Request concerning Gilabrand[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

T. Canens (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions; interaction ban and editing restriction

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

See Special:Contributions/85.65.99.40.

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

The cited AE threads and imposed sanctions should serve as sufficient warning; See also [1].

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

To be determined.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It has been brought to my attention that Gilabrand (talk · contribs) has been editing as 85.65.99.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), per this diff. A brief review of the IP's contribution history indicates that it has been used extensively, including during two different periods in which she was subject to an arbitration enforcement block:

1. Between December 18, 2010 and March 18, 2011: [2][3]
2. Between June 15, 2010 and July 12, 2010: [4]

Further, the IP has made this edit, which is, in part, a revert of this edit by Nableezy, which violates their interaction ban.

I'm bringing this here, instead of taking actions myself, in order to obtain more views on the proper action, and allow Gilabrand to respond, if she wishes to. T. Canens (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

Discussion concerning Gilabrand[edit]

Statement by Gilabrand[edit]

As I informed T. Canens, EdJohnston and AGK, the building I work in operates with a shared global IP. This past week I replied to a question on my talk page but forgot to log in. When I saw the IP number, I replaced it with my signature. I am now being accused of evading a topic ban last year (!!). T. Canens mysteriously received this information from an unknown confidential source. When I say this special contributor account is not mine, and I specifically opened an account over five years ago as advised by Wikipedia so as not to be associated with the global IP, I am mocked, ridiculed, threatened and publicly called a liar. I looked at the contributions of this editor/editors. The list is certainly an interesting mix. I don't think Prostitution in Iran, Lorna Luft, Roxanne Pulitzer, Arundhati Virmani and Madrassas in Pakistan are my specialties exactly...Furthermore, if my English grammar and spelling were anything like the editing summaries left on these pages, I would consider myself in big trouble. Being blocked and banned for months at a time is not fun, but luckily, Wikipedia is not the only thing I do in life. I have plenty to keep me busy, and during my time away I did not edit from a global account (or sneak around trying to find evidence to incriminate others). I edit Wikipedia because I believe I have the skills and sources to improve it. Since my return I have worked hard to do better in the things that I was criticized for in the past, such as incivility and edit warring. I have made an effort to improve relations with editors I may have clashed with. Making Wikipedia a better source of information is my goal, and I would very much like to continue, but it seems like administrators have made up their minds that I am not wanted here. Is there anything I can do to change that? From the tenor of the comments above, it seems not. --Geewhiz (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Gilabrand[edit]

@the filing admin→When you write "It has been brought to my attention..." can you elaborate here on the circumstances regarding how it was brought to your attention?—Biosketch (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for what it's worth, i think you might be over-reacting: the IP address is a common one and not used exclusively by one person. i would check it out more carefully. Soosim (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The IP belongs to Matam, Haifa. This is a big place, and many can edit from there. Similarity of style is not enough in those cases. Broccolo (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Gilabrand[edit]

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

• I should like to hear from Gilabrand, but I am inclined that the last topic ban should be reset—because it was never actually served, and so there was never any benefit from the exclusion of Gilabrand from this topic. AGK [•] 15:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree with AGK. I encourage Gilabrand to respond here. So far, the evidence looks convincing that she violated her topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gilabrand has sent me an email claiming that she edits from a shared office IP and that the edits are not hers; see also [6]. T. Canens (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I too received such an e-mail. AGK [•] 22:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The style of the IP's edit summaries are just like Gilabrand's, so I think these edits are hers. I think any edits by the IP in the period 12/18/10 through 3/18/11 constitute block evasion, and any edits from 3/18 to 5/1 fall under the 1RR in 24 hours restriction, and all reverts were to be discussed. This is from my reading of the WP:ARBPIA log. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I see no need to explicate on how I came to notice these edits, since it is irrelevant to the action to be taken. My unblock last July was based on the assumption that the first month or so of the three-month block had been properly served. It is obviously not the case. What concerns me the most, however, is the sheer disingenuousness of her response. The idea that there's someone at Gilabrand's office who edits in the exact same way she did, down to using the exact same style of edit summaries and having the exact same areas of interest is so improbable that it borders on the ridiculous.

  Block evasion normally means that the block is reset. This decision of arbcom appears to be on point: a user started socking when there was six months remaining on the block; when discovered, he was banned for an additional six months. In this case, Gilabrand evaded two different three-month blocks, in both cases only a few days after the block was imposed. I think, at a minimum, then, both blocks should be reset, to be served out consecutively, for a total of six months.

  The disingenuous response, however, along with the pattern of rampant evasion and disregard of sanctions, in my view requires additional sanctions. In last year alone, she had been blocked five times for violations of a topic ban that was originally set to be three months. When another editing restriction was imposed on her, she simply ignored it, leading to two more blocks, at least one of which, we now know, she disregarded as well. A user who has shown so far zero interest in following the community norms ought not to be editing at all, much less in such a controversial topic area. Moreover, if a user is pretty much lying through her teeth even when she was caught red-handed, how exactly can we expect any of her edits to be a truthful and accurate representation of sources, especially sources that cannot be readily checked by other editors? I think that an indefinite topic ban, if not an indefinite block, is in order. T. Canens (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• OK, how about a rerun of the three-month block, followed by an indefinite restriction from the I/P area, both article and talk, but normally construed. I.e. topics about Israel that are not about the conflict would be OK. She would be under an indefinite 1RR/day on all articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The problem is that restrictions only work if the user abides by them. Last time she was topic banned she was blocked five times for violations. I doubt that a topic ban in this case would be much different from a block. T. Canens (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'd support an indefinite block, after further discussion, if we hear nothing from Gilabrand that might indicate awareness of her past failures and give us any optimism for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I also propose an indefinite block, under the provisions of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. I have asked Gilabrand on her user talk page to urgently make a statement here, but she has not edited since 18 May so I think we should hold off for a while on actioning this thread. However, I do not see what response she could offer that would allay my concerns, per T. Canens, that she will evade her block if topic-banned. AGK [•] 22:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am informed that GIlabrand is presently not editing because it is the Sabbath, so I would reiterate my request that we hold off on actioning this thread until she has made a statement. AGK [•] 22:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've taken a close look the the edits of Gilabrand and the IP, including comparing the edit times, and I would agree that it is likely that there is at least one editor besides Gilabrand using that IP address. The evidence includes topics, edit sequences and edit summaries. However, the same evidence strongly suggest that Gilabrand has used the IP to evade blocks. Note these edit counts of the IP:

April 2010 - 2 edits

May 2010- 0 edits

June 2010 - 117 edits (all occurring after her mid June block)

July 2010 -116 edits (Gilabrand unblocked mid July)

August 2010- 24 edits

September 2010- 27 edits

October 2010 - 1 edit

November 2010- 44 edits

December 2010- 50 edits (47 were made after her December 18th block)

January 2011-282 edits

February 2011- 207 edits

March 2011- 321 edits (199 before block ends March 18th)

April 2011 - 52 edits

May 2011 -27 edits

It reminds me strongly of ABAB patterns in Single-subject research designs. Low edits when Gilabrand is unblocked and significantly higher whenever she is, and back to the lower baseline when the block ends.

In addition, there is considerable overlap in edits, which also put in question Gilabrand's statement above "this special contributor account is not mine." The IP is editing Purim around the time of March unblock, and Gilabrand's first edit post-block is to that article. Post block, the IP edits Bayt 'Itab[7][8] and 3 hours later so is Gilabrand having never done so before.[9] The IP edits List of adventive wild plants in Israel [10] and 3 minutes later so does Gilabrand.[11] having never edited there before. There are others, and as has been mentioned, there is clear similarity in the topics edited and the edit summaries.

What to do? The problem here is the history of evasion of blocks, topic and interaction bands, and in particular as Tim Song mentions, the continuing disingenuous response. Gilabrand can be a great editor, but I really don't see any other option given the history. --Slp1 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I didn't examine every single edit in detail since it is sufficient that some of the edits have been made by Gilabrand, and it is clear that that is the case. T. Canens (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Barring objections from an uninvolved admin, I'll close this in 24 hours. T. Canens (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Per the unanimous consensus of uninvolved administrators above, I have blocked Gilabrand (talk · contribs) indefinitely for the persistent evasion of arbitration enforcement sanctions and the continued disingenuous response. The first year of this block is made under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions and subject to the usual protections accorded to AE blocks. T. Canens (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

—Biosketch (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Purpose_of_Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction

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

1. 16 May 2011 – 1st revert at Golan Heights.
2. 16 May 2011 – 2nd revert; insertion of POV claim "in southwestern Syria" despite ongoing discussions
3. 21:39, 17 May 2011 – user decides there is "no choice" but to start editing articles in accordance with his POV.
4. 22:01, 17 May 2011 – user edits Israel(!) with edit summary "This entire country is disputed."
5. 18 May 2011 – user edits 2011 Nakba Day inserting as fact the contested claim that the Golan Heights are "In Syria."

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

1. Counseled on 5 March 2011 by HJ_Mitchell (talk · contribs)
2. Blocked on 24 January 2011 by Courcelles (talk · contribs)
3. Blocked on 1 May 2010 by Tznkai (talk · contribs)
4. Blocked on 20 December 2009 by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)
5. Banned in December 2009 by Wizardman (talk · contribs)

^†Note: not an exhaustive list.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Despite ongoing and earnest efforts to come to an agreement on just how to describe the status of the disputed territories – specifically the Golan Heights and Jerusalem, but now also all of Israel – Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) insists on editing articles in a WP:POVPUSH spirit in total disregard of said efforts. At Talk:Golan Heights, two neutral participants in the discussion, Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) and George (talk · contribs), have been trying to suggest a formula both sides can agree on – namely not assigning the disputed Golan Heights to either claimant (see [12] and [13]) – but Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is disregarding these centralized endeavors to articulate an NPOV formula and editing based exclusively on what is his personal POV. His conduct is particularly disruptive to Wikipedia because it demands that what little time I – and no doubt other contributors – have to devote to improving articles in general needs to be spent examining his staggering edit history in the I/P topic area to follow up on his contributions. It should also be noted that his only meaningful contributions to Wikipedia are to contentious I/P articles. Virtually none of his edits outside I/P are content-related.

@ZScarpia (talk · contribs), the third diff is not in itself a violation, being that it relates to a discussion, you're correct. But regarding the second diff, if it is not a revert it is still an addition of content to the article when there is no question that describing the Golan Heights as "in southwest Syria" without qualifying the assertion is misleading the reader. The reality is that the territory is disputed – its status is unresolved. But Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) does not accept that as the reality. In his reality, it is part of Syria period. As for what is neutral with respect to Jerusalem, the point again is that Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is not being consistent. Saying that the status of East Jerusalem is disputed or that East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank is significantly more neutral than saying it is part of the Palestinian territories (which SD does here); the latter is engaging in the dispute by assigning the territory to one of two sides contesting sovereignty over it and describing a POV as fact. In the fourth diff it is not just the edit summary, though the edit summary essentially belies any semblance of neutrality on the editor's part. Consider the discussion over at Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls. Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), citing WP:CAT, argues that "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Is it clear from verifiable information in the article why Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) added Israel to the Category:Disputed territories in Asia? No, there's nothing in the article that supports describing as a fact that the State of Israel is a disputed territory. That is the editor's POV – again, incorporated into the article without qualification, without even one WP:RS that says the State of Israel is a disputed territory. Do you follow what is happening? In Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs)' world , when it comes to East Jerusalem, there is no dispute – it is Palestinian. When it comes to the Golan Heights, there is no dispute – it is in Syria. When it comes to the State of Israel, there there is a dispute. These are not consistent positions – they are products of an agenda. And the Haaretz article is clearly marked as an opinion piece; it is not endorsed by the newspaper and does not constitute anything more than the writer's own view. (But there too, same problem – for SD, when convenient, POV=fact.)—Biosketch (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bottom line as I see it, based on the diffs provided and the user's own comments below, is this: Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs)' edits, whether deliberately or otherwise, fail to properly distinguish between neutral POV and POV. WP:NPOV defines neutral point of view as "carefully and critically analyzing a variety of sources, then attempting to convey the results to the reader clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." It further instructs contributors to "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and to "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."

• In the second diff, User:Supreme Deliciousness restored/added (it doesn't matter which) a seriously contested assertion – that the Golan Heights are "in southwest Syria" – making it appear to the reader as a fact.
• In the fourth diff, User:Supreme Deliciousness, basing his edit on the outrageous "This whole country is disputed" remark, added State of Israel to the Category:Disputed territories in Asia. There is no mention of such a claim in the article itself. He provided no sources to back up the claim anywhere. WP:CAT says, "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." So where's the verifiable information?
• In the fifth diff, User:Supreme Deliciousness edits 2011 Nakba Day, changing "From Syria" to "In Syria." The bizarre thing about this edit is that the headline of the Haaretz opinion piece he cites actually says "Israel was infiltrated." Here again, the language chosen by the user is factual – not supported by the sources that reported on the day's events and not compliant with WP:NPOV.

One last comment. Had this been another user, one for whom such behavior could conceivably be attributed to a lack of understanding or a momentary lapse of judgment, it would have been captious on my part to bring it to AE. But this is not such a case. This is a user who was in the past sanctioned for similar if not identical behavior and who appears to be manifesting the same problems all over again now.—Biosketch (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been five days since this AE concerning Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) was opened and four days since my last comment on it. Most of what's transpired below in the interim is tangential and not unlike the usual clamoring that is endemic to I/P articles. However, there are two points in particular that do invite further consideration. The first is the matter of User:Supreme Deliciousness' use of sources, and the second is User:Gatoclass' invocation of the WP:BRD method as a defense of Supreme Deliciousness' edits.

1. Did Supreme Deliciousness accompany his edit at Israel with sources and discussion? Answer: No. The charged edit Supreme Deliciousness made at Israel occurred at 22:01, 17 May 2011. It was not until 18:05, 19 May 2011 that Supreme Deliciousness initiated a discussion at Talk:Israel – subsequent to my filing this AE at 21:56, 18 May 2011. He made about sixty edits in between. That's two days and sixty edits with no attempt at discussion at Talk:Israel. Even when he finally did start a discussion, it was not accompanied by sources at first but instead generally mentioned Hamas, Hezbollah, and "20 country's who don't recognize Israel and countries who call the area 'Palestine.'" This would lead one to conclude that the edit to Israel issued from a place of personal conviction/POV and not from verifiable sources.
2. Do the sources Supreme Deliciousness later added justify the edit? Answer: No. Eventually, Supreme Deliciousness did start suggesting sources. At first he suggested four: a Haaretz article on Hamas, an Al Jazeera article on Hezbollah, a map published by Syria, and a passage from a book. (Later he added a fifth one, introduced to the discussion by User:Sean.hoyland.) There is a major problem with how these sources are being used, specifically the problem of misrepresentation: none of the sources describes the State of Israel as a disputed territory, yet that is how they are being used. Not recognizing a country is not the same as being in a dispute with it. Israel does not recognize Kosovo, but there is no dispute between the two; and Morocco has not formally recognized Israel, but peaceful relations have been characteristic of the two nations' dealings with each other for years now. Supreme Deliciousness has yet to provide a reliable source that compellingly supports his assertion that the State of Israel is a disputed territory.
3. Can Supreme Deliciousness' edit be considered WP:BRD? Answer: No. The BRD defense does not apply here and it's simple to explain why. Supreme Deliciousness did not follow up the Bold-Revert components with Discuss – not until a day after the AE was filed and two days after his initial edit. Indeed, rather than be an example of Bold Revert Discuss, this is all an example of Shoot Then Aim.

(Note: none of the above should be construed as superseding anything said earlier.)—Biosketch (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@George (talk · contribs), the evidence that the Israel edit is indeed part of the user's historic pattern of POV-pushing comes in three forms. 1. The edit summary. "This entire country is disputed" is classic WP:RANT. And compare that to this comment, where Supreme Deliciousness remarks, "If a map would show all Israels boundary disputes as stripes, then all lines around all of Israel would be striped." WTF? All lines around all of Israel would be striped?? What WP:RS is that from? 2. The edit was not supported by sources or discussion until a day after this AE was opened. A veteran contributor might be able to get away with a controversial edit like that at a less high-profile article without concurrent discussion/sources – but at Israel? Even when an Admin below asked Supreme Deliciousness to clarify the circumstances of his edit, he did not answer that he had solid sources to back it up. Instead he replied, "I have a lot of knowledge about the topic area, the Arab-Israeli conflict, so I knew the land was disputed..."[14] 3. A significant number of diffs indicate that Supreme Deliciousness rejects Israel's sovereignty over areas every reliable source agrees are unequivocally part of the State of Israel. Here and here, for example, Supreme Deliciousness refers to the areas of Haifa and Tiberias as "disputed." Now, I could care less what Supreme Deliciousness' attitudes toward Israel's right to exist are. They're his own business. But when there is a clear correlation between one's political biases and the nature of his contributions to Wikipedia, such that he is more interested in forcing his biases onto Wikipedia than collaborating with other users to improve the Project, and when there are compelling indications one is using Wikipedia as a platform for the promotion of a political agenda, that is not kosher and that person should not be editing in the I/P area.—Biosketch (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This case has gotten old and there is understandable pressure to resolve it. I will briefly recap what I perceive to be most problematic about Supreme Deliciousness' behavior in relation to the diffs provided. The bottom line is that the edits confirm an earlier established pattern of POV pushing. At Golan Heights and at 2011 Nakba Day the user added a POV claim without the qualifying context an NPOV encyclopedia demands. To wit, saying that the Golan Heights are in Syria has been demonstrated to be a controversial position. Presenting it to the reader as reality violates WP:NPOV as it constitutes engaging in a dispute rather than describing it. In addition, at Israel the user inserted a controversial claim into the article for which he did not have a reliable source, namely that the entire State of Israel is a disputed territory. Purpose of Wikipedia enjoins editors against using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy and furthering outside conflicts. That principle has been flouted repeatedly here and will conceivably continue to be unless the user is sanctioned.—Biosketch (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness[edit]

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness[edit]

• To admins, I am busy now in real life, and will not be able to reply immediately, please wait until I can reply.

I did not violate "purpose of Wikipedia" or "1rr restriction"

• The two edits at the Golan Heights article are right after each other and I did not break the 1 revert rule. I did already tell him that: (reply at the bottom[15]), the second edit was not a "insertion of POV claim", "southwestern Syria" was in the section for a long time, Gilabrand had just removed it without seeking consensus: [16], I re added it back with a source. The source follows the international view: [17][18]. If I am to be sanctioned for that edit where I follow the international view and don't give minority view the same weight, then Biosketch will have to be sanctioned for this edit where he does the exact same thing and states that a disputed area is "present day northern Israel": [19]. About a similar issue, an admin added East Jerusalem to the Palestinian territories section: [20] is he also to be sanctioned?

• At the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues I opened up an centralized discussion if people could help me find international view sources showing West Jerusalem as part of Israel, no one could find one, only sources could be found that it wasn't. So I said there was no choice but to remove the non neutral pov claim, because its not backed up by anything. How is this "editing articles in accordance with his POV." ? How is this "my pov" ?

• Yes at the Israel article I added the category "Category:Disputed territories in Asia" because it is disputed. There are about 20 country's who don't recognize Israel and countries who call the area "Palestine", Hezbollah and Hamas (Hamas being elected by the Palestinian people) do not recognize Israel either, so Israel is a disputed country. So what is the problem? Gilabrand removed it without explanation:[21] and another user re added it:[22]

• At the Nakba day article I added "in Syria", because the events happened in Syria, I have already showed worldview sources for this at the GH talkpage, The entire area is internationally recognized as part of Syria: [23][24], Look at this CIA map of the region:[25] see the line that separates both parts of Syria, it was on this line that it happened. I believe that to follow an international view is in accordance with Wikipedia policy npov. If I am to be sanctioned for that edit where I follow the international view and don't give minority view the same weight, then Biosketch will have to be sanctioned for this edit where he does the exact same thing and states that a disputed area is "present day northern Israel": [26]. At the same article, an admin added East Jerusalem to the Palestinian territories section: [27] is he also to be sanctioned? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reply to Biosketch: Biosketch is claiming that I "insists on editing articles in a WP:POVPUSH spirit" , but the edits he brings up are in accordance with npov and are not pov pushing. The same link to Sean comment he links to:[28] Sean supports the CIA map, so Biosketch is misrepresenting his comments. And the map is presented as a CIA map, not as a "fact". How am I disregarding the centralized discussion when there is no consensus to remove the CIA map? The CIA map follows an international view of the situation:[29][30] The GH is internationally recognized as part of Syria, Biosketch edits many articles about a disputed region without putting a minority opinion in the same position as the international, example:[31] yet in this situation he wants to do that. I showed at the talkpage sources showing a large majority of the international community reffering to East Jerusalem as part of the Palestinian territores,[32] An admin re added it to the Palestinian territories section:[33]. When did I say Golan and East Jerusalem aren't disputed? but this doesn't contradict that they are internationally recognized as part of Syria and the Palestinian territores. Concerning the Haaretz article, Gideon Biger is a Professor in the Department of Geography and Human Environment at Tel-Aviv University and he "researched" the "border" information unlike any other source I have seen about this. But that wasn't the reason why I did the edit at the Nakba article, the reason for my edit there was because international view sources, and official UN view shows that that isn't the border between Israel and Syria.

Biosketch wants to disregard the international view, for the sake of the view of one country, but at other articles he edits, he isn't applying the exact same reasoning:[34] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Npov says how to handle due and undue weight: [35], this means that in disputes, a minority view is not put in the same position as an international, this is something you never comment on and this is directly related to this dispute. You said: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." It further instructs contributors to "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and to "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."" So why did you here state that a place in a disputed territory is in "northern Israel" making it appear to the reader as a fact? [36].
• Yes in the second diff I restored that Golan heights is in southwestern Syria as a fact, per npov due and undue weight, the same say you restored that a place in a disputed area is in Israel here: [[37].
• I haven't read the entire Israel article, but it can be backed up, Hamas: [38], they were elected by the Palestinian people. Hezbollah:[39], in the Lebanese government, Most Arab states:[40], map at Syrian parliament website: [41]
• Have you read the entire article? [42], sure the headline contradicts the rest of the article, but if you had read the actual article and not just focused on the headline disregarding the actual article, you would have seen his arguments and what he says with it. But as I said before, this source wasn't the reason for my changes, its the international view sources: [43][44]], that supersedes any pov by individual people.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Biosketch:Well that's not a rant, its a factual occurrence that has been backed up by several sources and that several editors support is correct. I added a category, something I couldn't ad a reference for. But since some objected, I then brought sources to the talkpage to show that the cat is correct. I replied that I have knowledge so I knew it was correct when I added it, and the reason why I didn't ad sources at the time of the edit is because its a category which I cant source directly, but I provided sources at the talkpage that its correct when some people objected. Well several reliable sources has been provided saying its disputed. You are also misrepresenting my analogy, which was to point out that at some articles you want to put a minority view in the same position as an international view, while at some articles you don't. This is not what I want to do, I agree that all places in Israels internationally recognized areas including Haifa and Tiberias are infact in Israel and should be presented as such. And I do not "rejects Israel's sovereignty", or have "political biases" or "agenda", reliable sources say that there is a dispute over the area, that there is a minority disputing Israel, this doesn't mean that we put this minority position in the same position as the international, which is what you are doing at some articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All things Biosketch brought up here: [45] has already been replied to above, and he is now just repeating his own unfounded and baseless accusations. He also links to his own argument, disregarding my, and calls it "has been demonstrated to be a controversial position". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reply to Boris, I did not make a point, to make a point I would go to the Haifa article and other places in Israel and remove that they are in Israel per your and Biosketchs own arguments at the GH talkpage that the land is disputed and a minority view is the same as an international, therefore a place internationally recognized as in Syria can not be described as Syria. This argument you are using, both of you aren't applying to other articles about disputed places (Israel) that you edit. This is not what I did at the Israel article. I did not remove anywhere that places internationally recognized as Israel are in Israel, the same way you and Biosketch wants to remove that an area internationally recognized as Syria is in Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reply to AGK, I have a lot of knowledge about the topic area, the Arab-Israeli conflict, so I knew the land was disputed and that's why I added the cat, and I have added some sources here to show that it is, but if you haven't seen them, then here they are again:

"The contemporary conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East is a multi- layered dispute. One component is the struggle, since the early 1880s, between Jews and Palestinian Arabs for control of the same land, called "the land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) by the Jews and "Palestine" (Filastin) by the Arabs. The other is a regional conflict of more recent vintage, dating back to 1948, between states: the state of Israel and the various Arab states. This second conflict has been, at times, about the very existence of the Jewish state of Israel in the heart of the Muslim Arab world, but it has also been over tangible issues such as borders, resources, and territory lost and won in the cycle of wars between them", Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, Second Edition: Patterns, Problems, Possibilities (Indiana Series in Middle East Studies), p 3. Laura Zittrain Eisenberg, Neil Caplan, Indiana University Press.

"Since the Zionist movement claimed Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people, that land came to be the site of conflict between the Palestinians and Zionists. Thus, at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at its current stage, is a disputed but shared territory - that of Mandatory Palestine - with which the history and identity of both sides are inextricably intertwined." Israel and the Palestinian refugees, p 149, Eyal Benvenisti (Editor), Chaim Gans (Editor), Sari Hanafi (Editor), Springer.

Hamas: [46], they were elected by the Palestinian people. Hezbollah:[47], in the Lebanese government and have been at war with Israel, Most Arab states:[48], map at Syrian parliament website: [49]. These are states directly surrounding Israel.

I havent read the entire Israel article and don't know if there is information about this in it, I did not ad any new source in the article with the cat but I knew that sources for the cat existed, I wouldn't have added it if I didn't know this. I only added it once, and I have now opened discussion about it at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reply to Enigmaman: The reason why this "continue to come up", is because there is an of-wiki canvassing/meatpuppeting cable, and at least one time in the past attempts have been made to get rid of me trough enforcement. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Supreme Deliciousness[edit]

Comment by ZScarpia

In my opinion, the third diff, which is the only one of the group which relates to a page section that I'm involved in editing, should be discounted. On the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues talk page SD raised the issue of a number of articles which state that West Jerusalem is in Israel, something which is heavily disputed. The position of the international community as evidenced by UN resolutions is that parts of Jerusalem which fall within the area of the corpus separatum defined by UN General Assembly Resolution 303 of 1949, which includes a large part of West Jerusalem, are not the sovereign territory of any country. It would be neutral to state that West Jerusalem has been annexed by Israel or is under Israeli control, but not to state or imply that West Jerusalem is in Israel. When, after discussion, SD said, "This gives us no other choice but to remove this inaccurate claim of where West Jerusalem is located," that was in essence correct. Based on the evidence, any good-faith editor would have to conclude that sovereignty over West Jerusalem is disputed and that the articles, as they existed, did not present a neutral position.     ←   ZScarpia   23:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every place has to be in somewhere; we can't have a place in limbo. The whole of Jerusalem's legal status is to be determined, but meanwhile, East Jerusalem is in the West Bank and W Jerusalem is in Israel. I would be more accurate and describe the whole of Jerusalem as being in Israel, whether this is recognised legally or not, because that is the reality. Just as before '67 E Jerusalem ws "in" Jordan. Chesdovi (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is about stating facts. When there is a significant dispute about something, it cannot be presented as a fact; instead it must be presented as facts about opinions or some other form which can be accepted as factual must be found. That West Jerusalem is in Israel is a disputed point of view and therefore presenting it as a fact is impermissible in Wikipedia. When it comes down to it, as with passports issued by countries such as the US and UK to citizens born in Jerusalem which note only that the holders were born in Jerusalem without giving a country, there is actually no need in the articles under consideration to list which country West Jerusalem is in. Your every place has to be in somewhere argument only works for somewheres that have agreed borders, which Israel doesn't. (On a smaller scale, there was a dispute about a boundary path at the house of one of my grandmothers which the lawyers couldn't settle. On the principle that the path must have been in somewhere, my grandmother would have obviously said it was on her land and similarly for the neighbour. Although each of them had friends who would have backed them up, legally and from the point of view of the wider community, neither would have been correct. Until they reached an agreement, ownership of the path was, to use your phrase, in limbo.)     ←   ZScarpia   01:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So we can't say Abu Dis is in the Jerusalem Governorate. Chesdovi (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do reliable sources record any dispute about whether Abu Dis is part of the Jerusalem Governate?

Above, you say East Jerusalem is in the West Bank. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Israel regard East Jerusalem as not being part of the West Bank, so that to say it is would be to make a non-neutral statement?

    ←   ZScarpia   15:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a pretty dishonest question considering the argument you were making elsewhere. Abu Dis is mentioned specifically in the resolution you posted there. This is an excellent example of the kind of agenda driven POV pushing Biosketch was talking about above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search again - there's no mention of Abu Dis anywhere on that page as far as I can see. The first time I've heard Abu Dis mentioned is now, here.     ←   ZScarpia   16:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really? Did you not read the full text of UNGA 303? You brought it up in that discussion. Considering the amount of times you brought up the Corpus Separatum in various discussions, I find it hard to believe you are not aware of what it was supposed to include. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UN GA Resolution 303 (IV) says: The City of Jerusalem shall include the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis ... . Therefore, any statement saying or implying that Abu Dis was indisputably part of the sovereign territory of any entity would be non-neutral. Also, I think that the fact that Abu Dis lies in the UN Jerusalem corpus separatum zone should be mentioned in the Abu Dis article.

You seem to be arguing that presenting the pro-Israeli point of view as factual is neutral, whereas trying to present the pro-Israeli point of view as a point of view is agenda driven POV pushing?

    ←   ZScarpia   17:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I'm arguing that selectively using the same source material to push a POV that West Jerusalem does not "belong" to Israel, while arguing that Abu Dis does "belong" to the Palestinians is agenda driven POV pushing. Your careful usage of language above is pretty transparent. Is Abu Dis in the Jerusalem Governorate of the Palestinian Authority? Is Bethlehem in the Bethlehem Governorate? Is West Jerusalem in Israel? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But:

• I'm not arguing that West Jerusalem doesn't belong to Israel, just that the point of view that West Jerusalem does belong to Israel is a point of view (which, of course, is contradicted by the point of view that it doesn't).
• I haven't argued anywhere that Abu Dis belongs to the Palestinians.

Apologies to anyone who thinks this discussion should be taking place elsewhere or has gone on too long.     ←   ZScarpia   18:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a great non-answer. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case, it's a "great non-answer" which means whose meaning is that your accusations are baseless.     ←   ZScarpia   18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The second diff purely involves an addition of text so it's not immediately clear whether it is a revert. In any case, though, the edits of diffs 1 and 2 are contiguous and therefore cannot count as two reverts.     ←   ZScarpia   00:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presumably, what is being objected to in the fourth diff is the edit summary, "this entire country is disputed," which acts as justification for adding the Israel article to the Disputed Regions in Asia category. Offensive as it may appear to pro-Israeli editors, as a factual statement, there being Arab groups who object to the existence of Israel as a self-proclaimed Jewish state and, probably, countries who still don't have diplomatic relations with Israel, it's true.     ←   ZScarpia   01:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading the Haaretz article that SD gave as a source when making the edit shown in the fifth diff makes that edit look highly justifiable to me.     ←   ZScarpia   02:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the description given by the filing editor is tendentious and misrepresents. Having seen evidence that SD was the target of organised offwiki attempts to have him or her sanctioned last year, including by trying to portray him or her as an antisemite, to me it looks suspiciously like something similar is being repeated.     ←   ZScarpia   03:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by BorisG

The diff #4 is making a WP:POINT in the context of ongoing discussions at Talk:Golan Heights, e.g. [50] - BorisG (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However I must admit I do not find this tit for tat AE requests by both sides healthy. It is out of control. I think admins should find some alternative ways of Arbitration enforcement in this area. Ditto for similar contentious areas. One option is to automatically decline all AE requests from (heavily) involved editors. Maybe this is silly, but we need something. - BorisG (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps someone who wants to file a complaint against an editor who they are in conflict with should have to put it on a separate page which is just a queue of requests. Then an uninvolved administrator can delete it or move it here for discussion if it seems to have prima facie validity. I wrote "administrator" otherwise it would be sock city. Zero^talk 12:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds liek a good idea. - BorisG (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

agree. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This whole discussion is over 10,000 words now. It is a game of diminishing returns. Can you guys please stop!!! - BorisG (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by EdJohnston

There was no 1RR violation at Golan Heights, so the mention of the 'General 1RR restriction' as one of the sanctions to be enforced ought to be removed. All of SD's edits to Golan Heights on 16 May were consecutive. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Ynhockey

I was going to stay out of this discussion, and other I–P discussions on this page if I could help it, but this edit summary caught my attention and I felt that I had to emphasize it here. I am well aware of WP:AGF, but it is extremely difficult to assume good faith in light of such an edit summary. Clearly this editor should not be editing Israel-related articles if his underlying assumption is that "the entire country is disputed". —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note:Ynhockey is an involved editor who for example has created a list of non neutral maps showing occupied territories as part of Israel:[51][52][53][54][55]. Well the fact is that Israel is disputed, there are about 20 country's who don't recognize Israel and countries who call the area "Palestine", Hezbollah and Hamas (Hamas being elected by the Palestinian people) do not recognize Israel either, so why are you not assuming good faith and why are you saying I shouldn't be editing Israel-related articles because of me saying a disputed country is disputed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't the idea contained in SD's comment, that there are those who cannot tolerate the existence of Israel as a Jewish state on any part of the land enclosed by its current borders, just the same as the one contained in statements by Israeli politicians who say that the Arabs (or, at least, Islamists) want to destroy Israel and drive its Jewish citizens into the sea?     ←   ZScarpia   20:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My comment is that Israel and its land is disputed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guilty as charged, I am generally involved in the Israeli–Palestinian topic area, otherwise I would have posted in the uninvolved admin area with my recommendation for a topic ban. It is clear that Supreme Deliciousness continues to act in bad faith by saying that Israel and its land is disputed, which can be logically paraphrased as: Israel's land and Israel itself are disputed. Should an editor who openly says this be editing Israel-related articles? I already stated my opinion on this matter above. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think that it's possible that you might be getting the difference between the statement of facts and advocacy confused?     ←   ZScarpia   01:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Snakeswithfeet.

Israel and its land is disputed. Supreme Deliciousness is correct. It is a factual statement. Nothing else could/should be read into it. I think admins should closely consider the advice of Zero, above: "Perhaps someone who wants to file a complaint against an editor who they are in conflict with should have to put it on a separate page which is just a queue of requests. Then an uninvolved administrator can delete it or move it here for discussion if it seems to have prima facie validity. One can only begin to imagine the amount of grief that could be avoided, if this process is typical! Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would add, however, that if we accept that Israel as a country is disputed, we must also accept the disputed nature of the Golan, Judea and Samaria, which Supreme Deliciousness does not. Why would we accept that Israel is disputed but not the other? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am, I never said they aren't disputed. But I always said that if we treat disputed regions like the West bank and Golan in a certain way and don't follow the international view and instead give minority views the same weight, then we must also treat other disputed regions like Israel in the same way. To clarify: this doesn't mean that we treat Israel as a disputed region like the occupied territories, but that we follow the international view in all articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SD, thank you for confirming that you were making a point. - BorisG (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How was I making a point when I didn't apply the same reasoning that you wanted to use? I never removed that places internationally recognized as being in Israel as being in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is more than one way to make a point. Let the admins judge. - BorisG (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Jaakobou

The spirit of this diff we should encourage said editor to add a note on uses as origin (e.g. 20 Arab countries as well as Hamas) which can also be used for adding to Holocaust that "The Holocaust's veracity is overstated." Same reasoning (e.g. 20 Arab countries as well as Hamas) can be made here as well with a multitude of sources. After that, he can add to The same origins can also be used for even worse, and clearly antisemitic statements such as to add to Jews that they (including me as well) deserve expulsion for their crimes against humanity throughout history (Source: Al-Quds website, Nov. 6, 2010 ) and that they are descendants of Apes and Pigs (See: What is Arab antisemitism). If we're going in that direction, of considering these origins as legitimate encyclopaedia material for matters of "opinion", another example of an extreme addition could be used on European Union, then the same reasoning can be applied here as well on European Union where he'd devote a paragraph stating that where the "opinion" of these origins are that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a "European plot on the Arab stage" (see first source as an example).

Personally, I think pushing "sick mindset"[56] propaganda origins into an encyclopaedic project as if they were legitimate ones is very dangerous to what is set out to be achieved here and that WP:ARBCOM made a clear note that this type of behavior is a blunt violation of the purpose of the project. Using Hamas* to support this goes further to illustrate the point of concern.

• Hamas charter: "Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree".[57]

p.s. in case it was unclear, I and a few others who commented and have not bothered to make it clear, are involved editors.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC) + 19:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC) +c Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC) +fix phrasing. 11:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC) +m 11:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is it "pushing "sick mindset" propaganda"" to ad a "disputed territories" category to a country reliable sources show is disputed? [58] "The contemporary conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East is a multi- layered dispute. One component is the struggle, since the early 1880s, between Jews and Palestinian Arabs for control of the same land, called "the land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) by the Jews and "Palestine" (Filastin) by the Arabs. The other is a regional conflict of more recent vintage, dating back to 1948, between states: the state of Israel and the various Arab states. This second conflict has been, at times, about the very existence of the Jewish state of Israel in the heart of the Muslim Arab world, but it has also been over tangible issues such as borders, resources, and territory lost and won in the cycle of wars between them" [59] "Since the Zionist movement claimed Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people, that land came to be the site of conflict between the Palestinians and Zionists. Thus, at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at its current stage, is a disputed but shared territory - that of Mandatory Palestine - with which the history and identity of both sides are inextricably intertwined." and: [60][61][62][63] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit summary made it clear you were objecting the existence of "the entire country". Using Arab "20 countries" and Hamas concerns me with where this is going. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't objecting anything, I added a "disputed territories" category to a country reliable sources show is disputed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a record of you doing just that on the pretext that the "minority" (read: antisemitic propaganda) view should be fairly represented on account of 20 [Arab] countries and Hamas(!) being within that opinion. If anyone is not following why I call this these antisemitic, I'll be more than happy to clarify. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC) +fix phrasing. 11:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, please clarify why you call that view "antisemitic". RolandR (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be happy to. But first I have to ask you if you have any idea on where it might be possible to purchase that Gharqad tree. The so called "Jewish tree" that Hamas says will not call out together with the other rocks and trees to Muslims to kill the Jews that hide behind them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you make an accusation, claim that you will be "more than happy to clarify" your reasons, and then demand that anyone who asks for such clarification should first answer loaded questions that you pose. That is not good faith editing, and your attempt at spreading guilt by association should be disregarded. RolandR (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The explanation lies in the body of the question. The core of the aforementioned 'there shouldn't be a Jewish state' "minority", as can be seen in the references I've linked above, has this motivation in wide circulation. Keep the [good] faith. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please, as you offered, clarify in what way this is an antisemitic view. RolandR (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Email me and I'll explain further. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no intention of emailing you. This is not a private conversation. You made a serious allegation against an editor during an arbitration enforcement discussion, and publicly averred that you would be "more than happy to clarify" it. The allegation, which is a classic example of guilt by association, remains in this thread, but you refuse to substantiate it. Therefore, I request that you withdraw/strike out your untrue assertions above, in order not to prejudice this case. RolandR (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not at war with you RolandR, but it feels as though you are turning the discussion page into a battlefield. There is, off course, a well documented matter of basic association (I'm surprised you call it "guilt") between the narratives and propaganda (sample) and I assume the average person, who's not a declared anti-Israeli, can understand these points I've raised. This issue has clearly raised alarm bells for more than one editor. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC) +f 12:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be correct to infer that what you're trying to say is that, as with the subjects of the article you linked to, SD's "ultimate goal ... is to demonize Jews and de-legitimize Israel?"     ←   ZScarpia   14:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The violation of WP:ARBPIA derives from the action of actively objecting the existence of Israel, and citing Hamas as justification is the icing on the cake. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What finding of ARBPIA would this violate? Are you seriously arguing that an editor should be sanctioned for citing Hamas? RolandR (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stating that there are those who object to the existence of Israel is actively objecting the existence of Israel?     ←   ZScarpia   16:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't be naive, the violation is not a mere act of citation. If that were the case, I and others wouldn't have bothered to post here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If someone adds a disputed territory category to the Israel article that may or may not be valid, is being actively discussed on the talk page, is debatable despite being RS supportable simply because the category has no documented inclusion rules, surely it's reasonable to expect them to be able to do so without being compared to a holocaust denier and being accused of spreading antisemitic propaganda. To paraphrase a Thai saying, don't ride an elephant to chase a grasshopper. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not only the added category, it is the edit summary used to add it: "the entire country is disputed". This edit summary alone speaks a volume and cries out: "A user who writes such edit summaries should not be editing the topic." Broccolo (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A number of editors, including me, have indicated that they think that SD's comment, as a factual statement, is true. Should that disqualify us from editing in the IP part of Wikipedia too?     ←   ZScarpia   22:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With respect, there's a huge difference between noting that a portion of the land, which Israel holds, is in dispute and between ranting and advocating that the existence of the State of Israel is in dispute. As Supreme Deliciousness decided to go with the latter, he is in breach of Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Purpose_of_Wikipedia.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC) +f 01:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC) +more to the point. 01:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Malik Shabazz,

In review, I've made a careless error that was unhelpful to the discussion. I apologize for phrasing myself in a clearly careless manner in regards to the issue of concern. I opened with a somewhat personal tone (per "we should encourage said editor") in the context of the reasoning of the sources used to justify the allegedly encyclopaedic nature of the clearly provocative statement. I clearly missed emphasizing further that the problem comes from misuse of antisemitic sources and have, in doing so, left in the air a suggestive tone towards Supreme Deliciousness. I did not have any intentions of this kind and have now amended my error to the best of my ability. All my comments in regards to conspiratory and antisemitic views (e.g. "The Holocaust's veracity is overstated.") were not meant to paraphrase/attack the editor but rather the sources he presented as a legitimate minority view. I can certainly see that my phrasing was of poor choice and assure you that it will not happen again. In a bid for defense for my carelessness, which I truly regret, I note that I was not the only one to take a personal tone as it is difficult to clarify the separation between the "entire country is disputed" statement from the bid to note that the user should probably not edit articles which relate to Israel. Regardless, I have expanded on the sources without making the issue clear and this is something which I should have paid better attention to. I reiterate my apology and assurance to pay great attention to this matter in the future so that it will not reoccur. As a side note, I must reiterate that while the editor has not given justification for anyone to align him with antisemitism -- and doing so is extremely poor form -- the origins themselves are indeed antisemitic and should not be presented as a mere matter citing of opinion.

Closing note: I've made a careless error that was unhelpful to the discussion. I've amended it to the best of my ability and I apologize to everyone, and especially to Supreme Deliciousness. This will NOT happen again.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC) +m 11:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC) +diff of amendment 11:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Liberal Classic

I feel compelled to comment on this arbitration after following the discussion from Nakba Day Protests 2011 that was featured "In The News" from the main page. The insistence that Israel should labeled as a "disputed territory in Asia" pushes the point of view that Israel is not a sovereign nation. I do not believe this view is supported by consensus. See: Foreign relations of Israel and List of territorial disputes. I also worry that the arbitration process is becoming a theater in the edit war. See:[64] and[65]. Please note that I do not mean to single out the author in question as the sole culprit here, but it is relevant to the discussion at hand. These items, in addition to a previous topic ban, raises concerns in my mind about tendentious editing on the part of this author. Liberal Classic (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at all, see this source: "Since the Zionist movement claimed Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people, that land came to be the site of conflict between the Palestinians and Zionists. Thus, at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at its current stage, is a disputed but shared territory - that of Mandatory Palestine - with which the history and identity of both sides are inextricably intertwined." Israel and the Palestinian refugees, p 149. This doesn't mean Israel isn't sovereign. "Korea" is also in the same cat: [66], this doesn't mean South and North Korea aren't sovereign states. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Korea" is not a sovereign state. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never said that it was, but two internationally recognized states make Korea. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobrainer comment by asad112

Of course the land is disputed, putting aside the 20 or so countries that don't even recognize the country outside the '67 borders, Israeli claims East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as its sovereign territory. This point is disputed by every country in the world besides Israel. The category is more than appropriate. These frivolous AE requests are getting to be ridiculous. -asad (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by George

I don't really have the time to get into this whole discussion, but I wanted to voice my opinion on something getting much discussion here. Many seem to be misinterpreting the statement "Israel is a disputed territory" with "Israel should not exist". The former is absolutely accurate, while the latter verges on hate-speech. Israel is, indeed, disputed. Who disputes it? About 22 countries in the world. Does that mean that Israel shouldn't exist? No, it just means that it's disputed.

The real question is where to draw the line on inclusion of this category. Places including Taiwan (recognized by only 23 countries) and Kosovo (recognized by 75 countries) include the category, while other places, such as Cyprus (recognized by all but 1 country) and Armenia (also recognized by all but 1 country), do not. Oddly enough, what is probably the closest situation to Israel is the State of Palestine, which is recognized by about 120 countries, and does include a child category of the disputed territory category. Anyways, this isn't really the place for a content discussion, just wanted to weigh in on some of the misplaced outrage in this discussion. ← George ^talk 01:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a difference between a disputed territory and a state with limited recognition. Looking at the examples you gave above, the "disputed territory" cat is used in cases of states when the whole territory of the state is claimed by another state, but not when there's a dispute over part of it. Which makes sense. China claims all of Taiwan. Azerbaijan does not claim all of Armenia. Serbia claims all of Kosovo, Turkey does not claim all of Cyprus. Etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My understanding is that many Arabs consider the whole of Israel to be "occupied" territory, while "the international community" (for lack of a more concise, accurate term) considers just areas in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, or the Golan Heights to be occupied. That makes the whole of Israel disputed by some Arab countries, as far as I understand it. ← George ^talk 10:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Arab country claims all the territory of Israel. And even if they did, looking again at the examples above, the "territory" cat is used for states that are recognized by a minority of other states. Israel is not a "disputed territory". It's a state that is not recognized by a minority of other states. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comment is not in accordance with the reliable sources that has been provided that shows the entire territory of Israel is disputed. The cat also has Korea which two internationally recognized states are part of. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. The source which you're using now (you didn't have it when you made the edit) says Israel and the Palestinians have a dispute over territory. It doesn't say Israel is "disputed territory". The difference is obvious and I find it hard to believe you don't get it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sources show that all of the territory of Israel is disputed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No they don't. They say there's a dispute over the territory of the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a "territory". Israel is a state, recognized by the vast majority of other states. It is not a "territory". These different terms have different meaning, and I hope George is reading this and will revise his opinion that pointing out what you're trying to do here "verges on hate-speech". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source says: "The contemporary conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East is a multi- layered dispute. One component is the struggle, since the early 1880s, between Jews and Palestinian Arabs for control of the same land, called "the land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) by the Jews and "Palestine" (Filastin) by the Arabs. ", this is not a dispute over the Britsh mandate of Palestine, but "control of the same land, called "the land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael) by the Jews and "Palestine" (Filastin) by the Arabs." this is the territory of Israel. Notice the "struggle since" and "contemporary conflict" which means occurring and modern conflict. Another source says: "Since the Zionist movement claimed Palestine as the homeland of the Jewish people, that land came to be the site of conflict between the Palestinians and Zionists. Thus, at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at its current stage, is a disputed but shared territory - that of Mandatory Palestine", notice the "current stage" meaning today, Mandate Palestine doesn't exist today, the territory of Mandate Palestine is the same as Israel + West Bank and Gaza. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Land of Israel" and "Palestine" are not the same as the "territory of Israel". Yes, notice the "since the early 1880s". What did "Land of Israel" mean then? What did "Palestine"? Are they the same as the territory of Israel? Obviously not. Also a dispute over the territory of the Mandate doesn't mean that the territory of Israel is under dispute. You are trying to force an interpretation of the sources to fit the POV you're trying to push. You do this quite a bit, which is why you once again found yourself here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what is "contemporary" for? In this context it is referring to the same territory of Israel. But the source doesn't say there is a dispute over Mandate Palestine The End!, it says: "at its current stage", you are not addressing the issues in its full context. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am certainly addressing the issue in its full context. You have not supplied a single source that says Israel is a "disputed territory", you are just interpreting the sources to fit the POV you regularly push all over this encyclopedia. What happened to the "worldview" you regularly use when it fits your agenda? Israel is not a "disputed territory". It's a sovereign state, recognized by the vast majority of other states. While I understand you think you can change reality by editing wikipedia, I really hope the admins are going to put a stop to that kind of thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No you are not. I have supplied sources and you are choosing not to accept what they say. Thats not the same thing, has the international community voted if its a disputed territory or not, and the conclusion is that its not? The Hatay Province is also disputed and has disputed cats in its article, though there is only one country disputing the area as Turkish. This doesn't mean the area is not Turkey, per the international view. Israel being a sovereign state doesn't contradict that its disputed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ugh, you guys write a lot, and I had too many beers last night. Anyways, NMMNG, I don't think any Arab country claims the land that is currently Israel, but I do think that certain Arab groups do - namely, the Palestinians. I completely agree that a majority of countries recognize Israel, so that's something we should consider.

What are your thoughts on the State of Palestine though? As far as I know, no country currently claims the West Bank. And the majority of countries in the world recognize a State of Palestine. The bigger question for me is why to include the disputed category in that article, while keeping it out of the article on Israel. You could say "Oh, Israel is recognized by 170 countries, while 'Palestine' is only recognized by 120, and the bar for using this category should be 150 countries", but I just haven't seen anyone try to quantitatively set that bar. ← George ^talk 17:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Palestinians, through the PLO, their "sole legitimate representative" at the time, recognized Israel. That means there's at least some territory in Israel they don't dispute.

I'm not really sure what the status of SoP is. That question will be easier to answer if the UN accepts it as a member in September. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, some Arabs, including some Palestinians, recognize Israel. And others don't, but the point I'm trying to get at is that I consider that discussion a valid content dispute. I don't think it's fair to label SD's edits as "antisemitic propaganda".

Obviously we've all been editing in this space for a while, and clearly some editors have a pro-Israeli bias, while others have a pro-Palestinian or pro-Arab bias. I consider SD to be in the latter group, and editors like yourself and Jaakobou, with respect, to be in the former. That's not to say you guys don't all contribute in good and meaningful ways to the project, because we all have some bias - some favorite place, food, or sports team. But having a bias is different than pushing a bias, and while I completely understand why editors disagree with the content of SD's edits in the diffs above (they don't reflect my own viewpoint), I don't see enough evidence in those diffs to make me say SD crossed that line to the point that he was pushing his views. Per WP:POVPUSH, "Editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing." My two cents, anyways. ← George ^talk 23:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wise words, George. I also have trouble drawing that line, and not just in this case. As many said, we need some innovative solutions here. These tit for tat requests are not the solution. Even when they have some merit. But I do not see what to do. - BorisG (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defining Israel as a territory rather than a state, by someone who has in the past made statements about the illegitimacy of Israel and who regularly insists that a vote in the United Nations equals the "worldview" (and thus the majority view per wikipedia policy) is precisely the kind of POV pushing wikipedia should not be tolerating. Calling it "antisemitic propaganda" might be going to far, but there's little doubt what he's trying to do here. Considering his history, I think admin action would be appropriate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did SD push the edit? As part of BRD, he should have made his edit, and then opened a discussion if (and when) it was reverted. Did he revert someone else reverting him? I honestly don't know and haven't looked at the page history. While the initial edit itself wouldn't have been POV-pushing, if he had been reverted and then re-added it, that could indeed constitute POV-pushing. ← George ^talk 17:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didn't realize this was still open, but wanted to follow up with some thoughts. SD, like many editors on both sides, edits with a particular POV. The line between having a POV and pushing that POV is incredibly thin, and I don't envy the admins who have to make the call here. If SD has crossed that line, I doubt that he would even be aware of it (there's an interesting essay I read a while back explaining how two editors with differing views can use the same sources and come to completely different conclusions, and write wildly different sentences). I suspect that SD has crossed that line before, but I don't think that such has been proven conclusively in this case. That's a long way of saying that while SD may not be innocent, I don't think that he's been proven guilty in this case, though I'll support whichever decision admins make. ← George ^talk 20:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

My recommendation is to sanction Supreme Deliciousness. Had she thought for a moment that Israel belonged in the same category as the Republic of China or Republic of Kosovo, that of states with limited recognition, she would have put Israel into the category that includes those articles. The fact is, little or no thought went into this categorization.

I also strongly encourage the closing admins to review Jaakobou's comments carefully. Jaakobou all but calls Supreme Deliciousness a Holocaust denier and antisemite. I believe Jaakobou should be sanctioned for his behavior. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made one single edit (not a revert), adding a category that several people say is correct and that is backed up by sources, and I have opened a discussion and participated at the talkpage while both users who reverted it and removed the category has not said one single word at the talkpage. When did I say that I believed Israel belonged in the same category as the Republic of China or Republic of Kosovo? I don't know anything about Republic of China or Republic of Kosovo or the issues with them, they both have the Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states, why would I ad this category to the Israel article? Israel is a very widely recognized country and if I had added this category, it would have been incorrect and someone would probably have opened enforcement about me.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malik Shabazz,

I have to apologize. While I had no such intentions, I clearly phrased myself carelessly and in poor form. See my above note for further acknowledgement of the mistake.

Supreme Deliciousness,

I would like to apologize personally. My phrasing was a bit scattered minded and of clearly poor form and I apologize that it could have been seen as a personal attack on your character. My dispute is with naive notion that the origins of concern are valid for encyclopaedic content and at no point did I intend on suggesting anything beyond that. Seeing as I have used poor form, I amended my phrasing and reiterate my apology again.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

I can't see much that is sanctionable here. SD has not edit warred, there are just two edits on two separate pages and I think they would probably come under WP:BRD. The Israel category is contentious but again, I don't see why BRD should not apply. Users are entitled to do some editing, and occasionally to make errors of judgement, without fear of sanction. I do however agree that the Golan Heights issue could use some more discussion, and I think SD should refrain from making edits on that topic unless or until it becomes clear that consensus is unachievable, in which case, some other course of action will be required. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editors are allowed to make errors in judgment, but SD seems to make them quite often and they always have something in common. Can you guess what it is? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm making two guesses: firstly, that you're hinting that SD is antisemitic (in which case, why not just state it rather than making snide hints); secondly, that some of the errors of judgement you're referring to are actually attempts to present the pro-Israeli point of view more neutrally.     ←   ZScarpia   13:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong on both counts. No surprise there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Ohiostandard

In other words, I think the project would be better served if people would stop rushing to high words and gravely offended dignity when they encounter editors who have a very different view of controversial topics. With the greatest possible respect, I'd suggest to my friends on both sides of the divide in Mideast politics that they please try to take themselves just a bit less seriously, and try to exercise greater tolerance for opposing views. Otherwise the drama will just never let up.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to EdJ's mention to close

this diff shows that you are not familiar with the topic area at all. Saying they are not active in the topic area is insane. I actually like a couple of them but do see their !votes falling on what appears to be a preferred side. If you want to close this because you do not see anything wrong then so be it (that is legitimate reasoning even though I completely disagree) but you need to look into the topic area as a whole further if you are going to make statements like that in the future.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not insane, but certainly incorrect considering some of their activities. Sean.hoyland, for example, has the right mind to post AE complaints about tendentious activity towards Palestinians and he may follow that up by stating he's "prepared to start removing" talkpage comments which he views as offensive.[67] When it comes to Israel, though, he's more than happy to minimize the issue and defend offenders. Only Malik Shabazz, of the editors who commented, has a history of handling issues on both sides of the field in fair manner. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC) +more accurate 09:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC) +much better 10:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An edit here and an edit there does not always constitute a problem, but when there is a long term pattern to such editing, it does indeed become an issue... When an editor has been given numerous "second chances" and even given "amnesty"[68] for previous actions, yet they continue to edit in such a way that causes their name to frequently appear here at AE, it suggests that something is not working. It also suggests that the rules governing ARBPIA articles are ineffective and perhaps the whole issue needs to be revisited. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 15:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But there is no problem here as evident per that there is nothing sanctionable in this enforcement, in the previous enforcement Cptnano started, I shouldn't have filed one enforcement right after my last topic ban, but other then that, there was no problem with my Wikipedia article or talkpage edits, so just because a certain group of like minded editors who edit Wikipedia according to the same pov file enforcements against me (several times frivolous) and that there is evidence for that some have sent messages to each other of-wiki to come to AE and support me getting sanctioned doesn't mean there is a problem with me. I have done some things in the past that I have deserved sanction for and that I have received sanction for, but not now. It has now also been revealed that there is an of wiki canvassing/meatpuppeting cable that have at least one time in the past tried to get me sanctioned through enforcement. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If an editor's name is appearing here frequently, if there is a problem, I suppose that the possibilities are: there is a problem with the accused; there is a problem with the accusers; the problem lies somewhere else; a mixture of the preceding problem locations. Misidentify where the problem, if there is one, lies and your solution runs the risk of making the problem worse. Nsaum75, you had a pop at getting rid of SD back in December didn't you?     ←   ZScarpia   17:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I brought an enforcement proceeding based on behavioral issues and you are correct in your statement that the problems probably arise from a mixture of causes, hence why I stated that the ARBPIA rules needed to be revisited. However that does not change the fact that enforcement proceedings and sanctions have repeatedly occurred, and you reach a point where you have to ask yourself would short term sanctions and counseling sessions etc keep occurring if editors were learning from their mistakes? Nobody here (admins included) have clean hands, but as Cptnono said above, you have to look at the whole topic area. There are some editors who recognize their own POV and therefore choose to edit elsewhere, and then there are those who use the topic area as a battleground. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 18:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Im not perfect, I have done things in the past that I have deserved sanction for and that I received sanction for, but in this case, there is nothing sanctionable with what I have done. Also considering the of-wiki meatpuppetign/canvassing cable that has had a hand in previous enforcement against me, shows that things arent quite what some may want it to appear here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is an off-wiki "canvassing chain" then that is unfortunate and may very well be important to the process, and as someone who no longer edits in the IP arena in part due to continued off-wiki threats and harrassment, I can appreciate your concerns. However it also may raise questions how one obtained the emails and if the emails can be proven to be legitimate? Have you brought this new info to Arbcom or the admins here? -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 19:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because of privacy issues, I can send details through mail to any admin who is interested. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having made the claim that I arrived in this topic via reading various talk pages, I am sensitive to broad statements implying canvassing or meatpuppetry. If anyone feels it was inappropriate for me to have commented, I will retract my statement above. Liberal Classic (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness[edit]

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

• Supreme Deliciousness: You say above that you had reliable sources for your edit to Israel which added the "disputed countries" category. What specifically were your sources, did you cite those sources in your edit, and did you discuss such a major change on the talk page beforehand? AGK [•] 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• My feeling is that this will continue to come up until something is done. Enigma^msg 13:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This thread about SD has been open for ten days. I hope that uninvolved admins will make a proposal of what to do. I have left messages for AGK and Enigmaman to see if they wish to comment further. Lacking a definite suggestion, this case may be closed with no action. The only editors who I recognize as being uninvolved (not associated with either of the sides, and not usually editing articles under ARBPIA) are User:BorisG and User:Sean.hoyland. I have also noticed that User:George and User:Zero0000 do edit articles under ARBPIA but do not seem to speak up strongly for one side or the other. I do not see any of those four editors recommending sanctions in their comments above. EdJohnston (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Striking, since I've been informed on my talk page that my tally of uninvolved editors is not correct, and I should probably ask everyone individually before categorizing them. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2011 (UTCReply[reply]

• Result of request

  Thank you to everybody for your patience in awaiting the resolution of this thread. The primary reason for the delay is the volume of discussion generated here.

  This request has come to us as the latest in a series of arbitration enforcement requests relating to the Arab-Israeli, or Palestine-Israel, conflict. As a preliminary matter, from this we must infer that the status quo in this uniquely-challenging topic area is in need of change. If this change does not come at a community enforcement level, then it will come, more unpleasantly and protractedly, from the Arbitration Committee—and I probably speak for everybody when I say that we do not wish for ARBPIA3. I have therefore established (by recycling an older page, for those of you that recognise the link) a new proposal for handling P/I enforcement requests, at /Arab-Israeli conflict. That page builds on a proposal that was raised in this thread, and is open to modification and input.

  Second, with regards to the actual enforcement request, it is my belief that Supreme Deliciousness (SD) is for the most part acting out of good-faith. But as a matter of experience, even the most well-intentioned editors can be a disruptive influence. On balance, and considering the mass of problematic incidents that he has been involved in, his extensive involvement in this topic-area, and the volume of questionable or problematic edits (and especially reversions) that he has made, I conclude that the remedy to this matter that best serves the encyclopedia is to exclude SD from this topic-area by means of a discretionary sanction. Because SD has been repeatedly topic-banned by the community, sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee, and blocked for violating restrictions on his account, I do not see any option but to make this discretionary sanction more lengthy than for an editor with no history of misconduct. Supreme Deliciousness is prohibited for 6 months, per WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, from editing any page that relates, broadly construed, to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

  Lastly, in response to what I have read above and to my general impression of this topic area, I am inclined to think that there are at least a few other editors who ought to be subject to sanction, if this topic area is to at all improve. It is my hope that, moving forward, we might be more pro-active in undertaking effective enforcement action in relation to P/I articles. The primary obstacle to doing so, I suspect, is that AE is a user-driven, not administrator-driven, process, and therefore we only see, for the most part, what requests are brought to us—with the associated problems of gaming being, I think, obvious. AGK [•] 23:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Appealing user

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

8 month topic ban under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. original AE thread.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

notified

Statement by Wikifan12345[edit]

The topic ban was imposed on December 2nd 2010. I have served approximately 5 and a half months of my original sentence. Following my ban, I spent more time editing less controversial areas of Wikipedia. I have created several articles and devoted some of my time at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and providing third opinions at Talk:St. Bernard (dog) and Talk:Airbreathing jet engine.

My original ban involved quite a bit of drama, as can been seen by the lengthy talk discussion at Norman Finkelstein and the AE thread. I really can't defend my edits there. I know I have had a lot of problems dealing with users I disagreed with and accepting the consensus. I obviously have a passion for Israel related topics and my emotional investment has corrupted my judgement and ability to edit in a neutral fashion. But I have contributed positively to many other articles in I/P area, such as Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel-Palestinian conflict and creating the articles Palestinian casualties of war and Israel casualties of war.

I don't think it would be fair to reverse my ban entirely, but considering my relatively conflict-free history and positive contributions to other areas of wikipedia since December perhaps the punishment could be modified? Maybe reduce the topic ban to an article ban at Norman Finkelstein (the original area of dispute) for the remainder of my ban and place my account on probationary status. If there are other articles admins/editors think I should be banned from I'm open to that as well. In the event of future conflicts during my ban if they were to arise, my account would be banned from the Israeli-Arab area permanently. And of course restrictions on reverts if necessary.

I feel I'm ready for this. I would like to polish Israeli casualties of war and Palestinian casualties of war which have been neglected for the most part since my ban. I don't plan on getting into a huge argument about my past history here because I know a lot of editors would be opposed to any modification of my ban. I take full responsibility for my previous actions and behaviors. Also, for clarity it should be noted two AE were filed against me during my topic ban. The first by User:Passionless (a sockpuppet) which was dismissed without prejudice. The other AE was also dismissed according to this rationale: "A technical infringement of the topic ban, but assumed to be a genuine error. Accordingly, this request is closed without prejudice to any future appeal."

Anyways, I appreciate all comments and criticism. I don't want to get into a huge argument, so if editors/admins have questions be specific as you can. I've seen a lot of these appeals bubble into comical trolling and drama.

If this ban is modified, I can promise I won't be spending as much time on Israel/Arab topics as before. But I would like to have the freedom to edit some articles when I'm not busy dealing with issues in real life. :D

Thank you.

@AKG Yes that was the original AE and it was dismissed as noted above. I only provided a brief comment in the AFD and did not contribute to the article at all. I didn't realize the article was under Arab/Israeli review. The admin closing the AE did so without prejudice so it shouldn't be held against me here I think right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ncmvocalist Yes good questions. As I am here to appeal my topic ban and not defend my previous edits, I'll defer to the admins responsibility for implementing the ban:

It is time to close this. It is my view that a long topic ban is needed to prevent further disruption to this already fragile editing environment. If good work in other areas can be demonstrated, we can always lift the ban early on appeal, but given the history here, the ban should stay until shown to be no longer needed.

Obviously, if after 3 months Wikifan12345 can show a track record of responsible editing, then we could review the situation.

Full quotations can be found at linked AE thread above.

I have made a strong effort collaborating in less-controversial areas successfully. I have devoted much time to editor assistance boards, provided numerous third opinions, created articles, etc..etc. If you have the time to look at my 3 or 4 year history on Wikipedia, you will see I've spent a lot of serious time collaborating on articles and most of my edits are sound. The issues seem to be unique to talk discussions, which those familiar with I/P can mutate overnight.

The incident at the AE emerged at Norman Finkelstein. I had worked on numerous other conflict-related articles - Hamas, Palestinian Liberation Organization, Economy of Palestine, Israel, List of modern conflicts in the Middle East (created) Arab-Israeli conflict, and of course Palestinian casualties of war and Israeli casualties of war which involved many hours of meticulous study and editing.

Like I said before, I don't intend on editing Norman Finkelstein and prefer to avoid articles that draw a lot of drama. So, perhaps a more narrow ban could be implemented - exclusive to Finkelstein, probationary status, etc. It seems other editors have been granted modified appeals.

As far as I can see, a lot of editors who appeal their bans do so to return to articles they previously engaged in conflict in. I have no such desire but would be open to the freedom to access articles on the general Arab/Israel/Middle East area - which is a very broad and large subject of articles. I have contributed several thousand edits to conflict-related articles, the vast majority of which remain.

I can't tell right now how this appeal will play out from here - uninvolved editors and admins look like they're on the fence. I don't want this appeal to drag out too long. If admins truly think this appeal has no merit, I won't protest a close. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston

Is the appealing process exclusive only to uninvolved admins (with the exception of the administrator for implementing the ban)? You were part of the original arbitration enforcement results discussion. Anyways, I'm not here to defend edits may prior to December 2010. The mentorship you referred to was actually renewed with GimmeDanger but ended later. From what I gather the appealing process is very narrow. I'm not sure if edits made prior to block fit within the parameters. I've never made an appeal before so consider this comments noobish!

AKG statement is fair but like I said the AE was dismissed without prejudice from the closing admin so I'm almost certain it shouldn't be used as evidence here.

I've taken the recommendations from Tim and Phil very seriously and have made a strident effort in adjusting and improving my behavior. I know a lot of editors simply drop off the radar if they're banned from their favorite genre but since December I've spent many hours on assistance boards, third opinions, creating articles, collaborating, etc...

In my biased opinion I can't say another 2.5 months will add much to my editing quality. For clarity, I am requesting a modified appeal, exclusive to Norman Finkelstein and other articles admins may consider problematic. Thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Timotheus Canens Was that AE not closed without prejudice? Is there any sanctioned behavioral issues since December 2010? I encourage observers to look at my edits described above and contributions made over the last five months. In any case, if a modified appeal is not considered appropriate then this should be closed. However, rather than deferring to prior, dismissed AEs - perhaps a more specific reasoning could be provided? It would help me understand what I am doing wrong which will improve my performance after my ban runs up in August. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston Like I said before, can you please be more precise in your criticism? The mentorship with Danger was predicated on a volunteer topic ban, not the one imposed by arbitration enforcement. I am not appealing my mentorship with Danger but my original topic ban imposed in December. I find it rather upsetting you would say "I'm not seeing a record of good behavior" when I have demonstrated above several months worth of good behavior. The AE's AKG's cited were closed without prejudice, so they shouldn't be used as cause for denial here correct?

I'm just trying to gauge what specifically I have done wrong during my topic ban that would justify a denial of a modified appeal. And for clarity, aren't uninvolved admins supposed to be commenting here? I thought admins involved in prior disputes as you were aren't supposed to weigh in. I am very ignorant on the process so let me know. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston I didn't mean to "repeat" a theory. I was under the impression that involved administrators could not weigh in on the discussion. I asked this several posts above but my question wasn't answered. This appeal process is new to me. Now, you seem focused on my relationship with Danger - do you have anything to comment on my post above? You said you cannot find any evidence of good behavior in the last 5 months. Do you stand by this assessment? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, it should be noted Danger is not a "he." :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Danger I'm not appealing a voluntary mentorship but my original arbitration enforcement. I've provided ample evidence above demonstrating several months worth of IMO good behavior. I would like some clarity if Ed stands behind his claims. My mentorship with Gimme should not be used as cause for dismissal here. I spent many days at editors assistance boards and third opinions per her request. A series of innocuous edit led her to rescind our mutual agreement and my griefing can be found here and here. If I am not mistaken, no one has challenged my edits above. Perhaps an uninvolved editor/admin could review my contributions since December of 2010 and provide their view? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eluchil404 What evidence of battle-ground mentality have you found? Do you see a case of battleground mentality in the articles I posted above? As I said before, I would be very grateful if admins could take the time and respond to my comments above. Also, on another note - can someone here - uninvolved or otherwise - link me to an example of an editor appealing a topic ban? More specifically, requesting a modified appeal? I've requested Edjohnston' clarify his claim:

I'm not seeing a record of good behavior

Assuming the most extreme interpretation, such an assessment looks very difficult to defend considering the hours I have spent in editor's request board, non-controversial articles, creating unique articles, etc...etc. Deferring to relations with Gimme, a volunteer mentorship - should not be considered in this appeal process. I am not appealing my mentorship with Gimme, and while I stand behind my edits during our mentorship that issue should be taken somewhere else.

A final thought to ponder - are the examples posted above not evidence of "good behavior?" Because if this is the consensus (claimed by EdJohnston, supported by Gimme, etc.) - I would appreciate a more blunt explanation and refutation of my reaction. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Timotheus Canens[edit]

In light of this, and the fact that the original ban was imposed after a discussion and supported by several uninvolved administrators, I don't feel comfortable granting the appeal myself. If consensus is that the ban is no longer serving any purpose, of course, I'll not stand in the way, either. T. Canens (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

Umm, Ed, or Tim for that matter, can you explain how the diffs provided [69] are in any way troublesome? They do not seem to be POV or non-neutral or battleground-y (why exactly?) in anyway (one of the diffs is listed twice for some reason), they do not seem to have anything to do with Israel or Palestine, so why is this exactly a problem? Even if they do tip toe onto some "broadly construed" topic ban, how about assuming some good faith here? I mean, that's what us content editors are always exhorted to do so how about you guys do it yourself sometimes. I have no idea who Danger is or what his role is here, nor do I even have a clue on which side of the I/P conflict Wikifan's on but I see no problem here and this appears to be an eminently reasonable request. Particularly since, taking above comments at face value, s/he's shown constructive behavior on other topics.

If there's a specific cause for concern regarding BLPs, then Eluchil's suggestion above seems to be the right one - remove the broad topic ban but retain the part that pertains to BLPs in the conflict area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ed [70] - that seems like a pretty innocuous act, particularly since the restriction was voluntary. Had these edits been disruptive in and of themselves then maybe there'd be something here to worry about. Since they weren't, this doesn't seem like a good reason at all to continue with the restriction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

statement by Broccolo

I am supporting the appeal. The user has served more than half of the time of his topic ban. Bans are not used as punishment. They used only as prevention of disruption. At this point there is no reason to believe this editor will be disruptive while editing the topic, and if he is he will be topic banned again. Broccolo (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Danger[edit]

I strongly advocate not lifting the ban. In my opinion, Wikifan has never shown any sincere inclination to change his behavior—or any understanding that his behavior is a problem. This is a view formed over a long relationship with Wikifan that includes both on and off-wiki communication, so I probably can't pick out an absolutely damning diff. To me, the fact that Wikifan sought to resume mentorship, agreed to three (heavily negotiated!) conditions, and held to exactly zero of them gives me great doubts. I will not be watching this page, so if any questions are addressed to me, I'd appreciate a notice. --Danger (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Wikifan12345[edit]

• I'm also ambivalent, and I'm not comfortable granting this appeal - at least based on what I've looked at so far.
• Wikifan, I don't understand why you are making this appeal. Irrespective of the restriction expiring (in July?) or being relaxed as a result of an appeal (now), any further problems would lead to the same result: an indefinite restriction, possibly subject to a clause that limits appeals to 1 per year. You've stated you made a few positive contributions in the area...but was this not at a time where your other contributions in the area were deemed to be not so positive (to the point that they outweighed the positive and resulted in the restrictions you've received)? And is it a good idea for the project to let you back in this area of conflict at a time where there is less going on in your RL, and therefore, less to force you to leave the area (particularly at the moments when you become too "emotionally invested")? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AGK, you say I am ... disinclined to decline... I think this means inclined to accept. It seems inconsistent with the recommendation to reject. - BorisG (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result of the appeal by Wikifan12345[edit]

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

• After reviewing the users contributions since the topic ban, I have to say that I am ambivalent about granting this request. While he has largely stayed out of trouble and generally abided by the restriction, there is still some evidence of a battle-ground mentality. If the appeal is granted a narrower ban on I-P conflict related BLP's should probably be left to run the original duration. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am grateful to Wikifan for contributing positively in the time since he was topic-banned. But I am always disinclined to decline requests for the early lifting of sanctions, because it makes it more difficult to determine when to grant subsequent appeals for early-removal from other editors, and because, as a matter of experience, it rarely results in much benefit. I also cannot help but notice that Wikifan contributed to the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid in March 2011, which unless I am mistaken is in violation of his topic ban. I would reject this appeal. AGK [•] 22:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree with AGK that the appeal should be declined. The purpose of gradually-escalating ban durations is to ensure that people who are repeatedly sanctioned wind up spending less and less time editing in the area. I do remember the original dispute at Norman Finkelstein, and the resulting ban was not without good reason. As recently as September 2010 Wikifan was dropped by his mentor, "I don't want to be associated with your continued misbehavior." EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The present topic ban is set to expire on August 2 and I think it should stay in place. T. Canens has offered a diff showing that Wikifan's ex-mentor User:Danger was exasperated with Wikifan12345's behavior as recently as March 2011. I'm not seeing a record of good behavior, or even innocuous behavior, since the current topic ban was imposed on 2 December. As one of the admins who commented on the December case I'm not disqualified from giving an opinion here. If you want to recruit fresh admins to review this you are invited to go and find some. Your past behavior is still evidence since we are not like Arbcom who draws a line under old events when they close a case. Something that would help your argument is if you could get Danger to recommend lifting your ban. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Danger was complaining that Wikifan was violating an extended topic ban that Wikifan12345 had agreed to voluntarily, as part of a renewal of the mentorship on 29 Jan 2011. Wikifan was not supposed to edit anything about the Middle East. The edits about Egypt that Danger cited, though they were innocuous, would have violated that voluntary ban. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wikifan12345. You are repeating your theory about 'uninvolved admins' while continuing to assert that you are 'ignorant on the process'. Please check out Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Uninvolved administrators: "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute." I have notified User:Danger that his name was mentioned here in case he wants to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Declined. Three uninvolved admins have given their opinion. AGK and I are against granting the appeal, and Eluchil404 states 'I am ambivalent about granting this request'. The appeal is declined, and the ARBPIA topic ban will continue until its originally scheduled expiration on 2 August. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Kehrli[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kkmurray (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

"Kehrli is indefinitely topic banned from metrology-related articles, broadly defined, including talk pages and discussions." - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli_2#Kehrli_topic_banned

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

• 05:43, May 22, 2011 - Lightbot 10 performs "Janitorial edits to units" and is in effect a "metrology bot."
• 07:40, May 22, 2011 - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) is a talk page related to metrology.

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Warning and/or 24 hour block.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kehrli appears to dispute the topic ban remedy here User_talk:David_Fuchs#My_ban with response here User_talk:Kehrli#Your_ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:08, May 22, 2011

Discussion concerning Kehrli[edit]

Statement by Kehrli[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Kehrli[edit]

As an aside to Kkmurray, I will note that I moved his notification to Kehrli of this request to its own, new, separate section on Kehrli's talk page, and would encourage him to make this his standard practice for such notifications in the future. While it might seem logical to place such notices in the same talk page section as the notice of the Arbcom case closure, it can sometimes be difficult for a user to see exactly what has been changed on his talk page, or to catch a new one-line notice added to a three-month-old thread. Not all editors are aware that they can check the talk page's history to locate all new comments, nor are they sufficiently diligent to do so—nor should they be expected to be.

At first blush, I was inclined to dismiss this request with a warning to Kehrli. While the diffs provided do include metrology-related content and therefore represent a technical violation of his ban, the edits don't relate even tangentially to the locus of this arbitration case (the use of Kendrick units). Further, the edits are to discussions relating to bots and the Manual of Style, so it might be that Kehrli felt his ban (on edits to articles and related discussion pages) didn't strictly apply.

That said, such an interpretation would be incorrect, and Kehrli should be firmly discouraged from relying on any similar reasoning in the future. Discussions relating to style guidelines or bot activities very much pertain to articles in the context of any "broadly construed" arbitration remedy. That the effect of these discussions is general and to a broad class of articles and article content rather than to specific, individual articles is immaterial.

On further examination, I note that Kehrli has made very few edits to Wikipedia since the closure of the arbitration case imposing this remedy. Looking at his editing history, it would appear that his only edits since the case's closure in March have been to dispute the legitimacy of the ban with an arbitrator, and then to violate the ban with the noted edits a few hours later. This is not a promising pattern of conduct.

Finally, it is worrying that this is not the first arbitration case in which Kehrli was the subject. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli closed in 2006, involving a similar dispute: appropriate choices of terminology in measurement. In that case, the ArbCom applied time-limited (now-expired) and more-specific article and notation-changing bans; I presume that this previous case is the reason why the Arbcom chose to impose a broader topic ban this time around. While a reasonable argument might be made that the current case's remedy could have been more narrowly-crafted, one's first edits post-case are not the best place to try to demand that change, nor is it wise to immediately violate the existing ban. Kehrli needs to build a record of uncontentious, constructive editing within the framework of the existing remedies – probably for several months at least – before he tries to lodge any appeal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I brought the 2006 case against Kehrli and was a secondary party in the more recent dispute. The admin discussion thus far is very insightful. I would simply assure everyone that your assumptions are correct and your almost absent hesitations will not produce the desired outcome.--Nick Y. (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the "suspended sentence" idea of TenOfAllTrades. Kehrli should be warned but a block is probably not necessary. I think that it is also important that he be aware of the steps necessary to appeal the ban. His discussion with David Fuchs focuses on content when the fundamental issue is one of behavior. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Kehrli[edit]

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

I agree that the two diffs supplied with this complaint show that Kehrli was commenting on talk pages related to metrology. So a warning plus a 24-hour block would be appropriate. The talk exchange at User talk:David Fuchs#My ban and User talk:Kehrli#Your ban suggests that the prospects for any actual negotiation with Kehrli would be slim to none. He does not appear to be listening. There was a previous case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli in 2006 so there is no learning curve here. We should be prepared to use longer blocks if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was a clear violation of the restriction, but I don't have a good feel for what an "appropriate length" would be for any block. There doesn't appear to be any ongoing disruption but equally there isn't any evidence that Kehrli has understood the need to change his behaviour. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say that there's an unambiguous consensus (indeed, unanimous agreement) that Kehrli violated the terms of this topic ban. As Eluchil404 says, our only difficult question is the appropriate response. Since Kehrli edits infrequently, the usual response to a first offence – something in the neighborhood of a 24-hour block – would be of negligible practical effect. Since Kehrli hasn't made any contributions to Wikipedia since the edits at issue in this request were made three days ago, a 24-hour block applied when this request was filed would have had no impact whatsoever on him. I'm reluctant to apply a perfunctory pro forma block just for the purpose of creating a block log entry, and I'm hesitant to punitively apply a much longer block (a week or more, say) just to be 'sure' that he knows he's been blocked. On the other hand, we should strive to avoid giving the impression that topic-banned individuals can freely evade their editing restrictions so long as they edit infrequently. Would it be a reasonable solution to advise Kehrli through his talk page that his edits violated the terms of his ban; that he could have been blocked for them, though he won't be this time as we are giving him the benefit of the doubt; but that future violations will result in much longer blocks (as they would have anyway if he had received a block here). He should also be strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an experienced editor (or file a request for clarification) before making any edits he thinks even might touch on his topic ban. We can add a suitable notation to the log of blocks and restrictions on the case page so that admins involved in future enforcement requests will be aware of the circumstances. Thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion about the block. But 24 hours would signal to the editor that we see this as a problem, and it would serve as a note to future admins who might be asked to look at his case. Sometimes inferences are drawn from the lack of a block log. There is one previous block in his log, from 2006. An alternative to a block could be a specific warning that would be put into the case log. I'd invite suggestions for how to word that. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm hesitant to use a block primarily as a record-keeping tool, though I understand what you're saying. Noting again that Kehrli hasn't edited since a couple of hours before he was notified on his talk page of any enforcement discussions, it's rather likely that he's unaware that this discussion has even taken place or that a block is being considered. While I again don't want to suggest that infrequent editors are immune to enforcement of arbitration remedies, I'm reluctant to apply an indelible mark to his block log without any opportunity for his input.

Perhaps the concept I'm looking for here is a suspended sentence, enforced through a notation in the case's enforcement log. We agree that this unambiguous breach of the remedy would normally warrant a 24-hour block, but we need not actually place that block unless there are subsequent breaches of the peace. In practice, the purpose of continuing and completing this enforcement discussion at this point isn't to actually generate a block (that Kehrli probably won't know about until after it's expired), but rather to fairly and thoroughly discourage any additional violations of the arbitration remedies by effectively communicating the legitimacy and seriousness of this enforcement request to other admins who might deal with this case over the next few months. Future admins handling any subsequent requests under this remedy should see our notation when closing those requests and be able to set/adjust their block lengths accordingly, even in the unlikely event that no one involved in the request is aware of the suspended sentence before then. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with you on all points. Some action needs to be taken even in the case of an infrequent editor, so the problem doesn't disappear unnoticed. A log entry would do the job. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per TenOfAllTrades, I'm closing this with a warning to Kehrli about his violation of the topic ban, which will be put in the case log. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Rms125a@hotmail.com[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

O Fenian (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

1. 19:14, 22 May 2011 Revert 1
2. 00:14, 23 May 2011 Revert 2, within 24 hours of the first

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

1. Warned on 19:28, 31 October 2010 by Domer48 (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor is well aware of Troubles restrictions, having been on Troubles probation as part of their unbanning conditions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[71]

Discussion concerning Rms125a@hotmail.com[edit]

Statement by Rms125a@hotmail.com[edit]

I did not realize that the article in question was under WP:1RR and thus that making two edits within 24 hours would be a violation of any policy, especially as the latter edit was in response to a claim of original research, to which I responded by providing a valid reflink. I also know that, as they say in the real world, "ignorance of the law is no excuse". I strongly believe this enforcement action request is an extreme example of overreach and overreaction by its initiator, possibly out of malice.

Also, I was not "well aware" of the 1RR rule as part of any Arbcom decision, as O Fenian claims, and he cannot speak to what I am aware or unaware of. A cursory examination will confirm that I was not present at that Arbcom hearing in which the 1RR rule was developed as I was banned at the time, although some 40 or so other editors, from both pro-IRA and anti-IRA sides of the edit wars, were present.

It's true that User:Domer48 left me a warning seven months or so ago, on October 31, 2010, in which he referenced the 1RR rule which I unknowingly violated, however he (Domer) did so using his signature (Domer48_'fenian'), which is not the same as his username, and which I regard as a pro-IRA username (just as I do O Fenian, about whose username I once lodged a complaint with WP:ANI, but to no avail.) I left Domer a message, politely asking him not to sign any messages on my talk page with this offensive signature, which I believe was a reasonable request. He did not respond but immediately deleted my request from his talkpage; I did likewise with his message on my talk page, without really examining it. [72], [73]. I understand this was probably foolish on my part, but I have never trusted Domer anyway, and gauged his agenda from the first days he started editing. I also know it is rarely a good idea to volunteer extraneous information, especially given Mr. Johnston's kind comments, but I am doing so in the hopes of showing how my poor relationship with certain other editors have helped land me here, and to provide a backdrop in the event other editors may leave negative comments.

I hope whichever administrator rules here will temper justice with mercy, as, aside from this example of misjudgment on my part, I have been in compliance with my Arbcom unban agreement, which is more than two (2) years old, during which time I have not been blocked even once, for any duration, and have, in fact, received accolades from many of my peers although no Barnstars yet, either. I have been grateful for the Arbcom agreement as it has allowed me to work to improve Wikipedia, and I would not intentionally dishonor or abuse it. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine -- I will take a voluntary break from editing or commenting on all WP:TROUBLES articles for a month effective immediately. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would just like to add that this has been a stressful experience and I hope this matter be can be closed expeditiously. While I am willing to defend against what I view as a frivolous and malicious action, I also believe the above-suggested voluntary topic break proposal by EdJohnston is fair and reasonable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thank you both. I would like, if I may, just to point out that I was not "living in a closet". I explained above that I was never privy to the decision which instated the 1RR ruling (I was banned at that time, in fact). I also explained above, in the interests of transparency, how the warning from Domer48 re Emma Groves (from 7 months ago), to which I should have paid more attention, came to be overlooked. I accept and acknowledge my responsibilities and shortcomings. I am sorry that my desire to clearly illustrate my relations with the other editors in this ARE has been misinterpreted. I also accept that your (presumably joint) opinion that this was not a frivolous and/or malicious action is the only opinion that counts. My agreement or disagreement with that is irrelevant. Thank you again EdJohnston and SarekOfVulcan for your fairness in this matter. I will contact either one of you (or both) after a month has elapsed before editing anything which could be considered related to The Troubles to ensure there are no misunderstandings. Sincerely, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Rms125a@hotmail.com[edit]

Result concerning Rms125a@hotmail.com[edit]

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

People have been referring to past agreements, above. I did see two related threads at ANI:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive451#Proposed conditional unban of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com and
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive512#Unban proposal for Rms125a@hotmail.com / User:Robert Sieger.

There is a page at User:Eliz81/RMS that could be what people are calling the 'unban agreement.' There was also this recent discussion:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive673#User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

but I don't think it changed anything. If the case of this user was ever considered by Arbcom, somebody should link to that. I suspect he was on Troubles probation at one time (per User:Eliz81/RMS), but that should have expired by the end of 2009.

• I would not be inclined to take any action on this 1RR violation, after seeing the editor's statement, unless there is evidence of a pattern (in the last few months), or unless it violates an agreement which is still in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rms125: I'm afraid your expanded statement, as you predicted, did make things worse. Would you agree to take a voluntary break from editing or commenting on all WP:TROUBLES articles for a month? EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rms125a, this is not a frivolous or malicious action, it is a simple complaint of a 1RR violation. It's hard to believe you were unaware of the Troubles 1RR restriction, unless you've been living in a closet. In the light of your agreeement, I recommend the request be closed with no block. Instead, there should be a recording of this agreement in the WP:TROUBLES log, and a warning of the possibility of Troubles probation in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support EdJohnston's recommendation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Closing per my above proposal. I am logging a warning in WP:TROUBLES. EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Angel670 talk 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:AA2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

• Violation of indefinite parole stated here
• Violation of topic ban for three months

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

1. 22 May The editor MB has explicitly violated his indefinite restriction stipulated in this sanction making comments on the Azeri scholar and historian, and his book: And the final source, that by Kocharli and published in Baku, seems to be the exact kind of sources we should be avoiding to use.
2. 23 May In this comment he made a more derogatory comment about the author, his country and profession in qoutation marks saying And I'm sorry, but Kocharli who? Writing in a country where it is practically a crime to contradict state dogma and national narratives. Are we really going to trust an author who, according to his Wikipedia entry, penned a work called Armenian Falsifications? He's precisely the type of "historian" Western scholars have cautioned us not to consult. Kansas Bear has hit the nail on the head – no actual discussion is taking place and all our objections are simply being dismissed outright or ignored.
3. 24 May Goes on with his comments on the authors: Kocharli doesn't appear to be a prolific author or someone who has at least received praise from any Western scholars, and his works should also be approached with caution because he worked in an area (modern history) which the Soviet Union guarded with extreme jealousy and later in a country which essentially dictated to him how events of the recent past had taken place. And I eventually got around reading all of Angel's comments but wasn't any more impressed
4. 29 July 2010 (content dispute) and 23 August 2010 - With these edits he has violated his topic ban set on 23 July 2010 for three months by administrator Sandstein which would expire on 23 October 2010, but this was not reported and therefore overlooked. In comparison (to understand why his previous edit I posted before these lines are dispute content and why it differs from vandalism) he made this edit which is clear show of vandalism and can be justified for a revert

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

1. Warned on 28 January by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 3 February by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (longer block, longer topic ban)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have not studied his whole history, but seems like this user has been under sanctions many times and keeps violating them defying the opposing views and sources. Please review my evidence and take action. Angel670 talk 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ashot Arzumanyan, I don't think you understood the intent behind my line Author Hovann Simonian does not count at all as he is an Armenian. It was an irony response to MarshallBagramyan's dismissal of sources based on their ethnic and geographic origination: [74]. This means I outlined it to show the irony of Marshall's and his supporters' earlier comments. I have nothing against Armenian authors who write scholarly articles and books. In addition, you included Simonian as the reviewer of the neutral writer Charles van der Leeuw, whilst leaving the writers who had used his works as reference behind. Hope this explains. Angel670 talk 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Ed, Thank you for your note. I would like to say the main reason of reporting Marshal Bagramyan is that this seems to be not a first time he is violating the rules of the Wikipedia. Looks like even in some cases he was able to get away with warnings.

The rules of Wiki are common for everyone. The longer experience of editing and majority number of friends does not release Wiki editor from the responsibility to follow the rules and be considerate towards others. From the comment page, I can see so many people supporting MarshalBagramyan even without looking into the reason the report is filed. Does that mean MarshalBagramyan is allowed to violate Arbitration rules imposed on him earlier because he is a more experienced editor than I am? Does Wikipedia rules allow more experienced users to bully the less experienced ones? Or discredit all the neutral sources because they do not match the POV of MarshalBagramyan?

The user has had a history of bans and this particular ban was imposed as a result of this case. As you can see from the previous case of MarshallBagramyan he escaped of being topic-banned, but sanctioned to an indefinite restriction described by Sandstein in the restriction notice. It’s been made so clear. The user has been found guilty, was imposed a ban and was warned what would happen if he violated the ban. So now he did violate the ban and should face sanctions. Why is this being made possible for this user to get away with this? Is there no justice? In addition, I would say that his other violation of [75] filed in this report as well, has been overlooked. That one was a topic ban for 3 months (from 23 July to 23 October) which he violated twice here [76] on 29 July and here [77] on 23 August. Im very disappointed that all these facts from this report are being ignored.

Meanwhile, I would like to bring your attention to the fact that this ArbCom is being mistreated by MarshalBagramyan same as he is mistreating Wikipedia, violating ArbCom sanctions, and with long and unrelated information on the explanation section he is trying to divert from the subject of arbitration by bringing long discussion on the non-related topics, sources etc., provoking extra discussion on non-related subjects, which do not change the essence of this arbitration. This is like a court. He was not fined for his actions last time but received a warning citation stating he would be fined if he violated them ever again. He did violate them. Then why is the subject being redirected to something else?

I would like to remind that the reasons I filed the complaint are his derogatory statements about the author(s) based on their ethnicity, location their books were published and place of residence. You can add this Western journalist Charles van der Leeuw, who he also "downed" for his work unfit for Armenian government line: He is a journalist and also a former correspondent from Baku, which consequently raises questions about his neutrality, making comment about neutral Western journalist who covered ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus and wrote a book disclosing atrocities over Azeri population. Thank you. Angel670 talk 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE*: A few things I would like to make clear:

• First, I am not canvassing. I notified all administrators who have been active on AE page in the past few days. I did it because admin EdJohnston wrote to me on my talk page saying that he was about to close the case because "it did not attract" any admins and once again he mentioned his intentions on AE page. Sorry, could you please explain me what's the hurry? Can't people have a chance to read through the case? I saw cases stay online for a much longer time. In fact, I can show you diffs of other users commenting for MB who "canvass" like that much more often.
• Second, all these long blocks of text by Marshall Bagramyan stating that a Russian historian Viktor Shnirelman warned against Azerbaijani historians should also look at who else Viktor Shnirelman criticized and dismissed as a historian. Correct, he dismissed an Armenian historian Bagrat Ulubabyan but I don't think MarshallBagramyan ever cared about that dismissal because he added and encouraged to add works of Bagrat Ulubabyan. So, let me ask everyone. How is it that Bagrat Ulubabyan, an Armenian by birth is any more credible than Tofig Kocharli who is an Azeri by birth? Why the double standards? Can anyone answer me please? Why the injustice?
• Third, the source given by Tofig Kocharli К истории Карабахского вопроса.("Towards the history of Karabakh conflict"), Section Khojaly Massacre, p 32. Baku, 2009. just reaffirms the fact of the massacre what we already know from the book Caucasus and an unholy alliance by a neutral author Antero Leitzinger, Kirja-Leitzinger, 1997, p. 55:

За пару недель до этого армянские боевики захватили Aзербайджанские деревни Малыбейли и Кушчулар, расположенные в окрестностях города Шуша, при этом устроив массовую резню над 47 оставшимися позади мирными жителями села.

English translation: Just a couple of weeks earlier, Armenian militants сaptured the villages of Malibeyli and Gushchular in the vicinity of Shusha massacring 47 Azerbaijani civilians left behind...

and is corroborated by another neutral source, a book in German Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt (1988-2002) by Verlag Dr. Koster, published in Berlin in 2003. ISBN 3-89574-510-3, p. 80:

Am 10.2.1992 begannen schwer bewaffnete armenische Aufständische Nagorny-Karabachs in Richtung Schuscha zu marschieren. Am 11.2.1992 okkupierten sie die azerbaidschanische Siedlung Malibeyli. Die Bauernhofe wurden geplündert, fast alle bewohner massakriert, die zerstorte Siedlung in Brand gesetzt. Uber eine Woche blieb diese "Herausforderung" unbeantwortet.

and its google translation into English:

On 10.2.1992 heavily armed Armenian rebels in Nagorno-Karabakh started to march in the direction of Shusha. On 11.2.1992 they occupied the settlement of Malibeyli of Azerbaijan. The farms were looted, almost all inhabitants massacred, and the rest of the village was set to fire. About one week this "challenge" remained unanswered. (I can send any administrator the scanned copies if they can't find the books.)

• Fourth, I repeat again and again. This report is not about discussion on authors or their reliability or credibility which I do not object to discuss at any page. This page is about indefinite restriction imposed on MarshallBagramyan which he violated. Yes, he also violated his topic ban set on 23 July to be expired on 2 October on 29 July and on 29 August. Why are these facts being ignored? I thought this was an Arbitration Enforcement page where violations are being enforced as described in the sanction!
• Fifth, I have already replied to EdJohnston on my page but am posting the findings here as well: The user has a history of disruptive editing, obviously from AA2 discussions some time ago. Then I found this discussion of Arbitration Committee where it is obviously User:The Diamond Apex who is MB's sockpuppet. If you go to contributions of this sock editor, you will see he used the same arguments on authors or places of their origin: "they should go altogether, we can't have these articles being written by the Turkish government so that they can propagate their nonsense".
• I'm very disappointed that you turn blind eye to the wrongdoings of MarshallBagramyan in Wiki, and I honestly, don’t understand why you want to detach the previous violations of MB from the one he has admitted on the talk page of M&G about not only Kocharli, but also neutral Western journalist Charles Van der Leeuw who MB persistently didn’t want to accept because Charles Van der Leeuw is a former correspondent from Baku. Do you think this is a way we all should follow to "improve" the articles of other editors? Thanks, Angel670 talk 09:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[78]

Discussion concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]

Statement by MarshallBagramyan[edit]

Oh dear. I for one would like to apologize to the administrators who will be looking at this seemingly frivolous report which Angel has filed against me. Nowhere in my statements do I say that Azerbaijani scholars cannot be used on account of their ethnic identity. Rather, and I'm glad that Angel has posted the full quotes more or less, my objections stem from the belief that scholars who operate in an environment, where they are practically dictated to say and write what their governments tell them, cannot be considered neutral or even reliable. This applies to the above-mentioned individual, who was a modern historian living in the former Soviet Union and later independent Azerbaijan. Most scholars are in agreement that the Soviet Union jealously guarded the study of modern history and did not allow its own historians to stray away from the Marxist-Leninist dogma, and I was merely echoing their statements (see, e.g., Robert Service, A history of modern Russia from Nicholas II to Vladimir Putin, Cambridge, MA, 2003, p. 419). As for Azerbaijan, all one has to do is visit the Wikipedia page on Human rights in Azerbaijan and see who the latest blogger was who was arrested and sentenced to jail for criticizing the Azerbaijani government. Can one reasonably expect to see scholars dissenting from national narratives when even a blogger can be arrested and sentenced to long jail time on such flimsy pretexts?

Furthermore, Western scholars have cautioned historians and lay students alike to avoid making use of publications in Azerbaijan for some very good reasons. To quote the eminent Prof. Robert Hewsen:

Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku [the capital of Azerbaijan]. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291

So I am essentially paraphrasing what the authorities themselves have told us to do. The individual in question has authored numerous works but the one that caught my eye was Armenian Falsifications, which hardly has a neutral tone to it. I have noted and duly adhered to Sandstein's friendly advice and as my statements make clear, never have I objected to making use of a source on the basis of his ethnic identity but have taken much more important factors into account, such as the scholarly environment and atmosphere that I are working in. Oddly enough, Angel did not make such a distinction and she dismissed a source (quoted just below by Ashot Arzumanyan) on the same talk page because he was Armenian. She shows that I clearly and carefully qualified my statements and I can only surmise that this complaint was regrettably done out of ill-faith. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angel, it really seems unlikely that you were trying to show the "irony" of my previous comments in that section since you were systematically reviewing the sources and their authors. Of that particular source, there appeared no hint of sarcasm or lightheartedness to suggest that you weren't being anything but serious to say that because a source was Armenian, then he automatically disqualified as a reliable source, no matter his credentials.

And Neftchi, as Sandstein and other administrators all noted here, they fully understood the true meaning of my remarks and knew that I was not speaking about the national or ethnic identity of other authors. My words were poorly formulated, but everyone agreed that more careful phrasing would help prevent further confusion, which I have duly followed and adhered to ever since. Contrary to your assertions, nowhere in my comments quoted by Angel have I invoked someone's ethnic or national identity as an obstacle to their use as a source, but have always emphasized that their credentials and working environment (political above all) are far more important. Journalists and bloggers who are attacked for going against what is official state dogma, as the case of Eynulla Fatullayev illustrates, whose editorial office was attacked by a mob and who was later arrested because of the mere rumor that he had challenged the state narrative that a certain massacre had not taken place, can hardly be expected to be neutral when they are force to toe the government line. There's nothing controversial about that (as the administrators on the previous thread agreed). I would highly appreciate that next time you do not misrepresent my stance in such a deliberate manner.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. This is a very open-ended question whose answer is very multi-layered and I must apologize beforehand for this lenghty historical excursion. Do I trust any writings published in Azerbaijan? To a certain extent, yes but this is related to the time frame in question. The article on the Nagorno-Karabakh War, which I created from scratch and brought it to the level of a Featured Article, includes numerous direct and indirect citations from the Azerbaijani parliamentarian Arif Yunusov, whom many believe has compiled the most comprehensive objective account of the Nagorno-Karabakh War. In writing that article, I made great use of her statistics on the number of deaths and casualties of Armenian and Azerbaijani troops, the number of refugees from both sides (a highly contentious topic in and of itself), of territorial acquisition during the war, etc. On the other articles related to the war, such as the Capture of Shushi, I have had no qualms in attributing statements to their proper sources when they conflict (if an Azerbaijan commander, for example, said he had lost x amount of men, then his figure was sourced to him, even if it may have contradicted another source).

The only real exceptions I have made an issue of are the same books and articles which Prof. Hewsen above cautions his readers to avoid, namely those works dealing with the history of the region from the ancient to late medieval times. I don't want to dwell on this for too long because this is certainly not the right forum, but suffice it to say that this a political problem. According to the state narrative in Azerbaijan, the history of the Armenians begins in 1828 (AD), when the Russian Empire supposedly brought the Armenian people to where they are today, predating their actual documented existence by about three thousand years. Before that, the Armenians are not mentioned in Azerbaijani history books and their ancient medieval churches and monasteries and cemeteries are ascribed to a different people altogether: the Caucasian Albanians. Where the Armenians are mentioned in historical sources, such as Herodotus or Strabo, in editions published in Azerbaijan all references to "Armenia" and "Armenians" are replaced with "Albania" and "Caucasian Albanians", respectively, or excised altogether. This narrative first saw its rise in the 1950s and '60s when the Soviet Union was engaged in Azerbaijan and elsewhere in something historians have termed "nation building".

Since such activities soon enveloped the entire branch and study of history in Azerbaijan, most Western historians have tended to ignore them because they completely fail to conform to accepted scholarly standards. I say all this because I wish to make it clear that mine is not a personal preference based on any nationalist lines. I was merely repeating what Hewsen, Professor Viktor Shnirelman, and others have stated long before me. Shnirelman, a scholar who has actually studied and written about the role of Soviet nation-building at some length now, has several chapters in his book The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity, and Politics in Transcaucasia (Osaka, 2001) dealing with the subject entitled "The Median Temptation and Soviet Patriotism", "Revisionists: The Pan-Turkic Assault", "The Albanization of the Armenian Heritage", "The Albanian Myth", etc. Historians like Shnirelman have identified the prominent role that historiography has played in Azerbaijan as a phenomenon which took place after it was absorbed into the Soviet Russia in 1920, a process which was colored with Soviet ideology and one which continued in the following decades, saw its culmination in the late 1980s, and was subsequently adopted by the Azerbaijani government after it became independent in 1991.

2. That also is a difficult question to answer. I can speak from personal experience on one hand and quote the authorities on the other. At best, a pattern can be discerned and, based on what I have read and studied over the years, the general character of the sources appear to give preference to advancing an agenda, rather than demonstrating a true desire to report and present information based on the practices and standards of Western scholars. At times, on some Azerbaijani news websites, there have even been calls for their readers to go on to the English-language Wikipedia to "correct" misinformation found regarding the history or politics of Nagorno-Karabakh. All of this does not, however, condemn all the sources to banishment; it does reiterate my belief that these sources should be approached and evaluated delicately. But all this just drives home the point that history, journalism, and other similar fields in Azerbaijan are too politicized and the state simply holds far too much sway over what people can say or do. To criticize or openly question an event which is generally accepted as fact in the country might land one in jail, and so their intellectual freedom is thus censored and too tightly controlled by what is essentially a one-party government. Other administrators who have more knowledge regarding this issue can given you their insights, of whom I'd recommend Golbez and Buckshot06. And while I cannot speak about pre-Soviet sources published in Azerbaijan, I have never seen anyone raise too great a fuss out of them.

3. Once more, this question has a mixed answer. Because an information war exists between Armenia, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) and Azerbaijan until this day, much of what is published in Azerbaijan is intended to portray Armenia and the NKR as the aggressors for the ills of the war that concluded in 1994. Whether that is true or false is immaterial for the moment since we are concerned with the style of reporting and the type of reports published in the press and given in government publications. In the Azerbaijani media, there are occasional but nonetheless unconfirmed reports of constant violations of the cease fire regime by the Armenian side, poppy and drug cultivation, destruction of cultural monuments, burning of forests, illegal settlement, presence of PKK terrorist training camps, etc. in the NKR. Most mainstream news organizations have never picked up on such headlines, presumably because they carry such an obvious taint of propaganda for an audience which is geared toward the native population. So the answer would be in, in principle, yes, but I would add that regarding such controversial matters such as the above, it would be far more preferable to use third-party sources to support the general information which is being presented. But in the end it must be dealt with on a case to case issue. If there was another cease-fire violation, I see no reason, for example, why we cannot include Azerbaijani sources to give their account of what transpired, or how many soldiers were killed or injured - as in fact I and other have done on recent articles regarding precisely the same topics.

4. Generally, as Wikipedia editors, we should not only follow the basic guidelines presented at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Verifiability, WP:SPS and so on, but should also ask ourselves some basic questions when evaluating source. We may not all be historians, but it would not hurt always to examine and scrutinize a source which others might not necessarily agree with. This is done by asking ourselves a set of basic questions such as, even if they may appear to some as almost elementary: "Who is the author and what are his credentials? Is this his/her general area of expertise?" "Where was the source published?", "When and what sort of political climate was the source published?", "Who published the work?", "What sort of sources does the author use? Are there any sources at all?", "Has the author carried out any personal research or investigations and is this demonstrated in his work?", "Does this author have any incentive to advance a certain point of view?", "Who is the author's intended audience and what message, if any, is he/she trying to convey?", "Does the author himself/herself have certain stake in the manner to present his/her account which might be less than truthful". I have no doubt that some might come up with even better questions but I will stop here. And, of course, this method must be applied equally to all sources, regardless of who and where it was published. There are some sources published in Armenia which I tend to ignore because their level of propaganda and unprofessionalism is just as evident.

I've used this line of questioning all the time but it seems that every now and then someone misinterprets my objections as being based on the author's or organization's ethnic or national identity, which is absolutely false. When that argument has actually been used regarding the sources I was making use of (as Angel ironically did on the article he quoted from), I clearly noted that one's personal, ethnic, national, identity in no way inhibited one's ability to report matters in an objective and truthful manner, whether they are Armenian, Azeri, Turkish, or Martian. I'm disheartened to see we have yet to pass this point. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neftchi, I have asked you numerous times not to misrepresent deliberately my words and yet you continue, and I kindly ask the administrators now to take note. I have grown tired of emphasizing that my objections stemmed from the political environment which the individuals in question are working in. I never made an issue of Kocharli's ethnicity while you yourself just have and have just done with Prof. Hewsen's. What differentiates these two individuals is not their ethnic background, which you keep bringing up ad nauseum and actually do use to disqualify a source, but their academic backgrounds. Hewsen is able to write about controversial topics in a neutral tone but that has absolutely nothing to do with his ethnicity and everything to do with the educational establishment he was brought up in, where he is expected to adhere to common scholarly standards.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it just me or does Angel just seem quite determined to have me blocked or banned from these articles instead of searching for solutions on how to improve editing on Wikipedia? Even after three uninvolved editors and administrators have clearly stated that this case has absolutely no merit, she really appears to be agitating (as seen here in her attempts to enlist the help of numerous administrators) for someone – anyone – to impose some sort of sanction against me. And judging by Neftchi's comments below, it looks like that he is pursing the same objective. Their complaints don't seem to be filed in good-faith and it seems more like excuse to punish an editor who just happened to disagree with her. Why else is she resurrecting stale complaints dating to several years ago to help bolster her claims? I think Volunteer Marek's comment below regarding boomeranging might be quite relevant here. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]

Comment by Ashot Arzumanyan[edit]

I would like to draw admins' attention to this edit, where the editor who filed this request particularly says "Author Hovann Simonian does not count at all as he is an Armenian." Conclusions are up to you. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 19:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The more Angel670 adds comments here, the more I am disappointed with his/her manner of participation in Wikipedia. Bringing around facts from the past then connecting them with unrelated facts from the recent and all this for the sake of what? As more and more uninvolved editors comment here, recent edits of Marshal are simply unrelated with previous warnings. Finally, Marshal had enough reasons to express caution about the so called "neutral journalist" whose manner of writing is well cautioned by many sources, among them Hovann Simonian (oh yes, whose article in Central Asian Survey (Jun2000, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p297-303) "does not count at all as he is an Armenian.") -- Ashot  ^(talk) 04:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Neftchi[edit]

Marshall has made this kind of derogatory replies against Azerbaijani authors and scholars in the past. Thats why he was put in an indefinite parole in the first place. He is fully aware of the consequences of his repetitive actions and yet he does the same thing and then feels convenient to just come and post that is he is “misunderstood” to justify his actions against the indefinite restrictions. In his previous report he made the exact same statement as he just did here. He was find guilty on similar edits as today, which are presented by Angel. Here below are edits by Marshal from his previous report, I bring this up for the admins to for comparison.

1. [79] "The same cannot be said about those scholars working in Azerbaijan, who are apparently too preoccupied with attacking Armenians and too absorbed with trumpeting their own purported achievements"
2. [80] "I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources. ... I object to using any and almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent what the sources say. The fact that almost all their works reflect the position of official state propaganda and are published in Baku or elsewhere by themselves is enough to suggest that their works hold little to no academic value."
3. [81] "We all know that the works produced by scholars in Azerbaijan would not have a snowball's chance in hell in surviving a critical review, but to see them posted here in full, as if they're reliable sources, is a waste of time for all us serious editors who actually wish to improve this article."

This goes to show Marshall's behavior remains unconstructive. He deliberately attempts to diminish the reputation of well respected scholars on bases of their ethnic background. Which is offensive to say the least but is also against Wikipedia regulations. Neftchi (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, for this long thread with personal opinion of MarshallBagramyan or those of the Armenian users or government, there is also a longer thread which will disprove any of those points. For example, for Shnirelman's anti-Azerbaijani stance, there are articles from the historian Zumrud Gulu-zade who disproves his every point (if needed I can find and send it to you). The authors Marshall mentions have largely lived in the West with access to a large Armenian diaspora and had open access to media, more than Azerbaijani authors whose works were left to Soviet reviews only. Therefore, it was always easy to condemn and dismiss works of Azerbaijani authors before they even saw light in Western media or academic circles in mid or late 1990's. Another thing is that while Marshall is dismissing Azerbaijani historian like Tofig Kocharli by citing comments of author Robert Hewsen he forgets to mention that Mr Hewsen is an Armenian himself. So why dismiss Kocharli based on his ethnicity when cover up the ethnic identity of the author who "warns" the readers about authors like Kocharli? Don't you think it's ironic?

Again I would like to mention that this exchange can prolong by posting paragraphs of text over and over presenting views from both sides, but this is not the place. I think the intent of this report is to show that a user who has been a party to WP:AA2 multiple times and had been placed under sanctions and restrictions many times AND has now been under indefinite restriction from 3 February 2011 and did now violate the "may not make derogatory statements about sources or their authors on the sole basis of their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or similar general characteristic that is unrelated to their reliability in terms of Wikipedia policy, in the context of the area of conflict of the arbitration case WP:AA2. This restriction is to be enforced by blocks or other discretionary sanctions" should now face the consequences in a just way. If MarshallBagramyan had any argument on "reliability" of Azerbaijani authors or wanted to contest the restrictions imposed by the AE administrator, he should have expressed his point of view then. He did express his points of view BEFORE the restriction was imposed on him which everybody heard already and after the restriction imposed on him, he replied with [82]. So, it is only fair that MarshallBagramyan is placed under sanctions now as stipulated by the note This restriction is to be enforced by blocks or other discretionary sanctions by [[User:Sandstein}administrator Sandstein]] on his talk page. Do not get your attention diverted to discussions on reliability of Azeri and Armenian authors which have already taken place in the past. The issue at hand is the indefinite restriction and the sanction to be imposed for its violation. Neftchi (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand what MarshallBagramyan is exactly trying to say with his "detailed" information about Azerbaijan, or "freedom" in Azerbaijan? Maybe he should take a look at this map of freedom where Armenia is as much freedom restricted as Azerbaijan. Oooh OK, just one step above. But do you even realize why some journalists like Eynulla Fathullayev might have been jailed for insulting victims of Khojaly Massacre and why it is not the same in Armenia? OK, I'll answer it for you. Because in Azerbaijan there is freedom of speech, even if limited which shows the multitierness of perceptions and views while in Armenia nobody ever writes anything good about Azerbaijan. Hence no need to go after anyone. Everybody follows what the governing regime says. Also everybody knows, you cannot even question the “Armenian genocide”, you will get jailed for it. Now, about the freedom of people. Do I need to remind you that it is in Armenia that ordinary civilians are being shot dead on the streets by the Armenian forces, not in Azerbaijan. So, you tell me how it is that Azerbaijan has no freedom and Armenia does!

I also want to bring forward the fact the bad faith report by Marshall to AgadaUrbanit where he reported me with false information. Agada said Marshall's comment was: "Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable."

To remind everyone again, this case is not about reliability of any authors. It is about violation of a sanctioned indefinite restriction imposed by a Wikipedia admin. Neftchi (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Vidovler[edit]

There are no comparaison here. It's clear MarshallBaguarmian is refering to the author Kocharli, and the author is indead the last on Earth to be considered credible. His book titled Armenian Deception by its title is self explainatory. On page 2, we read: The book is presented with additions and changes in English. The first edition was published by the Instityte of Socio-Political Stadies and Information, National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan in 2001 in Azerbaijani. The National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan is the mouthpiece of the government, which has published several books in which primary sources were washed out from the word Armenia. Kocharli is not an acceptable source and the justifications provided by Mr. Baguarmian go beyond the mere ethnic backround of the authors. Vidovler (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neftchi comment does not make any sense, the criticism of Shnirelman is supported by several scholars, and Shnirelman has shown his integrity, since in the work in which he criticise Azeri scholars there is also a section criticizing Armenian scholars. He's been impartial in his work, he just adds that it is worst in Azerbaijan and no one in his right mind would deny that. Zumrud Gulu-zade is not a historian, he is a philosopher of the Academy of Science of Azerbaijan. But the most ridiculous presentation in the arguments presented by Neftchi is his criticism of Hewsen and his attempt to compare him with scholars from Azerbaijan. Hewsen is not Armenian, I don't know of any credible source which claims that. Even if he was, that won't change anything since he has published in peer reviewed works, journals and books in the West, which are known for credibility. It would not have mattered if ethnically Azeri scholars had published in those journals, it would have been considered credible because those journals are known to use high standard in their reviewing process. Mr. MBagramian comments are valid and acceptable within this context. Vidovler (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by BorisG[edit]

My uninvolved view is that MB has NOT criticised sources based on ethnicity, but rather sources published by authors under severe government censorship. His approach here is proper and correct. This request should be dismissed. - BorisG (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Khodabandeh and possible solution to AA issues[edit]

First a quick comment Wikipedia is not a battleground. I have not looked at the report, but if the comments are correct, and if MB removed a book by the name "Armenian Deception", then he is following policy just like if someone removed the book by the title "Azerbaijani deception" would also be correct. The title itself suggests the book is not wikipedia material. "Muslim deception" "Turkish deception", "Iranian deception", "Armenian deception", "Azeri deception", "Martian deception", etc... whoever is pushing to put such titles in Wikipedia should be sanction automatically (in my opinion). Even if an Armenian author writes "Armenian deception" that is not acceptable book for wikipedia. Any author that writes such a title is not reliable for Wikipedia, period.

More importantly, Recently I have been looking at the Russian wikipedia more (with google translator) due to some AA enforcements there. I noticed that the admins there are much more active and have a 3-4 person working group (who relatively know history in some detail) and who resolve some of these issues. The final decision they make usually becomes the standard there for Wikipedia. Those admins do not discriminate by ethnicity but by scholarship. They know the history of the region well. So for example R. Hewsen, or Touraj Atabaki (an Azerbaijani Iranian) are all acceptable sources, because these are academicians from Western universities recognized by the general scholarly community and well reviewed, and contribute to scholarly texts (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Iranica, etc.). At the same time, the Tofiq Kocharli's book by the title "Armenian Deception" is totally unacceptable for Wikipedia, not because of his background but because of its content. My suggestion is that it seems once in a while (or quite often) some sort of regional AA (many) or Azerbaijan-Iran (few) or Iran-Turkey (very few) or Armenia-Turkey (some more) or Greek-Turkey (sometimes) or Balkan issues comeup. There needs to be 3-4 very active admins familar with the areas history, and not from the area who resolve these issues. Else these problems linger on forever. I suggest at least two users Folantin and Kansas_Bear who seem to know history and are not from the area. Either way, the Russian Wikipedia has become much more calm due to such a mechanism. Actually at least four pages of AA issues (that comeup often in English wikipedia) have already been resolved there by admins [83]. Until there is such mechanism, Wikipedia will suffer. Perhaps for now, admins here can ask help from Russian admins on these issues. I have been in Wikipedia now for 5-6 years and this issue will not go away until there is an effective mechanism such as the Russian Wikipedia. The basic problem boils down to nationalistic type education systems in some countries which is ingrained from an early age. Wikipedia cannot stop million of users who have been educated in nationalistic doctrines by AA reports (some fraudalent), and it needs active mechanism like the Russian wikipedia to solve this issue. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by completely uninvolved Volunteer Marek[edit]

Yawn. None of these statements by MB come even close to being objectionable or sanctionable. They are a standard part of how people discuss difficult issues. And what BorisG said. And what Khodabandeh said.

Close this already, unless someone feels like boomeranging some people.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]

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

@MB:

1. Do you trust any writings by Azerbaijani scholars?
2. Are all such writings suspect, unless they come from the pre-Soviet period?
3. Would you trust any new writings from Azerbaijan?
4. If you consider any of these works reliable, what process would you use to reach your conclusion? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ed, these kinds of questions are not suitable for a venue like WP:AE. They might make sense in a mediation or an RFC or an article talk page. But we are not here to grill editors in order to find out what's in their head. The answers to these questions would/should also not have any impact on the outcome of an AE report. How about nipping the useless drama in the butt and closing this already, rather than poking around for more of it?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The long statements above don't lead to much clarity. If any admins or regular editors have a little time, please look at the discussion at Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre which is where MarshallBagramyan is said to have violated his restriction by poor choice of words, demeaning the quality of opposing sources. Try to form an opinion if there is a serious problem that needs attention. The article itself, Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, in spite of the frightening subject matter looks reasonably neutral. At least it has no blatantly POV language and there is no recent edit war. This massacre or mass fatality happened in 1992 and it is one of the events which followed the breakup of the Soviet Union, when Armenia and Azerbaijan were disputing their border. It seems to me that a proper WP:Request for comment could be launched at Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre. If it were advertised, an RfC might bring in editors who don't have previous loyalty to either side of the AA dispute. Another possibility is to forward questions about specific sources to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Anyone who has time to review Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre please do so and make a proposal of where to go from here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not happy about Angel670 canvassing other admins. If no other admin leaves a comment here soon, I am prepared to close this with no action. There is still a possibility. which I cannot verify from Angel670 one way or the other, even after a conversation on their talk page, that MB really is participating unfairly in source discussions. Unless someone familiar with the issues will respond in an on-topic way with meaningful evidence, there is not much to do about that. I'm unwilling to put a lot of effort into sorting through battleground material that does not address the problem which the closing admin needs to decide about. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I do not see any merit to this request, and recommend that it be closed. But I do think there is room for improvement in this topic area generally, and that discretionary sanctions might be warranted. AGK [•] 23:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Closing with no action. No admin has spoken up in favor of a sanction. Regarding the four diffs offered by Angel670, the last is from July 2010 and I wouldn't sanction so long after the event. The first three diffs are said to show MB rejecting a source solely due to its publication in Azerbaijan, contrary to his restriction. Some of the language he used could be improved, but neither side of this dispute is very polite in referring to sources associated with the other side. MB also gave a rationale for why Kocharli's book should not be trusted, though not a rationale that I consider to settle the matter one way or the other. The parties are urged to have more diplomatic discussions of quality of sources. My attempt to get Angel670 interested in using WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or opening a content RfC on the article talk page was not a success. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Request concerning Cla68[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

  Will Beback  talk  00:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Scope of topic bans

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

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

1. 2011-05-25T23:24:27 Cla68 proposes making major changes to an article that covers a prominent climate change denier.
2. 2011-04-08T00:17:51 Cla68 engaged in disruptive argumentation over a scholarly source in the same article
3. 2011-05-27T05:21:38 Cla68 falsely claiming consensus to remove the very well-sourced assertion that the LaRouche movement moved from the far left to the far right. (For sources, see Talk:LaRouche movement/political orientation). Added after the original filing

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

The LaRouche movement is a leading source of climate change denial publications. I request that Cla68 comply with the ArbCom's topic ban on "articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages" and "biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages".

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@ScottyBerg: The ArbCom topic ban prohibits named editors, including Cla68, from any edits to articles about climate change, or their talk pages or biographies of people associated with climate change. The LaRouche movement is deeply involved in climate change denial, and it's one of their main issues.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cla68's interests in climate change and LaRouche both date back to before the Climate Change RFAR, but that does not indicate they are separate. The only question here is whether the articles about the LaRouche movement are related to climate change, broadly construed. Since the movement has been described as at the " forefront of denying the reality of global warming", I think that's pretty clear.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cla68: I notice that Cla68 does not deny the central issue, which is that the LaRouche movement, led by Lyndon LaRouche, is significantly involved with climate change denial. The other issues are not relevant to Cla68's compliance with the ArbCom remedy in this case.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chester Markel: Unlike the Republican Party, the LaRouche movement is a leading publisher of climate change denial material. A glance at two of their main publications makes it clear that it not simply a minor issue for them.[84][85] The ArbCom specifically says that the scope of the topic ban is to be construed broadly, which is the opposite of the narrow scope that you appear to be suggesting.   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly disagree that the ArbCom topic ban is only limited to articles which are mostly about climate change. The intent was clearly to get the listed editors to stop editing anything about climate change, anywhere on Wikipedia, "even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues." Further the idea that the LaRouche movement is only involved in climate change to the extent that we cover it on Wikipedia is nonsensical. Things exist whether or not they are covered on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  03:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is considerable evidence that LaRouche is a key element in the denial community. A post the other days at the RealClimate science blog noted a protest of a climate conference. Their pamphlet identified them as part of the longstanding anti-climate-science campaign of US billionaire Lyndon Larouche and claimed that climate change is “a hoax” and an “insane theory”, the global temperature measurements are “mere lies”, the Nobel laureates meeting “a conspiracy” and the Stockholm Memorandum a “Fascist Manifesto”.[86] Pointing out that the LaRouche movement is involved in climate change is not "gaming the system". It's how the system is supposed to work.   Will Beback  talk  03:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comments seem so suggest that the ArbCom intended to include a loophole that excludes future content. I don't think that was their intention at all. For example, if Cla68, or any of the other people covered by the topic ban, had edited an article on a politician who later became a leader on the climate change topic, then it wouldn't make sense to exclude that article from the topic ban simply because of the prior edits.   Will Beback  talk  05:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ArbCom doesn't provide an exception for material added after the case was settled. It says plainly Cla68 and the other listed editor must not edit articles, talk pages, etc., which involve climate change. I didn't make up the material in the LaRouche article on climate change. It's sourced to scholars, journalists, and other reliable sources. I'm not the one who said that LaRouche has engaged in a "longstanding anti-climate-science campaign". It's a violation of topic ban to be editing disruptively on articles about that campaign's leader.

Folks commenting here are ignoring the possibility that Cla68's interest in the LaRouche topic may be influenced by his strongly held views in climate change. He hasn't shown an interest in articles about any American politicians who don't have strong climate change positions.   Will Beback  talk  05:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alanyst: I was aware of the CC case, but didn't read it carefully or pay it much attention. The list at WPT:ACTIVIST was compiled from a search of cases involving the principle of advocacy. I only recently realized how prominent the LaRouche movement is in the climate field. I don't think the ArbCom put a time limit on enforcement of this topic ban - there's no provision for a statute of limitations if a violation is not reported in time. Again, I'm not asking for any blocks or penalties for Cla68, just that he follow the topic ban by not editing articles or talk pages related to climate change.   Will Beback  talk  05:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston: The reason there is little material on climate change in the LaRouche bio is that almost all of his views and advocacy have been moved from that article to a daughter article. See Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement# Environment and energy for coverage of that topic. Cla68 has been active on that talk page and is proposing removing unspecified sourced material from the article, which is what prompted this filing.   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: Cla68 and several other editors are covered by a very wide topic ban. Some of the LaRouche-related articles appear to fall within the topic ban's scope because LaRouche and his movement are prominent climate change denialists, and it is central to their political platform. Cla68 should honor that topic ban. (The reason why Cla68 was banned from climate change articles is that he brought a battlefield mentality to the topic, and he's been acting the same way on the LaRouche articles.) An appropriate outcome of this enforcement request would be a formal warning.   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[87]

Discussion concerning Cla68[edit]

Statement by Cla68[edit]

Some background: I filed a request for arbitration [88] concerning Will Beback about one month ago because of concerns I had about his behavior related to the LaRouche articles. The request was declined by the Committee, at least one of whom suggested that other steps in the dispute resolution process be attempted first. I accepted the advice, which Will openly took exception to.

About two weeks later, Will posted a warning on my talk page about engaging in CC-related discussions in the LaRouche article. About the same time, Will started a content-related thread on one of the LaRouche articles which apparently was related to the CC topic. I did not participate in that discussion. About two weeks later, I was engaged in a content discussion at LaRouche movement about the article's lede, which does not mention anything about global warming. During the discussion, Will brought up climate change even though that topic had nothing to do with the current discussion. At the time, Will was revert warring on the article's page (although I have participated in talk page discussion, I have never actually edited that article).

Soon after, Will asked Stephan Schulz for an opinion on it, which was answered by him and another editor. One those editors apparently saw fit to investigate further what was going on, and found things not to be in order in the LaRouche articles [89] [90], which, as you can see in those discussions, Will took exception to. He followed up by submitting this request. If any responding admins have any further questions about what has been going on in the LaRouche articles over the past several years and why Will might be so interested in the content of said articles, please say so and I'll be happy to explain. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Will, the "Views of Lyndon LaRouche" article didn't contain anything on global warming until 10 days ago, when you added some material concerning it. Again, I didn't participate in the discussion regarding the addition of that material to that article and I won't be in the future. Again, if anyone is wondering why Will might not want me to participate in any discussions concerning any content anywhere in the LaRouche topic, and why he might be so concerned about the content of those articles, I'll be happy to explain. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Cla68[edit]

• (Before we even get into the merits, I think it's important to clarify what is being requested). Will, what is it you want exactly? Your "Enforcement action requested" is not very clear; (1) do you want Cla68 to be warned? Or (2) do you want Cla68 to be topic-banned or blocked? Or (3) are you just seeking clarification about whether this is within the scope of the CC decision, and if it does, that Cla68 be warned at the conclusion of this? Or (4) is it something else (and if so, what is it that you want)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by ScottyBerg[edit]

Will, I've seen this percolate through two user pages that have the misfortune to be on my watchlist, so I thought I'd be first out of the starting gate here. Am I missing something? These edits don't involve climate change. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Will: Yes, I am familiar with the penalties imposed in the arbitration, which is why I am commenting here. I opined frequently in the CC case, and I think it's fair to say that I was not an ally of Cla68, to put it mildly. I agree that his topic ban needs to be strictly enforced. However, if he's just generally editing the LaR articles I'm just not seeing a problem, especially since this seems to be a longterm interest and not an effort to circumvent the sanctions. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but I just don't see a strong enough connection. By that logic he and the other topic-banned would have to avoid writing about a large array of political movements. Maybe they should, but I think that's stretching the ban a bit far. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I just wanted to add that I am disturbed by the accusations of bad faith being made by some editors here. I think that this request, though mistaken, was made in good faith. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Chester Markel[edit]

Most political parties in the United States, and quite a few politicians, assert some views on climate change. Is the scope of the topic ban really to be interpreted such that once an article contains a single sentence about the subject, the entire article, even insofar as unrelated to climate change, is off-limits? I doubt that, when passing the topic ban, arbitrators intended to ban Cla68 from articles such as Democratic Party (United States) and Republican Party (United States). I would construe the ban as only applying to climate change subject matter, in any article, or an article primarily related to climate change. Chester Markel (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Will: The question of whether an article topic is sufficiently related to climate change needs to be determined on the basis of article content, not underlying characteristics of the subject. We cannot expect someone to thoroughly research the topic of an article which does not so much as mention climate change before making any edits whatsoever, to ensure the absence of any plausible relationship. Adding climate change material to an article in which it had never previously been discussed, then claiming that someone who had been editing the article prior to this addition, is henceforth banned from the entire article, seems like gaming of the arbcom sanction to eliminate the participation of an editor with whom you are in disagreement. Please review WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Chester Markel (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not asserting that "the LaRouche movement is only involved in climate change to the extent that we cover it on Wikipedia". The question is the scope of the topic ban, not attributes of the LaRouche movement. I refuse to support any scheme in which topic bans such as climate change create land mines for editors, who can be hauled to arbitration enforcement on charges of violating the ban when editing an article that does not discuss climate change at all. The result of your proposed method for determining topic ban scope would require editors to conduct hours of research before correcting a typo, simply to determine whether the subject might have some connection to climate change which the article itself omits entirely. Chester Markel (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one wishes to characterize your addition of climate change material to a LaRouche article as "gaming" itself. The problem is your subsequent claim that the article is within the scope of the climate change ban as it relates to a user who was editing it prior to your addition, when, according to a reasonable interpretation of the arbcom decision, the article was outside the scope of the ban before the introduction of climate change content. Users should not be permitted to ban editors with whom they are in disputes from articles by adding content that's covered by an arbcom topic ban. Chester Markel (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You haven't shown that LaRouche's connection to climate change has been recently altered. Not allowing an editor with whom you've previously been in content disputes on an article to be completely banned from it, just because you added climate change material, thereby allegedly bringing it within the scope of an arbcom topic ban, isn't a "loophole", just common sense. Chester Markel (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Alanyst[edit]

The Climate Change case closed in mid-October 2010. Cla68 and Will Beback have been engaged in debate in the LaRouche topic area since at least September 2010, according to their contrib histories. Will Beback must have known about the climate change case and its outcome, since it was referred to in the discussions surrounding the WP:Activist essay that both Will and Cla68 participated in, and Will himself included the CC case in a list of advocacy-related arbitration cases to the essay just days after that case closed (see [91]).

If the LaRouche-CC connection were strong enough to invoke the CC topic ban for Cla68's involvement in the LaRouche talk pages, then why is it only being invoked now, after half a year's worth of back-and-forth between these two antagonists in multiple venues? Either the connection was too tenuous to notice before now, which defeats Will Beback's argument that Cla68 is somehow violating the CC topic ban, or else Will Beback considered it a topic ban violation early on and didn't mention it to anyone (not even Cla68 one-on-one) for some reason during all those months of debate, until now. If the latter, this complaint appears to be more of a tactical maneuver, a pretext for eliminating a thorn in his side, than an honest concern; and such cynical misuse of community procedures ought to be repudiated strongly. alanyst 05:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

I'm not seeing enough of a connection here to keep Cla68 from editing the article on LaRouche, if ARBCC is the criterion. Even 'broadly construed' is not enough to put that article off limits. Naturally if there were any climate material in Lyndon LaRouche, and apparently there isn't, Cla68 would have to stay well away from it. Also in any talk page edits he should make at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche Cla68 cannot mention climate. EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that more data has been added to this request, it is no longer clear just when and where Cla68 should be editing while staying clear of his restriction. It may be tedious to try to figure a general rule, so perhaps some negotiating could be tried. Can Cla68 indicate what kind of improvements he wants to make, and to which articles? EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read Will's complaint more carefully, and I think this request should be closed with no action. Cla68 is expected to obey the CC topic ban that was imposed in WP:ARBCC. So far he has not broken that ban. I looked at Will's two diffs, and I find that neither one of them raises any concerns. The first diff is suggesting that a discussion be started at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement to decide how wide a scope should be used for the article. The second is asking for a better source for some remarks by Manning Marable. It appears that a reliable source for the quote has now been found thanks to the discussion. None of this reflects badly on Cla68, or reveals battlefield editing. I don't think this request needs any action or any warning to Cla68. If he actually makes an edit or a talk comment relating to climate change then you might have something. Cla68 was wise not to participate in the Environment and energy thread that he mentions above. He may have to use a lot of caution to work around the boundary of CC in an article like this one. The risk of any error is on him. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Jayen466[edit]

Having edited the LaRouche articles, and being familiar with their content, I fully agree with alanyst and EdJohnston. --JN466 11:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Collect[edit]

The article involved did not have "climate change" connotations until it was recently added by the complainant here. [92] It is unreasonable to allow an editor to ex post facto bar an editor from an article by the expedient of simply adding "barred material" to the article. This is, in short, a form of gaming the system to attack other editors.

I doubt there is any article on anyone which could not have the type of edits added by Will to this article - and which I consider to be "three degrees of separation" from LaRouche in the first place - dealing with articles by people not associated directly in any way with LaRouche.

I suggest, in fact, that the only one behaving badly here is Will, who has shown strong ownership issues with all LaRouche articles (over four thousand edits considering only the articles with "LaRouche" in their name).

There must be a limit set on deliberately making articles suddenly subject to a topic ban on another editor by simply adding material which might be covered. I suggest that limit be set here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: In the "guess who did it category" -- the category "Environmental scepticism" has been added to the article, making it impossible to assert that the entire article is not covered by the CC rulings. If this category is maintained, then CLA is clearly barred from any comments or actions whatsoever regarding the article or any of the LaRouche articles entirely, or even discussing them on ANI or any other such pages, or any user pages. Anyone for a hand of poker? Collect (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by somewhat involved Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]

On another note Collect's assumption of bad faith is disturbing. Furthermore, his suggestion to avoid adding climate-related material to articles where it did not previously exist is a non-starter for reasons that should be obvious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved (?) Stephan Schulz[edit]

I have no significant presence at the LaRouche articles, but some preliminary discussion has happened at my talk page, which Cla68 has already referenced in his statement. I hope I have made my position clear there. However, I'd like to point out a few things here as well.

• Collect's argument is weak - the fact that our articles about LaRouche did not mention climate change is a failing of the articles, not proof that the material is spurious. Suggesting that CC was added to the articles just to bar other editors seems to suggest bad faith.
• I think we need to be consistent here. In my opinion, it's entirely reasonable to allow Cla68 to edit parts of the LaRouche articles not directly related to climate change. However, does this also imply that editors banned from CC articles are allowed to edit e.g. Hadley cell or El Niño-Southern Oscillation as long as they steer clear of the climate change aspects of these articles? If yes, fine. If no, why do we treat politics articles different from scientific articles?
• I also think all the climate change banned editors should in general refrain from editing BLPs of people prominently related to climate change - but where do we draw the line? Fred Singer? Richard Lindzen? Michael Crichton? Freeman Dyson?

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved (eh, kinda) Silver seren[edit]

And this is exactly why I left the Larouche area. This is exactly why. Forgive me for being blunt, but WP:AGF can only be stretched so far and I don't believe it should be used as a veil to obscure the obvious. Prior to ten days ago and in months of discussion before that, the Larouche subject area didn't really have anything about climate change in it and thus nothing was mentioned to Cla in regards to it. Yes, it is known that Larouche is related to climate change, but so long as a user under the restriction isn't editing information about climate change or adding it in, it shouldn't matter. Indeed, Will added the info about climate change into the Views article ten days ago as noted above and then started a discussion or two, waiting for Cla to respond in a manner that could even remotely be construed to be against the climate change restriction and then he started this discussion. I think the facts of what happened and what exactly is going on are plain to see and should be clearly stated. Silverseren^C 04:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jtrainor: The issue with an interaction ban is how do you work with them both editing the Larouche subject area? You can't exactly kick just one out and not be partisan about it. And it's close to impossible to properly honor an interaction ban within that subject area. Silverseren^C 06:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist[edit]

• I agree with EdJohnston's 05:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC) comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Jtrainor[edit]

User adds material to an article to try to make it fall under an arbcom remedy, user runs to Arbcom to complain that someone he hates is violating that remedy. I suggest applying a reversal of fortune to Will-- smack HIM with some sanctions instead. Considering why this thread is here, an interaction ban from Cla68, broadly construed, would seem to be a logical choice. Jtrainor (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question by Becritical[edit]

"If the latter, this complaint appears to be more of a tactical maneuver, a pretext for eliminating a thorn in his side, than an honest concern; and such cynical misuse of community procedures ought to be repudiated strongly." --alanyst

"Again, if anyone is wondering why Will might not want me to participate in any discussions concerning any content anywhere in the LaRouche topic, and why he might be so concerned about the content of those articles, I'll be happy to explain." --Cla68

I would like the explanation. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 15:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Cla68[edit]

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

Unless an uninvolved admin objects, I'm going to close this in 24 hours in line with EdJohnston's comment above, with which I agree. T. Canens (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closing as no action taken. NW (Talk) 15:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Afterlife10[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

--Domer48_'fenian' 21:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

1. 212.183.128.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 212.183.128.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Afterlife10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - added for clarity. AGK [•] 22:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

1. First Revert
2. Second Revert
3. as User:Afterlife10
4. Third Revert
5. First Revert
6. Second Revert

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

1. notice on their talk page
2. notice on Article Talk Page Discussion
3. Notice on Article Talk Page

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

To be determined.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notice must be given to this Sock Report, in which the IP 212.183.128.33 was included. This IP is currently blocked as is User:Afterlife10 who is also included above. This blocked IP was made aware of the sanctions on the article by me here in addition, I also posted the sanctions notice in the discussion which was taking place on the Article talk page. Note that the sanctions notice also appears at the top of the Article talk page. The block evading IP, 212.183.128.41 who is now also blocked, was well aware of the sanctions, having posted directly under the notice I place on the talk page noted above. Since neither the block or the notices had any effect, I think a more long term solution to this disruptive editor should be considered.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[93]

Discussion concerning Afterlife10[edit]

Statement by Afterlife10[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Afterlife10[edit]

Result concerning Afterlife10[edit]

• I have indefinitely blocked Afterlife10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for repeated sock-puppetry and edit warring (in violation of the 1RR provisions of the The Troubles case cited above). He was already indefinitely blocked for abusing the unblock request process, by Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and I have replaced Daniel's block with one that combines my own and his block reasons, and is of equal length. Afterlfie10's sock-puppets have been blocked separately, by somebody involved in the SPI process, as a result of a sock-puppetry investigation. AGK [•] 22:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Owain the 1st[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Owain the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA:4.1.2: "Decorum"

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

1. [94] Said another editor (not me) was posting "lies"

Above was the worst of the decorum violations. I also was less appreciative of this and this. There was also a great 1/rr case against the editor but it is my opinion that the editor now gets it.

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

1. [95]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

"Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, 'where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."'

I think the editor will eventually get himself banned and will be honest and say one here would be great. But it would not be fair (I was given a talking to and a probationary period when I called someone a liar). All I am asking for is for an admin to lay it out to him clearly. "You cannot comment on editors and not their contributions on the article's talk page" and "You cannot assert that other editors are liars."

The only sticking point is that I would like to see the personal attacks stricken. I do not care if he does it, an admin does it, or if I do it.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I also tried everything but coming here. I made multiple requests for the editor to strike the comments. I struck them myself at one point. I also took this to WP:WQA but two non admins said it was OK. Maybe they did not know the additional expectations on editors in the topic area. But if Owain the 1st} thinks it is OK to assert that others are liars and make other snarkey comments then it will grow into a larger problem. So how about we fix it now? You want to make AE and the P-I topic area better: Let a less frequent editor know what is and what is not permitted. This is cake. Not even a ban is needed here.

(but let me know if I can say others are posting lies are sya that they cannot read English. That will go over swimmingly in the topic area and I would enjoy it even though i hate to admit it.

I am not going to respond to Boris or Sean since they chose not to read the entire statement or chose to ignore ir. When you guys reread it I would be happy to respond.Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[96]

Discussion concerning Owain the 1st[edit]

Statement by Owain the 1st[edit]

I have already made a statement here [97].As other editors on that page have stated they see no reason to bring this here at all.Owain the 1st (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Owain the 1st[edit]

See [98]. As per there, I do not believe any action is required at this time. Indeed my initial involvement here was to unstrike the alleged personal attacks. Prodego ^talk 03:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went through the material when it was brought up at as a Wikiquette issue. If you look at the context of the statement then there is nothing to it. Bringing it here feels like an attempt to intimidate an opponent over a content issue. --Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Always nice to see an admin and an experienced user tell an editor it's ok to be confrontational and call people liars. That's just what this topic area needs. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cptnono: I think the editor will eventually get himself banned and will be honest and say one here would be great.. Now I am having some trouble with English. Can you please explain what this is supposed to mean? Thanks. - BorisG (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - @NMMNG, you used to be a lot more confrontational than you are nowadays. Perhaps you can offer some practical advice to Owain based on your experience in the topic area. Less conflict is always good here. @Cptnono, if you really cared about "Decorum" surely you would have filed a report against yourself several times by now, no ? It's a pity people never file reports against themselves, "I'm a serial sockpuppeteer and I really need help to stop", "I feel compelled to advocate on behalf of <pick a side> despite what the sanctions say, can anyone help me be a better editor ?" etc. @BorisG, I assume the sentence means "I think the editor will eventually get himself banned and I will be honest and say that a ban here would be great." I don't think Owain has done anything to justify a ban, a topic ban or any kind of sanction. In fact, I would encourage him to be less confrontational, ignore arguments about content that aren't based on policy and just carry on trying to edit according to policy and the sanctions. The Gaza War article needs new editors. Most have walked away. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC) @Cptnono, of course I read your entire comment but I only responded to BorisG's specific question. I appreciate that one sentence is only one sentence and does not reflect the entirety of your comment. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should have a look at this editor's contribs if you want to see how confrontational he is. He regularly calls other editors dishonest and liars. He violated 1RR 3-4 times in the past week alone. Then there are these kind of gems [99] [100] which I believe you are already aware of.

I don't think he should be topic banned (yet), but some strong words from an admin or two certainly might help. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excuse me but do you have anything to say about this actual debate No More Mr Nice Guy or have you just turned up to talk about something unrelated?I believe it is the 2nd option.Your two links to a previous disagreement that has been dealt with already are really adding nothing to this debate and your claims that I have reverted against the 1R rule 3-4 times in the past week is not true either also your other claims that I have called other editors liars is also untrue.If you want to comment then please stick to the facts.Now if you have evidence that I regularly call other editors dishonest and liars then post them up and we can all have a look.I will wait.ThanksOwain the 1st (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My advice to the Admins in this case would be to take into consideration that however this AE is closed, it will likely serve as a precedent regarding future interactions between users in the I/P domain. If no action is taken, expect that contributors will regularly accuse each other of posting lies. If we would prefer to avoid that kind of discourse, then at least a warning or a counseling would benefit us all. I don't know how bad things used to be here, but my impression is that the shit has hit the fan this week. And from this point it can go in one of two ways. Either Admins continue to deal sternly with disruptive contributors, in which case people will finally start thinking twice about how they edit and how they talk to other editors. Or Admins can go back to the way things were before, dismissing cases that aren't 100% textbook infractions, in which case I anticipate that things will only get worse and the atmosphere will become even more hostile and unpleasant than it already is. Specifically regarding Owain, I tend to agree with the filer that it's only a matter of time until he gets himself banned. It's unfortunate that that's the case, because when he wants to, he can be an asset to the Project. But as someone who's crossed paths with him before and been on the receiving end of his acrimonious comments (e.g. [101]), I can testify that he does seem to have a predisposition toward responding aggressively to editors he doesn't agree with. If he won't acknowledge that he needs to tame his rhetoric, then I hope a formal warning or counseling from higher up will encourage him to.—Biosketch (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acrimonious comments? Is that what you are doing here?[102].You are complaining about me but it is obvious you have just done what you are complaining about.I would say that your views are biased in this case anyway as you and I do not agree on content.Owain the 1st (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that nobody wants to take preventative steps like warnings or mentorship that could help new users learn how to behave when editing. I've seen this happen before with other new users who edited aggressively. Owain will feel empowered by the fact that nothing will be done, he will continue being confrontational and calling people names, until his eventual unavoidable crossing of the line (since nobody bothered to explain to him where the line is) and then he'll get topic banned. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The consenus from uninvolved editors at the moment is that Owain has not crossed any lines, the only people claiming he has are the pro Israeli editors who do not like him to put up reputably sourced material criticising Israel.Owain the 1st (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NMMNG, this is true. Owain, are you able to tone it down and can you agree to try to not comment on editors on article talk pages (and mean it) no matter what they do or say ? It's very difficult to do in this topic area but if you don't try you probably will end up topic banned. There are formal processes to resolve disputes and to deal with editors who really are tendentiously standing in the way of policy compliant content. Complaining on article talk pages won't change anything. We've had our run ins in the past (and setting aside debates about whether the following example content should be there, I haven't followed the discussions closely), but when I see edits like this where you make the effort to add balance, its really encouraging. Very few editors do that in the topic area or can even manage to stick around for long without having to take a break. You aren't a sockpuppet, you try to use reliable sources, you use talk pages, you use the noticeboards, you accept that there are content policies and unfortunately there aren't that many editors in the I-P topic area like that. You just need to tone it down a bit. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well Sean that edit that you think adds balance was deleted by a pro Israeli editor, actually they deleted the whole section,so much for adding balance? Sure looks like there is a policy here amongst some editors to stamp on any criticism of Israel even though that criticism is very well sourced.No wonder editors leave this site. Owain the 1st (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Owain, I share your aspirations and understand your frustration. I want you to remain here. So please do not give unnecessary ammunition to those who would like to remove you. It doesn't help to call other editors liars, even if you believe them to be so. Concentrate on the content of edits, continue to add well-sourced material and to challenge and remove weakly-sourced POV material, and don't fall into the trap of responding to provocation. Veteran editors have been severely sanctioned for far lesser offences. RolandR (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Owain the 1st[edit]

• The three edits by Owain cited in the request lede and also some other contributions such as this lead me to agree that enforcement action is warranted here. Owain only joined Wikipedia on 4 April 2011, and so I agree with the filing party that it would be too severe a resolution to this request if I were to topic-ban or otherwise sanction him. I have therefore placed Owain the 1st "on notice", as provided for by WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, and further advised him how his behaviour must improve moving forward.

  On a related issue: I note the relative uselessness of most of the comments in the "discussion" section above. P/I enforcement requests perpetually attract the participation of many editors from both 'factions', with the result being that the request is overly lengthy and more difficult for the closing administrator to evaluate. Participation of this nature also often establishes precisely what faction will be affected if a given enforcement request is granted. For instance, thanks to the above comments, I realised that the editor was pro-P and that the request was being made by pro-I editors; I would rather be ignorant of this kind of silly wikipolitics, and I am sure most other uninvolved sysops would too. We must have less of this kind of participation, and more concise, on-topic remarks, in future. I for one would be happy to see us summarily delete entire discussion sections if they were as purposeless as most. AGK [•] 11:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Notified and counselled: [103]. Closing request. AGK [•] 11:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Communicat[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Communicat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (currently editing as 196.215.76.234 (talk · contribs) )

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II#Remedies

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

Communicat has recently returned to editing using an IP address. To date, his only edits have been to launch personal attacks on the other editors who were involved in this arbitration case and continue the dispute:

1. 31 May First personal attack and also repeats arguments concerning the World War II article
2. 31 May second personal attack (not terribly serious)
3. 2 June third and most serious attack in which Communicat again rehashes his arguments concerning the World War II article made in the arbitration case. Interestingly, he also discloses here that he is in fact Stan Winer, the author of the unreliable source Communicat was pushing.

Note that Communicat has a history of using IP accounts to talk about himself in the third person and carry on disputes for which he has been blocked (for instance, here - that this was Communicat is confirmed by this edit from the same IP account. That account (196.210.181.54 (talk · contribs)) has a similar IP address and geolocates to the same area of South Africa as 196.215.76.234, providing further evidence that this is Communicat.

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

Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

The above posts are a clear violation of both sanctions which were imposed on Communicat (to not edit or comment on articles concerning World War II and its aftermath and to not make personal attacks on other editors) and I ask that the IP account and Communicat's account be blocked per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II#Enforcement Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Communicat account: [104] IP account: [105]

Discussion concerning Communicat[edit]

Statement by Communicat[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Communicat[edit]

• Comments by Binksternet. The IP 196.215.76.234 is from South Africa, a known residence of Stan Winer. I must assume that the IP is indeed Communicat as well as Stan Winer. I recommend that the IP and Communicat be blocked indefinitely. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment by BorisG. Diff 3 is extraordinary. If the IP is not Comminicat then this is outing. - BorisG (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also note that Communicat has not made a single edit after the closure of that ArbCom case. He does not seem interested in editing any areas of Wikipedia outside of the rather narrow area of his topic ban. - BorisG (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Communicat[edit]

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

• I'm thinking about a 1-week AE block, with a warning to edit from the account only or risk an indef. Unfortunately the IP range is too wide to effectively rangeblock. T. Canens (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• T. Canens: A one-week block seems sensible to me. As this is not a complex request, the next administrator to read this is welcome to immediately implement the block. If nobody does so soon, I'll go ahead. AGK [•] 11:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Both blocked for one week. T. Canens (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]