Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new request

Shuki

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

Request concerning Shuki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

asad (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, Violation of mandatory rule requiring editors to explain all reverts on the Golan Heights talk page

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

1. Feb. 2 2012 Partially reverts back to the revision of an IP and User:Plot Spoiler to change "Israeli settlers" to "Israelis"

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

1. Topic-banned on Nov. 29 2010 by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)
2. Blocked on Dec. 2 2010 by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) for "abusive sockpuppetry"

(Original topic ban was reset at end of block and expired two months ago)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Shuki has continued a trend originally started by an IP, and followed up by Plot Spoiler, of misrepresenting the source attached to the population numbers on Golan Heights infobox. The BBC source clearly states, "Population estimate: 20,000 Israeli settlers, 20,000 Syrians" [1]. Shuki's misrepresentation of that fact is a clear attempt to push a certain Israeli POV that Israelis in the Israeli-occupied territories do not need to be referred to as "settlers". While that might be a fine topic to discuss and try to reach consensus with on a talk or collaboration page, blatantly ignoring the source with a trigger-happy revert approach is unacceptable. Furthermore, there is a requirement that all editors must discuss any revert performed on talkpage. Shuki (and Plot Spoiler for that matter) have failed to do that.

I believe Shuki's history speaks for itself. Barely two months out of a topic-ban that was reset do to sockpuppetry, Shuki seemed all to eager to defend[2][3] a obvious, disruptive sockpuppet. I can't really see how to topic area has benefited from Shuki's presence.

@Shrike, it may have been a content dispute if they actually provided the source, but the just piggybacked and misrepresented the BBC source. -asad (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate, No where in the report is it mentioned that there was no explanation. I am not quite sure what your point is. -asad (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Admins, I have shrunken the text of what I feel is the less matter of importance in my report, as it seems there is too much attention being paid to that. -asad (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@WGFinley - You said, "Here we are to consider the removal or addition of a single noun describing a segment of the population in the Golan as "settlers" or not." I would really be hoping that you would consider it on the basis of an editor changing material that doesn't correspond with the source already linked to push a POV. If you are tired of the whole A/E saga, please just go to the WP:ARBPIA and tally the amounts of blocks and bans per each side of the conflict. I am sure that you will find the trouble is overwhelming coming from one side of the conflict. -asad (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@T. Canens - I would really like to reiterate what Sean has said. Also, since when has it become to acceptable behavior within ARBPIA to blindly revert something that doesn't even correspond with the source that it is linked with?? It is not a fight over "six letters", it is a about a veteran editor who removes a word which pushes a POV of the Israeli narrative of the Golan Heights. And in doing so, ignores the reliable sourced attached to the statement. What is even more ridiculous is that my edit summary of prior to Shuki's revert said "see talk page." I explained clearly on the talk page that the BBC source does not correspond with the text (see here) and Shuki reverted anyways. Again, since when is this kind of editing acceptable within ARBPIA, more importantly, since when is this kind of editing acceptable within Wikipedia at all? -asad (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

First off, please note that I am reserving my right not to have to respond to any sort of request against me until it is filed in the proper method and channel. But I would just like to say that perhaps I may have been more inclined to go to Shuki's talkpage to civilly inform him that he ignored a source in his revert, but one of the last times I civilly went to Shuki's talkpage with a matter, my edit was reverted as "vandalism". Thusly, I am not inclined anymore to bring requests to Shuki's talkpage, as he might report me for "vandalism".

Secondly, I think Shuki's response below to the matter is tantamount to him saying that sources don't matter so long as he has determined that a phrase is inappropriate to describe "one people" (I.E. - calling Israeli settlers - settlers). I don't care if the argument is whether or not potatoes should be called "red potatoes" or simply "potatoes. If the high-quality source says "There are 20,000 red potatoes on Old MacDonald's farm" and an editor and removes the word "red" from the picture, that is blatant misrepresentation of the source and applying WP:VERIFY and WP:SYNTH. I don't really think I should explain how or why the term "settlers" is contentious, but the mere fact that Israel views the Golan Heights as its sovereign territory and the rest of the world doesn't would explain why high-quality, reliable sources, overwhelmingly describe the Israeli population in the Golan as "settlers".

Shuki's inability to see this is proof enough as to why he shouldn't be editing in the topic area. Furthermore, we have to deal with things like retaliatory A/E filings and comments such as "Your combined desperation and perseverance to eliminate me", and "asad has demonstrated that he's taken on policeman and attack duty". This displays Shuki's WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. -asad (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[4]

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

I'm wondering if I should open an AE against asad for not AGF and for turning into a serial attacker here on AE, curiously replacing a currently t-banned editor, instead of a collaborative editor that would normally have sent a cordial notification, or at least a threat warning instead. I have not edited the Golan article or talk page in over a year, or even two or more, if ever, from a look back at the last few hundred edits in history. I am aware of the 1RR on all Israel Arab articles or assume that it applies on the Golan articles as well. I did not check if my edit was a revert of a previous edit since I was not part of the edit war and had no intention of getting into it either by even bothering to 'risk' violating the personal 1RR, and from coming off a Tban as asad has kindly reminded all. I was not aware of the heated edit war on such a lame issue of removing labels, to which I thought was a simple case of making NPOV and I did mention this in the edit message. The page is on my watchlist since I had worked on several Golan Heights-related articles in the past, but I do not actively follow that area either. I have not been notified of this special restriction, and it was not been posted to the WP:ISRAEL page which would be a natural place for that. The Golan article merely appeared high on my watchlist of hundreds of articles and I made a quickie while not being active in the last few days. When I did make the edit, I had noticed a template, but when I saw the 1RR word did not bother to read the rest of the message, assuming it was the standard one. If you all want to not AGF and instead claim I'm playing dumb, then thank you all.

Blade, I appreciate your comments. I would like to hear your thoughts and suggested sanctions about the profanity above and which the experienced editor has not bothered to remove after being pointed out. If you really did want to be a collaborative and objective uninvolved admin here on AE, you would have immediately reprimanded Sean, and blocked him for at least a half-day, for including battleground profanity and not bothering even to retract it, in the new 'no tolerance AE'. All editors coming to edit on AE is an automatic signal that they themselves are exposed to scrutiny, not only the subject. AE is not a chat forum. I also appreciate you adding the quickie and non-productive 'Shuki not looking good' instead of simply leaving it with a mention you had no time to come to a conclusion on what is a relatively short AE anyway. And mentioning Amira Hass shows your ignorance of the subject, not your awareness. Amira Hass does not write about the Golan Heights at all. AE is not an easy place to admin, but I expect NPOV from the admins here in order to be fair representatives of WP. Can you do that? --Shuki (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sean and asad. Your combined desperation and perseverance to eliminate me surprises me and amazes me. 'A blind revert', 'ignoring a source', 'I explained clearly' (in other words, you're an angel). asad has demonstrated that he's taken on policeman and attack duty, but Sean, I've always considered you to be the mature side of the anti-proIsrael editors, and not the reckless warrior you've now turned into. It wasn't a blind revert, it was a copy edit. Whining about the 'high quality source' is truly laughable if you see what is actually being discussed - NPOV a pejorative label. Settler is not itself a pejorative, but entirely antagonistic in that context where you insist on one people, when talking about population figures, needing to be qualified as settlers or anything else. I don't need a high-quality source to confirm in an infobox that we can call Israelis Israelis and not Israeli settlers, though they might be in your POV and the source you found. Nonetheless, Sean, as you have requested, I have stopped making edits like that and refrained from similar activity since then.

You on the other hand, have not removed the uncivil profanity, which makes it a daily reiteration of your combativeness which is so not welcomed here. You say, " if she continues there needs to be a cost because editors are not allowed to behave like this in the topic area " therefore, Blade, T Canens, WGFinley, I am adding Sean.hoyland to this AE as well, in violation of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions (many of the guidelines set forth on that page, such as Decorum, Editorial process, Dispute resolution, Editors reminded, Editors counseled, Standard discretionary sanctions, etc... My edit was not an attempt to introduce my POV on the Golan page or to misrepresent a 'source', and I have already demonstrated my understanding of the special 1RR-Talk on that article and refrained from continuing. In complete contrast, Sean, has had four days to remove that antagonistic profanity as well as blind dismissal of fellow editor's comments, and refused.

Blade, T Canens, WGFinley, I am also adding asad to this AE, for violating many guidelines on WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions and for not merely and kindly using my talk page for dispute resolution instead of opening another battlefront on AE, which is supposed to be a last resort, and clearly violating AGF. --Shuki (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

HJ, save the ink. I think you are lucid enough to see, as well as pointed out from other editors here, that this single infobox edit is not about ignoring a source at all. Given that, despite Sean's misleading comments, I've already said that it was not a provocation, certainly not an intentional, that I was mistaken in not investigating the page history and talk page before making that single quickie edit, that I was mistaken in not reading until the end of that unique warning, and that I have since refrained from editing that page, effectively tbanning myself on that and as well all Golan articles. I think you are being led on by those who wish to Make a mountain out of a molehill and actually egging them on in this battlefield which I do not want to be on anymore. It's not about my tbans, and it's not about some consistent problematic behaviour either, which also should be given a small credit after being tbanned for so long. If you want to make it all of that, go ahead. I think that this is a frivolous accusation that could have been avoided by a simple mention on my talk page so I could revert and avoid this waste of AE time. Even my 'rival' Nableezy had the courtesy to talk when issues arose. If you choose instead to analyse my behaviour since I have been back editing and actually do believe all that asad and Sean have said about my editing is true and ignore that this issue is stale and not just merely a way for you and Sean to eliminate me (Sean insists I stop making edits like thisand I have) and you yourself just made a very troubling false comment that Shuki has a long and troubled history at the Golan Heights article, (really HJ?? How many edits have I ever made there? I suggest you remove that accusation), then I trust your clear judgement. --Shuki (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki

Statement By Shrike

There are academic sources that use different terminology [5] so its are merely content dispute.--Shrike (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How is this ugly infantilism useful Sean? You have a proclivity to curse at other users which needs to stop already. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to revert that on TDA's sound advice and replace it with a diff where my comment is more pertinent. Since you have commented on it I'll leave it there. I rarely "curse at other users". I should do it more. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Troubling you've become so brazen that you don't care if admins at AE see your openly uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my stream of openly uncivil behavior and non-stop personal attacks are the problem. Nevertheless you should be concerned about making edits that violate ARBPIA restrictions and Strike should be concerned about saying things that misrepresent the situation. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Looks to me like there was an explanation for the revert. The explanation is that the infobox should either mention that the Syrians are Druze Arabs or avoid calling the Israelis settlers. Shuki should not be dictating the terms to be used in an article, but that is not enough of an issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, nevermind, it appears the restriction requires discussion on the talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like neither Shuki or Plot have contributed to that article since the restriction was imposed so it is reasonable to presume they would not be aware of it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It should further be noted that neither editor was duly warned of the unique restriction on the article. Shuki was given no warning at all, while the warning to Plot was vague in saying reverts needed to be explained per the requirement, without mentioning that such an explanation is required on the article talk page. Asad, all the same, has rushed to AE with this request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@RolandR This is a unique restriction on the article, not a general ARBPIA restriction from what I understand. Seems a bit much to say they would definitely be aware of some article-specific restriction in an article where only one of them has made any contributions before this and that nearly two years ago. Rather than assume that both of these editors looked over the talk page notices with a fine-tooth comb and decided to ignore the restriction, I think we should assume good faith of these editors and recognize that most people don't even think to check for a unique restriction on a specific article. Warning both editors of the unique restriction on Golan Heights in clear detail is the only action that any admin should take.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@T.Canens I hope you are not suggesting sanctions, because it seems reasonable to think that Shuki would simply not have been aware of the unique restriction on the article. Asad filed this report without so much as warning Shuki of the restriction. Seems to me like Asad is really just interested in getting sanctions imposed on Shuki.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I left a comment responding to HJ's suggestion at his talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest, if there is going to be action on Shuki, that it be of a more limited duration. Honestly, I think the editor probably did just miss the article-specific restriction in the notice and as no warning about that restriction was given by asad before he filed the AE request an indef ban from this article would just be excessive. Exactly how would Shuki even appeal that under the circumstances? Something between one and six months would at least drive the point home that such explanations are needed on the talk page of that article without denying Shuki the ability to ever contribute to it again. I mean, after just making one contribution to the article in nearly two years this unique restriction is being used to indef the editor from the article. Are you really going to apply that sort of draconian tactic against other ARBPIA editors who are new to editing that specific article?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR

It is irrelevant whether Shuki and Plot Spoiler have been individually informed of the restriction, since the article's edit page has a big header stating: "WARNING In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks." When reverting, they must surely have seen this. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

TDA, this is not a small announcement hidden away on the Talk page. It is a statement in bold letters, in a box, at the top of the edit page. I don't believe that it would be possible to miss this when editing the page. RolandR (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Shuki, the issue for me is that you ignored a clearly reliable source and changed article content to impose your view of what is neutral. Plot Spoiler did exactly the same thing of course (and again here, a bad habit that will certainly result in an AE report if it doesn't stop). You apparently genuinely believe that "Israelis" is more NPOV to describe Israeli settlers who live in Israeli settlements in areas that are outside of the green line and occupied by Israel such as the Golan Heights, despite the high quality source cited in this case using the standard terminology, terminology that is of course used by countless other sources, and so you feel justified in aligning Wikipedia content with your personal views. The problem is that your view of NPOV is inconsistent with Wikipedia's view of NPOV. If this were a one off, an exception, assuming good faith would make sense, but this is a feature of your editing in the topic area that has been going on for years across many articles. It's symptomatic of your inability or unwillingness to set aside your personal views and simply follow policy when it comes to Israeli settlers and the occupied territories in general. You may not like my personal views on what constitutes "profanity" but I don't impose those views on article content. You won't find me writing "bullshit" next to any of the many policy violating edits made by advocates in the topic area. I'm willing to believe that you didn't notice the article specific restrictions but I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to accept that after all these years you still believe that ignoring a source and erasing standard terminology is "a simple case of making NPOV". Can you stop doing things like this, yes or no ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sean, I prefer TDA approach. Categorizing people could be done in the body or lede text, infobox could contain total population. Anyway the discussed issue appears as content dispute that was resolved successfully imho, on article talk page. In sanctioned areas, the AE appears to be an arena of gaming where as you noted sometimes it is very desirable to "eliminate" editors with opposite "ideology". Administrators should be aware of that. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring a source, ignoring the talk page, ignoring an editing restriction and just doing whatever an editor wants isn't a content issue. It's a behavioral problem that needs to corrected by the editor or dealt with by sanctions. Insisting that editors follow policy as Asad has done is the "ideology" that Shuki is supposed to support here. We have AE to deal with inconsistencies between what an editor does and what they are supposed to do. What really matters is that Shuki stops making edits like this. It's easy. She can just stop doing it and say so. If that's too difficult she can simply take the articles that get her into trouble off her watchlist. Either way, if she stops there won't be any reason for editors to file AE reports but if she continues there needs to be a cost because editors are not allowed to behave like this in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Shuki, I don't understand how you can see a "desperation and perseverance to eliminate me" in what I wrote. It isn't there. I just want you to agree to stop making edits like this. That's all. You can do that. If you do that there is no reason for you to sanctioned is there. You are free to throw any number of accusations against me, I don't mind, as long as you stop making these kind of edits. If the topic area was being monitored by an intelligent bot that checked edits for compliance with policy, article restrictions and the sanctions, it would have filed this AE report against you. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tim, I posted my response to HJ Mitchell's concerns yesterday on my talk page here. Regarding the proposed remedies, apart from #4, indefinitely semi-protecting the Golan Heights article, I think they're irrational or at least from my perspective the conclusions don't follow from the information present. There's no dependency between the merit of an AE report filed by an editor and the degree to which that editor is directly involved in the events that led to the AE report so I don't understand the rationale for restricting AE filing. Would it harm the topic area to ban me from filing or editing on WP:AE on any case not directly involving me for six months ? No, so it's not something I care about. If you see it as something that would benefit the topic area, go for it. If I see things happening in the topic area that merit an AE report, I will send the prepared AE report to any of the large number of editors and admins in the topic area who are allowed to file AE reports because an AE report that has merit needs to be filed by someone. Do I recognize and acknowledge a battleground behavior and incivility on my part in this report ? No, my objective was to try to get Shuki to stop making edits like this by explaining why I think her edit was problematic and symptomatic of a wider problem that I think she needs to address to avoid AE reports being filed. I also described what I regard as bullshit, an attempt to portray a clear policy/sanction violation as a content issue, as bullshit. My comments caused a lot of noise and bluster but Shuki explained her position and said she will not make edits like this in future. Apparently I use different criteria to identify battleground behavior, incivility, personal attacks and I'm used to noise. If I used the criteria being employed here I would be filing an AE or an ANI report against editors everyday. Since there is a mismatch between criteria, I told HJ Mitchell that I will not comment at AE reports anymore unless I file them (and I only file cases when there is serious disruption) or they are filed against me. I have no intention of recognizing or adopting the criteria being used in this report to identify battleground behavior, incivility, personal attacks and I will be continuing to describe what I regard as bullshit as bullshit. Consequently, not commenting at AE reports anymore seems like an obvious solution. Do whatever you think will benefit the topic area and its content the most. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MichaelNetzer

A casual reader perusing this topic area might think Wikipedia has long thrown out neutrality and donned the populist hate-mantle. Editors trying to reclaim a semblance of NPOV are castigated for every move, threatened, intimidated and dragged to AE under false pretenses and pretentious charges. Qualifying a diverse Israeli Golan population as "settlers" in an infobox is far more pejorative and inflammatory than saying a settlement lies in the Judea & Samaria Area. Yet battle-editors complaining about Shuki's removal of one term, wouldn't rest until their own hated term was nearly erased from the encyclopedia. The legal statements on settlements, their verbose presence in leads and also in article sections, their disruptive placement interrupting content on the subject itself with bombastic titles and redundant repetitions, have turned these articles into a Wikipedia hate-in. One must wonder at the audacity displayed here with such "angelic" pretensions of neutrality. Shuki made a simple and correct edit towards the center in an infobox label. Nothing that warrants this level of disruption. How long will admins allow this abuse of AE to continue? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@TDA and admins: I agree that the proposed sanction against Shuki is an overkill for what seems an innocent oversight of a unique (and relatively unknown) prohibition for that page. It was also a reasonable and moderate edit that had already been through much more extreme states by other editors, evident by the fact that Shuki's edit helped clarify the dispute and modify the contentious terms towards the more neutral tone that's now in the Infobox:Population listing. That said, I think TDA misunderstands "indefinite" as "infinite", which I remember being explained otherwise here before. As I recall, "Indefinite" could be a week or a month or a year, depending on an editor's behavior. It essentially means "undefined", not "endless". If I'm wrong, admin clarification would be appreciated. Still, I agree with TDA that the sanction is exorbitant for this case. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed the standard definition (at least on Wikipedia) of "indefinite", and I'm sure if Shuki keeps out of trouble, an appeal in a few months' time would stand a good chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Brewcrewer

@Blade. Kindly withdraw from this thread. Your comments about reading up on Hass and Fisk, two authors on the extreme side of the spectrum (let alone a convicted defamer and someone whose reliability is mocked), indicate you're lacking familiarity with the basics of the Arab-Israel conflict. This unfamiliarity is further apparent from your suggested sanction. Even if sources uses the term "settlers" when describing Jews living in the Golan Heights, there are plenty of sources that simply use the term "Israelis." The latter neutral term should obviously be preferred in the name of NPOV. To weasel-word a maligned term into an infobox,[6] edit-war when it is removed,[7] is itself cause for sanctions. A fortiori sanctions should boomerang when the edit-warring npov-violating editor has the chutzpah to initiate an AE when things don't go his way .--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

May I ask what linking to a diff on my userpage has anything to do with anything? -asad (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Shuki

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

• Will it never end for some folks? Here we are to consider the removal or addition of a single noun describing a segment of the population in the Golan as "settlers" or not. This has led to a revert war putting the article back into protection again and this case on AE. I think we need to seriously approach our work in this topic area and if the same folks are going to come here time and time again with some fight or another then they shouldn't be editing this topic. Then we have the polite exchange among various parties as well. Don't even know where to start with this one. --WGFinley (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  One thing is clear though, I definitely agree that article needs to be indefinitely semi-protected, it's under constant disturbance from anon editing, with the number of bans in on this topic there's a good chance it is sock editing and deserving of protection. --WGFinley (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think this request can be readily disposed of on the ground that Shuki failed to observe the restriction which requires a talk page explanation for the revert. No opinion on other matters, though I do find this massive fight over six letters to be frankly perplexing (just when I thought nothing in this topic area would surprise me anymore...). T. Canens (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Ugh. Though I'm not terribly shocked an all-out brawl would happen over something like this, as I've read enough about this subject (Robert Fisk and Amira Hass, but others as well) to have seen this happening in the real world, I don't think people who engage in it really belong editing those articles. I'll look over the rest later, but this doesn't make Shuki look good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  @Shuki; I'm trying not to rush to judgment here, I'm merely trying to make it clear what impression I have. I always enter these with an open mind, but I try to make my thoughts known so you don't have to guess. Since telepathy is not among the tools received upon adminship, the best way to communicate that is to write it here, it doesn't make it my final answer; my mind can always change. My reading list above is also suppoeed to be demonstrative, not exhaustive; Hass has reported on it in the past anyways, so I've read the prosaic and condensed version of certain news events. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  @Brewcrewer; don't try to patronize me. Your perception of my knowledge of the subject is a red herring; I'm not interested in carrying on debates over semantics here (though I should say my view on this isn't as one-sided as you seem to think; my explanation for my reading above appearing as such is that I wrote that on about 4 hours sleep and didn't think to list "one from each side"), nor am I interested in being told what I do and don't know by someone who has never met me (I feel no obligation here to demonstrate precisely what I do and don't know, though I've long been aware of Hass' conviction and of fisking). I'm interested in seeing whether or not Shuki violated an ARBPIA article restriction. Please keep your comments to issues pertinent to the topic at hand. Incidentally, I haven't suggested a sanction just yet, as I'm still not sure what I think the right course of action is yet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's concerning that an editor only too well aware of the contentiousness of this topic area would make such an edit, which any reasonable person could tell was going be to a source of further contention. I don't know what sort of action would be appropriate, but I think it would be a mistake to allow that sort of provocation to go unacknowledged.

  It's equally concerning that a group of editors, and Sean.hoyland in particular, would see an AE request against a third party as an appropriate venue to thrash out their personal differences. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and AE certainly isn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Addenda:
  • I've given Sean.hoyland a formal notification of the discretionary sanctions. Other editors should be aware that hijacking AE threads (especially those on third parties) for interpersonal disputes will lead to sanctions should it recur.
  • WP:ARBPIA#Log of blocks and bans shows that Shuki has a long and troubled history at the Golan Heights article, andpardon me, I seem to have misread the log. Apologies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC) in the Israel-Palestine area generally, leading to multiple topic bans, blocks, and restrictions. Template:Editnotices/Page/Golan Heights, which is displayed when one edits the Golan Heights article, very clearly advertises the restriction which Shuki allegedly violated, and, as I said above, I think any reasonable editor would have known that that edit would cause controversy. As such, I am suggesting an indefinite ban from the article Golan Heights. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Remedies

I've stared at this for a several days and considered the circumstances again and here is what I propose to dispose of this report.

1. Shuki (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from Golan Heights as suggested by HJM. He reverted without explanation as required on the talk page and the edit notice as well. I put this into place on this article to avoid these senseless edit wars with no discussion on talk. Ironically enough it seems when it did get discussed some compromises were reached, let this stand as an example that on contentious articles like this TALK first, EDIT second. This is not the way I desired to have my point proven.
2. Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) banned from filing or editing on WP:AE on any case not directly involving him for six months for battleground behavior and incivility.
3. Brewcrewer (talk · contribs) banned from filing or editing on WP:AE on any case not directly involving him for six months for a direct personal attack on an uninvolved admin patrolling WP:AE. There's clearly some prior disagreement here and clearly has nothing at all to do with this case. WP:AE should not be subject to hijacking for one's personal axes.
4. Golan Heights is indefinitely semi-protected due to constant and ongoing disruption by anon editors, likely related to sockpuppetry by banned users.
5. All contributors to WP:AE are reminded, if you come here with unclean hands or to further your battleground dispute in this venue and disrupt WP:AE, you are subject to sanction.

• Support as proposer. --WGFinley (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• As the admin who Brewcrewer was addressing, I'll abstain on 3 to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but I support the others. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Where's Brewcrewer's personal attack? T. Canens (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Without remarking on the merits of the proposed remedial action, I recommend that you expedite the resolution of this complaint, because it has been pending for some days, and the discussion by uninvolved editors has been particularly heated. In future, perhaps it might be considered that, on a case-by-case basis, ending discussion by involved editors where it becomes disruptive or heated may be a productive interim solution. AGK [•] 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• At this moment I agree with 1, 4, and 5. As to 2, Sean.hoyland has just been notified of the discretionary sanctions like a day ago and the offending edits predate that notification. We can probably still find constructive warning from his past participation at AE (so sanctions are not entirely impossible), but I want to consider his response to the proposed sanction first, considering his apparently clean history. As to Brewcrewer, I'm not quite seeing the PA right now. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Sean is well aware his behavior here is subject to sanction, it's spelled out boldly at the top of this page and he has 149 edits here. We also previously held formal warning wasn't required for someone who participated on WP:AE, I reopened a case I closed because of it. As far as Brewcrewer telling an uninvolved admin he shouldn't be providing an opinion that is a clear personal attack. It's a politely worded "you don't know what you're talking about" and GTFO -- using flowery verse doesn't make it any less personal. Admins shouldn't have to wear industrial strength flame retardant suits to patrol here, this type of behavior needs to stop. I have found all the admins who patrol here are receptive to constructive criticism, people shouldn't be bashed over the head with it. --WGFinley (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  As to Sean: Yes, I remember that. I wrote the comment that caused the reopening of that case...As I said, we can probably find constructive warning, but since HJ just made a formal notification, I'm a little wary about piling on with a sanction immediately afterwards.

  As to Brewcrewer, I'm not convinced. I'm very wary of sanctioning people for criticizing AE admins, even if the criticism is totally misguided. If Blade really were totally clueless, how is someone supposed to point it out? Since admins need not recuse simply due to criticism directed at them, no matter how heated, people who go overboard with their comments do so at their own peril (compare WP:BUTT), since they risk antagonizing the admin and being treated less favorably. I'm not convinced that actively sanctioning criticism, no matter how misguided, is a good idea. T. Canens (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  I respect your opinion as always Tim but I just think you are going lightly on this one. Taking action to protect WP:AE from becoming a constant battleground just carried out in a different venue is not piling on. Sean contributed to the ensuing very heated disturbance and Brewcrewer was happy to take a swipe at Blade when Blade did little more than make a passing reference to some recent reading he had done. Getting criticized is part of taking the mop and to be expected, even more so here given the nature of it, I think this went well beyond criticism, it was disproportionately hostile. I wish you would reconsider but understand and will see what others think. --WGFinley (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I agree with Tim here. I don't think Sean was in need of anything more severe than a warning for what appears to be a first offence. I'm less certain about Brewcrewer's comment, which was unhelpful and patronising, but I wouldn't say it was a personal attack and Tim is right that we should be wary about sanctioning people for criticising administrators. Also, #4, while sensible, seems redundant, sicne the article is already protected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I will yield on #2 and #3 (though I am of the opinion willful condescension is on its face a personal attack) but I would like #5 to stay so that if this issue comes up again for either of them we won't be as lenient next time. #5 is not redundant, it's putting those who created the mess on this report on notice: cut it out. --WGFinley (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, apologies. I meant to say that #4 (protection the article) was redundant, not #5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking for #4 just to have it on the record this was reviewed and is the consensus at AE on that article. Otherwise someone will come along in a couple months and say "why is this semi-protected" and undo it. --WGFinley (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unless there are any objections, I'm going to close this thread within the next 12 hours or so and enact remedies 1, 4, and 5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Gwern

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

Request concerning Gwern

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

aprock (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

Gwern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Discretionary sanctions warning for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

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

1. 21:25, 8 February 2012‎ In good faith, adds content quoting Jensen's "Race and sex differences in head size and IQ"
2. 00:21, 9 February 2012: "Your Arbcom links are irrelevant..." Claim that edits not covered by this case.
3. 01:24, 9 February 2012: "I have already refuted your attempt to invoke the Arbcom." Further incredulity that edits are covered by this case.

Explanation: These edits demonstrate that Gwern is dubious of the fact that the topic of his edits are covered by WP:ARBR&I. This indicates that an authoritative notification should inform him of the scope of sanctions for the case.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

After being advised that his edits to Neuroscience and intelligence fall under the rubric of WP:ARBR&I [13], Gwern repeatedly rejected the suggestion. Given this and the history of wikilawyering over warnings in this topic area, I think a direct warning from a clerk or admin would be appropriate. No action beyond an informational warning is warranted or requested.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

User talk:Gwern#Arbitration enforcement

Discussion concerning Gwern

Statement by Gwern

I stand by my edits. The area of brain size and correlation to IQ is unconnected to race unless aprock wants to make it connected; I have not tried in the least to connect them and pointed that out repeatedly.

If sanctions are warranted, I think they are warranted on aprock for mercilessly removing references he dislikes - even references with no connection to Jensen or Rushton, which were included in the edits in question - and threatening Arbcom enforcement, and immediately calling for said enforcement for edits I first made 4 or 5 hours ago! (And notice his second message, after being reverted, was digging for dirt on me. Good faith editing?)

He has made multiple arguments, all of which have failed, and this is apparently his last resort. I suggest the Clerk clarify the ruling: is the Arbcom case an unconditional ban on all use of Jensen and Rushton? I did not think it was, but if aprock's request is granted or even just rejected unclearly, you can be sure someone will interpret it as such.

Finally, I would note that I have little editing interest in the topic at hand (look through my very long edit history if you wish to check); as part of my job, I was collecting references on the topic, along with information on the brain volumes of humans, chimpanzees, rats, and investigations into whether rats have g, and I was shocked that the Wikipedia material was such an abysmal failure of coverage (like, one reference) despite the abundant reference materials online, and decided to in my personal time try to rectify the situation. Consider what message a block would send. --Gwern (contribs) 01:52 9 February 2012 (GMT)

Comments by others about the request concerning Gwern

Statement by Acadēmica Orientālis

Should be declined without further action since aprock has not explained what rule Gwen is supposed to have broken. Jensen is not disallowed as a source. Discussing a dispute on the talk page is not disallowed. Aprock is trying to "win" a content dispute using a request. If anything aprock should be warned: "editors who file clearly groundless, frivolous, vexatious, or bad-faith requests may be similarly sanctioned, even on a first offense." Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Aprock has now added some kind of explanation. In essence this seems to be that Gwen should be warned for discussing on the talk page if the article is under the sanctions. Gwen has obviously not violated any policies by doing this. If misinformed he should simply be informed. Personally I think the article falls under the sanctions, considering the phrase "broadly construed", but I can understand if this seems unclear regarding an article not making any claims regarding race and regarding edits not making any claims regarding race (despite the title of the source), especially to a newcomer to this area. If there is a serious dispute regarding this, then asking for outside opinion or even Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification is appropriate. Taking this to Arbitration Enforcement is frivolous and seems part of an attempt to win a content dispute. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Mathsci comments: Not sure what the point of Mathsci's comment is. Mathsci was topic banned from this area in the original ArbCom decision. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also not sure what is the point with the external link Mathsci has added? Neither the Wikipedia article or the text added by Gwen makes any claims regarding race. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the statement by Gwen that "The area of brain size and correlation to IQ is unconnected to race unless aprock wants to make it connected", that is of course true. One can describe the correlations between brain size and IQ without involving race which is what Gwen has done. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Volunteer Marek: Also here not clear what policy Gwen has supposedly broken. Jensen or Rushton have not been disallowed as sources by the ArbCom regarding race issues. Not that Gwen made any statement regarding race in his article edits.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

• Gwern seems to have been editing in good faith and seems to have been genuinely unaware of WP:ARBR&I or related issues. Contrary to the statement they make above ("The area of brain size and correlation to IQ is unconnected to race unless aprock wants to make it connected"), the in-text exterior link they have now added twice to the article contains an extended section explicitly on R&I,[14] of which they were presumably unaware.

• Administrators should note that Acadēmica Orientālis (talk · contribs) is not a new user but a new account [15] of Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Miradre was previously topic banned for three months under WP:ARBR&I and blocked for one month in September 2011 for violating that ban. They have previously extensively edited this particular article as Miradre [16], adding material directly related to R&I prior to the imposition of the topic ban.[17] Following their recent return as Acadēmica Orientālis, they have made extensive edits to the talk page, even before the current incident.[18] Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Boothello seems to be discussing unrelated editing on IQ and the Wealth of Nations here. Boothello's edits since being indefinitely topic banned a month ago[19][20] have exclusively concerned matters relating to WP:ARBR&I in project space in which he has not been directly concerned. [21] He has in addition canvassed one editor, with whom he has had no prior relations, concerning WP:ARBR&I. [22] Mathsci (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• @ Northern Blade. There is no parallel between WP:ARBR&I—beset by sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry since the case closed—and WP:ARBPIA. Gwern is a long term good faith editor who chanced on an article without being aware of the implications of the previous arbcom case. Aprock did not file this request "with unclean hands". He has an unblemished editing record since he started editing in 2007. I do not edit articles in this area and am not under any sanctions. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek

A safe rule of thumb is that pretty much anything to do with Jensen and especially J. Philippe Rushton, and the Pioneer Fund, no matter what the wikilawyering is, IS connected to R&I.

Additionally, statements like "He has made multiple arguments, all of which have failed" can be indicative of a battleground mentality and inability to engage in constructive discussion. I've seen much worse though, so I don't think that that by itself is sanction worthy.

A warning/notice is perfectly reasonable though.VolunteerMarek 06:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Boothello's comments about Aprock below are a pretty straight forward violation of Boothello's topic ban (I'm assuming that's still in place - if not, disregard). His bringing these disputes here appears to be some kind of substitute for fighting the battles on articles and talk pages from which he is banned. That one, IS sanction/block worthy. If a separate AE request for Boothello needs to be filed, let me know.VolunteerMarek 06:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Boothello. The link you provide was about people who are topic banned from R&I filing AE reports in pursuit of normal dispute resolution procedures. It was not about people who are topic banned from a topic area showing up on AE requests in which they had not even been mentioned to pursue the kind of behavior that got them topic banned in the first place. Your topic ban explicitly states: This is to inform you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Race and Intelligence topic area, broadly construed across all namespaces indefinitely per this AE report.

And there's no "unclean hands" on part of Aprock. You showed up here specifically to make that false allegation and are substituting your statement on this very report for the fact that you cannot make it on the talk page of the article because of your topic ban. Effectively, you're trying to game the topic ban.

I advise you and Mathsci to both remember that the only people who might be sanctioned - I have no idea where you get this notion. Your breach of the topic ban is certainly deserving of a block.VolunteerMarek 08:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Boothello

Aprock was notified of the R&I discretionary sanctions here. However, after being notified, he's continued to remove large blocks of content from articles with dubious justifications for removal. Here is one other recent example:

In the past month, he has made five attempts to remove the table of IQ scores from the article IQ and the Wealth of Nations. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Since this is a book about international IQ comparisons, the IQ table was summarizing the central point of the book's argument and had been included in the article since 2004. [28]

Note that the explanations given in Aprock's edit summaries are "reverting per extensive discussion" and "reverting per consensus". Yet in the discussion about possibly removing the table, consensus clearly opposed removing it (five editors opposed to removing it and only three in favor). When Aprock was challenged about this by an uninvolved editor, his explanation (in the last edit summary) was pointing to this discussion as support for removing the table, but the only idea which gained support there was to move the table to a separate article. As Rangoon11 points out on the article talk page, Aprock's slow edit warring to remove the table from Wikipedia entirely (rather than to move it) has not at any point been supported by consensus. In this discussion, his use of R&I discretionary sanctions as a rhetorical hammer to try and get his way in a content dispute is also troubling.

In the original R&I case, a topic ban was administered for edit warring and false claims of consensus. [29] Per WP:BOOMERANG, the same should apply to Aprock here.Boothello (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• @Marek: Topic bans do not extend to AE. Arbcom has clarified this specifically with respect to the R&I case here. I advise you and Mathsci to both remember that the only people who might be sanctioned as a result of this report are Gwern who's being reported, and Aprock who came to AE with unclean hands. Any grievances you have with me and Acadēmica Orientālis won't affect the outcome of this report, so I advise you to save your breath.Boothello (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Gwern

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

I haven't looked into the specifics of this yet, but I will advise editors above to look at the thread regarding Shuki; continued barbs and potshots will result in sanctions coming your way. This is not a forum to rehash debates not directly pertinent to the matter at hand, which in this case is the dispute between Gwern and Aprock. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mathsci; perhaps I wasn't completely clear. What I mean is that disputes editors are having with each other shouldn't be dragged here, and the thread above is an example of what can happen if they are. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Gwern has not been placed 'on notice' of discretionary sanctions, as is required. Although I make no comment on the merits of this request, it may be that Gwern's remarks in the diffs cited by this complaint demonstrate a full understand of the requirements of conduct and professionalism when editing an R&I article. Nevertheless, such a notice is required, and must be logged, before recourse can be made to discretionary sanctions. Any editor can be given on such a notice, and misconduct is not necessarily a precondition, so the appropriate resolution to this request seems to me to be an administrative notice of discretionary sanctions. AGK [•] 11:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• The R&I decision is unique in that it says that warnings may be given, it seems to me that Gwern was warned as part of the discussion. However, I'm not certain the disputed content falls within the R&I decision: "namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". Discussion of brain size as it relates to intelligence in and of itself doesn't seem directly related to race to me, there's no warning on this page about R&I sanctions either. Unless someone has something to the contrary I don't think the edits made are subject to sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not really convinced that this falls within the realm of ARBR&I either. On a cursory look, the paper cited draws two links, one between brain size and IQ and another between race and brain size. It is being cited by Gwern solely to support the former link. If I'm reading this correctly, then I don't think this implicates R&I at all. Also, if Boothello is still under a topic ban (I haven't checked), then commenting at this thread is indeed a topic ban violation. T. Canens (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dalai lama ding dong

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

Request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 

—Biosketch (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 

Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions/WP:Tendentious editing

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

1. 10 February 2012 – adds unsourced commentary diminishing the importance of a poll indicating that one third of the Palestinians supported the attack
2. 10 February 2012 – removes sourced information about the poll's findings from the lead with an edit summary claiming that it is unsourced, and subsequently refuses to self-revert despite being directed to the source on his Talk page

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

1. Notified on 16 September 2011 of ARBPIA restrictions by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 6 December 2011 for edit warring by Hertz1888 (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on 12 December 2011 for edit warring by Jayjg (talk · contribs)
4. Warned on 15 December 2011 for edit warring by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
5. Warned on 15 December 2011 for disruptive editing by Jayjg (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Beyond the subjective characterization of the poll in such a way as to prejudice the reader into dismissing its significance (diff 1) and the subsequent refusal to self-revert an edit that removed all information on the poll from the lead despite being directed to the source for the poll on his Talk page (diff 2), this user is a classic case of a tendentious editor as defined at WP:Tendentious editing. His edits are overwhelmingly concerned with negatively portraying Israel in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and elevating the prominence of Palestinian claims, e.g.:

• removes a passage about Haj Amin al-Husseini's involvement with the Nazis during WWII as irrelevant to the article History of Israel, but adds a passage about a Hamas minister of health speaking out against the Holocaust.
• reverses the order of Israeli and Palestinian accounts so as to give greater prominence to the Palestinian narrative.
• reverses the order of Israeli and Palestinian names so as to give greater prominence to Palestinian names.

I'll stop here since evidence going back more than a couple of weeks is usually considered stale, but the pattern can be readily established with more and severer diffs if need be.—Biosketch (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified.—Biosketch (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Dalai lama ding dong

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