Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AE)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.


Contents

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Darkness Shines[edit]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – ~~~
Sanction being appealed 
Topic ban from all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Callanecc‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
notification.

Statement by Darkness Shines[edit]

Since the TBAN was imposed I have brought Rape during the Rwandan Genocide to GA status, and the Rape during the Bosnian War article is now a GA candidate, I have expanded and replaced most of the references on the article, removing primary sources as well as newspaper references and replacing them with academic sources. This is a controversial article and I have managed all that work without losing my temper at anyone. I should like the chance to do the same thing with some articles dealing with human rights abuses in the region covering the TBAN. I have also created a few stubs and another article which appeared at DYK, Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War. I believe the TBAN has now become punitive and not preventative, as I have had but one drunken outburst since it was imposed. The following users requested I let them know when I file an appeal, so am pinging them. @RegentsPark: @Drmies: @Bbb23: @Vanamonde93: Darkness Shines (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Glrx: It most certainly was sourced, "the widely held estimate is that almost 200,000 women were raped during those nine months. [sic] Yet in an interview with me in Dr Geoffrey Davis , who was working in Bangladesh in 1972 suggested this number was far higher." Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia p 120. On "The PHR report also showed that ninety four per cent of internally displaced persons (IDP's) had been victims of some form of sexual assault". see Women, Migration, and Conflict: Breaking a Deadly Cycle p50, "94% of displaced households", and that is the source used. On 215,000 to 257,000 victims of sexual abuse, cite to Physicians for Human Rights estimates that during the conflict, between 215,000 and 257,000 of them were subjected to sexualized violence, and now you can say sorry, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein, what source misrepresentation? That is a PA as it is not true. I just wrote the quote above. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:. Other than a 1RR restriction, which I would be fine with, (barring the usual BLP, copy vio stuff) I cannot think of anything myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Keysanger has declared himself uninvolved, however he is involved in a content dispute with myself and another editor on the WoTP article. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:, I can assure you I will do my best not to lose my temper, and I have been very careful to not get into editing disputes when on the piss. As to your point on sourcing, no can do. The majority of sources I ues are books from academic publishers or journals I access through JSTOR. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:, I am not being intransigent, I got the impression you did not want me using offline sources or paywalled papers. I am OK with the suggestion, but have a question. GA reviews can take up to three months, do I have to wait from when I rewrite an article, nominate it, and then hang around for months before it passes before asking for the TBAN to be fully rescinded? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc‎[edit]

As I said when DS asked me on 8 Aug, I would have been happy to lift the TBAN myself if there was nothing of the same behaviour as what led to the ban. However I found some edits of concern so wasn't willing to lift it myself. Now I see why he reacted the way he did but comments like this are just not acceptable under any circumstances. Having said that, if other admins agree that the TBAN can be lifted I'd be quite happy to do it myself but I like some agreement to do it.

Whether it's still required, if others agree I'd be quite happy to lift it as a second chance. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: as the admin who imposed the sanction I'm quite happy for that suggestion. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 15:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Darkness Shines[edit]

Statement by Shrike[edit]

I think DS did a good work on those articles. So he should be given a second chance.--Shrike (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect[edit]

For what damage DS may have caused, the penalty may not quite fit the crime at this point. One voice for "second chance" on this. Collect (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

I haven't always gotten along with DS in the instances where we have interacted, but he is an excellent content contributor and I do not believe he deserves a TBAN.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Glrx[edit]

The TBAN had other issues besides personal attacks. See insertion of unsourced figure of 200,000 rapes at result/DS. Consequently, I looked at Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War to spot check fact figures; I looked at no other article. There's a claim in the article that "The PHR report also showed that ninety four per cent of internally displaced persons (IDP's) had been victims of some form of sexual assault". There's also a claim of 215,000 to 257,000 victims of sexual abuse. The latter claim can be bound in Reis/PHR report on pages 4 and 59, but it is not on pages 17-18 as claimed in footnote 15. I did not find any support for the first claim of 94 percent. The PHR report does state that 94% of households (a household comprises more than one person) surveyed had one or more incidents of (not necessarily sexual) violence (eg. pp 2, 71). Page 47 states, "Regarding sexual violence, 9% (94) of the 991 respondents reported one or more war-related sexual violence experiences." See also Table 2, page 44, that breaks down the type of violence in households.

I'm concerned that DS is not accurately reporting statistics and that there could be an extraordinary POV bias.

Consequently, I would not lift the TBAN.

I'll commend the claim of only one recent civility incident, but I did not examine civility. Glrx (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:. 1RR does not address misstating sources. (WP:V.) 1RR would prevent an edit war over challenged material, but many incorrect assertions may go unchallenged. The 94-percent-of-internally-displaced-persons statement went unchallenged in RdtSLCW. Even when that statement was challenged here, DS neither understood the challenges nor the source. DS also does not discern that the earlier 200,000-rapes issue is not about the number of rapes but rather that the cited source never stated such a figure. Glrx (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Mea culpa: 1RR was DS' suggestion not yours. Glrx (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't this violate the TBAN?

Glrx (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

I looked over the original AE request, and given the outrageous conduct by Darkness Shines which led to the AE enforcement request, as well as during the AE enforcement request, and given that this was only a few months ago, I strongly recommend denying this appeal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian[edit]

(I am not sure if I am "uninvolved". I have not edited in ARBIPA generally, but I have edited in ARBPIA.)

In my brief interactions with DS, his conduct was fine and civil. I did not agree with any of his edits, but then I disagree with the edits of lots of people, so that is perhaps not too important. I do not have any opinion about wider matters. Kingsindian (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Keysanger[edit]

I am very concerned about DS's behaviour in the Talk page of War of the Pacific.

1.- User Darknes Shines cites A Reference Guide to Latin American History (page 155) as support for the 14. February 1879 as the date of the beginning of the War of the Pacific, The source is fine, but here are a few more: [1]. The book states on page 155:

Bolivia responded to Chilean protests by asserting the legality of the tax and declaring war on Chile (March 14., 1879). By that time Chilean forces had already seized the Bolivian port of Antofagasta (February 14., 1879).

There is no support for the 14. February as date of the beginning of the war. He invented a support of a RS where it doesn't exist.

2.- Furthermore, User Darkness Shines had no problem to invent a Combat of Antofagasta, on 14. February 1879. despite I asked DS twice ([2], [3]) to deliver a WP:RS for the statement, DS never did it. He invented a event that never occurred.

3.- In the same comment he states To write "some authors consider the 14 February as the beginning of the war, other not" is OR, as you have no source to support that statement, albeit he self had deleted my proposal (Some authors set the beginning of the war with the first naval battles, others on February 14, 1879) and the given RS: [4]

I ask the members of the committee "to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment". --Keysanger (Talk) 16:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@DS, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that what you did. --Keysanger (Talk) 19:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Darkness Shines has, since his TBAN, faked Reliable Sources, invented historical events, misrepresented statistics, insulted other editors, is unable to answer the the most simple questions about his doings, and he finds always a good reason to justify his malpractices. For every of these cases you find facts in this discussion. There is neither remorse nor change. I would suggest that you again read Darkness Shines's long paper trail of blocks and imagine how many deletes, reverts, edit wars, discussions, insults, protected articles, conflicts between editors, how many good editors that never will come back, and how many wasted time for admins has caused his behaviour. Your duty is "to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment" and that is "now" and not "may be tomorrow". --Keysanger (Talk) 15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved OccultZone[edit]

@Black Kite: I agree with this proposal. I was thinking of nominating one of his article to GA, he can be helpful. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Brief statement by Drmies[edit]

I support lifting the ban. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Darkness Shines[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Note: Without assessment of the request, the relevant TBAN was applied by Callanecc here and modified here (original AE request that let to the TBAN here). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 22:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll note at the outset that I participated in the administrators' discussion that led to the ban being appealed. The appeal does not address the reasons for the topic ban, so we may assume that their validity is uncontested. Instead, the appeal argues that the topic ban should be lifted because of good article work done by Darkness Shines, and no loss of temper on their part. However, as Glrx points out, the topic ban was not (only) imposed for deficiencies in self-control, but also for edit-warring and misrepresenting cited sources. Because the appeal does not address this misconduct, we can't establish that the ban no longer serves a preventative function. I would therefore decline the appeal. Moreover, Darkness Shines writes in their appeal that they had a "drunken outburst" since the ban was imposed. In my view, people susceptible to drunken outbursts on Wikipedia, however rarely, should not edit sensitive and controversial topics. For this reason, too, I would decline the appeal.  Sandstein  19:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What Darkness Shines now says (on 19:37, 30 August 2014) about their source misrepresentation that contributed to Callanecc's decision to impose the sanction is at odds with my assessment of their editing in the previously mentioned administrators' discussion. This indicates, to me, that the ban is still needed to prevent similar misconduct by Darkness Shines in this topic area.  Sandstein  19:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a slightly more refined restriction that we could impose to recognise DS's improved conduct since the topic ban and allow him to make constructive edits but to keep him away from the conflicts that got him the topic ban in the first place? DS, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Glrx: 1RR was not my suggestion, and is not one I endorse. I agree with you that it would be inadequate, though it would not address the issues you raise, such as your concerns over sourcing in the Sierra Leone article—which is not covered by the current restriction an is out of scope for this board. That said, I'm not convinced that such a blunt instrument as a blanket topic ban from the subject area is (still) merited, and I would be interested to hear sensible suggestions for lesser restrictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's an idea. Why not let DS chooose a specified number of articles (say 3) in the TBAN area that he wants to improve/bring up to GA, and let him work on those only for a specified amount of time? Then if this is successful, to come back here and discuss a further lifting of the TBAN? Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That seems a reasonable compromise, though I'd prefer it to apply to one article at a time and the lack of scrutiny of GAs makes me nervous. I would need assurances on neutrality and sourcing (particularly that that the sources were properly represented—not just assuming good faith for offline/paywalled sources), but if I got those assurances and DS managed to avoid getting into personal disputes along the way, I would be more amenable to loosening or lifting the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • DS, I'm sure you're not the only Wikipedian with a library card. A sensible way could be found to find a third party to check the sources. Now, are the terms I've suggested acceptable or do you think intransigence is going to get you a better offer? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I've no problem with you using offline/paywalled sources, I just want a third party to check that the article properly represents those sources; if it does, I'll be much more amenable to lifting the topic ban. I'll let other admins weigh in on your question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There have been no comments in four days, and I sense that there is no momentum for lifting the ban or granting an exemption. Does any admin who favors lifting it want to lead the way here? Otherwise the ban-lifting, which requires consensus, will probably fail. The AE archive bot has taken this report away once already. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd be quite willing to grant the exemption discussed above (one article, to be brought up to GA standard and to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure accurate source representation and neutrality), but I'd like to have the endorsement of another admin or two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell -- Thanks for the proposal. Are you willing to be the admin who Darkness Shines negotiates with, to agree on the article and review the sourcing? EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That would be fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Haberstr[edit]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Haberstr[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Haberstr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBEE : Topic ban (at least temporary) from Eastern/Central European topics (or at least Russia/Ukraine)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Sept 1 Baseless accusations about some conspiracy which involves myself, User:RGloucester and User:Iryna Harpy and perhaps User:331dot
  2. Sept 1 More unfounded aspersions of conspiracy and tag teaming... in the same comment in which s/he demands that *others* assume good faith towards him/her!
  3. Sept 1 Tendentious wiki-lawyering about the use of the WP:WEASEL word "alleged" (Haberstr wants articles to say everything is just "alleged" when it doesn't match his POV)
  4. Sept 1 WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. More of that in other diffs and in regard to other comments by other users.
  5. Sept 2 More accusations and WP:BATTLEGROUND
  6. Sept 2 "There's an organized and successful effort to make Ukraine conflict articles biased." - baseless WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, conspiracy talk. Later added ". Because there is a team of four or five working together it is impossible for one editor to stop their POV push" [5] (just to be clear, the editors he's accusing of being in a conspiracy together actually *disagreed* with each other about the relevant article. Two of them actually more or less supported Haberstr in this particular instance (they wanted the relevant article deleted) but they had the nerve to disagree with Haberstr elsewhere, hence the aspersions.)
  7. Sept 2 - more of the same.
  8. Sept 6 WP:BATTLEGROUND style comment, more thinly veiled accusations of some conspiracy and strange talk of some "New Cold War"
  9. [6] Battleground section title on another user's talk page
  10. Sept 6 Snide comments on the talk page repeating the implied accusation of collusion or some "secret conspiracy". This is after repeated warnings from other editors and me mentioning that if he continues with these baseless accusations he'll wind up at WP:AE
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Notification of discretionary sanctions by User:Callanec on Sept 1 [7], note most of the WP:BATTLEGROUND comments were made *after* the notification/warning was issued.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Since User:Haberstr moved over from Syrian-war related articles (where he also apparently got into some trouble) to ones related to the ongoing situation in Ukraine, he's displayed a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, has made a series of baseless accusations towards any editor active in this area who has disagreed with them, and engaged in tendentious editing. I'm mostly skipping evidence and diffs for the last one because it's mostly and specifically content related but it has involved moving talk pages without consensus (while move discussion was ongoing), changing wording to highly POV versions and demanding that his POV is given WP:UNDUE space in relevant articles (see the diff with comment by Kudzu1 above for an example). He's been warned/talked to/notified several times. Initially his most egregious comments were confined to his talk page but he has since began to make similar comments and aspersions on article talk pages.

His behavior has been noted by several editors (though of course, Haberstr contends that these are in a conspiracy against them):

  • Warning by RGloucester [8] about Haberstr's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems.
  • Warning by NeilN [9]
  • Comment by Kudzu1 on the nature of what Haberstr regards as "NPOV": [10]
  • Warning about the baseless accusations by Iryna Harpy [11] and [12]
  • Comment from 331dot about Haberstr's accusations [13] [14]
  • 331dot pointing out the problems with Haberstr behavior, and a warning about unilateral page moves [15], [16][17]
Further comments and replies
Reply to HiLo48's edit at 02:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC) (moved here by Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC))
HiLo48, it's not that. Me and you have had our disagreements but I've never seen a reason to take a dispute with you to this particular noticeboard (and if somebody does take a dispute they have with you here, I would be happy to say a few things in your favor - guarded and qualified, of course, but positive none the less). Yes, people will have different perspectives. And it may even be the case that it is very hard for these people to find common points of agreement. The problem with Haberstr' behavior is on a different level, however. It's classic WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT combined with a disruptive approach which says "If I don't get my way, I will get back at you by making your (editing) life difficult". Which is the quintessence of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. EVEN IF somebody happens to agree with the POV they're trying to push, it's hard to defend the way they're going about it. Volunteer Marek  04:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Penwhale: " @Volunteer Marek:, can you answer Sandstein's question?" - I'm sorry, what question are you referring to? I see one question mark in Sandstein's comment and that's at the end of a statement addressed to other AE admins. Volunteer Marek  04:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Penwhale: Well, the word "obviously" and the phrase "on their own" are in that sentence. You should probably ask Sandstein to clarify if you're not clear on what he's saying. My view is that, sure, any particular one of these diffs is not sanctionable on its own. Which is why I didn't run to WP:AE the first time that Haberstr started accusing editors about being in a conspiracy against him. Or the second time. Or the third time. It was only when he kept doing it, when it started to become an issue on talk pages - in that it pretty much shut down productive discussion - that it reached a certain critical point, where it became clear that Haberstr's battleground mentality was disrupting the editing process that I filed this report. I don't disagree with Sandstein's assessment except perhaps in the matter of degree (I'm also assuming that the rest of his comment, the part about bickering is not directed at me but some of the other commentators, as the only other comment I posted here was trying to say something nice about HiLo)

I'm sort of not clear about what is you're asking. Volunteer Marek  18:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notification of this request [18]


Discussion concerning Haberstr[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Haberstr[edit]

You're losing this veteran editor, Wikipedia, and I've made thousands of NPOV edits since 2007. These obviously POV Ukraine entries, where the POV editors don't even allow a widely supported POV tag, that's just not encyclopedic, it's just too much. (Note that this arb com attack on me was apparently sparked by my request here: Ukraine: Volunteer Marek's pre-discussion removal of POV tag (twice) on admin noticeboard.) But, if Wikipedia has taken the side of the U.S. and NATO in the New Cold War, then there's no problem, because Wikipedia now has become the pro-NATO Wikipedia in all its Ukraine conflict entrie. I understand that the Russian-language Wikipedia is appparently anti-NATO, anti-U.S. POV on Ukraine conflict articles. Ain't war by other means just fine and dandy!?

The critical and obvious sign of POV is the following: nearly all RS report certain accusations against Russia as allegations or claims, but the POV editors insist on transforming these claims into facts. Sometimes they do so in the title of entries; see Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014). (On the same article's talk page, see also this discussion: POV: Claims presented as facts. ) Usually, though, the claims transformed into 'facts' are in the introductory sentences of an entry. For example, here is something from the start of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine: "These men were identified as Russian special forces and other paramilitaries." Well, no, RS reported these allegations as claims, not as facts. I of course changed the biased copy and was almost immediately reverted. Much much more on the intro paragraphs bias here[19] and here[20]. Here is something from the lead paragraph of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation: "Russia absorbed the peninsula after staging a military intervention in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ..." The preceding is in fact a claim, and is stated as a claim in all RS news reports. (By the way, the "Annexation" article duplicates 2014 Crimean crisis. Like the "Invasion" entry, I suppose the POV editors just wanted to get a contentious word into the name of another Ukraine conflict entry, and don't care about the duplication violation. Those editors had earlier, and without discussion on the talk page, changed the NPOV 'Incorporation' into the arguably POV 'Annexation'.)

I have a long track record of working well with NPOV editors, working well with POV editors who sincerely want to become NPOV, and an ability to NPOV improve politically charged articles: [21], [22]. And I have attempted to do the same regarding Ukraine conflict entries: I improve Ukraine-related articles with appropriate, balanced, NPOV edits and, when such changes are reverted (as they almost always are), I attempt to discuss the matter on article talk pages, and then as a last resort I appropriately tagging obvious POV entries as POV. I always support POV tag application with a substance-full list of many POV violations. The POV editors never engage, in particular Volunteer Marek, never engage in the normal, substantive discussion, and never allow the POV tag discussion to play out as Wikipedia policy requires. All attempts to get the POV editors to listen to what numerous people have said about their actions, their destruction and embarrassment of Wikipedia on the Ukraine topic have been futile. Anyone who reads their talk pages knows what is going on and disinterested administrators should consider a topic ban for those most resistant to NPOV. They can start with whoever started and still aggressively supports this ridiculous page: Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014).

Let's read that again: "If you have not taken sides and are in fact an editor who is NPOV-oriented, please discuss so we can agree that my lead is more or less (tweaking graciously accepted) NPOV. If you have enlisted with one side or the other in the new Cold War, please be self aware and don't get involved in the NPOV discussion." I stand by it; it seems like excellent advice, and I'm very surprised that an editor would attack such a quote.

I also stand by the following opinion: "There's an organized and successful effort to make Ukraine conflict articles biased." Based on their extensive discussion on their talk pages, a pro-Maidan group is out to make Ukraine conflict edits POV anti-Russian and pro-Maidan. And I admit it is their 'right' to do so, if they can get away with it. However, I promise to desist from making such a claim or allegation in the future. As any dedicated NPOV editor will imagine, I've been very frustrated by the successful pro-Maidan, anti-Russian attack on Wikipedia neutrality. I have never seen anything like it, and I hope we see the back of it soon. At the very very least, though, POV tags should be applied to the worst violators while we wait out the POV editors. We owe that to our readers. In other words, the following sort of behavior needs to stop: [23]. But it is not just Marek who is the problem: note the quick POV tag removal here: POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry. Haberstr (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Haberstr[edit]

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

A notice to all bystanders: Please stop arguing and bickering among yourselves, you're wasting your time. I couldn't care less about whatever opinions any of you might have about who is at fault here. The only thing that matters to me as an admin here is evidence, i.e., dated and explained diffs of actionable misconduct.

Now, I see a lot of assuming bad faith on both parts of the dispute here, but I'm currently at a loss as to how we might translate this into useful admin action. None of the reported diffs by Haberstr strike me as obviously sanctionable on their own. Nonetheless, the statement by Haberstr is concerning insofar as it alleges an organized propaganda effort by the "other side" without providing any convincing evidence. This contributes to a picture of a battleground attitude that might require a topic ban. Any other admin opinions?  Sandstein  11:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • AE is part of the Arbitration umbrella, and as such we generally do not like people making threaded comments (especially since it can spiral out of control quickly). That being said: Allegation (both the term and action of Haberstr) should not be used unless that is the actual case. Thus, @Haberstr:: can you provide hard evidence to back up your allegation? @Volunteer Marek:, can you answer Sandstein's question? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Volunteer Marek: I believe that Sandstein's assessment refers the diffs supplied by you (the "None of the reported diffs by Haberstr strike me as obviously sanctionable on their own." part), and I would like some more information on them. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 16:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Re-reading this thread makes me instinctively want to topic-ban several participants, including Haberstr and Herzen for contributing to a battleground atmosphere by casting fellow Wikipedians in the role of operatives of a propaganda network, as well as others for casting aspersions and pointless ranting. (The only thing that does not bother me is the canvassing. This is not a consensus-based process, so it doesn't matter who makes statements.) Assuming that most of my admin colleagues will not want to go along with that, I recommend that we close this request with no action, except a reminder that others expressing opinions or making content edits with which one disagrees does not necessarily make them POV-pushers or enemy intelligence operatives. Comment on content, not on the contributor.  Sandstein  18:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
If you wanted to propose something a little more refined than a topic ban, Sandstein, I'd be open to persuasion. Perhaps a specific restriction against casting aspersions, backed up by lengthy blocks for violations? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of complicated sanctions. They tend to lead to an enforcement overhead that is not proportionate to their usefulness.  Sandstein  10:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing is bad behavior, even though AE has some structural immunity to being swayed by canvassing. Blocks for bad behavior are something we can consider here. Also, consider how we would normally handle complaints of WP:ARBPIA violations. If we saw so much partisanship and blanket accusations of ganging-up in an ARBPIA complaint we would probably issue topic bans for WP:BATTLE editing. I suggest admins should consider rereading the diffs 1 through 10 provided by User:Volunteer Marek at the top of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Because of continued bickering and battleground-like conduct among editors who are not party to this request, I've closed off discussion among them, although any existing informative opinions should of course still be taken into account. Now, on the merits, I think that we should close this with a warning to most participants that any battleground-like conduct, canvassing, soapboxing etc. may lead to a topic ban without further discussion. But if any admin wants to impose topic bans or other sanctions on the basis of the evidence already before us, then I could understand that too.  Sandstein  10:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've read through all the comments on this request and checked out Haberstr's past record at the admin boards. At present I don't see a need to topic ban User:Haberstr. But it is clear that he engaged in non-neutral canvassing and I recommend a one-week block for that. Even if he's correct that some of our articles aren't neutral he needs to patiently work with others to get them changed. He appears to be convinced that the justice of his cause excuses his bad behavior. As User:Sandstein observes, he exhibits a battleground attitude and casts 'fellow Wikipedians as the operatives of a propaganda network.'
  • Haberstr seems to believe he is entitled to place a POV tag on articles he disagrees with: 'These obviously POV Ukraine entries, where the POV editors don't even allow a widely supported POV tag, that's just not encyclopedic, it's just too much.' Our Wikipedia practice is that the POV tag is placed to allow a respectful discussion of the POV issues to take place, and its continued presence requires consensus, not just the opinion of one person. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani[edit]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Nishidani[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 13 September 2014 Reverting in middle of discussion by 5 editors [28] that said the article shouldn't include this information and yet instead following WP:DR he reverted.In my opinion its classical case of WP:IDHT.
  2. 13 September 2014 Violation of WP:NPA by calling fellow editor ignorant and WP:BATTLE behavior by accusing other editor in vote stacking.
  3. 9 September 2014 Disrupting WP:OR board to WP:SOAP about an event by presenting his version of WP:TRUTH instead discusing WP:OR problems
  4. 8 September Blatant source falsification to WP:POVPUSH nowhere the source say that " settlers, who argue the presence of Palestinians is driving them off" .I could not find in the source that settlers said that.The source quite clearly says what is the reason by quoting head of settlers community.This edit was meant clearly to conceal those reasons to show settlers in negative light clearly WP:TE.
  5. 25 August 2014-"Your disingenuousness" - clear violation of WP:NPA and fail to WP:AGF.
  6. 22 August 2014 "Some idiot" Clear violation of WP:NPA.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

The editor was banned indefinitely in WP:ARBPIA2 the topic ban was lifted by appeal

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • The editor was banned indefinitely by ARBCOM for exactly the same violations [29] namely "edit-warring ([71], [72]), as well as incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ([73], [74], [75])." Though his topic ban was lifted nothing has changed in user behavior.
  • Its clear that his incivility and failure to WP:AGF with source falsification to promote his own WP:POV make him unsuited to edit WP:ARBPIA area.--Shrike (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC).


Response to Kingsindian:

  • Please stop with Straw man arguments no one claimed that the user is not discussing.The user has clearly acted against consensus and reverted.
  • WP:NOTTHEM
  • Please explain what his edit has to do with WP:OR argument?
  • The diffs are not stale only one recent diff should be provided from the past week [30]--Shrike (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: So its OK to make personal comments about other users? And the phrase "his ignorance of international law" could be only construed as violation of WP:NPA also you forgot that was not the only problem in his comment but accusing of other user in vote stacking is clear indication of WP:BATTLE.--Shrike (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Zero0000, Johnuniq: Then why not simply give a reasons the source talks a lot about that.This nothing more simpler then that.This edit was meant clearly to conceal those reasons to show settlers in negative light clearly WP:TE.--Shrike (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[31]


Discussion concerning Nishidani[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

Disclosure: I edit in the I/P area, though I never edited either of these particular articles or their talk pages except for the talk page of Israel and the apartheid analogy in 2013. Zerotalk 05:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

“What parent would allow his daughter to travel on a bus full of Arabs?”
“Jews are wary of traveling on buses full of Arab workers from Judea and Samaria,” Katzover said. “A large number of them support terror. No one knows when one of them may pull out a knife for this or that reason… your average good Jew is scared to travel.”
Amazingly, Shrike thinks that Nishidani's summary "settlers, who argue the presence of Palestinians is driving them off [the buses]" is a misreport. On the contrary, this exemplifies Nishidani's carefully measured style of writing, since the source would clearly justify a much stronger summary. Zerotalk 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Next, why is Nishidani's revert (diff #1) actionable, while the immediately preceding revert of Plot Spoiler and the immediately following revert of Shrike (both of the same material) are not? Turning to the talk page discussion, we see that Nishidani has spent much more time discussing the text than either Plot Spoiler or Shrike have. One should also note that the debated text tells both sides of the argument, which is a normal feature of Nishidani's edits and why he is such a valuable contributor. Zerotalk 04:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding diff #2, Shrike had written, inter alia, "Hamas of course control the borders of Gaza" and Nishidani attributed this to Shrike's ignorance of international law. This was an error on Nishidani's part; he should have just noted the astonishing chasm between Shrike's claim and the facts without theorising as to why Shrike made it. Zerotalk 09:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin's "evidence" consists of a few items of talk page discussion where Nishidani wrote something that Gaijin disagrees with. The weakness of this case is all too evident. It should be closed. Zerotalk 01:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]

Re diff 2 [32]: "ignorance of international law" is of course not the same as "ignorant". The comment to which Nishidani responded shows that the editor is indeed unfamiliar with international law as relevant to the topic that was being discussed. Combined with Zero's points above, the observation reinforces my sense that this entire report is itself an exercise in bad faith and disingenuousness, perhaps rising to the level of WP:BATTLE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

Diffs 5 and 6 are stale (and anyway not actionable). To avoid WP:TLDR, I will address diffs 1, 2, 3.

  • Diff 1 is the most silly. Plot Spoiler (original revert) has made a grand total of 2 talk page edits, Shrike has made 34 edits while Nishidani has made 265. Who is discussing stuff and who is not? This is typical of Plot Spoiler's behaviour. I can give examples if requested.
  • Diff 2 is about an RfC which I started, in which everyone agreed on a compromise except the editor concerned (MarciulionisHOF). The editor initially insisted Sep 12 on putting up a long rant in the RfC header, and kept going on after the RfC closed. This is typical of his behaviour on the talk page. I do not want to get him into any trouble - he is probably new.
  • Diff 3 is about a content dispute. It took place both on the talk page and the WP:NORN. Needless to say, there is nothing actionable there.

Call me prescient, but I knew this kind of gaming would happen. Kingsindian (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A brief comment on diff 5. It was a productive discussion (though very long), and the editor (WarKosign) himself finally swapped the picture for another one I had suggested. Kingsindian (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq[edit]

Diff 4 asserts that this edit was "Blatant source falsification" because the source does not say "settlers, who argue the presence of Palestinians is driving them off". However, the edit is not falsification—it is simply a brief summary of the key points from the source. The source's heading includes "settlers demand Palestinian-free buses", and paragraph 4 includes the view of a spokesman that "...they've [Palestinians] occupied the buses, not out of malice. They've scared away the Jews..."—in other words, the presence of Palestinians on the buses is driving away Jewish travelers. The source gives reasons that the settlers are reluctant to travel on a bus under the conditions described, but the text added by Nishidani is merely an accurate and neutral description of the key points—separate transportation systems were abolished, and settlers have protested because the presence of Palestinians has made settlers unwilling to travel on the buses. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Re Shrike's comment at 08:24, 15 September 2014: The article is Israel and the apartheid analogy and Nishidani's edit addressed the fact that certain separate transportation systems were abolished (that is, were not apartheid). However, it would be misleading to leave the text at that as if Palestinians and Israelis were happily traveling together—accordingly Nishidani's edit identifed that the arrangements had been protested. How can that be tendentious editing? By contrast, adding commentary to justify the protests would be off-topic and minor POV pushing on the basis that any mention of an Israeli action must be accompanied with text to justify the action. Shrike's claims are very strong (blatant source falsification, tendentious editing) and would require strong evidence whereas I see only assertions. If reviewing admins agree, perhaps Shrike should be counselled against this approach. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Re diff 5: Perhaps too much is being read into the term: disingenuous: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere. The context shown in diff 5 is reasonable—an editor stated "I did not see the criticism, only that the photo disappeared without clear reasons" when in fact the editor had received a detailed explanation after asking at Nishidani's talk—that is lacking in frankness. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MarciulionisHOF[edit]

Personal attack[edit]

Nishidani caricaturized me a person crying that everything is antisemitic (pro-Palestinian theme - sample, generally derogatory - sample at "zion crime factory"):

  • "you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic" ... (excuse for attack) - 08:56, 31 August 2014

Justified the attack as deserving:

  • "The evidence for what I wrote is in the section heading you created." 15:43, 31 August 2014 (No. There is no evidence there.)
Cheesehead hat (read: inappropriate) commentary[edit]
  • "the unilateral Israelocentric POV drafting"..." inside some Israeli ministry.:)" 21:36, 30 August 2014.
  • There's a bunch of other small ones which he did not respond to when asked for clarification -- e.g. needless use of "mass civilian deaths" in an edit summary, alleging "distaste" was the argument presented (when it wasn't). Ignoring major changes (the formation of a unity government) as "No sensible objections".."presented. Let's move on."
Side notes[edit]
  • I've asked for guidance. Sandstein suggested I ignore 'pettiness of others'. I also specifically asked about the history of Nishidani but only now learn of an indefinite block and other blue cheese spread pettiness. Fabulous.
  • "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert." Kingsindian -- cannot be considered a good idea (I would hope). I see this type of thinking as 'Goya-worthy' and feel this a good place to get clarification for everyone. Please. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42[edit]

I have been previously active in the 2014 Gaza article, but have not been active for the past several weeks. He regularly disparages WP:RS as being unreliable propaganda (refering to them as Hasbara), and using his own WP:OR to argue why sourced information should not be included. His WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is one of the reasons I no longer actively edit in this area. In light of his previous topic ban, it seems that there may be a persistent problem here. Due to my absense from the article, these "diffs" are all older (20 days?) so are not good evidence for current activity, but are useful I think in showing the persistent nature of the problem.


  • [33] (3rd comment in threaded discussion) "The Washington Post just picked up the hasbara, and we know from past studies this is propaganda. " and "My point is that this is an IDF meme"
  • [34]
  • [35] Long difficult to quote WP:OR
  • Arguing that the NYT is not reliable (because they hire people from Israel!) while Palestinian bloggers are very reliable (972mag.com) (Entire section, but last comment in the section in particular) [36]

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Statement by Pluto2012[edit]

NB: I have to state that Nishidani is a valuable editor that I like to collaborate with because of his deep knowledge both on the I-P topic and the wikipedia principles. On the other side, I prefer avoiding any interaction with Shrike who I don't see as a constructive and interesting contributor.

I only focused on diff 3. This diff should be counted for and not against Nishidani and the different accusations he is targeted by, such as WP:NPA. Indeed, Nishidani explains very precisely in that diff why his contradictor (Shrike)'s point is not correct. He does it without any attack and is extremely factual. That is perfect exemple of the behaviour to adopt on wikipedia. It is amazing Shrike reports this. (Just for the following of this argumentation: Nishidani reports an WP:undue issue.)

In this request, Shrike argues that the answer of Nishidani in diff 3 is a form of... wp:soap because he explains a problem of wp:undue on a wp:or board! That's of course not an acceptable argumentation. And other contributors here above mentionned it was not actionnable [against Nishidani]. I agree with them.

But in my opinion, this diff and the fact it is reported by Shrike is actionnable against him for a topic ban on this board! Indeed Shrike proves here that he makes :

  • WP:Lawyering and just gather argument to get arguments;
  • More, the argumentation of Nishidani in diff 3 proves (without performing any accusation there !) that Shrike was performing Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing because he didn't ignore the wp:undue problem reported by Nishidani. Civil POV puhing and Lawyering illustrate the same kind of disruptive behaviour very difficult to put in light but extremely time consuming for all contributors...
  • More, regarding the global lack of consistancy of this request, I think Shrike is just on the bad side of the WP:POINT.
  • I don't intervene often here but I have the feeling to see Shrike on each request (which the Arbitrators will be able to judge better than me).

For these reasons, I would suggest Shrike is banned to intervene here.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Nishidani[edit]

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