your burning desire to spend as much time as you have to eradicating her presence on WP unless this has become a personal cause for you. […] As far as I can tell from the discussion here, you're just happy causing commotion to suck in editors with whose editorial POV you disagree. Do you really have that kind of time to waste?" [17:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)] [74]

Also, on Communist terrorism:

  • "You misinterpret my intent. What I stated was that if practice was to remove all content created by documented socks, I would be justified in deleting pretty much all content having to do with the frozen conflict zone, as an example of the application of your contention regarding normal editorial practice. Any wholesale removal of content without discussion of the content (not the author) is vandalism. […] @TFD, is there specific content — please provide diffs of what you wish to roll back and what the issue is with the content in question — you would like to discuss? That would be a more constructive approach than: you mass delete; I revert as vandalism and accuse you of using WP:ALPHABETSOUP to delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT content; you accuse me of being Tentontunic's et al. meat puppet, violating WP:POLICY, etc. and revert my revert; I open an arbitration request to topic ban you for incessant personal attacks and denigration of editors you don't agree with in the widely construed to be related to the portrayal of Soviet legacy article space. Personally, I'd prefer the constructive approach." [17:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)] [75]
  • "@TFD, well of course, given your POV. Per Reference Desker's astute observation on groups and terrorism:

3rd place — re: Christians, we have no problem calling a spade a spade, no worries about offending anyone; Christianity is an instrument of death; 2nd place — re: Muslims, we must take care to differentiate the people from the faith, and to differentiate the faith from those extremists who invoke faith in the name of terrorism; we must lastly underscore that the name of a thing is not necessarily the thing itself; 1st place — re: Communists, per Paul Siebert, yourself and others advocating for same, a derisive propagandic term first [implied by chronology mentioned in article] applied by Nazis to demonize the Soviet Union, then in the Cold War era to freedom fighters et al.; the name of the thing applies to (denouncing) a thing which does not itself exist. I don't expect to persuade you or Paul Siebert or other editors of a POV of similar ilk. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, as the proverb goes." [22 April 2011 (UTC)][76]

  • "P.S. I must take your contentions for what reliable sources say or don't say, exist or don't exist, with a grain of salt given your prior position on no sources existing for 'communist genocide.'" [20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)] [77]
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 06:30, 8 January 2008 by Thatcher (talk · contribs);Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) :
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This is a very abrasive commentary which I believe does not contribute to the improvement of articles. I recommend therefore an indefinite block of Vercrumba.

Reply to Fred Bauder: As I pointed out at Talk:Lia Looveer. Mark Aarons is a well-respected journalist. He has worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and his activism included oppostion to the Vietnam War and encouraging the Australian government to prosecute Nazi war criminals. The fact that his father was a member of the Communist Party of Australia does not mean that we should apply a separate standard to his books published in the mainstream press. TFD (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article by Mark Aarons in an article written for the The Australian and the Wall Street Journal, both of which are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Neither of these publications are Communist, and the article identifies the journalist as the author of War Criminals Welcome, which was published by Black Inc..[78] TFD (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that I wrote that the book mentioned Loover and quoted the "snippet" that was available.[79] The source does not say that Looveer was a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer, and I did not say she was. However, she did not "resist[] the Soviet occupation" but instead went to work for a news program inside Nazi Germany, which is already mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Vecrumba I made only two comments to that discussion. One was to ask you to provide a link to the edit you were questioning[80] and the other was to say that your suggestion about changing rs policy would be better discussed at the RS talk page.[81] I neither supported nor opposed the use of Russian media as rs. TFD (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Martin As I explained, I hold the professor in high regard and would be happy if you would accept his recommendation for the naming of the article. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Fred Bauder I have raised your objections to these sources at RSN[82] and welcome your commentaries there. TFD (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Vecrumba[edit]

Statement by Vecrumba[edit]

When one manner of insisting a historical personality is a Nazi fails, advocate for deletion of the article. The article has been a magnet for defamations and deletion threats on the part of editors who would generally not be sympathetic to the Baltic position regarding the Soviet legacy since the article was created. This is not constructive behavior. Apparently we're back to control content by eliminating editors you don't agree with. I should mention that since my return to the topic area I've been assaulted for content I haven't even created yet at Communist terrorism where TFD and another editor have been involved, along with other conflicts there, see discussion thread here. This is just an excuse to escalate the conflict over the portrayal of the Soviet legacy and related on Wikipedia. TFD has also been participating elsewhere in a discussion of whether or not accounts carried in Russian state media calling Latvians "Nazis" are reliable, so I see this as a cynical and overt attempt to remove me from that discussion which I initiated at here, especially considering TFD is advocating for a permanent ban.

For the entire discussion thread see here at Talk:Lia Looveer. If anyone is interested, the entire talk page makes for interesting reading. Apparently once individuals are dead editors are free to contend whatever they wish. I still have no idea what has made Looveer such a target for some editors.

Ah, and some WP:ADVOCACY there (talk was quiet at Talk:Lia Looveer for three months until April of this year and TFD arrived). Here we have Looveer not fleeing to escape the Soviet invasion, TFD maintains the article can only say "moved". As I recall, Looveer left Estonia on the last boat which left Tallinn before the Soviets retook the city. That qualifies as "flee" in anyone's book. The point is, this is all about content and TFD's personal contentions, not about me. As far as TFD is concerned, it would appear I'm just another roadblock to his editorial pursuits to be eliminated by any means possible. PЄTЄRS J VTALK 03:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba[edit]

You have got to be kidding.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Fred's comments: I mostly agree and I very much appreciate the fact that you are considering the broader context here rather than just mindlessly applying misinterpreted policies as happens all too often at AE. Two quick thoughts however:

  1. Princple 4 does say Editors are expected to keep their cool when editing. which is very good advice. But it is also worth keeping in mind that certain topic areas are inherently controversial and certain topic areas are a subject of long running disputes on Wikipedia. Here it's both. In those situations, it is pretty much inevitable that at some point or another frustration will come to the surface and someone will "let it out". If this happens all the time then we have a problem. But if it's a rare occurrence as here - and I'm pretty sure Vecrumba is generally one of the more civil and constructive editors in this area - then just reminding the editor in question to keep it cool is sufficient and really that's all that is called for. Note that I've made the same argument in regard to editors "on the other side" of this conflict. This kind of situation certainly in no way justifies block-shopping for indef blocks as TFD is doing here - that's a pretty clear signal of a battleground mentality which seeks to "eliminate" those that hold different opinions, rather than working towards an understanding and compromise. And yes, TFD has a history of this (someone else with more interest in this than me can go through the history pages of AE and ANI, and find the relevant diffs of previous attempts at block shopping by TFD. I'm just aware that they're there).
  2. There was gonna be a number 2 here, but I already included it in number 1. Oh well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand anything in diffs by TFD, except he was probably identified as "troll" by Vecrumba. If that happened, we have good policy about this called "Misidentified trolls". It suggests the following: (a) "Don't do that then."; (b) "Assume good faith"; (c) "Back away", (d) "Consider methods of dispute resolution"; (e) rephrase, and (d) concede. It does not suggest reporting someone to AE. Why not follow these good recommendations? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand the edits by User:The Four Deuces very well; however Vecrumba upon viewing this provocative edit does not have license to rant and rave at length. Pointing out that the work cited is a propaganda effort by an activist closely associated with Australian communism is sufficient. It is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes and there is no point in discussing it at length. It is not clear if TFD is actually advancing the source or just waving around in front of the mad bull. If there is a serious good faith contention that the propaganda is a reliable source that might be considered and involve exploration of the reasons why it is not. But I suspect TFD knows well its nature. Trolling seems to be a fair characterization but Vecruba should have the good sense not to take the bait; get hooked, and be played like a dumb fish. Deletion of the article has already been considered and rejected. My recommendation is that TFD be warned not to engage in provocation, trolling, inflammatory edit or post — saying something controversial specifically to cause a flame war." see and that Vecruba consider not playing the sucker, see . Continued behavior of this nature from either could support topic bans under the arbitration decision. Editing in this area does not exclude either communist or anti-communist activists, but does demand focus on the work rather than on struggle. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Not a reliable source means just that, POV, not that it is all lies or has no value in its own context; however there is no evidence that the subject of the article was either a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer, only that she resisted Soviet occupation and associated with ethnic anti-communists in Australia. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The article we are discussing is Lia Looveer, not Lyenko Urbanchich; I think it might be a good source for that. Under TFD's theory the entire nation of Finland would be blackened because they resisted Soviet imperialism. Yes, the emigre community was anti-communist and there were collaborators among them, but tarring someone who seems to have engaged in no Nazi advocacy whatever when she was in Australia is guilt by association. Association with Rupert Murdock likewise has no probative value. A book titled War criminals welcome: Australia, a sanctuary for fugitive war criminals since 1945, however, speaks for itself. Who seriously thinks Australia knowingly welcomed fugitive war criminals and made them welcome? User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing actionable in the posts of Vecrumba. In contrast, TFD seems to post to article talk pages in WP:SOAPy manner, without proposing clear improvements. Perhaps the other editors should just ignore TFD when he does so. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • The TFD has a track record of baiting editors in the Baltic topic space. Recently he accused me of right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV and then claimed he wasn't referring to me but claimed his remarks were directed at a respected professor of international law at Tartu University, violating WP:BLP in the process[84]. TFD would have received a three month topic ban, but promised he will avoid slurs against others (and against large groups of people) on contentious talk pages in the future. I guess he forgot his assurances with this contentious edit. WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. --Martin (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Could the admins also look at this edit, Pantherskin (talk · contribs) has previously supported TFD in making contentious comments and edits to Lia Looveer. if that doesn't fit the criteria of, then I don't know what would. I also remind the admins of the general warning and threat of summary ban (which discretionary sanctions empower admins to apply) in WP:DIGWUREN against making generalised accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group harbor Nazi sympathies --Martin (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Purely frivolous request by a an user known for engaging in misbehavior in topics like Communism or the Baltic states. There was nothing in Vecrumba's comments at Talk:Lia Looveer that violated any sanctions. Aarons is indeed not a good source there, at least not for controversial statements. He's a former member of the Communist Party of Australia and obviously a political opponent of Looveer, who belonged to the right-wing Liberal Party. So Vecrumba's comments were quite on-topic. If arbs should look into anything, then it's TFD's attempts at trolling and Pantherkins's purely disruptive comments like the one linked above by Martin ([85]).Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit by Vecrumba is troublesome. It is an accusation of bad faith, based on rather shaky grounds. I'm not aware of any reliable sources for communist genocide either. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The language, "I don't expect to persuade you or Paul Siebert or other editors of a POV of similar ilk. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, as the proverb goes." in this edit is a both an accusation of bad faith and a confession of refusal to engage in necessary dialogue. I suppose there is some meaning to "ilk" but it is fighting words when you use it. Editing in this area requires willingness to engage. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@Fred, seems like TFD is ignoring you and is continuing to tar Lia Looveer via guilt by association, this time via her association with the Migrant Advisory Council which also included Laszlo Megay and Constantin Untaru[86]. There were some 200,000 displaced persons from Europe in Australia after WW2, a small number were Nazi sympathisers and even smaller number had infiltrated the Migrant Advisory Council, but all of that was exposed in the 1980s and was quite an embarrassment to the Liberal Party of Australia which had sponsored this council, I don't think the Liberal Party would have awarded Looveer the Heritage Award in 2002 if there was any hint that she had any kind of issue. --Martin (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes a doctoral thesis, Australian Cold Warrior: The Anti-Communism of W. C. Wentworth which cites Mark Aarons' book as a reference. He calls it "another source" but it is a source only for guilt by association, while we are admonished to not draw analogeous conclusions regarding Mark Aarons. It might be useful as a source regarding W. C. Wentworth, but again it fails when you try to cite it regarding any substantial matter with respect to Lia Looveer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is plain error. It is policy to remove all contributions by socks of banned or blocked editors. It is not always wise or appropriate in particular instances, but that is the general rule. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Vecrumba[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I think it is possible that User:The Four Deuces believes in good faith that the work of Mark Aarons exposing Nazi collaborators and war criminals admitted to Australia is a suitable reference, and it may be in some contexts. However its broad use with respect to other members of the emigre community in Australia is a violation of the warning in Section 8 of the decision

8) All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The attention of User:Vecrumba is directed to Principle 4 in the decision, "Keeping one's cool"

Editors are expected to keep their cool when editing. Uncivil behavior by others should not be returned in kind. Casual allegations of poor wikiquette are considered harmful; such concerns should be brought up in appropriate forums, if at all.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces is reminded that arbitration enforcement is not a weapon to be used in furtherance of political struggle. Using it in the manner he has is grounds for an indefinite ban from topics related to ethnic resistance to Russian nationalism and Soviet expansionism, a remedy which will be imposed if repeated. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing with respect to User:Pantherskin can be considered here as he was not noticed in. Please do not attempt to broaden an enforcement request beyond its terms. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this should probably be closed as request denied with a warning to not abuse the process of arbitration enforcement in the future. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Blocked by Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 1 May 2011 (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 Meliniki[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Fut.Perf. 06:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Meliniki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Massive edit-warring across several articles, against consensus of several users, trying to replace a linguistic map with a new POV-doctored one:

  1. [87] (7R/48hrs)
  2. [88] (6R/48hrs)
  3. [89] (3R/48hrs)
  4. [90] (3R/48hrs)
  5. [91] (8R/48hrs)
  6. [92] (9R/48hrs)
  7. [93] (6R/48hrs)

Parallel, related disruptive behaviour also on Commons (multiple bad-faith deletion nominations, personal attacks [94], [95]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned about 3RR by Mephistophelian on 29 April [96],
  2. Warned about Arbmac by Fut.Perf. on 29 April [97]
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

New single-purpose account, no constructive contributions, revert-warring and trolling-only account. Has more or less overtly stated on Commons that they are just out to provoke until they are banned [98]. Fut.Perf. 06:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Meliniki[edit]

Statement by Meliniki[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Meliniki[edit]

Result concerning Meliniki[edit]

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


Article placed under 1RR per ARBPIA. No action against ברוקולי. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning ברוקולי[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy 19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
ברוקולי (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 18:45, 2 May 2011 revert of this edit
  2. 18:53, 2 May 2011 revert of this
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 

The user has brought been here regarding a number of other ARBPIA AE cases and is obviously aware of the case.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction


Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I asked the user to self-revert prior to my coming here, the user declined. The reverted material is obviously in the ARBPIA topic area.

The user has now, several times, said they have never been notified of ARBPIA. In Stellarkid's topic ban, a similar issue occurred in which a user who was not notified of the case yet was obviously aware of it by virtue of having opened enforcement requests against others was sanctioned. The purpose of notification is to ensure editors are aware of the case, not to provide a shield against sanctions. But none of that really matters, the 1RR section itself says users may be blocked on the first offense without prior notification. nableezy - 20:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Ed, I just have a question. If an article does not contain a 1RR notice, even if it is plainly obvious that the material is in the topic area, there is no 1RR? If that is the case, fine. What notice is required? Just the one on the talk page or also the edit notice? Only sysops can create editnotices in the mainspace, so if that is required is there is some procedure to request that an article have the notice?

I dont really understand why all these legalisms are necessary. It is painfully obvious the material reverted is covered under the topic area and thus the 1RR. The user is well aware of both the case and the restriction. Either way, the user was informed that the material is indeed covered a number of times, including in your first comment in the result section. The user has still declined to self-revert, instead hiding behind the mantra "I have never been notified".

I think a number of questions have to be answered.

1. Can a user be sanctioned, without warning, for a first offense of the 1RR (as the section itself stipulates they can be)?

2. Is a notice on the talk page and/or an edit notice on the article required for an article to be considered to be covered under the 1RR

3. Who may place such notices on the talk page? Uninvolved admins, uninvolved users, anybody?

nableezy - 18:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and at the very least, please give a formal notification to the user of ARBPIA, just so we do not have to see this charade of claiming to not know about the case again. nableezy - 18:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning ברוקולי[edit]

Statement by ברוקולי[edit]

Very interesting, but with no factual/actual basis. The article in concern is completely not about I/P conflict, and not marked as such. It is about a book that deals with economy and Israel. Defining this article as an I/P conflict article equals to defining all the articles about Israel as such. Broccolo (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

+I have never been notified about any sanctions under ARBRIA. First time for me hearing that. Broccolo (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This editor commented here on 6 April 2011[101][102][103], on 10 March 2011[104][105][106], on 23 December 2010[107], on 1 September 2010[108][109][110][111], on 31 August 2010[112][113][114], on 21 Aiugust 2010[115], on 19 June 2010[116][117] and on 10 April 2010[118]. On 31 August, s/he even reported another editor here[119]. So I find it hard to believe their statement that "I have never been notified about any sanctions under ARBRIA. First time for me hearing that". RolandR (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It is easy to check if I was notified. It should be record somewhere. Where is this record? Plus, the notification is not the subject, but the attempt to define a pure economic article as an I/P article. Broccolo (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning ברוקולי[edit]

  • While the book itself may not be about the Arab–Israeli conflict, it should be obvious—even to ברוקולי/Broccolo—that the specific sentence she/he reverted is about the conflict. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is not marked as connected to ARBPIA. I have never been notified about ARBPIA. Broccolo (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
could somebody Please mark it then? And Hamas school bus attack is also not marked. Sorry for the iphone typos. betsythedevine (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Now you know. And yet you still haven't undone your second reversion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
That is if the article is about I/P conflict. It isn't. Broccolo (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right. A sentence that Israel derives its wealth from "stolen land" has nothing to do with the conflict. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The article had nothing to do with I/P conflict before the user added a POV from not reliabale source. I removed that POV, so once again the article has nothing to do with I/P conflict. The article is not marked as being I/P conflict, and I have never been notified about the sanctions. Broccolo (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Why don't you keep repeating that like a mantra until you actually believe it? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Broccolo is mistaken about my motivation in adding that quote. The article as created had many quotes from and links to positive reviews.[120] I went to the Miles book review (cited by Mbz1) in search of a more informative quote to explain why Miles was quoted as saying "There is no economic miracle in Israel." I then added the quote expressing MIles's reasoning to the article: ""There is no economic miracle in Israel. There is a state supported economy that derives much of its initial wealth from stolen land and U.S. largess economically and militarily." Several people, including Broccolo, then swooped down on the article to remove the second sentence and to demand that even the link to that book review be removed. It is my opinion that the reason for all this zeal to censor out one single sentence critical of Israel and the book is also the reason that this article is being pushed toward the front page via DYK and has been tagged since April 27 as "Top Importance" by Project Israel. The reason is that promoting positive stories about Israel and negative stories about her Arab neighbors is, in fact, related to the P/I conflict as broadly defined by WP:ARBPIA.
  • I filed a related complaint at WT:DYK. betsythedevine (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Since this appears to be a first infraction, a warning probably suffices. The refusal to consider why the edit is related to the topic area under sanctions doesn't bode well though. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with Tijfo098 that a warning should suffice for Broccolo -- but meanwhile WP:BATTLEGROUND by others continues on the article's talk page and its DYK nomination, where an article that quotes 4 negative reviews in 4 lines and devotes 8 paragraphs to 8 positive reviews is being defended as perfectly NPOV. betsythedevine (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
A warning? That's nice. I am a user in good standing for five years and an admin for the last two, who for that entire period had maintained a clean block, until february this year when I was summarily blocked for inadvertently breaching 1RR after returning from a five-week absence from Wikipedia. Where was my warning?
Broccolo, by contrast, is a user with a long history of rubber stamping DYK nominations from Mbz and generally offering reflexive support for her contributions. This appears to be one occasion where his eagerness to do so got the better of him.
It should also be noted that rather than concede his error, Broccolo is simply refusing to acknowledge that his edits pertained to the topic area in question. Gatoclass (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
What collusion you're talking about? Do you see a problem that I edit the same article as Mbz1 does? If you do it is ridiculous. Broccolo (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I see a problem with you popping up repeatedly at T:TDYK for the sole purpose of approving your buddy Mbz's hooks for promotion to the main page - even when you know those hooks and/or articles are the subject of unresolved disputes involving core policies like NPOV. Gatoclass (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because my username is ברוקולי and most certainly not אֶפְרָתָה. Broccolo (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, my bad, they all look quite alike. But really, you've been editing in and around this topic area long enough and to claim that you're unaware of past ArbComs and the editing restrictions that have come from them requires too much of an AGF stretch, IMO. Hell, I'm not even listed at "Log of notifications" there but I'm quite aware of what the restrictions are. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the book, though haven't read it yet. It is certainly not about the conflict. It mentions the conflict (hard to avoid when writing about Israel) but its presence in the book is deliberately marginal. An article, even a comprehensive one, could do without mentioning the conflict (or with mentioning it in passing). But since the book is positive about Israel and its economic development, opponents if Israel will of course condemn it. And that's what happenned here on Wikipedia. They turned this article into the battleground. So now of course it should be under ARBPIA sacntions. But since it was not when Broccolo first edited it, this thread should be closed without any sanction for him. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not an opponent of Israel, I am an opponent of those trying to use Wikipedia to promote right-wing hardline "Israel-good-Arabs-bad" POV as if it were a neutral reflection of reality. Neither Israelis nor Arabs are about to vanish from reality; very few Israelis or Arabs are personally responsible for any of the hideous bloodshed in the Middle East; both Israelis and Arabs have seen much injustice done in the name of "their side." But the only successful future is coexistence. I think that ARBPIA and keeping Wikipedia NPOV could help promote healing and prevent the infliction of new emotional wounds, by either side. betsythedevine (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You're either with us, or against us. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
What a load of manure. ברוקולי/Broccolo deleted a sentence that said Israel's early economic growth was based on stolen land. If that didn't clue her/him in that she/he had stepped into ARBPIA territory, we may have WP:COMPETENCY issues here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Response to EdJohnston[edit]

Surely you're not suggesting that Broccolo needs a reminder of his responsibilities in this topic area at the top of every page? Or are you suggesting that an article doesn't fall under 1RR until someone bothers to add the 1RR template?

If you make an edit that pertains to the I-P conflict, then clearly that edit falls under ARBPIA sanctions, no matter what page it is made on. To argue otherwise is simply an open invitation to WP:GAMEing and WP:Wikilawyering of the worst kind. Apart from which, you yourself already noted an obvious relationship between the article topic and the I-P conflict. What is the problem with imposing a sanction in these circumstances? Gatoclass (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for clarifying your position. However, I must point out that whether or not the statement Broccolo erased was "more like an editorial than a review" is irrelevant, because the content erased nonetheless pertained to the conflict. We are not permitted to breach 1RR merely on the basis that our edits might be considered reasonable, who would decide on the yardstick of reasonableness? This is a plain breach of 1RR, which might have been excuseable as a simple error if not for the fact that Broccolo has continued to doggedly insist that he did nothing wrong, which in my opinion is certainly an appropriate cause for sanction. Gatoclass (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning ברוקולי[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • The book is called Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle. The words reverted from the article include 'stolen land'. That seems to make the Arab-Israeli conflict part of the subject matter of this article. It's my impression that the {{ARBPIA}} banner should be placed on the talk page which will impose the usual 1RR rule. Any complete version of this article which fully expounds the text or includes a broad spectrum of reviews will probably wind up containing ARBPIA material. The book itself makes mention of the 2006 Lebanon War. Chapter 2 is called 'Battlefield Entrepreneurs.' Who do you suppose they were battling with? The tone of the recent edit warring about this article is just like other I-P disputes, and only a 1RR rule is likely to keep that in check. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Except for adding the ARBPIA template, I can't think of anything else that can be done here. Any warning to Broccolo would have to be justified. Per Arbcom's proposed decision at WP:AESH, warnings under arb cases need to specify the misbehavior: "In imposing a sanction or giving a warning based on an Arbitration Committee decision, an administrator should clearly specify the basis of the action and the reasons it is being taken." If Broccolo didn't ignore a 1RR notice, then he didn't break a 1RR, so there is nothing to sanction him for or warn him about. Anyone have other suggestions? EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: User talk:2over0 gave permission to Mbz1 to create this article (see his talk page) in the belief that an article could be written that would not touch on the I/P conflict. My impression is that the original version of this article was not related to I/P. However, normal expansion would probably bring it into the area. The thing that Broccolo reverted about 'stolen land' sounded like an editorial rather than a review, so the article shouldn't be marked 'I/P' just because of that one thing. I'm saying that it should be considered I/P from now on, and people like Mbz1 who are restricted from I/P will no longer be able to comment on it, and others will have to follow 1RR. People also appear to be concerned about pro-Israel boosterism at WT:DYK but AE should not be the first resort for looking into that. The regulars at DYK can make up their minds on how to handle such articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Closing. Per the above, the most which can be done is to mark the article with the ARBPIA banner. The article is under 1RR from now on. No action taken with respect to Broccolo. I hope that editors who submit articles at DYK in contentious topic areas will make strenuous efforts to ensure their neutrality prior to their submission. If this becomes an ongoing problem, there could be a policy response. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)