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

blocked indef

Can an admin keep David Suzuki on their watchlist and block Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arthur Ellis on sight? He was banned in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella#Log of blocks and bans but he is continually re-inserting smack into the article. He is evading the page protection by registering new accounts a week early. His latest User:Climateguy was registered a week ago [1] and is re-inserting the same thing as Chucky the barber [2], Overeditor [3], Backtalk, Sockpuppet99, Homeboy99, Hotgirl99, etc. Should I ask for a CheckUser? maclean 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only Climateguy and Hotgirl99 weren't already blocked--now they are. I handled the SSP case where the others got blocked, yes this is more Arthur Ellis socketry. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

no action needed

I have placed Aatomic1 (talk · contribs) under probation under the provisions of the The Troubles for further revert-warring on Birmingham pub bombings. Please note the history of this editor with this article, this is approximately the fourth or fifth time he's been sanctioned for edit-warring on this article, and less then a month after the previous probation for edit-warring (which was endorsed by ArbCom) expired. I am pre-emptively bringing this up, because of the history of this editor, and his numerous complaints after the last probation was placed on him. SirFozzie (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

blocked user per below

Per the remedy labelled #7 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, surrogates of Derek Smart are banned from editing his article. 3000ad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims on the account's user page to be used by the PR department of his company, and is editing the article. I pointed this out to 3000ad, but was told I was misinterpreting the Arbcom remedy. More eyes would be welcome here. - Ehheh (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two things:

1) there is no remedy 7, only 1-5 and by surrogate do you mean sock or spa?

2) role accounts and shared accounts are not allowed and I've blocked for that reason and noted it on the case page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are five remedies but they are numbered 1, 2, 3.1, 7 and 8, from the proposed decision page. Thatcher 21:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, blockable without the remedy anyway. But it also violated that remedy because it directly edited the article page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

no action, see comments by Thatcher

Zeq was banned from Palestinian exodus and placed on probation a little less than two years ago. (case) He's recently been quite disruptive on Palestinian right of return, which is closely related to the Palestinian exodus.

• Move-warring the article to dubious titles: [4]
• Edit-warring argumentative language into the lede: [5] [6] [7]
• Edit-warring a distinction between real "refugees" and descendants of refugees, despite a mountain of sources (see Talk:Palestinian_right_of_return#RfC:_Descendants) showing that this distinction is not widely adopted, and it specifically disclaimed by scholars of international law: [8] [9] [10]

<eleland/talkedits> 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I engage in a civil discussion in the talk page[11] and avoided edit warring. for example when my edits are reverted I have asked on the talk page that they would be re-inserted and indeed in some case they were (by others, among them the revrter) and in some cases they were not. The subject is indeed a tough subject and different POVs need to be represnted. Indeed I was requested on the talk page to better ex[plain (in the article) the Israeli view point. SI encourage everyone to read my 2nd arb com case in whcih they clearly allow some leeway in tough subjects like this one. If a reviewing admin disgaree with my behavior I would sugget they look at others on this page who have been engageing in stream of reverts and plaese let me know - I will provide diff to back up my comments. Thank You.Zeq (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS the diffs above are legitimate edits - there is no edit war. (clearly in his point #3 above in which User:Eleland claims that my edits do not fit what exprest in int'l law have decided he is not making a distinction between a content dispute (a valid dispute in wikipedia) and behaviour which is edit war. (I have not engage in such behaviour but Eleland has a problem with my views not my behaviour)

I have tried different attempts at compromise - again some accepted some don't. I have not done repeated edits - unlike others in this article who have reverted many times. Zeq (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The moves were a bad idea. As for the rest, I will look into it. Thatcher 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, see here, here and last two sections here. Ceedjee (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can agree that at least one of the moves were not a good idea. (the 2nd was made a redirect: [12] - both moves are a good faith attempt to fix a NPOV problem that still exist. After two attempts (not the same one - I tried alternatives) I have accepted the suggestion on talk to keep the name as it is. In any case since that time there were many edits and discussions in this article - all are legitimate edits. There is a big difference between content dispute and edit war. This was not edit war on my part - I avoided reverting although my edits are routinly reverted on this article.

Maybe it is about time to consider the fact that I have been under probation for a long time. Other editors may think that any dispute with me, any revert on their part give them some advantage in the cosntent dispute since I am on probation. If anyone should be snactioned about this article it is those who revert it frequntly and not me - who suggests alternatives to fix inherent problems in this article. btw, if anyone wants to mediate this tough article he/she is more than welcome. As part of my first arbcom case there was a promise by one of the arbitors to mediate the dispute in the exodus article but enfortunatly it proven too tough. Maybe applling an equal playing field to all editors will go a long way to create a more civilized editing environment to all. Zeq (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Response The diffs given in the report above show 6 edits by Zeq to the article lede over 20 days, only two on the same day. It's not much on which to base a finding of disruption. There seems to be productive discussion on the talk page and a fair amount of prickliness by several editors, and I don't see that Zeq has pushed his own view to the point of unreasonableness, after he's reverted a couple of times he stops and talks about it but the same is true of others. I don't see any basis for a page ban at this time. Zeq is correct that the new broad discretionary sanctions place all editors of these topics on the same equal footing, more or less. Hopefully you can move forward with grace, dignity and mutual self-respect. Thatcher 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Enough is enough. "This poll sucks" is not uncivil under any meaning that I can think of. I'm also not going to take action on a complaint about a comment made 10 days ago, stricken 9 days ago, removed, and then restored. End of message. Thatcher 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE: I moved this here as it is a separate issue from the one it was file under to "reopen". I also renamed it from "Request to reopen Arbitration Enforcement". — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add case link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Thatcher 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have notified ScienceApologist of this discussion. Cardamon (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ScienceApologist, after receiving at 72-hour block for edit warring on What the Bleep Do We Know!?, applied for the Right to Vanish. His user page and talk page were blanked accordingly. However, ScienceApologist has not vanished. At all. Instead, he has returned to Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!? where dispute resolution is underway and his first act was one of incivility. Please see this (diff). I, in turn, removed the incivility and posted (IMHO) a very civil message on ScienceApologist talk page (diff). This posting was immediate deleted by ScienceApologist with an edit summary stating: "rv POV pushing by Levine2112" (diff). This was followed by a pretty terse posting at my talk page (diff). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You could always try asking your pseudoscience and fringe POV-pushing friends to stop baiting him. That would probably work - unlike pretending your personally-directed rudeness is civil and his more general testiness is not. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There was no baiting involved. ScienceApologist came out of "retirement" to make the uncivil actions I detail above. Can you please elucidate what you mean by my "personally-directed rudeness". A diff would help. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ScienceApologist continues to add uncivil comments to a space where dispute resolution is underway (diff). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh-Oh, seems to be a lot of tag team baiting and POV pushing occuring over here, lead by (not unexpectantly - given the editor in question and the subject matter) Levine2112. His postings here should be seen as they are in various other forums (ANi, WQA) as gaming the system to subdue an editor that doesn't agree with his and his posse's POV. Seen it before and probably will continue to see it until the Community decides to stop it. Shot info (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia has around six million editors. Of that six million, Levine2112 is in the top five worst possible candidates to be correcting SA on his behaviour or bringing complaints here. I'm sick to death of fringe bullshit POV-pushers baiting SA and then coming running to mommy when he gets riled. If they can't stop obsessively pushing this bullshit - which long experience indicates they can't - then they need to learn to work constructively with those who hold a mainstream POV, not constantly pick fights with them and then complain about the fight. In short, Levine and his pals (and most especially Martinphi) need to stop spitting in the soup. Now. Both Martinphi and Levine should be banned fomr complaining ab out SA, as vexatious litigants. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I asked JzG for was a diff justifying his assertion of "personally-directed rudeness" from me toward SA. He has not provided any, but rather demonstrated his own brand of personally-directed rudeness toward me. JzG, please consider WP:NPA. I believe your attacks to be unwarranted. I am again requesting a diff(s) from you which demonstrates how any of the attacks you have launched onto me here are justified. You can provide that to me here, or preferably in a more appropriate forum. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop spitting in the soup. As I said, of the six million or so registered Wikipedians, you are in the top handful of worst possible candidates to be correcting SA on his behaviour. There is essentially no chance whatsoever that he would perceive your involvement as anything other than baiting, and if you had an ounce of self-criticism in your entire body you would realise this. For you to be doing this is basically trolling. Stop doing it. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Rlevse and Thatcher below that this is a minor infraction. What I don't understand is why Guy is accusing Levine but refusing to provide diffs to support his accusation. Guy, could you explain how Levine is baiting SA? Are you suggesting that Levine should avoid the Bleep talk page since SA would get upset by his involvement there? Anthon01 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And another of the fringe pushers crawls out of the woodwork. Incidentally, are you Anthony Zaffuto? Guy (Help!) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I consider your characterization uncivil. Please retract your statement, and please apply WP:CIVIL in addressing me. Are you going to answer my question? You've accused Levine; please provide diffs. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not saying Levine2112 is innocent, but ScienceApologist needs to learn to control his responses as he is being uncivil as the diffs prove. It is also a fact that he RTV'd has his pages deleted, came back, posted a note about being tired of wikidrama, and resumed editing in within a day. Now that is wikidrama. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, and Levine needs to learn not to escalate it, which is what he did. Although I have a nasty suspicion that said escalation was deliberate. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikidrama is not an actionable offense, and if this is the most uncivil comment you can find, then Report declined. Thatcher 20:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with Thatcher that wikidrama is not actionable, I was just making an observation. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Look, SA can be blocked for incivility, and we can read that pretty broadly if needed to prevent disruption, but "this poll sucks" is not what the committee had in mind, I think. Think of this board as an emergency room; you don't have to wait for a compound fracture before filing a report, but don't report every hangnail either, please. Thatcher 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood. My hope is that there won't be any emergencies causing me to bring the situation here again. Thanks for the attention which you have given this. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My hope is that there won't be any emergencies causing me to bring the situation here again. The diff you supplied is an emergency? Seems like the POV pushers will be looking to forum shop now. It seems the Community is tired of your crying wolf over every little papercut... Shot info (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. As Thatcher informed, it was not an emergency. Note from what you quoted that I said "any emergencies" rather than "any more emergencies". Meaning I wasn't calling the incident which lead me here an "emergency" and that I am hoping there won't be any emergencies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OMG the irony. And sure enough, you forum shopped. Predictable - and your crying wolf is noted by all it seems. Keep up the good work! Shot info (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support ScienceApologist. We need editors like SA to fight the supporters of pseudoscience. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not involved in any of these cases that are ongoing but there is a lot going on. I think another editor retired from being an editor on the same day that Scienceapologist was set to retire. I just want to say that I am glad that SA decided not to retire. I watch all of these boards to learn more about policies and to see what is going on here at Wikipedia. I agree with the comments made by Masterpiece2000. My feel for all these on going actions is that alternate/fringe editors are trying to get science related editors blocked/banned or so frustrated that they will leave. The sad part to me is this seems to be working. There needs to be a way to allow all editors to be involved without a gang like mentality which is what I believe is going on. This can be seen by the list of editor involvement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. This is of course my own personal observations as an outsider but I think all of these complaints should be closed and that warnings should be placed to remind editors that group POV pushing is not acceptable. Thanks for taking the time to listen to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless I am missing something, this discussion seems to have moved away from the question. Did the editor use "right to vanish" as a means of "gaming the system"?

I am here because of a related ArbCom action involving a personal attack and threat by ScienceApologist in which SA was instructed remove the offensive remarks and apologize, as a means of avoiding a block. The issue remains unresolved due to inaction on SA's part. In the context of user SA's invocation of RTV, I had his comments removed. Now, upon SA's un-vanishing, I have restored them and consider that matter as yet unresolved. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holy smokes, you restored offensive comments that had been deleted?? Ladies and gentlemen, here we have a textbook case of WP:POINT, one that so perfectly fits the definition that it ought to be included as one of the enumerated examples there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No SA did not use RTV as a way of gaming the system, he reacted in a common way to a block brought on by an inappropriate reaction on his part to inappropriate but unsanctioned behaviour from POV-pushers, and the complaints are almost all brought by those self-same POV-pushers. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I reviewed this somewhat earlier today. While SA was being needlessly provocational, I don't feel that him being, in turn, provoked, was given enough emphasis. The templatized block notice should have been personalized and of more substantive lengh from the outset, certainly. Accordingly, I, myself, considered shortening the block to 24 hrs, but it looks as if Thatcher beat me to it. Now everyone involved in the dispute please give each other some space (even if we end up being everything and anything at any bleeping time!). El_C 03:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ScienceApologist has a civility restriction here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted. In this diff he violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It's true he removed it upon advice from someone, but he still said it. He also violates WP:CIVIL here where he's uses foul language to another user several times and "WTF" in the summary. He violates WP:CIVIL again here, removing a users' edit from his (SA's) own talk page, but used foul language again in the summary, but this time in all caps. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours. - Revolving Bugbear 15:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem here is that Science Apologist was correct that Rlevse had misinterpreted his statement; he was not talking about edit warring on the article but working on a draft of the lede that was on the talk page. It should have been expressed much more moderately. 72 hours also seems excessive. Thatcher 17:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all well and good, but "STAY THE F--- OFF MY TALK PAGE" is pretty unequivocally covered by his editing restriction, and it was his third incident of incivility in one day. Also, the last two -- one edit warring this week and one incivility prior -- were also 72 hours. With escalating blocks and all, his second block under this ruling alone shouldn't have, in my opinion, been any shorter than the previous (or the edit warring one related to this case, again, also this week). - Revolving Bugbear 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to think out loud here for a moment. We need a policy that says "being bold is good, but don't choose a high-drama occasion for your first foray into a particular area." Extremely controversial AFD discussions (Brandt, Angela, etc) should be close by an admin who regularly handles AFD, not by someone with no experience jumping in. Controversial unblock requests should be handled by an admin who regularly patrols CAT:RFU, not by a borderline involved party. Controversial image discussions should be closed by someone who regularly works in IFD, not by someone unfamiliar with image policy. Yes, every area of admin service is open to any admin, but we would be a lot better off if we would begin involvement in a small way and build up to handling controversial decisions. If you want to be involved with arbcom enforcement, it would be much better to start off by commenting, then move up to closing low-profile cases, then, once you have more experience with it, handle the high-drama cases. --B (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly speaking, I didn't see this as controversial at all. I've seen users get blocked for this sort of behavior after a warning without an ArbCom decision. He was way over the line. Where exactly is the gray area on this one? - Revolving Bugbear 18:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bad block, in my view. We don't block people for using four-letter words once in a while. That's not the notion of "civility" we are concerned with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't "for using four-letter words". Please look at the diffs -- "Get the f--- over it"; "Maybe you should block yourself"; "Jesus, what's so goddamn hard to understand about this?"; "Stay the f--- off my talk page" (in caps shouting) ... It's a constant slew of abusive language. - Revolving Bugbear 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really disagree with the block (maybe the length, but not the block). The ANI thread where he accuses Rlevse of making a threat is definitely a violation of the prohibition against assumptions of bad faith, but his frustration is definitely understandable. --B (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tangentially, there is also the edit war that was going here, a clear violation of 3RR.[13] Anthon01 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see nothing problematic about "what's so goddamn hard to understand about this?" - I use exclamations like that myself, not too rarely. "Stay the fuck of my talk page" is understandable if somebody has indeed been harassing him on his talkpage after being repeatedly asked to stay out. Etcetera. Yes, our community here at wikipedia values politeness, but it's not collectively thin-skinned to such a ridiculously artificial degree that use of language like this should be regarded as seriously disrupting its peace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(undent) @ B: I would not be averse to shortening the block. I was originally going to go for 24-48 hours, but lengthened it when I saw he had been blocked a few days ago for edit warring (for 72 hrs) and just a couple weeks ago in connection with the ArbCom (again, for 72 hrs). It seemed to me to be within the phrasing of the ArbCom decision and the spirit of escalating blocks. But like I said, if it needs to be shortened, I won't object.

@ Fut.Perf.: In my opinion here, the sum is greater than the whole of its parts, especially in light of the fact that he has been warned in this regard and recently blocked for it. You, FB, do not have a history for abusive incivility; SA does. - Revolving Bugbear 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also of note are these diffs where he essentially says he is going to push the issue until he creates a controversy without concern for the consequences because "when I get blocked, positive things seem to happen". Any possible assumption good faith in reference to the language he used in the above diffs is at least cast into serious doubt by these comments. - Revolving Bugbear 19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was the the one SA claimed was harassing him. The fact is SA was moving a comment I made on Bleep into another section. I asked him not to but he persisted. So I placed a fair warning on his page asking him not to edit war and not to move my comment into another section. He moved that comment 4 times within a few hours, effectively violating 3RR. That is two violation of 3RR on the same day. Anthon01 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankly, I think a mentor would be more useful in SA's case than just randomly blocking him when someone takes offense. Incivility is a judgement call, after all, and having one person judge it might be better and fairer than the alternative. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Stephen B Streater offered to mentor him. He rejected it.

He also seems to have a lovely admin-hate-fest broad-stroke and, in my opinion, largely baseless criticism going on right now. - Revolving Bugbear 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you serious? As an admin I don't see this as an "admin-hate-fest" at all, but instead as much-needed criticism. The criticism is directed at admins who act like me, and I have to admit that he's spot on. Maybe the problem is that you tend to see any expression of criticism or disagreement as "hate" and bad faith. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redacted. - Revolving Bugbear 20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And? Admins should be made of sterner stuff. I am much more concerned about incivility directed against other contributors in content disputes. Thatcher 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh I agree. I'm just saying, it doesn't look like he plans on stopping the incivility and attacks any time soon. - Revolving Bugbear 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would just like to point out that Anthon01's complaint is ...(hmmm... what's a civil word for it?)... fiddle-faddle. This edit is the one he objects to, and SA was moving nothing. Anthon01 abruptly changed the subject on a talk page, and SA inserted a non-insulting header to separate it from previous discussion.Kww (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anton01 began the spat by posting a comment to the talk page in a way that was clearly meant to make a point about SA. [14]. Thatcher 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies, but you are mistaken. The comment I posted was meant to bring the POV of an uninvolved editor to the attention of Bleep's editors, in the hopes that a resolution would ensue. The comment was also meant to underscore that the same uninvolved editor, who I assumed is not "advocating fringe POV," was echoing the suggestions I had been offering on how to move the page forward. These are some of the same type of suggestions for I which I have been repeatedly accused of being a "fringe POV-pusher." Anthon01 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block reduced to 24 hours per [15], and evidence that multiple users are busy filing vexatious complaints and taking comments out of context in an effort to get rid of SA (which does not excuse bathroom language and personal attacks, hence the 24 hour duration). This entire area needs to go to Arbcom for expanded authority. Thatcher 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

??? Anthon01 is not an admin, and yes, he is involved in the dispute. - Revolving Bugbear 23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original complaint that prompted the ban involved SA attacking Rlevse for his comments on WQA. In fact, Rlevse had misinterpreted SA's comment. It is also important to read this diff in context. The article is currently protected over a dispute about the lead paragraph. SA proposed that rather than engage in extensive negotiations over the article lead, he would simply write one on the talk page, and other editors could make changes if they didn't like something. He was then criticized by one editor who complained about his proposal but refused to either improve it or offer an alternative, and by another editor who thought he was advocating edit warring and seems to have completely missed the point that this was a draft version on the talk page. The problem here is that there have been three Arbitration cases on pseudoscience articles which have resulted in only two enforceable remedies, civility parole for SA and probation for Martinphi, leaving all the other editors free to edit war and bait SA. Yes he should not take the bait, but the situation is inequitable. Finally, a 72 hour block for the first violation of his Arbitration remedy is out of line with precedent. Thatcher 00:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Rlevse situation. The Rlevse situation was over yesterday. The two I cited in my reasoning to block was from today, and the one I cited to him on his talk page was directed at Anthon01.

Second, I know at least one pseudo-science supporter who has been completely banned from the relevant Wikipedia articles as a result of an ArbCom case: User:Richardmalter.

Third, the first violation was blocked by Rlevse. Since SA already had two 72-hour blocks in the past three weeks, scaling the next block back seemed silly to me.

Like I said, I'm okay with the block being reduced, but please make sure you're referring to what he was actually blocked for. The situation with Rlevse is not relevant -- his actions today are a case of their own. - Revolving Bugbear 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the clarity, but you have not recanted or clarified your accusation, that I started the 'spat.' Your assertion regarding me are wrong, as I was forced to bring a conversation that began on SA's talk page onto the Bleep talk page after SA booted me for agreeing quite civilly with an uninvolved editor.[16] Because of SA's action I needed to explain the reason for presenting my comments in that manner, as I felt it would be inappropriate for me to move the uninvolved editors comments (posted on SA's TP) to the Bleep talk page. If you refuse to recant or modify your assertion then please let me know what remedy is available to me. --Anthon01 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if you disagree with Thatcher's observation, it has no real negative consequences for you, so I don't know that a remedy against it is necessarily required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have little experience on WP, so I don't know how this may effect me in the future. Editors here have a way of piling it on; my concern is that someone here will try to his Thatcher's comment in the future against me. If I'm off base then fine. I appreciate your input. Anthon01 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should have explained in a little more detail, and am sorry if I wasn't clear. This page is used for the purpose of enforcing remedies against users who have previously been sanctioned by an Arbitration Committee decision. There is an allegation that the user has violated instructions given to him or her in the prior decision, and an administrator (Thatcher is currently the most active at this task) evaluates the user's recent behavior to see if there has been a violation of the ArbCom ruling and, if so, how severe it was. Thus, the focus of discussion on this page will generally be on the user who was already a party to the arbitration case, rather than on other users, and it is unlikely that a passing reference to you on this page would be used to impose sanctions against you later on. The reason for my comment, though, was that a very unfortunate tendency on Wikipedia sometimes is to cause disputes to continue and escalate rather than try to resolve them. My hope is that ScienceApologist and the other editors in this thread will now edit in compliance with Wikipedia policies and the prior decisions. If that occurs, then I would not want to see this dispute continued, in any forum, solely to address a peripheral matter. I hope this clarifies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it does. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I'm willing to accept Martinphi's explanation that he didn't intend his comment mean what several editors thought it meant. Thatcher 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not to be disruptive. I find this statement of non-cooperation to be needlessly personal and highly disruptive in our attempts to move beyond page protection: [17]. I removed it [18]. It is my opinion that this user is continuing disruption for the sake of disruption. The current tendentious arbitration request he has made might also be of interest. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was meant to move the debate forward. Please, everyone, read it. It was not a put-down, but a real suggestion which gave people a chance to move forward. Further, it was an assumption of good faith on my part. It says nothing uncivil, though it does say that SA is not a neutral editor, which is simply a statement that he is on one side of the debate- I, also, am not a neutral editor in that sense. In other words, it comments on contributions, not contributors. Reporting here is harassment (also see [19][20]). If you read what I wrote assuming that I really meant SA or other editors to do the things suggested (mediation, writing a new lead while taking into consideration the talk page), you will see what I mean. As far as rudeness, I am talking about the many, many edits like this. Also see [21] .

The Arbitration request is a good-faith attempt to bring the situation to the Arbitrators, and was rejected not because it was invalid, but mainly because it was not specific enough. That was a mistake, but the arbitration request is legit.

Anyway, talking about rudeness openly on the Bleep page was an attempt to move the stalled debate forward, and to try and get a useful process going. Both sides have been rude, as I make clear. The process would re-start if my suggestions were followed, and good faith extended. Meanwhile, if there is no AGF, or even a pretense of AGF, things continue as they are, and nothing will get done, just like I said. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New section[edit]

Let's start over. I misinterpreted Martinphi's comment, although I still don't like it. I need to think some more about a response. And SA's "declaration to edit war" clearly applies to a draft of the article lede he was writing in talk space. So give me a few minutes to collect my wits and see what is really going on here. Thatcher 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got an email from a party which is friendly, saying that what I said sounded like a command. I do see that, and I did not mean it to. It would have been better not to address SA directly at all. I could have said the same things without speaking directly of him. It was truly my intent to try and bring both peace and progress (I'm not going to pretend I was very hopeful, but it didn't occur to me he would even report it because I didn't think I said anything bad). It certainly wan't my intent to taunt him or push any buttons. But, I can see retrospectively that it could be seen that way, and you and he have my apology.

Just because I want to say this: I have about a 3 hour limit on being angry. I can be very persistent on an issue, but I'm usually not angry after 1-3 hours, often even in life-changing situations. So, I tend to come and edit normally, and assume others are not angry either. The fact is that while my self-control is good, it isn't as good as it looks: if I'd been as angry as people generally must assume, there would be quite a few instances of my (intended) incivility around here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added later: I can see how in context of the general dispute it could be seen as my putting myself above the fray and saying how SA should do things if he wants to play. I just didn't mean it that way. I did mean it to be a true and fair analysis of exactly what needed to be done if progress is to be made. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may have been trying to propose a solution, but the way it was worded, it could be interpreted as a command. I'm not saying it was, just commenting that thats one possible intepretation. Anthon01 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, understood and already apologized. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Presumably you have not agreed to give up your right to revert "nonconsensus" edits made by SA" Actually, Thatcher, I mainly have: I've been pretty much sticking to 1RR for a long time now, and doing even that almost never. SA has had the run of the articles, and certainly could out-revert me (and has in I believe every article I tried a revert on). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for clarification[edit]

It is unclear whether the arbcom's injunction for Martinphi not to participate in "disruption" was intended to apply solely in article space, or whether it also includes activities such as frivolous use of process and baseless accusations against other users. Specifically, in the Arbitration request noted above Martinphi accused a group of editors of carrying on a campaign of "large and ongoing disruptions." No evidence was provided that the editors in question organized their purported disruptions, nor indeed that their "disruptions" were anything other than attempts to present perspectives with which Martinphi disagreed. Thus it would be useful for arbcom to clarify the scope of its remedy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed that to "create," rather than "organize," per your interpretation. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Any edit judged to be disruptive" and "banned from any page or set of pages" clearly applies to all pages on Wikipedia (also by convention in past cases). For example, evidence cited by the Arbs included edits to user talk and the Featured Article talk page. Do you wish to request enforcement for disruption by Martinphi somewhere? Or just asking for future reference? Thatcher 01:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Such phrasing by the Committee always means including talk, unless they exempt it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mostly for clarification. Historically Martinphi has tended to read arbcom decisions in a very narrow and formalistic sense, so I wanted to clarify the proper interpretation. Martinphi, do you acknowledge now being aware of this interpretation of the ruling's scope? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea about unwritten tradition. But I don't know why the committee would bother to write it out so carefully if what they really meant was "ban/block him if you feel there is cause." It was obviously very specific and carefully written. I accepted it as written, and endeavored to conform to it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The words were: "Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages." They went on:

"Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Emphasis added. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So then, is it your interpretation is that the ruling does not apply to disruption outside of article space? By your reading you'd have to first be banned from a page outside of article space (say, WP:RFAR) and then you'd have to violate that ban before any blocks could be applied, correct? Just trying to make sure everyone is on the same page here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martin is correct about the manner in which the restriction is to be enforced, if necessary. He may be banned from any page or set of pages he disrupts, and if he violates the ban by editing such pages (or evades it by editing while logged out or using sockpuppets) he can be blocked. Personally, I start with temporary bans and only escalate if problems persist, and blocks for violating any bans similarly start out brief and escalate only if necessary. Thatcher 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I understand what you're saying, does this mean arbcom didn't intend to restrict disruption in Wikipedia space (say, frivolous use of process)? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arritt, that isn't what I said: only that a total ban from WP is not in the Arbitration case, but only blocks after violation of specific-page bans. That is not how it was applied before when I was blocked, as I wasn't banned from a page nor did I violate a ban.

And Thatcher, here is the text of the blocking:

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week [but only] in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.[23]

I was blocked once, and I still can't see how that block was within the specified process.

I also think that my edit at Bleep was not intended to be anything bad, and I fully intend to not directly engage SA in the future in the way I did there. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, I'm trying to clarify whether disruption in Wikipedia-space is relevant here. Your explanation above indicates that arbcom did not intend that any sanction could be applied for disruptive activities such as frivolous use of WP:RFAR, WP:RFC, and such. Correct? (All this is hypothetical of course; I'm sure you would never consider doing such things.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raymond, the decision says "Any edits" and both Martin and I have used the formulation "any page" so I am confused at your apparent confusion. The restriction applies to all of Wikipedia, including article, talk, project, template, and any other space. (As a matter of personal preference, I would be extremely reluctant to ban anyone from the pages of the dispute resolution process itself, but it could be done under appropriate circumstances.) Thatcher 13:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, let me state how a hypothetical sequence of events would work. Let's suppose Martinphi brings frivolous action in an RfC. He could then be banned from that RfC. If he continued to edit on that RfC, he could be blocked. If he did not continue editing that RfC, he could bring a frivolous arbcom case. He could then be banned from editing on that arbcom case. If he continued to edit on that arbcom case, he could be blocked. If he did not continue editing that arbcom case, he could bring a frivolous RfC (different from the first RfC). And so on, and on, and on, because it would be a different "page" each time. If there's something wrong with this interpretation, please point out what's wrong. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While that is true in a hypertechnical sense I doubt admins would tolerate that for long. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's precisely why I asked the question in this way. It addresses Martinphi's inclination to interpret Wikipedia policy in a "hypertechnical" sense. I have no doubt that if Martinphi engaged in the behavior I describe above, he'd object strenuously to any sanction. And he'd almost certainly be able to find an admin with a sympathetic ear who would overturn any block. (Again, all this is hypothetical of course.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure they will...because here we are... Shot info (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Who is being hypertechnical here? Topic or page bans are at the discretion of uninvolved admins. If an admin thought that Martin had sufficiently misused some of the noticeboards and project spaces to warrant a ban from all of them, the admin could do so. Page bans can be appealed to this page, ANI or Arbcom if the banned editor feels an error has been made. The problem of overturned blocks is not unique to Arbitration enforcement and can also be taken up with Arbcom. Thatcher 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

taken to clarification

At Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, I politely requested Mrg3105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to refer to "Romania" not "Rumania", while at the same time saying he could call it what he pleased. In his first reply, he used the phrase "as much as you may dislike that personally", although I never expressed a dislike for Russians. I then reiterated my (and sources') preference for "Romania", which prompted a much more incivil second reply (with the edit summary "go for it Rumanians"). Excerpts: "I feel that I can continue to put logic or facts before you, and you will not see it if "it hit you in the face" as the saying goes. You and others are just intent to make the article as Rumanian/Romanian as you can [...] for the sake of Romanian PRIDE you MUST insert as much ROMANIAN CONTENT into the article as possible. Well, go for it, but I will make you work for it, YOU can bet on that. EVERYTHING YOU SAY WILL HAVE TO BE REFERENCED AND SOURCED PROPERLY IN ENGLISH. [...] you go and find your 'majority'". This is completely uncalled-for. I (and others) are attempting to engage in a dispassionate naming discussion, and here comes Mrg3105 to impute sinister motives on my part. I believe this is a violation of the Digwuren general restriction because Mrg3105, "working on topics related to Eastern Europe", has made edits that are "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", and thus formal action should be taken against him. -- Biruitorul (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warned him on his talk page. Will leave this AE case open a couple days to see what happens. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)wReply[reply]

Thatcher has also warned him, [24]. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this acceptable? Mrg3105 is trying to discredit participants in a move request due to their apparent ethnic origin: "(look at the pages of these users) Biruitorul (very Rumanian), AdrianTM obviously not without Rumanian POV, Turgidson has a "Romanian Barnstar of National Merit", Eurocopter tigre is Rumanian, Roamataa another Rumanian". This appears to be a violation of WP:NPA, as well as a clear attempt to sow divisiveness on national lines. -- Biruitorul (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After that note on Mrg3105's userpage, the conversation moved to my talk page here. After I let that conversation die, Mrg3105 posted this request on the Digwuren case talk page. Would someone mind reviewing these? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's see what happens with his request on the case page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine by me. I would like to note, though, that I think the last message he left on my talk page is the most offensive one I've ever received on Wikipedia, which is why I am interested in getting others involved. Thanks. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These two edits are also particularly troubling, as they seem to have spawned from this situation. "Incivility" article and "Logic" article talk page. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't pick up on the edit to your talk page at first. Blocked for 24 hours. [25] Thatcher 23:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I moved the appeal to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Appeals_and_requests_for_clarification. The Arbitrators generally do not watch closed cases. Thatcher 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, now what happens to the undiscussed arbitrary renaming of the historically non-extant Battle of Romania into the non-WP:UE, non-WP:MILMOS#NAME, and non-WP:ROR compliant Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, and the subsequent denial of the RM based on arguments that did not apply to the reasons given for the RM?--mrg3105mrg3105 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I already warned the user earlier today. As the disruption continued, I issued a 24-hour block. El_C 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP user 207.14.129.217, is making personal attacks on the talk page. I have warned the user to stop. Could an uninvolved admin, with no past history with this article, please keep an eye on this talk page. The page is on article probation and this sort of thing is not to be tolerated. I have left a warning on the IP users page, as have others, but the off-topic uncivil comments are continuing. Thanks for your help. futurebird (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Thatcher's 30-day restriction concludes this notice. I, and I suspect he as well, am not inclined to turn this into a lengthy debate. El_C 01:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom recently rendered a decision in this case, but the decision is not specific as regards either articles or editors. However, the basic decision was to apply additional and ongoing scrutiny to edits in this area. A working group on the problem was to be established. ArbCom stated that "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." So this issue is appropriate for arbitration enforcement.

The current issue is edit warring in Jewish lobby. Over the weekend, a rough consensus on article content had been reached. Then, in tag team editing, reverts were made by Armon (talk · contribs), Jayjg (talk · contribs), and I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) (who may be a sockpuppet) to remove content that these users find unacceptable. These users have repeatedly acted to remove cited quotes which disagree with their position. (Most recently, they're removing a citation to an article by the editor of The Forward about the Jewish lobby. They've also removed quotes from The Economist in previous edits, but that was weeks ago. We're not talking about fringe sources here.) Latest diff: [26]

• So, given the ArbCom decision, it's now the job of arbitration enforcement to deal with the problem. I'd suggest a temporary ban on the above editors from the indicated article, just to quiet things down a bit. Once the ArbCom working group is up and running, we may have a better way to deal with this. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has now been locked for 24 hours. So there's some time available to decide what to do next. --John Nagle (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nagle, it is just as easy (and accurate) to describe the recent events as "Over the weekend, a group of editors decided to challenge the long-standing consensus on article content, and in tag team editing, reverts were made by Nagle (talk · contribs), Jgui (talk · contribs), and Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) to insert controversial content that these users favor, over the objections of numerous editors who have explained their objections carefully on the Talk page." In fact, you seem to be the one most actively reverting, and skating very close to violating wikipedia's 3RR rule (or rather, cleverly gaming the system) by making exactly 3 ([27], [28], [29], [30]) reverts in 24 hours. Are you advocating that only the editors who disagree with you be banned, or should ArbCom look very carefully at what you've been up to, in light of the arbitration case you have referenced? I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, as Dr. Drakken points out, there has been a strong consensus on the article that, per WP:NOR and WP:NEO, only sources discussing the term be used, rather than sources using the term. As per WP:NEO:

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).

I have carefully been replacing sources that use the term with reliable sources that describe the term, and accompanied my edits with copious Talk: discussion. User:G-Dett, who is normally on User:Nagle's "side", for example, supported these changes: [31] User:Georgewilliamherbert, an uninvolved admin who examined the situation came to the same conclusion, and had to warn User:Nagle and User:Carolmooredc about it:[32] [33] A number of other editors, including User:Armon, User:Humus Sapiens, User:IronDuke, User:Lobojo, User:Yahel Guhan and User:I am Dr. Drakken have disputed the insertion of Nagles's policy violating material. Despite this, User:Nagle, User:Carolmooredc, and now User:Jgui have continued to edit war on the article, in violation of policy. John Nagle, in particular, has reverted the article 16 times since January 7, often completely ignoring Talk discussion. Nagle's suggestion that those he has been edit-warring against be banned is interestingly one-sided, but fails to deal with the principle issue, Nagle's stubborn refusal to abide by policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedurally, now what? This is an unusual situation, because ArbCom passed the buck to "any uninvolved administrator" and a working group yet to be formed. -John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, now that the article has been locked, you won't be able to engage in your edit-warring and 3RR gaming any more. Perhaps instead you will engage meaningfully on the Talk: page, for a change. It hasn't happened until now, but one can always hope. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm willing to take a 30-day break from all Jewish-Israel-Palestine related articles if Jayjg (talk · contribs), Armon (talk · contribs), and I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) do, and any new users who edit in those articles are sockpuppet-checked against those users and myself. This was one of the suggestions from ArbCom in this arbitration. If not, arbitration or mediation would be fine with me. But we have to use a dispute resolution mechanism at this point. (From Jayjg's 2006 arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid "Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.") --John Nagle (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem, however, appears to be only with your editing on the Jewish lobby page. Wouldn't it make more sense, for a change, for you to engage meaningfully in Talk: instead? You've already been admonished by an outside and uninvolved administrator to do so.[34] [35] I'm certainly willing to go to mediation too, as the next logical step in this process; I am quite confident that all my edits have been in accord with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jayjg (talk · contribs) has a long history of contentious editing and arbitrations. ( 2006 arbitration (User admonished, amnesty granted.) 2007 arbitration #1 (User left Wikipedia during arbitration. ArbCom: "As the Committee has been unable to determine which actions in this matter, if any, were undertaken in bad faith, and as the community appears to be satisfactorily dealing with the underlying content dispute, the case is dismissed with no further action being taken.") 2007 arbitration #2 (Misuse of "checkuser" privilege. ArbCom: "Jayjg is reminded to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue.") In fact, he's in a mediation on another article right now: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. (I added myself to that one, although I haven't actually edited that article in some time.) So I'm probably not the problem. But let's go to mediation. --John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is counterfactual and self-evidently so. This is really pointless. The instigator here is pretending that the issue is with what the sources says, when, in fact, he knows the issue with his edits is that they are Original Research. He is continually inserting uses of the term, rather than descriptions of the term i order to shoehorn all sorts of tangential issues and personal POV into the article. Lobojo (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From: User:Carolmooredc - I suggested mediation on Talk:Jewish_lobby yesterday and initially thought it was not best to come here to arbitration. But after reading the above, and because I believe this is one of the most important wikipedia articles on Israel/Palestine and related issues, I think at least WP:Mediation Cabal if not full blown arbitration needed:

• Wikipedia is the only dictionary or encyclopedia very explicitly defining the term besides the difficult to find Books.Google version of Dictionary of Politics, pg 243. I noticed a phrase encyclopedia asked for suggestions of phrases. When I suggested “Jewish Lobby” they wrote back and said they would not try to define it - I should look at Wikipedia’s definition!
• Why is there so much heat on this topic? Just for a commonsense reference point, do a google search and you will see that perhaps 1/3 of those who use Jewish Lobby obviously are antisemites; perhaps 1/3 who use it are mainstream Jewish or media sources. However, 1/3 are sources who are critical of Israel - or even people who thinking they are praising Jews!
• Never the less, despite the mainstream uses of the phrase, even mild critics of organized Jewish lobbying (usually on Israel) who use the phrase in an innocuous manner are lumped in with the antisemites and their careers and jobs threatened.
• As professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer note on page 188 of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy: “In fact, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In effect, the lobby first boasts of its own power and frequently attacks anyone who calls attention to it.”
• Therefore there is a vested (if sometimes unconscious) interest in keeping Wikipedia’s definition of "Jewish Lobby" limited only to the anti-Semitic meaning, and by any means necessary, including dubious claims of WP:NEO and WP:OR, in a very WP:POV fashion, possibly through tag team editing and sock puppets.

Just to respond to a couple points made earlier:

• Whether this article was WP:POV for excluding non-antisemitic uses of the term has been an ongoing Talk:Jewish_lobby issue for over two years, with a near even split between opinions (which maybe slanted by tag team editing and sock puppets).
• Here Editor User:Georgewilliamherbert suddenly appeared and initially opined that User:Nagle and I were “misinterpreting the policies.” However, after he admitted he was unsure on some points, and he could not answer other counter-points, he stopped replying and disappeared.
• On January 17th I got disgusted and said would not try to edit the article any more because of WP:POV behavior of editors. I had made few changes anyway because of it, just wrote a lot on talk.
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles appeared on January 19.
• User:G-Dett then appeared with an Outside comment and made an excellent critique of the problems with WP:NEO and WP:NPOV.
• User:Jgui then came in for first time and re-wrote the article in line with the suggestions above. The intro looked a lot more NPOV, though I didn’t study all the changes assuming it would quickly be reverted.
• Since then I have made only 4 edits to the article itself. 1. to remove POV statement (which was reverted); 2. to make another statement less POV (which was reverted); 3. to revert back to Jgui’s new changes (which was reverted); 4. to add to the first paragraph reliable source quote (“Dictionary of Politics” above) that G-Dett found that actually discusses neutral use of term, though I assume that will be nitpicked away at and reverted. The link already has been removed. Carol Moore 14:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

• With respect, the question for this board is not one of content, but whether one, several, or all editors of this article are acting so disruptively that sanctions are needed. It would help for someone to list a few key diffs for each person against whom sanctions are requested. Thatcher 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. It's really a content dispute, of course. There's a long history in this area, but the current content issues have been well-described above.

Looking at the recent sequence of significant edits:

• 03:54, 19 January 2008 Jgui (Talk | contribs) (14,530 bytes) (Edit to include G-Dett's excellent suggestions, and flesh out and distinguish the difference uses. Please see TALK) There'd been considerable discussion on Talk, and much disagreement. G-Dett had proposed some changes, and Jgui implemented them in this edit. The lead sentence changed from "The Jewish lobby is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, business, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance. " to "Jewish lobby is a phrase sometimes used to refer loosely to the Israel lobby in the United States, primarily AIPAC, the AJC, and other Jewish-American lobbying organizations." This was a well thought out, but controversial, edit.
• 06:56, 19 January 2008 Yahel Guhan (Talk | contribs) (12,630 bytes) (rv. old version was much better). This was a straight revert, by someone who had not previously participated in the discussion.
• 07:03, 19 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (14,530 bytes) (Undid revision 185376763 by Yahel Guhan (talk) Please discuss on talk page before reverting. Thanks.) This is me, reverting Guhan.
• 23:09, 19 January 2008 Yahel Guhan (Talk | contribs) (12,630 bytes) (Undid revision 185377759 by Nagle (talk)- this is excessively POV and removes much sourced content) Another revert by Guhan.
• 03:14, 20 January 2008 Jgui (Talk | contribs) (14,530 bytes) (Undid revision 185523456 by Yahel Guhan. Another editor has removed sourced content with inaccurate claims. PLEASE READ AND CONTRIBUTE TO TALK.) Jgui reverts Guhan.
• 01:06, 21 January 2008 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (11,936 bytes) (per talk and WP:NOR, removing examples that simply *use* the term rather than *discuss* it, fixing narrow American-centric modifications, adding other sources that *discuss* the term) Next is a rather complex edit by Jayjg. It's not a revert. The lead paragraph is reasonably neutral, but sources that disagree with the "Jewish lobby term is anti-Semitic" position have been removed.
• 03:03, 21 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (13,531 bytes) (Restore quote from editor of The Forward, specifically talking about the Jewish lobby) I restore quote from the editor of the Forward writing about the Jewish lobby, deleted by Jayjg, but otherwise leave the article alone.
• 03:09, 21 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (13,569 bytes) (Wikilink lobbying groups) I fix a link. At this point, edits are small and consensus seems to be emerging. Jayjg has had his say, and my only exception to that is his deletion of the quotation from the Forward.
• 08:51, 21 January 2008 Jgui (Talk | contribs) (15,150 bytes) (Fix several problems with the previous version, and better organize the material, without deleting anything. Please SEE and CONTRIBUTE to TALK.) Jgui makes some substantial changes. The content is about the same, but the emphasis and ordering are different.
• 15:28, 21 January 2008 I am Dr. Drakken (Talk | contribs) (13,569 bytes) (re-organized back to the previous organiztion - see the LENGTHY discussion on Talk) Straight revert of Jgui's previous edit (but not my two previous edits.)
• 17:17, 21 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (13,560 bytes) (Removed word "exercise", per humorous comments in talk. Lead sentence made no sense.) We have a humor break. G-Dett has pointed out in Talk that the lead sentence, which begins "Jewish lobby is a term used to indicate Jewish exercise influence" doesn't make sense; it sounds like this is about working out at the gym. So I delete the word "exercise" in a one word edit.
• 21:26, 21 January 2008 Jgui (Talk | contribs) (15,150 bytes) (rv to previous version which was deleted contrary to WP guidelines - this is discussed in detail in Talk - Please SEE and CONTRIBUTE to Talk.) Jgui reverts back to his own previous version. No new content.
• 23:36, 21 January 2008 Armon (Talk | contribs) (11,936 bytes) (rv to Jay. We have to abide by policy) Armon reverts all the way back to Jayjg's previous version. No new content.
• 00:49, 22 January 2008 Carolmooredc (Talk | contribs) (12,470 bytes) (added definition from The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms to relevant section) Two edits by Caroomooredc, adding a reference to a definition of "Jewish lobby" from a political dictionary. This is controversial, because Jayjg has previously stated on Talk that ""Jewish lobby" isn't a neologism? Great, please direct me to the standard dictionary entry where I can read about this term, then." Jayjg has insisted that "Jewish lobby" is a neologism (even though there are cites to it appearing in Time Magazine thirty years ago), and thus the exclusion standards of WP:NEO can be applied. If "Jewish lobby" isn't a neologism, then many of Jayjg's deletions are out of policy.
• 01:59, 22 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (12,462 bytes) (Choppy editing returned that non-sentence that made someone think of Muscle Beach. Fix.) Another humor break; all this editing accidentally brought back the word "exercise", leading to a silly lead sentence. So I take that out again.
• 02:00, 22 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (14,057 bytes) (Restore Goldberg quote that keeps getting deleted.) I put back the Goldberg quote from The Forward that was deleted in Armon's revert above.
• 02:38, 22 January 2008 Armon (Talk | contribs) (12,462 bytes) (rm Goldberg. Again, this is NOT about the term) Armon deletes the Goldberg quote from The Forward again.
• Four edits by Jayjg. The Goldberg quote is deleted again, there's some rewording and rearrangement, and one cite is added.
• 03:44, 22 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (14,019 bytes) (Undo unauthorized deletions of cited material, but use Jayjg phrasing for Raymond quote.) I put back the Goldberg quote, change "allege" back to "indicate" in the lead, and accidentally delete a new cite added by Jayjg in his previous four edits. (I've apologized on talk for my sloppyness there; that cite should go in.)
• 03:46, 22 January 2008 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (12,490 bytes) (remove WP:NOR, per talk - I believe this is about the 50th time this has been explained to you John.) Jayjg reverts back to his previous version, deleting the Goldberg quote.

At this point the article is protected by another admin, which is where we are now.

--John Nagle (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With this background, the key issue becomes clear. There's strong objection by Armon (talk · contribs), Jayjg (talk · contribs), Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs), and I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) to the inclusion of citations which demonstrate the use of the term "Jewish lobby" in more or less neutral contexts. Months ago, we had a similar dispute over an article in The Economist which wrote about the Jewish lobby (see "Quotes from the Economist" in Talk:Jewish lobby), and a few weeks back there was a similar dispute over a quote from the head lobbyist for AIPAC about the Jewish lobby. --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that all the substantive edits from the above-listed editors came from Jayjg (talk · contribs); the others just reverted, and didn't write much. This may or may not be a sockpuppet/meatpuppet situation. I can't tell. I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) has some sockpuppet characteristics. I requested a checkuser Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/I am Dr. Drakken and the response was "Unrelated. However, this person has been using open proxies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)" So we have an ambiguous result there. What's current policy on editing via open proxies? --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that it is known that Jayjg collaborates with other editors off-wiki which could be interpreted as 'gaming the system'. Catchpole (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The article Jewish lobby is placed on 1 revert per day per editor limitation by CMoreschi, and I concur. Exceeding one revert per day will result in blocks. I will try and determine whether additional sanctions are needed against individual editors. Thatcher 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• John Nagle, you need to write more concisely. This is unreasonable. El_C 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thatcher asked you for "a few key diffs". Tens is not a few. El_C 01:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result[edit]

Result I am well aware that nearly everyone will have an opinion that I have either sanctioned the wrong people, or not sanctioned enough of the right people. The editors in this area are going to have to get used to imperfect justice. The best way to not be sanctioned is not to get pulled in front of Arbcom; it is too late for that, and admins reviewing these complaints will make good faith efforts, but we (or at least I) have neither the patience of Job nor the wisdom of Solomon, so we will do the best we can. With that said, in addition to the 1RR per day limit at Jewish lobby imposed by Moreschi, the following restrictions are imposed:

• Nagle (talk · contribs)
• Armon (talk · contribs)
• Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs)
• Jgui (talk · contribs)
  • Limited to one revert per week per page on all pages related to the conflict area, excepting obvious vandalism, subject to a 24 hour block per violation. Reverts must be discussed on the talk page. Mischaracterization of content disputes as "vandalism" will double the block. This restriction expires in 30 days (22 February 2008, 00:00 UTC) unless extended. Thatcher 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Whether Turkey falls under the AA remedy (and/or in what context) is, perhaps, worthy of further clarification. That is besides the point that, for now, Meowy is subject to the AA restrictions. There was a violation of the 1RR, the removal of the Hutchinson Encyclopedia (and incidentally, subscription-only sources can be checked and can be cited). That said, I'm opting for a warning this time (this does involve edits from four days ago). Similar breaches, however, will be dealt with severely, and I am noting the warning in the arbitration log accordingly. El_C 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meowy (talk · contribs) removed a reference on Shusha pogrom at 17:11, 18 January 2008 and an IP has done the same with an edit summary that reads like it is a follow on. As it appears to be an informed Wikipedian doing the edit, the most reasonable explanation is that it is Meowy, or a meatpuppet. Per WP:RFAR/AA2#List of users placed under supervision, Meowy is under revert limitations. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Confirmed Checkuser. Restrictions notified. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excuse me, but what on earth is your point? Where is the rule that says an editor has to sign in before making an edit? As I have just explained on the talk page of that article, my account must have timed-out (or perhaps I just forgot to sign in) when I made that edit. So, unknown to me, my IP address appeared rather than my name. There was no intent to deceive (why would I want to?), and I have not broken the three-reverts rule. Nor was there any "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" in my edit, or in anything I wrote in the article's talk page. I explained the reason for my edit when I made it, and it was done on reasonable grounds. So, again, I ask "what's your point?" Meowy 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were notified here that you are subject to a limit of one revert per week per article. However, the first removal is just an edit; the IP edit is a reversion, so you have your one revert per week. Thatcher 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had presumed that this edit was essentially a revert of the prior edit with insignificant other modification for it to be called an "edit". These days, it is standard practise for all parties to perform other minor modifications when doing a revert . John Vandenberg (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that I do not consider myself subject to the Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 remedy because, as I have fully explained here on my talk page, there is no mention of Turkey in Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy, and the text administrator placed by Seraphimblade in my talk page bore no relation to that RfA remendy. If, at some point, and as a result of this inappropriate use of the AA2 remedy, I am actually placed under editing restrictions then I will be requesting a RfA with the aim of abolishing the flawed Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy for all editors. Meowy 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits to Shusha pogrom most definitely fall under the expanded sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement. Thatcher 00:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Imzadi1979's delisting entries does seems to change the scope. Let us know if it continues. El_C 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum: I overlooked the language of the injunction that limits reversion of changes to the scope to "uninvolved administrator who is neither a party to the case, nor a member of the WikiProject." Warning issued to NE2. El_C 02:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NE2 has gone against an issue raised before in other articles by readding removed banners from talk pages. Edits like these are going against the temporary injunction in the case, which is to not do edits affecting the scope. [36], [37], and [38] are the three diffs that explain what he did. NE2 in the process also disputed the changes. The ArbCom injunction said that nothing was to happen to the scope, and what Imzadi did by removing them was not in the wrong as they belong in a different project. I don't suggest what should happen, just that this has occurred and it is important that Arbitrators know about the situation.^Mitch32^contribs 00:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also note [39]. NE2 is not an uninvolved administrator... besides the fact that this was a legitimate change. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

See this, this guy needs to go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive121#Possibility_of_Sanctions regarding this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelcan (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you provide diffs and concise reasons for your request? I also see you only made 3 edits prior to Jan 21, 2008. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been keeping an eye on Kekrops' edits, and I don't believe he's done anything lately that would warrant a block. This request seems frivolous to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checkuser confirms that the user that submitted this report is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not surprised. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Breaches of a user's civility supervision demand evidence of incivility, which the links (there is no specific quoted passage) fall short of demonstrating. The AA restriction do cover this topic in so far as related issues are immediately raised, but I'm pressed to find any problems in that regard here. In short, much stronger, more direct evidence is needed. El_C 04:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum: I requested Thatcher to double check this closure since I have already recently argued that the filer of this notice failed to substantiate breaches of arbitration supervised civility with respect to another arbitration-restricted user. El_C 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From Thatcher via El C: I do think that if Eupator is going to keep a page of historical evidence proving his point, it would be in the best interests of all involved that it not directly reference one particular admin who questioned it. "Here is evidence summarizing my position" is more compatible with an open editing environment than "Here is why admin:Smith got it wrong." And I disagree with User:Pocopocopocopoco that the article is not subject to the ruling; Eupator admits to editing from the Armenian point of view and the ruling is meant to be broadly interpreted. It's not really enforceable at this time but I would like it to go away by itself, please. Thatcher 02:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am requesting that an uninvolved administrator review the recent activities of Eupator ( Ευπάτωρ ), who is currently under ArbCom restrictions from Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, specifically, Civility supervision (formerly civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses." He is also subject to supervised editing and "... may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues"

For the last few weeks, Eupator has been engaging in a dispute at the Franco-Mongol alliance article, specifically as regards the definition of Armenia's involvement in relations with the Mongols. As part of this, he has made what I regard as assumptions of bad faith. On December 21, he accused me of "bullying" at ANI.[40][41] More recently, he has created a subpage in his userspace with negative comments about me: User:Eupator/Mongol historians.[42] There is absolutely no need for this personal commentary about other editors. If he wishes to make his points, he should comment solely on article content. This is true of any editor, but particularly of an editor under such a stringent civility parole. --Elonka 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• On 14th of October Elonka left the following message on my talk page after I had awarded another user with a barnstar. [43]. The purpose of her message was not quite clear but the entire message was a comment on another editor. I found that quite odd. As a result of Elonka's message on my userspace I started reading the dispute that she had initiated regarding the aforementioned article. My comment in December was in response to user PHG's request: "I am asking you (Elonka) to apologize for your bullying." Elonka responded nicely on the article talk page but left a seemingly threatening message on my talk page:[44]. I did not respond back as I did not wish to escalate the matter any further. Most recently, once again she left another message on my talk page with yet even more inaccurate assumptions [45]. I think I have remained quite civil in all of this but I do acknowledge commenting on user Elonka in my userspace here and not just on content. This was an honest attempt at displaying background info regarding my involvement, not some sort of a rant against Elonka though I do acknowledge that the last sentence is not really necessary. If you take a look at the talk page for Franco-Mongol alliance you will immediately notice how much of the discussion is regarding editors. A good portion of user Elonka's comments there are regarding other user(s) and not content. It is often necessary to discuss a users actions, if it's done civilly it should not be a cause for stress so I fail to see why she is applying double standards here. Also please note the following edit by Elonka on a recent AFD:[46]. She's not commenting on content or my vote, she's making a bad faith assumption instead. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My uninvolved, outside opinion: Complaining of being bullied is most certainly not uncivil or, in the context of Elonka's first link above,[47] an assumption of bad faith ("This does look like bullying" is a comment on the content, not the contributor, and seems to be supported by the prior paragraph) and there is no assumption of bad faith anywhere in User:Eupator/Mongol historians. The second link given by Elonka above[48] is merely a request for someone else to step back, and goodness knows we have plenty of people recommending wikibreaks each day without assuming bad faith. I would go so far as to say that anyone being accused on such weak evidence is indeed being bullied. MilesAgain (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My completely uninvolved completely outside opinion: I found out about this entry because I was following the "I am Dr. Draken" section below however I am familiar with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 and I think it's a huge stretch (to put it mildly) to invoke Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 on this type of article. IMHO the intent of that arbcom decision and the prior decision was to cool the edit warring between Armenian and Azerbaijani editors that were occuring primarily in articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Let's continue the discussion on the policy page. El_C 04:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a "new" editor editing articles related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Checkuser shows I am Dr. Drakken edits from open proxies. His edits to Jewish lobby, reported below, do not warrant being placed on restriction, except for the possibility that he may be a good hand or alternate account for someone else. This post is to solicit advice from other uninvolved admins on whether to place I am Dr. Drakken on some sort of restriction as a precaution. Alternatively, I am Dr. Drakken may wish to identify himself to me or a trusted admin (uninvolved in the I-P dispute) or to a member of Arbcom so that we can have some assurance that enforcement is not needed. I am not interested in the opinions of editors involved in the conflict so please don't even bother. Thatcher 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In terms of adding him/her as a precaution, I don't see anything too urgent. Certainly, s/he can be added immediately in the event of problematic conduct. For now, I suggest waiting to see if s/he can expand on the clarifications sought here and on the account's talk page. El_C 02:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • I am not really involved in the conflict as I've maybe made one edit to the article and posted a few questions to talk. As per WP:PROXY shouldn't the editor provide a really good reason why he/she is using proxies or otherwise be asked to stop using them? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time to deal with editing abuse. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. I'm not going to target his proxies for blocking; they may or may not get picked up in other sweeps. Thatcher 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm here per the note that Thatcher left on my Talk page. I edit from open proxies because I dearly value my privacy and anonymity, and have recently come to the conclusion that the only way to guard them is by editing from open proxies. As Thatcher noted to Pocopocopocopoco - "you are free to use open proxies if you can find them" - and that is what I am doing. I do not believe I am violating any wikipedia policy by doing so, and as several editors have noted, my editing does not warrant any restrictions or sanctions - I have avoided edit warring, and attempt to explain my edits in full on Talk pages and/or edit summaries. I don't know how to address your concern regarding the possibility of an alternate account, which I assure you I am not. I don't know what means of identification will satisfy you and yet allow me to keep my anonymity. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It's a reasonable enough non/response. The user is entitled to keep their identity secret. Certainly, I am doing the same. I cannot support any restrictions being imposed without specific evidence depicting a violation of rules having been submitted, and reviewed, prior to that. El_C 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In general terms, on a heavily conflict-ridden article it seems a bit problematic to have an obviously non-new editor working via open proxy. While privacy is certainly a legitimate concern, this can be addressed by simply registering an account and avoiding editing personally-relevant articles or divulging info. The only people from whom open proxies protect one's identity are the checkusers, unless I'm missing something in my technical ignorance. It is simply not possible to determine whether I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of an editor involved in these contentious articles. While his editing does not violate any policies per se and his reassurance is appreciated, given the possibility of influencing the appearance of consensus my feeling is that we are better off without experienced editors using open proxies to edit highly contentious articles. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not believe a ban on editing is required at this time but I would like to think about a revert limit, precisely because we can never be sure what this editor may or may not be doing "behind our backs" so to speak. Perhaps I shouldn't have raised the issue at all, and I have no reason to not assume good faith regarding Drakken's response, but I thought that since I was leveling 1RR limits on several editors I should at least get some feedback on this delicate issue. Thatcher 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone editing this set of articles is a breath away from being placed on a revert limitation. That, and imposing a revet limit here, too, in a sense, is besides the point in terms of the above concerns: that if we are to allow registered accounts to use open proxies, they can (albeit gradually) create multiple other accounts and it won't matter that those will be placed on a 1RR. I can appreciate that fear. I, certainly, will take immediate issue if I see more than one proxy-connected registered user reverting the same article, or even the same set of articles. It is, however, a potential problem that is perhaps best left for the policy page in that it is not unique to any specific (sanctioned or otherwise) set of articles. El_C 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, such duplicitous proxy-ing of identities need not be limited to reverts to become disruptive (i.e. on talk pages, etc.). El_C 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree completely. I think that as long as someone is keeping track of which, and how many, open proxies are active on these articles, and takes this into consideration when looking at issues of disruption, edit-warring, consensus, etc, then no further action is required right now. I can't bring myself to feel totally comfortable with it, but that's my problem. MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A somewhat related concern: doesn't the tolerated use of open proxies on these articles undermine the reliance on editor-specific sanctions (1RR through topic bans) which ArbCom has suggested to rein in these articles? 1RR, topic bans, and blocks are easy enough to evade by establishing a new account via an open proxy. I'm thinking out loud here. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

There is no need for further discussion. Moreschi is correct, but I would still ask Andranikpasha to try being mindful of these things. Grandmaster extending an informal (i.e. outside this board) reminder and a chance to self-revert is, also, recommended. El_C 17:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) has been placed on revert parole in accordance with the ruling of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, please see: [49], which limits him to 1 rv per article per week. However on Khojaly massacre he made 2 rvs today, first by adding the POV tag: [50], which is a revert to his previous attempt to attach undiscussed tags: [51] and then reverting once again: [52] This is violation of his parole. Grandmaster (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically a violation, yes, but I really doubt Andranikpasha could have realised the first edit was technically a revert. So, no block. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considering that he tried to attach tags to the article many times, such as here: [53] [54], I have a reason to assume that he was aware of consequences. Grandmaster (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back in September, Grandmaster! It's a bit much to expect people to remember their edits that far back. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thanks for reviewing. Grandmaster (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

As noted below, Sarah is "banned from editing or participating at British Isles, Talk:British Isles, or any of its subpages for 7 days." El_C 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted says "Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." Unfortunately, I think she's crossed that line again at Talk:British Isles/name debate#Time to change the name?, particularly with this edit. (In fact, as you'll see from the page history, she added those comments in a series of edits over 15 minutes, indicating that this wasn't a flash-in-the-pan show of emotion but a thought-out personal attack). While Sarah's a great editor when it comes to the non controversial issues, she seems to have great difficulty in discussing matters calmly with anyone whose opinion differs from hers. We could really do without that kind of behaviour on Wikipedia. Waggers (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sarah777 has been banned from editing or participating at British Isles, Talk:British Isles, or any of its subpages for 7 days. Notice here; logged here. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to object to this. While I'm no fan of Sarah777's, a comment such as "The British Isles ceased to exist when Ireland won Independence" is certainly not anti-British. As I described below Sarah's comment, this assertion is supported by both British, Irish and international literature on the subject. It is a perfectly valid view, supported by published sources - and certainly not anti-British. Oddly, Wagger's agrees with this. (See here for both my comments and Waggers'.)

The real issue, I believe, is this dispute between Waggers and Sarah777. That dispute might be hot headed, on both sides, but again I don't see where Sarah777 expresses any anti-British remarks. Anti-British remarks of the kind covered by the ArbCom were things such as comparing British history with the history of the Nazis or calling British editors things such as imperialist jingoes etc. This is not a breach of that ruling. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Striked that on scrolling down and saw the personal attack thanks to User:One Night In Hackney's comments on my page. Though would like to note that it was a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK and not a breach of the ArbCom decision (i.e. the attack was anti-Waggers not anti-British). --sony-youth^pléigh 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK breach, but the restriction, to me, is worded in such a way that her remarks need not be anti-British for them to qualify as "aggressive biased editing". Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

[55] violated the injunction. --NE2 05:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reverted and notified. Thatcher 13:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Copied what too here is appropriate of [57].

Space Cadet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he is a highly ucivil editor active in discussions related to various Eastern European topics, an area which has been subject to a series of recent ArbCom rulings noting the tendency for discussions and articles involving those subjects to deteriorate into wiki-battles, and the resulting need for civility enforcement. To be more specific: in the Piotrus case (closed on 19 August 2007), editors were reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future under the treat of further sanctions. In Digwuren's case (closed on 21 October 2007), several editors were banned, and the rest were warned not to use Wikipedia as the battleground and placed under general restriction ("should the editor make 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").

I believe that Space Cadet has constantly - for well over a year - crossed boundaries we expect our editors to keep. Below I will present a sample of his uncivil and disruptive edits that occurred since 17 November. I would argue that he need to be placed under the same restrictions specified at] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction" (technical note: there is even a dedicated template for this, see ((Digwuren enforcement))).

• November 17: "revert the mess back to Molobo's"
• November 18: "Also LUCPOL, keep your tRAŚh off my Talk page."
• November 18: "Bo to tylko twoja prawda, wandalizujący fanatyku!" / "Because it is only your truth, fanatic vandal!"
• November 19: "We all like English letters like ü, ä, ß, etc., but not Polish ones, right?"
• November 25: "You German ultranationalists only like the Gdańsk vote when it serves your purposes" and "You're new here or something? Don't play dumb on us (the Wikipedia Community) now!"
• November 25: "Some nice ultranationalist consistency."
• November 25: "rm nationalistic nonsense"
• November 30: "Stop your whining." and "poor Matthead, poor history, so brutally denied. You're such a drama king."
• December 11: "Do whatever you want to your ultranationalist List of people from Danzig, but leave this neutral version alone."
• December 15: "You have your own "Danzig" page, play with that, bout leave this neutral version alone."
• January 4: "It's in a very bad tone to use editor's personal record as an only justification for reverting him. I am highly disappointed. Grow up!"
• January 13: "At Grunwald Poland actually got more help from Russians then from those wild, half-pagan, jungle people (Lithanians)." and "is the "same language" another myth you believe in?" and "Put away the myths, study the true history of your awesome nation (Lithuania) and become a constructive editor of the Wikipedia. Of course in my opinion you would have to grow up a little bit first"
• January 17: "And stop using icon (in English) together with your poor imitation of that language. Cheers."
• January 18: "What medication are you on right now?"
• January 18: "Apologies? You gotta be kidding me! YOU apologize and remove the insults and maybe I'll respond, because I already have answers to all your pseudo-arguments. You are simply afraid of the truth, that's why you turn to namecalling in lack of anything better."
• January 18: "Seriously though, are you drinking right now? You are, aren't you? Maybe you should go to sleep now and apologize to me later, what do you say?"
• January 19: "Too bad you cannot live without insults, we could've had a very interesting, stimulating discussion, because I'm a very well read man" and "By the time Poland brought culture to Lithuanians, they were very little more than wild, pagan, forest (here, I replaced "jungle" with "forest", are you happy now?) people, kind of like Poles were in the 9'th century"
• January 27: "I said it (yellow on blue versus black on yellow or white on red), it just went over your head, so rather than inquiring for further information you blindly reverted my edit."
• January 27: "shutting me up twice was rude, don't turn stuff around"
• January 27: "Do you have narcissistic tendencies?"
• January 27: "Not at all what I expected. Hope to never encounter you again." and "First you were rude, then you tried to make me look bad, now you're threatening me. I'm outta here, it's just that judging by your edits I thought you were a different kind of person. Huge disappointment. Huge. But enough feeling sorry for myself. Good bye and I mean it."

--80.190.200.171 (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that evidence, I don't think there can be any argument. The restriction has been duly applied. Waggers (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

1RR/week limit applied to Pallywood

I'm requesting that a 1RR limit be applied to Pallywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article covered by the recent Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles case. The article has a history of contentious editing and edit wars (see [58]).

Following a recent discussion on the talk page and another editor's tagging of the article, I've amended the article to make it more consistent, add some info from a reliable source that discusses the topic, remove a couple of OR-ish and unreliably sourced items, and reduce overlap with another linked article (diff). Unfortunately User:Leifern, who created the article in the first place, has indiscriminately reverted my good faith edits with an aggressive edit summary (diff) and accusations of bad faith on the talk page (diff), but no explanation of what he considers unacceptable about my edits. This is not what reverts are supposed to be for; as WP:REVERT says, "Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof."

Aggressive reverts of this kind are a major factor in causing the hostile relationship between editors that led to the Palestine-Israel arbitration in the first place. In the arbitration, I said that it would be necessary to have a change of editing culture in this topic area - editors would need to be encouraged to collaborate rather than confront. Discouraging aggressive reverting is an essential starting point. I'd be grateful if 1RR could be applied to this article, and it would be helpful if someone could have a word with Leifern to explain how reverting should be done when it needs to be done. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Enforcement applied. Violations are to be reported to this noticeboard, where uninvolved admins are requested to apply a block no less than 24 hours per revert. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

2 week block

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia case imposes stricter requirements regarding civility and behavior on Balkan related articles.

User HanzoHattori was recently blocked for "repeated incivility, disruption" on the Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen page.[59] Despite this recent block he is now becoming quite aggressive and rude again on the same talk page. Two examples within the last 24 hours: [60] and [61]. I would appreciate if you could apply whatever remedies you find appropriate. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saying "god damn" is uncivil to many, but calling another editor "psycho" is definitely incivil (see second listed diff). I checked contribs and the recent 170000 minute (about 12 days) block of HH by East718 doesn't seem to have made the point, so I'm blocking 2 weeks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that his response was "Oh Osli, you one silly fucker, you can kiss myass" — Rlevse • Talk • 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Indefinitely blocked.

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia case imposes strict requirements regarding civility and behavior on Balkan related articles. User HanzoHattori has recently been blocked twice for incivil remarks either on the Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen page or in relation to discussions there (seeblock log). Despite these blocks he continues the uncivil behaviour. The most recent example being:

"Oh Osli you one silly fucker, you can kiss my ass"

I feel a stronger remedy is needed for this user. Osli73 (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indefinitely blocked by Keilana, discussion ongoing here. east.718 at 11:27, February 3, 2008

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

This article, subject of the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic has had to have been full protected due to edit wars three times in less then two weeks.

1. 10:38, 30 January 2008 SirFozzie (Talk | contribs | block) protected Free Republic ‎ (Another edit war between participants of the Waterboarding ArbCom case [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC))) (Change)
2. 16:39, 22 January 2008 Jj137 (Talk | contribs | block) protected Free Republic ‎ (Full protection: Dispute, Edit wars. using TW [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC))) (Change)
3. 11:48, 18 January 2008 Prodego (Talk | contribs | block) protected Free Republic ‎ (edit warring, short cool down period [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 00:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC))) (Change)

The parties involved in this edit war are familiar to those who remember the past ArbCom case.

User:Eschoir, an outspoken critic of Free Republic, who has had a real life COI with Free Republic due to legal issues initiated by Free Republic.

And a group of users widely believed to be reincarnations or meatpuppets of banned user User:BryanFromPalatine. (there is evidence in the ongoing Waterboarding ArbCom Case that supports the following users being linked in some way to the banned user.

User:Samurai Commuter User:Shibumi2 User:Neutral Good (who emailed me to ask me to watch over/supervise the article despite never having edited in at least the last 500 edits to the page, going back to May, 2007).

I request the following enforcement following on to the Free Republic article:

A) That Eschoir be placed either on a strict, 1 Revert/Week probation with regards to Free Republic, or a full scale topic ban. It is very doubtful that having been such an outspoken critic of the site, he can edit with regards to WP's NPOV policy with this page.

B) That the three users above, and any other account or IP reasonably believed to be related in any way to User:BryanFromPalatine be topic-banned from the article until ArbCom decides if they are sock/meatpuppets of a banned user. I am willing to monitor the Free Republic article for a while if need be to enforce this. SirFozzie (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I point out that there has been no evidence taken about whether I can edit with an NPOV, and I sugggest that the record shows a long history of neutral edits of the article in question. From the time Dino was bannned (was that April?) to when Shibumi2 returned channelling Bryan reverts (in December?), the article was balanced, there were no edit wars. I personally cleared all the fact tags. I am the source of the O'reilley "planted" quote so relied upon by Bryanpuppets. I added the first Huckabee ball section. I removed the unsourced "messicans" section. I supplied the Appendix 4 Memogate quote. Are these facts less worthy of consideration than the insistant ululation of the puppet-mob?

With all due respect, would it be appropriate due process to take some evidence before rendering judgment? Eschoir (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The Article probation in the case of Free Republic is worded in such a way as to make it unenforceable except by Arbcom. BryanfromPalatine is a community-banned user and any admin may block any account he believes is a sockpuppet, subject to review by other admins, of course. If the situation at Free Republic is really obviously unacceptable, you could try asking at WP:AN for community-imposed article probation, as was done today for Homeopathy. (If the case for probation is so obvious that no admin seriously disagrees, the community can impose it rather than Arbcom.) I'm not sure this board can play a role in this dispute at this time. Thatcher 08:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a current arbitration case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding) where there are allegations that various accounts are sock/meatpuppets of BryanFromPalatine. If an admin blocks these accounts, would that be short-circuiting the arbitration case? (I'm involved, so I won't be blocking in any case.) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is one of the reasons I brought this case to AE, instead of going ahead and placing the blocks myself already. With the words above from Thatcher, I am looking into which actions I may take myself, unilaterally, (posting those actions for review, of course) to resolve this. As reincarnations of banned users, they would not have the right to contribute to the ArbCom case (they can send info into the clerks or arbitrators via email), so that is an option, as well as keeping them unblocked only to contribute to the ArbCom case until their situation is resolved. SirFozzie (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the question is not one of blocks per se. Can we ask (or insist) that the accounts listed by SirFozzie above refrain from editing the page until ArbCom has reached a final decision on the case? That is, a topic ban? I would say yes for the 3 potential BryanFromPalatine socks. As to Eschoir, a 1RR probation would make more sense - he seems to have made some good edits to the article, overlapping with edit-warring. These sorts of restrictions could be appealed to WP:AN/I; they wouldn't really be an issue until the protection expires anyway, but they seem very reasonable given the situation. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I blocked Samurai Commuter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a disruptive single purpose account. No opinion on the others here. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

both warned

Eleland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User directed commentaries and breaches of the Decorum Principals by Eleland (talk · contribs) have become overbearing.

Background notes:
Editor was already noted multiple times about civility issues and even once, a long time ago, apologized (in a fashion which looked more like a mockery) for his user directed commentaries. Part of my personal unpleasant interactions with him included repeated insinuations that I might be a war criminal rewriting history on a battle/massacre I supposedly participated in, and despite numerous requests - sample - the issue persists.

Comment: The included diffs are constricted to the past 3 weeks.

1. "a number of editors... allowing their own ethnic identity and national affiliation" - [100]
2. ("apology/rephrase":) "political leaders of a faction you identify with" - [101]
3. "I realize it's a [[User:Jayjg|time honoured tradition]] around here, but could you avoid punctuating... with obnoxious straw-man arguments... It makes you look rather desperate." - [102]
4. "your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes" - [103]
5. "the writer still adheres to "there are no Palestinians" viewpoint" - [104]
6. "rm unsourced propaganda; please do not regurgitate content" - [105]
7. "stop with the puffery and WP:FRINGE theory pushing" - [106]
8. "cleanup a really ugly piece of historical fabrication" - [107]
9. "You can't recast... because you don't like them." - [108]
10. "trim uncited conspiracism" - [109]
11. "rv WP:FRINGE theory pushing" - [110]
12. "An IP editor is campaigning... [he's] an Internet kook." - [111]
13. "The guy is still a fringe pov-pusher" - [112]
14. "looks a lot like just shouting "antisemite!" because something personally troubles you." - [113]
15. "umm, yeah, "resifix" = "i made this up for wikipedia"" - [114]
16. "I'm not sure why Leifern is so determined to portray this as vandalism or censorship." - [115]
17. "One of the chief POV-pushers" - [116]
18. "You're exhausting everyone's patience with this constant theory-pushing." - [117]
19. "Bible Land is the name of the website you're spamming, not anything that exists in the real world" - [118]
20. "When are you going to acknowledge the distinction between "which I personally like" and... You just keep making the same assertions." - [119]
21. "your aggressive hounding of Huldra" - [120]
22. "rv; ... stick to scholarly understanding... rather than imaginative" - [121]
23. "sneak in the "prefers hype to facts" quote that you're so very, very fond of." - [122]
24. "Anything else is... achieved via serial POV-pushing" - [123]
25. "you seem to have gone back to... mass POV editing across multiple articles, accompanied by manipulation of the talk page discussion" - [124]

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to the case,please? It saves us the digging. Thatcher 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ARBCOM Case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone over the diffs that you provided and consulted with another uninvolved administrator (Dmcdevit), Jaakobou, and we both feel that all but one of them is without merit. Even when you took those statements out of context, they did not become enforcement-worthy infractions. And when I do look at them in the context of the entire post, it's very clear that they're not. The only one that I was trouble by was the cheap shot at Jayjg in #3, but that comment was made a day before the ARBCOM case was closed, which makes it almost 3 weeks old. I'd consider a warning if it were recent, but it's not at all, and I can't find any more recent reasons to impose discretionary sanctions on Eleland. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Ioeth for the case link.

Thatcher, I linked to the relevant section of the case (Decorum Principals), sorry if it was not clear enough.

I'd appreciate a re-inspection or possibly an explanation on the two most recent of the diffs and why they are not part of the Decorum Principals.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sidenote while I examine those in more depth: You should probably link to the actual case (here) rather than the proposed decisions. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comment at #24 isn't directed at anybody in particular; it reads to me like an honest observation of the situation by Eleland and I have no reason to believe that it was said in bad faith. As far as #25 goes, if I were you I wouldn't be including diffs like that in reports here. Eleland could have come directly to AE with that, but instead decided to talk with you directly first. That seems pretty courteous to me. The message reads like a fair warning from a concerned editor, and frankly, it's probably written nicer than if an administrator had left it formally. I'm sorry, Jaakobou, but I just think you're off base with report. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ioeth,

• "serial POV-pushing" - I'm the only other editor involved on this issue (at Saeb Erekat).
• A "mass POV editing across multiple articles... manipulation of the talk page" comment by an involved party of the disputes doesn't seem as 'the courteous way to talk with others'. That is not the impression I received from the accepted principals.

I'm sure insinuations -- that I'm a revisionist war criminal -- did not help my ability for neutral observation but rude behavior can have a chilling effect on Talk pages and worsen edit-warring issues. These comments are restricted to clearly personal references and I still feel (the listed 25) are uncivil and improper. I don't see a change sticking on Israeli-Palestinian editors and editing style unless the core principals are being enforced in the proposed manner which will hopefully help make editing become more communal.

Regardless, thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jaakobou, this is a simple case of pot calling the kettle black. You both need to just leave each other alone because you're as bad as each other. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems Eleland's civility is at borderline on most of these cited diffs, but I do have an issue with "your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes". I also agree with Ryan. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both warned. See Gildabrand thread below. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Requesting a kind reminder of when and where I have been uncivil after the arbitration decisions (the last three weeks, or before that) so that I'm receiving the honor of being called "the pot". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply: this is an example. Everyone has a right to participate in article talk pages. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: this diff shows a comment relating to a series of stalk-like comments by Nishidani. Off-course everyone has a right to participate in article talk pages but it's expected that they make an attempt to contribute, not turn the discussion into a battleground. That was the intent of my comment and I've even stressed that Nishidani is welcome to contribute [125]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]