Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive40

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345

Matthead

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

Request concerning Matthead

User requesting enforcement: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Repeated accusations against others (of edit warring and stalking) while edit warring himself. Bad faith towards other editors.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Matthead has already been placed under restriction and blocked for its violation at least once, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement.
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [7]

Discussion concerning Matthead

This seems to involve moderate editwarring between Matthead and Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I am notifying too. Is there a reason why a sanction, if any, should not apply to both? I'm considering a prohibition on both to revert each other's edits for some time. Sandstein 08:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, succinctly, the reasons why sanctions should apply to Matthead and not myself are following: 1) I did not insult Matthead or make spurious accusations of stalking or editwarring against him. He's also called my edits "vandalism" when they were clearly not [8] for which he was reprimanded by another admin [9]. 2) Matthead has been creating POV-fork like articles (the existence of articles itself is legit, but they're written against consensus found on other, more major, articles). He also seems to have a sense of "ownership" [10] of certain articles and reverts any changes made to them. 3) Unlike Matthead, I have not been part of any arbitration case nor subject to any sanctions, specific or general (I believe he's under both). Furthermore he's been blocked several times for incivility, I have not, and this looks just like a continuation of the pattern. I will be happy to provide some more detail below, below Matthead's comment.radek (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radeksz did engage in edit warring against me and others recently, to a degree which I do not consider moderate anymore, and I have accordingly chosen to call this spade a spade. First, I had expressed my concern without addressing a specific editor, see Talk:Battle_of_Grunwald#Editwarring and Radek responding to it. Later, more direct warnings had no effect on him either. See Battle of Grunwald [11][12][13][14], Duchy of Nysa [15] [16] Charge at Krojanty [17] Johann Haller [18] [19] [20] [21] De revolutionibus orbium coelestium [22] [23] Laurentius Corvinus [24] [25] Nicolaus Copernicus [26]. And thats just the articles I was involved in, apparently he had other quarrels going on elsewhere. Then things got even more ugly. Just minutes after I made an edit to articles he had never edited before (but which were on his "watchlist since time immemorial"), he showed up to revert: Treaty of Versailles [27] [28] Pszenno [29] [30]. And, coincidentally, another well known user showed up in that Silesian village article, just to revert me: [31], or to remove links to German biographies [32]. And, as so many times before, User:Piotrus (himself the subject of several (*) Arbcom cases, RfCs, restrictions including being placed on Digwuren formal notice) is jumping the bandwagon trying to take advantage of the battle grounds created by fellow Polish editors. Deja vu, this happened many times before. When will it end? -- Matthead Discuß 11:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead, yes I have been engaged in these articles and I have disagreed with your edits. But first, at no point did I refer to your edits, which I considered to be against Wiki policy, as "stalking" or "editwarring" or "vandalism". So a good part of this is just about civility and AFG, not just the pattern of edits. Second, please note that for most of your cited examples, your disagreement is not just with me but with other editors as well (though there is some anon that seems to follow you around and edit in a very similar way). For example my revert on Treaty of Versailles that you list above [33], was merely going along with the revert made by another user [34] (and honestly I have no idea who Gwinndeith is) - I'm not the only one that finds your edits on these articles objectionable.

A good bit of this started about two weeks ago when I wanted to work on the article on Copernicus' economic ideas (due to my background in economic history) and found that Monetae cudendae ratio had been written with a view to making sure that everyone knew that some early draft of the work was written in German, rather than the actual contents of the treatise itself (I've fixed it since). After that Matthead started popping up at a whole bunch of articles on my watchlist all of sudden. Furthermore, when you write or expand wiki articles, you look up other articles that you plan on wiki linking and often correct them as well. Recently Matthead tried to remove some sourced info from the Copernicus page and as a result I ended up creating three new articles [35], [36], [37]. But all these were related to the Watzenrode so I looked up Lucas Watzenrode and Pszenno (their hometown) in course of writing them. These two also had a "Copernicus was German" kind of stamp on them in a pov-forkish kind of way (contrasted with the complicated and multiethnic presentation of Copernicus ethnicity that has been agreed to by consensus in his main article). At the end of the day Matthead's accusation of "stalking and editwarring" boils down to an objection that a Polish editor has the temerity to edit articles on "German" individuals like Copernicus or "German" areas like Pszenno. At the very least it lacks AGF and after while becomes offensive and incivil.

(*) Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07_Polish_Cabal_and_myself_as_its_leader, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus_2 (renamed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes).

Any evidence presented by Matthead should be reviewed very carefully; for example, his diff about me being placed on Digwuren's notice, for example, fails to mention that this was soon reverted by the same admin who did so in the first place: [38]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it shouldn't; look at the sanction again. It is about creating battlegrounds by bad faith and personal attacks. Radek is not creating any battlegrounds, he is not being uncivil or assuming bad faith to Matthead; he is a victim of Matthead comments. In all of the articles the story is the same: Radek + OTHER EDITORS are being reverted by Matthead + IP, and Matthead is making personal attacks about Radek time and again (the IP involvement is what makes me particularly uneasy about the revert parole on both). Edit warring is not a major problem here, as nobody violates 3RR, bad faith in comments leading to creating edit summaries is, hence the specific remedy, which Matthead has been warned about and has violated at least once in the past, is not about edit warring, but about bad faith and so on. See also [39] and User_talk:Matthead/Archive2009#not_vandalism, where Matthead personal attacks accusing Radek of vandalism were spotted and commented upon by a neutral editor. Finally, this thread is about Matthead, not Radek; per recent AE reforms which specifically warned against turning discussions into "shoot the messanger" or "free-for-all", this is "Discussion concerning Matthead", and not about anyone else.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not try and sort out all the mutual accusations here, but while I am indeed more concerned about Matthead's conduct than about Radeksz's, due to the aggressive language employed by Matthead in his edit summaries, both have been edit-warring (which does not require a 3RR violation). I am not sure that this conflict warrants a formal arbitration enforcement action at this stage, but I strongly suggest that both editors voluntarily agree not to revert each other (WP:1RR) for at least six months. Should they prefer to continue editwarring instead, I am ready to issue topic bans or blocks for either or both of them without further warning. Piotrus, since you seem to be personally involved in Eastern Europe-related disputes, I think it would be advisable for you to disengage from this one. Sandstein 11:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, please keep in mind that I'm not the one who brought this up nor am I the person that's been subject to any kind of Arb restrictions, nor am I the one who's engaged in accusations and incivility. Having said that, I will be perfectly happy to stay away from Matthead, provided he does the same* (sorry, I got to asterisk that). But I also feel like I got to say a few things in my defense. Note that the edits presented above by Matthead do not constitute evidence of 'edit warring' as that is usually taken to mean. Basically, this is an issue of breadth rather than depth. As I already stated, after I edited one of Matthead's "own" articles he began showing up on articles on my watchlist. In all of my edits on disputed pages I have tried to make sure to not go over two reverts per day - the exceptions being the cases where the anon, who seems to follow Matthead around, was involved. Furthermore, Matthead isn't exactly the kind of editor who is willing to discuss things out on talk pages or articulate his position, for example see his comment here:[40]. Finally please keep in mind that this is an Arb enforcement issue, not an Admin Note/EW issue (which, if there is a problem, is the appropriate place to deal with it). I also hope that the fact that you are more concerned about Matthead's conduct implies practical differences and consequences.radek (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ok, here's the asterisk. I will be happy to not revert Matthead if he does the same thing in good faith. However, I understand this NOT to apply to the disruptive anon ips (for example, 71.137.197.103) that go around with Matthead. I wish this to be stated explicitly right now because a lot of these disputes basically originate with the anon inserting highly-POV material into an article, myself or other editors removing it and the Matthead restoring it for the anon and then defending it. Likewise, I've recently made a Proposal to Merge [41] on what is pretty obviously a POV fork and Matthead is probably going to be the main objector here. I hope my good faith willingness to stay away from him will not become an excuse to game the system.radek (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I would like to point out, again, this Arbitration Enforcement discussion is about Matthead, who is subject to a previous Arbitration ruling, not about Radek, who is not. So: is there enough evidence to merit AE action against Matthead or not? That's a simple question (and has nothing to do with Radek; if somebody wants to discuss Radek, they are welcome to start a separate thread on this board - but they will first need to find an Arbitration ruling involving him... :>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of a voluntary mutual WP:1RR restriction between Matthead and Radek, for six months, as proposed by Sandstein. I suggest that these editors also agree not to use 'edit warring' in their edit summaries unless they plan to file a case at WP:AN3. I notice that Radek (above) agrees to most of this except he has a concern about IPs who make the same reverts as Matthead. If this happens in the future, he could request a temporary semi-protection (e.g. two weeks) at WP:RFPP, mentioning this discussion. If Radek and Matthead agree to this I trust they will both take the restriction seriously, because I assume that a block can be issued at AE, or even at WP:AN3, if they revert beyond the limit. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, the suggestion about temp semi-protection is a good one. Additionally though I think there should be some kind of restriction on Matthead restoring anon IP's disruptive edits after other editor have reverted them which is sort of what starts a lot of this trouble in the first place. There should also, at the very least, be some kind of admonishment for lack of civility and mis-characterization of other's edits as "stalking" or "vandalism" - i.e. this Arb Enforcment should actually address the issue at hand, rather than other issues.radek (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P. aka P.K., I would like to point out that when you file an AE, the discussion is going engage the different issues and the various people involved in it. It is going to concern the person who the complaint is lodged against, and the person who lodged the complaint. It is going to examine the complaint, everyone involved, and the possible motives for it being filed in the first place. This is partially why I've chosen to comment here. Not long ago you brought forth a similar effort to sanction me on similarly weak grounds. It came to no avail. You are constantly trying to censor, ban, block, and otherwise smear people that you disagree with in witch hunts and in an inquisition like fashion. Why would you suppose that if you bring up several "diffs" as the basis of your complaint, and they all involve Radeksz, that he would not be subject to this discussion? And I ask you that question, regardless of the fact that Radeksz has repeatedly and voluntarily entered into this discussion. So let's look at your "diffs". Number 19, Pszenno, what's wrong with it? That Matthead stated that it was part of Germany until 1945? That it had a German name for hundreds of years? Sorry, but it was, and it did. Number 20, Questioning the possibility that he's being stalked? Where exactly are you coming from with that? Now a person cannot question that possibility without it causing you to file an AE? What really surprises me the most, however, is I thought this matter was over and done with when Sandstein put it all into proper perspective, and pretty much said that there is sufficient blame all around, so cool it (with a poignant reference to you. P.P.). Evidently some people are unable to do that, and the sad part is after enough of this nonsense begins to be carefully scrutinized, the day may come when a genuine complaint filed by you will go the way of this. Do something more constructive. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an uninvolved editor in these particular issues, but have encountered disruptive edit warring on Matthead's part in the past. I too think the idea of a temporary voluntary mutual WP:1RR restriction between Matthead and Radek is a good idea in this case. If either of them violates the agreement, an admin should have the discretion to block. I would encourage both editors to willingly agree to it. If either party does not agree to this, I think we need to hear from them why they do not and go from there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been quite patient and disinterested about this thread here, but User:Good Olfactory showing up here is the camel that breaks my back. He is the "uninvolved editor" who felt the need to block me for 31 hours in February, among others for "unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry". This refers probably to this edit of mine in response to a user openly declaring to using both User:Aecis and User:Aec is away according to policy, thus me stating the obvious while still not knowing how to address him, Aecis or Aec. He had stated that (until 1990) "There was no Germany to be a citizen of". While he is entitled to have and express this opinion, it is not acceptable that such fringe theories can enter Wikipedia articles or are used to create and populate categories like Category:West German expatriates in the Netherlands. Then, I have chosen to call this incredible bullshit (which is probably the profanity part of the block notice). Well, now I repeat myself: incredible bullshit. Feel free to warn me, restrict me, block me, ban me. As a consequence of the block, I had already chosen to stay away for two months or so. Oddly, in the meantime, User:Aecis, an admin, left Wikipedia, and a statement behind with which I have to agree. Also, I left Good Olfactory's block notice on my talk page, just to remind myself about his qualities as an admin, and about what is wrong on this Wikipedia, where any nonsense is welcome when it's inserted in a superficially civil manner. And when its supported by some others, it becomes "consensus", which does not need to be backed up by facts. Thanks to English Wikipedia, I've learned in the 2000s that until September 1990, I and about 60 million others were West Germans, and only since 3 October 1990, when West Germany was abolished, we've become Germans. Well, my passport issued in 1987 says "Federal Republic of Germany - The bearer of this passport is a German", and it was accepted in several foreign countries until it expired in 1992. If certain modern day Wiki editors and admins had been customs officials then, they would have probably tried to arrest me for passport fraud or whatever, as I had presented a passport of a non-existing country like Atlantis or Utopia. The foreign customs officials who due to the Schengen agreement may have lost their jobs hopefully have become teachers of history, so maybe future wiki users are better educated. As for the matter with Radek, especially after his statement "and honestly I have no idea who Gwinndeith is" I'm interested in the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gwinndeith (since moved to Molobo). Hopefully it is dealt with before CU evidence becomes stale. -- Matthead Discuß 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead, I'm not familiar with the details of the situation of Aecis, but if a user is upfront about having two different handles how is that sock puppetry? From Wiki's own article on the subject A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community.. If a person states ahead of time that there's two accounts he's using where's the deception? It seems like the block made by GOf was justified, even putting your incivility inside. So this in no way compromises GOf, even if you did put him on your blacklist. The reason I comment on this is because this seems to be a typical development here - Matthead (or someone else) violates some rule or sanction he's been subject too, action is taken or the matter is brought up but immediately it becomes an issue not of Matthead (or someone else) having violated the rule or sanction but of other editors who care to comment being subject to attack (like GOf above).

The middle of your post - the part that is not completely irrelevant (customs officials?), the part where you complain about consensus on Wiki and so on, basically shows that you are not in fundamental agreement about how Wikipedia works. This is probably where a lot of the trouble is stemming from.

Finally, I honestly have no idea who Gwinndeith is and I resent any insinuation to the contrary. This one is another example of false accusations and hostile attitude that this Arb Enf is supposed to address. I hope that if anything else this serves as additional proof that some action needs to be taken here.

Oh, and it's the camel whose back is broken, the camel doesn't break anyone's back. Sorry to be pedantic.radek (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Good Ol'factory, your comments make some sense and your suggestions are reasonable. But my question to you is, if indeed you are as you claim, "an uninvolved editor in these particular issues," how is that possible, if you "have encountered disruptive edit warring on Matthead's part in the past". How can you be "an uninvolved editor"? Uninvolved how? Uninvolved, as in "neutral" by implication? It would seem that you have not only been involved with Matthead and his participation on WP, but were not pleased with it. Personally, I have not encountered disruptive edit warring on Matthead's part in the past. In fact, I met him on WP concerning a very contentious debate over the issue of the Klaipeda region, where we are still in vehement disagreement. In spite of this, he has always been courteous and responsive to alternative opinions. Then again, I have never tried to ram my POV down his throat, or been insulting to him. It worked for me. Anyway, your points concerning a resolution of this matter are valid. I think Sandstein pretty much said as much, and much more succinctly earlier. Motion to close this, and the sooner the better. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dr. Dan, I'm glad your interactions with Matthead have been positive. But please don't try to flip this. The exact reason this issue has come up is because Matthead HAS BEEN insulting and possibly (I'll leave this to other's judgement) he's the one who's trying to "ram" POV on the relevant talk pages. This is why he had these "discretionary sanctions" placed on him in the first place and this is why he's here on this board again. As I said before, I will be happy to stay away from Matthead, provided he does the same in good faith. But that's not what this Arb Enf is about and it looks like that Arbitration that took place (which I was not a part of) and the resulting 'discretionary sanctions' seem to be just empty words and have no teeth - even if there is more concern about Matthead's conduct.radek (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Matthead to comment on my proposal regarding a mutual 1RR restriction. If he does not do so soon, I intend to close this thread by imposing the appropriate discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 08:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note this recent comment by Matthead at Jena: [42], an article that he has not made a single edit on since Sept 2007 (and even that only a minor one), until I made a comment on the talk page (not even a main page edit!) yesterday. I think this, and the intended message his comment is supposed to send, puts his accusations of "stalking" in proper perspective. Note also that I almost immediately agreed to the voluntary 1RR while Matthead responded by writing a long comment - his own airing of unrelated grievances - but did not choose to make the same kind of commitment. Again, putting the accusations of "edit warring" into proper perspective. (I'm not even gonna bother commenting on his complete lack of AGF here).radek (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Matthead

While Radeksz has agreed to the mutual 1RR restriction proposed above, Matthead has not. This makes it necessary to impose binding discretionary sanctions. While both editors have edit-warred, as noted above, Matthead's conduct appears more troublesome due his generally more aggressive tone. Also, his contributions to this discussion are not promising; they do not address the issues raised by Piotrus but detail at length irrelevant issues such as various grievances against other users and something about German passports.

For this reason, pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, I am directing Matthead to observe the WP:1RR rule with respect to all other editors in all pages related to Eastern Europe for six months, beginning now.

I note that Radeksz has voluntarily undertaken to do likewise (but only with respect to any edits by Matthead, not other editors) and may also become subject to formal sanctions if he does not. The 1RR applies only to edits made by Matthead while logged in.

Generally speaking, I recommend that both editors leave each other alone for now. I also note that I agree with EdJohnston's notes on implementation above. Sandstein 17:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gazifikator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No action taken. AGK 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Gazifikator

User requesting enforcement: Grandmaster 15:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2‎
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement, which states:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [43] [44] [45] [46]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Gazifikator has been edit warring and POV pushing on the article Varoujan Garabedian. Garabedian was convicted by the French court to life in prison for planting the bomb at Orly airport, which killed 8 people. Despite this, Gazifikator insists that it was never proven that Garabedian planted the bomb, even though New York Times and Agence France Presse explicitly say so. For instance, France Presse writes: Garbidjian was found guilty in 1985 of planting a bomb at the Turkish Airlines desk at Orly airport, and perpetrating the deadliest terrorist attack in France of the last 20 years. (Agence France Presse, May 3, 2001.) The quotes are available at talk of the article. However, Gazifikator keeps reverting sourced info and insisting that this person was not the bomber. He made 4 rvs on that article within the last week, removing sources he disagree with. If you look at the present version of the article, you'll see that it contains very strange statement that Garabedian was convicted by the French court for "alleged role" in bombing, while common logic suggests that if a person was convicted by the court of justice in a democratic country, his role cannot be alleged, it is legally established.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): According to the arbcom ruling: Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Therefore I request that this user is warned that further edit warring may result in arbitration enforcement.
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [47]

Discussion concerning Gazifikator

I'm currently examining the evidence presented, and will offer a response later tonight. In the meanwhile, I'd invite any parties who wish to do so to post their input. AGK 17:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to resolve the editing issues with that article if certain editors would stop trying to turn it into a hate-article against Armenians. It isn't hard to see what is being implied in the article: Armenians are all murderous and unrepentant fanatics. Take the last edit by Grandmaster for example - in it, the article says "On July 15, 1983 Garabedian planted a bomb at the Turkish Airlines check-in desk in Orly airport, Paris, which killed 8 and wounded 61", then says essentially the same thing again a couple of lines later: "We planned to blow up the Turkish Airlines plane, which was to transport high-ranking representatives of the Turkish secret services, as well as generals and diplomats. As a result of the action that we carried out 10 Turks were killed and 60 were injured", and then it goes and says it a third time: "Garbidjian was found guilty in 1985 of planting a bomb at the Turkish Airlines desk at Orly airport, and perpetrating the deadliest terrorist attack in France of the last 20 years". Talk about over-egging the pudding!

Parts of Gazificator's edits are unjustified and unsustainable, such as his use of the words "alleged role" (though a single source does use that phrase), but they are being done as a reaction against some heavy-handed editing by Atabey and (to a lesser extent) by Grandmaster that were equally unjustified. We have to remember that we are dealing with an article about a living person: we do not have access to trial documents and we should not have an article filled with tabloid-speak. Meowy 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think issuing cautions to all those who introduce zealous statements into the article would improve the editing atmosphere? AGK 18:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about issuing cautions if cautions means a formal warning implying further sanctions if it goes unheeded - just issuing a statement might suffice. There has also been a spate of similar editing activity involving related articles such as Esenboga airport attack, Orly airport attack, and Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia.

I wish the involved editors would realise that the readers of these articles can easily recognise such obvious use of hyped-up language (like "the deadliest terrorist attack in France") or euphemisms (like "alleged role"), and all they are doing is discrediting the articles. For example, the ASALA article (which could be a press-release by the Turkish State) goes on at great length about every single attack, yet is almost silent about what the aims of the attacks were (when any aims are mentioned, they are put in inverted commas). Meowy 19:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gazifikator didn't do anything wrong, in fact, the several news reports proclaim 'for his role' or 'mastermind'. The French suspected that he placed all the blame on himself in order to not give away his friends. The court transcript must have been somewhere, but if I remember correctly it falls short of explicit claim that he actually placed the bomb. I don't understand this ganging up of both you and Atabek, when Gazifikator's version clearly states the man's role. It's only on his last edit that he added the term alleged... you're making it seem as if there was denial. Interestingly enough, Atabek is on the Turkish Wikipedia and you are here focusing on Turkish matters. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the recent developments in Armenian-Turkish relations.

We can not report a member with no history of incident in the arbitration enforcement on the first disagreement you have with him, with the purpose to have him restricted. - Fedayee (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query for involved editors.

Is the set of events presented in this edit, amongst others, supported by sources, or does it represent an attempt to alter the article from the correct course of events—as verified by reliable sources—and towards an alternative viewpoint?
If that edit does constitute an attempt at altering the article in favour of a given POV, is this a serious problem in this article? Are other editors trying to introduce a non-neutral POV into the article?

Many thanks in advance for answers that can be offered, AGK 18:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my version of the article: [48] Meowy is not correct that I repeat the same line 3 times. It says only once that Garabedian planted the bomb. There's also a quote from France Presse in the reference, but it does not appear in the main body of the article. (This line: "Garbidjian was found guilty in 1985 of planting a bomb at the Turkish Airlines desk at Orly airport, and perpetrating the deadliest terrorist attack in France of the last 20 years".) The reason why I included a quote from France Presse into the reference was that Gazifikator insisted that sources did not say that Garabedian planted the bomb. Since he ignored the talk page, I included the quote into the reference to attract his attention to what the source says, and it is a normal practice. Also, there's a quote from Garabedian's recent interview, where he explains his motives in bombing. I think, it is quite appropriate, as it represents his side of story. Now responding to the questions.

1. Yes, it is an attempt to misrepresent the events, claiming that Garabedian was convicted for alleged, not real role in the crime, while his role in the attack was established in the court of justice. Why would a court in a democratic country convict people for alleged crimes?

2. Yes, I think it is a serious problem. When someone removes the sources that he does not like, and edit wars to suppress certain info, it does not help creating a healthy editing environment. I do not ask for any severe measures against Gazifikator at this time, only a warning that such behavior is not acceptable and may result in sanctions if continued. I hope this would help Gazifikator to understand that what he does in that article is not acceptable, and he would not do that anymore. Grandmaster 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gazifikator

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

I'm not satisfied that the edits presented ([49] [50] [51] [52]) are a deliberate attempt to introduce a non-neutral point of view. Indeed, on the face of it, they seem to be simply attempts to alter the wording in favour of what the sources claim.

As there is no effort here to introduce material that introduces a non-neutral POV into an Armenia-Azerbaijan article, no action will be taken.

AGK 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tundrabuggy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Tundrabuggy (aka Dajudem) indefinitely community banned. AGK 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Tundrabuggy

Summary

Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who edits exclusively in the area of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is Dajudem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor who was topic banned from that area for one year in April 2008. The Tundrabuggy account was created a month later.

Background

Dajudem was banned for a year from all Arab-Israeli articles on April 23, 2008 after CAMERA, a pro-Israel lobby group, was found to have formed a group of people to edit those articles from CAMERA's perspective. CAMERA called the project "Isra-pedia," and Dajudem was part of it. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign. Moreschi issued the ban, [53] which was upheld on May 28, 2008 by the ArbCom. [54] That was the day User:Tundrabuggy was created and began editing. Dajudem stopped editing on May 17. [55]

Shared e-mail address

The sockpuppetry came to light because Tundrabuggy e-mailed me from an account that a google search showed had been used by Dajudem. I learned a couple of days ago that Dajudem had been topic-banned. I e-mailed her to say I knew she was Dajudem, and to ask whether the ban had been overturned. She didn't deny being Dajudem, and acknowledged that the ban was still in place.

Aggravating circumstances

I wouldn't invariably report a topic-banned editor if they'd quietly returned to do good work, but this case is somewhat egregious for the following reasons:

As Tundrabuggy, she started editing it from an opposing perspective — e.g. [57] [58] [59] and on talk here and here.

Through her editing and her complaints to Elonka about Chris, [60] she eventually contributed to a situation where ChrisO was temporarily article-banned by Elonka for reverting too much. Tundrabuggy was also temp-banned from the al-Durrah article. [61]

In my recent e-mails to her, I asked Tundrabuggy whether she had targeted ChrisO because he'd exposed the CAMERA lobby a month earlier. She said she had not.

2. Tundrabuggy made a statement to the ArbCom supporting Chris's article ban, in which she said she was a new user, [62] a deception that would have been unnecessary if she had stayed out of the situation. She made the same claim during Elonka's RfC. [63]

3. After the al-Durrah sitution, Tundrabuggy followed Chris to articles on ancient Mesopotamian history and started feuding with him there - see the discussion at AN/I where Chris writes, "[Tundrabuggy] now appears to be wikistalking me from article to article, opposing whatever I support, supporting whatever I oppose, allying with and aiding editors with whom I have an editorial dispute." [64]

In the interests of transparency

Tundrabuggy and I have been involved in a difference of opinion at Exodus from Lydda, which is how I came to look through her contribs. I reported Jaakobou below [65] over his editing style at that article, and was accused of using this board to win a content dispute. I may be accused of the same thing here, so I'll just post this and won't comment further unless I'm asked for more information. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant links

Moreschi's topic ban of Dajudem
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign; section about Dajudem is here
Administrative review about the wikilobby from ChrisO, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and Moreschi.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying; topic bans upheld here.
Dajudem's IP address, which she posted herself, in case it's needed.
Judadem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another account linked by IP to Dajudem; she said it was someone she lived with. [66]
ChrisO's appeal against Elonka's sanctions

Tundrabuggy informed

[67]

Discussion concerning Tundrabuggy

Given what SlimVirgin has presented above, I think it is indisputable that Tundrabuggy/Dajudem managed successfully to evade her topic ban for the ten months from June 2008 (when the Tundrabuggy article was created), through to 23 April 2009, when the ban expired. It is customary for the "ban timer" to be reset or extended if a banned user attempts to edit in spite of the ban (see [68]). At the very least, I would suggest resetting the ban to run for a further ten months, i.e. to March 2010. However, in the circumstances of this very flagrant ban evasion and the aggravating circumstances, I would suggest a full block for at least that ten month period. Frankly I would not be averse to making it an indefinite block. Given that Tundrabuggy/Dajudem was topic-banned for sockpuppetry and evidently continued that behaviour after being topic-banned, it would probably also be useful to do a checkuser run on the accounts to see if there are any further socks being used or waiting to be activated. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If true, this is an extremely egregious abuse of the wiki. I support an indefinite, complete ban. Cla68 (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any useful information from checkuser on this linkage? It's not essential to a decision, but might be helpful if available. MastCell ^Talk 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Tundrabuggy took a Giant Step [69] without saying "May I?" I would not argue for a different out come. What concerns me is that infractions of rules, that exist no place but this website, have turned WP noticeboards into rivers of complaining and whining by informers and squealers. In my view, all this crap, with the time spent by editors (trying to find ways of getting rid of editorial opponents) on formatting accusations, and the resulting wiki-floggings for "egregious abuse", is more disruptive to the editing of articles than what seems to be the prime wiki-crime of edit warring. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tundrabuggy

OK. I am throwing myself on my wiki sword. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this seems such a very obvious and egregious case, I am indef-blocking both accounts and propose treating them as community-banned. I would appreciate it if some checkuser could store relevant IP data of this editor, because given their history, chances are they will try this again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above action. This is a very egregious case of sock puppetry and bad faith editing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indef block is obviously the right move here; like Fut. Perf., I hope a checkuser is investigating the matter and keeping a record of the IPs, etc. We'll probably see a reincarnation of this account at some point. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support resetting the ban timer, and installing a block (with CheckUser support) to run concurrent to, and enforce, that ban. In keeping with my usual leniency in administrator duties, I am not minded to indefinitely expel a user from the project, but I do accept that this editor is guilty of gross violations of the site's policies. AGK 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general observation, this is an account which was created and immediately jumped into a heated dispute. Over thousands of edits, this account did literally nothing other than edit various controversial articles from an agenda-driven perspective and politick in projectspace. Let's say this had not turned out to be the sock of a banned user - does this kind of account contribute anything of value to this encyclopedia, or are they just drains on the resources and goodwill upon which the project depends? The decision to block this account is easy, because it's a block-evading sockpuppet, but that's actually almost a superfluous piece of data. It's fine to have a point of view, and to express it. But if you do literally nothing on Wikipedia other than advocate for a specific agenda, then... I mean, really. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True; I don't deny the account is presently contributing almost nothing. But, I'd like to think—and I'll freely admit here that I'm being sanguine—that, in a year's time or whatnot, the user might consider trying his hand at contributing. When the user comes back, an indefinite ban is going to provide no motivation to "wait it out" (why wait out something with no defined length?) and actually return. Again, though: I'm playing the optimist. :-) If he does evade the ban, we'll reset it; and if it does expire and he does return and disrupt, we can quite speedily re-block and/or re-ban. Sorry if I'm being absurd, but I'll stand by what I say. AGK 19:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clearly in the minority here, so I'll go ahead and implement the indefinite ban—but, if folks don't object, adding a personal note that he is welcome to contact me at a later date if he wishes to return to the project. AGK 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An indef block is obviously appropriate for this sort of ban evasion. As a procedural matter, community bans are best discussed on WP:ANI, which has a greater audience, and that board would have been a more appropriate place to file this request, which is not really about arbitration enforcement. Sandstein 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe technically it is about arbitration enforcement, since the topic-ban TB evaded was confirmed by the Arbitration Committee [70]. It's better dealt with here than in the frenzy of AN/I, in any case. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse indefinite block for all accounts of this user. Mastcell is right on the money. This user did nothing but treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEFIELD (but when is that policy ever seriously enforced?). Moreover, the user spread the Israel/Palestine feud into areas which have nothing to do with the issue, such as ancient Persian history, helping to skew content and create edit-warring elsewhere. I really don't see why we tolerated that kind of behaviour from this account, sock puppet or no sock puppet. Something should have been done sooner. --Folantin (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support indefinite block. This user has worn, wearied, and wasted the time of too, too many editors. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Just putting on the record here that this user has already been caught sockpuppeting again. Globbess (talk · contribs), created on 8 May, was just checkusered as a sock of Dajudem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jaakobou

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No action taken. AGK 20:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Jaakobou

User requesting enforcement: SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Purpose_of_Wikipedia
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Jaakabou seems to be engaged in advocacy on behalf of Israel, rather than in editing as a Wikipedian. He insults and removes reliable sources because he disagrees with them, and removes well-supported material because he doesn't like it.

At Exodus from Lydda, an article about the Israeli invasion of Lydda and Ramla in 1948, he has argued that Ilan Pappe, professor of history at the University of Exeter, and the author of eight books on the Middle East, cannot be used as a source. This is because Pappe makes it clear that he is pro-Palestinian, and he has supported an academic boycott against Israel. Obviously, this does not affect Pappe's status as a source under the policy, but Jaakabou insists that it does. See Talk:Exodus_from_Lydda#Anti-Zionist_activist. A discussion at the RS noticeboard subsequently confirmed Pappe as a reliable source.

Here he removes Norman Finkelstein, [71] former assistant professor of political science at DePaul University, and the author of several books on the Middle East and Zionism, who is also pro-Palestinian.

Here he adds a POV tag to the entire article, [72] just because Finkelstein was used once in a footnote as a source to support an issue that other sources were supporting too.

Here he removes Sandy Tolan, [73] a journalist who teaches (or taught) journalism at UC Berkeley, because Tolan's article was published by al-Jazeera, which is pro-Palestinian.

Here he accuses Norman Finkelstein of "Holocaust denial," [74] which is false (anyone claiming it has not read Finkelstein), and a violation of BLP.

Here he removes from the lead the number of Palestinians expelled from Lydda and Ramla, [75] even though the number (up to 70,000) is central to why this is an important historical event: these expulsions accounted for around 1/10th of the total 1948 Palestinian exodus.

Here he three times removes from the lead that Palestinians were shot for refusing to hand over their valuables, calling it "emotional overtones," [76] [77] inserting it instead into the fourth section from the end as though it's an afterthought. [78] The treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli soldiers is a central issue in the story of what happened at Lydda: even staunchly pro-Israeli sources agree that there was looting, assault, and indiscriminate killing.

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: see above and below
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): This is a request that the ArbCom, or admins, consider some form of topic ban from Israel-Palestine articles.

He has already been sanctioned twice under the ArbCom case; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Jaakobou (talk · contribs) is banned from Palestine-Israel articles for a week for disruptive talk page conduct. Addhoc (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou (talk · contribs) blocked for one week by FayssalF (talk · contribs · blocks · protects · deletions · moves · rights) - Details -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above, he has been blocked five times in relation to the I/P conflict. [79]

Additional comments: There is little scholarly disagreement about Exodus from Lydda: all academic sources that I can find (pro- and anti-Israel, and neither) agree that Israel invaded the city in July 1948, expelled tens of thousands of Palestinians (up to 70,000); killed 250 during the invasion; that there was extensive Israeli looting of the city; and that there were Palestinian deaths on the march out of it (up to 350), mostly because of the heat and lack of water, and in part because people were shot. Much of the source material comes from the Israel Defense Forces themselves.

Despite the agreement of the sources, it remains difficult to do any decent work there, in large measure because of Jaakabou. Time that could be spent adding content is spent instead trying to defend common sense edits.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [80]

Jaakobou's responses

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Jaakabou seems to be engaged in advocacy on behalf of Israel, rather than in editing as a Wikipedian. He insults and removes reliable sources because he disagrees with them, and removes well-supported material because he doesn't like it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just incorrect. For example, I also supported RolandR's removal of accurate but completely non-conservative text from the Ilan Pappe (a person whom I do not like - according to SlimVirgin) lead.[81] Bad faith suggestions are easy to come by but making them based on false information makes for bad decorum. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Exodus from Lydda, an article about the Israeli invasion of Lydda and Ramla in 1948, he has argued that Ilan Pappe, professor of history at the University of Exeter, and the author of eight books on the Middle East, cannot be used as a source. This is because Pappe makes it clear that he is pro-Palestinian, and he has supported an academic boycott against Israel. Obviously, this does not affect Pappe's status as a source under the policy, but Jaakabou insists that it does. See Talk:Exodus_from_Lydda#Anti-Zionist_activist. A discussion at the RS noticeboard subsequently confirmed Pappe as a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- SlimVirgin forgot to mention that my objection notes included Pappe giving honors to a thesis -- over a never-before-heard Zionist "massacre" in Tantura -- which was overturned (being given a failing grade) by his fellow of peers (this was also brought into court under a libel charge in which the thesis writer lost the case). Also among my arguments, was that Pappe claims -- based on debunked rumors -- that Israel and the USA conspired to hide a massacre in the Battle of Jenin where final death tolls (approved by the Palestinians) were 56 Palestinians and 23 Israeli soldiers. Massacre claims were mostly rejected/dropped by all the mainstream media and the conspiracy claims are left for conspiracy theorists and hardcore anti-Zioniosts. The claim makes as much sense as that of those who claim Israel and the USA were behind the 9.11 attacks. WP:COMMON would have us be very careful on using him as a source just on that.
- Also, I never rejected the use of Pappe as a representative of anti-Zionists since I do believe that he is quite notable among them being a leader of the "Boycott Israeli Academics" movement. A number of editors on the RSN suggested he is indeed notable but should be given if used an informative descriptive when/if used. A good number of these editors also stated that he's WP:RS but that they would never use him for historical accounts. This fits perfectly with my suggestion that he should not be used when there are more reliable sources like Benny Morris or other less controversial scholars.
  "it probably makes sense to provide readers who (like me) have never heard of the guy with some immediately useful context"[82] - MastCell
  "Since Pappé's notability is not in doubt, any pronouncements of his that have received independent coverage can go in WP articles, but I would never use him as a sole, or principal, source on history."[83] - User:Goodmorningworld
- I'm sorry for bringing this up like this, but I feel as though trying to have me sanctioned for discussing these issues is a violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Decorum. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here he removes Norman Finkelstein, [84] former assistant professor of political science at DePaul University, and the author of several books on the Middle East and Zionism, who is also pro-Palestinian. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed there would be a serious discussion about Ilan Pappe and opened that discussion myself.[85] I never expected, however, a similar level of support (other than Nishidani) for Norman Finkelstein, a Hezbollah supporter, among other things, who's been accused for taking sides with the pro-Syrian camp and misrepresenting the Israeli-Arab situation by Lebanese people.[86] He's also been widely criticized for shoddy scholarship.[87][88] Anyways, it's not like I edit-warred him out (I think I removed him only once..) and he's still not on the page anymore so apparently, there's no consensus for keeping him in there. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here he adds a POV tag to the entire article, [89] just because Finkelstein was used once in a footnote as a source to support an issue that other sources were supporting too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This statement is patently incorrect. I clearly stated the reasons for the POV tag only that SlimVirign wasn't paying attention. Finkelstien had almost nothing to do with the tag. It was that "the article is written quite un-conservatively and in an accusatory fashion. ... I can't see this article lasting long term with a first paragraph that accuses Rabin of "gun-pointing" people out of their homes."[90] I also expanded on this and received support from both User:Ceedjee ([91])as well as User:Jalapenos do exist ([92]) for some of my raised concerns. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. SlimVirgin, insisted on removing the tags (that linked to the relevant discussion sections) twice[93][94] adding bad faith suggestions.[95][96][97][98] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here he removes Sandy Tolan, [99] a journalist who teaches (or taught) journalism at UC Berkeley, because Tolan's article was published by al-Jazeera, which is pro-Palestinian. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seemed redundant as better sources were used. You won't see me adding CAMERA or HonestReporting links to citations that already have more neutral and scholarly (reliable) sources. If there's a special value with adding that article, I'd be interested in hearing it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here he accuses Norman Finkelstein of "Holocaust denial," [100] which is false (anyone claiming it has not read Finkelstein), and a violation of BLP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is somewhat of a true error on my part. I take this note to heart and will attempt to improve on it. Basically, when a person claims Holocaust survivors are lying or that the Holocaust is exaggerated, I tend -- as a descendant of Holocaust survivors -- to take it a bit personally and use the "denial" term though a better word would have been "minimizer" or something similar (probably best to avoid harsh descriptives completely). One of the issues that pains me with Finkelstien as well as his "scholarly" work is that he promotes antisemitic art on his website[101] -- some less subtle samples (indisputably problematic) [102][103] -- and supports the clearly antisemitic group Hezbollah.[104] My statement should have been sticking to sourced references but, in my defense, the "destructiveness" level of my note is nowhere near the harm that is caused by promoting his use as if he were a mainstream source. As stated, I will take more caution about discussing the value of Finkelstien as a source for "massacre" stories about Israel. Still, this could have been easily addressed and SlimVirgin still hasn't made any argument to why he must be used to support other, better sources. Side note: I made a concentrated effort to resolve the issues by civil discussion so the removal of Finkelstien seems to have occurred due to some type of consensus that agreed with me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here he removes from the lead the number of Palestinians expelled from Lydda and Ramla, [105] even though the number (up to 70,000) is central to why this is an important historical event: these expulsions accounted for around 1/10th of the total 1948 Palestinian exodus. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As with my notes on the talkpage, I wanted to bring the introduction to be a tad more conservative and in a similar structure to other existing articles such as Hama massacre or the Black September in Jordan articles. The given diff makes for a pretty obvious misrepresentation of previous diffs (I assume SlimVirgin missed it). Anyways, just 6 diffs prior to that I fixed the lead so that the numbers are related with the "one-tenth" of the "Nakba" paragraph.[106] I certainly did not remove the numbers at no point in time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here he three times removes from the lead that Palestinians were shot for refusing to hand over their valuables, calling it "emotional overtones," [107] [108] inserting it instead into the fourth section from the end as though it's an afterthought. [109] The treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli soldiers is a central issue in the story of what happened at Lydda: even staunchly pro-Israeli sources agree that there was looting, assault, and indiscriminate killing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when do we have "though eyewitnesses also said" in lead paragraphs? I have no objections about mentioning the grisly military treatment of the people but it should be presented, at least in the lead, in an encyclopedic manner and not as a trivia note. What is worse for the project - adding these type of notes to lead sections or moving them into the body of the article? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: see above and below
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): This is a request that the ArbCom, or admins, consider some form of topic ban from Israel-Palestine articles.

He has already been sanctioned twice under the ArbCom case; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Jaakobou (talk · contribs) is banned from Palestine-Israel articles for a week for disruptive talk page conduct. Addhoc (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou (talk · contribs) blocked for one week by FayssalF (talk · contribs · blocks · protects · deletions · moves · rights) - Details -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above, he has been blocked five times in relation to the I/P conflict. [110]

Additional comments: There is little scholarly disagreement about Exodus from Lydda: all academic sources that I can find (pro- and anti-Israel, and neither) agree that Israel invaded the city in July 1948, expelled tens of thousands of Palestinians (up to 70,000); killed 250 during the invasion; that there was extensive Israeli looting of the city; and that there were Palestinian deaths on the march out of it (up to 350), mostly because of the heat and lack of water, and in part because people were shot. Much of the source material comes from the Israel Defense Forces themselves.

Despite the agreement of the sources, it remains difficult to do any decent work there, in large measure because of Jaakabou. Time that could be spent adding content is spent instead trying to defend common sense edits.

Comment: I'm not following this sentence. Did I reject any clear cut consensus once one was formed? If I have, I'd appreciate a diff that supports this suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Jaakobou

He's previously been blocked for a week, however that was a year ago, so another week? PhilKnight (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he could be given a chance to reply before automatic punishments are handed down. IronDuke 22:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with whatever admins decide, Phil. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Please amend this request so that it links to the final decision, not to a proposed decision. Sandstein 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that SlimVirgin is asking for administrative, and arbcom assistance, in resolving the articles editorial problems. And there certainly are editorial problems. For instance, although SlimVirgin claims there is academic agreement on the subject, but the lead sentence is still sourced to a very non-neutral Al Jazeera article [111]. Seeing that there is a perfectly good academic source, I asked the problematic led source be removed, two days ago, but this has been ignored. Of course that is not the only problem, and the editing situation is much more complex than SlimVirgin has indicated.

Also, it is unclear why SlimVirgin has chosen to focus on Jaakobou, because it appears to me that he has not done that much actual editing of the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have focused on Jaakabou because a high percentage of his interventions are unhelpful, and because this has been a problem with his editing for quite some time at several other articles. For example, removing the number of Palestinians who were expelled from the lead, when that is the central issue, is not reasonable editing by any standard. Trying to have Pappe banned as a source, though he has a PhD from Oxford, a professional chair at Exeter, and eight books on the subject to his name. It's tiresome advocacy. All reasonable people not involved in it want this kind of thing to stop at the I/P articles, no matter which side is doing it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If opining that Pappe is unreliable source is blockable, there a number of other editors that can be blocked as well, including myself. And once we're at it, we can block Benny Morris and a number of other I-P scholars from opening WP accounts. They, after all, are also of the opinion that Pappe is unreliable. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems like Slim Virgin is just trying to remove editors that don't agree with some of her POV determinations. A discussion about an editor in which there is not even an actionable claim, sets a terrible precedent. Is every editor with a block history at risk of being dragged to the AE board for having a number of disagreements, sans any claim of incivility and edit-warring?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through the edits linked to in the request, I tend to agree with Brewcrewer. Discretionary sanctions are intended to address severe conduct problems, not mere content disagreements, which is what this request seems to be mainly about. Content issues can become sanctionable when they rise to the level of disruptive persistent ideological POV-pushing, as described in WP:PLAGUE, but the reported edits do not convince me that we are at that level here. The only edit problematic from a conduct perspective is [112], which violates WP:BLP by accusing a living person of Holocaust denial without providing very good sources for this assertion, and I strongly advise Jaakabou not to do this again or he may indeed be made subject to sanctions. Sandstein 05:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakabou's edit was on a talk page, and in a context where a source would not usually be deemed necessary. The accusations that this individual is a Holocaust denier are rather wide spread, and sources are not hard to find [113][114]. In other words, this is not the product of Jaakabou's imagination, but a widely held, and frequently stated, view by one side in the ongoing I/P debates. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smears abound, and one can google fish for anything on your desired menu of derogatory innuendoes. You are confusing a possible edit one might make to Finkelstein's page about holocaust denial (untrue, but a minority view, even if just a smear), with a specific question of WP:RS on a page that has nothing to do with Finkelstein. To use an extremist and unproven smear against an author in order to remove him from a page where he is cited as a source shows extreme confusion in what editing is about.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Sandstein is correct that I should link more often to sources when using strong words. In my defense I do use links quite often but these discussions prolonged and many comments were made and perhaps I allowed myself to link less often than I should have been linking.

As to the complaint, I have respect for SlimVirgin but I feel as though bad faith suggestions, perhaps culminating with this bid for my sanctioning, are a bit of an issue with her demeanor.[115][116][117][118] Nontheless, this is a regular content dispute and I'd be happy to work with her on talk as long as she doesn't misrepresent the reasons to which I posted an NPOV tag on the page. I believe my notes on the talk page are fairly clear that there's more than Finkelstien in concern,[119] and User:Ceedjee ([120]) as well as User:Jalapenos do exist ([121]) both agreed with some of the concerns I've raised.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I'm a tad offended by SlimVirgin's claims that "a high percentage of his interventions are unhelpful" (23:34, 7 May 2009). A sample of editors who feel differently can be found here (I also invite people to explore my "Images I've had the privilege of adding to the encyclopedia" section above it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a content dispute to me, and frankly I'm surprised that SlimVirgin, of all people, would bring it up on WP:AE. Please try to settle the issue on talk first. There has not nearly been enough discussion there, and I encourage both editors to show mutual respect and restraint—while I'm personally not involved in this article, it's a Bounty Board article and it is in Wikipedia's best interest as a whole that as many good editors contribute to this article. Both Jaakobou and SlimVirgin are good editors and can do a lot to advance it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also surprising that, as Jaakobou's mentor, I was neither contacted in advance regarding the concerns nor notified by SlimVirgin when the actual thread went up. Especially odd because at the same time she was aggressively seeking my opinion on a related matter and repeating her queries despite very clear feedback that I didn't want to engage in the other matter. Rather than seeking punitive action, please engage me where I have an actual role. Jaakobou has responded well to feedback in the past. I freely admit that my understanding of the subject matter is limited--yet we are both willing to engage in productive dialog, and to accept useful feedback. Durova^Charge! 17:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of timeconsuming dialogue could be avoided by a little commonsense that, in this case, would tell any experienced editor that raising lengthy queries about non-issues, like Finkelstein and Pappé as reliable sources on I/P articles, is unproductive.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou comes to me when he perceives a problem. Together we generally resolve those problems with much less time consuming dialog than an arbitration enforcement request entails. Am open to similar requests from others. Please be understanding about the limits of my familiarity with the subject: some familiarity with Finkelstein but ignorant regarding Pappé. Durova^Charge! 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: I'm looking into this complaint, and intend to deliver a full response within the next day or two. AGK 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that Exodus from Lydda has been subjected to what Nishiban'i has elsewhere called "swarming," where a group of editors on one side arrived to find fault with the article in any way they could, including wanting to redirect it, to the point where the original author, User:Tiamut, left Wikipedia.

This is the third time there has been an effort to create an article about the expulsion of the Palestinians from Lydda, which is an important topic in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Lydda massacre was redirected in 2005 to Lydda and Ramle during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, which in turn was redirected in 2007 to Operation Danny, but without the content being merged. [122] So basically, it just disappeared. Now that Tiamut has started an article again, decent sources are being removed; tags added; redirect suggestions made; crucial material being removed from the lead or entirely; that Palestinians were shot for their valuables removed as "emotional overtones." [123]

It's unacceptable editing, and Jakkobou, who has been warned many times before about this kind of thing, is the primary instigator of it. That is why I brought the issue here, to use the existing dispute resolution process, and the relevant ArbCom ruling, instead of trying to deal with it on the talk page. I wonder what the point of the ArbCom rulings is if the same behaviour is allowed to continue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, what you find unacceptable about Jaakobou's editing is that he has been an obstacle to your editing goals for the article, and Tiamut had the same objection before you. But editing is supposed to involve some willingness compromise. That is how editors create articles that are NPOV. Since I see nothing in your accusations that substantiate that Jaakobou added unsourced content, the problem may be just a disinclination to compromise.

As for the charge of "swarming", that might indicate that you are refusing WP:AGF. As far I can see, Jaakobou has always assumed you were making good faith edits, even while disagreeing with some of your edits. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't apply a sanction unless there is a consensus among uninvolved admins, however I tend to agree with SV here. The purpose of the WP:ARBPIA restrictions was to prevent this sort of disruption. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no 'disruption' here - as has been noted by uninvolved admins. There is a content dispute, which is being hashed out on the article's talk page. I must agree with Brewcrewer here, that seems more like an attempt to silence opposing editors through the use of blocks. NoCal100 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that SlimVirgin and some other editors on one side of the issue, find it upsetting that their editing goals for an article are not succeeding to the extent that they wish. But I am having a hard time understanding why making edits SlimVirgin does not like is being called disruptive. To me that sounds very close to conceding ownership of the article to SlimVirgin. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of SlimVirgin's links and diffs, only one goes to an edit by Jaakobou. From this relatively naive position that seems like a matter that belongs in discussion at article talk. The redirect with information lost, etc. was done by other editors. Why would Jaakobou be held responsible for their actions? Durova^Charge! 02:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the links above go to him. Please read the first report at the top. I see that two uninvolved admins are looking at the case, so it's probably best to leave it to one of them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all of the links provided in SlimVirgin's evidence go to edits by Jaakobou. AGK 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB, While this complaint -- initiated by SlimVirgin -- is still in process, she and Ceedjee have resorted to edit warring to remove sourced content that does not fit their own model of the article. In my view, the intent of SlimVirgin's complaint is to remove an effective editor who does not accept her ownership (ie WP:OWN) of the article. There was talk page discussion in process, and SlimVirgin decided to impose her own version regardless of the fact that differences are unresolved on the talk page. [124][125]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin: In your edit summary attached to the change Malcolm linked to, you stated you changed the wording from battle to conquest "per talk." To a casual reader, that would suggest that you had garnered consensus for your edit—when, in fact, I can only see one user, Ceedjee, assenting to the change (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?oldid=288882963#Battle). AGK 16:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I think it should be implicit in my talk page remarks (I don't edit there as I shall be permabanned quite shortly) that I accept, as a previous editor, the correctness of both SlimVirgin and Ceedjee's positions on this and much else, though my POV is the opposite of theirs. Both of them master the most pertinent uptodate academic and historical sources before editing. Three of the most relevant books, as opposed to googled information, are those of Benny Morris, Yoav Gelber, David Tal all dealing precisely with the events of the war of 1948. Morris actually denies that 'battle' is an appropriate word for the incident, Yoav Gelber does not use the word, and, offhand, I can't recall Tal doing so either. All three use the word 'conquest' in referring to events at Lydda from the 10th to the 12th of July.
David Tal twice on pp.235, 304 of his War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, Routledge, 2004 writes twice of the 'conquest' of Lydda-Ramle pp.235,304
Yoav Gelber, Palestine, 1948: war, escape and the emergence of the Palestinian refugee problem, Sussex Academic Press, 2006 speaks of the ‘conquest of Lydda airport’ on the day preceding the taking of the city.p.159
Benny Morris, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, I.B.Tauris, 2003 speaks of the 'easy conquest of Lydda', p.175

The conflict is between those who privilege the use of quality sources, their language and data, and many who appear to adduce just any source that backs their personal views and opinions. The article has an FA ambition and a financial bounty for wikipedia attached to it, hence the insistance of those editors who have done 95% of the text that one exploit only the best qualit historical information for drafting it. Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussaion [126] is not settled, very much in process. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion captures what it's like to edit on the I/P articles. Malcolm wants the lead to say that 250 Palestinians and four Israelis were killed during the "battle" to take the city. But that is false, and he wasn't able to provide a source, but expects us to talk about it endlessly and never fix the error.

In fact, most of those killed died after the "battle" (if you want to call it that) to take control of the city. The next day, according to the scholarly sources, there was at least one instance of unarmed civilians being shot in the street (a "massacre," as some of the neutral academic sources call it); and possibly a second one in a mosque (the sources are divided on the details of the mosque killings). Therefore, to make the sentence accurate, and to avoid using POV language, Ceedjee and I suggested "during the invasion of Lydda," "during the fall of Lydda," or "during the conquest of Lydda." You may take your pick, Malcolm, or suggest something else, but that 250 people were killed during a "battle" is just plain false. We don't add false and unsourced material to articles no matter how many editors want to do it: see WP:V.

I'm not going to post here again unless asked to by an admin. I've posted my request, and I'm fine with accepting whatever decision is made. If you want to discuss the Lydda article, please do so there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one final point. I should make clear that the lead originally said 250 people were killed during the "invasion of Lydda," and was changed without a source to "battle" by Malcolm or one of the other editors who supports him. It is not Ceedjee and I who are changing it; we are trying to restore the sentence to be consistent with the sources.

Also, Malcolm was supportive of Jaakobou in wanting to remove from the lead the number of Palestinians who were expelled from the Lydda and Ramla (up to 70,000), even though this is a key point, which should be in the lead both as a matter of common sense and of WP:LEAD. Here Malcolm reverts to Jaakobou's version after Nishidani restored the figures. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonable to describe the taking of the city as a battle because there was a fight between two sides and a source says the was a battle. But, more importantly, SlimVirgin decide she did not need to discuss the issue any further on the talk page, and changed the content to what she wanted. I see the problem as WP:OWN. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, her claim that I did not supply a source is a lie. I do not add content without sources [127], and was certainly in the now deleted version of article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source does not say that 250 Palestinians were killed during a battle. It says only that there was a battle. This has been pointed out to you several times on talk. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source described what happened as a battle, and the discussion focused in "battle" was the correct word. At no point did I object to your changing the numbers, although it is difficult to understand why you think saying that "250 Palestinians and up to four Israeli soldiers were killed during the conquest of Lydda" is correct numbers, but saying "250 Palestinians and up to four Israeli soldiers were killed during the battle of Lydda" is incorrect numbers. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my reply being in segments, but I am trying to get real world work done at the same time as this. Please note: SlimVirgin's claim that the number of Palestinians expelled (50,000-70,000 Palestinians) was removed from the lead is (once again) a lie. If you look at the link she gave and scroll down far enough in the lead of that version, you will see that the numbers are still in the lead still, but just once instead of twice as previously. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could both of you please discuss your content disagreements on the article talk page, not here? I've protected Exodus from Lydda for three days to stop the low-level multiparty editwar that is going on there. I still don't think the original request is actionable, but should the edit war resume, I'll consider banning every involved editor from editing the article. Sandstein 17:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Sandstein's comment on the edit war—and would implore (in vein, I'm sure) all involved parties to take a step back from the article and let things cool off. However, I'm of two minds as to whether the original complaint—that some of Jaak's changes to Wikipedia articles are being made for reasons other than a genuine desire to improve the project; and I'd draw attention to a few points:

At Exodus from Lydda, an article about the Israeli invasion of Lydda and Ramla in 1948, he has argued that Ilan Pappe, professor of history at the University of Exeter, and the author of eight books on the Middle East, cannot be used as a source. This is because Pappe makes it clear that he is pro-Palestinian, and he has supported an academic boycott against Israel. Obviously, this does not affect Pappe's status as a source under the policy, but Jaakabou insists that it does. See Talk:Exodus_from_Lydda#Anti-Zionist_activist. A discussion at the RS noticeboard subsequently confirmed Pappe as a reliable source.
Actually, Jaakabou argued that he cannot be used as a source because his writings were based on inaccurate sources:
A review body of academic peers overturned Pappe and deemed the "massacre" thesis by Katz (Pappe's student) to be based on bogus information after the supreme court looked at the evidence and decided that the soldiers were right in posting a libel suit (Kats was forced to apologize as well if I understood the sources correctly).
—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?oldid=288707956#Is_Ilan_Pappe_a_reliable_source.3F.
Jaakabou did not oppose the source simply because he was pro-Palestinian.
Here he removes Norman Finkelstein, [128] former assistant professor of political science at DePaul University, and the author of several books on the Middle East and Zionism, who is also pro-Palestinian.
There seems to be a genuine difference in opinion between the editors contributing to this article over whether Finkelstein is a reliable source. However, we can establish that J. is set against Finkelstein, based on his comment in this discussion: "He's been hailed by antisemitic bodies and organizations for "proving" the holocaust is fake... one of the things he's done was to claim holocaust survivors were lying (nice!)". When this is considered against J's removal of Finkelstein as a source, the reasons that he is editing can begin to be questioned: is he removing the source because he thinks F. to be unreliable, or because he is personally set against him?*Here # He adds a POV tag to the entire article, [129] just because Finkelstein was used once in a footnote as a source to support an issue that other sources were supporting too.

Ditto the second point: is J. adding this tag because he is part of the group of editors who thinks F. is an unreliable source—or because he opposes him?
He removes Sandy Tolan, [130] a journalist who teaches (or taught) journalism at UC Berkeley, because Tolan's article was published by al-Jazeera, which is pro-Palestinian.
There is no conclusive evidence that he removed the source because it was published by a pro-Palestine media agency. As an administrator, I'm not a judge of content—and, additionally, I hold little personal knowledge of this subject area; as such, I'm not in a position to effectively evaluate whether the removal of the source would only be because it is pro-Palestine; there could be a myriad of other reasons for the removal. J.'s edit is, nevertheless, somewhat worrying.
Here he accuses Norman Finkelstein of "Holocaust denial," [131] which is false (anyone claiming it has not read Finkelstein), and a violation of BLP.
I'm unsure whether "Holocaust denial" is an exaggeration that is nevertheless based on some modicum of fact or is a false statement. Furthermore, the statement was made outwith the article space, and thus didn't constitute the direct insertion of biased material into the article; as such, I couldn't take this into account to any great degree when deciding whether to place sanctions against J.

Due to the divisive, often harmful nature of the presence of many editors, I'm minded to hand out bans to several contributors to the Exodus from Lydda article; that's the only realistic approach I can think of to dissolving the lack of cohesion amongst the group of editors contributing to the page.

AGK 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say this is a very puzzling comment - so, when many editors can't agree, the solution is to hand out bans? Based on what? Wikipedia has numerous procedure to resolve disputes, and you should read about them [WP:DR|here]] if you are really unfamiliar with them. Nowhere in WP:DR does it say that if there is a lack of cohesion amongst a group of editors contributing to an article, they should be banned. NoCal100 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a requirement to obtain consensus before applying a ban. Have another look at WP:ARBPIA. PhilKnight (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA does not authorize admins to ban editors for "lack of cohesion". NoCal100 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo NoCal100,

PhilKnight is right that a consensus for a block is not a requirement (though it's best to approach things from a conservative angle) and you are also right that lack of cohesion among editors is not much of a reason, without more serious issues, to sanction a large group of editors. I figure this argument should be made at some other location though and to be frank, I'm not sure an inclusive ban on everyone on the page would be applied so quickly. Usually other methods are tried first to try and calm down the situation. I always advise editors to review the WP:NAM article. In general, it probably wouldn't hurt if everyone involved took a mutual leave for a short while to allow things to calm down a bit. Large scale edits should probably be done in very small edits and time for others to respond and raise concerns would benefit a collaborative atmosphere.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr: Since no arbitration remedy is being cited here, shouldn't this go somewhere else? AE is for summary judgment by and large, community remedies come by accident.--Tznkai (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake to try to resolve an editing dispute here, and taking it to AN/I would only compound the original mistake. My own view is that previously the editing of this article was difficult, but the general editing atmosphere was far better than the situation for most I/P articles. About all bringing an unfair accusation to this noticeboard has accomplished is to poison that atmosphere. Not much of an accomplishment. But my guess is that it will wind up going to AN/I anyhow. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A solution can come out of this discussion. Moving the discussion elsewhere, for the sake of procedure, would be unhelpful. Please don't take it somewhere else; we're trying to nudge this article towards a state where disputes are actually just helpful differences in editorial opinion. AGK 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few comments to the points raised by SlimVirgin.[132][133] I'd like to note that while a number of the claims are clearly incorrect, I don't consider them to have been written with malice intent. I believe SlimVirgin simply wanted all POVs to be equally represented and thus did not want sources rejected on political grounds. Perspnally, I feel that when reliable and non-controversial mainstream academic sources exist for historical accounts it's best to leave out added support by those with fringe perspectives. In fact, WP:RS notes that usually those sources are avoided and I would hate to see editors try to coatrack reference sections with problematic sources (on either side of the political specturm). Sure, I've been noted on making what seems like only edits against anti-Israel sources but I've made some contributions to also hold back pro-Israel perspective contributions when I felt they harm the quality of the project - both in the article where I noted that an incidental killing of 97 Jewish doctors was an undue mention for the background section - and in general, on wikipedia (see Keeping it wiki-neutral Memorabilia. I would like to collaborate with SlimVirgin in an atmosphere where I'm not misrepresented and mispercieved. I've been around for a while and learned what makes for long term lasting articles in the I-P area and, as-such, have gained the respect of at least some of my peers. I'd be interested in getting SlimVirgin (and PhilKnight who gave me 3 quazi barnstars) to notice my efforts (see also my image and DYK sections above the barnstars) rather than jump to conclusions and suggest I'm a threat to the project.

Warm respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC) another diff. 23:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To judge whether Jaakobou is "a threat to the project" please review his past and present conduct on I/P articles, not the rationalizations he presents here. RomaC (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like that only provoke and add fuel to the fire. I ask that you retract that. Wizardman 00:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you for your response, Jaakobou; and I am already examining the conduct of involved editors at length, RomaC.
In the meanwhile, I continue to invite the input of interested parties in this thread; I'd rather take my time and do this right, with a slower closure, than speedily close the thread and have to look at this again in a week or two...
AGK 00:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou and Finkestein

With regard to Jaakobou's comment:

“

This is somewhat of a true error on my part. I take this note to heart and will attempt to improve on it. Basically, when a person claims Holocaust survivors are lying or that the Holocaust is exaggerated, I tend -- as a descendant of Holocaust survivors -- to take it a bit personally and use the "denial" term though a better word would have been "minimizer" or something similar (probably best to avoid harsh descriptives completely). One of the issues that pains me with Finkelstien as well as his "scholarly" work is that he promotes antisemitic art on his website[134] -- some less subtle samples (indisputably problematic) [135][136] -- and supports the clearly antisemitic group Hezbollah.[137] My statement should have been sticking to sourced references but, in my defense, the "destructiveness" level of my note is nowhere near the harm that is caused by promoting his use as if he were a mainstream source. As stated, I will take more caution about discussing the value of Finkelstien as a source for "massacre" stories about Israel. Still, this could have been easily addressed and SlimVirgin still hasn't made any argument to why he must be used to support other, better sources. Side note: I made a concentrated effort to resolve the issues by civil discussion so the removal of Finkelstien seems to have occurred due to some type of consensus that agreed with me. -- User:Jaakobou 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

”

Finkelstein does not claim that "Holocaust survivors are lying or that the Holocaust is exaggerated". His book The Holocaust Industry is subtitled Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering and one of the book's main theses is that funds that should have benefitted victims of the Nazi Holocaust have been expropriated for less commendable ends. Finkelstein does not "deny" or "minimize" any aspect of the historical Nazi Holocaust. Finkelstein does not support Hezbollah, as he makes clear here. Finkelstein is a meticulous fact and source checker, which makes his books on the I/P conflict invaluable. If he says that A claims B on page xxx of C then you can be pretty sure he's correct. Ian Pitchford (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all you say about Finkelstein is on the form of your personal opinions about him, and the one source you give does not seem to support the claims you make. But why the WP:SOAP statement about Finkelstein on this noticeboard? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy and WP:BLP concerns. Notably, Raul Hillberg "totally agrees" with Finkelstein's "breakthrough" in a much-quoted comment on the cover of The Holocaust Industry. The "one source" I gave is Finkelstein stating that he knows nothing about the political positions of Hezbollah and stating that he does not support Hezbollah. Ian Pitchford (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo Ian Pitchford,

Factual accuracy and WP:BLP concerns are indeed important but reliable sources say: "American Professor, Ousted From DePaul University, Declares Support for Hezbollah in Lebanon".[138]

p.s. this section's title feels a bit personal and I would appreciate it if you change it a bit. Current title of "(Username) and (insert controversial figure here)" feels off and I'm sure no one appreciate similar sections titled after them. It's nothing serious though. Just a matter of basic civility.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I truly am in a muddle over what to do here. The issue of whether Jaak. is removing sources because they are in favour of a given viewpoint or because they are unreliable remains unresolved, and I doubt an adminsitrator with no experience in this field of content—such as myself—is able to resolve it; that I'm being given convincing arguments for both sides of this issue is only adding to the problem.

As I see it, the options are as follows:

(1) Close complaint without action;

(2) Topic ban Jaakobou and all other editors who refuse to settle the issue of whether the disputed sources are reliable (under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions);

(3) Defer the matter to the Arbitration Committee for consideration.

AGK 17:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who are the editors you think "refuse to settle the issue of whether the disputed sources are reliable"? What makes you think Jaakobou refuses to settle something ,rather than simply disagreeing with other editors? NoCal100 (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is unbelievable. SlimVirgin's bringing baseless accusations to this noticeboard has disrupted editing of the article more than if there had been edit warring. But then SlimVirgin added to the disruption by disregarding the discussion that was in progress on the talk page and made the changes she wanted without any consensus, thereby setting off actual edit warring that caused the article to be locked. But, instead of considering sanctioning SlimVirgin, you are considering sanctioning Jaakobou. It is close to being a joke, but not really that funny. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think there is an issue with J.'s conduct; I was merely listing possible outcomes of this. I do think there is an issue with the editing of this article: it's become quite unsteady, and that's likely to result in an article that's difficult to edit. AGK 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jaakobou

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

No violation of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration decision has been committed by Jaakobou, and thus no action is taken. Nevertheless, the lack of editorial cohesion on the Exodus from Lydda article is striking, and all parties are reminded that the site's administrators have been authorised by the arbitration committee to deploy sanctions on editors who constitute an ongoing negative influence on articles in this subject area. I would remind Jaakobou, SlimVirgin, Malcolm Schosha, et al., of the need to work with, rather than against, one another when editing—including making changes, discussing changes or proposed changes, and otherwise (directly or indirectly) contributing to the mainspace. AGK 19:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ScienceApologist (II)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not an actionable request: wrong forum. AGK 10:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning ScienceApologist

User requesting enforcement: Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: N/A
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: N/A
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): (This is actually a reverse enforcement request.) Allow temporary 1-edit suspension of Wikipedia ban so that SA can paste in his new version of the optics article (not related to topic ban)
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning ScienceApologist

SA has completely rewritten the optics article off-wiki, likely raising it from C class to A class. The article is completely non-controversial and not related to SA's topic ban. Unfortunately, due to his complete ban from Wikipedia, he cannot make the edit to merge his fork back into Wikipedia. And because of the terms of the GFDL, it would be problematic for anyone besides SA to make the edit (due to the attribution requirements). I would like to make the unorthodoxed request that we Ignore All Rules in the interest of building the encyclopedia (which is, after all, our top priority). Specifically I would like to unblock SA for a single edit and then restore the block as soon as his version is pasted in. I would be willing to make the unblock and reblock myself. Kaldari (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without making any comment on the validity of this request, I'd note that this noticeboard is for requesting the enforcement of arbitration decisions; only the Committee can suspend, alter, or revoke remedies, and you should therefore contact them at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests or arbcom-l

lists.wikimedia.org. The administrators who would otherwise process this complaint are powerless to act on what you request, Kaldari. AGK 22:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ScienceApologist

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Per my comments in the section above: this is not an actionable request. Appeals to have a topic ban lifted, even temporarily, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

AGK 10:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ScienceApologist

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

Process note: Please don't archive this one just yet, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placing thread in a collapse box for usability. AGK 15:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse boxes save space, but they impair usability by making searches cumbersome and breaking the table of contents. Just a thought. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, quite true. Getting this archived would be even less of a hindrance on usability, but it seems like that's presently not an option. I'm going to ping Lar to see what's happening with this; it's been sitting around for quite a while now. AGK 17:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The matter has been dealt with as appropriate and I think this thread can be archived. For privacy reasons, I'm not going to go into a lot of detail as to how or why, but it's my considered judgment that based on the evidence presented, the initial report was a reasonable one to make, and therefore Levine2112 did nothing incorrect (and in fact should be thanked for bringing this to the attention of the relevant parties)... that it is likely that SA was not in violation of the conditions of his case in relation to these edits, and was not the responsible party in this matter. Note that the edits themselves are not problematic, per se... but had it been SA making them there would have been a concern. This was a most confusing case. Steps have been taken to reduce confusion going forward. Apologies for the delay in resolution, but it was needed. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lar; I'll archive this thread presently. AGK 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning ScienceApologist

User requesting enforcement: -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: User is banned for a period of three months, yet continues to make edits "anonymously" through an IP address (128.59.171.155).
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indef block.
Additional comments: This IP address seems highly likely to be ScienceApologist based on the following correlating evidence: [147] [148] [149]. That said, perhaps a CheckUser is at least in order.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [150]

Discussion concerning ScienceApologist

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Further_motions_following_Request_for_Clarification this ruling is pertinent] — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a checkuser is required, the evidence is compelling that this is SA. Kevin (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just become aware of this thread (as his mentor it would have been nice to have gotten a heads up). Have emailed ScienceApologist and am seeking a checkuser. No word yet; this is the first it's come to my attention. Durova^Charge! 03:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sarcasm alert): Yes, the evidence is indeed compelling, since SA is [REDACT]...NOT. Oddly enough, the IP has not been notified, but SA has received the notification. Whatever.... Maybe it is him (probably), and maybe it's not. Is there any more compelling evidence? If not, this may be enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the only evidence - this edit shows the IP signing as SA, on a page where SA would likely deal with it if it were someone else. Kevin (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...but if he's already blocked, how would SA deal with it if it were someone else? CU may be in order, but AGF here, folks. It could well be someone trying to pull a JoeJob to make us think it's SA. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are at Wikisource, where SA is not blocked. Kevin (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking at additional comments rather than the diffs. Look a couple lines up. We're talking about Wikipedia edits. II | (t - c) 07:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CU isn't going to tell us anything that we don't already know ([REDACT]), so I don't know why it would be necessary. The only edits which are worth being annoyed about are the last few on Quackwatch. Then again, a couple of these use improper capitalization which might suggest it's not SA, since he seems to understand proper English (although it is a quote, so it might have confused him). Plus the edit adds a bunch of rambling text, which isn't typical of SA. Anyway, seems hard to be sure that it is SA, even though the edits are to articles which he edits and come from his IP address. The edits aren't really disruptive or awfully characteristic of him so I'd be inclined to let it go. Err on the side of good faith and all that. II | (t - c) 07:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do need checkuser here, although it's not clear that the additional information will settle this case. We are talking about a dynamic IP [REDACT] I think there are obvious problems with the duck test in such high-profile cases, so we should be careful with it. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the IP of this discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please stop bandying about irrelevant real life information? We have and need the IP and information related to it, that should be all that is necessary. It has been a while since I stalked ScienceApologist, but I do not recall ever seeing French military history, country music BLPs, or Hannah Montana ever pop up. Redshift has certainly benefited from ScienceApolologist, but that edit to remove a See also did not raise any red flags when it passed through my WatchList the other week. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two CU checks have been run on this and both said the results were very convincing. I was NOT one of those who ran the checks. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear in the public record, does it? Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can take Rlevse's word for it. Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Measure twice cut once? If a CU was run, the checkuser should verify that in a public location. Unless IRC is a place where wikipedia business can take place? Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I corroborate that a check was run by me, by request, and that I found it highly likely that the IP I was asked about is being used by SA. Hipocrite, your tone is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Note: Since the case remains open, I am moving this section's content out of the "result" and into the "discussion" section. Sandstein 05:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed to see some of the regular pro-fringe advocates petitioning for sanctions against SA. This matter looks like something that belongs at WP:SPI, not here. Copy the evidence there, select code 'A', violation of arbitration sanctions, and let a Checkuser make a determination. Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted some personal info that was not needed to be posted here. Please don't restore that. This matter should be handled by a Checkuser. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As checkuser has been run, and block evasion has been found, the customary result is an upgrade to indef. Since SA is currently blocked, I think we should have a community discussion first to decide what to do, rather than jumping to indef and having a discussion afterwards. Talk first then use tools. Does anybody object to an indefinite block? Jehochman ^Talk 21:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think blocking the IP for the term of SA's block, or for 3 months (doing a "reset") would be a better approach. Unless we are ready to write SA off completely. Which I am not. Yet. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the Solomonic solution. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Lar. Can you implement that? At minimum resetting the original block should be non-controversial. I remember last time you checked this. You're familiar with all the circumstances. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could a decision please be put on hold for 48 hours while additional technical information is being verified? Thanks. Risker (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

I'm Columbia College student majoring in astrophysics. I edit Wikipedia all across campus. I am not "ScienceApologist". The guy with the account asked me to explain here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.171.155 (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Checkuser access so I have no good way to double check their results. Jehochman ^Talk 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rechecked. I get the same CU result I got last time: "Strong correlation to ScienceApologist". Certainly there are other possible explanations, and I would defer to "Pattern of editing analysis" as appropriate but that's what CU tells me. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to comment further until making contact with ScienceApologist. Am aware of the strength of the technical checkuser evidence; until reaching him directly I considered it almost certain that he had made these edits himself. In which case of course that would not be defensible. He tells me the disputed edits were not his; that they came from a departmental Internet connection to which many people have access. This is a large university. It stands to reason that most of that department shares the same interests and POV; they would likely touch similar articles no matter whether they knew he edited or not. The best he could do in the short time since we made contact was to locate the individual and ask for a disclosure. I have asked him to follow up with confirmatory information from the IT department etc. Suppose in good faith that he has abided by the terms of his siteban and this arose for reasons outside his control very late in the semester (the university ends its spring term early) and at the beginning of a weekend. In all likelihood, followup will occur via email with potentially sensitive information. The reasonable thing is to let the Committee weigh the evidence and see whether they believe the good faith scenario is plausible. May we close this thread procedurally? The Committee is certainly aware of this and interested. It is unlikely that ScienceApologist can supply much more substantiation during the weekend. Durova^Charge! 02:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on procedural closes. As for the rest, I'd want to hear from the IT department about their computer configuration before I was convinced it wasn't SA... but I suggest we block the range to anons, but not new account creations, for the duration of his ban, and just say, "sorry, there is disruptive editing coming from here, you will have to get an account" to any anon, and scrutinise new accounts created to see if they're editing problematically. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a procedural close or pause on this. If we gain a better understanding of the IP in question, we should have everything we need to make a decision. As this is about an IP address, there are privacy issues, so anyone with any sound technical information about the IP should privately send it to Lar, or to the committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ScienceApologist

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Lar and ArbCom will deal with it. Privacy issues preclude further investigation by the community. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Was there a resolution to this? The IP user seems to be editing again and it would be useful to let the community if the user was cleared to prevent additional reports. Ronnotel (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I've just nudged a few people... sorry for the delay. not quite sure what to do here. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh - not sure I quite understand the difficulty here. We have what appears to be ongoing sock-puppetry from a banned user that has been doubly checkuser-confirmed. Against this, we have a self-serving statement from an anonymous IP address. I would think policy would indicate that we block the IP and make the ban indefinite. If evidence is forthcoming that supports the anon IP then these administrative actions can be reversed. At this point, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the anon IP and the banned user? Ronnotel (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop lobbying. You don't, and can't, have full information. Leave it to the Checkusers to decide. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yrulaughing418

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Account indefinitely blocked by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) prior to the filing of this report. AGK 17:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Yrulaughing418

User requesting enforcement: Jehochman ^Talk 17:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Yrulaughing418 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [151]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Edit warring, WP:DUCK sock puppetry.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinite block
Additional comments: I've emailed a checkuser to look for additional socks or to see if this account can be connected with any regular users.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Yrulaughing418

I've already indef-blocked this account prior to this report. Sandstein 17:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Yrulaughing418

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Yrulaughing418 was indefinitely blocked by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) prior to the filing of this report, so I'm closing this as a moot issue. AGK 17:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can anybody suggest a sock master? It would be nice to know. Jehochman ^Talk 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not did any extensive work in this subject area, and so none spring to mind. If there is sufficient evidence to warrant doing so, you might consider filing a sockpuppet investigation and requesting that a CheckUser be ran. AGK 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rehoboth Carpenter Family & related Carpenter pages

Resolved

– Wrong forum.

Iwanafish, alias 125.199.58.121 and 160.244.140.202 refuses to communicate despite many entreaties to do so by several editors. See discusion page of Rehoboth Carpenter Family. Apparently this stems from some disagreement which he refuses to discuss. Iwanafish has repeatedly rolled back this and related articles to a previous version of his without discussion. He has used his Washington State IP and his Japan IP as an alias. He has been given many warnings regarding his behavior. I will admit I and another used the wrong warning format at first regarding his reversion from surveyed articles using wiki format and inline references back to his own format. We are now using the proper warning format. Any help in getting him to communicate or to stop his negative behavior would be appreciated. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This report does not belong on this page, which is dedicated to arbitration enforcement (see the advice at the top of the page). Such reports should be made to WP:ANI, preferably with helpful WP:DIFFs. Sandstein 07:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Parishan notified of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 discretionary sanctions remedy and issued with advice for editing. AGK 19:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Parishan

User requesting enforcement: 76.93.86.242 (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Edit warring considered harmful
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162]

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: A single-purpose account, currently edit warring on number of pages.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block or any other sanction at admin's discretion
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Parishan

Comment. I'm currently evaluating Parishan's contributions to the Armenia (etc.) subject area for concerning edits. If any are found, the discretionary sanctions remedy of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 would require Parishan to be placed on notice before sanctions could be dispensed; presently, s/he has not been issued a caution (complete with link to the case page), and so the possible outcomes of this complaint are somewhat limited. On a related note, I hold concerns that 76.93.86.242 is vexatiously filing this complaint—Parishan is in disagreement with the IP in a number of articles in this subject area—or, no less worryingly, is baiting Parishan into revert warring. (All aspects of this comment are tentatively made: I have made but a preliminary review of the situation at the time of making it.) AGK 14:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very bad faith request. Parishan is a long established user, with thousands of contribs since 2006. How could he be described as a single purpose account? Grandmaster 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the pattern of my request (probably because the IP is unfamiliar with them). Anyway, the IP turned very odd with his two insults ([163], [164]). brand спойт 16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with AGK's comments. I'm inclined towards a notification of the existence of the discretionary sanctions, and editing advice about requesting protection or dispute resolution earlier instead of edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this edit by the IP is clearly a vandalism, WP:POINT violation and a nationalistic attack: [165], and is actionable per AA2 case. Also, 96.247.54.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be the same person, judging by this edit: [166] I think Parishan in this case was simply reverting vandalism, which he is allowed to do. Grandmaster 19:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the last 4 diffs should be ignored, because the edit being reverted was essentially vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it is about time Parishan be placed under restrictions. Admins have always repeated that he's not under restrictions but that he was indeed edit warring. See the comments made by the administrators following links: [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172]

Just because the report was filed by an IP should not change the fact that all other members with this long a history of incivility and edit warring have had restrictions imposed on them ages ago. And Brand's justification does not make sense, most of the reverts of Parishan were directed toward edits supported also by established editors, particularly those about the Iranian monument in the Eurovision concert. And it does not seem that the IP's intentions was to report him, as seen from here. The IP asked what was done against the others, and was suggested to report, and then drafted his report.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The talkpage of the Eurovision contest article explains why those reverts were made. It is not my fault that those "established editors" did not bother to read it or comment on it before getting involved with those edits. Parishan (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted information about the discretionary sanctions, and given advice concerning edit wars on Parishan's talk page. I don't think any further action is required at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Parishan

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has issued Parishan with discretionary sanctions notice and with advice on editing constructively and in a manner that avoids edit warring; further to this, no action need be taken.

If any editor observes Parishan violating either the Arbitration decision or Phil's editing advice, they should file a fresh complaint on this noticeboard (citing the fact that Parishan has already been notified of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 discretionary sanctions remedy).

AGK 19:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Davelong7

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The account hasn't edited for 2 days (and is probably a throwaway). I'll consider taking action iff it becomes active again. AGK 14:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Davelong7

User requesting enforcement: Jehochman ^Talk 21:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Davelong7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [173]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Single purpose, COI account. Probably a sock puppet.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Ban from 9/11 pages, including talk pages.
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Davelong7

Result concerning Davelong7

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

The account hasn't edited for 2 days, so I'm taking no action for now. If it becomes active again, then I'd be strongly inclined to install a block for inappropriate editing.

AGK 14:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Meowy

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

Request concerning Meowy

User requesting enforcement: brand спойт 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Meowy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Courtesy, Provocation
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [174], [175], [176]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: 1rv parole violation, misuse of the word 'vandalism'
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): At admin's discretion as per AA2 decision
Additional comments: After some calmness Meowy sticked to his pattern again. Filled to avoid delay since Meowy once made one conspiratorial concern on it.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [177]

Discussion concerning Meowy

I'm inclined towards a notification of the existence of the discretionary sanctions, and editing advice about taking care in the use of the word 'vandalism'. PhilKnight (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy has already been notified, and placed on editing restriction back in 2007, which limited him to 1rv per week on any page. [178] Meowy has repeatedly violated this restriction, the last time on 30 March 2009. Please check the log of blocks here: [179] Grandmaster 19:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grandmaster, thanks for explaining. For his last block for exceeding 1RR he was blocked for a week, so 2 weeks this time? PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you to decide, I cannot say anything as an involved party. Grandmaster 19:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be wise to reconsider the notion of making blocks. Meowy has been already punished from bad blocks and has often been the target of provocations. Seehere and read the entire section and more recently here. Besides, involved parties are required to discuss their changes and Meowy was actively involved in the discussion, Baku87 came and left this comment, which clearly shows that he had little knowledge of what was being discussed. It's time that the enforcement be fully applied by the initial requirement of leaving a relevant comment for each revert, as it was initially required. Had this happened Elsanturk's gimmicks and his failure to provide any comments would not have ended in Meowy's block, a user who is makes many fruitful contributions. Reverts should only be permitted to users who are actually involved in the talkpage and, speaking from experience, it is very frustrating that a user suddenly pops from out of the blue (like Baku87), makes controversial edits without even the slightest thought of consensus and fails to give any input on the talk page. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wise, certainly. But some consider it to be wiser to blindly apply a policy. That's easy, no reliability. An ashamed admin of wk:fr, Sardur (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Meowy

Blocked for 2 weeks for the violation of the 1RR restriction. Sandstein 06:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

DreamGuy

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Declined. Editors requesting enforcement refused to answer questions per intructions at top of page: "Please be aware that as a user requesting arbitration enforcement, it is your responsibility to supply all information required for administrators to determine whether enforcement is required, as described in the instructions. Your request may otherwise be declined without further action". Linked incivility provoked, mutual, and insufficient for blocks. Warning left with DG. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User DreamGuy (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)
Block Log Block log
Case: DreamGuy 2
Remedies violated: Behavioral editing restriction
Policies / Guidelines violated: assume good faith, civility, disruption, edit warring and Etiquette

Proposed Enforcement: 1 Month block followed by Compulsory Mentoring (4 months) and a Topic ban from AFD (2 months to be extended as required by Mentor) - _{Altered by Promethean - 12:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)}

Diffs

Uncivil comments directed at User:Colonel Warden: [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]
Uncivil comments concerning or directed at User:Varbas: [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194]
Denigrate remarks concerning or at User:Varbas: [195] [196] [197] [198] [199]
Uncivil comments directed at User:MichaelQSchmidt: [200]
Denigrate remarks concerning or at User:MichaelQSchmidt: [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206]
Uncivil comments directed at User:DGG: [207]
Uncivil comments directed at User:Nacl11: [208]
General Uncivil comments including trolling in various AFDs and discussion pages: [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222]
Examples of DreamGuy not accepting consensus of AFD and continuing to edit war on articles: [223] [224]
Removal of Reliable Sources [225]
Unwarranted editing to change the context of specific entries on his arbitration enforcement page [226]
_{Note: List compiled from thread at WP:ANI}

Selected edit summaries of interest

16:17, 25 May 2009 Richard von Krafft-Ebing ? (removed bad edit that interrupted flow of sentence (leaving a fragment) and falsely claims that another edition that clearly had the main name of Psychopathia Sexualis supposedly had a different name)
16:14, 25 May 2009 Vampire ? (remove massive POV pushing with editor choosing cources that fundamentally change definition of vampire to cover unrelated creatures due to sloppy research by unreliable sources, per WP:UNDUE)
01:46, 24 May 2009 Talk:Vince Orlando ? (Undid revision 291810342 by Ron Ritzman (talk) nonadmin trying to do a close but violated policy and can't count votes)
15:19, 23 May 2009 Moll Dyer ? (some of the worst edits on Wikipedia are dedicated AFD Keep voters putting garbage info and unreliable sources/link on pages -- cleaning up)
22:06, 22 May 2009 Steven Van Slyke ? (?Highly Cited Publications: really stupid to have a subsection called this)
21:52, 22 May 2009 Pazuzu ? (Reverted 1 edit by 76.113.39.176; Who? and who cares?. (TW))
16:13, 22 May 2009 Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture ? (this is about pop culture, don't need a WP:FORK of the main article discussing history -- and removing amazingly bad POV-pushing, point linkspam)
15:55, 22 May 2009 Ivanhoe ? (?Plot Summary: plot tag - wayyyyyyy too long)
19:11, 20 May 2009 User talk:DreamGuy ? (Undid revision 291129609 by Colonel Warden (talk) rv wikilawyering nonsense by problem editor)
Accurate assesment of post left by C.W. IMO. The post was harassment, and was correctly removed. It is regrettable that DG did not withold comment, however, as he did not, I second his synopsis of the situation. Feel free to contact me should you disagree; however, accuracy is not incivility, and ColW. should stop pestering DG. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Promethean

DreamGuy has recently come on the radar at ANI for having a spate of violations of our behavioral policies, despite being under a behavioral editing restriction imposed by the Arbitration Committee. I feel that given the recent diffs above and extensive block log that he has totally forgotten or disregarded this. It seems most his disputes are AFD related. I feel that this editor can still be a great contributor, However AFD seems to cause him allot of frustration and this is evident by the frequent uncivil remarks to or about common AFD participants. I think that mentoring for 4 months and a ban from participating at AFD for 2-6 (as determined by the mentor) months will be highly beneficial for this editor and help get him out of the drama cycle that his causing him to feud with other editors. I also request a 1 Month block for the non AFD related conflicts such as the use of inappropriate and derogatory edit summaries as seen above «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comments by Verbas: I have re-assessed the block log and have increased the block duration to 1 month given the nature and quantity of the violations, I agree with DGG that 6 months in one enforcement is too harsh, would be an excessive leap and length therefore being punitive. We have no reason to think he is using more than one account, So a checkuser would be an intrusion on his privacy for no reason and a violation of our checkuser and privacy policies.
Reply to Comments by DGG: A mentor will be able to watch over him and hopefully defuse conflicts before they get out of hand. Having someone you know and trust tell you that you were out of line is easier to accept then some admin that you don't know and he may be more willing to listen....if you know that I mean. I also feel a mentor would be able to point out the wrong things as he is editing instead of letting them all build up into the pile of diffs you see above.
Reply to Comments by DreamGuy: For starters, You will do well to respect WP:AGF before you make denigrate remarks against Arcayne, the IP or myself. Making unproven accusations against the reporter at ANI in a bid to gloss over your blatant breach of your sanctions reflects poorly on you and proves that you have no clue as to what this is about. Noting that I am the reporter of this WP:AE thread, The IP at ANI has next to nothing to do with your actions or with this Enforcement request. Now I'm not a professor, but HTF can an edit summary be taken out of context or in a misleading manner? Address the complaint, not the people or you will just be making a bigger hole for yourself. Also, one diff showing non-action at another AE thread for you is not proof that Arcane, and again is an AoBF
Reply to Further Bad faith Comments by DreamGuy: Your whole block of comments consists of childish finger pointing, smear campaigns and ad homenium attacks on other users in good standing, all of which are violations of your arbcom imposed behavioral editing restriction. I find the concept that you think I have a vendetta against you because you disagreed one AFD laughable to say the least. I also wish to add that following Varbas around saying he is a sockpuppet (when there was no conclusive evidence) on every forum is Wiki Harassment (a indef blockable offence) «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Varbas

Short blocks (such as the 48 hour block proposed by Promethean) have been proven to be an ineffective deterrent to DreamGuy. He has so far faced 23 temp blocks, and yet here we are discussing numerous serious violations of an almost identical nature yet again and again. I request that the rulings, as passed on 16 October 2007 and 18 February 2008, be strictly enforced.

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2:

DreamGuy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Passed 4-0 at 17:14, 16 October 2007

DreamGuy limited to one account: DreamGuy is restricted to using one and only one account to edit, and may not edit as an unlogged-in IP. He is to inform the Committee of the account he has selected, if not DreamGuy, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account. Passed 9-0 at 21:28, 18 February 2008

- Enforcement by block: Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2#Log of blocks and bans. Passed 4-0 at 17:14, 16 October 2007

Comment - The enforcement ruling states that "After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year". I count 23 blocks against DreamGuy, 11 of them since the 16 October 2007 enforcement ruling was passed.

Comment - Proposed Enforcement: 6 month block followed by Compulsory Mentoring (3 months) and a Topic ban from AFD and talk page discussions (12 months to be extended as required by Mentor) I further propose that a CheckUser confirm that he is complying with the limit of one account. Varbas (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DGG

It;'s the edit summaries that bother me the most. The last block was for one week. The next one should be for something like 4 weeks; going to 6 months now is escalating much too rapidly. An AfD topic ban for a month or so beyond that seems reasonable; There's an existing 1rr restriction, which should be extended another 3 months from now . I am not entirely sure what benefit mentoring will do. I know there is a feeling of frustration in dealing with this, but considering that he and I often oppose each other, I wouldn't want to suggest longer than I did. A warning that the next step will be 6 months at least might have some effect. He can do good editing, and I don't think we want to lose him. DGG (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arcayne

I concur with Promethean's assessment, and would go further in suggesting that the edit summaries are more indicative of DreamGuy's approach to editing than to that behavior incited or sparked by any discussion or any user. I've had a lot of interaction with DreamGuy, most of it unpleasant. At first, I was willing to accept the irascible behavior, as it might have been subject- or user-specific. Unfortunately, this is who he is (at least on wiki), and he has served to alienate dozens of admins and experienced editors. He has chased new users away from the project. The escalation in his block history, and the temperament of his user/user talk pages clearly indicate that he simply doesn't think he's wrong. Ever.
It is because of this that I am not optimistic that mentoring will work with any sort of short time frame. We cannot fix DreamGuy; we can only protect the project from behavior which is clearly becoming more problematic. Yes, he makes some good edits, but what to do when these edits are consistently barbed with edit summaries or character assassinations that do nothing to improve the editing environment that we all have to work in?
Varbas has pointed out that the AE decision:

The enforcement ruling states that "After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year". I count 23 blocks against DreamGuy, 11 of them since the 16 October 2007 enforcement ruling was passed.

DreamGuy knew what these enforcement restrictions were, and yet violated them four-fold anyway. Varbas suggesting the alternative of six months followed by mandatory mentoring is charitable. These edits, seen singly, are just little fish, but collectively, it's a whale-sized school of fish, all doing exactly the same thing.
Will mentoring work? I'd like to be an optimist and say maybe, but I was born a little west of the Enchanted Forest; the only change occurring with DG is going to come when he wants to change. He doesn't appear to want to, so I think we should impose the AE ruling, and give the user some time away from the project to develop other interests and gain new insights. When he comes back after that year, he might be a happier person. We need to arrest the behavior for the good of the Project. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by DreamGuy

It should be noted that Promethean is merely cutting and pasting a complaint at ANI by an IP editor who made those accusations as their first edit, and which is now undergoing sockpuppet investigation as being User:Varbas/User:Azviz/etc., a blocked user who disrupted AFDs and wikihounded me through several socks accounts. Apparently Promethean didn't look into the links very well at all, as they are just accusations of bad behavior taken out of content. Arcayne similarly has a long history of filing false accusations to try to get me blocked. Before taking these claims at face value they should be looked into with a critical eye. These are people who already made up their minds that they want me blocked and are willing to come up with any justification via cherry picked and misleading edit comments taken out of context.

I'm going to respond to the specific complaints here, but since it's basically throwing everything against a wall and hoping something will stick, it may take a little bit here. DreamGuy (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem here seems to be that some people feel they can make any sorts of accusations against me but don't want to be called on their own bad behavior. I frequently handle spammers, POV-pushers and the like, and they don't just happily say, "OK, I'll be good now," they start coordinated campaigns of wikihounding, reverting, etc. and complain that it's somehow uncivil to mention that their edits can't stay because they violated NPOV or introduced spam or whatever. Anybody who cleans up after these kinds of bad editors are going to met with loud complaints. It's coordinated civil POV pushing, and often not even civil.

Regarding claims of uncivil comments to User:Colonel Warden, he was warned about harassing me and those posts were me pointing out that he should stop such tactics.

The alleged uncivil/"denigrate" comments directed at User:Varbas were my pointing out in AFDs to closing admins that the account is extremely likely to be a sock of blocked user (User:Azviz/User:Wordssuch/User:Esasus/etc.). It seems like people ought to be aware of this. This isn't idle claims, this is supported by multiple editors and investigated by the sockpuppet investigators. We should not let sockpuppet votes sway AFD discussions and results, but it's up to th closing admin to weigh it all... which he can't do if he's unaware of it.

The alleged uncivil/"denigrate" comments directed at User:MichaelQSchmidt don't seem to be anything worth reporting here. I disagreed with him on an AFD, and I pointed out that a line he told Varbas to use, claim he was found "not guilty" of sockpuppeting, was false, and he told me not to post to his talk page yet continued to post to mine with extremely aggressive comments, even after I finally told him to follow the same expectations of civility he demanded from me. This shows me offering more tolerance and leeway to him than he offered to me.

Apparently my being uncivil to User:DGG was saying "Pshaw"?! His tone there, while not raising to a level worth complaining about, was more confrontational than mine.

And my being uncivil to User:Nacl11 was pointing out that anything without reliable sources in a BLP must be removed???

And the person reporting my alleged uncivil behavior at AFDs starts out by calling it "trolling," which is highly uncivil language right there, but the links posted there actually show me acting pretty reasonably in general. The first link there was my response to User:Azviz who was a sockpuppet of multiple users and had gone through and nominated for deletion a whole slew of articles I had originally created just to target me. His sockfarm was identified and he was banned. The next ones are me quite patiently explaining things quite civilly at first, and then later responding to people who had been both deceptive and highly uncivil. My responses there were quite reasonable considering.

The alleged "not accepting consensus" was no such thing. I do sometimes make WP:BOLD edits, but whenever a genuine consensus is shown I back off, regardless of whether I think it's right or not. That's what editors are supposed to do. Just declaring there was a consensus that came along later doesn't mean my original edits were bad.

The alleged "removal of reliable sources" is a disagreement over what counts as reliable sources. Once it was more than just one editor insisting they were reliable I let consensus of two people, such that it is, stand. I do not believe photobucket.com and a press release reprint in a local paper count as reliable sources. The editor who put those there had similar kinds of sources removed by other editors on other pages undergoing AFDs at the time, so the edit seemed in line with consensus I was seeing on other pages. Another editor (one who usually joins the first in voting Keep on AFDs) came along and undid it. I won't edit war with them, so it stayed. That's what editors are supposed to do.

As far as "Unwarranted editing to change the context of specific entries on his arbitration enforcement page" goes, as far as I am concerned, I was just adding context so people didn't take claims made against me there at face value. I did not remove anyone else's comments there. What I added was factual, and people can read and make up their own mind. Apparently some editors think defending myself with clear, calm and neutral languae is somehow a bad thing?

Are my edits perfect? No. But the comments were at least at the same level of civility as the comments directed at me, if not more civil, and in many cases far more civil. And considering the level of hounding going on by a banned editor and some others who have gone to articles I've edited to revert all my changed regardless of the content of those edits, I think I'm doing pretty well.

Arb sanctions should be about improving behavior on Wikipedia. Continually blocking me isn't going to change anything... in fact, as we have seen, it only escalates things, as several editors see ArbCom as a way of escalating conflicts with the goal of getting me blocked if I rise to the baiting. If the goal is to improve behavior, the actions of the people complaining should be looked at here. I think the 1RR restriction I agreed to (and it was voluntary, as I could have just waited an extra 24 hours or whatever on a block and come back without it -- I chose to do it because I sincerely thought it would help) has gotten me to use third opinions, noticeboards, and otehr editors' assistance a lot more often instead of trying to take on bad edits all by my lonesome. DreamGuy (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I finally figured out who Promethean is and why he is so set on trying to get me banned. Apparently he is upset that I objected to him non-admin closing an AFD as allegedly having consensus for "Keep" when there wasn't even a majority of votes there that called for "Keep"ing the article. He got all upset and said he wants to see me banned from AFDs, and this is part of his strategy toward that end. When a brand new IP editor first started making these accusations on ANI, he ran with them and strongly resisted anyone looking into that IP for being a banned user. And he also doesn't have a lot of room to be complaining about other people for incivility. DreamGuy (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by MuZemike

Over the past six months, Esasus (talk · contribs) has been actively engaging in a campaign to bait DreamGuy into edit warring and incivility. The user, now indefintely blocked for sockpuppetry, has incorporated, to date, five separate socks to engage in this baiting; another sockpuppet investigation is going on right now as I type regarding four IP addresses, all of which are reverting en masse DreamGuy's edits (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive). The previous post to ANI against DreamGuy was one of these IPs, and this was the IP's first edit.

With that being said, if consensus determines a block is necessary that the length of it be reduced as at least one user has been active in baiting DreamGuy into such behaviors. Thank you, MuZemike 15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Colonel Warden

Here's another example which further demonstrates the problem. The article Co-training was not perfect when User:DreamGuy encountered it but it had a source and seemed a reasonably NPOV account of a technical matter. User:DreamGuy tagged it for improvement but then, one minute later, tagged it for deletion too. In the ensuing discussion, two editors supported the deletion proposal and so a band-wagon started rolling which might easily have resulted in deletion of the article. Fortunately, User:Fences and windows exerted himself to turn this around, bringing this article an even better state and establishing a consensus to keep it. In this incident, DreamGuy failed to follow sensible deletion procedure, was rather uncivil and generally failed to add any value to the project. In putting a valid contribution at risk, he acted without due care and attention. This seems to be typical behaviour and he resists suggestions to behave better. So, per WP:DISRUPT, a topic ban from AFD seems appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision discussion

In fairness, the ruling limits the first five enforcement blocks to 1 week, and he has had only two or three clear ArbCom enforcement blocks since the ruling. That said, he can be blocked for longer for his general record. A two week block is fair and reasonable here. More than that, I think is debatable. An AfD ban would also I feel be useful, but there is no scope in the case ruling for imposing one. AE is for enforcement of existing remedies, not imposition of new ones. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Motion_to_clarify_the_interpretative_role_of_administrators, this should be sought by an ArbCom clarification or community request on WP:AN/I. There is enough evidence here to seek an Arbitration ~~clarification~~+amendment I think. I will hold off imposing a two week block here while this is discussed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input Deacon, I shall ask the Arbitrators for clarification as to if alternative sanctions such as page (in this case WP:AFD) are applicable. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response above... I think looking into both the actual edits and the context of the edits show much ado about nothing and nothing justifying any sort of block. I have to ask the Deacon if he looked into the actual edits or assume from the long list of accusations that when there is smoke there must be fire. DreamGuy (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Col Warden has been harassing DreamGuy, for which I have warned him[227]. He has been baiting the bear; I strongly advise any and all comments and links for "incivility" to him should be examined extremely carefully. AGF does not give editors carte blanche to hound and persecute editors who are under sanction, something which Col Warden would be well advised to keep in mind. Remember our goal is to benefit the encyclopedie not wage war, which Warden has been doing. I have been debating taking stronger measures against Col Warden for his harassment of DG, and this action confirms that he is more interested in "punishment" than dispute resolution or improving the encyclopedia. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second comment: Arcayne has been even worse than ColW in his hostile pestering and harassment of DG, and has also been warned by me regarding this. Arcayne lied prepeatedly regarding an interaction with DG and another editor, and revised his position only after I had caught him. I have no respect for Arcayne's ethics; he blew me off with a DG is a problem editor which excuses my behavior type attitude. Another DG stalker pushing the envelope. Relevant discussion here, although that is only part of it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolute and utter bullshit, KC, Not only have I never lied in any discussion about DreamGuy, but it bears pointing out that you are the one who blew me off when I discussed the matter with you. Get your facts straight first, and stop the bullshit. Allow me to ask you a very simple question: is DreamGuy's behavior worthy of a block or not? Instead of attacking the witnesses, maybe you should instead focusing on what is being reported. confirmed. To the arbs, I have no problem with anyone examining my interactions with DG; I am confident that I haven't done anything wrong here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the case, however I fear in DreamGuy's poor handling of AE request alone (such as smearing other users reputations as a form of defense) that the hole is now 10 times bigger than what it was initially. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To what specifically do you refer, please, when you state "smearing other users reputation as a form of defense"? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

badfaith and uncivil Remarks such as "And I finally figured out who Promethean is and why he is so set on trying to get me banned" or "... doesn't have a lot of room to be complaining about other people for incivility" both of which are just 2 examples on this page where he has violated his editing restriction. This will likely become a full blown arbcom case and in all honesty, I fear that DreamGuy will come out worst off than Arcayne or Col Warden «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its fairly well establihsed that there is considerable ill-will between the two of you. Do you have any examples where you see DG smearing anyone as a defense? That DreamGuy has civility issues is not at issue here - but you are claiming motive, and I wish to see something substantial, and not merely your assertion. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. DreamGuy's civility is indeed at issue here. Stop the distracting bs. Focus, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have misread me: I am not arguing that DG is not uncivil. That is what is meant by "not at issue" - in my question to Promethius. What is at issue in my question is his assertion. Please stop inserting yourself and allow others to answer my questions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) Ye gods, Promethian, you called him a coward? Yeah, I'd have to agree, the incivility goes both ways. May I suggest your feelings are running a little too intense to be impartial here? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not put words in my mouth, I siad the ad homenium attacks is a cowardly thing, not that any user is. I find it amusing that I have only had 1 other encounter with DG and that was a couple of days ago and I'm accused of have "ill-will". Perhaps your over looking that DG is a disruptive editor who is rude and uncivil and cries about people ganging up on him when someone reports him for civility violations. I'm not your secretary (and i have better things to be doing at 2:30 am), If you impartial merely reading this and the amendment page should show at least 6 examples of ad homenium arguments being used as defenses. If I am not impartial you are clearly here just to be a Fanboi for DG «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally uncalled for. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, If I was DG how would I get out of this one....I know, LOOK ITS A TAG TEAM! «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop digging. Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Promethian: Are you actually accusing me of acting in concert with DreamGuy in this? That I am part of a tag team? Be clear. Assert it, or strike your innuendo. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I just found hipocrite's sudden involvement interesting. Almost as if your trying to run editors of the rails. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been on my watchlist since I edited it here. I worked with DreamGuy from a long time ago, and I have the utmost respect for KC having been involved on both sides of her decisions. Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I presume you meant "you're" as in, you are. That being the case, who is "you" and who are you accusing of tag teaming? Again I strongly request you either be specific or you strike your insinuation. I've asked one question of you three times now, and this is the second time for this one. I'm beginning to think you're trolling me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask questions, doesn't mean I have to address them. However I can see this is going no where... Also, You should know better than to bait people by using an innuendo "I think your trolling" remark «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that response, I can only assume you are trolling me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF, Discussions can get very heated. Again, stating that someone is trolling is trolling in itself. Please read the essay "Do not feed the trolls" «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm well aware of his rudeness. However, that does not justify allegations of motive without clear evidence; saying someone's actions are cowardly are impying they are a coward, at the very least. your accusations notwithstanding, I have asked that you provide a link which has some indication of evidence. I am well aware of DG's tendency to insult others; there is a difference between that and doing it as a form of defense however. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There really doesn't seem to be a problem here... at least, not with DreamGuy. He could be a bit more civil in two of the Edit Summaries, but considering the baiting, the language used by detractors above, and the fact that I've seen much worse, I really don't see a problem (with Dream Guy, from what's been posted here). Verbal chat 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Gazifikator

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

Request concerning Gazifikator

User requesting enforcement: brand спойт 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Disruptive editing, Wikipedia is not a battleground
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [228], [229], [230], [231], [232]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Ongoing point-pushing and political struggle in AA topics, now in the Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan (official warning)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): 1RR or at admin's discretion
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [233]

Discussion concerning Gazifikator

I don't see any violations in my actions. I created the Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan article, which is completely sourced and seems to not have any problems with Wikipedia rules. Then user Brandmeister suggested to merge it with "Islam in Azerbaijan" article [234]. During the discussion I explained that these two terms are not the same and that it is not correct to merge an article about peaceful Islam believers with the one about radical Islamists and wahhabist terrorists [235]. As a result, user Brandmeister merged these two articles without waiting for a decision by an admin [236]. I returned it back, as user Brandmeister obviously violated Wikipedia rules on merging and the only third-party user is also opposing the merger [237]. Then without waiting for a decision on merging, user Grandmaster started to add irrelevant info (again about Islam believers) to the article which will support their position to merge these two articles. Another user, who is now indef. blocked and never discussed his actions, supported their actions [238] [239] [240]. And lately, user Baku87 reverted the article to indef. blocked user's version without any explanations at talk page [241], while I explained all my edits there. And the only notification ([242], not a warning) I received, was for my edits in a different article on genocides and no any relations with this case. Gazifikator (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that repeatedly reverted Radical islamism is a part of Gazifikator's politically-coloured articles with possible coatrack. In this recent edit for example Gazifikator deleted sourced info, which was labelled as 'unsourced POV-pushing'. Regarding Goldorack, as per WP:BAN, good-faith edits must not be reverted just because they were made by a banned user. brand спойт 20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Gazifikator: I'm quite confused as to why a pagemerge should not have went ahead because a "decision by an admin" had not been passed. Administrators take no role in article content matters (but rather monitor user conduct).
Separately: I'd note that Sandstein placed Gazifikator on notice earlier this month, and so discretionary sanctions could (per AA2) be placed on Gazifikator's account (although I make no comment as to whether that would be warranted at this time).
AGK 15:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These edits seem to reflect content disagreements and do not violate "Disruptive editing" and "Wikipedia is not a battleground". They are, however, part of an edit war between Gazifikator and Goldorack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since Goldorack is already indef-blocked, the edit war will likely not continue. I see no compelling need to issue sanctions against Gazifikator at this time, but I am ready to do so should his name appear on this board again associated with A/A disruption of any sort. Sandstein 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gazifikator made 11 reverts just on Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, trying to suppress the information about the number of ardent believers in Azerbaijan, supported by reliable sources. This information has direct relevance to the article, yet it is being deleted for no reason. How can one assess the relative weight of radical religious trends without knowing the number of religious people in general? Some examples of edit warring by Gazifikator on that article: [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249]

Note that every time Gazifikator reverted, the following information was removed:

A survey estimated the proportion of ardent believers in Azerbaijan at close to 7 percent, slightly more than the number of declared atheists — almost 4 percent — with the largest numbers falling into the category of those who consider Islam above all as a way of life, without strict observance of prohibitions and requirements, or as a fundamental part of national identity.^[1]

^ Tadeusz Swietochowski. Azerbaijan: The Hidden Faces of Islam. World Policy Journal, Volume XIX, No 3, Fall 2002

In my opinion, this is a deliberate attempt to suppress useful and sourced information, and the paragraph above was originally included by me and other users, not Goldorack. I think that Gazifikator's activity on this article is a violation of arbitration ruling, discouraging edit warring. --Grandmaster 08:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indef. blocked Goldorack just reverted every time to your POV lead, that is going to assure voters that these two articles need to be merged. It is your policy: to add big volume of irrelevant (and sourced) info to an article you dislike, and then show how the merge is justified. The text by Swietochowski is obviously about religion, and Islam in Azerbaijan, it never uses the term of radical Islamism, and this irrelevant info have only one use, to show that these two articles are about the same topic, the "ardent belivers of Islam". I think, such edit's can be considered as disruptive! And when you say I removed this info every time, you're in a big mistake: the last versions (reverted by me) include this quote. I'm not agree with it but I 'm acting civil, so it is there, just look [250][251] to not push disinformation about my edit's. Gazifikator (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, Goldorack made his edits before he was banned, therefore you cannot rv his edits just because he was banned. You are allowed to rv his edits only if he made them evading his block, which he never did. Second, the information from the top international expert on Azerbaijan about the number of ardent believers has a direct relevance to the article. The purpose in creating this article seems to demonstrate that Azerbaijan is some sort of a Taliban ruled place, a stronghold of radical Islamism, which it is not. The statistics on practicing Muslims demonstrate the role of religion in the society, and thus is quite appropriate. If you disagree with the inclusion of this info, you could have asked third opinion, or follow other WP:DR procedures. Instead you chose to edit war, made 11 rvs and continue edit warring. And the info from professor Swietochowski is not the only material that you keep on removing from the article. In my opinion, this is disruptive editing, and application of revert limitation should be considered. Grandmaster 09:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldorack was blocked as "WP:SPA and likely sockpuppet for POV-pushing, edit warring and adding original research, mainly on biographies of living persons)": see the reason [252]. He helped you to push some POV right before he was blocked, and reverted to your version without any explanations at talk, while I always discussed my edt's there. So my revert was justified. We also have a separate section in the article dedicated to the situation in Azerbaijan [253] and I'm sure this article is goodly sourced and too much neutral, isn't it? You never can prove that something is dubious there or I used only negative info, in contrary, the first section is starting with the words "Azerbaijan is a secular country, etc.". If you read the article, you will see that Azerbaijan is not a "some sort of a Taliban ruled place", but a state, where the authorities trying to solve the problem of radical Islamism, and they have some success. Gazifikator (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no proof that Goldorack was a sockpuppet of a banned user. Plus, he made very useful edits, adding sourced info. I'm taking full responsibility for his edits in this article. And he was not the only one reverting you, a number of other users disagreed with your deletion of info from that article, so there's no justification to your edit warring. And the info about Azerbaijan being a secular country with a minimal influence of radical religious trends was included by me, so you cannot take a credit for that. I still do not understand the purpose of your 11 reverts and continuing edit warring. Grandmaster 04:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gazifikator

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Smith2006

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

Request concerning Smith2006

User requesting enforcement: radek (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Smith2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: edit summary:"Polish Nationalist POV"

same diff, in talk: "In order to pop up territorial annexations.", "to Polonize him is to justify the massacring of German citizens", "to justify Polish crimes after the war."

same diff, in talk, different comment, unnecessary and offensive use of sarcasm: "Eternally Polish City of Gdansk stolen by Teutons, Reactionaries, Prussian imperialists, Hitlerite Germans and Fascists from the Greater Polish Empire from Ural to the Atlantic Ocean", "of course Hamburg will be annexed then by Greater Poland", "all will know that Berlin is "Angela Merkela Zdrój" in the Central provinces of Poland in the voivodeship Barlinski.", "All who deny the Polish identity of Berlin are Nazis and Polonophobes who will be expelled or decapitated in the KZ Lamsdorf"

on talk:"Thank you, Polish Propagandists, for falsifying", "Annexing him as a Pole", "collectively orchestrated Polish Chauvinist propaganda piece", "All lies' brigades for Poland and Annexated Polish Greater Polish History", also unnecessary and offensive use of sarcasm and accusing other editors of "lies"

on talk:"nationalist annexationist POV" "I think we must falsify the wikipedia article on Miroslav Klose also" (offensive use of sarcasm), "Polish publications from a politicized and censoring era", "these falsifications of history, but I am insulted that wikipedia is mutilated in this way"

taunting:"You can report me.", more incivility: "in order to legitimize the annexation and expulsion of Germans", "It is uncivil to falsify history", "Your dirty People's Republic of Poland", "irritated by this arrogant one-sided"

same diff, different comment: "pure falsification", "annexationist attempts", "nationalist POV must be banned from wikipedia"

on talk: "Polonized extremely Slavic-Polish name is based on nothing"

edit summary:"Polish is therefore POV"

edit summary:"Severe Polish chauvinist POV article"

edit summary:"Stalinist 1954 Polish Annexationist "history" is unscientific, like Nazi sources"

additionally, this attitude and incivility isn't confined to Poland/Germany related articles:

edit summary:"This article is not a propaganda article for the Yugoslav Communist Party Partisans or the Partisan views. Stop POV"

edit summary:"Stop POV words"

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Personal attacks directed at individual editors and whole groups (Polish and other editors). Creating a battleground atmosphere. Severe incivility. Offensive use of sarcasm which suggest extreme bad faith in others. Increasing the extent of these offenses after being warned repeatedly on talk [254], [255] and on his talk page [256] and especially after the notification of sanctions was given by User:PhilKnight [257]
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I think even without the restrictions notification [258] and the previous case on this board [259] this kind of behavior would result in a substantial block for incivility alone. The fact that this user chose to amplify his attacks after being notified of the editing restriction suggests a much more serious problem. Please note the time stamp on User:PhilKnight's notification and that all of the above violations occurred well after it was placed on the user's talk page. So topic ban and a block long enough to send the appropriate message seems in order.
Additional comments: Note how soon this user pops up again. Notification diff. Also I apologize for any formatting errors ahead of time - first time filing one of these.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Smith2006

Result concerning Smith2006

Thank you for the detailed report. I certainly agree with Smith2006 that "nationalist POV must be banned from wikipedia". That includes attempts to turn Wikipedia into a nationalist battleground, as he does here.

In view of the previous case above and pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, I am topic-banning Smith2006 from all Eastern Europe-related subjects for six months. The ban extends to all Wikipedia pages, including talk and other discussion pages, and especially to the subject of Polish/German identity. Any violations of this ban can be reported to me or to WP:ANI and will result in blocks. Sandstein 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Baku87

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

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

Request concerning Baku87

User requesting enforcement: Gazifikator (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Baku87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: BLP violation [260], nearly all of his reverts are done without discussion, see those for example [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266] [267] [268] [269] [270], removes sourced info like here for exemple. Other disruptions include, misuse of sub template for developped articles so that the word 'Azeri' is highlined. See those: [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293]. uncivil comments like [294]

Being reverted for his adding of those stub, Baku87 has gone to create the template Historical regions of Caucasian Albania. It is too much disruptive, Caucasian Albania itself is a historical region and on top of it he add Azerbaijan republic's map on the template and go on to add them in those with the template on Historical regions of Armenia [295], [296], [297], [298], [299].
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Baku87 is techincally under restriction even though noone reported him. He has a block logged here, and while Moreschi blocked him for jumping out of nowhere and reverting without participation in the talkpage, he continue doing that.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Misuse of templates, creation of templates for POV pushing and reverting out of nowhere without participation in talkpage is more than some 1RR non compliance, this user should at the very least be blocked for a week.
Additional comments: {{{Additional comments}}}
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [300]

Discussion concerning Baku87

This report seems to be a retaliation for the report concerning Gazifikator [301] for edit warring at Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, where Baku87 tried to restore the reliable sources, deleted by Gazifikator without any consensus with other editors. Grandmaster 11:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree with his edits at Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, but we already discussed it at the relevant report [302]. This report is about a large number of possible disruptive edits in different articles, many of these articles I never edited or edited only one time, while his activities there need to be checked. Gazifikator (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over at your diffs, I see no BLP violation here: [303] It was a reliable info from Associated Press that a sock account Onlyoneanswer (talk · contribs) was trying to delete: [304] And in articles like Varoujan Garabedian, Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, Armenian National Committee of America Baku87 restored sourced information that you were trying to delete. If he was edit warring, then so were you. And I do not understand how creating a template about the historical kingdom of Caucasian Albania could be disruptive. We have such templates for other states. And placement of stub templates was a good faith mistake which Baku87 stopped doing after he was explained that they were not appropriate. Grandmaster 04:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This place is not for arguing, check WP:BLP section about criticism and praise, there on sure was a clear cut violation, members were blocked or even banned for such violation. The addition on the Armenian National Committee of America was a reinsertion of a SPA account, of over half of the lead against rules. The template historical region of Caucasian Albania fails any editorial guidelines. Caucasian Albania is a historic region itself, it's an oxymoron. And I notice that you have nothing to say about the fact that he added Azerbaijan's map. Your claim that adding the template about Azeri sub was a misunderstanding from his part is innacurate, he did not stop after being explained in his talk and even despite being reverted by yourself, he even reverted you, he only stopped when he had the idea of creating that disruptive template and placing Azerbaijan's map on it. On Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, he had no idea what he was reverting, as seen in the diff, he added a duplicate material, one following the other (see by yourself), and never discussed his edits except of this one time "justification" of obvious POV-pushing [305]. Enough please leave admins to make the decision, this is becoming soapboxing. In any case, he violated 1RR numerous times. Gazifikator (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs provided are not obviously problematic, at least not to the point of requiring discretionary sanctions. If the diffs represent a pattern of misconduct, the request fails to show this adequately. For instance, it is unhelpful to talk about 1RR without explaining why 1RR even applies to these edits, and by which sequence of edits exactly it was violated. I currently consider this request to be non-actionable. Sandstein 20:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As with Sandstein, I am of the opinion that the diffs presented are not indicative of a wider pattern of disruption. However, I am concerned that, of the diffs presented, many of the reverts are being cited as disruptive where they undid an edit by the editor filing this report. Perhaps any wider problems could be resolved by a serious effort to discuss, rather than revert, on both Gazifikator and Baku87's part. I am alarmed at the frequency at which reports are filed under the provisions of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 by the same old faces, and am beginning to suspect that there is an inability on the part of a handful of editors to work constructively together in this subject area. AGK 14:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Sandstein, the members of the Armenian Wikiproject have only reported editors for clear cut disruption, and not only according to the blind 1RR rules. But since you Sandstein do not seem to know what you are supposed to enforce in this particular case, I will show you so that next time, you become more aware.

See here the initial application, as it says as put in place in AA1, and what was put in place was He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. This was further extended (but still included this) to this, because the previous one was too restrictive.

If you check those reverts, Baku87 did not justify most of them in the talkpage as required by what was imposed; he jumped out of nowhere to revert (for which Baku87 was initially blocked by Moreschi). You can not selectively impose 1RR without the per rule requirement of justifying your revert in the talkpage... or else the 1RR becomes a worthless restriction.

Second clear cut disruption, which fails me, was that you ignored wondering where is the disruption. Check again here. Baku87 has created Historical regions of Caucasian Albania template by adding Azerbaijan republic map on the left side, and started adding this template in the articles where the template Historical regions of Armenia were present. The sanction should be applied when an editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

Caucasian Albania is already a historic region, it's not a current state or entity to have a template about its historic regions.

'What does the map of Azerbaijan have to do here on a template that is supposed to be about Caucasian Albania?

Here Baku87 has failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, he obviously knows that Caucasian Albania did not have the republic of Azerbaijan's map and that also, it is by itself a historic region. On top of that, he for ages refused to discuss his out of nowhere reverts in the talkpage as required by the 1RR rules.

If you are unwilling (appears that for you the restrictions only apply to Meowy) to prevent any further disruption by Baku87, I see no other option than going right to the Arbcom for his long standing content disruptions.

Shall I remind you Sandstein that you dismissed the report here, when just before the other day, it was CU documented that most of those reported there were sockpuppets and who were obviously disrupting. A quick and careful look at the report should have been enough to see that something wrong was going on and proceed to stop it. The ignorance of that report, initiated by your dismissal, has damaged several articles which should, as of yet, be fixed. Be careful next time please. - Fedayee (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why so bitter towards Sandstein, Fedayee…? AGK 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Fedayee, it is worth noting that the report at WP:ANI that he claims was dismissed for no reason, was filed by MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs), a puppetmaster himself, who was banned for 3 months for evading his parole with a sock account The Diamond Apex (talk · contribs). [306] So it is very curious that a socking person was accusing others of disruption. Btw, I think MarshallBagramyan's original 1 year rv parole should be made indef after the last 2 blocks. As for his report, he just dumped together various unrelated users he happened to disagree with, and claimed that they all needed to be punished. Some of those accounts later turned out to be socks. I suspected one of those accounts, InRe.Po (talk · contribs), but I failed to correctly identify the puppetmaster, so my report was declined. [307] But that was not the fault of the admins, they need a clear evidence to act on. Grandmaster 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith with MarshallBagramyan. MarshallBagramyan never evaded any blocks at all and several admins are aware that it was not sockpuppetry and that The Diamond Apex was not him and was someone who was supposed to replace VartanM who left the project because of Standstein. The rest is private. MarshallBagramyan has not appealed because he suffered Wikiburnout after being victim of massive sockpuppetry, sockpuppets supporting you. As for InRe.Po, your report here was ridiculous, because it was obvious that InRe.Po and the other user had a compleatly different and opposit POV. And it was obvious that your request was to be rejected, you filled under the base that both editors edit seemed similar in March Massacre, the result of your request was to associate him with the wrong editor. What MarshallBagramyan reported was that InRe.Po and you were opposing eachothers in talkpages while in the article InRe.Po was pushing your own POV, MarshallBagramyan has used the word strawpuppetry.

MarshallBagramyanwas was about to fill an arbitration request requiring the matter to be dealt with, but you filed one yourself and it was too late. If the case you requested was accepted the sockpuppetry would have never been documented. From the CUer block log we can assume that InRe.Po and for example Deniz Gokturk are the same users, because they were blocked exactly at the same time. We see from Deniz contributions that after two months of inactivities he came out of nowhere to edit Armenian "terrorist" related articles which was a suspicious recent interest of you and Atabey. Given this, some can assume that InRe.Po was only pretending to oppose you in talkpage. We see even an Armenian name written in Armenian alphabet who was blocked at the same time showing another strawpuppetry issue. It's funny you talk about sockpuppetry when more than a dozen from the user who was helping you on 'Armenian terrorism' were just blocked two days ago. I will assume good faith and suppose that this user who was not editing for two months misteriously became interested to what you were editing and decided to help you. Gazifikator (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AGK. Don't know, maybe because I overestimated admins a little bit, believing that there are several admins like Moreschi out there. A little sad when those admins are the exception rather than the rule. See here the level of quality of Sandstein's blocks, Meowy was the only one engaged in the discussion, another user for the same number of revert without any engagement in the talkpage as required gets away with it and Sandstein refuses to explain it. When any administrator with any level of judgment would see that Meowy was being baited when his contribution was being reverted without any discussion as required to have him restricted. Despite several users asking for an explanation on Sandstein's talkpage, he provided no rationale (Sandstein's use of admin tools are very questionable indeed).

Your comparison between Baku87's and Gazifikator's reverts don't overrule evidence; Gazifikator was the main opposition from that side and engaged in the discussion of the controversial edits. Baku87 on the other hand reverted for other editors. That, in Wiki terms, is called meatpuppeting. Sandstein also sabotaged a genuine report by a user by dismissing it when what was reported was a real cause for concern. This has been proven later with a massive sockpuppetry case which was documented when all these users were blocked: ShykArkzin, Erkin Koray, ArmenianFromAlabama, A.Abdullayev, ErkTGP, Deniz Gokturk, J.Dain, Mol1987, Rateslines, InRe.Po, Avonosky, April1980, ButlerJim, Generalship, HubrisTN, Gazicumator, ShykMardin, Selda1982, 06singhk, DanyCarvion, Dany L. Carvion, TarikAkin, Jelali, Hadise1992, Tugralar, Kawakli Gewer, Ahmetsaatalti, SavasmaSevis, Mgortago, Անդրանիկ, Osmansdream, Phenuqio1981, FcSphere, AbdulKerim1991, Rush1937, ArgoconianGubekian. Sandstein's questionable decisions was also why VartanM left the project.

Sandstein should leave other administrators to deal with AA2 restrictions because he has shown that he is incapable of using the tools adequately. Hope this answers your question. - Fedayee (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this. "The Diamond Apex was someone who was supposed to replace VartanM"? Then how come that those 2 ended up being each other's socks? [308] Grandmaster 04:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for InRe.Po, he pushed his own POV, and I suspected from the very beginning that he was a sock, because he was too knowledgeable about wiki editing practices for a newbie. I just could not instantly figure out who was behind that account, but fortunately admins eventually sorted this out. It would be good if you assumed good faith and stopped making absurd accusations towards editors like myself, who in fact tried to prevent sockery. Grandmaster 04:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't understand the relevance of MarshallBagramyan's old report, sockpuppetry by unknown person, etc to this report. It is a deviation from the topic. Let's keep this focused. Grandmaster 05:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making absurd accusations ıs the way to play the game and win. Better still, make those accusations where nobody can ever see them, through the back channels that the administrators use. I don't know who made the absurd accusation that The Diamond Apex was a sockpuppet account. Maybe it was the likes of Sandstein whıo did it - an admin whose partisan bigotry is well known and knows no end - or maybe it was another admin (whose name I won't mention) whose ego is so fragile that he will file away the supposed insult of having his edits challenged and make sure that the other editor is quickly got rid of, using his own little band of admin meatpuppets. Meowy 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please. That's quite enough of the soapboxing. Shall we stick to discussing only the merits of the complaint? AGK 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Soapboxing" name-calling is just a way of avoiding the issue. There is no point in sincerely discussing the merits of this or any similar case because those who will have to make final decision have lost all credibility (as have the AA2 edit restrictions). Meowy 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that Baku87 did something that the person filing the report has not done. In fact, Gazifikator was involved in edit warring on a much larger scale, and repeatedly undid edits of other editors, failing to reach any consensus on deletion of info from articles. Grandmaster 06:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Can you show an uncivil comment by my side, a creation of POV/OR template, any dubious/agressive manner reverts that weren't discussed? You were engaged in more editwarrings than me or even Baku87, but the case is about Baku87, his disruptive edits, a large number of POV-pushings anto AA2-related articles. Gazifikator (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This report is too much like fishing. It looks like you've posted quite a large proportion of his recent history in the hope there'll be something. The "BLP violation" was one edit, sourced, and bit weighty on the negativity, but he didn't revert when this was removed and reintroduced and toned down. Baku's "uncivil" comment was that the creation of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan by User:Gazifikator was "nothing but hatred and propaganda against Azerbaijan initiated by Armenian users". You can see why, with the amount of bad faith typical of the area, he would say that, though I agree it is unacceptable. Baku should probably have been cautioned for this, but it would be a tad cruel at this stage to block him for it. The stub templates are not particularly damaging, though some are clearly not stubs (e.g. [309][310][311][312][313][314][315][316]) A large proportion of them only changed Azerbaijan-stub to Azerbaijan-hist-stub. I can see why some, like this, may cause resentment for Armenian users, but the article (again not a stub) does relate to territory in modern Azerbaijan. By comparison, Gododdin and such areas are categorized in Scottish history categories, even though Scotland didn't exist for another two centuries and wasn't acquired by Scotland for a few centuries after that. In most of the links provided none of the editing is particularly bothersome, though I do agree that some of Baku's reverts aren't very helpful, they aren't so different from Gazifikator's that it would merit action. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Baku87

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Baku is asked to read WP:STUB and cautioned for inflammatory assertions. Gazifikator asked to keep his reports more concise and focused in future. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tom harrison

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

Request concerning Tom harrison

User requesting enforcement: Unomi (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Tom harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Discretionary_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Introducing 9/11 deniers

Relabeling to conspiracy theorists incite to deletion on what he must know are specious grounds further incitement ignoring discussion inexplicable removal of link misrepresenting article

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban
Additional comments: Tom harrison is well aware of the sanctions and restrictions surrounding this topic, as an admin he should be setting an example and follow the spirit of the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. There are 3 editors, Tom harrison, Verbal and Quack Guru who seem to fail to engage in constructive debate, instead resorting to low grade edit warring and starting multiple issues all at one time without trying to resolve them amicably or acknowledge when an issue has been resolved.

I am here singling out Tom harrison as I feel that he should be acting much more responsibly than what I have seen so far and seems to set a bad example for the 2 other editors. Considering the tendentious nature of his edits and his willingness to depart from NPOV as dictated by sources and collegial discussion I believe that a topic ban is in order.

Initially there was a merger discussion starting here which questioned the notability of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, I provided 9 [317] sources on the 30th of may (which became 7, but never mind) to establish separate notability of the group. But they have so far not been commented on, and Tom Harrison seems to actively ignore them and pushing ahead for a merge.

There was also a discussion when the term 9/11 deniers was introduced. So far analysis of RS show an almost 3 to 1 prevalence of 9/11 Truth movement opposed to 9/11 deniers. These sources or the logical consequence have not been disputed. Yet Tom Harrison and Quack Guru continue to change article text so as to not reflect common usage patterns.

Tom Harrison, user Verbal,verbal also continue to link A&E for truth to 9/11 conspiracy theories rather than the more precise and correct World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. When asked to discuss the replies were less than illuminating.

Even though he was aware of the discussion and the nature of the change he forged ahead. note the ES.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified

Discussion concerning Tom harrison

I don't see a single bit of disruption on the part of Tom. This enforcement request is a complete joke. The user bringing the request can't even name a single policy or guideline that Tom has broken. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be something a little bit wrong with [[318]] edit. I had a look at the source, and the changes lower down made by Tom Harrison do seem to misrepresent the source. But I agree it seems excessive to call for enforcement. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I would probably tweak the edit, it's hardly evidence of disruption. It's pretty clear that this request is forum shopping. Unomi (talk · contribs) is trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I suggest that Unomi refrains from waisting the community's time in the future. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ice Cold Beer is an involved editor, see my message on his talk page. Also note his bringing user Wowest here for notifying users of a merger discussion. Ignoring arguments in a discussion IS disruption. His actions are quite disruptive Unomi (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please list a policy or guideline he has broken, and how he has broken it? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to mastcell below, I believe that he has amongst other things, failed to follow the basic principles regarding RS, V and NPOV. Unomi (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually took the trouble of clicking on the diffs provided, and Unomi owes me 5 minutes of my life back. I would strongly encourage anyone reviewing this request to look at the diffs, and then look at how Unomi presents them. Some are edits that I wouldn't have made, but are not abusive (e.g. [319]). Others are completely ordinary, everyday edits. Take a look at what Unomi calls "incite to deletion on what he must know are specious grounds". Horrifying, isn't it? Then there's "further incitement" (curious, since Tom explicitly says in the diff that he "sees no grounds to justify" deletion, but who bothers to read diffs)? The WTF capper is probably this diff, which Unomi captions "ignoring discussion". If this is the worst that can be dug up on Tom, then he deserves a barnstar for remaining constructive despite this sort of vexatious litigation, and Unomi should probably receive some gentle guidance on appropriate use of dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 03:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing, "further incitement" (curious that you should read I see grounds to justify it as explicitly says in the diff that he "sees no grounds to justify" deletion). The point is that he as an experienced admin should be decidedly better behaved. Consider the text of the discretionary sanctions regarding these articles :

“

and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability)

”

I believe he has not only personally crossed the threshold but more importantly, that by virtue of his status he has enabled the continuation of improper behavior by editors who might have felt that as an admin he was setting an example to follow. I believe that if you took the time to see how the events unfolded you would be moved to agree. Unomi (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will respond in full in a few hours Unomi (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Tom's edits cited by Unomi do not seem too far out of line to me. The particular edits cited do not seem to contribute much to a case against Tom. However, there have been other edits which I have found disturbing, and seemingly contradictory to WP:NPOV. One edit which I found particularly disturbing was this one. In my extensive readings about the 9/11 issue, I have yet to encounter a single instance of someone in a scientific capacity rejecting the claim that there are live explosives present in the dust of the WTC. So claiming that demolition is "widely rejected" seems a stretch, at least when examining the statements of scientifically qualified individuals who have evaluated the evidence in depth. Perhaps this claim is supported by the given reference. It's not easy for the typical reader to find out; as the article is (apparently) not available online. Unless one has a well-equipped library available (I do not), the article may only be available by subscribing to the journal or paying $18 to purchase the article. If it would help resolve the matter of whether or not Tom's edits are NPOV, I'll pay the $18 and find out what the article says. Wildbear (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with the report above, the diffs provided are not obviously problematic, at least not to the point of requiring discretionary sanctions. If the diffs represent a pattern of misconduct, the request fails to show this adequately. Indeed, the report is unhelpful by labeling what we must assume to be good faith talk page comments "incitements to deletion", as though deletion of a page were a crime, which it is not, and much less proposals to do so. Making talk page comments that others think are mistaken is not sanctionable. The content diffs provided seem to reflect mostly content disagreements and are, again, not sanctionable per se.

I've now seen many non-actionable 9/11-related requests on this board – both by those who seem to want to present the subject favourably and by those who seem to want to present it unfavourably. All editors in this area, please remember that just disagreeing with you is not sanctionable, and do not report editors who merely disagree with you here. Please make reports only in cases where you can provide diffs that show a manifest pattern of disruption. WP:AE is not a substitute for dispute resolution. Sandstein 06:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize if it seems like I am bringing this here because of a content dispute, that is not the case. I believe I am bringing to your attention behavioral issues which are disrupting efforts to improve an article. I am rather new to this sphere of articles and being faced with an environment that is utterly devoid of efforts of consensus building or plain You know, you were right about this one, whats your take on this then.. is quite depressing. From what I can see there is a small group of editors who consistently stonewall discussions, forcing it into a battleground scenario with low grade edit wars. Unomi (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be taken in the context of the wider discussion, are they blatant violations? No. But they do represent a disruption and an incitement for stonewalling and further waste of time and resources. Consider that there has not been *any* discussion regarding sources showing quite clearly a lack of preference for 9/11 deniers, consider that there has been zero discussion regarding the sources showing notability for keeping a stand alone article for AE for truth, although there has been slight movement on the latter today. I do not need to report Tom Harrison or anyone here to 'get an upper hand'; the arguments stand on their own quite well. The problem is that instead of arguing the case a small scale edit war has been started to force these patently partisan and unsupported terms and POVs through. While I agree that Tom harrisons edits taken on their own do not by themselves seem obviously disruptive, they are part a streak of tendentious editing untethered by engaging in discussion with coeditors.

Consider the edit war regarding linking to [[September 11 conspiracy theories rather than World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories.

.

Tom harris 2009-05-24 12:26 adds as an rs an opinion piece in the form of a review of a bbc documentary, the opinion piece itself has one (1) line regarding AE for truth.

.

Since 2009-05-24 Sources have been requested : Please provide a URL for a "reliable source" which states that AE922truth is a "fringe group promoting a conspiracy theory." The response has simply been to try to make the case that non English sources are not admissible, clearly false.

There should *not* be an edit war over this, it is to call a spade a spade, beyond lame. Tom Harrison and the other editors and especially admins, who have been watching from the sidelines should have stepped in here. Unomi (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should people who post such requests, ones that fail to show any disruption at all, be sanctioned? Verbal chat 09:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the edit war over the term 9/11 deniers, First introduced by ~~verbal~~ A Quest For Knowledge ~~I reverted his~~ Verbals edit and started discussion on the talk page 2009-05-29. Please excuse the terse nature of my replies but I was at that point quite unimpressed. The answer was prompt but oblique.

2009-05-27 11:27 AQFK introduces 9/11 deniers to the article based at that point on 1 source with no prior discussion. It is hard to imagine that he would not foresee that this edit would be contested.
2009-05-27 23:22 I revert please note the argument in the ES.
2009-05-28 9:02 Verbal reintroduces 9/11 deniers, no mention in ES
2009-05-29 16:46 I revert, note again short explanation in ES, at this point I also start thread on talk page.
2009-05-29 17:11 Verbal reinserts 9/11 deniers *after* acknowledging talk thread.
2009-05-29 18:22 I revert and give warning that 3rd revert is reached and explain that I sense a lack of sources.
2009-05-29 18:25 AQFK reinstates 9/11 deniers.
2009-05-29 20:49 Wowest reverts and gives explanation in ES
2009-05-29 21:41 Tom Harrison reinserts 9/11 deniers, ignoring previous arguments and relies on specious reasoning.
2009-05-30 19:25 cs32en reverts
2009-05-30 20:09 Verbal reinserts 9/11 deniers

2009-05-30 20:17 IP 76. reverts

2009-05-30 20:23 Verbal reinserts 9/11 deniers
2009-05-30 20:25 IP 76. reverts

This was also a rather lame edit war, the end I believe came when confronted with the unsurprising fact that sources overwhelmingly show a lack of preference for 9/11 deniers over 9/11 Truth movement, regardless of their stance on the 9/11 truth movement in general. It is true that Tom harrison made only 1 reinsertion of 9/11 deniers, but considering the circumstance it is appalling that he would do so.

There are is another ongoing edit war regarding the interpretation of the following quote:

“

Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.

”

as well as the rather WP:IDHT nature of the merge 'discussion', but quite frankly I am tired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 11:32, 6 June 2009 Unomi (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have named several people above without notifying them. I see that my contribution to this 'edit war' (which seems to be you against virtually everyone else) was a revert with the edit summary "no reason given for removal of cited text." I'm not convinced at all that it is Tom Harrison that should be sanctioned here, if anyone should be. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to be this case be about anyone else directly, I believe that as an admin he should have stepped in and that he should have a particular clear sense of proper decorum. Unomi (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To correct one of Unomi's many mistakes, I did not introduce the language 9/11 deniers, and the source was introduced by a pro"9/11 truth" editor (for want of a better term), not in order to denigrate their view as claimed by Unomi. I have not edit warred, and my edits have been supported by talk page discussion and sources. Unomi seems to have problems with consensus and civil discussion. Verbal chat 12:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, you did not initially introduce the term 9/11 deniers, I have edited my comment above to reflect the timeline shown by the diffs immediately following. I am a fairly recent arrival at the article and I honestly do not know who first introduced the source to the article or why. The fact remains that the source was used initially as the sole supporting 'evidence' for why 9/11 deniers should be used. I would rather avoid entering into a content discussion here, but.. either '9/11 deniers' and '9/11 truth movement' refer to the same thing or they do not. If they do refer to the same, then, I believe, that wikipedia chooses the most prevalent name as a rule. If they do not refer to the same then it would be folly to use it as a moniker for 9/11 truth movement. If you have not edit warred then you managed an artful job of convincing me that you did. I would appreciate if you would point out further mistakes of mine. Regards, Unomi (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tom harrison (talk · contribs) has tried to introduce "9/11 deniers" in the lead of 9/11 Truth movement at 22:17, June 5, 2009 (aka Truthers, 9/11 deniers, citations), although he must have been aware at that point that multiple reliable sources not only call the movement "9/11 Truth movement", but actually say that the movement is being called "9/11 Truth movement" (list of sources given at the talk page). No reliable sources have been found so far that would say the movement, or adherents of the movement, are being called "9/11 deniers".
The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Vanity Fair and Skeptic say that the movement is known as the "9/11 Truth movement", the Financial Times, the Daily Telegraph, the National Post and KSL TV say that is is being described as or being called the "9/11 Truth movement".
I have corrected this edit for now, and I hope that Tom harrison (talk · contribs) will refrain from similar edits in the future. Cs32en 12:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening is you are persistently reverting to remove the words "9/11 denier", in spite of the citations to the term, and in spite of my changes to accomodate your concerns - "referred to as "Truthers" and occasionally as "9/11 deniers"." Of the two citations I added, one is Farhad Manjoo's article in Salon, titled "The 9/11 deniers". The other citation (and it's one of several others, as you know very well because I put them all on the talk page several days ago) also mentioning the term is to The Sunday Times. So you revert again, removing the references, and then come here to complain? Amazing. I'm inclined to support a topic ban of myself just to get away from it all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tom harrison

Content dispute, not actionable. Unomi is cautioned against using WP:AE in lieu of dispute resolution. Sandstein 13:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments posted after closure

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

I just became aware of this thread. My name was invoked but nobody notified me at the time. I reuqest that Unomi's warning be logged at WP:ARB911 if not done already and they be advised how to improve their work in this area (e.g. proper use of dispute resolution). The case has formal requirements. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only way that we could defend changing 9/11 truth movement to 9/11 denier wholesale would be if sources show a prevalence of that term, the edit you provided is from around 40 minutes ago and to the best of my recollection is the first time you have used 'occasionally as'. I don't know which sources you believe I have removed, please point out where I did that. Yes on the talk page a list of sources was created to show relative prevalence of each term; 10 sources were provided (albeit without urls for verification) that employed '9/11 deniers', 28 sources were provided that used '9/11 truth movement'. Since then there has been no discussion. Although I must say that this is rather creative. Another long thread trying to convince AQFK that WP:NEO does not apply to '9/11 truth movement', one which Tom, you should have weighed in on. Unomi (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? This is not the place to discuss content disagreements. Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I do not think that any logging is necessary, since the arbitration page only contains a log of "blocks, bans, and restrictions", of which none have been issued here. – Unomi, Jehochman is right, please stop discussing this here, or you may be made subject to restrictions. This thread is now definitively closed, I hope. Sandstein 18:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These comments here should be moved inside the archive box, probably in a section "Comments posted after the case has been closed", so that it's clear that no further comments should be made here. As far as I see, Unomi placed his comment outside the box, in order to avoid confusion about the status of his comment with regard to the closing of the case. Unfortunately, this seems to have been understood as an attempt to continue the discussion. Cs32en 19:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deacon of Pndapetzim

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No action needed. AGK 19:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Deacon of Pndapetzim

User requesting enforcement: radek (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions; the basic issue here is overstepping one's bounds and acting as an "uninvolved administrator" when Deacon is in fact quite involved in Eastern European disputes that the case covers.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Deacon placing Jacurek on the Digwuren notice for a vague and arbitrarily asserted "other recent edit-warring"

Following diffs and links show that Deacon is involved in Eastern European disputes that this case covers:

The diffs below illustrate Deacon's direct involvement in Eastern European disputes:

Deacon always shows up for any major vote on Poland related matters and duly casts his vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jogaila Deacon's involved in a dispute on a Polish-Lithuanian monarch]

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: The above sanction text states: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I think the above diffs show unequivocally that Deacon is very much involved in many of the disputes taking place. This alone should be enough to take Jacurek off list of editors under restriction. But just to emphasize the point, in most other cases where a user was added to the list, formal procedures were followed by filing a report at this very board. Deacon circumvented this process by acting himself, in addition to being an involved administrator.

The text of the sanction also states that "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, 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." - the diffs shows that in several recent edits Deacon has made direct personal attacks on Jacurek by calling him "edit warrior" "POV pusher" and the like.

In addition to removing Jacurek from the list, Deacon should be admonished for abusing his administrative power. It should be made clear that for the purposes of this Arb Enf he is NOT considered an "uninvolved administrator".

Second, Deacon's frequent remarks about Polish editors demonstrate a profound inability to assume good faith in others, make dialogue impossible and contribute to an "us vs. them" mentality. As a result Deacon himself should be added to Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction.

The final matter here is that in addition to arbitrarily placing Jacurek on the restriction list, Deacon also unreasonably revoked Jacurek's rollback privileges. This action was very much similar in spirit to how he put Jacurek on notice: 1) usual procedures were not followed (usually the process, per [320] is to bring the matter up at ANI) - here Deacon short circuited the whole procedure and did it himself probably because 2) his removal of rollback is based on flimsy evidence as Jacurek was mostly using it in the way it was intended to, reverting anon vandals and banned users (including user Smith2006 who was banned after a case on this board) - I (though I'm not an expert here) can see one instance of a questionable use of rollback (of Bandurist's edits which were restoring banned Smith2006 edits).

Hence, if possible and since Jacurek's usage of rollback was related to user Smith2006 who was banned after a case on this board, Jacurek's rollback privileges should be restored.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Jacurek taken of list of editors under restriction; Deacon admonished for abusing admin powers; It should also be made explicit that for the purposes of this case Deacon is not an "uninvolved administrator"; Deacon placed on list of editors under restriction; Jacurek's rollback privileges restored.

Additional comments: Notification to Deacon.
Note: I've done some tidying of the above evidence; it was quite unprettily presented. AGK 15:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Deacon of Pndapetzim

General comment: I would urge the scope of this appeal to be limited to an examination of Deacon's status as an uninvolved administrator; ultimately, the outcome of this thread ought to be either a confirmation that Deacon is uninvolved (and thus a confirmation of the sanction), or a finding that he is not (and a lifting of the sanction). This noticeboard is not suitable for requesting admonishments of an administrator for abusing his powers (as requested at "Enforcement action requested"). AGK 15:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine, although I also think that placing Deacon on the Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction is well within scope here. (Also, I apologize for the untidyiness) radek (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: I find this complaint to have substance, and am of the opinion that Deacon is indeed not uninvolved in the Eastern European subject area. Perhaps the most conclusive evidence substantiating my opinion is Deacon's admonishment for edit warring in the Eastern European disputes arbitration case (see here). Absent objection from other uninvolved administrators, I intend to overturn this sanction and defer Deacon to the Committee for consideration for misuse of administrative powers (as provided for in the discretionary sanctions remedy).

We might also have to consider whether any action needs to be taken against Jacurek, although (as above) that ought to be done separately from the consideration of Deacon's uninvolved status. AGK 15:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree; I strongly suggest keeping this thread about Deacon. I suggest that Jacurek should start a second thread asking for an appeal to decisions taken by Deacon regarding him. Those are two issues, and combining them in one thread may confuse things (for example, I do agree that Jacurek's use of rollback was not always perfect, and I do think he should have been cautioned, and that would be fine even if done by Deacon - but when a prejudiced admin ([321], [322]) takes significant actions (removing privileges and applying ArbCom sanctions) to an editor, this is a a different case). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the evidence shows that Deacon of Pndapetzim is not uninvolved in this topic area for arbitration enforcement purposes. A referral to the Committee may be appropriate. I'm not sure whether there is much we can or need to overturn here, though. The rollback was not, it seems, removed as arbitration enforcement under the discretionary sanctions remedy, so this forum may not have jurisdiction about it under that remedy's "appeals" section. The Digwuren notice could be undone as not being made by an uninvolved administrator, but since that notice references remedy 11, which is no longer in force, it has no authority or effect anyway. Sandstein 15:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in my understanding, remedy 11 was superseded by remedy 12, hence the still active list of editors on notice.radek (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that I have opined on my talk page that the rollback removal appears to be defensible on its merits, because Deacon of Pndapetzim has provided many diffs on his talk page of rollbacks made by Jacurek that were not reverts of either vandalism or edits by topic-banned users. However, given the circumstances, it would certainly have been better if an uninvolved administrator had decided this matter. Sandstein 16:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks for taking so much time on this AGK ... what's that, 15 minutes. You're being shopped and fooled.~~ Erm ... my "involvement" is in launching an ArbCom case against Piotrus, which led to numerous admonishments and bans of users I'd never heard of. I don't edit in the area beyond the limited extent I edit anywhere, and haven't been in an "edit-war" (if you call 7 reverts in 2 weeks an edit-war) in nearly a year. And although there isn't any good reason to beyond standard wikipedia practice, I never act as an admin on any thread Piotrus launches or comments upon. I've never to my knowledge been "involved" in anything editorial with Jacurek, and it's a bit much to expect me to remain "uninvolved" just because some of Jacurek's allies have engaged in a smear campaign against me. I edit medieval history articles, why am I suddenly involved in WWII eastern European nationalist disputes? Jacurek as far as I can tell edit-wars mainly in Polish-German matters, and I have no experience I can remember in such an area. I of course welcome any feedback on my actions, but removing Jacurek's rollback and listing him in the Digwuren case weren't difficult or controversial decisions ... here are just some of the rollback abuses ...

May

[323](picture and information deleted by one time anon, not an abuse)--Jacurek (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[324] - (possible abuse)--Jacurek (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[325] - not an abuse, possible sock of banned user Smith because exactly the same edits --Jacurek (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[326] - not and abuse piture was vandalized.--Jacurek (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[327]- possible abuse but editor was banned soon after please check his talk page.--Jacurek (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[328] - possible abuse--Jacurek (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[329] (not an abuse picture was vandalized)--Jacurek (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April

[330] (not an abuse)--Jacurek (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[331] (not an abuse)--Jacurek (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[332]( anon edits against talk page concensus. Abuse?)--Jacurek (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[333](clear vandalism)--Jacurek (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[334](same anon edits against concensus. Abuse ?)--Jacurek (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[335](anti-semitic undertone. Abuse?)--Jacurek (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[336](not an abuse anon vandalism because sourced information has been removed for no reason)--Jacurek (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[337]- (not an abuse Gypsies should be capital G and not g as inserted by this anon)--Jacurek (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[338] - not an abuse Roman Polanski described as a sex predator again and again. Edits made by anon again and again against talk page concensuss (see Polanki talk pake)--Jacurek (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[339]- (piture vandalized not an abuse)--Jacurek (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March

[340] (a rollback of Smith way before he was shopped into restritions)
[341] - not and abuse same anon vandalazing Polanski page.--Jacurek (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[342]- possible abuse but please check the users history--Jacurek (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[343]- not and abuse same anon and repeated example from above--Jacurek (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[344] - again repeated example from above--Jacurek (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, what was I thinking? I would ask however that Radeksz is added to the Diguren case. He appears to be a one-purpose nationalist account who does nothing on wikipedia but edit-war against German and Lithuanian users (mainly German users), and then go shopping against them. But hey, that's alright, that's natural. Why not go against neutral admins who have sometimes in the past tried enforce wikipedia's first two principles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Deacon of Pndapetzim, you say "here are just some of the rollback abuses" Some? What are the others? %99 of my rollbacks are vandalism removal and this could be easy checked. The examples you have found represent probably less than %1 of my rollback usage and some are questionable if they are really good example of the abuse because the users were reinserting information again and again against all concensus like on Roman Polanki page calling him a sex predator etc.[[345]] or this [[346]] or this [[347]]You give this as as example of an abuse, but is it really ? But if I made a mistake I know that simple warning and advice would work for me. I always respect and pay attantion to the advices of more experienced editors. I never argue. And your comment regarding my edit warning with German editors is also not so accurate. I was reverting banned user Smith and removing Neo Nazi POV or close to it in other cases.--Jacurek (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Deacon but although I do edit articles related to Polish history this does not make me a "one purpose nationalist account" (thanks for the personal attack though). In addition to also occasionally editing articles on Russia and Mexico, I have also edited many articles on (non-Polish) Economics and have gotten barnstars and DYKs for them. We all mostly edit what we know about and Polish History and Economics are two subjects that I have degrees in. For the purposes of the case, being "involved" is not limited to getting into edit wars with other users. Popping up in any discussion concerning Eastern European users and criticizing them, showing up for almost every Eastern Europe related vote, etc. also counts as "involvement". The point is you are not a "neutral admin" in this area (though you very well might be in others).radek (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In actuality, Deacon, I was alerted to this situation by e-mail at 11:27am (5 hours ago) and made an on-Wiki post directing the matter to this noticeboard at 12:37, and have been reviewing evidence since that juncture. I would ask that you strike the section of your comment criticising my hasty approach to this complaint.

In response to your comments above: The facts are so: (1) you are a party named in an arbitration case on Eastern European articles; (2) in that case, you were admonished for edit warring on Eastern European articles; (3) you took action as an 'uninvolved administrator' on a matter concerning the Eastern Europe subject area. To mind, your action may or may not have been valid—but you do not seem uninvolved. AGK 16:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I agree with you, Deacon, with respect to the merits of the rollback removal. But why do you think that the ArbCom's finding at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes#Deacon of Pndapetzim, which is not open to review here, does not constitute an adequate indication of your personal involvement? Sandstein 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be a one-purpose nationalist account - what an outstanding amount of bad faith, this is the usual answer in those cases. All Polish editors are nationalists, and all Deacon does is pretending to be impartial, using such tactics as smearing those who disagree with him. Just one recent example - an uninvolved admin (and by all means Deacon is not one), should warn user Bandurist for this blatant vandalism [348]. However, Deacon somehow forgot to do it, instead, he went after user Jacurek. Tymek (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Section break placed for usability. AGK 16:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the evidence presented by radek clearly shows that Deacon is not "an uninvolved administrator". That he's trying to claim otherwise is a bit shocking. Loosmark (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon recently made this post to my talk page:

The disputes I've been in in this area, the Jogaila matter (2006) and the Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018 in 2008, while they were in the area of Eastern Europe, they were medieval history concerns, and had nothing to do with Jacurek, and the Digwuren case is about article areas I've never even edited in. I would imagine Polish-Russian disputes, Polish-Lithuanian matters and anything with Piotrus, yes, I should stay out of, but Jacurek and Smith, I've got nothing to do with them.

I think I am convinced that Deacon's application of the sanctions was not intended maliciously nor to gain the upper hand in an editorial dispute. However, I do maintain that he is not a wholly uninvolved administrator in the Eastern European subject area, and that the sanctions were therefore improperly placed. AGK 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, I've responded to Deacon's claim and your observation at your talk but I will repost my comment here in case anyone else wishes to add something:

Note however, that Deacon himself drew the connection between his past disagreements with Piotrus and his current conflicts with Jacurek by calling Jacurek "Piotrus' POV buddy" (in addition to calling him "edit warrior"). Yes it might be the case that Deacon has had no direct conflict with Jacurek prior to a few weeks ago, but Deacon also has a tendency to get into disputes with anyone - particularly Polish editors - that he perceives as being "friendly" to Piotrus. If he tried to pull a similar thing with Piotrus directly, there'd be a huge controversy, particularly since Piotrus has asked for dialogue recently. So instead he finds it more convenient to go after Piotrus via the proxy of Jacurek (and myself, through personal attacks). Either way, he's involved here and I'm not sure that good faith is the proper assumption.radek (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(mega e/c, was addressed to a previous post by Sandstein ) I'm only involved in that case because I launched it, and Jacurek had nothing to do with it, and my concerns were only with Piotrus and Alden Jones. I had been involved in an brief article dispute along with 3 other users (two of them admin) with Piotrus where I performed 7 reverts over two weeks, and yes an admonishment against me barely passed, but what has that got to do with Digwuren case and the Polish-German disputes of Jacurek and Smith? Am I supposed to reserve my tools for every area connected with any user I have sought arbitrator attention for? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the fact that multiple editors claim Deacon is involved is proof enough that he is, in fact, involved. He was, after all, a principal party in the "Eastern Europe" disputes and he is prejudiced towards Jacurek: [349]. I'd never take such a significant action towards an EE editor myself, having been involved in this case (and field), and I am appalled that Deacon has done so. As for Jacurek, I think that he should have been warned about how to use rollback before it was taken away from him - after all, he is using it mostly as it is intended, dealing with vandalism - and placing him on Digwuren's list, bypassing AE discussion, should be undone. Lastly, I find Deacon's bad faith ("He appears to be a one-purpose nationalist account" and other diffs provided above) to warrant putting him on the warning list for battleground creation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's of secondary importance if Deacon is technically "uninvolved". A number of Jacurek's rollbacks are clearly in violation of WP:Rollback, which says that the rollback function should strictly be used for "blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense", obviously isn't the case here. Even if Deacon is found to be "involved", any uninvolved admin could have acted accordingly, which renders the whole discussion pointless. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I think the result is correct therefore who cares about the rules and procedures". What an appalling logic. Loosmark (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Thorsten1, an uninvolved admin wouldn't have jumped the gun, would have probably said something to Jacurek first (it's still the case that Deacon's "evidence" is 1% true and 99% filler), and if that didn't work filed the appropriate report at ANI. And yes, procedures matter, otherwise why bother having them in the first place? So no, the issue of Deacon's "involvement" is of primary concern and in fact is what this report is about (which is part of the reason why it's here and not at ANI or ArbCom)radek (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think Deacon’s stance is very important here. These are the diffs he used on Jacurek’s talk page to justify his action: [350] and [351]. Thorsten, tell me what is unproductive in fighting vandalism and adding referenced information to articles. Seems like Deacon has just been waiting for any possible occasion to punish Jacurek. Tymek (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek: "what is unproductive in fighting vandalism and adding referenced information to articles" - nothing, of course. However, out of the six diffs Deacon quoted on Jacurek's talk page to justify his decision, not a single one was blatant vandalism, which rollback is supposed to be reserved for.

(edit-conflict) No, out of those six diffs, only one was possible a misuse of rollback. The other five were rollbacks of anon vandalism and of a banned user. Even that one was made in regard to the banned user's editsradek (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radek: an uninvolved admin wouldn't have jumped the gun, would have probably said something to Jacurek first" - yes, that would have been the polite way. But as long politeness isn't officially required, a lack of politeness isn't reason enough to revoke anything. Besides, Jacurek using "rollback" on things he doesn't agree with on the contents level, thus branding them "vandalism", isn't too polite either, so it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And given the intensity of this discussion here, one can doubt that a polite reminder would have had any effect.

See above. Also Jacurek has been very accommodating when it is pointed out to him that he's doing something imperfectly. And the discussion got intense because you decided to chime in and up the heat. Or are you an "uninvolved" persona here as well?radek (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmarek: "I think the result is correct therefore who cares about the rules and procedures". Yes, as long as the result would be the same no matter what, there's really no point in discussing procedure. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. The procedures exist for a reason. Loosmark (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Loosmark: "The procedures exist for a reason.". They exist to ensure a fair result, not as an end in themselves. If it all comes down to the same result, there's no point to discuss them. @Radek: "only one was possible a misuse of rollback". I disagree. Again, an outside observer without knowledge of East European history would have a hard time deciding whether or not any of these reverted edits are vandalism. "Even that one was made in regard to the banned user's edits" - that a user was banned doesn't mean all his edits were vandalism. "And the discussion got intense because you decided to chime in" - uh, yes, of course. "Or are you an "uninvolved" persona here as well?" I daresay I'm not more "involved" as you are. Quite apart from that, I'm not an admin, so I can afford calling a spade a spade here. But now I'll be definitely out of this futile discussion, maybe it will get less intense then. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments and a modest proposal

Rollback is a trivial matter in itself. Any editor can gain it by enabling Twinkle. So on one level this is one of the most trivial threads this board has seen. On another, there's the tension between the Digwuren case and the Eastern European Disputes case, specifically this remedy. In other words, may an administrator who was unnamed in one case and later admonished in a closely related arbitration act as an uninvolved party? That's the kind of question that could detonate into drama of the worst sort. And from the look of this thread the fuse has already been lit. So here's a way to defuse matters: suppose Deacon reversed himself procedurally and opened the matter for consensus review? Durova^Charge! 17:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good idea. It would cut the drama short. Sandstein 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it, concerning Jacurek, yes. But there is still the issue of Deacon's bad faith and personal attacks against several editors and/or the Polish community that needs to be dealt with. I, for one, have been often offended by his comments, offered him mediation twice and was rebuffed, not very friendly, both times (latest). To be honest, I am tired of this, and I believe it is high time for the community to take a stance on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not happy at the implication I can't be trusted to use my own judgment in these cases, and neither should wikipedia be happy that the admin with most knowledge of this area is setting a precedent that he can't act as an admin in this area. Having said that, I don't want people to think I'm a hardliner or anything. Let's get it clear that the precedent is that I should not act as an admin in Polish areas, not Eastern Europe (it was a thoughtless renaming of the case Piotrus 2, which only involved a Poland-Lithuania-Russia axis of disputes), mainly because of the clear dislike users in this area have towards me. With that said, I am happy to reverse procedurally Jacurek's naming in this case and have done so. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal doesn't mean one is untrustworthy; it's simply a proactive step to ensure trust. If you were correct then the decision will be reaffirmed. Durova^Charge! 17:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can mean in practice a lot of things. You can see from the number of battlers who've turned up here and the comments they've made the range of things it might mean in the future when it turns up in a diff. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if this was a case where an admin who only had been involved in a content dispute with Jacurek acted in the way that Deacon did then that would be the proper way to proceed. What's troubling in this case however is that shortly prior to abritrarily restricting Jacurek, Deacon went around making comments about him calling him an "edit warrior" and "POV buddy" which makes it seem like Deacon was just waiting for his chance to get Jacurek (in the end, as Durova notes, on a very minor violation, if any). It's the combination of incivility and involvement that is especially troubling and this is why Deacon should be added to Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction..radek (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t help but noticing how Deacon’s stab in the dark approach since EED is getting sloppier with regard to his intrinsic dislike of Polish wikipedians. --Poeticbent talk 18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some editors here will agree with me that the problem is much wider, and it involves Deacon's general, very hostile attitute towards Polish wikipedians. His personal, insulting attacks, examples of his lack of good faith, his barely concealed dislike of the Poles. At the same time, he pretends he is not involved. This is pathetic and at the same time appalling. Tymek (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem seems to be that apparently this is a replay of what happened before, as Deacon himself freely admits.radek (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The course of action proposed by Durova is acceptable to me. I would like, largely by way of reiteration and summary, to make the following points:

(1) This complaint primarily concerns Deacon's application of discretionary sanctions despite his being an involved administrator where the Eastern European subject area is concerned.

(2) There chief rationale for the claim that Deacon is not an uninvolved administrator is his role in the Eastern European arbitration case.

(3) The claim that Deacon is, in fact, not an uninvolved administrator is a fair one.

(4) Although Deacon is not uninvolved to the degree that he is authorised to place discretionary sanctions, he is (contrary to earlier claims) not a party to the dispute underlying the sanction he applied. It is therefore unfair to say that Deacon utilised the discretionary sanctions provision—and by extension his administrator tools—improperly in removing Jacurek's rollback tools and in applying the discretionary sanction.

(5) On the basis of the above four points (but particularly per (3)) it is clear that, procedurally, the sanction applied to Jacurek ought to be lifted. (I dislike bureaucracy and actions for the sake of paperwork, but we are here dealing with an arbitration decision on a quite contentious topic; best to keep all of our loose ends tied tightly, if only to avoid setting poor precedent for technically-involved sysops being able to apply sanctions.)

(6) For the sake of simplicity, we ought to consider the question of whether Jacurek should be sanctioned separately from this thread.

(7) Deacon's action was not a malevolent one (as has been claimed in the course of this thread). Without prejudging the question of whether Jacurek's rollback ought to be removed, I would say that his action was made on the basis of substantial evidence and that it was well-reasoned. Procedurally, his sanction was wrong, but otherwise, well, we ought to be cutting him a little slack; he hasn't used his tools maliciously here.

Fair comments? AGK 19:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fair. I will respect %100 the outcome. I also made comments next to every example of my rollback abuse presented by Deacon. Could any body look at it or perhaps transfer that to the appropriate page or it will be done here ? Thank you everybody for time spent here. I appreciate everybody's time spent here and all the comments even those negative one because I still learned from it. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (although Radek, who initiated this thread, may correct me). I think that Jacurek's angle was handled fair (and he agrees above), but this is a thread primarily about Deacon, not Jacurek. So: (1) It is also about incivility/personal attacks/bad faith that Deacon displayed towards certain editors (including myself). (2) Also, his comments about said editors in other places (3) Shouldn't we have a conclusion here, such a caution to Deacon that he should avoid taking administrative action with regards to certain editors? (4) I wonder: if I criticize editor X, and later intervene with my admin tools in a dispute involving him, but not AT THE MOMENT me, am I not abusing my admin tools? I'd think so, and thus I would not act in this fashion. But I would be curious to see this analyzed in more details as I find the argument above about Deacon being "involved but uninvolved" unclear and confusing (5) Seems fair (6) If anybody feels like starting a new thread about Jacurek. Personally, I think that a warning that he should use his rollback more carefully is in order, and is all that is needed with regards to him. (7) Rollback is the least important thing here. Placing an editor on ArbCom notice and bypassing AE to do so is much more serious (please note that no evidence was presented for application of ArbCom sanction to Jacurek!), and I'll stress again that two misuses of rollback by Jacurek seem much less worrisome then misuse of admin tool/authority and a string of incivil/bad faithed comments by Deacon (as cited by Radeksz in his diff list in the opening evidence section of this thread). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Piotrus above. I think people are focusing on the question of rollbacks too much - where as I filed this case based on the Arb Enf restriction and general incivility. I think it needs to be made clear that Deacon cannot be considered an "uninvolved admin" in Eastern European disputes so this doesn't happen again and so we won't have to go through all the drama again. The best way to do that is to add him to the restriction list, per above - while this is going a step beyond just saying he's "not uninvolved" I think the incivility documented in the evidence section is sufficient to warrant it. Otherwise I think AGK's proposal is fine.radek (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say I'm involved because an ArbCom case got renamed to appear similar to a case several years ago in which Piotrus is not a party, is really pushing it. I'm not particularly clear on what it is thought a Scottish medieval historian had to gain by removing rollback and placing him in this case, other than perhaps satisfaction of the fictional anti-Polishness conveniently manufactured by the tendentious swarm above. It is however fair to say that it would be totally impolitic to take administrative action even of the moderate nature of adding such users to this case, though as there is no procedure for collective decisions about removing rollback there isn't any solution to that other than afterwards to point anyone who asks to the evidence. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon, I'm actually not quite clear what a Scottish medieval historian was hoping to gain by this either, but your anti-Polishness, in the recent and not so recent past, has left a long paper (virtual) trail. The only reason I didn't bring it up so far is because some of it occurred before some amnesty that happened or something way back when (before my time).radek (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the primary concern is your placing an editor on notice, per the terms of an arbitration decision, rather than the removal of rollback. AGK 19:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coupled with a long series of incivility/bad faith/personal attacks against certain editors / Polish community, up to and including the above comment about certain editors being part of a "swarm" (I find it offending). I will say again that if this was only about rollback, this wouldn't be much of a case (although I think warning Jacurek about the use of rollback, who has already apologized and promised to be more careful with rollback in the future, which he was using properly in most cases, would have been enough). Was this limited to rollback, which as Durova noted above is a trivial issue, we wouldn't be at AE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, understood. I have already removed the logging of the notice from the case, after Durova's comment. All that's left is for you and someone else to decide whether Jacurek should have been added to the case. Btw, your own comments, along with Durova's and Sandstein's, are the only uninvolved ones, but this page is getting long and it is difficult to distinguish (especially for less experienced observers) between the noise and the weighty comments. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Deacon of Pndapetzim

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

As the question of rollback privileges is not an arbitration decision, Durova's proposal should be pursued through forums other than this one. I suppose the issue of rollback could be addressed by means of Jacurek filing a request at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback.

On the issue of incivility directed towards other editors: as always, administrators are expected to conduct themselves with the highest levels of professionalism.

I asked for this matter to be directed to AE for a full review; that has now been undertaken, and there seems to be no need for further action here. Thank you to all who offered their input.

AGK 19:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shahin Giray

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

Request concerning Shahin Giray

User requesting enforcement: Grandmaster 05:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Shahin Giray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: These are reverts on just one article made yesterday: [352] [353] [354] [355] [356] Generally, most of edits by this account consist of reverts and removal of sourced info from Azerbaijan related articles: [357]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: edit warring
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban, revert parole
Additional comments: Shahin Giray contribs almost exclusively consist of edit warring on the articles about Azerbaijani khanates. He started editing in January this year, and instantly began deleting the info and sources he did not like. When someone tried to restore the info he deleted, he edit warred, claiming that he reverted vandalism. [358] [359] [360] [361] Then he disappeared on 9 February, and reemerged on 29 May, resuming edit wars on the same set of articles (Karabakh Khanate, Khanate of Nakhichevan, Khanate of Erevan, Blue Mosque, Yerevan). [362] [363] [364] [365] [366] For the most part his edits consist of removal of Azerbaijani and Turkish spellings from the articles, information from reliable sources that the khanates in Caucasus were independent from Persia, Azerbaijani history and other Azerbaijan related templates, etc. I suspect that Shahin Giray is someone who was previously banned from editing. I notified him that the articles he edit wars on are the arbitration covered area: [367], but he chose to ignore the warning. Grandmaster 05:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [368]

Discussion concerning Shahin Giray

Shahin Giray's account seems odd to me. The earliest edit shows he was already familiar with basic markup by that time. In subsequent edits like [369] he switched to AA issue and then addressed St. Hubert (talk · contribs) with this strange post. Here he reverted the so-called vandalism. brandt 06:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he claims to be a Crimean Tatar, but pushes pro-Iranian POV, speaks farsi, but no Turkish. Strange, isn't it? Grandmaster 06:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part of his edit's Im familiar with, are even more acceptable than your ones. You're adding some dubious info without any explanations, and are pushing obvious POV that goes against AA2. You never justified (with any RS's or any Wikipedia rules) the usage of Azeri terms for these khanates, while everyone knows the languages used there were diferrent, included the Turkic one, but no "Azeri terms" existed in that period. So be more active at the talks and you will see Shahin Giray's justifications there, as well as mine and Babakexorramdin's [370]. I think such problems are rising because of your usual absence at talks to explain your reverts despite of their dubious nature. Gazifikator (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed this fairly closely, and I must say that User:Grandmaster and User:Brandmeister are pushing a revisionist/fringe point of view on these Khanate pages, cherry-picking and misinterpreting random sources that use the words "independent" or "independence", taking the words out of context to claim that these Khanates were somehow independent nation states (Azerbaijani nation-building historical narrative). When in reality, the academic sources who discuss the issue in detail, make it clear that these Khanates were merely provinces and vassals of the Iranian shah with some degree of independence. For example, Muriel Atkin clearly states that "khan could act within certain independence, he was vassal of the Iranian shah". --Kurdo777 (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on this with Kurdo777. The sources tell us that these Khanates were Iranian territory with varying degrees of autonomy and self-rule in different times. However I should add that grandmaster is more consistent and reliable in his edits than Branmeister, whose edits closely resemble vandalism, because he removes sources and rephrase, or misquote the citations according to his taste.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to checkuser, Kurdo777 (talk · contribs) is a sock account, please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tajik. I suspect that Shahin Giray also has a connection with the same puppetmaster. I think it is time that the admins take measures to stop this system gaming. Grandmaster 11:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CU does not say Kurdo777 is a sock account, these are your words and interpretation of what is written there! Let's assume a little bit more good faith and be civil. According to the Wikpedia rules, socks must be blocked, and everyone, who were not blocked yet (including you, Kurdo777 and all, all), are free to discuss their views here and to not be called "socks" as there is a specialized page for such accusations. Gazifikator (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CU listed his account with "currently available technical evidence indicates the following accounts are related". brandt 12:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related to whom? I am nobody's sock account, the accounts listed as "related" to me, are merely my alternative accounts used on different topics, which should not have been revealed by the CU in the first place. I've already raised the issue with the admin who conducted the CU. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A parallel discussion about Kurdo777 here: [371] Note that most of those accounts were used for edit warring on various articles, and 3 of them have the history of blocks for edit warring/3RR: [372] [373] [374] Grandmaster 13:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdo777 turned out to be a sock of the banned user and is blocked indef: [375] Grandmaster 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I don't know is this request against Shahin, or Kurdo777, but anyways Kurdo777 is unblocked [376]. Gazifikator (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since there's not enough evidence that Kurdo777 is banned user Beh-nam, the admins decided to extend a good faith to this editor and unblock his main account, while his 10 socks were blocked. Still, considering his edit warring on Azerbaijan related articles, in addition to sockery, I believe placing this user on a revert limitation would be appropriate. Grandmaster 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Shahih Giray is not his sock anyway. brandt 05:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This needs checking. The amount of recent sockpuppetry in this area of Wikipedia exceeds all reasonable limits (if there are actually any). Grandmaster 06:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on the puppetry allegations beyond saying I think it unlikely he is as new to this as his account. This user seems to have done little in recent times beyond reversions regarding names, calling the insertion of Azeri name forms into the leads of early modern khanates "vandalism", and so on; these are concerns. The pattern is so well established that I think it would merit a 1rr per week restriction for a few months, should it continue. We would then try that, and see if this user's contributions become more constructive. I think I would also likely put him on parole for using the word vandalism in contradiction of WP:VAND#NOT. I do note however that no evidence that this account knows about this case has been presented, and thus it is only going to be a warning this time. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shahin Giray

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

User informed of the case, and warned to stop the problematic behavior.[377] Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alastair Haines

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

Request concerning Alastair Haines

User requesting enforcement: Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Alastair_Haines_restricted
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Blanking (without discussion) well-referenced, well-discussed, NPOV sections: [378][379]; Not adhering to 1 revert per week per article restriction: [380][381][382][383][384]; Uncivil personal attacks: [385]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: The first two diffs show blatantly disruptive editing on an article Alastair has been edit warring on for years (see Talk:Patriarchy and archives). This violates part 2 of his restriction. The next 3 diffs show 3 reverts on one article over 25 hours. This violates part 1 of his restriction. The next 2 diffs show 2 reverts on one article over 4 days. This also violates part 1 of his restriction. The last diff shows a personal attack against a fellow editor. This violates part 3 of his restriction.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Per the terms of Alastair's RfA, and considering that he is a repeat offender (See Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions and Block log), I would like to request that Alastair be blocked from editing for one month and that he be banned indefinitely from all articles related to patriarchy. I have elected not to enforce these terms myself since I am an involved editor.
Additional comments: The examples in this request represent only a small sample of the seemingly endless disruption, edit warring, and wiki-lawyering engaged in by Alastair — none of which has been phased by his previous RfA. I wasn't sure if filing another RfA would be a better idea than seeking remedy here, but I've decided to try this first as the easier solution. I don't know why the previous RfA (which is less than a year old) was blanked by ArbCom. If this means it is void, I'll go ahead and file a new RfA. If it is not void, I would like to request that it be unblanked.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [386]

Discussion concerning Alastair Haines

Just a simple question -- why are we being shown actions that took place six months ago? Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I agreed back then not to make an issue of it if he would try adhering to the conditions of the RfA. As the other diffs illustrate (all of which are from the past week), this didn't happen. If those diffs are too old to be relevent, I'll be happy to remove them. I was just picking the low-hanging fruit. The request is still valid without any of the older diffs. For the record: 4 of the diffs above are from the past week, 3 of them are from back in December (although no action was taken on them at the time). Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first two diffs presented do not delineate ideal editorial practice—one would not expect sections of an article to be blanked without serious cause; that an editor does not have time presently to rewrite the section could certainly not be so categorised—but they do not of themselves give reason to believe there is a wide pattern of disruption. The next three diffs are, as above, quite outdated, and I'm reluctant to take action on them without a wider and current pattern of disruption being illustrated. It is the final two diffs that concern me: with this and that revert falling within one week of one another, a violation of the 1RR restriction in place against Alastair Haines 1RR restriction (view here to circumvent courtesy blanking) has certainly been committed. My disposition to leniency would have me leaning towards closing this thread with only a reminder to Alastair to be exceedingly careful of not violating his 1RR restriction in spirit and in letter. However, I am mindful that complaints to this board are considered to be not ordinarily treated with leniency, and so I would invite further input from administrators and others on whether a block by way of enforcement of the Committee's decision would be warranted. AGK 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of those sections should not have been edited, period, much less blanked, without discussion on the talk page as it had been the subject of edit warring previously (involving Alastair). See [387], [388], [389], [390]. Kaldari (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I don't think showing a "wide pattern of disruption" should be necessary for enforcement. That's what the RfA was for. What good is the previous RfA's sanctions if I have to build an entirely new case in order to realize effective intervention? Kaldari (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AGK that the December edits are not actionable any more. But I consider the first two edits to Patriarchy provided by Kaldari to be disruptive for the purposes of his restriction, and I agree that the last two edits violate Alastair Haines's 1RR/week restriction. Accordingly, and because I am not afflicted with a disposition to leniency, I am of a mind to indefinitely ban Alastair Haines from editing Patriarchy and block him for two weeks (twice the duration of his most recent arbitration enforcement block of 21 March 2009). Sandstein 20:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few additional comments: Kaldari is right that a pattern of disruption is not required to trigger the sanctions provided for in the arbitral decision; isolated incidents of disruption suffice. As to the ArbCom case, I understand it to have been courtesy-blanked, but not voided in substance. A request to unblank it should be directed to the Committee, not to this board. Sandstein 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On patterns of disruption: My word choice there was perhaps misleading. For "no pattern of disruption has been illustrated", read "no problem of sufficient seriousness to be actionable has been illustrated" (if that's in any way more clear, which it probably isn't).
On Sandstein's proposal: Saddeningly—as the majority of Alastair's contributions to that article have been constructive—I find myself being in agreement with your suggestion to issue a topic ban. As a rule, I don't think indefinite restrictions are helpful, however, and I would like to see some limit put on the length of his ban from Patriarchy.
AGK 20:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I think a ban from the Patriarchy article (at the least) would be extremely useful. That article has been unable to achieve any semblance of NPOV since Alastair first became involved with it 2 years ago. He has driven away any other editors interested in working on it. Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Indefinite" does not mean "infinite", but you are of course right, AGK, in that it could be difficult to establish at which point in time the ban is no longer required. A year-long page ban should do. Sandstein 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Multiple edit conflicts. To Kaldari, before he removed "BTW, it looks like you may have meant to use the word "nonconstructive" rather than "constructive" above". Replying here for clarity and as a lead to my main point.]
Hmm, nope, I meant to say "constructive". I find, with only a couple of exceptions, all of Alastair's contributions to the article from the beginning of June 2009 'till today to be non-controversial and constructive. He's also handled himself well on the article talk page. The 1RR violation and a few other changes have simply let him down—and, sadly, there is little room for error on his part, what with the Committee sanctions in place against him.
[Edit conflict reply to Sandstein.] Indefinite doesn't mean infinite, no, but it does mean "without defined length"—which is what I, on a matter of personal opinion, have an objection to.
AGK 21:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment to Sandstein: Is there any substantial reason to not elect for a 6 month topic ban? If not, could we go with that? By choice, I would have any sanction being as short in length as possible whilst still effectively neutralising the problem it is intended to remedy. AGK 21:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but did you actually look at the edits that he made from the beginning of June 2009 until today? Here's the diff. It basically amounts to blanking most of the article and then rewriting the lead to suggest that men "suffer" the "responsibility" of patriarchy. Even if these edits were amenable to other editors (they're not), I don't see how they could be construed as "constructive". And that's not even mentioning the previous 2 years of low-level edit warring on that article that is well documented on the talk page. Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the issue of whether or not any form of matriarchy has ever existed (which was part of the lead edits recently made by Alastair) is certainly controversial and was the source of previous edit wars as well. The only reason no one immediately objected is because all the other editors (myself included) had been driven away from the article. On the surface, Alastair's edits may seem innocuous enough, but if you dig into the article history and talk page, you will see they are part of a very long, low-level war to push his particular POV on the article. Considering how long he's been at it, and his practice of simply waiting until other editors give up and leave, I'm sure Alastair would have no problem waiting 6 months and starting the whole process over again, to the detriment of Wikipedia. Indeed, he seems to have already moved his efforts to related articles. See Patriarchy in feminism, Universality of patriarchy, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, Why Men Rule, etc. Indeed, just look through his contrib log from the past week. Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of this. I'm not the person to judge, since it was directed at me, but this strikes me as falling within the purview of the "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", and for that matter, so does this. Guettarda (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alastair's MO seems to be to slowly provoke other editors to the point of exasperation, and then once they respond emotionally, completely dismiss them. You can see him doing the exact same thing over at Talk:The Inevitability of Patriarchy.[391] Kaldari (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And apparently, he's still insulting me on the patriarchy talk page, even though I completely left that article back in December: "Kaldari clearly doesn't know what he's talking about..."-24 May 2009, "Kaldari's good contributions elsewhere are no excuse for poor behaviour here..."-25 May 2009. This is 5 months after I stopped participating at that article! That's what you get if you try to improve any articles he has an interest in: endless tiny insults (or back-handed compliments if you're lucky). Kaldari (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari has just invited me to join this discussion.

At some point I shall read it and make further comment.

At the moment I simply recommend it be closed quickly, removed and oversighted.

My reputation as an editor is flawless.

If there is supposed to be any evidence to the contrary, that should be submitted to me for consideration directly.

I take personal attacks against my real name very seriously, and have made very clear that they will not be tolerated.

Kaldari's wilful actions to, yet again, attempt to publically discredit me should probably be actioned, but I am not a vindictive man.

Shame on people! After refusing to deal with non-contributors blocking sourced text by edit warring at Gender of God, you now refuse to deal with an emotional tag bomber, and try to twist things against me.

I have attempted way and above the call of duty to give room to processes to make these mistakes.

Check your facts!

There is room for Kaldari to have personal opinions regarding Goldberg's work. He is clearly aware of unfortunate statements by ArbCom in the past, and is taking advantage, and has taken advantage of them to obstruct work at patriarchy and at Steven Goldberg. Instead of correcting a tag bomber, he's decided to support a tenuous case, giving good faith Guettarda misleading impressions.

I'll get back to reading discussion above at some later point, perhaps. It should not be necessary. It is not my responsibility to clean up other people's political errors. I'm hear to work in article space, and that is what I'll stick to.

Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with much of what Sanstein said and would support the article ban. Once an editor gets to the point of Arb sanctions, especially those specifically directed, there's no need to show further patterns. I personally prefer indefinite restrictions once things reach this level since they require a contributor to show a change instead of simply setting them loose at an arbitrary date, but a sufficiently lengthy ban would at least provide some relief and time for reflection. Given that similar behavior seems to be a problem at The Inevitability of Patriarchy, it might be prudent to consider a topic ban here. As AGK said, its very unfortunate since Alastair can clearly do excellent work in the area but since he's consistently shown an inability to work with others in that particular topic area, its best that he focus his efforts elsewhere. Shell ^babelfish 03:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Alastair Haines

The evidence and the discussion show that Alastair Haines has been disruptive at least in the article and likely the entire topic area of patriarchy, and that he has violated his 1RR restriction. His singularly unconstructive contribution to this thread, in which he personally attacks the reporting editor but does not address the issues raised with respect to his conduct, leads me to believe that his disruption will continue over the entire topic area if unchecked. His comment here is also the reason why I believe a longer rather than a shorter ban is necessary.

Taking into account this and the comments in the discussion above, I sanction Alastair Haines as follows under the terms of his restriction: he is blocked for two weeks and topic-banned from editing patriarchy and all related pages (including discussions), broadly interpreted, for a year. Sandstein 05:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] Tadeusz Swietochowski. Azerbaijan: The Hidden Faces of Islam. World Policy Journal, Volume XIX, No 3, Fall 2002

[1]