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



Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is warned for the 1RR violation, but no further action is taken at the moment. T. Canens (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Wikifan12345[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
RolandR (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [1]
  2. [2]

This editor was topic-banned for eight months. The topic ban expired yesterday, and he is already breaching the 1RR policy, of which he is well aware.

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

Given this editor's long history of edit-warring, his several blocks for this, and the previous AE case, a warning is unnecessary.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Topic ban should be reinstated.

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


Discussion concerning Wikifan12345[edit]

Statement by Wikifan12345[edit]

  • Wait, wait. The first edit wasn't a revert - I was restoring material removed (without explanation) literally months ago. Then it was removed an hour later claiming the source was an "activist" (not true) and made the one revert. Did the very first edit count as a revert? I honestly did not know. I will strike the edits or something. Thanks. The real issue why cited content would be removed without a solid rationale - especially from an Admin like Zero. WikifanBe nice 22:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • George - Perhaps because the edit is predicated on a solid, reliable source? Run a check-user, now. I don't want this AE to turn into accusations of sock-puppetry. It was a single edit. WikifanBe nice 22:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In any case, the content itself mostly remains because Avraham rewrote it using a better source. I thought Jewish Virtual Library was a reliable source and used it frequently prior to my talking ban (largely because they cite secondary sources - Bard just hosts the site). Zero's original revert seemed rather reactionary. Again - did not know the first edit counted at a revert. It's not like the content itself was bad because it is now in the article. So can we move on? WikifanBe nice 22:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • @Kevin I didn't know restoring an edit made a year ago is considered a revert, 3rr and 1rr doesn't provide a timeline or anything. I think this is a very trivial matter and I would have self-reverted my edit had I know it was considered a 2nd revert. Also, are non-admins allowed to respond in the "results" section. As far as I know Kevin is no longer and admin. I remember AE used to be very tight on the rules for posting but this discussion seems to be everywhere. Is there a precedent of an editor being punished for something like this? WikifanBe nice 05:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345[edit]

Comments by Malik Shabazz[edit]

Please note that Wikifan identified the first edit above as a revert of this edit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The first edit wasn't a revert - I was restoring material removed (without explanation) literally months ago. A "revert" means any edit ... that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. Since when is restoring material that has been removed from an article not a revert? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Had I know this material was being put in and reverted out by several users during my talk ban (I wasn't active in this area for 8 months) I would have definitely gone to discussion and ask what is going on. You knew enough to identify Ohiostandard in your edit summary as the editor who removed the paragraph, but you didn't didn't bother to look at the subsequent edits in which that material was restored and removed again? Unbelievable. If true, this raises questions of WP:COMPETENCE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Malik, it's hard to respond to your edits when you modify them during my own response. I got an edit-conflict notice. I didn't get a chance to respond to the COMPETENCE accusation (which is an essay anyways).
Okay I see what you're saying. Here is the original edit. Almost made a year ago. So, restoring the content today (my own edit) - that counts as a revert? The first edit was not a restore, it was an ordinary contribution. It was apparently removed during my ban so I re-added it, again an ordinary contribution right? Perhaps the content got lost in a serious rewrites or something, it wasn't there. I then saw Zero's revert - a revert with a very, very poor reasoning especially for an admin - and restored the content again. I've never seen this happen before and I think this is sort of trivial considering the content is still in the article. I congratulate Roland for taking the time and energy to look so deep into my editing history. I wouldn't have known 1rr was so strict that year-old edits are considered binding.
Also, yeah I didn't bother to check every edit made in the last 8 months to see if my same edit was part of another edit war I had no part in. How you consider that as "unbelievable" doesn't make sense to me. The content is in the article (restored by an admin), I'm telling you I did not know my first edit counted as a revert, and Zero's revert was clearly reactionary. Is my topic ban going to be reset because of this? WikifanBe nice 23:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You see, Wikifan, here's the unbelievable part. You went back through the article's edit history and found that Ohiostandard removed the paragraph in May (three months ago, not one year), you even mentioned that in your edit summary. Ohiostandard's edit summary was "Delete passage cited only to extremely POV, non news org page". The next edit summary, from All Rows4: "good source". I reverted, writing "it's not a reliable source; see the archives at WP:RS/N". As I wrote, you managed to identify Ohiostandard's edit, but you missed the next two. Unbelievable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't see the other two edits. Is it really that unbelievable? The edit summaries did not say "reverting Ohio standard." It simply said "good source" and your edit summary didn't say anything about Ohio or JVL explicitly. If your summary was explicit I would have looked at the diff. WikifanBe nice 23:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by George[edit]

Hmm, am I the only one concerned that less than two hours after Wikifan's second revert to that article, All Rows4—a user with only 20 edits ever, from two days in May—shows up to revert back to Wikifan's version? ← George talk 19:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

One of which was identical to today's reverts by Wikifan. RolandR (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I've told Roland this, but I'm pretty sure editors cannot respond to comments in another editors box. If this isn't the case and we can respond to claims - for the record, I have no idea who this All Rows character is. So any insinuation of sock-puppetry should be moved to the appropriate board and proved before being used here as "evidence." WikifanBe nice 22:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the quality of the edits themselves, you have to admit that it's an odd coincidence that an editor who only edited Wikipedia for a couple hours three months ago should happen to show up and revert to your version when you're at your revert limit. I suspect they're a sock or meat puppet of someone, but I'm not convinced that that person is you, or I would have already opened an SPI case. The question for me is whether it's someone you might know, someone with similar viewpoints that is familiar with Wikipedia, or someone trying to make it look like they are you (trying to frame you). ← George talk 22:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
George, it is odd but I didn't even see the edits. Had I know this material was being put in and reverted out by several users during my talk ban (I wasn't active in this area for 8 months) I would have definitely gone to discussion and ask what is going on. My edit was made in good faith, I wasn't trying to war with someone and I didn't know restoring content basically a year ago can count as a revert. I really, really didn't know that counted as a revert. I would have self-reverted if given the opportunity. If someone is trying to frame me - that discussion should take place elsewhere IMO. The revert policy doesn't explicitly define a timeline and like I said I wasn't around for 8 months. WikifanBe nice 22:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I believe Wikifan's explanation that he didn't consider his first edit a revert. While he may have known that he was undoing edits made by another editor, in my book reverts do have some age limit. Say there are two sentences I think should be removed from an article, and they were added five years ago. I remove the first, then someone undoes it. I remove the second, unrelated sentence, and someone undoes that as well. Both of those sentences were added by someone at some point, meaning that removing is a revert of added material in a way, but I wouldn't consider that a violation of 1RR. This case is a bit more borderline than my (contrived) example, but I'm just making the point that beyond some time period it's no longer beneficial to consider removing material a revert. ← George talk 23:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you George that means a lot. Like I said, I didn't know my first edit was a revert - I definitely, definitely wouldn't risk my rights over edit-warring the day my topic ban ends. I would have self-reverted if I knew the first edit was considered a revert. WikifanBe nice 23:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by ZScarpia[edit]

Apologies for making what may be a digression, but I'd like to comment on one of Wikifan's comments.

Wikifan wrote: In any case, the content itself mostly remains because Avraham rewrote it using a better source. I thought Jewish Virtual Library was a reliable source and used it frequently prior to my talking ban (largely because they cite secondary sources - Bard just hosts the site).

As can be discovered easily, the JVL has been discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard on a number of occasions, such as this occasion in 2010 and this occasion in 2008. It's clear that there is significant opposition to the use of The JVL as a reliable source. At best, the consensus is that JVL articles should be judged, according to who their authors are, on an individual basis. Specific objections were made about articles by Mitchell Bard, the author of the article Wikifan was using as a source to validate his edits. Strangely, even though Bard is clearly credited as the author of the source, Wikifan is claiming that "Bard just hosts the site." In the RS Noticeboard discussions, no evidence has been produced which indicates that any kind of editorial oversight is carried out. No evidence has been produced which supports the view that the organisation behind The JVL, American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, should be accepted as a publisher of reliable material. According to one comment, some of the articles on The JVL are lifted from Wikipedia, which, if true, indicates clearly that The JVL should not be accepted unconditionally as a reliable source. In any case, for anything apart from proof of the opinions of the authors, The JVL cannot serve as anything but a tertiary source for which it would better to find reliable secondary sources.

Adding text in ignorance that identical text was deleted by another user at some time in the distant past is one thing, but from Wikifan's comments it's clear that he knew that he was undoing a previous user's edit. Probably, in the same situation, it would have occurred to a less rash editor, particularly one who has just completed a long block ban, to wait a day before re-adding the same text. It would also probably have occurred to a more careful editor to open a talk page discussion before re-adding text over the objections of two other editors who say that the source is not reliable. Instead of immediately reverting a reversion of their edit, asserting that the previous editor was incorrect about their source's reliability, that careful editor might have asked on what basis their source was being called unreliable, in which case they would have been pointed to the prior RSN discussions.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Zero claimed Mitchell Bard was an activist, which clearly isn't so. The source itself includes footnotes from third party sources - some reliable (Jpost, etc). Painting academics and scholars as "activists" seems pretty POV to me and like I said before reactionary. As you say JVL should be judged according to an individual basis, but as far as I know JVL has not been ruled out as an unreliable source. I know there has been lots of noise at noticeboards complaining about JVL but no red lines have been made right? If JVL is not a reliable source I'd like to know. But, this discussion is not about JVL but about an apparent 1rr violation. So anyways. Your comment while informative doesn't add a whole lot here. WikifanBe nice 05:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Bard, an ex-editor of Near East Report, the newsletter of lobbying organisation AIPAC, "clearly" isn't an activist? Well, the producers of site Broader View, which I think can be fairly characterised as pro-Israeli, think he is (look at the second paragraph).
The intention behind the 1RR restriction on I-P articles is to reduce disruption. The purpose behind my comment being to explain why I think you were acting disruptively, I don't think that it is irrelevant. There were a number of desirable ways of acting open to you, none of which you took. You could have slowed down and waited a day or more before applying your second revert. You could have opened a discussion before editing the page further. You could have looked in the RSN archives to find out whether there had already been a discussion of your source. Wikipedia editing is supposed to be a process based on consensus. It becomes a problem, then, when editors are deaf to opinions that counter their own and insist on carrying on regardless of objections.     ←   ZScarpia   12:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not debating the logic behind 1RR restriction. You are saying JVL is a problematic source and thus each page should be judged individually (I agree). I am being accused of violating 1rr, I said - quite simply - I didn't know at the time edits made moons ago are considered binding unrevertable edits. It seems my edit fell within the "grey" area of 1RR. The content itself is perfectly fine - an editor (admin) simply sought a more acceptable source. I could have done loads of things but I didn't see my edit as dramatic as you do. And Zero's rationale behind his revert didn't seem that convincing when the source included third party citations within. And Bard is not an "activist" end quote. Is there a discussion at RSN that specifically refers to that source about the security barrier/wall/etc? Like you say, all sources should be judged on an individual basis. The drama this case has generated is truly amazing. I would understand if this was a crazy out-of-nowhere edit but the content remains and I'm not challenging 1RR. But, perhaps administrators should amend 1RR so these sorts of disputes don't arise in the future? At best one could argue this was a technical violation, but not deliberate disruption. But I guess you could file a separate report if you believe enough evidence exists to support such an accusation. WikifanBe nice 12:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Zero[edit]

I don't know if Wikifan broke 1RR or not, but I know he is pov-pushing just like he always did in the past. This Mitchell Bard thing is a typical example. Is it reasonable to cite the Executive Director of a major advocacy organization as if he is a reliable third-party source, without as much as an "according to..", on a subject well covered by independent academics? Is the Pope a Lutheran? Zerotalk 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You described a peer-reviewed academic as an "activist." Bard has written dozens of books on the Middle East and edited the opposing view point series which is a great resource because it includes lots of views on Israel/Palestine. Any more accusations - sock-puppetry, disruption, POV-pushing, etc - should be moved elsewhere or stricken from the record. WikifanBe nice 14:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page, where I'm entitled to charge you with anything that I honestly believe you to be guilty of. As for Bard, what I said is entirely correct. Even the Jewish Chronicle thinks he's an activist. And read Bard himself, and here too in glowing promotion of activism. Someone who writes "the strategy I’ve outlined here before of beating the drum for Israel" in a newspaper is not an activist? You have been here a long time; did you really not know that putting Bard's assertions into sensitive articles would cause immediate disruption? Zerotalk 14:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess you could say he is an activist in the sense that he is an advocate for Israel. The way you said it sounded somewhat pejorative. But, the content remains - the information in the source was strictly data and statistics. We could just as easily describe Finkelstein, Morris, LeVine, and all the other academics as "activists" under your personal definition because they associate themselves with pressure movements. And yet we can cite their books - a book I just posted above. Blogs aren't reliable source, and as you know we can't include information from his own website. As far as I know JVL has not been blacklisted as an unreliable source in spite of the various RSN complaints and your dislike of Bard. Right? WikifanBe nice 22:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek[edit]

Warn and close this quickly before it gets ridiculous. If he does something like it again, folks can link back to this very discussion then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Wikifan12345[edit]

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

This falls rather neatly into the grey area of xRR rules. I'm of the view that we do have a 1RR violation here (i.e., the first edit is a revert), but that the situation is sufficiently ambiguous that only a warning is required. T. Canens (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan already appears 6 times in the enforcement log for ARBPIA, so I would think that any ambiguity should go the way of those who have so far avoided such mentions. In my opinion, an extension of the topic ban would be in order. Kevin (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


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

Request concerning Dighapet[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Vandorenfm (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Dighapet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:AA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [4] Massive editwar attacks that removed dozens of edits of 4 editors, which expanded and improved the article since June 2011.
  2. [5] editwar revert without any explanation made while under sanctions. Unexplained accusations of POV.
  3. [6] editwar revert without any explanation made while under sanctions. Unexplained accusations of POV.
  4. [7] major emotional attack displaying ethnonationalist battleground attitude WP:BATTLEGROUND, with exclamation marks and threats.
  5. [8], editwar revert. Unexplained accusations of POV.
  6. [9] major emotional attack displaying ethnonationalist battleground attitude WP:BATTLEGROUND, with shouting/exclamations.
  7. [10] major emotional attack displaying ethnonationalist battleground attitude WP:BATTLEGROUND and threats to editors. Frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry, harassment per Wikipedia:HARASSMENT, and incivility per Wikipedia:CIVILITY.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 22 March, 2011 by Dr.K. (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 13 April, 2011 by 2over0 (talk · contribs)
  3. Warned on 30 April, 2011 by Kuru (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

User:Dighapet is a serial and convicted disruptive account in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 conflict area. I would dare to say he never made any useful contribution to Wikipedia in terms putting out text on substance, references or new topics. Most of his edits are editwar reverts, oftentimes with unsubstantiated accusations of POV, and with highly emotional battleground attitude as per WP:BATTLEGROUND, which eventually brought about a long revert ban that expired on 29 July. His last “accomplishment” was a massive act of editwar where he unmade over 100 edits by 4 editors on the Nagorno Karabakh page. Nagorno Karabakh’s page had lately been seriously enhanced with dozens of new references, images and new topics. Disagreements were thoroughly and usefully discussed in detail on talk pages [11]. User:Dighapet ruined all that good work [12] less than a week after being released from a three-month-long revert ban [13].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Comment by Volunteer Marek[edit]

Sigh. First, the fact that the filer of this report has gratuitously sprinkled terms like "editwar attack" and "editwar revert" and "major emotional attack" throughout the report immediately suggests that this is another case of ban-shopping via use of hyperbolic language. Reminder: disagreement and criticisms are not by themselves "attacks".

As to the specific diffs

  1. 1 - Yes, these are substantial changes and they should be discussed on the talk page first. If he keeps doing it without discussion then we have a problem. As is, it is not the province of AE to decide content matters. "Massive editwar attack" is itself an example of emotionally charged battleground language.
  2. 2 and #3 - what are these sanctions that are being referred to? I see no edit warring by the user on the article either, so again, this is just inflated language. A charge of "Unexplained accusations of POV" is spurious. For one thing he's not accusing any one editor of having a POV (and if he did, so what? All editors have POV), just saying that the article may be POV. This might or might not be a legitimate criticism, but again, this isn't the venue to decide that kind of thing.
  3. 3, #6 and #7 - what is this charge of "major emotional attack"? There's no "attack" here. And even if the commentary was "emotional" in this case (which I don't see), this isn't sanctionable per se. Nothing wrong here.
  4. 6 and #7 more specifically - "displaying ethnonationalist battleground" - there's some abuse of question marks here but this isn't sanctionable (not until Mr. Question Mark brings up a report). There's a sock puppeting accusation which may or may not have merit, and/or it may or may not be an example of a battleground attitude. The first sentence of the SP accusation appears to be true. The second one, at least at this point involves speculation. Ok, this is a little strong but again, nothing horribly wrong at this point. There are no "threats to editors" here and the reporter should be sanctioned for misrepresenting diffs.
  5. 5 - again, there's no edit warring here, contra the reporter's claim.

Basically this looks like frivolous block-shopping by Vandorenfm with little substance. AE is not a means to inflame or continue battleground behavior. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Institute a month long topic ban on filing AE reports or at least a warning on Vandorenfm.

Comment by Gorzaim[edit]

User:Dighapet is combative drive-by POV pusher, remorseless and tactless edit warrior who should be put back into the straightjacket of revert bans. I am tempted to qualify his latest act in the Nagorno Karabakh not as "edit war attack" per Vandorenfm but as vandalism but am not sure if this meets the technical specification of the vandalism. In essence it is. He removed all of my edits by frivolously accusing me of sockpuppeting. Gorzaim (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Dighapet[edit]

Statement by Dighapet[edit]

I don't understand emotional report by Vandorenfm but I will answer him here to his charges.


1. This revert that I reverted is from the time when Bars77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) began messing the article Nagorno-Karabakh. As we found out, Bars 77 (proof of Sockpuppet Investigation is here: [15]) is a sockpuppet of massive sockpuppet master Xebulon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). (his sockpuppet history which was discovered is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon/Archive. Probably he has more sockpuppet user names which need to be discovered. When a sockpuppet is revealed, all his POV edits are reverted. So, look at history of Nagorno-Karabakh page [16] and see how much POV he was inserting every day with assistance of other user names which make almost no edits other than on Nagorno-Karabakh page. So, please understand that these 3 (Bars77, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm) accounts have one master or they coordinate very wisely off Wikipedia. It's enough to see their POV edits to understand why they created those user names. They don't do other edits, just go to one page all together and change information to POV. Look at version that they have added since 28 June. It is like Azerbaijan never exited and that Karabakh was always Armenian. Very much POV inserted by certain users. And please take into consideration that I explained my revert here [17].


2. I don't understand what he wants from me by pointing out how I restored [18] the page with POV tag from version that User:Hasanjalal, Xebulon's (aka Bars77) sockpuppet vandalized after administrator User:Ronz was reverting it many times saying the article is POV and tagging it with POV tag [19]. This claim in point 2 shows how the user reporting me is protecting his sockpuppet friends, if it's not himself. When he says "Unexplained accusations of POV", it's not unexplained. It was explained that User:Hasanjalal is sockpuppet of User:Xebulon.


3. Yes, my this edit is revert from POV because the source was saying that Heydar Aliyev said he made those policies after 3 Azeris were killed. If you are not sure, go read the article again. It's clear POV, when you take out that fact and just insert what your point of opinion is, not allowing reader to read the rest of context.


4. About this my comment on the talk page [20]. So? What wrong was done here? I reverted your POV and said you were inserting POV because you re-do the text to show your point of opinion while deleting references to Nagorno-Karabakh being Azerbaijan's territory which is recognized by all world. You play with words to present different view to reader under your POV. Your accusation is meaningless.


5. I don't understand why you even include this [21]. You should probably explain your arguments now because you throw baseless accusations in my address without any base. It was a revert of VANDALISM of IP who made this [22] edit by section-blanking. Understand?


6. What are you talking about? It was exchange of comments on my status with administrator. Baseless and meaningless information.


7. This edit [23] baseless? Really? Have you read this? [24] Read one more time before you accuse and post meaningless stuff.


At the end, please again look at their contributions in whole as editors and history of Nagorno-Karabakh article. It is very clear that they coordinate everything. Nagorno Karabakh contributions history Dighapet (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Dighapet[edit]

Result concerning Dighapet[edit]

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


No action against NickCT. He is warned to observe civility when discussing I-P articles. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning NickCT[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Biosketch (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
NickCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 12 July – editor accuses me of being "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior," with no accompanying evidence
  2. 13 July – editor repeats the accusation, again with no accompanying evidence.
  3. 15 July – editor accuses me of concealing previous accounts, with no accompanying evidence.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Blocked on 21 December 2009 by Ged UK (talk · contribs) for harassment
  2. Notified on 2 March 2010 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) of ARBPIA ruling
  3. Blocked on 27 May 2010 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) for personal attacks
Enforcement action requested

Topic ban for a duration of one week to one month, per escalation from previous.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For the past month or so I've been having to put up with increasingly hostile and personally oriented rhetoric directed against me by editors in the I/P topic area. When at this very Noticeboard Tarc (talk · contribs) thrice accused me of sockpuppetry without citing a single diff as required per WP:NPA#WHATIS, I let it slide. After Nableezy (talk · contribs) attributed to me a batshit insane obsession with his edits for two edits I made, he redacted and I accepted. More recently, Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) called me an ass on his Talk page for trying to engage him in a calm one-on-one discussion; but he too struck the remark per my request and the matter has more-or-less been settled. NickCT (talk · contribs), on the other hand, not only called me "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior" without any evidence, but into the bargain has been repeatedly suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet or hiding previous user accounts, also without any evidence. I insisted that he withdraw his original comment or substantiate it in three different places to avoid creating a scene – but to no avail.

If people have a problem with my edits in I/P or have gotten into their heads that I'm a sockpuppet, it doesn't excuse attacks against me that violate WP:NPA and WP:ARBPIA#Decorum/WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded. I understand Decorum isn't as strictly enforced as other ARBIA principles are, but specifically in the case of User:NickCT, he has been sanctioned here before for his hostile interactions with editors he disagrees with in I/P, so either he genuinely doesn't understand what these policies entail, or else he's incapable of abiding by them. Either way, considering the perpetually tense atmosphere at I/P and NickCT's problematic conduct in the topic area in the past, I am requesting enforcement in this case. Every other means of reaching an understanding with this user has been exhausted in vain.

Appendix: In anticipation of the some of the comments likely to follow, I offer these preformulated responses. It isn't essential that the Admins considering my request read them.

  • "This is a frivolous request, only one attack." First of all, it wasn't one attack. The first time he attacked me, I templated his remark with Template:RPA, but he removed the Template and reiterated his attack. Later, when I tried in the gentlest way possible to communicate to him the problem with his remark, his response was to attribute bad-faith motives both to my initial comment on User:Malik Shabazz's Talk page and to my comment on his own Talk page. And then, when I took the matter to WP:WQA for community input, he began with his string of allegations that I'm a sockpuppet. These aren't frivolous attacks. They are textbook personal attacks against me relating to an active-arbitration topic area, without evidence to back them up and serving only to discredit me and disrupt my interactions with other contributors. Secondly, the pattern of recurring personal attacks doesn't need to be established by my diffs alone. It is already established by his block log.
  • "AEs should not be filed against editors one is in conflict with." The response to that is simple. NickCT and I weren't in conflict anywhere in the Project; indeed, as far as I know, this was only the second time he and I ever crossed paths.
  • "If all these people are attacking you, maybe you're the problem and not them." I'm open to criticism relating to how I edit, as anyone who contributes regularly to I/P should be. I'm also aware of WP:BOOMERANG. If someone's convinced there's a case to be made that my edits are a problem in I/P, let them make it like through the appropriate channels. Otherwise, shifting the blame onto me and making ad hominem remarks in my regard is counterproductive and needs to be identified for what it is – a sordid red herring. This is an AE about NickCT. Any comments not directly relating to that user and his remarks toward me don't belong here.
  • "This isn't within the purview of AE." The language and context of the attack make it related to the Arab-Israel conflict, broadly construed. If this were an I/P-banned editor, he would not be allowed to attack another contributor as "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior." Furthermore, NickCT was sanctioned at AE before for similar infractions.—Biosketch (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
In reference to the forum shopping charge, that's an exceedingly slanted interpretation of what led to this AE. It says at the top of this page, "ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution." Had I come here immediately following the I/P-related personal attack, it might have been considered impulsive and premature. Instead, I tried resolving the incident where it initially took place; then I tried at the editor's Talk page; and then I tried at WQA. So I think I followed procedure to the letter and even showed more restraint than other people in similar situations have.
Additionally, in coming here I also relied on the comments of several Admins in good standing, which indicated that personal attacks are sanctionable at AE – for example, Gatoclass (talk · contribs), "Speaking of which, gratuitous comments on contributor are sanctionable in this topic area, so I strongly suggest you avoid making them", and Zero0000 (talk · contribs), This is your only warning, next time I'm filing a report, who rebuked editors for remarks that were far less severe than what I endured.
Lastly, regarding the wikilawyering charge, that's also detached from reality. WP:NPA is unequivocal: "Serious accusations require serious evidence" (emphasis added). And WP:ARBPIA ruled, "Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." It could not have been stated any more clearly than that.—Biosketch (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
@T. Canens (talk · contribs), had this been a slip on his part, he had only to strike out his attack and that would have been the end of it. That he undid my template and reiterated his attack, and then declined my requests that he withdraw it, means it was no slip. Also, it's true I have enemies here. I never would have thought of him as one of them, though. He literally appeared out of nowhere; and not only that but I think it's because of his hostile rhetoric against me that Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) thought I came to his Talk page looking for blood and ended up calling me an ass. You see how his comment interrupted a civil discussion I was trying to have with another contributor, simply because he looked through my edit history and saw that I edit articles in I/P. He can't even articulate a compelling argument as to why I may be "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior."—Biosketch (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified at user's Talk page: "You have demonstrated to me that you either do not understand WP:NPA or do not see yourself as needing to comply with it. I have requested enforcement of ARBPIA rulings against you here."

Discussion concerning NickCT[edit]

Statement by NickCT[edit]

Not sure how seriously I should take this, so I'll just make several quick points -

1) People should probably review this conversation as example of the kind of complaints Biosketch seems to have a penchant for.
2) re "repeatedly suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet" - I never suggested Biosketch was a sock.  I suggested he had an account previous to his current account, which he almost certainly has had and additionally, has made no attempt to deny.  I explained the difference between those two things here.  I'm not sure why he repeatedly mischaracterizes my comments.
3) Bio initially filed a Wikiquette complaint for the material above, which didn't seem to gather any momentum.  He seems to be going to multiple places now trying to get someone to agree and act on his complaints.  As such, I think AE request could justifiably be called forum shopping.
4) Biosketch really represents the worst of the Israel-Palestine wikilawyers.  This kind of "throw some accusations around and see what sticks" tactics has got to stop.  It's a waste of time, and distracts from WP's core mission.  I think a clear message could be sent here with some punitive anti-wikilawyering measures. 

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning NickCT[edit]

  • I see that the two admins commenting have had plenty of breathing room which is rare here. So disregarding everything else, all I want to ask is if making the charge with the wording:
"...a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior, simply seeks disparage the actions of an admin that Biosketch regards as too neutral on his pet position."
is OK. It wasn't an article's talk page discussion but it was an unprompted comment on a user page discussing the topic area that did nothing but rock an already unstable boat. Overall it was rude which was not the editor's first breech of WP:ARBPIA 4.1.2: "Decorum".
It doesn't matter if Nick assumes it was one thing or the other. Was that comment acceptable?
Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding the third diff, I think it is important that the etiquette rules be relaxed on administrative pages like that one and this one.  There has to be a limit, of course, but these are places where editors should be able to express their opinions honestly without fear of sanction. Zerotalk 09:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I totally agree that editors have more leeway in discussions here or on noticeboards. The first diff mention above twice for the admins wasn't either of those though. It was on an editor's talk page. Nick wasn't even involved in the discussion but decided he wanted to start talking mean. So if the final decision is that we are allowed to ignore decorum as long as it isn't on an article's talk page I am down. I have a lot of things to say to some people here and if saying whatever I feel about them on talk pages with no regard for decorum is OK then I look forward to it.Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • @Ed. I'm not gonna lie, I am totally ignorant to this AE and haven't spent a lot of time looking through the diffs. However, a little clarity on this would be nice: "It is a concern when the person complaining about incivility is one of the most vigorous spokesmen for one side of the I-P dispute and a frequent poster at WP:AE. This hints that his interest in the matter is more than a dispassionate desire to raise the tone of the I-P discussions
  • I totally agree with this premise. However, Biosketch doesn't even rank when it comes to the top I/P AE filers. Yet I have never seen an administrator make such a comment towards the filer. Biosketch's motives shouldn't take precedence over ARBPIA violations. So if AE is going to make an exception for Nick then perhaps Ed's philosophy should become official ARBPIA policy. Just a thought. WikifanBe nice  11:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning NickCT[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • So...I take it that no one is willing to sanction NickCT then? NW (Talk) 05:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Decorum is tricky. On one hand we don't want the already fragile ARBPIA editing environment to deteriorate even further, but on the other hand we don't want occasional slips to be used as "weapons" to "win" a content dispute or "neutralize" perceived "enemies". Certainly we don't want to encourage AE reports every time someone made a slip. Still thinking on this... T. Canens (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed a lot of diffs and checked NickCT's overall contribution record. Nick does seem to be testing how close to the line he can get. Biosketch did file some of these diffs at WQA and did not get any traction there. It is a concern when the person complaining about incivility is one of the most vigorous spokesmen for one side of the I-P dispute and a frequent poster at WP:AE. This hints that his interest in the matter is more than a dispassionate desire to raise the tone of the I-P discussions. On the evidence presented here, I would not take any action, but I'd notify NickCT that he can avoid future trouble for himself if he will watch his language. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking more and more that this area could use another arbcom sweep. Regardless, I think we can close this along the lines of EdJohnston's suggestion. T. Canens (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Closing per the above with no block or ban. NickCT is warned to watch his language in I-P disputes. He may not be so lucky next time. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


Warned that his ban from the topic of Shakespeare includes talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Smatprt[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Peter cohen (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Smatprt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 05 August 2011 Smatprt violates topic ban while disingenuously pretending he does not know it violates the ban.
  2. 05 August 2011 Smatprt reinstates above post after I reverted it.
  3. 05 August 2011 Smatprt asks Jimbo a question while disingenuously failing to mention his connection with the external article and incidentally links that article from one of the most watched pages on Wikipedia.
  4. 05 August 2011 Smatprt asks AGK the same question again failing to mention his connection with the external article.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Informed of topic ban on 03 November 2010 by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs)
  2. Informed of Arbcom decision including endorsement of topic ban on 22 February 2011 by AGK (talk · contribs)
  3. Warned on 22 Feb 2011 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) and reminded of scope of ban.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Smatprt was community topic banned last year for tendentious editing at Shakespeare authorship question (SAQ) and related articles. Arbcom held a case earlier this year which endorsed the topic ban and applied discretionary sanctions to SAQ-related material.

Earlier this month an article appeared in IEEE Spectrum by Mark Anderson one of Smatprt's fellow "Oxfordians" criticising Wikipedia's handling of the SAQ and the related dispute. Smatprt provided the author with an interview from which a quotation appears in the article. (I have Googled the words of the quotation and they do not appear elsewhere except in derivative sites.) All well and good so far. Smatprt is entitled to say what he wants elsewhere. However, he then posted in the discussion on Wikipedia about the article defending his associate and promoting this associate as a legitimate source on the SAQ. This is a clear violation of the topic ban. There is some meally-mouthed wording in which he claims not to be sure it is a violation but, as he was previously reminded of its scopt by Future Perfect at Sunrise, I am sure he was fully aware of the violation and was just trying to protect himself against action by pretending he did not know and would be content to be reverted by an uninvolved admin. I am neither an admin nor uninvolved but as the violation was so blatant I decided to revert it. Smatprt reverted me and then went and posted on Jimbo's and AGK's talk pages pretending to need advice about whether he really was violating his ban. His post on Jimbo's talk page happens to link the Spectrum article thus bringing it to the attention of the many watchers of that page. In all three posts he has made he has failed to disclose that he was interviewed for the Spectrum page and is thus associated with his fellow Oxfordian.

I initially reverted Smatprt's post and then when he reverted me I also posted a warning on his talk page. At the time I thought this was appropriate action. However I now think this was mistaken for the following reasons.

First, I was not aware of Smatprt's contribution to Anderson's article. In writing in support of each other, Smatprt and Anderson can be compared to apes indulging in mutual grooming. As one of the fleas who might fall victim to this reciprocal arrangement, I feel that this relationship increases the seriousness of Smatprt's violation of the topic ban.

Second, I was not aware of Smatprt's post to Jimbo's page. In posting a link to the Spectrum article to which he contributed, Smatprt is violating his topic ban. He is trying to influence other Wikipedians to look on the Oxfordian position over the SAQ and at his own topic ban more sympathetically. His plea about this being a genuine question is calculated to reduce the chance of the post with its link to the article from being reverted.

Third, I was not aware of Future Perfect at Sunrise's previous warning to Smatprt about his violation of the topic ban. This has convinced me that he knew full well that he was violating the topic ban and so has made me see his expression of doubt on the matter as calculated, meally-mouthed and disingenuous.

As far as sanctions are concerned, an extension to the topic ban is what I consider most appropriate. Smatprt has been pretty inactive during the period of the topic ban except when it was lifted during the Arbcom case. The article in which he has been most active in recent times concerns an organisation with which he is associated. He therefore does not seem to be greatly invested in Wikpedia except as a tool to promote his Oxfordian views.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Smatprt[edit]

Statement by Smatprt[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Smatprt[edit]

Comment by LikeLakers2[edit]

Are you sure he was fully aware of the topic ban? Perhaps he forgot about it, or perhaps he was actually telling the truth about that he didn't know it extended to that. (unless I'm misunderstanding, as I don't even know exactly what the topic ban was for) Basically, are you sure he was intentionally violating his topic ban? LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the wording of the topic ban on Smatprt's talkpage, LikeLakers2.[25] The admin who instituted the topic ban per ANI consensus (LessHeardvanU), made himself extremely clear about its extent. Smatprt is "topic banned from Shakespeare and Shakespeare related articles, broadly construed, including their talkpages, your talkpage, and the talkpages of other editors, and other Wikipedia pages in relation to the subject matters, for 1 year, etc."[26] I don't see how Smatprt could think that formulation leaves any room for doubt, or any occasion for the forum shopping Peter Cohen describes. Bishonen | talk 18:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC).

Result concerning Smatprt[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I happened to see the incipient revert war between Smatprt and User:Peter cohen about the Signpost news article. This led me to research the text of the topic ban, and find that the text was already posted on Smatprt's talk page (and still visible). It can be seen at User talk:Smatprt#You are topic banned from the Shakespeare and Shakespeare authorship related articles for 1 year. The wording thus prevents Smatprt from commenting on Shakespeare anywhere on Wikipedia. I drew this fact to his attention by a post on his user talk. Unless Smatprt contests the issue, or continues to discuss Shakespeare, this should end the matter, and this report can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    • A warning for now should be fine. It's been a while so I don't think a block is appropriate, and we normally don't reset on the first topic ban violation. If there is another violation, then either a reset or a block (or both) would likely be in order. T. Canens (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Closing. Smatprt is warned that his ban from the topic of Shakespeare includes talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


Frederico1234 is warned of the discretionary sanctions under ARBPIA. See the 'Result' section for details of the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Frederico1234[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Broccolo (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Frederico1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced


Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 18 July 2011 Voted on deletion request for Mein Kampf in the Arabic language assuming a bad faith and demonstrating a battleground mentality "Having that said, as deletion discussions are polls, the article will be kept due to "no consensus", as there are plenty of socks of banned users, POV-pushers etc out there." As it is seen from deletion request pratically all uninvolved editors including a few administrators voted to keep the article.
  2. 04:14, 27 July 2011 First revert
  3. 28 July 2011 second revert less than 24 hours later
  4. 13:45, 26 July 2011 Misrepresents the source that clearly states "Copies of the translation are understood to have been distributed to London shops towards the end of last year and have been selling well."
  5. 20:52, 26 July 2011 first revert
  6. 04:14, 27 July 2011 second revert less than 24 hours later
  7. 17:40, 4 August 2011 Removing sourced information with edit summary "Undid revision 443046855 by ברוקולי (talk) The WP:LEAD should summarize the article, not add new stuff"
  8. 17:41, 4 August 2011 Removing sourced information with edit summary "Undid revision 443046855 by ברוקולי (talk) The WP:LEAD should summarize the article, not add new stuff"
  9. 08:54, 19 July 2011 comment on the deletion request and states that his point "commenting on this AFD" " to prevent serious editors from wasting their time, as the article will be kept no matter the quality of their arguments. A secondary point was to protest how inherently flawed Wikipedia deletion "discussions" are when the subject article is in the domain of the I-P topic field, and thus subject to all its glory of sock-puppetry, off-wiki-canvassing, tendentious editors etc."
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction

Topic ban for a month.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Today the article was at the main page and a few IP users and users had some questions about the article. They posted their questions to the article's talk page here and here. I added required information that I believe should go to the lead. Even if this information should not be in the lead Frederico1234 should have discussed where is the proper place to add the information versus simply removing it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
diff link

Discussion concerning Frederico1234[edit]

Statement by Frederico1234[edit]

I'm aware of the 1RR rule and agree that the article in question is covered by it.

3. Broccolo is mistaken. The edit did not occur within 24h.

4. This was an error of mine. Sorry for that.

6. This is a 1RR violation. In this case I thougth it would be easier for everyone to just use the edit summaries to do the explaining. In hindsight, I should probably have taken that to Talk.

7. and 8. Should count as one revert as they were made directly after each other. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Frederico1234[edit]

Comment by asad[edit]

Besides the reverts dealing with the Palestinian Authority publishing the book, I can't see how anything else relates to ARBPIA. -asad (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek[edit]

While strictly speaking this may not be in the IP topic area it does appear to be some kind of a proxy war related to it. Having said that I don't see anything wrong with the comments in the first and last (#1 and #9) diffs provided. Being critical of Wikipedia or, in particular, of the atmosphere in a specific Wikipedia topic area is not objectionable. Neither does someone *have* a battleground mentality simply because they point out that a particular area *is* a battleground (more so if it happens to be true). Likewise, it is not forbidden to assume bad faith for editors who have substantial experience and interactions in a particular topic area - especially when the comment is not directed at anyone in particular.

Diffs #7 and #8 appear to be a content dispute (Frederico1234 is essentially right with regard to the letter of MOS but there could be exceptions).

Diff #4 is also a content dispute and, in case he's wrong, could be just an error on F's part - it would be more troublesome if this was a repeated edit, but as far as I can tell it's not.

This leaves diffs (3,4) and (5,6), which are potential violations of the IP 1RR restriction - assuming that this article does indeed fall under that topic's scope. Ok, then, just to make sure, is Frederico1234 aware of this restriction? I don't see the "Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) " section in the above report but given that F seems familiar with the topic area perhaps it wasn't required here. Still, in cases like this the usual practice is to give the user a "standard warning" from one of the AE admins before imposing any sanctions. Maybe that's all that's needed here.

Ok now to the diffs themselves. First problem is that diffs 2 and 6 are the exact same diff. This is a revert but it also appears to be a rephrasing and an answer to PlotSpoiler's question. Second is that these concern different material. Overall I'd call this a mild violation of 1RR. Additionally, if these edits are in breach of the 1RR sanction (if this article is indeed covered by the topic area), then so are those of PlotSpoiler from 20:20 July 26 and 2:13 July 27.

So at the end of the day what you got here is a possibility of a somewhat mild transgression, combined with a whole bunch of diff-padding to make it look much worse than it is.

I'd warn Frederico and PlotSpoiler and remind them of the 1RR restriction again, and warn Broccolo for perpetuating battleground in the topic area by filing somewhat spurious AE requests full of diffs that don't show much of anything. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Wikifan12345[edit]

Fred doesn't have a history at ARBPIA log and he has zero blocks. I know I/P has tighter rules than other areas of wikipedia but for a first offense a topic ban seems rather excessive even assuming he has done the things he is being accused of. I guess one could argue from a behavioral standard but I'm not the best judge. I think this should be closed with a mild warning to all parties involved. Anything beyond that would be unfair IMO. WikifanBe nice 09:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass[edit]

In response to T. Canens' query as to how this article relates to the A-I conflict, to quote just one paragraph from the article in question:

The distribution of Mein Kampf has been pointed to by Israel as an example of the influence of Nazism for Arab nationalists in their war against the Jewish State. In a speech to the United Nations immediately following the Suez Crisis in 1956, Golda Meir stated that the Arabic translation of Mein Kampf was found in Egyptian soldiers' knapsacks.[9] Historian David Dalin wrote that during the 1967 Six-Day War, many Egyptian soldiers were found carrying an Arabic edition produced by the Arab Information Center in Cairo.[10]

I think that quote speaks for itself. Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence wasn't supported by the sources. I had added a citation request to it earlier, but it was removed at some point. In any event, I've refactored the sentence to something that the sources cited can support, and moved it to the appropriate section. Whether or not mentions of Egyptian soldiers carrying copies of the book in their bags makes this article a part of the A-I conflict, I'll leave up to admins to decide. ← George talk 09:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what Golda Meir said in her speech to the United Nations, but it's hard to imagine the PM of Israel bringing up such a factoid for any other reason than to discredit her nation's adversaries. Apparently she had no doubts about its relevance to the conflict. Zionist propaganda has for decades sought to delegitimize Arab grievances by blaming Arab hostility to Israel on antisemitism. The alleged popularity of Mein Kampf in the Arab world is a regularly cited example of that. So yes, I think this topic falls squarely within the purview of ARBPIA. Whether Frederico's edits to the page in question fall within the topic area, I don't know since I haven't looked at them, so I might leave that to others to decide. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
"it's hard to imagine the PM of Israel bringing up such a factoid for any other reason than to discredit her nation's adversaries". The article gives more sourced context now, and it's pretty much along the lines you suspected. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I would group this with articles like Hummus - very loosely related to the A-I conflict in reality, but having their connections magnified by Wikipedia editors. After reading through the sources, Mein Kampf was most notable for its role in the Arab nationalist movement of the 1930s. Modelled on the Nazi movement, Arab nationalism had its own twinge of hatred of Jews and racial superiority (the irony of course being that the Arabic translations had to be modified to remove racist remarks directed at the Arabs themselves). I know that some use the terms "Jew" and "Israeli" interchangeably, but I'm not one of them, so I'm somewhat disinclined to consider something that largely pre-dates the state of Israel a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I don't have strong opinions on the subject, so I'm fine either way. ← George talk 19:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Gatoclass, George. It's not appropriate to post this here, but reading the article I was reminded of something I read from a vol. I noted, and browsing, bought, in a secondhand bookshop while travelling in the antipodes this summer:
'The life of the villagers was dominated by their feud with a neighbouring Arab village. They seemed little concerned with the Jewish presence in Palestine and, although they had heard of both Hitler and Churchill, they did not know which of the two was the leader of the British war effort.' K. A. Lodewycks, The Funding of Wisdom: Revelations of a Library's Quarter Century, Spectrum Books, Melbnourne 1982 p.67. Apologies for the interruption, but that's just too good to be true. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by ZScarpia[edit]

From appearances, item 4 should be discounted. Firstly, the quote starts: "Copies of the translation are understood to have been distributed ... ." What the word 'understood' means is that the writer was unsure about the veracity of what followed or had been unable to verify it. That sentence, therefore, can't act as a source of validation for the statement of fact made in the Wikipedia article. Secondly, the quote is about a delivery to London bookshops. It specifically mentions London, it specifically mentions bookshops, it doesn't say who the books were sold to (Arabs aren't the only ones who can read Arabic), it doesn't even say that the bookshops were supplying the books to UK customers. The sentence that Frederico edited read: "... and sells well in Arab neighborhoods of Great Britain." Somehow, a previous author invented the concept of Arab neighbourhoods in the UK. Perhaps that editor thinks that the UK is like the West Bank, but with Arab settlements. Or maybe London was being confused with Paris. In any case, the source says only that the books were supplied to London bookshops. It says nothing about the locations of those bookshops or the ethnic composition in those areas. Frederico was certainly correct to say that the Telegraph article in question didn't support the statement in Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   17:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This article had a bunch of other amusing inaccuracies, like the Arabic language Mein Kampf being a bestseller in Turkey. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Cptnono[edit]

Just to clarify, the article is certainly under ARPIA. The article could be used by editors supporting Israel to make Palestinians look bad (or at least that concern could be assumed by editors with a pro-Palestinian slant). There is actually a discussion over on the talk page and at the Palestine-Israel Collaboration project since the high sales in the Palestinian Territories with possible support from the PNA is a contentious topic. Maybe the article still isn't clear enough but it is part of the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That is true moral clarity, my friend. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Frederico1234[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Can someone explain how this article is related to the A-I conflict? T. Canens (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    It appears that this article was created just 3 weeks ago on July 16 and was tagged on the talk page just 2 hours later by the creator with {{ARBPIA}}. I'm not sure if this truly should be covered by ARBPIA or not; I do not have a long history of monitoring ARBPIA, but I haven't seen anything that defines exactly which articles are subject or lists them. Broadly construed, I think that someone could assert that Arab nationals and Palestinians might use Mein Kampf to support Anti-Jewish beliefs. --After Midnight 0001 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Since Golda Meir claimed that Egyptian soldiers carried Mein Kampf in their knapsacks, I think it's enough of a connection to place this article under ARBPIA. With regard to the actual diffs above, there does not seem to be any serious transgression. As someone pointed out, Frederico1234 has never been blocked and so far his name is not mentioned in the WP:ARBPIA log. Frederico has admitted above that he broke 1RR at least once in this sequence of edits and he has apologized for that. I suggest closing this with a reminder to Frederico not to assume bad faith regarding groups of editors in the I-P articles and to be careful to stay within the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Closing this request since there have been no further comments in five days. Frederico1234 is notified of the discretionary sanctions. He is warned against any further violation of the 1RR restriction and reminded not to assume bad faith regarding groups of editors in the I-P articles. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


Jonchapple is placed on Troubles probation for three months, which limits him to 1RR/wk on Troubles articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Jonchapple[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Domer48'fenian' 12:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Jonchapple (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.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 22:12, 9 August 2011 First revert not a violation.
  2. 06:26, 10 August 2011 Second first revert. No violation.
  3. 10:28, 10 August 2011 Second revert. This violates the above enforcement.
  1. 21:58, 9 August 2011 First Revert.
  2. 22:10, 9 August 2011 Second Revert. This violates the above enforcement.
  3. 06:27, 10 August 2011 Third Revert. This violates the above enforcement.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 18:01, 1 June 2011
  2. Warned on 12:28, 8 July 2011
  3. Warned on 17:48, 2 August 2011
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The editor is well aware of the enforcement and sanctions, and has made it a habbit of arguing the point regardless. As the notices placed on their talk page illustrate, this disruption is spreed over a number of articles. As this edit summary and edit show, the editor is just not intrested. The editor is knowingly violating this enforcement. Should addition diff be required I'm more than happy to provid them.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Jonchapple[edit]

Statement by Jonchapple[edit]

Bugger. All I can say in my defence is that I honestly forgot that this article would be subject to 1RR in my eagerness to try and enforce WP:MOSBIO—i.e. that nationality, not ethnicity, should be referenced in the lead. This was unhelpfully reverted by Domer48 with no edit summary or explanation at all, so he's not entirely innocent in all this either.

I object to being told that I'm "just not interested" for removing Domer48's notice from my page—I'm entitled to keep my talk page at whichever revision I see fit; a right he exercised not two hours ago when I civilly tried to give an explanation backed up the MOS for my edit. However, it's true that I've been warned before and should have remembered 1RR, especially considering the subject of my edit was directly involved in The Troubles, so I'm at fault there. Go easy on me; I've kept my nose clean up until now. JonChappleTalk 13:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The "I didn't know Eamon was directly involved in The Troubles" quip was clearly meant as a joke (he was 87 when it all started), much like my remark about the UDA underneath. Additionally, your removal of a discussion about the County Londonderry page from your talk page in which I was nothing by civil was removed with a summary stating "nonsense", so you're again also guilty of what could be considered inappropriate edit summaries. JonChappleTalk 15:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It has now been 10 hours since Domer48 added the latest three edits that he says are proof of my violating the Troubles sanction, but he has yet to leave even a warning on the talk page of Nogger; the editor with which I had this editing disagreement. This, I believe, is poor form and clear evidence of an ulterior motive for this request for enforcement – namely that I feel often disagree with him with my edits and he clearly dislikes me. Nogger should have at least been warned, especially as Domer48 clearly feels very strongly about this particular sanction. JonChappleTalk 06:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple[edit]

Jonchapple is new into the whole sphere of Northern Ireland related articles, so a sense of naivity and initial forgetfulness can be very plausible. Note that Jonchapple did notify another editor that they had violated the 1RR and should revert it - after being reported here so the message has got through i believe, especially after this.
In fact if you look at Jonchapple's first comment in that section of Ruairí Óg's talk page i've linked you too you can clearly see that he has now got it into his head to remember about the 1RR as he clear states that he can't revert the editor because of it.
Also it is very plausible that Jonchapple forgot as i've been involved in Northern Ireland articles for years and i regulary forget about the 1RR (even though i've yet to breach it as far as i'm aware as i usually stay out of Troubles articles). Thus a topic-ban for this i think would be an extreme punishment, and a probation does make the most sense as it allows for admins to see whether they are a trouble-maker as Domer48 is trying to make out or just actually a naive editor. Mabuska (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Jonchapple[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I find it somewhat implausible that one can forget such a restriction, having been warned no less than three times. I find it concerning that if we accept Jonchapple's word at face value, he allows his "eagerness" to lead him to forget restrictions, not indicative of a measured and calm approach to editing. I am even more concerned that he is using the "other people did it too" defense by bringing up Nogger, an approach which never helps, and often leads merely to increased sanctions for the one trying that as a "defense" and sometimes to sanctions for the other party - but mind you, "he did it too!" is not a plausible defense for one's own actions. I'm thinking a full topic ban probation period, given Jonchapple's "eagerness" and inability to remember the editing restrictions, for a period of 3 months; any violations to be dealt with by a series of increasing blocks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC) - Note, I would also support a 1 week block, given that a topic ban is not listed among the choices for enforcement. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think we can do that. If I'm reading the case correctly, the only sanctions available under TROUBLES is either a block for the 1RR violation, or Troubles probation, which is basically a 1RR/week restriction plus civility parole. T. Canens (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Dang,you're right. For some bizarre reason, ArbCom limited the enforcement to probation (1RR/wk) or blocks. Ok, amending my preferred response to 3 months probation. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tim and KC that three months Troubles Probation is appropriate. Jonchapple would be limited to one revert per article per week on all Troubles articles. All parties are advised that archiving of sanction warnings is preferable to deleting them from your talk page. If you want your good faith to be easy to observe. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by DIREKTOR[edit]

DIREKTOR's appeal is granted since the admin applying the topic ban was involved. No objection to a new ban request being filed at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Topic ban from "all Balkans articles and talkpages, broadly construed, for 6 months"
imposed at User talk:DIREKTOR#ARBMAC [28]
logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#January 2011 – [29]
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Fainites (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 

Statement by DIREKTOR[edit]

User:Fainites has imposed sanctions in pretty obvious violation of WP:INVOLVED for the purposes of POV-pushing on two separate talkpages. The user has imposed a six-month topic ban, broadly construed, which incorporates all subjects I edit (to all effects and purposes an effective six-month block) on the basis of WP:ARBMAC, while engaged in two disputes with myself. The user is fully involved in two content discussions with me, is opposed to my position in both, and will directly benefit from my ban in that his preferred position in the two disputes will now go through without any opposition whatsoever. Diffs follow on the user's involvement in the two talkpages. The disputes are long and complex, so please accept my apologies for the length of the disclosure.

  • Talk:Draža Mihailović, an absolutely huge discussion and dispute lasting well over a year now, with Fainites as a full participant for several months - almost always in opposition to whatever I may advocate. I will list here only a few of the most recent examples (the rest are available for review at Talk:Draža Mihailović and the archives thereof).
    • For most current (and for Fainites probably the most significant) example, on Talk:Draža Mihailović/ethnic conflict drafts you will find two proposals: "1st Proposal" by User:Nuujin (yes the very same Nuujinn lobbying to get me banned), which is currently actively supported by Fainites; and the "2nd proposal", which is supported by myself. User:Fainites and I were in active opposition on this content issue at the time of the ban. Please note that the direct result of the sanction is that opposition to the "1st Proposal" draft is now effectively pushed out of the way, and the text version preferred by Fainites is marked for inclusion in the article.
    • For another example one may review the exchange between Fainites and myself on August 2, three days before the ban on August 5, in this section of Talk:Draža Mihailović, this post in particular, an excerpt of which I will post as an example

This is the brief version of examples for the first dispute between Fainites and myself that he has so elegantly "resolved" just now. Again, a quick read through the talkpage will show the user is in fact completely involved in the dispute, and opposes my position therein.

  • Talk:Serbia under German occupation is the second talkpage. I will only be posting a few examples, as copying over the whole months-long discussion would not be productive, and its available for review on the talkpage.
    • [31]. Here, in one of the more obvious examples, Fainites argues against the map label I introduced ("NGS"), supporting another one, and argues for using the term "puppet state" in the article (which I oppose). Its interesting to see him later protest "I don't argue for or against anyone" [32], after having been arguing for days :).
    • Here Fainites' very nicely describes his opinion. This is my post where, after days of discussion, having agreed on an article lead, I protest Fainites entering his own, completely undiscussed version of the lead. And this is Fainites' completely unwarranted hostile response, where he judges I've apparently been "insulting everyone" and that I should "learn" something from him. This is hostility by way of lies and slander, plain and simple. He has stricken that remark after a while, but its effect is unmistakeable: I am the villain. User:PANONIAN, who posted things like "any intelligent discussion with you is obviously impossible. Anyway, consider your bullishness temporary. Your attitude will very soon get you blocked for good and then I will revert you" [33], is apparently the victim. This ban is the second time Fainites has ignored the hostility of others, and only condemned and sanctioned me.
    • Here is Fainites, for another example, pushing for the lead version preferred by User:No such user ("NSU" in the text), proceeding, it seems, to make fun of my language: "Schhliivvvovisshhishishish" I assume would be how Fainites pronounces "Slivovitz".
    • The text of this section, is an example that does not require a detailed read-thru of the whole dispute. Here you will find Fainites proposing content edits, arguing for the implementation of this version or that, and in the end implementing a new lead version of his own writing. Also understanding full well (as he would admit later), that his edit goes against what I've been proposing (I won't go into details), and directly supports what I've been opposing.

Please note these are by no means the only cases depicting the WP:INVOLVEMENT of User:Fainites in the relevant content disputes, only a few of the more obvious examples are listed. The user is fully involved in the disputes in general (just like all other users), and the entire talkpages could be listed here for review to that effect. The full text of the disputes is of course available on Talk:Draža Mihailović, Talk:Draža Mihailović/ethnic conflict drafts, and Talk:Serbia under German occupation. I do earnestly believe however, that this is more than enough, and that even fewer of these quotes should suffice.

P.S. I will note that this issue was brought-up on ANI, essentially by mistake, as this is an issue of misuse of an WP:ARBCOM decision. There, as an uninvolved observer noted rather colourfully [34], the discussion was effectively swamped by hostile comments (complete with false accusations of sockpuppetry [35]) on the part of half-a-dozen involved users, all of which involved users who support Fainites' position on the two talkpages, and oppose my own. No doubt there will be attempts to label this appeal "resolved", in spite of having been posted in the wrong place, in spite of the lobbying by the group that supports the same edits as Fainites, and frankly, in spite of quite overwhelming evidence of a breach of WP:INVOLVED. When I was advised at last to bring this up here in the proper venue, I did so immediately. The comment was also made there that "WP:INVOLVED is the most commonly broken policy by admins" [36]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC) ─────────────────────────

Addendum. I'll add (as I had on ANI), that I perceive the behaviour of Fainites as deliberately hostile and a form of hounding. I had, in fact, previously been the only party in a dispute to receive sanctions by Fainites in the form of a month-long "topic ban on the Balkans, broadly construed" [37] (on the basis of WP:ARBMAC [38]) on April 9, while engaged in a discussion with me on Talk:Yugoslav Front. On April 2, for example, Fainites can be found posting things like this on the talkpage, arguing against an RM I was proposing there at the time (in accordance with extensive Google testing). In fact, for several weeks at that time, the user was involved in various discussions on Talk:Yugoslav Front, arguing, proposing content changes, and on numerous other talkpages in heated discussion on content issues with myself (see for example here, an excerpt from Talk:Croats). (As a side note, in spite of my pointing out numerous times, conclusively and with diffs, that the other party in the dispute did his absolute best to provoke a conflict, these objections were ignored by Fainites.)

At the time I essentially accepted the one-month ban without major opposition, as an admin's decision and one to be respected. However, since then I've begun to perceive something of the larger picture. Every major discussion I've been involved in included Fainites (since I met him some eight months ago). It became impossible to get involved into a discussion without Fainites arriving sooner or later, and assuming the role of self-appointed "arbitrator" of who's right and who's wrong. And sure enough, in every issue of every discussion for the past six months, I cannot remember a single discussion or dispute I've had, where Fainites was not present and where he did not oppose my position, whatever it might be. As you might imagine, its very hard to participate on Wikipedia when you've got an admin inevitably appearing every time and throwing his weight against you in every single disagreement that might come-up. The atmosphere eventually created by this pattern of behaviour, in my perception at least, was that of mistrust, frustration, and hostility. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

@In response to Fainites ANI post below, I must say I believe I've shown in the examples above that Fainites certainly did not restrict himself to "sourcing issues". That frankly seems to me a custom-contrived argument only for the first example I've brought up. In the example of this thread alone, Fainites has proposed two versions of the article lede [39] [40], and in the end implemented his own version [41] in the article, without agreement from all parties, and against my position (throughout the discussion the pivotal issue was the usage of the term "puppet state"). However, while I do believe these are not particularly honest statements on the part of Fainites, even if that were not the case, in my impression the policy does not leave room for interpretations of this sort: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."
To me it certainly seems that Fainites has, at least to an extent, assumed the role of "Headmaster" (as he puts it) of the Balkans disputes (one assumes the participants are the "errant children"). Under the pretext of a form of "self-proclaimed mediation", and "following the sources" he arrives at disputes and effectively renders his judgement on the content issues and users involved. If someone disagrees with his position on resolving a problem of a source conflict, for example, one continues to do so at one's own peril: he is threatened and sanctioned by means of WP:ARBMAC. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
@FuFoFuEd. Regarding Karchmar, I have never, never mind you, proposed that the source should be excluded from the article (that was the position of User:PRODUCER). User:Fainites, whether deliberately or no, continuously acted as if that were the case. All I have suggested, and still do, is that in light of he fact that numerous historians contradict and/or do not include one particular speculative allegation of Lucien Karchmar, he should simply be attributed to this allegation in the text. That is all. As far as I'm concerned, Karchmar has to be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia policy. User:Fainites, and frankly User:Sunray as well, seemed (deliberately or no) to misunderstand my posts, and threatened me with WP:ARBMAC sanctions on my talkpage [42]: "I view your continued dispute of use of Karchmar as a source here... as disruptive". If I posted a blog, I did so to support my statement that the user source has a negative reputation in some parts of the Balkans, as I said here "I certainly don't expect anyone to take my word or his "reputation" as a reason to disregard him as a source".
I've been around on Wiki for just under 5 years, I have some 35,000 edits overall, next year I hope to graduate from medical school and I have participated in the publication of a paper - I do know something of sourcing one's claim. (Concerning source misuses, I just don't do that. And I don't think I've ever done it.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Re new post by Fainites[edit]

In all honestly, I do not see the relevance of Fainites' post with regard to WP:INVOLVED. It is a very thorough elaboration on Fainites' perception of the events, I certainly disagree with most of the allegations and the user's interpretations of many of the events described, and I could post another massive point-by-point reply describing my own view of the events, and where I believe Fainites has presented them with his commentaries in a biased way - but I do not see how any of this relates to the appeal.

I would also like participants here to note that I will be physically unable to post on Wikipedia from tomorrow onward, as I am going on a prolonged holiday away from home. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, really, you seem to have independent opinions in your favor of overturning this ban, WP:STICK as your continued point by point counter to any and all criticism only bolsters the charges against you. --WGFinley (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Fainites[edit]

Here is the relevent ANI thread at which a number of editors of varying degrees of involvment expressed their views.

Link to list of articles which I complied given DIREKTORs original allegations, showing which Balkans articles I have edited in.

For ease of reference, my posts from ANI on issue of "involved" giving my position on this issue[edit]

response to specific allegations of DIREKTOR[edit]

Response to DIREKTORs "Part 1" allegations. Sorry it’s a bit long. You can avoid reading this by reading the whole of the talkpages.

  • Serbia under German occupation. Naming disputes have been ongoing since long before I came along. It's been on my watchlist since the previous-but-one dispute (Nedic's regime to Nedic's Serbia). Apologies to readers but you need to read the talkpage from here. One side says whatever it was the Germans created in old Serbian lands when they carved up Yugoslavia was called "Serbia". The other says it wasn't but should be named after either the German Military Administration or the Quisling government, the "Government of National Salvation" or equivalent. Anything else, like” puppet state” or even the name "Serbia" implies it was a proper country or state which is nationalist propaganda. Other editors proposed various solutions. I made a variety of suggestions, some of which DIREKTOR liked and some of which he didn't. I was trying to help find one acceptable to everybody. Panonian produced sources describing it as a "puppet state", "rump state" etc. DIREKTOR dismissed this as "quote fishing". I checked PANONIANs sources - they were all pretty mainstream books by well known authors. I looked to see what the sources I had in my possession said and posted those. I repeatedly asked DIREKTOR to produce sources on his vehemently expressed claims. This went on and on. Readers can decide for themselves what they think of the tone of the exchanges. I was not arguing for "puppet state" but pointing out the sources produced said "puppet", "rump", "satellite" state and asking for any sources demonstrating DIREKTORs version. I restarted the discussion several times to refocus things after bad-tempered, repetitive exchanges between editors. Eventually the matter was resolved here when DIREKTOR agreed the current title.
  • The slivovitz bit came when I congratulated everybody on achieving consensus on this long running and vexed issue and posted a picture of bottles of slivovitz here. I thought it was all over! Within a few hours it was apparent that there was no agreement as I had thought - the same dispute was on-running - though now based round the label on the map and the lead sentence. That's why I said "more slivvovovvishhishs anyone". Then I asked for my slivovitz back. The ensuing argument appeared to be resolved here when I posted a fuller definition of "puppet state" as it occurred to me that a basic misunderstanding of the fact that a puppet state is not a proper state, may be the source of the problem. I said “Hooray!” because I thought that now it was understood that “puppet state” meant it was ‘’not’’ a proper state, there would no longer be any problem in reconciling DIREKTORs arguments that the article should not pretend there was a real, independent state, with all the sources describing it as a puppet state. In fact though, the dispute carried on regarding labels in maps and infoboxes and over whether all the sources, when they said “puppet state” had really meant to say “puppet government”. DIREKTOR remained adamant that the territory should be described as the Government of National Salvation on maps and in infoboxes and so on, which was not agreed by other editors, and for which no examples or sources, apart from one inconclusive page very late, were produced to support DIREKTORS various strongly worded assertions.
  • Regarding the article lead, I posted on the talkpage here approximately 5 different versions for a lead sentence, which were discussed by other editors, trying to find a version on which all could agree, including DIREKTOR, using words like "territory" and "administrative area" to avoid contentious flash points whilst maintaining accuracy. DIREKTOR entered my first version. Presumably he approved of it. Unfortunately he also made wholesale changes in the infobox which were issues that were the subject of the dispute, leading to a revert exchange with PANONIAN until I protected the page. (It had been agreed on the talkpage that editors would sort the lead and ‘’then’’ tackle the infobox issues). I edited just the lead to reflect what I understood was agreed on the talkpage, copy edited the rest of the lead. DIREKTOR disagreed with it. I still don’t know why. However, it was always plain that I did not care which version they used – as long as it had consensus and wasn’t going to lead to edit warring. The exchange with DIREKTOR which I struck was based on my misreading of his post. I thought he said "...playing the understand game..." which implies bad faith, hence my post. He protested and when I read it again I saw I had misread it so I struck my comment and apologised. The believe the current lead is the one of my suggestions that DIREKTOR approved of most.
  • The map business is quite complicated. DIREKTOR asked me on my talkpage to intervene saying another editor had changed the long-standing consensus version (from "Government of National Salvation" to "Serbia - under German occupation"). I took this complaint at face value and started a map discussion here. I expressed some concern about calling it the "GNS" or “NGS” because that particular regime did not cover the whole relevent period. DIREKTOR was still arguing that there was no such place as “Serbia”. PANONIAN then made some long complicated posts on the maps. After checking it out on Commons, it appeared PANONIAN had created the map in 2010 on commons, setting out his sources including about 8 linked source maps and 12 other sources. In the 8 available on the internet the territory is either called nothing or "Serbia" with various second line qualifiers like "under German occupation" or "German military authority". PANONIAN also produced a scan of the Times Historical Atlas map (used as a source). DIREKTOR had, without consulting PANONIAN, on 4th June, changed the colouring and the name of the territory from "Serbia under German occupation" to "Government of National Salvation", though his record of change only states ‘’ Rm borders and margin + entered a new color scheme’’. This was shortly before the current round of naming disputes – though the issues are much the same as previous rounds. PANONIAN changed it back. DIREKTOR then copied the map and all the sources and created a new map showing his chosen description. This however, is not supported by any of the 9 source maps I saw. WhiteWriter changed it back, DIREKTOR reverted. There was a rather aggressive exchange on the commons talkpage between DIREKTOR, PANONIAN and WhiteWriter. DIREKTOR replaced PANONIANs map with his in the article. He did the same to PANONIANs other map on 31st July. This latter occurred right in the middle of the on-going naming dispute on this very point on the article talkpage. In the circumstances, calling his map the "consensus version" on my talkpage when asking me to intervene and revert to his version was somewhat disingenuous. Following resolution of the naming of the article to "Serbia under German occupation", WhiteWriter, presumably believing the issue was now resolved, (wrongly as it turned out), had taken DIREKTORs version, copied it, changing it back to "Serbia under German occupation". This was what DIREKTOR was objecting to.
  • All have to say on Draza Mihailovic is – read the talkpages, particularly the Karchmar dispute here. Yes it often seems bad-tempered and a bit personal, but everybody has been arguing the same or similar issues for ever on and off. The sourcing issues are typical. If DIREKTOR has sources to illustrate his assertions - fine. Produce them! Then people have something concrete to discuss instead of endless unsourced arguing which frequently becomes offensive. I actually spent a long time myself hunting on the net and in books for any mention of Karchmar, whatever it said. This current process seemed to me like a last effort to get to grips with Mihailovic, followed hopefully by other WWII and Chetnik related articles. The process does require that apparently agenda pushing, tendentious, filibustering editors are pinned down on issues of sourcing. If they are not actually agenda pushing, tendentious and filibustering editors, no doubt they will have sources to support their assertions. I do not personally care whether Mihailovic was pursuing a pre-war agenda to create Greater Serbia or was an incompetent who lacked the cojones to control his lieutenants. I do however, care that the articles should present the most accurate and well sourced version of history that they can and not a revisionist version of whichever side is the most aggressive, persistent, numerous or skilled at gaming the system.

Regarding DIREKTORs characterisation of this as a content dispute with everybody else as a group pushing a particular version of content, this is nonsense, but the editors concerned, particularly Sunray the mediator, and Nuujinn, and some others, answered themselves at ANI.Fainites barleyscribs 13:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Karchmar/content[edit]

I don't think anybody was suggesting that Karchmar either be excluded or should "outrank" any other decent source. As you can see my concern was that having said Karchmar, Nuujinn, is a biased source and has been discredited on several separate occasions in Balkans discussions (and not by myself I'll add). The author is a Serb nationalist, an emigre I believe, who adopts a very slanted view on Balkans history., quite an extreme statement, DIREKTOR failed to evidence it but argued about at great length, seeming to expect editors would take his statement at face value. This sort of thing was why the mediator got the mediation participants to agree to sourced assertions only on the talkpage, to avoid the usual TLDR offensive nationaist exchanges so common on these pages and which effectively stall them. I can see FuFoFuEd's point though about subsequently expressing an opinion on how the sources should be represented. I accept that appears to be a step to far. I do not however, think it is being "involved" to insist on editors sourcing their bold assertions in highly contentious areas.

Nuujinn produced the Kitroeff review in that discussion here FuFoFuEd. It was the only review produced. A number of historians specifically mention his work and quotes were added to the quotation page. The point is - DIREKTOR produced nothing in support of his claim that Karchmar was a discredited Serbian nationalist. Nor was his description of earlier exchanges on talkpages about Karchmar accurate as I hunted those out too to see if there were any other references to reviews.

Regarding the discussion on revisionist sources - this was actually a bit off topic. Someone had the brilliant idea of setting up a quotes subpage as editors trading rival quotes tend to make the talkpages very complicated. It also meant that if a quote was being "cherry-picked" or used out of context, the rest of the quote could be added. This could be a very useful resource for a whole range of articles. I added a bit from MacDonald about revisionist histories in the area. The subsequent discussion between me and DIREKTOR is really just chatting about Tudjman and the diaspora Croats and so on and me summarising bits of MacDonald for him. They're not my opinions - they're MacDonalds. I hadn't thought of this exchange as particularly germane. Presumably neither did DIREKTOR think the quote was germane hence his query as to why I put it on the quotes page.

As I said, I can see FuFoFuEd's point about expressing an opinion on how the sources should be represented in that last comment on Draza M. I can also see the point about puttng a case together for AE. Of course, had it not been for ArbMac this wouldn't have arisen in this way. I think one of the problems is - I didn't go into this to ban and block editors. I went in to help moderate and focus discussions to enable source based collaborative editing. Neither did I go in with any views on any of it and I still don't have any now really. I did occasionally issue short blocks for edit warring but mostly I would protect the page for a short period and get people to discuss instead. It was only over the course of several months that it gradually became apparent to me that long-term disruption, OWN and TEND by DIREKTOR was one of the biggest problems in the area. Hence the 1 month topic ban followed by this one.

Statement by Sunray[edit]

My interaction with Direktor has been restricted to two forums: 1) The Draza Mihailovic mediation, which is privileged, currently on hold, and, in any case, unrelated to this Arbitration Enforcement appeal, and 2) A moderated discussion at Talk:Draža Mihailović which is related to the WP:ARBMAC Topic Ban and AE appeal. While Direktor has argued that I am in dispute with him, I do not regard this as accurate. However, in the course of the moderated discussion, I did have occasion to caution and warn him, as I did other participants. These warnings may be relevant to the topic ban, and I am willing to present some information on that, as needed. However, the topic at hand is whether or not Fainites is an "involved administrator" according to WP:INVOLVED. I will address the two issues separately, below.

Was Fainites "involved" per policy[edit]

The policy sets out two interrelated criteria to determine whether an administrator is involved:

Two interrelated criteria are set out in the policy to determine whether an administrator is involved:

  1. “[The administrator has had] ... current or past conflicts with an editor and disputes on topics...”
  2. "[However, if the administrator] ... ...has interacted with an editor ‘’purely in an administrative role... is ‘‘not’’ involved...”

Having gone through the diffs that Direktor has provided, I must say that, according to my reading of the policy, he has not demonstrated that Fainites ‘’is’’ an “involved” administrator. Direktor repeatedly states that “Fainites argues...” (“against the map label...” “for using the term ‘puppet state,’” etc., etc. It is certainly true that Fainites does get into content. However, it is a complex dispute, involving technical details regarding sources. If one looks at the diffs provided in context one sees that Fainites is, in fact, moderating. For example, looking at Direktor's first diff this diff in context, one sees Fainites doing the following:

  • Presents an alternative [43]
  • Cautions Panonian [44] (note that Panonian is in dispute with Direktor); asks for further comment
  • Asks Direktor to elaborate on a source; cautions him about "disruptive or unwarranted" comments [45]
  • Gets agreement of participants [46]; his efforts are recognized by a relatively uninvolved editor [47]
  • Several days later, protects page [48]
  • Cautions Panonian [49]
  • Secures Direktor's agreement [50]

It seems clear to me that Fainites is carrying out a relatively neutral balancing act--and trying very hard to assist editors in coming to agreements in this volatile Balkans topic area. I don’t see him disputing with anyone. However, I’m not going to beat a dead horse. No doubt Fainites sails close to the wind at times and several administrators have indicated that they do think that he was involved. I will comment on the validity of the topic ban separately. Sunray (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples of violations of WP:ARBMAC by DIREKTOR[edit]

The following pertains to repeated violations of WP Behavioural Policies and disruptive editing by DIREKTOR on the Draža Mihailović talk page and related subpages since returning, on May 8, 2011, from a one month topic ban [51] by Fainites.

For just over one year, until April 27, 2011, Direktor was a participant in the Draza Mihailovic mediation. The mediation resulted in a redraft of the Mihailovic article. The mediation is privileged and I am bound to make no comment on it. However, further discussion (open to all editors) on issues of "collaboration" and "ethnic conflict" continued on the article talk page, moderated by me. Since that time, Director has engaged in personal attacks and ad hominem, repeatedly disputed and denigrated other editors and has tendentiously refused to cease discussions. A summary follows:

Personal attacks, personalizing discussion, ad hominem (WP:NPA, WP:CIV)[edit]
  • 9 June 2011 - Personal attack directed at FkpCascais, calling him "... a POV-pusher of the most obvious sort. [52]. I requested that this be removed [53] and Direktor complied.
  • 14 June 2011 - Personal attack directed at FkpCascais: "You have 'no idea' about the course of this war and are not really equipped to discuss it." [54] Removed by me.
  • 15 July 2011 - Warning about personal attacks given to Direktor: "Nuujinn has requested that you remove recent personal attacks. I am concerned about the tone of this post (third paragraph), and this, which I regard as a personal attack directed at Nuujinn. You also state: "And should you proceed with it regardless I reserve the right to list all historians I can find that make no mention of Karchmar's theories." This kind of threat is contrary to our terms of discussion and both it and the attack demonstrably violate WP:ARBMAC. Consider this a warning. I suggest that you remove the paragraph in question, apologize to Nuujinn and move on. The discussion had been proceeding well until this, I hope that you will continue in a more positive and constructive vein. Sunray (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I have removed these remarks as I regard them as a violation of the Terms of Discussion (#3 & #6). Sunray (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)"
  • 4 August 2011 - Warned about "Non-productive remarks" denigrating other participants. [55]
Disruptiveness, tendentiousness (WP:DISRUPT, WP:POINT)[edit]
  • Terms of Discussion proposed by me on 15 June [56]. Direktor immediately objects to this [57], continuing for several days [58], despite the agreement of other participants.
  • Finally, at the urging of Fainites, agrees to abide by the terms on 19 June [59].
  • Director then argues about discussing the issue of collaboration and is told by Fainites that he is being disruptive [60]. He disputes this [61]
  • Continues to dispute issues relating to the terms with me [62]
  • Disputes Nuujinn [63]
  • Disputes Fainites [64] (23 June - Direktor has dominated the discussion for over a week.
  • The Terms of Discussion, proposed by Nuujinn and Paul Siebert were adopted and posted on 29 June.
  • Despite the foregoing, Direktor continues to flout and dispute the Terms of Discussion [65]
  • Direktor is warned about his disruptiveness [66]. Disputes this tendentiously (etc., etc.)

My conclusion is that, whether or not Fainites was "involved," (and I reiterate that I do think he was carrying out an administrative role, and was, therefore, not involved), there is more than adequate evidence to support a six-month topic ban. Sunray (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nuujinn[edit]

First, a question, is it appropriate for me to comment on DIREKTOR's actions here, or it this discussion focussed on Fainites's level of involvement only?

I don't feel I have the experience to judge what you all would regard as an inappropriate ban given Fainites's level of involvement, but I will say that I believe Fainites has acted consistently in good faith, has been level headed throughout difficult discussions, and has been an enormous aid in the discussions. I would be happy to answer any questions if anyone cares to ask me anything, I'm just not sure what my role in this particular venue is. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

  • Support appeal. I am 100% uninvolved here and I followed this a bit when it was at ANI (though due to being busy didn't get a chance to comment there). Basically, DIREKTOR is exactly correct: the topic ban was instituted by an administrator involved up to his/her ears in these disputes, Fainites, and as such is 100% illegitimate. In fact I should strike that "support appeal" at the beginning of this paragraph and simply say "there's no need for an appeal because the topic ban is obviously not legitimate, hence there's really nothing to be appeal" - DIREKTOR should simply ignore this faux-sanction. But since we like our bureaucratic procedures on Wikipedia I guess making it an official appeal makes sense
Now, it might very well be the case that DIREKTOR engaged in behavior which would merit a topic ban. I'm not that familiar with the topic area or his edits there - my sense is that there were some hi-jinks involved but I'm not convinced that they rise to the level of seriousness of a 6 month topic ban. However that is completely irrelevant. You just can't have involved administrators sanctioning users in order to win content disputes. That kind of behavior is grossly unfair, disruptive and against Wikipedia policy (in fact, Fainities probably deserves some kind of sanction for this). If tolerated and permitted, it sets a chilling and dangerous precedent.
So the topic ban on DIREKTOR should be vacated and Fainities should be at least warned. If a truly uninvolved admin then finds fault with DIREKTOR's edits then they are of course free to reinstate the topic ban (sort of like it's fine to post on behalf of banned users, provided you assume personal responsibility for the edits). In fact, later, after this is closed, and DIREKTOR recommences editing in the topic area Fainities would of course be in his right to bring his concerns to AE (which is what s/he should've done here). However I would wait for this kind of reconsideration until and if a new issue arises, since sanctions are meant to be preventive not punitive.
Ok, in case that was tl;dr, let me repeat: The topic ban on DIREKTOR should be vacated and Fainities should be at least warned.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Fainities statement on this page is itself pretty solid proof that he is indeed involved in these disputes.

As a response to Sunray I think that whether someone is "moderating" a discussion or "taking sides" (and then enforcing their side with blocks) is a very fine line, and one which is best not even approached. Again, opens up the door to abuse.

I'd also like to remind everyone that AE is not a place to rehash content disputes.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to F^3Ed

I think Volunteer Marek is being too acerbic here. - watch it buddy, I've seen AE reports filed for less. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't (and still don't) want to get into a detailed polemic with you, but I think your hint to DIREKTOR that he should simply ignore an admin imposed ban in a situation like this is not sound advice. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Sunray, seriously, this isn't the page to rehash content battles from mainspace pages, or to engage in ban-shopping. The only question of interest is whether or not Fainities was involved or not, and it's pretty obvious he was. More stuff like this and in my opinion a boomerang for creating battlegrounds may be warranted. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by FuFoFuEd[edit]

I think Volunteer Marek is being too acerbic here. By all appearances, Fainites is well-meaning in protecting the integrity of Wikipedia as he states (as opposed to advancing some nationalist POV agenda). I have no doubt that the area is "rife with relentless POV pushers", as Fainites says, and that when faced with two nationalist camps, which both are likely to "cherry pick" only sources/passages that suit their POV, it is hard to establish WP:CONSENSUS by just surveying what that kind of editors say on Wikipedia. Fainites' diligence in checking the sources himself, both for accuracy and sufficient context is quite commendable. However, extensive participation in forming consensus about the reliability of sources in non-straightforward cases like potentially biased historians, and opining in content issues, e.g. what is a good overview of some topic, constitutes content involvement.

I've spent some times looking though AE archives trying to find some how-to-proceed-properly in a case like this. It seems to me that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive93#QuackGuru is a good example of filling a case against a persistent POV pusher who misused sources. I'm not making a comparison between QuackGuru and DIREKTOR. What I am saying here, is that it would have been far better form for Fainites, whom through his extensive talk page participation had intimate knowledge of DIREKTOR's statements, to have assembled a list of what he saw as source misuses, and a list of (alleged) WP:IDHT threads by DIREKTOR, and to have submitted them to the attention of others (WP:AE or ARBCOM) admins having no shade of content involvement. It's quite human to see someone repeating a point you disagree with as over-the-top disruptive, even though uninvolved observers may just see it as "Wikipedia as usual". I've done it myself not so long ago, LOL. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Content observation

As for the spat over Lucien Krachmar's authority as a historian, I agree that DIREKTOR made some unsupported statements (blogs notwithstanding) and they were even potentially BLP-violating. However, some of Krachmar's conclusions have been received coldly or outright rejected by other historians/reviewers [67] and his work is seen as more sympathetic to the Chetniks than other accounts. [68] So, it depends which statements one wants to include, and how they are balanced against other views. There is no such thing as absolute reliability or unreliability in these matters. Nor can one find a completely unbiased historian. (One can find an even more sympathetic account published in the same period by the Hoover Institution [69]) Take care, FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That first diff wasn't operable, FuFoFuEd. Would you be able to try it again? Sunray (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Which one? And by the way, replying to your comments in the admin section: I don't see a WP:MODERATOR policy. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The first diff [70] (all I get is an abstract). What is an administrator's role, in your view? Sunray (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
They have a pdf linked on that page if you look carefully. For me it was free. It's from the Journal of the Hellenic diaspora, Volume 15 (1988). FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's the Kitroeff review that we used in reviewing Karchmar. I don't really agree with FuFoFuEd's conclusion referenced to the review, but I imagine that this is not the venue for discussion of that particular issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hmm, I think we do agree. At least I agree with you when you wrote "The dogged refusal to simply document a divergence in academic sources is not helpful" in this thread: [71]. But it seems to me that User:PRODUCER was more at fault there than User:DIREKTOR, who at least inched away from his initial hardline position. At some point--17:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)--both you and DIREKTOR agreed to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but somehow there was still an argument between you two, I'm not sure exactly about what. Then PRODUCER started making broad negative (and incorrect in my view) statements around 21:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC). FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think enough editors have interacted with DIREKTOR that they can make a request here for a ban if that's what they desire, but he doesn't seem to be the worst offender in that discussion, nor does he appear incorrigible to me, although it would surely help if DIREKTOR just plain admitted when he made an erroneous statement because the lack of that simple gesture surely fueled the flack he kept taking, [72] which (in my opinion) needlessly inflamed the situation and prevented a quick resolution. It all depends on whether that kind of discussion happens often enough to waste a lot of others time. YMMV as they say. I've certainly wasted enough of mine just reading that page. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by DIREKTOR[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I am tentatively of the view that Fainites is an involved administrator and the ban should be lifted. While ARBMAC has no specific provision governing administrator involvement (therefore WP:INVOLVED applies), the involvement provisions in other discretionary sanctions cases are instructive. Many arbcom decisions provides that "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." (e.g., WP:ARBAA2#Discretionary sanctions, WP:ARBPIA#Uninvolved administrators, WP:ARBSCI#Uninvolved administrators); others provide a narrower formulation, that "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions." (e.g., WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions). WP:ARBCC#Involved administrators specifies that "an administrator will be considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute, (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic".

    Even on the narrowest involvement provision, I don't see how this can be characterized as anything but a "current, direct, personal conflict on the topic" - and even if it can, it is beyond doubt that Fainites "participated in [a] content dispute[] on articles in the area of conflict". It is immaterial whether Fainites edits the article as well or just participates in talk page discussions. Unless their edits are purely in an administrative capacity - and it is plain that they are not - they should not be imposing sanctions in this topic area. T. Canens (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Today's word of the day is brevity, why this can't be boiled down to a few key points is beyond me. I agree with T. Canens, it appears to me that Fainites has been drawn into the content dispute and this ban, while quite possibly merited, should be withdrawn. If you are going to mediate disputes you can't get into the kind of exchange that T. Canens cited. --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • However, his continued replies on this topic are only bolstering the charge of tendentious editing in a topic subject to sanctions and while Fainites may have been involved it doesn't mean he was wrong. --WGFinley (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Overturn ban. Fainites was involved. Firstly, and most significantly, Fainites is clearly and quite significantly involved in the topic area in an editorial capacity. Secondly, Fainites has had direct editorial conflicts with Direktor. This isn't even a close call. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Per WOTD: I find that Fainites was involved, but the ban was merited. I suggest that Fainites be reminded not to take action when involved, but that the ban not be overturned. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion For Closing[edit]

After looking at all the comments here I would suggest the following to close this:

  1. Fainites was involved and as such should not have banned DIREKTOR, the ban is revoked.
  2. Fainites is commended for attempting to mediate disputes on WP:ARBMAC articles but should realize such mediation can make one involved with other editors and/or the dispute. Notice on AN/I or this board could have been taken so an uninvolved admin could review the dispute.
  3. DIREKTOR is cautioned that while this ban may have been improper it wasn't necessarily unjustified, he needs to avoid tendentious editing especially in the WP:ARBMAC space.

Suppport as submitter. --WGFinley (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I think we can close this just with point 1. I don't like "commended" and similar things that doesn't really have any effect, and if the ANI thread that preceded this request is any indication, we don't really want to direct people to ANI either. As to point 3, it doesn't say anything useful in the absence of a finding that D. was acting either appropriately or inappropriately. If D. did not act inappropriately, then a caution is entirely unwarranted; conversely, if D. has acted inappropriately, then a sanction, and not a mere caution, would be in order. However, this thread is a poor basis upon which to make a definitive determination either way, since too much of it is focused on Fainites, so I prefer that we simply say that the ban is overturned as it was imposed by an involved admin, leaving DIREKTOR's conduct for another thread. T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I hear where you are coming from and normally I would agree but I have serious concerns about DIREKTOR taking this as "vindication" for his behavior. Having these three findings makes things clear for the parties going forward. After looking at all the conversation here and on the numerous diffs provided there's no doubt in my mind some type of ban is warranted, it shouldn't have been Fainites who did it. Also, I would hate to see Fainites driven from the topic by one simple incident. --WGFinley (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
As I am leaving for the island of Brač tomorrow, I will be physically unable to participate in any discussion that might arise in the next several weeks. I cannot extend my participation beyond today without incurring serious financial loss, in fact this is likely my last post for weeks. I fear I may not be able to defend myself against any accusations, and unfair representation of my conduct, should at attempt be made to exploit my absence in such a way. Apologies for posting here, --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would consider it appropriate to make final decisions on an AE application like that whilst you were still away.Fainites barleyscribs 13:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with T.Canens: I would support #1, that the ban should be lifted, and I don't see the present need for #2 or #3. The understanding is that a new request for a topic ban could be made here at AE, if someone wants to request one. Agree with T.Canens that if warnings or sanctions are ultimately decided against DIREKTOR we need to make a definite finding as to what behaviors warranted the action. I sympathize with Fainites' motivations. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Closing: The discussion has wound down. Many comments were made about Fainites' involvement in the dispute leading to DIREKTOR's ban. In the present thread there is no unanimity about the need for sanctions on DIREKTOR. That issue could be deferred to a future AE request, if someone wants to file it. Sunray is an admin and he does not see a problem with Fainites' role here. Fainites defends his own actions but since this an appeal of his sanction, his vote should not be counted in the result. Five admins support lifting the ban: Mkativerata, KillerChihuahua, WGFinley, T. Canens and myself. Volunteer Marek supports that as well. FuFoFuEd did not express a definite opinion on lifting the ban, nor did Nuujinn. Per the discussion, DIREKTOR's ban is lifted since the right process was not followed, due to Fainites' involvement. This is without prejudice to a new request being filed, in which Fainites is welcome to participate. I recommend that the length of statements be limited in any new request, or you may not find any admins willing to do all the reading and checking which is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


OK, fair enough re the above, ie getting drawn into content and the banning DIREKTOR myself. But has anybody got any more advice on where the borders are in general? I mean - on the basis that it wasn't OK to express an opinion on "which version", was it OK to post five different versions of a lead sentence until one which everybody agreed was found? Was it OK to post the results of the sources I found? Is it OK to protect the page for a few days and try and get editors to restart a discussion? Regarding sources, presumably it's OK to act if someone specifically mis-cites a source, but what about failure to source assertions? Was it OK to keep requesting that they do? I mean this in the context of being an admin. I have no interest in actually editing content and thus becoming involved in the neverending nationalist POV pushing but I would be interested in contnuing to try and mediate/moderate discussions to enable normal, collaborative editing if possible. Fainites barleyscribs 13:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

To keep this thread from veering into new areas, you should probably take that discussion to your own talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Fine - as long as you guys follow it. I'll move it there now.Fainites barleyscribs 17:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning RolandR[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Biosketch (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
— (edit conflict merge) JaakobouChalk Talk 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Requests by Jaakobou (merged case):

  • Ban on twinkle privileges
  • Temporary ban from Israel related topics (widely construed)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 30 July 2011 – POV-pushing: editor reverts reliably-sourced information added to an article and describes the reverted edit as vandalism
  2. 4 August 2011 – POV-pushing: editor attributes to Wikipedia's voice a claim made or implied by a fringe website

Additional diffs merged from case request by Jaakobou:

  1. 12:23, 30 July 2011 claims, "editor has repeatedly added an unsourced allegation of a conviction for a sexual offence to this BLP. S/he relies on an article in Hebrew, which s/he apparently does not understand, but I do. The article does not make this allegation, nor any similar claim."
    RolandR misrepresents 3 reliable sources as a single Hebrew source and claims the one Hebrew source (aka "an article") "does not make this allegation" of conviction of sexual offense.
  2. 11:22, 30 July 2011 reverts with twinkle, removing 3 reliable sources, stating:
    1. Irish Times, "Ezra Yizhak Nawi, who was convicted of having sex with an underage Palestinian youth in 1992."[73]
    2. Haaretz, Translation: "Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor" (Google auto-translate)[74]
    3. Israeli court: State of Israel vs. Nawi Ezra, Translation: "He was convicted in the past in violations of sodomy of a minor and making threats..." (Google auto-translate) page 2, section 4
  3. 11:51, 30 July 2011 reverts again, "[Haaretz] does not make this claim"
  4. 12:00, 30 July 2011 reverts "vandalism" with twinkle, removing the 3 sources yet again.
  5. 12:24, 30 July 2011 reverts "vandalism" with twinkle again - self-reverts

p.s. I used Google only to show that my own translation (native Israeli) was correct.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Blocked on 7 April by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)
  2. Blocked on 1 June by Courcelles (talk · contribs)

(Is it necessary to copy-paste the diffs to all the other blocks at his Block log?)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Firstly it should be noted that I tried to engage RolandR (talk · contribs) on his Talk page prior to coming here in the friendliest and most nonthreatening way possible. I was more than willing to assume good faith on his part and offer him the chance to explain his edits. But hardly did 15 minutes pass and he reverted my query, basically leaving me with no other alternative but coming to AE.

Now, I'm not a believer in drawing conclusions regarding an editor based on a superficial glance at his contribs; on the other hand, I'm also not about to spend hours going through User:RolandR's edits to cherry-pick the ones that support labeling him a Marxist anti-Zionist. I suspect, rather, that he himself will embrace that label as applying to him without considering it an affront to his identity. If not, though, I'm perfectly willing to strike out the suggestion and apologize to him if in the event that I've misjudged him.

To the matter of the diffs. In 1992 Ezra Nawi, an activist for various Palestinian causes, was convicted by an Israeli court of statutory rape of a Palestinian boy. It was in the news extensively then, and it's all over the news again now because of the presidential elections in Ireland. (See the New York Times, for example.) Yet there's no mention of Nawi's conviction anywhere in his article. No, it's not that no one ever tried to add that information to the article. On the contrary, many have. It's that RolandR has been repeatedly thwarting their attempts. In the diff that I've cited, RolandR reverts an exceedingly well-sourced addition to the article by another editor – and to make matters worse, he labels the other editor's contribution vandalism.

At anti-Zionism, RolandR reverted an edit by Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) such that he attributed to Wikipedia's neutral voice a claim made or implied by a fringe website. According to his edit, some Jews are anti-Zionist, from which it follows that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic. This is a problem because the website he references,, isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. What it is is an advocacy site for Jewish anti-Zionists.

Taken together, these diffs represent problematic behavior on RolandR's part, of projecting his personal values and beliefs onto the Project and disrupting sincerely constructive edits of other contributors. Again, I tried to seek clarification from RolandR regarding his behavior at his Talk page, but to no avail.—Biosketch (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional notes by Jaakobou
A self-professed anti-Zionist with a prominent history of enriching the project with anti-Israeli advocacy content and adornment of editors (and activists like Ezra Nawi) with a similar perspective (two samples: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]), RolandR has managed to lose the ability to read Hebrew properly on Ezra Nawi, edit war and repeatedly remove 3 wiki-reliable sources, and led an admin, trusting an overdrawn claim of one a Hebrew related claim, into repeating the same action.[82] I believe RolandR can contribute to the project properly if he keeps his political beliefs and idols out of his arguments (and stops removing well cited content, 3 wiki-reliable sources in this case, as "vandalism" using twinkle).

p.s. I apologize for the merger, but this is the best solution IMHO after seeing another case was put forth while I was finishing up mine. With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC) touch-ups 21:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

p.p.s. I've just noticed a few comments were made by an editor with whom I share an interaction ban. This would not have been an issue had I posted a case without merger, I am not sure on the best way of handling the issue (repost as a single case? ignoring each other on this post? other?). Let me know. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC) - extra update/clarification+diffs 14:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to a diff where RolandR has stated, prior to your revert (i.e. 13:20, 30 July 2011), that the issue is a "poorly-sourced sex charges and possible overstatement of the gravity of the offences."? All I could find is a patently false claim, made on 12:23, 30 July 2011 (and prior to that as well), regarding the Hebrew text of the Haaretz article. i.e. referring it as the only source and that it, supposedly, "does not make [a conviction for a sexual offence] allegation, nor any similar claim." when Haaretz, as well as the other 2 sources (3 reliable sources) say he was convicted of "sodomy of/having sex with a minor/Palestinian youth". The details of the conviction are important for balance, sure, but they are irrelevant to RolandR's argument for reverting and of nudging you to revert as well on his behalf. It wasn't the Ezra Nawi debate which raised the red flag, but a straightforward misrepresentation of sources.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia is a collaborative project. RolandR's claims and repeated reverts were certainly enough to discourage any new editor -- seeing that 3 reliable sources are so easily misrepresented and removed again and again -- from making further contributions. Also, RolandR had not admitted to any fault in regards to Ezra Nawi (As of now). Just imagine the long term impact of his behavior if it is allowed to become a norm in the Israeli-Arab content area. New editors discouraged from making contributions and the old POV warriors would make an abundance of patently false claims about Hebrew and Arabic sources. Arbcom enforcement would be faced with extraordinary levels of battleground mentality, mud slinging and drama. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

I really wish you had just answered my last message here. I was more than willing to listen and consider your perspective. But seeing as you aren't interested in dialog, I've referred your conduct to AE here.

Replies by Biosketch to editor comments

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), you mean to tell me that Hummus is I/P but trying to censor details pertaining to an Israeli who raped a Palestinian boy isn't? And I didn't mine through anyone's contribs. I used to closely monitor Anti-Zionism and it's still on my watchlist, and the incident involving Ezra Nawi is being featured prominently in the news now, and I naturally was interested in knowing what Wikipedia had to say about the guy. I found it peculiar that the editor who insisted on attributing to Wikipedia a claim made by was the same editor who insisted on whitewashing the biography of an Israeli activist for Palestinian causes convicted of statutory-raping a minor.—Biosketch (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@RolandR (talk · contribs), "vexatious abuse of this noticeboard"? Next time someone asks you for clarification on your Talk page, maybe you oughtn't ignore and delete their message after fifteen minutes. You made it clear to me you had no intention of discussing the diffs I called your attention to. What exactly did you expect me to do?—Biosketch (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
@Nableezy (talk · contribs), it's neither here nor there what my feelings are about Jewish anti-Zionists. The point is one cannot claim that there are Jewish anti-Zionists using Wikipedia's voice in reference to an advocacy website that is itself anti-Zionist. The claim must be sourced to a WP:RS or formulated in such a way as to attribute the claim to the organization itself. You have insisted on the same standard of scholarship in your debates with other editors, so you shouldn't be applying a different standard in this case. With regards to Hummus, if it's being edit-warred over because of editors' political affiliations, yes, it should be subject to the same discretionary sanctions as more obviously I/P articles.—Biosketch (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jaakobou (talk · contribs), I don't mind at all that you merged your Request into mine. I would advise you, however, to strike out forthwith any comments you made that may have been in violation of your interaction ban. Based on previous AEs, if you do so soon enough you'll preempt any sanctions against you.

@Everyone, apparently it needs to be stressed again: I didn't file this AE on a whim. It could be considered frivolous if I was sitting around my house reading Wikipedia articles, found a couple that weren't to my liking, and then came here to whine about it to the Admins. That seems to be the impression some users have formed below. But no. Ezra Nawi is being featured prominently in the news now for something that was being (per my argument deliberately) omitted from his BLP by RolandR. At the same time, RolandR was attributing a controversial claim to Wikipedia's voice that was sourced to a fringe anti-Zionist website. Upon observing his problematic edits on those two occasions, I tried to engage RolandR on his Talk page and solicit an explanation from him directly. He demonstrated that he had no intention at all of explaining his edits, and that was when I came here. If someone has an idea as to how I could have handled the matter differently than I did, do share it with me.
@Nableezy (talk · contribs), you're conveniently overlooking another aspect of RolandR's edit at Anti-Zionism. The way that sentence was formulated, beginning with the contrasting adverb yet, it conveyed to the reader that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic. This is a more subtle but also a more problematic aspect pertaining to that diff, which either you aren't picking up on or you're trying to sidestep now. So let me make it clearer: RolandR inserted the sentence, "Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists," immediately after the sentence, "Others contend that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence, it is inherently antisemitic." RolandR usurped Wikipedia's voice to make two claims: (a) there are Jewish anti-Zionists, and (b) the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists undermines the claim that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. I don't know about all the other editors here but I do think you're prehensile enough to understand how that's WP:OR and, in RolandR's case since he's a Marxist anti-Zionist, an instance of him pushing his POV onto Wikipedia's voice.—Biosketch (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
@Nableezy (talk · contribs), you're wrong for two reasons. 1. This incident transcends the scope of a content dispute and has clear implications regarding user conduct in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. It was the nature of the edits that triggered my alarm and the fact that, when considered together, they pointed to a bias on the editor's part in violation of NPOV. 2. You think I care that RolandR (talk · contribs) is a Marxist anti-Zionist? I don't – just as no one here should care what I did in my life between the ages of 18 and 21. But it also shouldn't be obvious to me from examining two of his edits that that's what he is. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." At Ezra Nawi User:RolandR did not represent proportionately all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. He repeatedly removed significant views that had been published by reliable sources under pretexts of vandalism. At Anti-Zionism RolandR again did not represent fairly all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. He used an unreliable source to represent his own view – that the purported existence of Jewish anti-Zionists is a counterargument to saying that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. Clearer now?—Biosketch (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@EdJohnston (talk · contribs), "Should this use be considered to violate WP:ARBPIA?" – see Discussion page, since this is more of a meta-level question and the discussion here's gotten bloated.—Biosketch (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), I'm aware of his comment, though I'm not sure I completely get his drift. At any rate, my response to you addresses his concerns as well.—Biosketch (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning RolandR[edit]

Statement by RolandR[edit]

PLEASE NOTE that I shall be going away tomorrow morning (UK time), and likely to have only sporadic internet access for the next two weeks. I therefore request that, unless this case is closed tonight, any decision is postponed until the end of the month. I should also point out that any sanctions over the next two weeks are likely to be purely symbolic rather than effective. RolandR (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous; an entirely spurious and worthless claim.

In the first place, it is not an offence to be a Marxist and an anti-Zionist; nor even to edit Wikipedia while being a Marxist and an anti-Zionist. That comment should be struck out. Not because I am "affronted", but because it is irrelevant, an apparent attempt to have me sanctioned because of my beliefs, not my edits.

Second, both blocks noted by Biosketch were swiftly reversed; in both cases, it was accepted that I had been attempting to protect biographies (one of a living person, one of a recently murdered person) against abusive edits by sockpuppets.

As to the specific edits adduced here: on the Ezra Nawi article, Biosketch claims that my edit on 30 July was invalid, and that I should have known this because of an article published in the New York Times on 3 August! It is not the case that the case itself was "in the news extensively" in 1992; part of the problem here is that there appears to be no contemporary account, in Hebrew or English, of the incident, and it has been extremely difficult to establish the facts. Certainly, at the time of my edit, the information was sketchy, and the source cited did not verify the serious charges made. My edit was perfectly legitimate.

On Anti-Zionism, I was reverting a removal of text, which had been justified with the edit summary "a) unreliable source b) infers jews cannot be antisemitic. that is a fallacy". I pointed out that any inference drawn from the text was the editor's own synthesis, and that the source was indeed reliable for the organisation's own views. Biosketch may strongly dispute these views, as is his right; but he cannot deny that many Jews do indeed hold them. Again, I do not see any way in which my edit was illegitimate or disruptive.

I think that this complaint is entirely without merit, and hope that it will be rejected out of hand, and Biosketch warned against such vexatious abuse of this noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why Wikifan thinks that I wasn't "involved in" Anti-Zionism. Toolserver shows that I am the fifth most frequent contributor, with 78 edits over the past five years. None of the first four has edited the article in the past year, making me in effect the most prolific currently active contributor.
Nor do I see the problem with my edit. Wikifan removed as poorly sourced material which, as others have noted here, barely needs a source. I replaced this, and he has since reverted me. I intend to replace this later, with other sources. But really, is this AE based on the claim that I have replaced a source removed by another editor as "fringe"?
Regarding the Ezra Nawi article, I repeat that the Haaretz article relied on does not confirm the facts it was adduced to prove. It does not mention a Palestinian youth, it does not state that Nawi has been sent to prison at all, let alone twice, and it does not mention any dates, including 1992, 1997 and 2006. I still maintain that, under the circumstances, using this article as evidence for alleged facts it did not confirm was a breach of BLP. The edits which I made reverting what I described as vandalism were accompanied by warnings to the editor involved for breach of the policies on edit-warring and biographies of living people.[83][84] This was a legitimate use of Twinkle, in support of maintaining core Wikipedia policies. RolandR (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Both Haaretz and the Israeli court source only mention the conviction but do not mention the sodomized youth was a Palestinian. That politically incorrect detail is located in the Irish Times. IMHO, There is a limit to the BLP argument when the basis for that claim was that the Hebrew doesn't say he was convicted when it does. Btw, the court source edit-warred over says Nawi was in prison twice (page 7, section 16). JaakobouChalk Talk 14:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikifan now writes "I never suggested you were not involved in Anti-Zionism. I said, specifically, you were not involved in the talk discussion". Just to jog his memory, what he actually wrote was "What is odd is that Roland wasn't even involved in the article at the time. It just feels weird to know he is following me around." That looks to me like specifically saying that I wasn't involved in the article. And I'm not "following him around"; as one of the main editors on the article, of course I have it on my Watchlist. RolandR (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh? That was a reference to this AE you filed against me pertaining to West Bank Barrier, an article you had no presence in. Nothing to do with Anti-Zionism-related edits. For the record, this was the source Roland inserted into the article. I'm pretty certain that is unreliable, though I haven't searched the RSN threads. WikifanBe nice 07:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: Regarding RolandR's paragraph starting with, "As to the specific edits adduced here: on the Ezra Nawi article" above. At the time of 11:22, 30 July 2011 and of subsequent reverts, the 3 sources (Irish Times, Haaretz, Israeli Court Judge) did verify the serious charges made. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC) +clarify 20:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning RolandR[edit]

The first diff cited is not in the ARBPIA topic area, the second is using a primary source for the views of the source (namely that the group is Jewish and against Zionism). There is an unfortunate tendency on display here, one in which an editor mines though others contributions so that they may attempt to find any diff that they feel can be used as damning evidence of misconduct. Fortunately, those efforts largely fall flat on their face as any truly damning diffs would be noticed as they occurred. This is one such instance. Biosketch in his lengthy commentary above writes that the source Roland used in the second diff is an advocacy site for Jewish anti-Zionists. Now, that pretty obviously says that there are Jewish anti-Zionists. Which is the only thing that Roland used this website as a source for. To argue that this is "POV-pushing" is, well, POV-pusing (namely, the attempt to exclude a specific POV).

Now to the first diff. The first sentence is sourced (though the use of the word sodomy is not, the cited article says convicted of having sex without specifying the type of sex), though the rest is cited only to Hebrew language sources, one of which is the actual court case. The court case cannot be used in a BLP, as we are required to use reliable secondary sources for any contentious claims (and a claim of a criminal conviction is certainly contentious). As this is a BLP, I personally would prefer the source cited be in English so that it is more easily verifiable, but if it actually does support the material then I suppose it would be fine, but as I cannot read Hebrew I cannot say whether or not it does so. But either way, whether or not this person was convicted of drug possession or any other crime is not in the ARBPIA topic area and as such is irrelevant for this board. nableezy - 20:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, do you really, honestly, dispute that some Jews are anti-Zionist? That is the only thing that Roland sourced to this website. It is something that cannot possibly be under any dispute, to the point that it honestly should not even need a source. Hummus should not be in the topic area either, but because some of the editors here are, well Ill leave that word untyped, that there has been long-term edit warring over what categories belong, or what languages belong, or other such trivial nonsense. But no, whether or not this person was convicted of rape or drug possession or any other crime is not in the Arab-Israeli topic area. In short, I agree with the volunteer below. nableezy - 20:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Biosketch, I cant disagree with the premise that sources should be of a certain quality, and further I say that in this topic area in particular sources should be held to a higher standard than we see in the rest of Wikipedia. Perhaps Roland would have been better off just citing any other higher quality source instead of the primary source he used. My point is that the line does not even need a source, it cannot be disputed by somebody acting in good faith, and to that point you yourself appear unwilling to dispute the statement above, choosing to instead side-step past the query. To use the restoration of that sentence as evidence of "POV-pushing" and disregarding the removal of a clearly relevant and undeniably true statement is itself evidence of "POV-pushing". And honestly, if you had a problem with the use of that source, the place to go would be the article talk page. Not here. nableezy - 06:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Im not overlooking anything, conveniently or otherwise. What I am seeing is that an editor is manufacturing a conduct issue out of a content dispute. That Roland used a source you dont like is not an issue for this noticeboard. You claim that his removal of your comment on his talk page left you no choice but to come here, but that is so obviously not true that I struggle to find a suitable way to describe the claim. You could have gone to the article talk page, the reliable sources noticeboard, or the OR noticeboard (as he was citing a primary source). In fact, you should have gone to each of those places before you went to his user talk page, much less before you came here. Roland is under no obligation to discuss anything with you on his user talk page. He is however required to address concerns on an article talk page, and respect consensus. If you were interested in anything other than getting somebody whose Marxist anti-Zionist views you apparently find so objectionable blocked you would have gone there instead of here. nableezy - 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Biosketch, you are attributing arguments to Roland that he did not make, kindly dont do that. See ZScarpia's comments on why your view is more a product of your imagination than fact. nableezy - 14:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Volunteer Marek[edit]

With regard to the first diff - there was actually several other reverts on this article as this was essentially an edit war between RolandR and User:Cckkab. However, this IS a BLP and the text being inserted by Cckkab was a potential BLP violation. In fact EdJohnston subsequently protected the article [85] and removed the same text that RolandR was removing [86]. This was also addressed at 3RR. This suggests that content-wise RolandR was NOT POV-pushing.

The second diff is a single revert, and while strictly speaking RolandR should have attributed the opinion to the source just to make sure, this is at bottom another content dispute. Nothing to see here.

This appears to be yet another essentially frivolous AE request related to the IP area. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure everyone's on the same page: reverting others, by itself, IS NOT against any kind of Wikipedia policy or ArbCom decision. In fact, in many cases reverts can be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Hence, putting up diffs of a revert here or there by a particular editor really serves no purpose, except as "diff-padding".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Wikifan12345[edit]

I guess I should weigh in cause my name is mentioned. The only complaint I have about RolandR is his occasional uncivilized demeanor. Like Bio mentioned above, Roland accuses me of inserting my own synthesis when I removed an unreliable source. I opened a discussion here which I know RolandR has seen but apparently hasn't responded to. Also, Roland recently opened up an AE against me over a 1RR violation demanding a topic ban. That generated a lot of drama and ended up with a warning.

What is odd is that Roland wasn't even involved in the article at the time. It just feels weird to know he is following me around. Also, I know editors have more rights over their talk page but I found this response totally unnecessary: Removing unwanted nonsense. A cordial reminder about how AE's are carried out in a notice he filed himself? Wikipedia is all about collaboration and honestly I'm kind of afraid to edit articles articles RolandR dominates - like anti-Zionism because he won't engage in talk discussion and will remove all my contributions.

However, I don't see how this violates ARBPIA. I have to go with Marek here. Editors rely too much on AE to resolve content disputes. Dismiss and warn Bio. WikifanBe nice 23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Roland

I don't understand why Wikifan thinks that I wasn't "involved in" Anti-Zionism. Toolserver shows that I am the fifth most frequent contributor, with 78 edits over the past five years. None of the first four has edited the article in the past year, making me in effect the most prolific currently active contributor.

I never suggested you were not involved in Anti-Zionism. I said, specifically, you were not involved in the talk discussion. Your revert was IMO baseless and without merit. You re-inserted a very unreliable source, then accused me of SYNTH? Seriously? Look at my revert, look at the discussion. Collaborate, communicate, etc. WikifanBe nice 14:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible 1 rr violation[edit]

I've come to understand how important 1rr is in I/P conflict. So is this a violation?

2 reverts in 7 hours. The first edit looks like Roland removed cited content. A few days ago Roland filed a 1rr violation against me calling for a topic ban just to be clear. WikifanBe nice 23:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think this is a violation of 1RR. But, to prevent any possible breach, I have self-reverted my second edit, and restored the highly POV content, with which I personally agree but which is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
And also, note that the restriction states: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty". The second edit was a reversion of an edit by an anonymous IP, so in any case exempt from the sanctions. RolandR (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Gatoclass[edit]

Another frivolous case initiated by Jaakobou - and unfortunately by Biosketch, who is rapidly establishing a similar pattern. Whether or not one agrees with RolandR's reversions in this instance, they were clearly within the remit of WP:BLP, and EdJohnston, an uninvolved admin, effectively endorsed Roland's cautionary approach when he made the same revert "per BLP" before protecting the page. Moreover, the issue appears to be reaching a resolution on the article talk page, so there was absolutely no need to initiate a case here. Gatoclass (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston acted in good faith and trusted RolandR's claim that there is only one Hebrew source (per "an article") rather than 3 and that the Hebrew did not say "Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor" when it does say this. RolandR misled EdJohnston into making that revert.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
p.s. please avoid making personal attacks (per "another frivolous"). See also poor form. 11:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal attack - nonsense. AE exists expressly to discuss the behaviour of editors, you have been warned about presenting meritless cases on many occasions previously as I recall, indeed only a few months ago you received a formal warning from Sandstein for the very same. Personally I think it's well past time you were sanctioned for this sort of conduct, but I haven't the time or inclination to compile the history, so I suppose you will get away with it yet again. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Gatoclass,
Do you have any diff made by RolandR which explains why he would misrepresent Haaretz (aka "an article") and state "does not make this allegation" of conviction of sexual offense when it clearly says: "Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor"? Can you find an explanation by him during the time of his multiple reverts which explains why he claimed: "sources cited do not confirm this claim"[87] when the 3 sources do, in fact, confirm the material in the paragraph?
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Cptnono[edit]

Disregarding ARBPIA completely, a discussion might be appropriate regarding the suspension of Twinkle privileges. Not sure if that should be somewhere else but to make a few quick points: It should be more obvious vandalism and the edit summaries should have been clearer regarding feelings on BLP. The situation may not have have escalated if an editor was not being repeatedly called a vandal.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That was my first request. The latter one I've made can be rescinded if there were to be made an acknowledgement of error. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I was not clear. I wasn't trying to comment on the merit of the request or anything like that. Just trying to get the ball rolling here or somewhere else (not sure what the perfect venue is) on not letting the editor use an anti-vandalism tool since he used it in a content dispute.Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by ZScarpia[edit]
(Comment 1)

My Projectionometer™ is registering a strong signal in the vicinity of the Additional notes by Jaakobou section.     ←   ZScarpia   13:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(Comment 2)

Biosketch wrote:

So let me make it clearer: RolandR inserted the sentence, "Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists," immediately after the sentence, "Others contend that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence, it is inherently antisemitic." RolandR usurped Wikipedia's voice to make two claims: (a) there are Jewish anti-Zionists, and (b) the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists undermines the claim that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic.

Biosketch's logic is faulty. Roland made an existential statement about anti-Zionist Jews, but without indicating the implications of the statement or conclusions that should be drawn from it. There are many conflicting possibilties, but none of them positively implied by what was written. I think that Biosketch drew the inference he did because he saw what he wanted to see.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives many different meanings for the word yet, most of them having to do with time. In spite of appears to me to be the one closest to what Roland meant. Substituting the use of the word despite, then, the meaning of Roland's sentence is:

Despite the contention that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence it is inherently antisemitic, some Jews remain anti-Zionists.

Looking at that I can think of a different possible implications of that, but nothing definitely implied. For instance, it could be possible that: some Jews could be antisemitic themselves; some Jews could believe that Zionism is worse than antisemitism; some Jews may not believe that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. The reasoning which probably produced Biosketch's conviction that the inevitable implication of Roland's sentence is that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic is too deterministic for me. In fact, probably in common with a lot of editors here, the reading I've done has supplied reasons why there are anti-Zionist Jews, which include the following. Some Jews are anti-Zionist because it is an ideology which offends their political or ethical beliefs. Some are because it offends their religious beliefs (for instance, some believe that Jews should have waited for God to send someone to lead them back to the Promised Land). Some are because Zionism threatens their safety (in a past example, there was opposition to Zionism in its early days from Jews already living in the Palestine area because they believed that it would inevitably lead to inter-communal violence; Zionism was also opposed because it was thought that antisemites would use it as a propaganda weapon to claim that Jews' proper homes were somewhere else).

Biosketch called the statement that there are anti-Zionist Jews "a controversial claim" and one that "must be sourced to a WP:RS or formulated in such a way as to attribute the claim to the organization itself."

In its introduction, WP:RS says: "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything." The latter part of that sentence justifies the existence in Wikipedia articles of huge numbers of unsourced non-controversial statements. They are there because there truth is so obvious that nobody challenges them.

Looking, as an example, at the Zionism article, we hit the unsourced statement: At that time, the movement sought to encourage Jewish migration to the Ottoman Palestine. The statement is not there because editors are too lazy to challenge it, but because its truth is so obvious that nobody sane, who understood the rules, had a passing knowledge of Zionism and who wasn't trying to make trouble would challenge it. To me and, I'm fairly sure, a large number of other editors, Roland's sentence is obviously true too. I'm sure that many people involved in the IP area of Wikipedia could run off a list of bitterly fought over articles whose subjects are anti-Zionist Jews without having to give it much thought. Why would Biosketch challenge the sentence? One of the odd things about it for me is that one of his sentences here tends to indicate that he accepts the existence of anti-Zionist Jews. He wrote: "@Nableezy, it's neither here nor there what my feelings are about Jewish anti-Zionists." Another odd thing is that I'm sure that he must know that Roland, as well as being an anti-Zionist Marxist, is Jewish and therefore a living example of the thing whose existence he is challenging.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC) (correction made: 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

(Comment 3)

@Biosketch, 08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC): I'll try to explain myself more clearly. As far as the Anti-Zionism article is concerned, you've misrepresented what the sentence prior to the one added by Roland said. You've misrepresented the purport of Roland's sentence. And you've invented a motivation for Roland. In other words, you've constructed a rather nasty straw man. Having invented your straw man, you're using it to try and have Roland sanctioned and to stop the addition of Roland's simple statement of transparent truth to the article. If anyone is POV-pushing, it is you.     ←   ZScarpia   21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Nishidani[edit]

Roland's revert, the first above, was completely justified because what was involved was a piece of linguistic sleight-of-hand. The source says he was convicted of sodomy. This was phrased as a conviction for sodomizing a minor. Perhaps it is a sign of the decay of the times, or is it the drift into pornomorbid sleaze in public discourse and tabloid politics, that the obvious distinction here is lost on many. 'Sodomy' is generic, and refers to acts deemed characteristic of homosexual behaviour and in violation of the law forbidding the same in certain backward (sorry about the pun) countries (sorry about that too). 'Sodomize' is specific, and refers to anal intercourse. Do I need to refer readers to the extensive memoirs of the Bloomsbury and Homintern writers where this distinction was well-known, and where many homosexuals a court might have convicted of 'sodomy' in the legal sense (homosexual acts) disdained anal intercourse. I don't want to go into the details, but no one has a right to infer that a conviction of sodomy implies a type of act. Many of the lads in England thought intercrural rapports were the best, and that, while a case in legalese of 'sodomy', has nothing to do with sodomizing. Precisely this inference on the part of those editors who supported the text which Roland rightly reverted was an instance of WP:OR and WP:BLP violations. Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You certainly raised an interesting linguistic concern regarding the use of 'sodomising'[sic], but I don't see that this is what RolandR meant when he deleted the entire paragraph. If he clarified this somewhere, I would appreciate a diff.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning RolandR[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I prefer that this report be closed by a different admin, since I previously took action myself to fully protect the Ezra Nawi article per a complaint at WP:AN3, due to edit warring about poorly-sourced sex charges and possible overstatement of the gravity of the offences. I rolled back the article to an earlier version per WP:BLP, waiting for a proper summary of the sex charges to be arrived at by consensus on the talk page. Should Nawi be described as a pedophile or a rapist? Should his article be placed in the Category:Child sexual abuse? Some caution about this is required under WP:BLP.
  • The history of admin action is explained at Talk:Ezra_Nawi#Unprotected. Edit requests were filed during the period of protection and some of them were acted on by other admins. Since protection was lifted, the referencing of the article has improved quite a bit. The New York Times made a good summary themselves on August 3 due to events that occurred in Ireland since the original article protection was imposed.
  • On the question of whether anti-Zionist Jews exist, I hope that some other admins (or uninvolved editors) will look into whether there is anything of substance. So far I don't see anything, and I don't at this time see any good reason why the report can't be closed with no action. One of the two diffs included by Biosketch in his original report as (in his view) a violation of ARBPIA is this one, where RolandR links to as a source for their own beliefs. (Technically, to verify the statement 'Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists'). Should this use be considered to violate WP:ARBPIA? Of course it is up to the consensus of editors whether it is important enough to remain in the article, but that's normal editorial process. The fact that Roland believed that a link to could be used to verify a statement in the article is not an issue to be brought to Arbitration Enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If no other admins or uninvolved editors comment soon, I am planning to close this request with no action per my above comment. Valid concerns about BLP justified the RolandR edits, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Closing: The reasoning in this complaint is very thin. An admin decision was taken to impose full article protection for BLP reasons at Ezra Nawi based on RolandR's complaint at AN3. The events in the article could be skewed to be described as pedophilia, so the BLP risk was serious. Should we then punish RolandR for his part in reverting what he thought to be BLP violations prior to the protection? Do some anti-Zionist Jews exist? Must we have unimpeachable sources before this can be asserted? Is the world round? The only admin who commented is Gatoclass, though he usually does not post in the 'Result' section on I/P cases. He states "there was absolutely no need to initiate a case here." No other admins have commented in 13 days and no other editors who identify as uninvolved, so the report is closed with no action against RolandR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)