Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive93

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

Contents

Shatter Resistance[edit]

Request concerning Shatter Resistance[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
--Domer48'fenian' 21:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Shatter Resistance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Revert 1
  2. Revert 2
  3. Revert 3
  4. Revert 4 Despite the notifications and requeste
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Notice placed on Article Talk Page
  2. Notice placed on Editors Talk Page
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

To be determined.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

notification

Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Shatter Resistance despite being made aware of the 1RR, and having been asked to self revert, a number of times [1][2] by both myself and another editor who also asked a number of times [3][4] they have prevaricated both on their talk page, and on the Article Talk page. They then point blank refused to self revert. Despite all this the editor then makes a fourth revert.

Editor has now indicated that they will continue to revert regardless.--Domer48'fenian' 21:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On the Article they have stated "I don't care how many reverts we are meant to have I am trying to establish a discussion" and are actively looking to have the article locked. On their version of course!--Domer48'fenian' 21:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On their talk page they have stated "I don't won't to keep on reverting but I will in order to maintain the status quo."--Domer48'fenian' 22:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Shatter Resistance[edit]

Comments by Shatter Resistance[edit]

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure how this works so please correct me if I am writing in the wrong places Secondly, the first revert mentioned here as being vandalism is definetly not so as it was my first revert, which I am entitled to under IRR, there was confusion about that earlier. Thirdly, I have no indicated I will revert regardless I have indicated that I will revert any edits which again change the article from its old format, a decision which you will find other users accepting if you look on my talk page and the article in question. I wanted a discussion about the changes, I provided evidence (the only person to do so) yet apparently nobody wishes to have one. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how wanting to get the article locked (by which I did mean protected, sorry) is in any way wrong. Assuming Wikipedia actually listens to sense then if the article was protected that would mean I was correct and if it wasn't then it would mean I wasn't. Getting the article protected would actually stop me making reverts and would instead mean a discsussion could take place, something I have a strong record of advocating instead of just making unilateral changes. This is the first time that I have ever had other users attempt to stop a discussion - or to put it more accuratly not to revert and discuss which has so far always led to a compromise both sides have been happy with. At one point there seemed to be an agreement to discuss and actually I'm only here because I reverted so that process could continue. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually I do understant 3RR, it was only after you said that it was fine to revert disruptive edits whatever that I reverted for the 4th time (which under your logic wasn't a breach of 3RR). I admit to breaking 1RR however, I didn't know about it, though as seems to have been accepted by other users that was a mistake and everybody seemed fine just to let me off the hook on that one considering my reverts took place before I read their warnings. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Well I haven't been a member before, but well I have no way of proving that so you will just have to decide to trust me or not on that (not that I think it should actually make any real difference), unless there is a way of finding out in which case go for it, I have nothing to hide.
I'd also like to point out that the article in which I am accussed of making me violations on is the Irish general election, 1918 which was not in the troubles, so actually 1RR does not apply to it, it concerns me that apparently experienced editors have made this simple mistake. This means that I have only possibly made one violation, the revert of which in question I actually justified under the reasoning of the editors who have reported me here, who claimed under certain circumstances reverts were allowed to continue, again possible I was too trusting of what seemed to be their experience. As far as I can see, I haven't actually possible performed more than one violation and if that is justification then at least one of the other editors involved in this dispute (namely: Scolaire) should be blocked too for providing me with my argument to preform the 'violation' and for actually provoking me to do it by delibretly stating they were going to ignore the fact we had all stopping 'edit warring' and were trying to talk. Shatter Resistance (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Slightly worried that User:Domer48 who applied for this application, may not consider discussion to be an important element of Wikipedia having seen the level of maturity used moments ago in reaction to what is actually begining to become quite an effect discussion with merely the line LMAO, ;), which seem to me that possibly this user isn't really very serious. Shatter Resistance (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Just discovered that part way through the discussion on the Irish general election, 1918 article Domer48 added the Troubles template to this article, depsire the fact the troubles is well establised as having taken place after WWII, Wikipedia's own page cites 1968, 50 years after the 1918 election. You can see here the page as it was part way through the discussion without the template and then the next comment by Domer48 here in which it has been added. I see no evidence that this article is part of the troubles and that instead it has been placed there in order to enforce Domer48's inaccurate claim it was subject to 1RR. I am going to remove the template from the page until proper evidence has been provided. Shatter Resistance (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others on the request concerning Shatter Resistance[edit]

Shatter Resistance has also stated that I don't won't to keep on reverting but I will... and also that they intend get the page locked also stating "I will have the page locked to prevent further changes" Mo ainm~Talk 21:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have the impression that Shatter Resistance genuinely misunderstands WP policies, in particular 3RR and BRD, as evidenced by the edit summary here. Unless he previously edited under another username, he has only been a user for six weeks. However, he was given very explicit advice here, here and here, and chose to ignore it, so he has no complaint if he is sanctioned as a result. Scolaire (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Shatter Resistance[edit]

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

  • I recommend that User:Shatter Resistance be blocked for three days for the 1RR violation and warned of the possibility of Troubles probation per the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors. If probation is eventually imposed, it puts the editor under a 1RR/week limit on all Troubles articles. Shatter Resistance created their account on 19 May but due to their sophistication they must have been on Wikipedia before. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm slow to assume that Shatter Resistance is a returned editor, and if he is not, EdJohnston's proposal strikes me as unduly harsh. I think we can simply explain what is and what is not a revert, and that one revert per 24 hours is allowed in the topic area. You are not entitled to a new revert just because you are reverting an entirely different part of the article. So, unless there's some proof to Ed Johnston's last sentence, I'm in favour of closing with a stern warning and no use of the block button. Courcelles

Cptnono[edit]

Nableezy and Cptnono are interaction-banned. They may not open complaints about each other at AE. Details within. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Cptnono[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) at 19:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 06:48, 22 June 2011 Tendentious editing, hounding
  2. 05:32, 24 June 2011 Tendentious editing
  3. 05:43, 24 June 2011 Personal attack, accusation of socking without evidence
  4. 06:02, 24 June 2011 Personal attack. Here he admits he has no evidence for the accusation, but proceeds to repeat it
  5. 05:36, 24 June 2011 Personal attack.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Blocked by AGK for violations of NPA
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Interaction ban, topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Cptnono has repeatedly hounded my contributions to follow me to articles where he was not involved to revert my edits. There are numerous examples of this, and he has in the past admitted to doing so to "keep me in line". One such example is Golan Heights Wind Farm, where Cptnono performs, as his first and only edit to either the article or talk page, a revert of an edit by me shortly after I edit the page. This is exactly what happened at Dahiya doctrine. After I revert an IP who had tagged the article without cause, Cptnono follows me there and reverts me as his very first edit to either the article or talk page. When Cptnono is asked to, instead of immediately tagging the article, edit the article to correct any issues that he might see, he refuses to do so. He later re-reverts to place the tag once again on the article. He has yet to actually say what he would like to add, only saying that some unknown source is not used properly and that the article is "POV". This is tendentious editing, the purpose of which is to goad other editors in to an edit war over a tag. This is not simply my opinion of what happened, in this edit to a user's talk page he taunts other editors and dares them to revert him so that he can go to AE. In sum, Cptnono hounded my contributions to revert me, then said he was not interested in even attempting to address any POV issues that may be there, and then attempts to goad others in to reverting him. This series of edits shows that he is simply playing games here.

Cptnono has also made repeated accusations against me about socking. He has not once produced a single thread of evidence to support such a serious charge, but he has repeated it multiple times on this very page. In the above diffs, Cptnono says that he does not have any evidence for the charge, but repeats it anyway. He has done this in the past, (example here and refusing to substantiate the accusation here). According to WP:NPA, accusations made without evidence are personal attacks. The policy says, in the section "What is considered to be a personal attack?", Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. This is among the most serious accusations that an editor can make here, and repeatedly making it without providing any evidence at all, even admitting that there is no evidence at all, is highly inappropriate.

This editor has repeatedly leveled serious charges against others without once providing evidence. He has repeatedly hounded my contributions to involve himself in disputes simply because I am already there. He has repeatedly reverted to restore tags to articles despite never even attempting to edit the article to address whatever issues he claims exist, and indeed has rebuffed requests that he do so. He has attempted to goad others into edit-warring, with the explicitly expressed objective of bring others "down with Nableezy" here at AE. These generally tendentious actions would not, by themselves, cause me to make this request. But combined, they demonstrate that Cptnono is editing with the purpose of annoying me and goading me in to doing something so that his years long campaign to have me banned succeeds.

I realize that one-sided interaction bans are disliked by admins with good cause, and while I do not feel that I have done anything to merit any type of ban being placed on me with regard to Cptnono, if that is what it takes to have this never ending stream of asinine accusations and repeated tendentious hounding of my edits stop then so be it.

Boris, Cptnono has done this multiple times. And as you wrote, I objected to the accusations above at the time they were made. If Biosketch wishes he can ask that Tarc stop making such accusations without providing evidence, and if Tarc persists he may then seek administrative relief from such unsubstantiated charges. I have repeatedly requested that Cptnono cease making accusations without providing any evidence, yet he persists. Additionally, the hounding by Cptnono has gone from a mere annoyance to disruption, as he is involving himself in articles where he either has no interest of editing or is literally too drunk to do so. If you would like to raise the issue of Tarc making such accusations you are free to do so in any number of venues. It is however completely irrelevant here. I am not Tarc, I am not responsible for him, and what he says does not in any way excuse Cptnono's repeated unsubstantiated and unfounded accusations. nableezy - 05:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of these comments below are simply unbelievable. Cptnono's every edit is scrutinized????? He has "enemies waiting in ambush to pounce"?????? Truly astonishing. As far as I know, not a single editor has ever hounded Cptnono, and not a single time has an unmerited enforcement request against him been filed. He has repeatedly hounded my contributions, not the other way around. He has repeatedly made malicious charges without ever providing a single bit of evidence for them, not the other way around. Many of the below comments do only one thing; that is they demonstrate that this page needs to do away with the comments by involved editors. Cptnono has repeatedly made serious accusations without ever providing evidence for them. He has repeatedly hounded my contributions and edited in a tendentious fashion when doing so. See his conduct in the diffs above at the Dahiya doctine article, accompanied by his drunken ranting at Sean.hoyland's talk page. I have held my tongue in giving anything resembling an honest critique of Cptnono, despite repeated provocations by him in which he has made blatantly dishonest accusations against me and edited with the sole purpose of annoying me. I await a response to the actual issues involved here from an uninvolved admin. nableezy - 05:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified


Discussion concerning Cptnono[edit]

Statement by Cptnono[edit]

If Nableezy wants me to stop commenting on him at AE he should stop getting himself in trouble.


I do have a hard time interacting with Nableezy since he is the catalyst to so many problems. I just don't edit war with him and that is why I am still around while others are not. I try not to seek him out exclusively but he makes it pretty hard when I want the topic area to not be garbage (note the centralized discussion I started).


If an interaction ban is the decision then I am cool with it. However, I don't think it is feasible. We edit too many of the same articles. I would prefer a limited interaction ban (basically a final warning) but I would also be OK with an interaction ban as long as it is lifted when he is topic banned again since all interaction is based in one topic area. When he is topic banned again I don;t think I should have any restrictions.

No matter what, no interaction ban is appropriate without a waiver on Gaza War (it was getting a little less combative until he came back, BTW) since there is an ongoing discussion.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And I don;t need to comment on the sock thing. My comment was clear and he chose to take offence. Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And my laptop does not have a breathalizer. At least I am only a jerk when drunk and not a POV pusher. Chucgging a handful right now, friends (see, I am honest about it :) ). Cptnono (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a second Biosketch: Don't let my love for the most drinkable garbage beer lead you to believe that I don't like a handful from a good microbrew at happy hour. I am from Seattle after all :)
@Peter: I don't understand your questions exactly. So I will clarify my point:" I think Nableezy is only back for a short time since I assume he will continue to get himself in trouble. So basically I don;t want to have some weird interaction ban hanging over me based on the principle of it. If he is booted again I want to be in the clear so that there isn't some weird scarlet letter on me. And yes, Gaza War oddly enough since it is not feasible to have us both work on the article if e cannot talk to each other. But maybe this is why we should have ARBPIA3. I will be bounced for a bit for my history of incivility (the report above does not show that but a history will kill me) while a history of pushing a POV and edit warring will rip out the real trouble makers. I am a jerk but I don't cause the other issues that permeate the topic area.
Overall, why is this AE still open. I do not deserve the time to be perfectly frank. Been here enough and know how it works. I do appreciate the comments since there is a good blend of constructive criticism and plain niceness. Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm cool with it. The only thing I take issue with is AGK preaching about intoxication on my talk page (who are you to turn from a janitor to a preacher? How about I suggest you stop trying to play Judge Wapner at night?) and the mention of tit-for-tat (I had not filed a request here for a bit so it wasn't really tit-for-tat as it?)
But at the end, it is a well worded interaction ban and 6 months seems like a reasonable amount of time to let things cool down. It is not my job anymore which is a relief.
But ARBPIA3 is still something I would be interested in. A 6 month topic ban would be unfortunate for me but it if it helps clear out some of the issues then great.Cptnono (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono[edit]

  • I think an interaction ban would be a very good idea. I'm not sure Cptnono has crossed the line into topic ban territory, but he's dancing very close to it. And he would be wise not to edit while intoxicated. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There seems little point in sanctioning Cptnono. His comments here make it clear he will simply cheat the system in order to circumvent actions taken against him. Note the lines: "…Now how about a cycle my IP... If I ever get blocked for a longer amount of time I will certainly go for it…" Prunesqualer (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
    • That's a good point, and anyway "having to be Cptnono" is probably a lot worse punishment than anything we can do here. Herostratus (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Personal attacks are rare in AE comments. Well done! Can we please have this request closed, before more people exercise their sense of humor? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Speaking of the system, I would have thought your topic ban kept you from commenting on an ARBPIA request. Or am I mixing you up with someone else? --JGGardiner (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Who are you referring to? I don't think that anyone commenting here is under a relevant topic ban. RolandR (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I know some editors view interaction bans as punishments, while others welcome them, so I'd like to hear Cptnono's thoughts on an interaction ban with Nableezy before I comment further. ← George talk 00:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Having heard back from Cptnono, I'd say I support an interaction ban. While Nableezy and Cptnono may have opposing viewpoints, I think the real problem is what they have in common with each other: neither particularly cares for bullshit, but they both can keep up (and don't back down) if you bring it. I don't know if that's a character flaw or a commendable trait - possibly both - but when you line them up against each other it can get a bit ugly. Maybe give an interaction ban a shot and see if it helps calm the waters? I think it would be more constructive than throwing topic bans at otherwise productive contributors anyways (productivity being irrespective of whether or not you agree with their viewpoints). My two cents. ← George talk 23:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Malik Shabazz that at this point an interaction ban would be a good idea; Wikipedia is not a battleground, regardless of whether or not you've enjoyed a few too many chelas; if an interaction ban does not improve the situation, there may be a need for more draconian steps. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 01:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not support accusations without evidence, but Cptnono's latest statements about Nableezy were made in the context of another editor making such allegations against Biosketch [5] [6]. Nableezy disagreed with these allegations [7]. However, omission of this context by Nableezy here is itself highly tendentious. - BorisG (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • From Cptnono's post yesterday to Sean Hoyland's talk page: "no need to pretend anymore. you are in the topic area for on reason and one reason only. you flew under the radar and it was cute but don't pretend to be neutral. you are a funny guy who does make good edits but leave the vandalism fighting to those who actually care about the project and neutrality." I know how easy it is to feel frustrated and cynical with those who oppose one's usual POV in so controversial an area, but it's important to recognize the need for a break when that frustration exceeds easily manageable limits.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know who needs a break, but I recommend that Cptnono be reminded not to comment on users, only on edits. This may also be good advice to some other participants here. I am not referring to comments made here, of course, since this page is largely about editor conduct. - BorisG (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Cptnono chooses to edit in a very very difficult area (I can only every dip in and out) and I have always respected his editing. Maybe we all lose our way now and again but I would ask that you take it easy on him as I for one believe he is an asset to this project. BTW Cptnono we all need to take a break now and again. Bjmullan (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Nableezy = pot calling the kettle black. I.e. Nobody has any basis for seeking to sanction me on AE but I'll go out of my way with a weak case to get everyone else sanctioned. Yawn. Moveon.org. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • My thoughts exactly. And Herostratus (talk · contribs) makes a valid point: Cptnono (talk · contribs) wears uncomfortable shoes in the I/P topic area, and few of us would want or be able to walk in them for very long. His every edit is scrutinized with an electron microscope, and he has enemies waiting in ambush to pounce on his every uncrossed t or undotted i. He should probably keep booze and Wikipedia at least an hour apart, and it wouldn't hurt to switch from that Miller crap he drinks to some quality European brews.—Biosketch (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • An undotted i might not seem like a big deal. But you have to remember that in WP you really have to go out of your way to do it. I think you'd have to screw around with the CSS actually. So when you see an I/P editor make a big effort to cause a small dustup it can be pretty upsetting. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have decent relations with both editors and think they have both made useful contributions. An interaction ban may be the best way to go. However, I have a couple of questions for Cptnono about the exceptions he proposes. If Nableezy gets blocked for being rude or for edit warring on one article, why does that suddenly mean that his edits elsewhere become so bad that your interaction ban shoudl be dropped. Surely if they were that poor someoen else is likely to want to revert them? Also why an exception for Gaza War? Surely where you both feel strongly is where you are most likely to clash.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Cptnono[edit]

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

As I have previously opined, I am concerned that we are so often seeing requests for enforcement that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Specifically, the unceasing tit-for-tat enforcement requests and endless editing only of articles about P/I by most editors is worrying, and the situation is generally unsustainable. After much reflection, my view is that we must topic-ban the major contributors to this subject area irrespective of the seriousness of their own misconduct, because the alternative would be to refer the dispute to arbitration for ARBPIA 3 - where many would be topic-banned anyway. Some of these editors make constructive editors, but the aggregate of their contributions is that the P/I topic is a complete mess, and a topic ban must therefore be the lesser of two evils. To put my thinking into an image: if the primary editors of a contested topic area are youths in a town with high anti-social behaviour, then my suggestion is to instate a curfew of all 12-17 year olds, irrespective of whether they spend their nights spray-painting walls or diligently doing their homework. To employ the tactic of liberally topic-banning is crude, but would work as a last-ditch attempt to improve behaviour on P/I articles, and I invite comment from other uninvolved administrators on the matter.

With regards to the specific request for enforcement, I concur that it has become counter-productive to permit Cptnono and Nableezy to interact. The following sanctions are passed, effective immediately, per WP:ARBPIA2#Discretionary sanctions:

  • Cptnono banned from interacting with Nableezy for 6 months

Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for 6 months (until 27 December 2011) from interacting with Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), in accordance with the standard interaction ban detailed at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban. Cptnono may not:

  1. Edit any page within Nableezy's user or user talk space;
  2. Reply to Nableezy in any discussion;
  3. Make reference to or comment on Nableezy, directly or indirectly, on any page; or
  4. Undo any edit by Nableezy to any page except his own user or user talk pages (by any means, including the rollback function).

In accordance with this restriction, Cptnono may also not submit a request for arbitration enforcement that concerns Nableezy.

  • Nableezy banned from interacting with Cptnono for 6 months

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for 6 months (until 27 December 2011) from interacting with Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), in accordance with the standard interaction ban detailed at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban. Nableezy may not:

  1. Edit any page within Cptnono's user or user talk space;
  2. Reply to Cptnono in any discussion;
  3. Make reference to or comment on Cptnono, directly or indirectly, on any page; or
  4. Undo any edit by Cptnono to any page except his own user or user talk pages (by any means, including the rollback function).

In accordance with this restriction, Nableezy may also not submit a request for arbitration enforcement that concerns Cptnono.

I will leave this request for enforcement open, to allow any comment on my preliminary remarks about avoiding ARBPIA3 by the more frequent use of extended topic-bans. AGK [] 22:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't particular like how this is done, especially the #2 and #3 which also restricts possible RfAr that encloses more than these 2. I would prefer to make all subpages of RfAr (Not counting AE) excluded from the restriction (i.e. RfAr and cases are okay, AE is off-limits). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the standard form of an interaction ban, as set down at WP:IBAN. I think it is a given that, if the dispute proceeds to arbitration, all bets are off and all discretionary sanctions are suspended; but to be clear, if these editors are later both named in a request for arbitration, they are exempted from this ban. AGK [] 10:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I tend to think that it is better to pass the case to arbcom, which is in a much better position to do a comprehensive review over the entire topic area than individual AE admins. Barring that, I agree that liberal use of topic bans seems to be necessary to control the persistent disruption. T. Canens (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This request has been open for ten days and it is time to close it. The admins who have commented so far have converged on a common sanction and we might as well adopt it. I might go along with the idea of more liberal use of topic bans if the bans can be given in a principled way and people can see they are being applied uniformly. Cptnono and Nableezy are mutually restricted as described by AGK. Neither may open a WP:AE request about the other, but they may respond if someone else complains about their editing at AE. They are free to initiate proposals at WP:RFAR, WP:A/R/CL and WP:A/R/A. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Δ[edit]

No action. Forum shopping. Wikihounding needs to stop. Fut.Perf. 10:06, 7 July 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 Δ[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Betacommand_instructed

The text reads "Betacommand is thanked for his contributions to the project but is instructed [...] To refrain from any further instances of untoward conduct". While the "such as" that follows is a specific example, the language is clear that it's an "e.g." not an "i.e."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [8] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 00:49, 5 July 2011
  2. [9] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 17:44, 5 July 2011
  3. [10] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 14:58, 6 July 2011
  4. [11] (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 15:05, 6 July 2011
    In particular, not that this was a reversion of Rcsprinter123's edit of 15:04, 6 July 2011 that had edit summary "it needs the book covers - the policy doesn't cover that." He reverts twice more without communicating with this editor, I believe that this constitutes a violation of his editting restrictions as well as violating the policy.
  5. [12] (remove non-free content overuse) Latest revision as of 15:50, 6 July 2011

There were at least two areas where Δ's conduct was being discussed when these edits took place, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_exemption_of_restrictions. (Please note that I'm not including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#WP3RRN_Delta7July2011 since I initiated that report post facto.) A large number of editors have commented in that thread, many of whom are not previously involved in any disagreement with Δ. There is a subsection of one of those very long pages where a topic ban is being debated, and it continues to trend towards a postive consensus.

Given the ongoing debate, and noting in particular that Δ appears based upon the ongoing discussion at the WP3RRN to not understand the problem, I'm asking for enforcement. I'll be quite direct: I don't have any evidence that Δ thinks he's doing anything "untoward" by continuing these actions, or even by reverting the move of his "loosen the restrictions" proposal. I believe that he's sticking his finger up at the peanut gallery, but probably still thinks he's "technically correct" to do so. However, it appears clear to a large segment of the community that it is untoward to continue any course of action while it is engendering intense debate.

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

I have not warned this user. I'm aware that this misses a tick box, but given the ongoing debate (and in particular this editor's behavior with respect to subpaging, his ongoing recalcitrance, and the general drama-fest) I feel it would be overly paper-pushin' at this point.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
  1. I'd like an "injunction" on Δ doing any more work in this area,
  2. I'd like the ongoing topic ban discussion to be allowed to run its course in some manner
  3. I'd like Δ to be encouraged to continue to develop the proposed solution as it is now on WP:AN, with the caveat that there is clearly no need for him to have restrictions removed for this work to be carried out.
  4. I'd like some finger wagging to be directed at those who continue to enable Δ, to use an unfortunate word. There is a small rant on my part below where I expand on this point.

While it's clear to me that asking for a block would be reasonable, I'm really not trying to "punish" Δ. There do exist people whose opinions I trust who say his programming skills are an asset to the project. And clearly Δ wants to continue to contribute.

It's unfortunate that it's come to this, but I'm hoping for an outcome that will be a net benefit to all.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Wikipedia:Fair use overuse, linked from the edit sumaries, is an essay. Wikipedia:3RR#3RR_exemptions is quite clear in that "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)," [emphasis original]. Per Wikipedia:NFLISTS#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section," [emphasis mine].

When good-faith objection to removals of this type, particularly by experianced editors, has occured across several venues (diffs availible if required) it's clearly not a good idea to keep doing the same thing.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


notified. This sucks, doing this whole thing, it's really a shame. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rant on enablers[edit]

A good deal of this drama (and I don't mean now, I mean the whole long drawn-out saga) could have been avoided if there was not a small-but-vocal proΔ group. I'll frankly and fearless and call out Hammer specifically here. While I can provide diffs if requested, I don't actually believe that anyone who's looked into this for more than one minute will doubt that the cycle tends to be Δ does something, userF reverts, Δ drops a "you'll be blocked" template, userF uses talk pages, Hammer shows up.

The behaviour goes well beyond just cleaning up Δ's mess, escalating not only to smear tactics but to outright childishness. I've only just become aware of Hammer's "somebody stop me!" edit in which, looking at his edits; he appears to increase his NFC removal rate just to make a point.

Speaking only for myself, last week I had no dog in this race. I'd seen the drama many times, had voiced an opinion in a few !votes, but I certainly wasn't partisan. but in the last few days the unrepentant bullying, not by Δ but by his "posse," has really pissed me off. To be blunt. So yes, I do now have a "side" here, but I'm trying quite hard to continue to be calm and reasonable, despite the occasional character assassination directed my way. And, if I'm being honest with myself, regardless of what happens now I'll certainly be on the look out for whomever the next person is that's getting the treatment I've gotten at the hands of the enablers. (Man, I need a better word.)

The tendency of some small groups to form intractable positions and defend them against all comers is one that has led to some of the largest blow-ups we've had: user boxes, spoilers, schools. We really need to develop a better system than the one we currently have, where whomever has the least social grace eventually "wins".

Feel free to blank this section if you think it useful, anyone and everyone. Except Hammer. (No, just kidding, I don't own my edits, blank away if you like.)

Thanks for your eyes,
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Δ[edit]

Statement by Δ[edit]

Im going to be blunt and to the point, Im fucking pissed off at this constant harassment, stalking and wiki-hounding against me. I have time and again proven my actions correct with regards to NFCC enforcement. Most of these users stalk my edits, harass me and are vocal against NFC policy. If needed I can provide plenty of evidence of forum shopping, stalking and un-civil comments directed towards myself. I do regular enforcement of NFCC and there are users who refuse to get the point, or want to ignore the policy. I politely explain things if asked, and I warn users appropriately for repeated violations. (the same thing many NFC patrolers do) however due to the fact that I tend to do the enforcement on a larger scale (and one of the few who is willing to take the shit thrown at me for doing so) I am a target. Most of these users want to see WP:NFCC repealed or at least turned into a spineless ineffective policy so that they can include copious amounts of non-free files in their pet articles, without any regard to our m:Mission or our current policy WP:NFCC. They know they cannot attack the policy directly so they do the next best thing harass, stalk, try to intimidate and drive us away from enforcing policy. I have seem them drive several great editors away by their sheer pointless torment. Because I really dont give a flying fuck about their opinions and instead enforce NFCC as it is written, and have proven that they cannot bully me into moving into another area they are trying to make another end run around policy and shut us up for enforcing policy. I would like to see a topic ban regarding NFC and those who enforce it applied to Crossmr, Georgewilliamherbert, CBM, MickMacNee, Aaron Brenneman, and Buffs. ΔT The only constant 05:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Δ[edit]

Comment by Buffs[edit]

Canens below states "This does not appear to be an enforceable remedy." I would like to know why not? Buffs (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And since Δ has seen fit to respond (no malice/negligence implied), I will respond by saying that I do not have a problem with NFCC nor the manner in which it is generally applied. I have come to agreements with several other users (to include Hammersoft and other Δ supporters regarding NFCC issues and how NFCC are to be applied). The issue I take as do most of those mentioned above, and I can't stress this enough, is with the manner in which Δ applies said policy (which are violations of OTHER policies and guidelines: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, etc). Way, way, way, WAY too often, the root of far too much dramaz is Δ. Δ can work other aspects of this project but actively chooses not to do so. Instead, he continues to press full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes. Outbursts featuring profanity (like the above) are rare, but still too frequent...and they highlight the hostile attitude that permeates Δ's interactions on WP. Recent community discussions had a clear majority opinion (roughly 65-35) supporting Δ's restriction from the NFCC arena. No admin acted upon the request, but the request was closed nonetheless with no action taken or even a closing note. I believe this page is the next step in the process and this certainly isn't forum shopping. Buffs (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
As for the advocation of a block against me, I'd like to see any hard evidence other than "Buffs disagrees with me sometimes"...hardly a blockable offense. I also tend to use far less expletives. Buffs (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment by CIreland[edit]

Closing administrators should be aware that this is basically a request to overturn Spartaz's closure of a recently filed report (also filed by A. Brenneman) concerning the same edits at WP:ANEW. CIreland (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci[edit]

This request seems like a stunt by Aaron Brenneman, who, according to his own statement, has been forum shopping. Mathsci (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the first to comment on this travelling circus. [13] Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment(s) by brenneman[edit]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I'd prefer not to clog up the sections above. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  • @Buffs - Can you provide a link to the 65-35 you mention above? Thank you. Urgh, the link was right there. -_-
  • @Mathsci - Did you miss the bits where I was trying to keep discussion in one spot and was reverted? It's clear to me that this was both a 3RR violation and a restriction violation. Hard to accuse me of forum shopping when I've taken such great pains to point on each forum to the other discussions, I'd have thought?
  • @Mathsci again - The close was, err, odd, and so low-key I actually missed it, asking in a later edit who'd closed it. The close fails to explain anything about why it was closed, why it was not a violation... anything, really, just "this is not leading to a block" (emphasis mine). What does that acutally mean? I'd like a better explanation of that, please.
  • @Beet - Sorry to dash this off, and haven't looked at the diffs, time is precious at this second, but I thought it was important enough to blurt out: but you're correct in much of what you say.
Comment by Beetstra[edit]

So, the edit warring request was closed by an uninvolved admin as 'no vio[lation]', there was clear overuse on the page, and now Aaron Brenneman comes here to enforce it in another way? No, Aaron, you cross-posting it in open discussions was not the Forum shopping, but having this request here after the previous discussion is closed as 'no vio' is Forum shopping to get Delta banned. Yet another chapter in the story of bashing Delta around, and while bashing him around accusing him of not wanting to cooperate (while this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this (until the 5th post in that thread ..), this - decent questions, nice answers). Yes, the focus is on 'Delta does not communicate', 'Delta does not communicate in a civil way'. Maybe those approaching Delta should change their ways?

Aaron Brenneman (and I am talking here as I think you would call me one of Delta's 'enablers'): There equally is a group of editors who bash Delta around on every occasion possible, I would like to see some finger-wagging towards those as well, as those editors do nothing when Delta is approached in a rude way. Those same editors do nothing when editors are edit-warring with Delta where the violation is unquestionable (not saying that the overuse in this article was not unquestionable), those same editors do nothinghardly anything to help solving the problem (but leave the policy violations stand while continuously complaining that they are so friggin' easy to solve). Do I need to go on? And those are exactly the editors who are calling on banning him (for which there is not a massive support), who threaten to block Delta while he is completely right, who keep on yelling that Delta should be fixing the rationales himself (something that is utterly not supported by policy - while having that rationale is supported by policy), who go into edit wars with him because they do not understand why he is removing something, who do not ask questions but yell first, who fail to assume good faith on Delta (because Delta is the one that is obviously wrong, isn't he, even when he is right?). I am sorry, Aaron, I find this attempt at silencing the 'small-but-vocal proΔ group', obviously in an attempt to get rid of Delta, despicable. </rant>

Maybe the ones who show this continuous behaviour of bashing around Delta should be banned from NFC - as far as I see it, Delta is technically right in 99+% of the cases (and the only holding counter argument is, that there are better solutions than removing - well, there has been nothing stopping anyone from doing that in the last 3 years, it has been suggested over and over to get that off the ground), but still the opposers do nothing but yell at Delta, and hardly any significant effort is made to solve the problem (such suggestions were not followed up in the past. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Kusma[edit]

As Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Review_and_future_remedies states, "The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. Nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur." I think three years are sufficient time to see that the underlying disputes and disruptions have not ceased. Clearly further action of some kind is required. For example, ban or topic ban Delta, or disallow any discussion of his edits. Or whatever. It is clear to me that there is a huge battleground mentality by people in this dispute, and that needs to be addressed for the sake of eventual peace. —Kusma (t·c) 10:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Δ[edit]

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

This does not appear to be an enforceable remedy. T. Canens (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm closing this as unconstructive forum-shopping. We have more than enough Delta threads already, and this particular case was treated and concluded at the AN3 noticeboard. The wikihounding needs to stop. Fut.Perf. 10:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy[edit]

Topic ban extended two months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Jiujitsuguy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
nableezy - 03:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC) 03:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Jiujitsuguy (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. 02:32, 1 July 2011 Discussing the topic area, personal attacks (accusations made without any supporting evidence of having others edit on my behalf)
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=437166111 Discussing the topic area
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Diff of notification of topic ban 13:02, 4 March 2011
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

block, reset of topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Since being banned in March, Jiutjitsuguy has done almost nothing except discuss the topic area, on numerous occasions making unsubstantiated allegations about other users. I say almost, because he did make 2 edits one day in an unrelated area, adding a citation request and asking a related question on the talk page. In his most recent activity, Jiujitsuguy makes an absurd accusation that a "a radical pro-Palestinian sock puppeteer" edited on my behalf. I dont know how far email logs go back, but if somebody can check great, but I have never contacted Cryptonio or been contacted by him, and the suggestion that he edited "on my behalf" is ludicrous and has never even been raised before. His next edit was to Sandstein's talk page, where he divides editors as "Western" or "elements with radical pro-Syrian, Pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas, pro-Iranian viewpoints". This followed a prior edit on EdJohnston's talk page where he discussed the topic area here, that he later struck here.

I would not buy any excuse of not knowing the extent of his topic ban based on what happened at EdJohnston's talk page. He would have had no reason to strike his comment if he thought it was not in violation of his topic ban. nableezy - 05:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Where on earth "Topic bans are usually reset only after the third violation" came from is not something I know. But if you insist, violation 1, violation 2, and violation 3. nableezy - 06:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ill repeat the point, Jiujitsuguy was very obviously aware of the scope of his ban. Otherwise he would not have stricken his comment on EdJohnston's talk page. And Chesdovi, you are violating your own topic ban by commenting here. Topic bans include all pages on Wikipedia and bar you from discussing the topic area. Topic bans are reset on violations, see for example here. A reset is necessary because a block will do nothing. JJG is not editing anything, a block does not affect him in any way. A reset will convince him not to continue violating the topic ban and posting disparaging comments about others. nableezy - 12:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

JJG, Courcelles did not impose your ban and did not comment on it. He gave a clarification on the scope of another ban. You were banned from discussing the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia. The admin that imposed your ban agrees your comment is in violation of it. You yourself effectively admitted to understanding that scope when you struck out your comments at EdJohnston's talk page. nableezy - 13:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the fact that JJG's comments are filled with personal attacks should be considered, as it was the reason I came here at all. He accused others of editing "on my behalf" without any evidence. He further divided editors into one of two groups, the pro-Western and pro-Israel and the "elements with radical pro-Syrian, Pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas, pro-Iranian viewpoints". I am sure many of the editors in the topic area would not appreciate the implication made in that division. nableezy - 13:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And finally, the terms of JJG's ban were made clear to him. He was banned according to WP:TBAN, which at the time said this (still does)

For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as: ... discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia

nableezy - 13:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Corcelles comments on an unrelated ban is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the terms of your topic ban, which you showed you understood by striking out the comments on EdJohnston's talk page. Regarding my edit notice, that is true. I should have clarified that unsubstantiated attacks are not covered. Either way, there is more than one example of your violating your topic ban, and your language below about me contains further personal attacks. nableezy - 14:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

NW, if you want to buy JJGs claim that he did not know that user talk pages were covered that is up to you. But it is obviously not the case. When he made a comment on EdJohnston's talk page related to the topic area, he was informed that it was covered in his ban, and he subsequently struck out his comments. Finally, given your off-wiki contact with JJG and the fact that you made an ill-founded indef block based on that off-wiki contact, I question whether or not you can be considered uninvolved on issues related to me and him. Your trigger happy approach in support of him seems very odd compared to your desire to reduce any sanctions here. You completely disregard that both of the diffs here are filled with attacks on other editors, instead calling the disruption "minimal". I dont know about you, but an unfounded accusation of meatpuppetry made against me is not something I consider "minimally disruptive", especially when it comes from somebody who has repeatedly engaged in meatpuppetry, which you know very well. nableezy - 16:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody plan on doing anything here, or is a topic banned editor allowed to repeatedly make personal attacks directed at other users while violating his topic ban? nableezy - 14:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of Courcelles' clarification regarding an unrelated topic ban misses the point. The issue here is not just the topic ban violation, which is both obvious and repeated (again, see JJG's edit to EdJohnston's talk page which he struck when informed that it violated he ban), but that the violations themselves are filled with personal attacks. That has not been addressed by JJG at all, or by any of the other comments either. Even if he were not under a topic ban, his comments were, and are, unacceptable. An unfounded, and in fact bizarre, accusation of meatpuppetry, along with the classifying of editors as being either "Western" or "elements with radical pro-Syrian, Pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas, pro-Iranian viewpoints" demonstrate that there very clearly is an issue here. Forget about the clear cut violation if you want, even without it there is clearly an issue here. nableezy - 18:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified

Discussion concerning Jiujitsuguy[edit]

Statement by Jiujitsuguy[edit]

NW are u fucking kidding? I haven't edited a single I-A article or talk page since my ban and have less than two months to go and you want to sanction me again for asking my banning admin to take a proactive approach? WTF man!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry NW for the profanity. I’ve stricken it. Please see this diff[14] and answer by Courcelles who clarified the breath and scope of the topic ban and declined to issue a sanction against another user who was under a similar ban and commented on an AE dealing with the subject matter. By this interpretation, I could have added comments on enforcement actions (and I didn't even do that!) without violating my topic ban. If I thought otherwise do you really think I would have left a message for Sandstein (the admin who topic banned me) to be vigilant? Let me clearly state that I am more than 2/3 through my topic ban. I haven’t edited a single I-A article, article talk page, AE, ANI, SPI or any thing to do with I-A. In the absence of any other interpretation concerning the breath and scope of the ban, I relied on Courcelles’ interpretation. I have complete respect for the rules and the admins who enforce them. Please AGF and let me finish the duration of my ban unmolested. You won’t hear another peep from me.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein, all I asked was for vigilance and that’s it. In the absence of any other recent interpretation, I relied on the interpretation of Courcelles[15] concerning the parameters of the ban. Do you think I would have left you of all people this message had I known that there would be a problem? For more than four months I have scrupulously adhered to the provisions of the ban. Considering my strict adherence to the ban, the fact that I only have two months left and in light of Courcelles' interpretation, please AGF.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


  • @Tim. Tim, I've nearly completed my topic ban without a single transgression. My mistake was my misplaced reliance on Courcelles interpretation of prunesqualer's ban. He has clarified it and I understand it and will not repeat it. This was not a flagrant, willful transgression, done with intent to flaunt the rules or make some profound statement. It was a non-purposeful mistake and that's it. Do you really believe that I would have left that message on the banning admin's page if I thought otherwise? Whatever, I've repeated myself adnausum and have nothing more to add. I hope that you AGF and just let me finish the rest of my ban, which is nearly complete.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jiujitsuguy[edit]

  • Jiujitsuguy is a rational person capable of productive editing who in many ways represents the kind of radicalized (IMO) editor who needs to be brought in from the cold in my view. Talking to him to try to change his approach to editing would be far better in the long term than simply shutting him down. Unless a way can be found to moderate the approach of intelligent people like Jiujitsuguy through dialog and make it more consistent with the objectives of Wikipedia there is little hope for improvement in the topic area. There are thousands of potential Jiujitsuguy's out there. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Sandstein makes a good point about editing outside of the topic area while topic banned. Perhaps that should be used as leverage in place of ban hammers to see if it helps. Maybe it's better to tell editors that they have to make something like 100 edits outside the topic area for every 1 edit within the topic area rather than simply topic banning them or at least give them a choice between the 2 options. It's form of forced labor that would allow Wikipedia to profit from a real world conflict. There may be some moral and ethical implications I've missed but it seems like a win-win. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • DUDE! JJG, you are going to get yourself in trouble if you cuss towards NW like that. It looks like NW is interpreting "is topic-banned from the area of conflict for six months" as not being allowed to comment anywhere about anything that has to do with the topic area. It is a legitimate interpretation. I assume you interpret it as staying away from articles and their talk pages from your reaction. If that is the case, lets get it clarified and stick to it. A simple misunderstanding isn't worthy of a topic ban but there is no way NW is going to not consider sanctions if you start acting like me. Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Broccolo[edit]

Even if the user violated his topic ban a short block is sufficient for the first time violation. Topic bans are usually reset only after the third violation. Broccolo (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Courcelles , I do not believe topic should be reset at this time. Nableezy himself violated his topic ban a few times as it is seen from his block log. His topic ban was not reset. User:Gilabrand's topic ban was reset only after she was blocked for fourth time. I support NW call for closing this AE with no sanction and I hope Jiujitsuguy understands it was his last warning and will not repeat similar action for the duration of his topic ban. Broccolo (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Timotheus, you might be right about starting imposing indefinite topic bans but this is is not the right situation to do it. If it was a violation of the topic ban it was rather mild and made not in the articles. Similar violations of different bans happen every day. For example Nableezy called fellow editors "jackals". He probably was talking about Cptnono. Nableezy has an interaction ban with Cptnono. Should we go ahead, and ban Nableezy from A/I conflict topic indefinitely? Once again I propose to close this request with no actions. Broccolo (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Chesdovi[edit]

A topic ban means a ban on the topic, not on discussing the ban itself. Jiujitsuguy highlighted some facts and provided a suggestion at Sansteins page. He did not discuss editorial changes to any topic or the like. A topic ban is not a gaging order for heaven’s sake. Chesdovi (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

This report just validates the point JJG was making on Sandstein's page. Considering Nableezy is the submitter of this report (3 reports in a week, is that a record?) rather than its subject, I expect a ban escalating both in length and scope from the previous one. I suggest banning JJG from the whole internet for 3 years. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]

Jiujitsuguy's message to Sandstein not only violates her/his topic ban, it also represents the worst sort of BATTLEGROUND mindset as well as a personal attack. I am more than a little dumbfounded at the notion that AGF allows that sort of thing to be swept under the rug. If I weren't involved in this area, I would have reverted the message to Sandstein and blocked Jiujitsuguy myself. I can't believe that none of you has the balls to do it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer: Where has Jiujitsuguy "backtracked"? Why are the comments still on Sandstein's Talk page?[17] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not looking for blood, I'm looking for an acknowledgement from somebody, anybody, that likening other editors to terrorists is not acceptable behavior. The silence is deafening. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment by BorisG[edit]

I am compelled to re-iterate my claim that tit for tat AE requests made by editors highly involved in I-P (and similar controversial topics) magnify the drama and are not serving the purpose of building an encyclopieda. I suggest we seriously consider Gatoclass's latest proposal. - BorisG (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but where can I find it? Thanks in advance. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
[18]. - BorisG (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Brewcrewer[edit]

This almost daily AE reporting is ridiculous and I am astounded that it is being allowed to continue. JGG made some comments that were germane but tangential to the Arab-Israel conflict. He now backtracked. This can be safely closed now.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz. Ugh, it looks like you're just looking for blood. AE is unabated egregious behavior, not for technical violations, for which there has been an apology. JGG may be guilty of the latter, but we both know an editor or two guilty of the former who you apparently defend without fail at every single opportunity. Please correct if I am wrong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
What? How did I get dragged into this mess? --JGGardiner (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed Brewcrewer. We all know what the problem is. Editors who are here to start trouble are getting off their blocks. Look at the request to lift Nish's (an editor who broke their topic ban multiple times and will be back in the near future). JJG is actually not a poor editor. He really really disagrees with some but as long as he doesn't edit war it should be all good. But let ARBCOM let them back and let the admins patrolling the topic area deal with it in a knee-jerk and inconsistent fashion. Have fun you crazy kids :) Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Cla68[edit]

I agree with T. Canens that you all should start giving indefinite topic bans to these guys. Maybe that would get their attention so there wouldn't be an I/P-based enforcement request posted every week as is currently the case. Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Peter Cohen[edit]

Looking at JJG's recent edit history, he has shown himself incapable of contributing to Wikipedia outside the I/P battleground. Even if his comments on misunderstanding the scope of the ban are taken as made in good faith, the posts he made just show that he is only capable of thinking of Wikipedia in terms of whether his side is treated as fairly as the other side or not with the usual battleground-mentality conclusion of not. This is an attitude we can do without. People who genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia can be shown leniency. (Mbz1 and JayJG come to mind as examples on the I side of the battleground.) People who are just here to push their views should be told where to go. Reset or extend the ban.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Jiujitsuguy[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • That's a pretty clear violation of the topic ban. Suggestions on possible sanctions besides a topic ban reset? NW (Talk) 04:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that at least the post to my talk page violates the topic ban, but leave it to others to decide what to do about it. It's not encouraging that Jiujitsuguy has essentially only edited around the edges of the topic since being topic-banned, though, rather than doing productive work in other areas.  Sandstein  05:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • People that places topic ban notices really ought to spell out what a topic ban entails just so a loophole can be closed. I don't favor a reset currently, but may be persuaded otherwise. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • To Jiujitsuguy, I clarified and made clear the rules on a topic ban that I placed another user on, as part of a pathway towards a lifting of the restriction. This is a looser restriction than the usual language of topic bans. You, however, have no such clarification from either this forum, ArbCom itself, or the admin who placed your topic ban. I agree that Jiujitsuguy is in violation of his topic ban, and suggest a reset and a firm reminder to not come anywhere near the lines of it in the future. Courcelles 23:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Assuming good faith that JJG didn't know that what he was doing is wrong, and taking into consideration the fact that any disruption his edits caused was minor, I'm inclined to dismiss this request and clarify exactly what his topic ban means. @JGG, with regards to Courcelles' diff about Prunesqualer, that's certainly not the traditional way a general topic ban is supposed to be handled. Courcelles had apparently meant to make the topic ban article space only but forgot to specify; yours was specifically meant to cover all pages of the Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 00:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would favor a reset of the topic ban, basically per Courcelles and Sandstein. The lack of evidence of collaborative editing in unrelated topics is extremely concerning especially in light of the current acrimonious climate in this topic area. In fact, I think that we should start using WP:ARBRB-style topic bans for this topic area instead of the usual fixed-duration ones. T. Canens (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Having re-read Sandstein's original ban message from 4 March 2011, I agree with the others here who find this to be a violation of Jiujitsuguy's topic ban. Sandstein indicated that the ban was per WP:TBAN, which is very broadly worded. Penwhale is for the moment against a ban reset, Courcelles suggests a reset, T. Canens favors a reset, NW believes that JJG deserves a clarification, Sandstein does not recommend any particular sanction. A full reset of the ban would be a four-month extension, so I'm compromising with a two-month extension of JJG's topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict. The new expiry will be 4 November, 2011. In choosing this result, I am influenced by the seriousness of the original violation from last March, which asserted misrepresentation of sources, and the fact that JJG has done very little editing in other areas during the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN[edit]

No action against PANONIAN. Nmate blocked three days for a personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning PANONIAN[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nmate (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
PANONIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[19]]

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

PANONIAN is not a is not a problem free editor, he is so to speak an antediluvian edit warrior having been blocked several times [20] who has somehow survived an indef-block on Wikipedia, but because those cases are bygone , right here I do not want to adduce them. Nevertheless, he is a dedicated Wikipedian, who is the author several articles ,all of which have made in very bad English. Also, he is very interested in drawing maps. Many of which have heavily been influenced by strong POV-pushing, and considering that he is a very prolific map creator, he is an enormous pest upon the community's shoulders. However, none of those cases I have been involved in in relation to PANONIAN.

His comport is also oppugnable in connection with the fact that he has also often been expressed his anti-Hungarian viewpoint on Wikipedia. WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE

For instance :

  • [21] "User Hobartimus is one of the reasons why I do not want to log on since he track my edits (when I am loged on) and vandalize articles which I edit. He harasing me for more than 2 years by reverting my edits in numerous articles and accusing me for sockpupetry and other things (this page is an example of it) and I really do not know where to ask protection from his behaviour (and there are other users who were also his victims). The fact is that he is nationalist POV pusher and he will do anything to present that POV in Wikipedia and thus he harasing and accusing other users that do not agree with his behavior"
  • [22] "Finally, if you check edits of user:Hobartimus, you will see that he is involved in constant revert wars with multiple users in many articles related to Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, etc trying to push Hungarian nationalist POV (and other users will confirm this"
  • [23]"And it is very interesting that you (of all people) speak about Greater Serbian nationalism when you are noted Greater Hungarian nationalist who use Wikipedia to "fight" with various Romanian, Slovak and serb editors for "great national cause" - you are constantly involved in revert wars with multiple users trying to push your hungarocentric views for everything."
  • [24] "How nice job, Baxter9 - it is very interesting how some Hungarian editors in Wikipedia are pushing even the most extreme Hungarian nationalistic POV in numerous articles"
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Notified on 4 April 2011 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested
Topic ban on Hungary and Hungarians, broadly construed.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Even thogh these anti-Hungarian remarks are no longer pertinent , recently, something has happened to make them pertinent: I deleted an edit of him [25] ->[26] (one of the sources by which the sentence was backed up was a family blog of someone written in Hungarian, and PANONIAN can't even speak Hungarian, anyway). Soon after,I found myself the subject of a spurious sockpuppet investigation saying that I may be a sockpuppet of two established Hungarian users User:Baxter9 and User:Hobartimus on the grounds that we all are Hungarians ,we consecutively edited the same articles , and that we have the same interesting field, which is hardly surprising that if we all are of Hungarians.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nmate

In the sockpuppet investigation, PANONIAN wanted to put me in touch with even user:VinceB who had been blocked for indefinite time one and a half years before I started to edit Wikipedia ,basing on the fact that I too am Hungarian. Also, it is interesting to note that my interaction with PANONIAN on Wikipedia is dated back to at least two years, and that of Baxter9 and Hobartimus may be even longer. The checkuser investigation was of course declined in which it self -admittedly came to light that User:Buhuhu who too was accused of being a sockpuppet of mine is a sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi, and even he told PANONIAN that that "Logic isn't your strongest point, isn't it? You don't need to be a genius to realize that any of accounts listed by you isn't a sock of Nmate" even before being blocked [27].

I recommend taking into consideration that PANONIAN should be topic-banned from the topic of Hungary and Hungarians for making personal attacks on Hungarian Wikipedians, filling blantantly spurious SPI for block-shoping purposes aimed at me, and for ethinc vilifications aimed at Hungarians, which are incompetible with WP:PILLARS.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[28]

Discussion concerning PANONIAN[edit]

Statement by PANONIAN[edit]

I am not going to waste much of my time to this. Only two things: 1. I admit that I used somewhat "harsh language" in the past during some content disputes, but my behavior improved greatly since then and I am trying to be as polite as possible to other users (including Nmate). Anyway, please see what Nmate actually wrote about me after I requested sockpuppet investigation in relation to his revert warring: "If life were so easy, I would have gotten rid of them one by one as they all are enormous pests upon my shoulders": [29] - this is actually very open threat where Nmate said that he "would have gotten rid of them" (presumably me and other users that supported sockpupet investigation about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nmate ). So, while my "harsh language" was something that I used in distant past, open threat of Nmate is very new and very bad: in another words, "would have gotten rid" could mean that "he would kill me", so this is example of death threat addressed towards me. Also, here is evidence that Nmate in fact started this thread as a sort of revenge to me, which he clearly admitted: [30] - "So then we will meet at ArbCom as my wrath that your recent gimmick caused me, needs to soothe". 2. As for requested topic ban "on Hungary and Hungarians", it is clear that I mostly do not edit such articles: [31] - from my edit count everybody can see that I mostly edit articles related to Serbia (country where I live) and not articles related to Hungary. Only article "Greater Hungary (political concept)" is highly positioned in my edit count, but even that one was not edited very recently by me and even that one is related to Serbia. Also, I do not see any evidence that I ever said anything bad about Hungary or Hungarians. All my "harsh language" that is presented here was addressed to "Hungarian nationalism", which is an political ideology that cannot be equalized with Hungary or Hungarians. I used same "harsh language" for nationalists from other countries in some other discussions and this is only because I have liberal political ideas and I am opposing any kind of nationalism. Furthermore, I am ethnic Serb and I support independent Kosovo - can you find any more liberal person than me? :) So, if I will be on trial because I criticized some nationalistic concepts then direction in which Wikipedia might go does not look very bright. PANONIAN 16:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning PANONIAN[edit]

@Nmate, 1. Listing such old diffs is waste of time and bandwidth. 2. Calling someone a pest right here on the AE page is a personal attack and can get you sanctioned. 3. It appears that sockpuppet investigation wasn't entirely without merit, since the user in question was found to be a sock, just not of you. 4. Accusing someone of bad English when your own English is far from perfect is not a very smart idea. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the case and think the request against Panonian has no merit. Vandorenfm (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning PANONIAN[edit]

This complaint is baseless. At first, it concerns generalised allegations, diffs supporting which are obviously stale. The only relevant and current complaint is about an SPI which, while it may have been a bit hastly, resulted in a sock being identified. Decision:
  1. The filer, Nmate, be blocked for three days for a personal attack made in this very AE (eg "pest upon the community's shoulders"). Nmate has been notified of the availability of such blocks before: [32] so I see no reason why a block now is not appropriate.
  2. No action against PANONIAN, other than (at this stage) informal advice to be quite careful that SPI requests have a proper basis to proceed, especially in heated topic areas. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reenem[edit]

Topic banned for 3 months. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Reenem[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
asad (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Reenem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, WP:Minor edit

Reenem continues to ignore WP's policy on marking edits as minor when they are in fact not minor. All the edits are typically involve changing the status of East Jerusalem from being occupied to either being "captured" or part of municipal Jerusalem. Of course, these are in no way minor edits. In fact, in a topic are so contentious as the I/P area is, it is nothing more than disruptive and sneaky editing practices.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy 
  1. 13/07/11 Changes status of East Jerusalem from being occupied to being "captured". Marks the edit as minor.
  2. 13/08/11 Removes the word "reportedly" from a sentence saying that activists had used gas masks in their attempts to fend off the Israeli navy during the Gaza Flotilla raid in 2010.
  3. 11/07/11 Removes the word "including" when referencing the West Bank and East Jerusalem in an obvious attempt to severe the connection between the to entities -- which is, needless to say, a contentious matter in the I/P area. Marks the edit as minor.
  4. 06/07/11 Adds that Jerusalem is Israel's capital (something that nearly the entire world doesn't recognize) and adds that it is Israel's largest city (which is only true of the population of occupied East Jerusalem is included again something that is very contentious). Marks the edit as minor.
  5. 04/07/11 Removes East Jerusalem from the Mount of olives article and replaces it with "Jerusalem". And again, marks the edit as minor.
Reneem has been warned numerous times about this very situation. 
  1. Warned on 04/07/11 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

I then continued on the same thread to further clarify with Reneem why the edits were being marked as minor -- Reneem never responded.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

topic ban Upon further thought, I think it would be better if Reneem was sternly warned that that continuing the action of marking un-minor edits as minor would lead to further action in A/E and that Reneem gave a statement committing not to continue such actions. Also, if such a warning could be logged here. I think this is a fairly considerable request considering that me and another editor have gone out of our ways to inform Reneem editing like this violates WP policy -- all to receive a insincere response or, my case, no response at all.

Then again, the editor has made dozens of edits and has not once replied on this thread or to the thread on their talk page. I think a block is needed now, if only at least to get their attention. It seems this user also has no interest in working collaboratively. -asad (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This user seems to have a disruptive practice of editing in the I/P area in general (as is evidenced by the numerous complaints by other users on Reneem's talk page about various subjects relating to the conflict).

@TC - You're correct. I struck it. -asad (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow!! -- Yet again, Reenem makes an edit that would be viewed very controversial by many and marks it as minor. I really hope some action will be taken, I think there is no better time for a block than this. Reenem seems insistent on spitting in the face of those who wish to work by the policies of WP. (BTW, this wasn't the first time Reneem made such edits and marked them as minor with regards to the Golan Heights, see here and here). -asad (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[33]


Discussion concerning Reneem[edit]

Statement by Reenem[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Reneem[edit]

Comment by ElComandanteChe[edit]

Reenem is a massive content contributor: 92% of his 20000+ edits are in article space. He had and still have problems with edit summaries, but these have nothing to do with the alleged disruptive editing in the P/I area. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to confirm that the editor does not take part in discussions, does not justify their edits, and does not respond to questions. RolandR (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately, this is not accompanied by edit warring, incivility, stalking and other acts of bravery typical for this board. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Query by Jaakobou[edit]

Why would the mountain of olives be in "East" Jerusalem?? Unlike the removal, whomever pushed this political bit into the lead made quite a provocative editorial choice. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it's in East Jerusalem ? Just guessing. GeoHack - Mount of Olives can help you find your way if you are lost. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
There's a reason 'East Jerusalem' is not a separate city on any map. It's political hackery of the lowest kind shoved into the first paragraph on a neutral encyclopaedia project. Reminds me of a picture I've recently seen with Mubarak Photoshopped to walk in front of Obama instead of alongside Netanyahu -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/egyptian-newspaper-alters_n_719504.html. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Sean's explanation and your objection is perfect proof of how it was an entirely disruptive edit when Reneem removed "East" and marked the edit as minor. In the end, this thread is about marking un-minor edits as minor, not about Jerusalem vs East Jerusalem. But thank you for demonstrating the contention in the subject area. -asad (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Any objection here shows a preference to politically motivated polemics over a proper first paragraph on an encyclopaedia. Although not as obvious, it is akin to vandalism. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
OUTSTANDING I've had the fortitude to click on the 'zoom in' button a couple times in the link provided by Sean. You know what it said? Jerusalem (not "East Jerusalem"). As such, I reiterate my initial statement that, unlike the removal of this borderline vandalism (akin to the image of Mubarak), whomever pushed this political bit into the lead made quite a provocative editorial choice. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

@Ed - FWIW, in the diff you gave the law does specifically apply to Palestinian residents and not all residents.

I agree that Reenem better come over here and defend himself before he finds himself smacked with a restriction completely disproportionate to what he's been doing and his history of previous sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Chesdovi[edit]

Am I allowed to comment here under Topic ban? Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to add something to what Jakobau has said? Chesdovi (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Chesdovi, you're not allowed to comment here unless someone makes a complaint about *your* editing. In that case you would be entitled to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I complain about Asad's editing in this area? Chesdovi (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
You can't post here or at any admin noticeboards since you would be complaining about Asad's editing of I/P. You are "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, for one year." EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
That was the reason why I was banned this time, b/c I brought a case against Asad from 5 months ago, (okay, it was in response to his report against me, but still). You see, if in one year I complain about things now, I wil get banned again and Asad will kept on with his edit style! Oh well, sometimes you can never win. Chesdovi (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Peter Cohen[edit]

It's about a year and a half since Reenem was last blocked and that was shortened after discussion. Rather than jumping straight to a long block or topic ban, mightn't a short block attract his/her attention, at which point you might be able to engage him/her in a discussion about the original issues raised?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by jd2718[edit]

I'm concerned that Reneem's editing, with few summaries and non-minor edits marked as minor, extends beyond the bounds of this arbitration decision. And he's prolific. And he tends to edit in more controversial areas. His contributions show this, and his talk page is littered with it. Get his attention (block). He needs to commit to (accurately) summarizing his edits for other editors to see. Jd2718 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Ohiostandard[edit]

Reenem's editing style came to my attention for the first time last month after he undertook a strongly POV 3 and 1/2 hour rewrite of one of our most contentious articles, Gaza flotilla raid. I objected and, along with other editors, tried to address his changes on the talk page; that extensive effort is very fully documented in these three sections.

That AGF effort was entirely wasted with respect to Reenem: He ignored every editor who contributed to the talk page, despite the strong consensus there that he needed to discuss such sweeping changes. He didn't make even a single response to any concern raised about his desired changes, but in subsequent editing sessions simply reinstated them.

Reenem does not use talk pages to work with other editors. It's my impression that he thinks it's more effective re his goals here to simply try to unilaterally rewrite the articles to suit his POV, rather than to engage in any consensual or collaborative effort.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Mirokado[edit]

A lot of my time was also wasted with the incident mentioned above by Ohiostandard. Reenem is still failing to provide edit summaries for that article. (For full disclosure, I have just reverted those changes, see the edit summary).

I suggest that the admin taking action address both the concerns raised in the comments here – inappropriate marking of edits as minor and lack of edit summaries – as they both make it systematically difficult for other editors to review the changes made.

We need admin action to "encourage" Reenem to edit responsibly because the only practical way a normal user can deal with a succession of such edits is to revert them wholesale straight away. We would then of course hit 1RR on many of these controversial articles and might appear to be hounding Reenem or being petty. I have already provided an objective criterion which I will use when deciding to revert unexplained edits. --Mirokado (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Reenem[edit]

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

Unless I missed something, diff #4 was not marked as a minor edit. T. Canens (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Since this AE request was opened, Reenem has continued to edit and has not responded to any messages left on their talk. They are still marking edits as 'minor' on I/P articles that are not minor. The most recent was this one, at Racism in Israel, which changes 'resident' to 'Palestinian resident.' Since User:Reenem won't reply or negotiate, if we consider this issue significant our only option is to impose a block or restriction. For example a ban on labelling any edits 'minor' on I/P articles for three months. Another possibility is a 24-hour block. The problem of the minor edits which are not minor has continued for several months, judging from their talk page. They have pushed other boundaries as well. The editor was warned that they broke 1RR on Itamar attack on 6 June. They did not acknowledge the warning or undo their edit. Reenem has already been notified under ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • We can't have editors refusing to engage with others when making contentious edits in a difficult area. Propose a 3 month ban from all I/P related articles. Spartaz Humbug! 04:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Spartaz. T. Canens (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur with my colleagues, a 3 month topic ban, with a crystal-clear warning that if problems return in October, the next one could well be permanent. Courcelles 04:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This request has been open for a whole week now, and Reenem has had ample opportunity to respond, yet failed to do so. Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators above, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Reenem (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all non-Talk namespaces for three months. Reenem is allowed to participate in discussions related to the topic area. Should Reenem be able to demonstrate their ability to engage with other editors, this ban may be lifted early; conversely, continued refusal to discuss with editors with good-faith concerns may result in extension of the ban, up to and including for an indefinite period. T. Canens (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru[edit]

Topic banned for one year. T. Canens (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning QuackGuru[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
DigitalC (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
QuackGuru (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 

User:QuackGuru has an extensive blocklog based on disruptive editing, and has a previous WP:RFC/U which was filed but s/he failed to participate in ([34]). Mediation has been attempted ([35]). S/he was cautioned multiple times ([36]),([37]) about tendentious editing at articles covered under Pseudoscience sanctions, and subsequently blocked for 2-weeks for violating the sanctions ([38]). S/he was further topic-banned for 6 months from Chiropractic-related articles due "Due to persistent edit warring and general disruption of the editing and consensus process,"([39]).

This behaviour continues, and continues to be in an area that appears to be covered under the ArbCom sanctions.

  1. On July 7, QuackGuru made a mass of sweeping changes to the Chiropractic article, including removing sourced text without consensus ([40]), where this text had consensus to be included not only in the article, but in the lead ([41]). The lack of consensus to change this part of the article had been noted earlier the same day [ When this exceptionally bold removal was reverted, instead of taking his controversial edits to the talk page, he instead re-reverted ([42]).
  2. There has been extensive discussion at Talk:Pseudoscience ([43]) and WP:FTN ([44]) over the use of a source (Matute et al.) to verify text inserted into the article. There was consensus that the source was not suitable in the way it was being used, or at the very least no consensus for its use. On July 8th QuackGuru made major changes to the article without discussion on the talk page, and in doing so inserted the Matute reference without consensus ([45]). When this was reverted - noting the lack of consensus - ([46]), QuackGuru re-inserted the text again ([47]). When reverted by another editor ([48]), QuackGuru re-reverted (2rr) - and claimed that that editor supported the use of Matute ([49]).
  3. There has also been disruption at Vertebral artery dissection. QuackGuru has proposed a change in text (in regards to chiropractic manipulation), which was not supported by editors on the talk page. This again centered around the use of a particular source, and spanned multiple subsections of the talk page. The article was stable for quite some time, but QuackGuru then proposed at an unrelated article talk page ([50]) to change the article. Despite having no consensus to make the change, and apparent consensus to not make the change, QuackGuru made a major controversial change to the article ([51]). This contentious edit was reverted ([52]), to which QuackGuru made a similar edit ([53]). This was reverted by another editor ([54]), but QuackGuru made the change again ([55]). This lead to the article being locked.

[Edited to add: It has come to my attention that the issues at Pseudoscience have previously been referred to ArbCom as well - see [56], [57] & [58]. [Edited again - moved from sandbox page and attempted to fix red links] DigitalC (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

[Edited again - 12 July 2011 - to add the following:] The following is copied from Hans Adler's comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence.

Some AN/ANI sections concerning problematic behaviour:

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 29 September 2008 by FT2 (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 1 October 2008 by Lifebaka (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested
9 month topic ban on all pseudoscience related articles, broadly construed.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The summary above shows evidence of multiple blocks, and continuing disruptive editing across the area of pseudoscience articles. The main issue is a failure to abide by consensus, and reversion instead of discussion. The last topic-ban, at 6 months, was apparently not enough to prevent this type of behaviour from recurring. A longer topic-ban, or alternate remedy should be considered.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&action=historysubmit&diff=438700979&oldid=438700443


Discussion concerning QuackGuru[edit]

Statement by QuackGuru[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning QuackGuru[edit]

The evidence on the sandbox page does not appear to rise to any sufficient level for the penalty sought, IMO. Collect (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Jojalozzo[edit]

QuackGuru has been advocating doggedly since last fall for the use of a research paper (Matute et al.) as a source in Pseudoscience. The consensus there and in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard (where QG recently sought support for his position) is that the paper is not suited for QG's proposed use. As I understand it, one of the reasons for this enforcement request is QG's recent edits in Pseudoscience that included the disputed use of the paper in violation of consensus and two reversions of other editors' attempts (including mine) to enforce consensus.

I find QG's discussion style tenditious, accusatory, repetitive, and notable for not-hearing. QG's talk page posts often consist of cryptic prose interspersed with links to policy and old diffs and unexplained quotations from Wikipedia articles and journal papers. I have rarely received a response to requests for clarifying explanations. I have not seen QG back down gracefully from a dispute even when doors are held open and I have seen little sign of skill in handling interpersonal friction. The result is a pointless standoff that drives many participants away and sucks all joy from the work.

The cost to the project in energy and time expended on this single proposed use of one research paper is disproportionately large. As I understand it, this experience is being repeated in other articles and has been going on for years (see here). There is no indication that QG is able to correct this behavior beyond regular periods of lying low and unfortunately this ducking down has been rewarded with shortened bans and leniency despite the lack of real behavioral change. Even with the proposed remedy, the most it appears we can hope for is nine months of respite before we are all back at it again on the same issue or something similar. There are those who see another side to QG and advocate for mercy but in my experience the costs significantly outweigh any benefits. Jojalozzo 05:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

While QG has not participated here, s/he left a good example message on my talk page (not the first by any means) since I posted the comment above. It is representative of the discussion style I have described though understandably more accusatory. Jojalozzo 20:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


Ten days into this request for enforcement and still QuackGuru resists consensus at Talk:Pseudoscience and continues to insist those in opposition to her/his proposal repeat their reasons. Not only is this more evidence of not hearing about that dispute but also not hearing about this request. Jojalozzo 02:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Becritical[edit]

My views on this subject are here. I've had only one slight interaction with this user since, but it's obvious my opinion does not need modification. And I do not see any reason for a topic ban: an indef block is called for. BECritical__Talk 02:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


I think this exchange is a good microcosm of why we're here:

On the contrary, you are involved (in the content dispute) and have refused to collabrate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Telling you I don't want to be involved doesn't equal involvement. I made one comment on the Pseudoscience talk page, months ago. BECritical__Talk 04:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's from here. QG saying I'm "involved" in the content dispute and "refused to collaborate" after one comment months ago is one of those things that reminds me of the quote from Mein Kampf, where he says that the people are suspicious of little lies, but since they don't tell big lies themselves, they aren't suspicious of big lies. Sorry to pull the Nazi card :P Ah here it is [60] I do notice this principle at work on Wikipedia sometimes. In this case QG is basically pulling so much chutzpa that he's unlikely to be challenged, or so that refutations seem weak by comparison. BECritical__Talk 13:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Disclosure: I just made an edit to the Chiropractic talk page having to do with consensus and QG. BECritical__Talk 18:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by DigitalC[edit]

I have been asked to further substantiate this request, which I find suprising given the overwhelming evidence of disruption, especially looking at the second to last ANI thread. I was told that it is needed to show that "there is something unusual about the current situation that marks it as more than a routine content dispute", which I think should be clear from the fact that his disruptive editing has persisted for years, across many areas, but largely focused on topics related to pseudoscience. He has been involved in multiple ArbComs, and this current case shows that it is not simply a content dispute because the behaviour is spread over three articles, with three separate disputes.

  • At Chiropractic, there was consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_33#Changes_needed_in_the_LEAD],[61]) to include the source (Bronfort et al.) in the article, and no consensus to remove it. QG's edit was to remove this source against consensus ([62]), even though at least 4 people supported its inclusion and he was the only one who did not support its use.
  • The issue at Pseudoscience also involved the use of a source, (Matute et al.). At FTN it appears QG was the only one arguing for use of this source, with 5 dissenting editors. An RFC was conducted at the article talk page, with a referendum showing 5 users supported removing the content, with only QG disagreeing ([63]). A poll for consensus was also conducted ([64]) which did not show consensus for the sources use - editors who contributed to the discussion were generally against its use, while editors who supported its use generally did not respond to follow up questions/comments. Despite knowing s/he was editing against consensus, QG inserted the content & source into the article ([65]) and edit-warred to try to keep it there.
  • QG was also editing against consensus at Vertebral artery dissection, where 6 editors appeared against his changes, with only QG supporting the changes. ([66],[67]), yet made the change anyway ([68]).

Editing against consensus is not a content issue, it is a conduct issue. Wikipedia by necessesity relies on a collaborative editing process, which cannot work when editors ignore the input of others (WP:IDHT?). This behaviour is not limited to one article, and the behaviour has continued for years despite previous sanctions. DigitalC (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish to reinforce DC's position, that we are not asking for resolution in the current disputes. Where there are supporters for QG's position we should be able to resolve our differences quietly ourselves. These disputes are only live examples of a years-long problem of tenditious editorial conduct that shows no signs of abating or responding to administrative action. We are asking for an end to QG's not-hearing, uncooperative, POV-pushing, debilitating style of participation. Jojalozzo 01:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Ocaasi[edit]

QG is a difficult editor to work with. He slings policy violation accusations around and he always interprets policy extremely narrowly to support his views. When he finds consensus against him he posts long a accusatory talk page comments. When they are ignored he waits for a few weeks before starting again.

QG has an extremely literal interpretation of policy and a declamatory way of speaking to other editors. In practice it means he will take any quote from any peer-reviewed source and restate it in an article as plain fact. He does not think editors can consider the quality of the source, the context of the source, the quality of the quote (whether it is a passing statement or a researched conclusion), the claim being made, alternative sources, or anything involving editors' discretion. He then tells other editors who disagree with them that they are violating policy; he states this as a simple fact without attempt at communication, consensus, or compromise.

What particularly bothers me is his response to other editors' good faith attempts at collaboration. I recently tried to write some pseudoscience/public-health text with User:Orangemarlin and QG continued slinging accusations and criticism on OM's talk page where he was neither involved nor invited. Talk page thread (midway down and in collapsed box).

This behavior has a chilling effect at articles. Simply, people don't want to deal with QG's objections and accusations when they have constructive suggestions to make, and they don't want to hear his policy declarations when he has suggestions to make. They get tired of hearing the same arguments over and over and not having their own opinions considered. QG has tired out some of the most mainstream and respected editors I've come across on the entire project with his narrow views, endless point-making, and generally uncooperative approach.

Given that, I'd like to try something different to redirect his editing efforts. Perhaps a topic ban, perhaps a mentor, perhaps an agreement not to accuse editors of violating policy. I'm not sure what the community feels is best but I think some explicit guidance for QG would be helpful.

Comment by Jfdwolff[edit]

My only disagreement with QuackGuru has been over the phrasing of 1-2 sentences on vertebral artery dissection, an article which I brought to GA status earlier this year. I am not given to support pseudoscience-based treatments such as chiropractic, but QuackGuru's approach has found me siding with his opponents. I refer to DigitalC's statement, which shows that QuackGuru started fisking the content of vertebral artery dissection on Talk:Chiropractic. A revert war ensued, followed by the article being protected in the "wrong version". QuackGuru has not persuaded anyone that his version is any better. His almost robotic insistence on using a particular source that has demonstrable weaknesses has been mind-numbingly frustrating, and I personally can still not get used to his habit of mockingly echoing someone's response. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by QuackGuru[edit]
pseudoscience: I am offering a cmt by DreamGuy which is still relevant to the current personal disgreement with reliable sources. Do you accept the text is sourced from a reliable peer-reviewed source. See this diff. See diff. See diff. See diff. These diffs show I tried to explain the text is relevant. Do you accept that with certain articles editors are unable to justify there edit. For example, an editor wrote The source does not support the claim(s).. But I did provide V on the talk page. Does anyone agree the edit did not match the edit summary. I think this is a serious matter of WP:WEIGHT and I propose the dispute be taken the the NPOV noticeboard where uninvolved editors could participate and determine the WP:CON based on Wikipedia policy and not a disagreement with mainstream research.
chiropractic: I did not delete the report from chiropractic completely. I removed the text that failed verification, however.
vertebral artery dissection: Ernst E (July 2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 330–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755. This source is not relevant to VAD (WP:COATRACK) while editors are unable to provide V for the text that is OR.
I might have convinced editors that the text is closer to NPOV version and possibly better.
Ernst E (2010). "Vascular accidents after neck manipulation: cause or coincidence?". Int J Clin Pract. 64 (6): 673–7. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02237.x. PMID 20518945. I propose to replace the coatrack source with the relevant source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If you take a look at the article history there are other editors that do support the inclusion of the public health matters. There were comments in favor of using the source for the public health issues.
I am waiting for admins to close the three named debates to determine CON, especially for the pseudoscience page. According to CON editors must abide by CON. This is not my rule. This is Wikipedia's consensus for all editors. As for the pseudoscience article a possible compromise is to quote the source so there won't be any issues about sourcing. I realise there are WP:FRINGE editors that will be part of the consensus process. QuackGuru (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Hans Adler[edit]

There is nothing much to add to QuackGuru's bizarre claim that he has "CON" on his side in all those discussions. But it's worth repeating what Becritical said above: This is not just about pseudoscience. QG behaves like this in all areas in which he is active; it's just that he is more active in pseudoscience-related areas, overall, than in others. I had a similar dispute with him 1 1/2 years ago at Talk:Citizendium#editorializing?. Then 1/2 year ago at Talk:Citizendium#Won't someone please think of the article?, you can see how QG made it clear to David Gerard and SlimVirgin that they can't rewrite the article because he owns it. A topic ban would probably channel QG's activity to non-pseudoscience topics, which is a good thing only insofar as this would lead more quickly to a full, indefinite site ban. Hans Adler 06:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by WhatamIdoing[edit]

I have waffled about posting anything. I don't have anything positive to say about this person, and Wikipedia is not generally made a more collegial place by publicly telling people how badly they're failing. I generally avoid QuackGuru as a hopeless waste of time unless the article turns up on a noticeboard, in which case I try to do my bit to resolve the dispute. I no longer believe that QG has the WP:COMPETENCE to be a successful editor. No amount of mentoring on Wikipedia is going to change that.

A typical discussion with QG looks something like this:

QG: I say it's foo.
Six other editors: No, it's not foo.
QG: I say it's foo, and I have a source that says so.
Six other editors: No, it's not foo, and your source has the following flaws:...
QG: I say it's foo, and I have a source that says so, and I say you haven't provided V.
Six other editors: No, it's not. Your source is badly flawed, and here are three high-quality sources that say not-foo.
QG: I say it's foo, and I have a source that says so, and I say you haven't provided V, and I say that the CON is that it's foo.

While I'm aware that the community consensus could vest with a single individual—one good editor plus the community "outvotes" any two spammers you care to name—but it is astonishing how often QG believes that uniform opposition from multiple experienced editors, or very lopsided majorities directly opposing his plans, is somehow proof that everyone agrees with him ("consensus"). Query: If the consensus really was with QG, then why is his version almost always successfully edit-warred out of existence? Isn't "lots of people keep removing my stuff" pretty much the definition of "no consensus to include my stuff"?

I'd love to have another competent anti-garbage editor. QG, unfortunately, isn't going to be that person. I think we would actually be better off without him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning QuackGuru[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Some people might consider this to be a simple content dispute at three different venues. But if QuackGuru is clearly reverting against consensus, some action could be taken. The problem is determining what the consensus is. I suggest that the submitter, DigitalC, ask at a noticeboard for an uninvolved admin to close the three named discussions: those at Chiropractic, Vertebral artery dissection and Pseudoscience. This AE request might be put on hold temporarily, without prejudice, while waiting for those threads to be closed. I observe that QG has been topic-banned from chiropractic for as long as six months in the past, and his current behavior is getting close to the line. If he agrees to accept the consensus in the three cases, action may not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • My check of the Pseudoscience debate indicates that consensus is against including the Matute reference as a source for the public-health significance of pseudoscience. I would welcome an assurance from QuackGuru that he will refrain from restoring this reference again as a source for the statement "Pseudoscience related issues are a critical matter that involves public health" until consensus changes. Are there any other AE admins who are not on vacation? I'd welcome assistance in checking consensus in the other cases, chiropractic and vertebral artery dissection. I suggest that if QuackGuru is willing to respond here and discuss the issues, that would be a favorable event. We could then adopt a closure of this AE which results in settling the three named disputes. If he won't respond here, we should consider imposing editing restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I wish more admins would join in here, but the way this is going suggests a restriction is needed. The submitter requests "9 month topic ban on all pseudoscience related articles, broadly construed." At first this seemed excessive, but the tone of QuackGuru's submissions suggests that he is not open to any negotiation about his style of editing. His behavior in the three discussions reported in the complaint matches #9 in the essay on WP:Tendentious editing, "One who repeats the same argument without convincing people." Jfdwolff, who I might have guessed would often be joining with QG to defend mainstream medicine, asserts above "His almost robotic insistence on using a particular source that has demonstrable weaknesses has been mind-numbingly frustrating.." EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Taking into account the evidence by DigitalC (which I find especially compelling) and the long history of non-constructive contributions, I support the proposal to topic-ban QuackGuru, and am willing to support one with a duration of nine months (though I would have opted for six months unless there are previous topic-bans that I have missed). Also, thank you to Ed for keeping this process ticking over while the rest of us enjoy the summer :). AGK [] 23:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I broadly concur with EdJohnston and AGK. T. Canens (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    • One caveat: given the extensive history here, I cannot help but think that a WP:ARBRB-style indefinite topic ban would be a better option. T. Canens (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Due to the long history of problems, the persuasive evidence from DigitalC and the agreement by two other admins that some kind of topic ban is needed, I am closing this request with a one-year topic ban of QuackGuru from both pseudoscience and chiropractic, broadly construed. In response to AGK's question, the previous ban was six months from the topic of chiropractic, enacted by Risker in August 2009. Since there is no apparent progress in QG's approach to editing pseudoscience topics since the previous ban, a doubling of the duration is logical. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Communicat[edit]

One week AE block, and then blocked indef for persistent disruption. T. Canens (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Communicat[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
HiltonLange (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Communicat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II#Communicat_restricted
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

User Communikat (talk · contribs), who claims on his talk page to the same user as Communicat (talk · contribs), has started editing the South Africa article. Most of his edits have been reverted or challenged by editors at that page, and he has almost immediately resorted to personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.

  1. 5 July 2011 Accuses Nick-D (talk · contribs) of stalking and hounding him.
  2. 16 July 2011 Accuses Edward321 (talk · contribs) of vandalism after a single revert which Edward321 clearly justified with a lengthy edit description.
  3. 16 July 2011 Accuses Edward321 (talk · contribs) of a pattern of disruption and harassment, referring to previous interactions they have had on other articles. (Final paragraph)
  4. 16 July 2011 Claims that Edward321 (talk · contribs) has a history of hounding him.
  5. 16 July 2011 Concludes that Edward321 (talk · contribs) intentions are not to improve the article. (Final paragraph)
  6. 18 July 2011 Accuses me (HiltonLange (talk · contribs))of being too busy with "edit warring, disruptive point scoring, exagerated claims, importing external disputes, reviving WP:DEADHORSE, expressing WP:IDHT, painting rosy POV pictures, ignoring the warts; and all the rest.". (Final paragraph of the edit)

I have tried to read the arbitration history, but am not previously familiar with Communicat, but two other aspects concern me. He claims that he is free to use Communikat under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, but that policy specifically excludes accounts under sanctions to evade scrutiny. User Communicat is still under restriction from previous rulings. Additionally, he has revealed on his talk page that he is Stan Winer [(diff)], author and publisher of http://www.truth-hertz.net. Since most of his previous conflicts seem to be around trying to get editors to accept that website as a reliable reference, and he has repeatedly used it to reference his edits, isn't that an intentional attempt to sidestep WP:OR, or even a kind of sock puppetry?

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  • User was blocked 6 weeks ago for violating the same sanctions. [[69]]
  • User was blocked 1 month ago for violating the same sanctions. [[70]]
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Since multiple sanctions against the user have not changed his behavior, and he has repeatedly over the course of many months and multiple dispute resolutions continued to violate his restriction from attacking other editors, he should be blocked.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Communicat's page
Communikat's page


Discussion concerning Communicat[edit]

Statement by Communicat[edit]

I intend contesting this matter within one week, when time permits. Watch this space. Communikat (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary

This request should be dismissed as premature. The requesting party has not attempted properly to resolve his complaints through discussion as per WP:DR. Editors on both sides of politically charged subjects can rationally discuss their positions, find common ground, and unemotionally document their differences. Nine hours after filing his enforcement request, the filing party manifested a willingness to resolve through appropriate discussion a certain issue of contention. I declined pending withdrawal, if any, or formal conclusion of his AE request. I believe the filing by him of his AE request was impulsive; and he is using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

The requesting party further and inappropriately resurrects immaterial issues that have already been comprehensively dealt with and attended to previously in extensive Arbcom discussion. The conduct of the requesting party is itself inappropriate and open to scrutiny.

Others named below have deliberately induced a climate of hostility by introducing tendentious references, as hereand here, to earlier Arbcom proceedings and enforcements affecting me. No matter how ostensibly “polite” the language used, it is unacceptable per WP:CIVIL “… to attack a user who ... has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee.”

I believe the foregoing to be a direct result of my past, present, longstanding, well-documented and continuing efforts to introduce NPOV encyclopedic content while countering systemic bias, viz., bias through omission.

Background

The South Africa article at issue is part of a project rated “B-class, Top-importance”. The article displays an “improvement” tag dating back to 2008. Prior to commencement of my editing there, the article had been dormant and otherwise inert for at least a month, both in article space and at discussion page. The requesting party, by his own admission, had not been noticeably active at the article prior to my involvement there; and he had not been active at all in the three months period preceding my current involvement at the article. Since involving myself at this article, I have collaborated amicably and productively with one other editor, htonl (talk), Two other parties implicated by the requesting party in this matter had never worked on or shown any interest in the article prior to commencement of my editing there. For my part, I am a South African national, I live in South Africa, and I have in-depth professional knowledge, familiarity with, and understanding of the topic. The bulk of my cumulative, past 360 edits in [71] article space, have been at the related History of South Africa article, and about 40 edits have been done at South Africa. It is true that certain South Africa article content is controversial by virtue of the article’s nature; hence the inevitability of at least some controversy arising during the course of discussion and editing. It is also true that I am not responsible for the inherently controversial nature of the topic or its subject matter, nor should I be held personally responsible for same.

Following the commencement of my efforts to improve the article, there was a sudden and predictable rush of WP:HOUNDING, producing a frenzy of reversions and/or deletions of my content edits, including in-line deletions that were not edit-summarised as reversions. The content reversions and deletions were IMHO gross violations of editing rules including especially WP:PRESERVE. This to the extent that the revision history itself eventually became so confusing it was almost impossible to follow, as corroborated by astute editor notoni with whom I was collaborating productively. Reversions and interference by Edward321 included the substitution by him of inaccurate and misleading text; to replace accurate text and refs contributed by me. (diff and revision history missing without trace). The disruptions further include reversion of accurate text and reliable refs on the grounds that the source is a “corrupted” file that allegedly could not be read. Nobody else actively editing at the time experienced the same purported “problem”, nor was the inappropriate reversion reinstated by Edward321. Earlier, Edward321 had reverted separate edits by me at History of South Africa, citing falsely my topic ban on World War II and its aftermath as “justification” for the reverts, which very clearly had absolutely nothing at all to do with topic from which I am banned. The reverts were IMO done in bad faith and they amount to acts of vandalism. I believe this to be part of a wider pattern of harassment and disruption. It is interesting to note from revision records that when I temporarily halt my editing, everyone else involved seems to cease activity as well. I assume they have nothing better to do with their time other than make editing unnecessarily difficult and unpleasant for me.

Rebuttals

Re: (Communikat)… accuse(d) me (HiltonLange) of being too busy with "edit warring, disruptive point scoring, exagerated claims, importing external disputes, reviving WP:DEADHORSE, expressing WP:IDHT, painting rosy POV pictures, ignoring the warts; and all the rest.".

In fact, the requesting party has misread / misunderstood my “accusation”, which was in reality directed not at the requesting party (HiltonLange) but directed at user Edward321. Edward321 has not been named as a party, nor is there any evidence that Edward321 has formally been notified by the requester. Edward321 has himself not complained, neither here nor at the article discussion page or anywhere else related. The requesting party’s charge should therefore be disregarded. Note should also be taken of the requesting party’s evident propensity for misperception and misrepresentation. I would have provided detailed evidence to prove a persistent pattern of harassment, disruption and apparent vandalism on the part of Edward321, had he become formally involved here and complain accordingly. This applies equally to the five further instances of “personal attacks” and “bad faith assumptions” claimed by the requesting party. Since diffs do not provide comprehensive context, arbitrators may care to acquaint themselves with the full context of the forgoing, by reading and understanding this thread and this, and perhaps especially this.

Contrary to HiltonLange’s charge that I have "attacked" him, I am in fact the only editor who has supported him in his article improvement suggestions.

In fact also, I did apologise to him even though his perception of a personal attack on him was evidently misconstrued. My verbatim apology reads: "I'm interested only in improvement of this article, with specific reference to content, not to person. Please assume good faith and accept my sincere apologies if my comments have been perceived as otherwise." [72]. He has evidently failed to accept my apology even though, strictly speaking, the apology to him was actually unwarranted. Moreover, his claim of a personal attack, regardless of whom it was directed, hardly falsl within the meaning of WP:NPA#WHATIS, and this too was brought to his notice in the same diff.

Alleged sockpuppetry: RE: (Communicat) … claims that he is free to use Communikat under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, but that policy specifically excludes accounts under sanctions to evade scrutiny. User Communicat is still under restriction from previous rulings. Additionally, he has revealed on his talk page that he is Stan Winer [(diff)], author and publisher of http://www.truth-hertz.net. Since most of his previous conflicts seem to be around trying to get editors to accept that website as a reliable reference, and he has repeatedly used it to reference his edits, isn't that an intentional attempt to sidestep WP:OR, or even a kind of sock puppetry? The suspicion of alleged “sockpuppetry” was comprehensively interrogated, dealt with, settled and dismissed after lengthy discussion during my recent request for clarification. He is apparently attempting to undermine me by reviving a WP:DEADHORSE, with which he has apparently not even bothered to familiarize himself. Thus, while alleging “bad faith” on my part, Lange himself exhibits bad faith in extremis. He makes serious charges against me while at the same time acknowledging that he is not familiar with the background to those charges. That is hardly a convincing demonstration of his own good faith and/or integrity.

HiltonLange claims I have “repeatedly used” my website http://www.truth-hertz.net “to reference (my) edits”. Lange provides no evidence to support his false claim, nor does any such evidence exist. The small matter of truth-hertz.net relative to World War II and the Cold War was IMO resolved a long time ago, in fact nearly a year ago, after I had made some embarrassing mistakes while still learning the WP editing rules, which took some getting used to. I am not responsible for the subsequent lynchmob behaviour of those who persist in resurrecting the issue. They include Edward321, whose actions earlier drew this remark from one other editor, addressing Edward321: “Your continued attacks against Communicat are starting to look more like a personal vendetta. I suggest you stop. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)”

HiltonLange’s claim is unfounded, it is immaterial, it is a personal attack, and it is a further instance of WP:DEADHORSE in an apparent attempt to undermine and discredit me, for whatever reason. I challenge HiltonLange to provide any evidence whatsoever to support the innuendo that my new username may be “an intentional attempt to sidestep WP:OR or a form of sock puppet” to “evade scrutiny” (as if that is at all possible). I took a new username because my former unsername was self-cancelled six months earlier, and I did not know how to reinstate it. It’s as simple as that. While alleging “bad faith” on my part, HiltonLange himself exhibits bad faith in extremis. The following sequence of events is also noteworthy:

Sequence of events

14:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC): Communikat (talk) suggests at discussion page that all the “pretty pictures” at South Africa article page give the page an appearance of a “tourism brochure” conveying a lopsided POV of the country. [73]

04:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC), HiltonLange objects strongly to my suggestion that the visual POV is biased. He also claims falsely that poverty among the indigenous population is ”not at all” a major problem. Citing questionablestatistics, he states South Africa ranks only “between 10th and 20th ranked” on the world scale, (out of 192 countries recognized by the United Nations), which in HiltonLange's disputed view means poverty in South Africa is “not at all” significant.

20.03 UTC, 18 July 2011, ): Communikat (talk) complains “someone here:” fact Edward321 had deleted important poverty statistics … the issue of poverty / inequality is something that someone here seems determined to underplay at best or, at worst, avoid almost entirely … I'm open to correction and/or reasoned debate.” [74]

20:45 UTC, 18 July 2011 Communikat posts: “The apparent bias through omission, implied above, is wholly consistent with the fact that the History section of the article mentions the word "slaves" just once, merely in passing, and without any reference whatsoever; while the word "slavery" is similarly mentioned just once, (also just in passing and without citation). Whereas, in historical fact, slavery played a very substantial part in the country's history. I need convincing this article is not biased, perhaps even racist, in its omissions." [75]

Just 12 hours later, at 09:12 UTC, 19 July 2011, HiltonLange files Arbcom enforcement request on grounds of “personal attacks” etc.,

IMHO his filing of the request was impulsive and a knee-jerk reaction to my criticism of the article's apparent racist POV bias and touristy appearance. Moreover, HiltonLange's expressed views on the subject of poverty in South Africa mirror closely / are virtually indistinguishable from a highly discredited minority POV and attitude of poverty denialism still prevalent in South Africa.

It is reasonable to suspect in terms of WP:COMMONSENSE, and given the above sequence of events, that HL’s filing of his enforcement request here (as proxy for an editor who has in fact not complained) is not genuinely motivated by the manifest reasons he has stated, but is motivated instead by latent and unstated reasons, for which the manifest reasons are intended by him to serve as a surrogate. I am open to legitimate correction in this as in everything else expressed here.

Response to Nick-d statement: This administrator, in supporting the filing party, has replicated in his statement here the content of a misplaced “motion” filed by him in recent opposition to my request for clarification. Arbcom disregarded his motion then, and should disregard as immaterial the replication of his “motion” here. It is noteworthy that when I have cited WP rules, it is construed by Nick-d as a “personal attack”. Nick-d seems unaware of the accurate meaning of WP:NPA#WHATIS,. Moreover, when I make just one reversion under the 3R rule, it is construed by him as “edit warring”. His own conduct, meanwhile, is of course beyond reproach. All the relevant diffs and links are contained in the archived record of my request for clarification.

Response to T Canen question

Canen, citing WP:INVOLVED whatever, recused himself from my earlier request for clarification. Now he has decided paradoxically to present himself in this present matter. Previously, since my return to editing after a six-months break, Canen has blocked me twice for one-week periods at the request of Nick-d, citing infringement of editing restrictions. On the first ocassion, the block arose in part because I was unclear about the scope of my topic ban, nor did anyone care to enlighten me. On the second ocassion, in order to establish clarity on the scope of my topic ban, I attempted to engage Canen and filing party Nick-d in relevant discussion. They failed to respond. In my subsequent request to Arbcom for clarification, four parties concurred that the wording of the topic ban were unclear and warranted clarification. A lesser number of arbitrators disagreed. I also requested that the decisions and conduct of T Canen be reviewed. My request was disregarded. All the relevant links and diffs should be contained in the archived record of my request for clarification

Incomplete record

Regretably, the record of my earlier request for clarification as referred to in some of the foregoing is incomplete; some postings have been deleted and there is no revision history of same. As already mentioned in the “Background” sub-section above, a separate diff and its edit history also seems to be missing without trace. Presumably, only administrators have the tools to remove material without the revision history remaining on record.

Closing statement

In related discussion during my request for clarification, I asked for an interaction ban relative to Nick-d, Edward321 and myself. My request was disregarded. If Arbcom wants to grant that request now, then so be it. If Arbcom wants to dismiss as premature the current request for enforcement, then so be it. If Arbcom, in addition to topic banning me from World War II and its aftermath, wants to impose also a ban on my improvement of the South Africa topic, then so be it. If Arbcom wants to site-ban me, then so be it; it will save me the time, effort, bandwith and general unpleasantness of having to deal persistently with what has the all the characteristics of a lychmob mentality. In any event, based on past performance, it is predictable that discussion of this current matter will drag on interminably with the same, tired old arguments being resurrected tediously and refuted likewise. I have had more than enough of that. It is unlikely that I shall be responding further. I can think of more deserving causes for the voluntary donation of my time and bandwidth. Communikat (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Communicat[edit]

It's worth noting that this is not only a continuation of the previous article-space related conduct for which Communicat has since twice been blocked since returning to editing a few weeks ago, but also that he made similar attacks on other editors as part of the recent request for clarification (see the diffs I included at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II#Proposed motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat). This is a very consistent pattern of behavior. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears Comminukat is continuing his copy-pasting problem.[76] His third sentence - "Editors on both sides of politically charged subjects can rationally discuss their positions, find common ground, and unemotionally document their differences"[77] is lifted directly from another source without attribution.[78] Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Communicat[edit]

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

Can anyone tell me why an indef is not a good idea? T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't. Though my reading of the enforcement motion only allows for a week long block. The rest would be on your own authority, but as far as I can tell a good call. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And done. One week AE block + indef. This has gone on long enough. T. Canens (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Your action is appropriate, given that Communikat seems unable to reach consensus with others. Unless we want to *give* him all these WWII articles so he can slant them according to his personal POV, there seems no way forward. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Matthead[edit]

Blocked for one week. T. Canens (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Matthead[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Arbitration enforcement topic ban (WP:DIGWUREN) regarding editing Polish related information
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 13 July 2011 First recent edit in Polish related topic
  2. 20 July 2011 Deletion of information about anti-Nazi resistance of Polish minority in Germany


Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Warning and short block.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Matthead has been banned from editing Polish related topics due to : habitually engaging in battleground-like conduct related to nationalist issues involving Poland and Germany" from "from the topic of Poland and Poles, broadly construed. For the avoidance of doubt, the topic includes subjects which are or were only partially Polish, or whose Polishness is disputed (by you or others), and the ban includes all articles, other pages, parts of pages and discussions related to the topic"

Recently it seems Matthead started to try to edit Polish related information on Wiki. While the first edit was small(although violating the ban), the second indicated return to his old ways, by including the removal of information regarding presence of Polish minority in Germany and its anti-Nazi resistance movement during Second World War and concealing that removal in edit summary--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested[79]

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Matthead[edit]

Statement by Matthead[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Matthead[edit]

Result concerning Matthead[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Not entirely buying the first diff as a violation (I know zero German though), but the second diff is a pretty clear violation of the topic ban. Blocked for a week. NW (Talk) 20:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the first diff is also a ban violation. Józef Tusk was Polish and apparently a member of the anti-Nazi Polish resistance during WWII. Matthead's ban should not allow him to edit articles about Poles. In any case the one-week block is a reasonable response. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

JerryDavid89[edit]

Indef blocked due to violation via multiple accounts, confirmed by CheckUser here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 17:27, 1 August 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 JerryDavid89[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
AnonMoos (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
JerryDavid89 (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. 05:29, 31 July 2011 Re-adding sentence which was a controversy magnet, and which the editors involved in editing the article who have expressed an opinion on the matter have decided is not useful in that form in that place in the article.
  2. 06:24, 30 July 2011 Re-adding sentence which was a controversy magnet, and which the editors involved in editing the article who have expressed an opinion on the matter have decided is not useful in that form in that place in the article.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 29 July 2011 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 07:26, 26 July 2011 by Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Anything that will get him to finally pay some attention, and stop ignoring what other people have been telling him.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Also resorted to anonymous IP socks to get get his precious sentence into the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine article (as can be seen from the article history), which takes it far beyond 1RR.

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks.2C_bad-faith_and_slow_edit-warring

In response to his comment below, "05:29, 31 July 2011" minus "06:24, 30 July 2011" is 23 hours and 5 minutes, obviously less than 24 hours. This incident could be viewed as relatively minor in itself (if the anonyumous IP edit-warring is ignored, that is), but it's symptomatic of his general disregard for community norms and the concerns of others, and so in that respect is not "frivolous" at all... AnonMoos (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JerryDavid89&diff=442314110&oldid=442072335

Discussion concerning JerryDavid89[edit]

Statement by JerryDavid89[edit]

It's one revert for 24 hours right? More than 24 hours relapsed - so there's no violation. Right? Now, as for the accusation that I've used "anonymizing socks" or whatever, I invite any admin on Wikipedia to look up my technical details (if they have that facility) to verify that I haven't been using any additional computers. I have nothing to to with those 174. IP edits. Either they are just someone who agrees with me, or, judging my AnonMoos evidently unstable temperament, probably him trying to set me up so he could file this frivolous Enforcement Request. Will s/he be punished for this? (also AnonMoos, I'm female) (JerryDavid89 (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I don't know what numbers I was looking at there. Math was never my strong point! I've self-reverted. JerryDavid89 (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
AnonMoos, would you be able to explain to us exactly what you mean by your "Arabic motto" on your userpage?: المتبرجة خير من الإرهابي المنتحر
Should I take that as a "no"? JerryDavid89 (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Sean.hoyland[edit]

I have to say, you look like a sockpuppet of a previously banned user. Are you ? You're female you say ? Ever been to Bisbee Arizona ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What the hell....? I'm not even American, and I've never been to Arizona! :-D Are people allowed to behave this way on Wikipedia??? JerryDavid89 (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for answering. Can you provide an honest yes/no answer to the part about whether you are a sockpuppet of a previously banned/blocked user ? I ask simply because you look like one to me. You're edits don't look like those of a new user. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
No. That much should be obvious. Have you seen how many mistakes I've made? I'm not your Bisbee, Arizona sockpuppet, perhaps you'd like to try someone else? Please go ahead. Fire away.
Now, in the mean time, can admin please address this? Surely there must be some kind of sanction for falsely accusing someone of being a sockpuppet? JerryDavid89 (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for answering. Now that you have answered that question there is no reason for anyone to ask you that question again because you are on record as having said no. That means that the only place this issue can legitimately be raised again is if someone files an WP:SPI report against you with evidence to support the case. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
You're weird. JerryDavid89 (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to your opinion although it's not really pertinent or reliable. It's in your interest and other editor's interest in the topic area that someone ask you whether you are a sockpuppet of a previously banned/blocked user and that you answer it once. If it isn't me asking you here it will be someone else, somewhere else. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
"You're welcome to your opinion although it's not really pertinent or reliable." Lulz! When was the last time you took a vacation? Or left your computer alone more than two days? In short, I think you need to get a life buddy. (not to mention a job!) JerryDavid89 (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the concern but I have the kind of life and work that most people can only dream of so from my perspective what you said makes you look very foolish. You should try to be less combative in your dealings with editors and be more open to their advice about how to conduct yourself and edit Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
"Thanks for the concern but I have the kind of life and work that most people can only dream of" - Lulz. Yeah, most people dream of being on the internet all day, saying things that make themselves look like an utter plank. "You should try to be less combative" - You just accused me of being a sockpuppet! No apology? Hmm.. seems pretty combative to me! JerryDavid89 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't help you to manage your emotions, sense of injustice or how things seem to you, nor do I care about that. I'm only interested in verifying that you are complying with policy. Apparently you don't have the level of maturity necessary to collaborate with others in Wikipedia without causing conflict, at least in this topic area. You've already demonstrated factual, social and bias-based incompetence and immaturity. Editors need a basic level of competence or else they have a net negative effect on the project and the people who volunteer their time to contribute to it. On that basis I think you should simply be topic banned for now. If you think my assessment is incorrect you can demonstrate that it's incorrect by being a good editor in other topic areas. Editors often have a bad start and recover. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000[edit]

JerryDavid89 edits in an arrogant uncooperative style that will cause endless dispute if it isn't moderated. Take this example [80] where her response consists of "You seem to be unaware of basic historical facts" and an accusation of lying. She seems to have one or two books which she copies out of with little understanding, consider "The [Zionist] movement effected British administration of the province during World War I, resulting in the Balfour Declaration of 1917", while everyone knows that the Balfour Declaration preceded the British administration of Palestine (which hadn't been a province since Roman times) by many months. Sometimes appears to have good sources, eg here but actually just copies them from her book (Rose) in violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (leading to an incorrect report of the source). Here we see her making a major edit without comment and marking it as minor. Zerotalk 07:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed a very disturbing pattern here. I edit an article to do with Israel-Palestine, and I'm immediately bombarded by reverts and accusations from several different editors with a very clear agenda, based on nothing, or almost nothing, whatsoever. Also, the double-standards, the brass-neck on these fellows. Take the above example, Zero says "an arrogant uncooperative style". Maybe there's some truth to that (but then so far, it has been difficult for me to take this whole process seriously, since Wikipedia seems so far to me to be more like a massive mudslinging contest than an encyclopedia project). But then in the very next sentence he says "She seems to have one or two books which she copies out of with little understanding". Oh, really? And then some added sophistry, due to the construction of a sentence of which I wasn't the author of! (Balfour/Mandate) Then he seems to assume that I don't have access to JSTOR and/or other online journals by his next comment. When I delete something, so far I have constantly been told "Assume Good Faith" - but my adversaries here seem to have done EVERYTHING but. I am quite confident that a coterie of editors in this subject area are exchanging emails for cooperation to further their agenda on Wikipedia. That's the only explanation I can come up with for this coordinated, extremely fast-acting harassment. JerryDavid89 (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
"a sentence of which I wasn't the author of", really, is that a reasonable summary? The sentence was ok until you changed it into a nonsense claim that the ZIonist movement caused the British administration of Palestine (a preposterous Protocols-like claim). Then after I reverted you, you put the nonsense back with the charming edit summary "read your history books buddy". Later, with the bizzare comment "grammar", you changed it further, making it chronologically impossible. Zerotalk 10:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. The sentence contained a factually incorrect statement (that "the British", which one would assume to mean the Government and Colonial Office, "supported" the Zionist movement. Now, anyone who's read even a single work on the issue, would know that this is an incorrect statement. So I altered it. Then, as you pointed out, it was grammatically screwed. So I altered it again - having the unintended effect mentioned hither. Is that the best you can do btw? You're putting in all this effort to have me banned? Aren't you embarrassed at how petty you look? More importantly, aren't you embarrassing yourself and your little coterie by how desperate you appear to silence a dissenting voice? JerryDavid89 (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
"embarrassed"?, "petty"?, "little coterie"?, "desperate[sic]"? — wow, I wonder how you would behave if you were in need of defending yourself. No, wait, you are! Zerotalk 11:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Why did you put "[sic]" after "desperate"? :-) JerryDavid89 (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I take back the "sic". Zerotalk 12:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking further back in the contribs (but only 3 days), this personal attack deserves a block by itself and illustrates the attitude which JerryDavid89 brings to Wikipedia. Please do something about it. Zerotalk 11:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll happily take a block for confronting a blatant bigot. If that's what comes down to, simply to show the nature of the beast. As I said on that page, I have a higher ethical code to adhere to than that of Wikipedia policy. If they tolerate active bigotry, let it be on their heads - not mine. JerryDavid89 (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I'm sure you will enjoy exercising your "higher ethical code" somewhere else. Zerotalk 11:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning JerryDavid89[edit]

Comments by George

Hi JerryDavid89. Was wondering if you could you explain how you initially came across the articles on Gilad Atzmon ‎and gender apartheid? Thanks. ← George talk 10:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC. Why? JerryDavid89 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, well I guess I'm curious: Why CarolMooreDC? Let me explain. You made your first edit to Wikipedia on July 22. A week later, you made your first edits to the articles on Gilad Atzmon and gender apartheid, two articles CarolMooreDC was actively editing. During that first week, you edited about seven different articles, but what struck me as odd is that CarolMooreDC hadn't edited any of those articles in literally years. So it seems unlikely to me that you came across CarolMooreDC's contributions by looking at the page edit histories. However, your edits to the articles CarolMooreDC was actively editing and your charges of antisemitism against her did seem to curiously coincide with a post on WikiBias that described CarolMooreDC's edits as "antisemitic". So, I'm wondering what led you to edit the same articles as CarolMooreDC? Are you familiar with WikiBias? ← George talk 18:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
No. But now I am. Thanks. JerryDavid89 (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. What led you to look at CarolMooreDC's edit history, when you had edited no articles in common with her? ← George talk 23:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments by CarolMooreDc

JerryDavid89 has accused other editors of being disliking Jews. Here (vs. me) with a long paragraph saying things like: Do you have some problem with Jews? You think too many Jews live in DC? He then admitted it was a personal attack, saying he didn't care about Wikipedia policy here. He later made an implied insult in reply to User:Malik Shabazz here, saying I don't think Malcolm Little was very fond of Jews either...]. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See also this sockpuppet report. RolandR (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning JerryDavid89[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
JerryDavid89 blocked indef by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) due to results of SPI investigation. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 17:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)