Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAr)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Contents


Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment


Amendment request: American Politics

Initiated by Casprings (talk) at 02:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Case affected 
American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 3
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • Arzel
  • VictorD7 - Mentioned below but nothing suggested would affect him.
Information about amendment request

Statement by your Casprings

Very shortly after the closing of the American Politics case, Arzel has returned to WP:Battle. In a conversation with user:victorD7, he is clearly seeing the current conflict dispute in America (2014 film) as part if a WP:Battle. That conversation can be found here. The main evidence is this edit. [[1]].

I think you are all right. I saw it and was mad. I should not have filed this. I apologies to all, including Arzel. I ask to have this withdrawn.Casprings (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Arzel

I was not the one to politicize this issue nor did I start a battle. If anything Casprings was edit warring on the page and started the battle with Victor. Casprings certainly has made edits which are inflaming the situation such as this. My only edit to the actual page was a statistical explanation here which was then attacked by Casprings I think it is quite clear that Casprings wants to quiet me completely and this edit rings quite hollow. Arzel (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

This noticeboard is not well-suited for trivial cavils. I see no "battle" violation here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by VictorD7

This charge is absurd and should be dismissed as frivolous. The link in question is to my personal talk page, and Arzel is simply giving his opinion on the likelihood of making successful edits to the page. Acknowledging that "progressives" are disagreeing with conservatives is simply stating the obvious. Arzel made no article edits, and his limited participation in the discussion itself ([2]) has been factual, civil, and entirely focused on content. He certainly didn't "insult, harass, or intimidate" anyone, or otherwise engage in Battleground type behavior. Unless administrators want to be deluged in a flood of frivolous reports, they shouldn't encourage them by wasting any time with this one. VictorD7 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • When I saw this request I assumed it would be our first opportunity to look at applying discretionary sanctions as outlined in the decision. Instead I see a request for us to issue a warning because of one fairly innocuous comment on a talk page. If that one diff is the sum total of why this request is being made I don't see any need to even discuss the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Concur with Beeblebrox. And if this were actionable, which it doesn't appear to be, the proper forum would be arbitration enforcement,  Roger Davies talk 08:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll admit to the temptation of invoking a boomerang, but, yeah, let's close this as "no grounds for us to intervene". Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that we don't need to do anything here. (Those bemused by legal analogies on these pages may cf. here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We do not enforce our own decisions. Decline. AGK [•] 23:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed that this would be an issue for arbitration enforcement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing that couldn't be handled at AE. WormTT(talk) 08:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Tea Party movement

Initiated byArthur Rubin (talk) at 23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Case affected 
Tea Party movement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 8.1
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

N/A

Information about amendment request

Statement by your Arthur Rubin

It has been 7 months since my last reported violation of the topic ban, although this may be a technical violation, which is part of the reason for my request. Per a previous clarification, I'm allowed to revert banned editors at TPm pages, but I'm not allowed to talk about it. I was going to make an arguably gnomish edit on Citizen Koch (combining 3 references which all support the same statement into one), and, today, I discovered a MonkBot error on Tea Party movement which I technically cannot fix without violating the topic ban. I'm willing to abide by a 1RR per area of an article if it helps your decision, but I would prefer not to be bound by that in an active discussion. If I'm the second and fourth in A → B → A'b → B → B'A', I have made 2 reverts, but I'm actively working on the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies. I don't see how you could reach that conclusion. I admit that I consider the IP's edit on Citizen Koch, restored by a real editor, absurd. But I wasn't planning to actually revert it. Consolidating 3 references (including the one added by the banned IP) into one isn't reverting the addition. And I was planning to revert a bot on Tea Party movement. My further discussion on a potential edit war was hypothetical, but in that particular configuration, I would be trying to improve the article, while the opponent would be attempting to revert to the present state. However, I would agree to a 1RR limitation if the committee feels it necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I didn't mean to imply that I would be edit warring; I would prefer to be able to try variations, which would technically be "reverts", as it would probably be changing the wording (which I don't like, or find objectionable, or in violation of Wikipedia policies (but not BLP)) to something more like what was there previously, but it would never be exactly a revert. I'm willing to abide by 1RR per section or 0*RR (never revert reversions of my edits; 0RR is problematic, because of the expansive definition of "revert") if you feel it necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Arthur was swept up in the prior case for fairly minor sins, and the "time served" argument which is rarely pertinent actually does apply here as he has "noted" - especially where a result occurs which makes no reasonable sense to any outside observer. Collect (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

The Committee based its findings of edit-warring on the following 4 diffs:

Yep, that's right. Four reverts over the course of 5 months. Had this occurred in a 24 hour period, then sure, yes, this would be edit-warring and would warrant a 24 hour block. But it didn't happen over 24 hours. This is 5 months of editing. We don't topic ban for 4 reverts over 24 hours nor should we topic ban for 4 reverts over 5 months. If we topic-banned every editor who was at 4RR over a 5 month period, there would be scant editors to edit.

Nevermind the fact that many editors consider WP:BRD to be a best practice.

Face it, the Committee f***ed up and f***ed up royally. Not only should this request be granted, the Committee should apologize for such a ridiculous, absurd ruling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Thinking about the request, but in the meantime I'll just say this is the first time I've seen an edit-war described in sonata form notation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm missing something, this does not seem to be such a good idea. Just to clarify ... the request is about restoring access to someone who has been topic-banned for edit-editing so that they may return to edit-war. No?  Roger Davies talk 08:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Arthur Rubin I was just taking at face value what you'd written: "I'm willing to abide by a 1RR per area of an article if it helps your decision, but I would prefer not to be bound by that in an active discussion". Can you clarify what this means please?  Roger Davies talk 08:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Arthur Rubin Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the Edit warring policy as from you've just said you probably won't be sticking to 1RR at all,  Roger Davies talk 10:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be willing to downgrade Arthur's sanction to an indefinite 1-rr coupled with the standard one-year keep-your-nose-clean topic ban suspension. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Although I sympathise with Arthur Rubin's frustration that the Tea Party movement articles require further work, I think an insufficient amount of time has passed since the original case for it to be in the interests of the project to reduce or remove the sanctions adopted a year ago. I would therefore decline this request, with absolutely no prejudice to considering it again in the future. AGK [•] 23:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Infoboxes

Initiated by Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits at 12:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Case affected 
Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • n/a
Information about amendment request

I request a relaxation of the above restriction, so that I can include an infobox in each of a limited, specific, set of new articles, as described below.

Statement by Andy Mabbett

My GLAM collaboration work with the BBC is well-known and has resulted in much positive publicity for Wikipedia, and the creation and donation of valuable content, including the first-ever broadcast material released by the BBC under open licence (281 files uploaded, so far, of a planned 1,000). As part of this project, I plan, over the next few weeks, to create articles for many of the 160 (approx) red links for notable people in the sub pages of List of Desert Island Discs episodes (a BBC show). I wish to include an infobox in each of these.

Should anyone remove one of the infoboxes, I will neither restore nor discuss it (unless asked a question directly).

I invite suggestions as to how to deal with the unlikely case of someone stalking my edits to remove the infoboxes en mass; or to pre-emptively mass-create the articles described. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits at 12:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: You mean "last week's infobox upsets" in which I was found not only to have done nothing wrong, but to have been relentlessly stalked by another editor? This request - made over a year after the original case opened - has been in hand for a while before last week (as RexxS, with whom I discussed a draft will confirm), and is timed to coincide with a long-planned mass-creation of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Well, you yourself said "Seems pretty clear that there was an infobox there. Just because it didn't use the infobox template doesn't mean it wasn't an infobox." (you'll recall that the issue hinged on a false accusation that I had inserted an infobox where none had exited previously); and the request for enforcement was closed as "No action taken; no violation.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333

I'm a complete outsider to all of this, but the creation of these articles is a positive thing for the project. I think this request is a little premature - I would focus on making sure those articles are well written, broad in coverage and factually accurate above and beyond any forms of presentation. If you have already created a large (say, over 100) corpus of new articles, and you can't find anyone else who wants to put an infobox in, that would be the time to consider this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

No, just no. You've recently tested the margins regarding infoboxes and (rightly) got away with it. This is an attempt to extend those margins too far. You have a strong view regarding infoboxes that is not necessarily shared by others and allowing your proposal will almost inevitably result in another edit war spanning multiple articles even if you do not war yourself. You're are asking for permission to fire the first shot and, because you are seen as something of a standard-bearer for the pro-infobox faction, this request is likely to be the start of something nasty. If anyone else chooses to add infoboxes to your new articles and take the risk by association that goes with their action then more fool them, but there is no deadline and they are entitled to try.

PotW, like it or not, anything involving infoboxes and you is akin to a honeypot. I'd strongly advise that you do not even string the letters together for the foreseeable future, anywhere on-wiki. There is much other stuff that you can do and it seems that you are doing it. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda

Did you know that the so-called infobox war was over in 2012? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • It's a "definitely not" from me. Aside from being almost banned over the infobox dispute, you were recently testing the borders of your restriction; so, as far as I'm concerned this request is much too soon. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I more or less agree with Salvio. I was not on the committee during the original case, but I know it has been an incredible time sink and that there was good reason for the topic ban put in place. Also the request as framed seems to be putting the cart rather far in front of the horse. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Definitely not for now from me too, for the reasons articulated above,  Roger Davies talk 09:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am afraid it is a no from me too. Decline. AGK [•] 23:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We've already got more than enough trouble surrounding infoboxes. I can't support risking more at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Given last week's infobox upsets, this is pretty dire timing Andy. I have to agree with my colleagues, that a relaxation should not be happening at this time. WormTT(talk) 08:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Andy, I wouldn't agree that you'd been found to have done "nothing wrong". The edit was in the grey area, otherwise there would not have been discussion of it. Yes, the committee agreed that you had not violated your restriction - but "nothing wrong" is a step beyond. I don't see that you needed to make this request now, before the dust settled, it was inherently poor timing. WormTT(talk) 12:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Pseudoscience

Initiated by jps (talk) at 15:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Link to relevant decision

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by jps

I have never liked the fact that ArbCom included content rulings in WP:ARBPSCI, but we have, in the past, simply let this slide as it never seemed to be problematic. However, now it does seem to be problematic in a conversation I'm having about a proposed name-chase for a list: [3], [4].

I respect John Carter's position, and I think he has a point with regards to how Wikipedia tends to enforce jurisprudence in practice, but I also think I have a point that ArbCom is not supposed to make content decisions. There is no other way, in my opinion, that these principles can be interpreted except as content decisions.

The easiest thing would be for ArbCom to vacate the offending Principles as outside of ArbCom remit. Alternatively, a statement that these principles should not be used to trump discussion about content could be done.

jps (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that there is precedence for changing this part of the ruling: Wikipedia:ARBPSCI#Modified_by_motion. jps (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Newyorkbrad: Glad you think so. Now, whenever I see comments like this, should I just refer them to your talkpage and you can hash it out with them? jps (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thought not. So.... can we just remove those principles then? jps (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

This rather dovetails with recent discussion at Talk:Intelligent design, which I asked @Adjwilley: to review and summarize. He summarized it in the following table

When an article's subject is generally considered to be pseudoscience in reliable sources... Example 1 Example 2
Must the word pseudoscience be used in describing the article's subject, or are alternate wordings acceptable? "<Subject> is pseudoscience" "<Subject> is rejected by mainstream scientists"
If the label pseudoscience is used, how prominent should it be? Does it need to be in the first sentence of the Lead, or should the first sentence be a general definition of the subject? "<Subject> is a pseudoscientific idea that <definition of subject>." "<Subject> is <definition of subject>...<Subject> is regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream scholars."
Should the assertion that a subject is pseudoscience be attributed, or can it be stated in Wikipedia's voice? "<Subject> is pseudoscience." "<Subject> is considered pseudoscience by a majority of scholars."

He went on to say, “I think the clause that needs clarification would be: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience. In my opinion, some good questions to ask the committee would be:

These suggestions were made here. As can be seen in the recent request for clarification regarding chiropractic, I personally have had no reservations about wikipedia using the word, and it was only after a comment by NYB that I saw "pseud-" words are specifically included in WP:WTW. I do believe it would be very useful for this to be addressed. Also, with the possibly annoying (to you arbs anyway) regularity that this particular decision gets brought up here and elsewhere, maybe it might be useful to ask for some guidelines specific to pseudoscience be prepared.

Other points perhaps worth addressing are how to, if at all, differentiate between philosophical hypotheses and the generally woo theories based on them, and maybe specific indications as to how this might be relevant to the social sciences. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re iantresman's comments below, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles lists the articles and named subarticles in the encycopedic parts of two encyclopedias of pseudoscience. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@NYB and arbs: should the questions of the use of the word "pseudoscience" in the title and lead as per WP:WTW and other matters be raised separately, or are the existing two current requests regarding that single decision here perhaps enough page area regarding that decision? Both matters seem to me anyway to relate to the unmodified use of the word pseudoscience itself. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding some of the comments below by others, while clarification of the existing policies and guidelines is basically what is being sought here, I do not see that even the recent change either directly addresses the matter of the relative prominence of such a potentially perjorative word to all other forms of description. Also, with all due respect, there is a serious question whether such a rapidly made change to far-reaching guidelines with such short consultation will stand. This is beyond the fact that the change was obviously made to "save" the use of a word several people, including recently one arbitrator, have at least implicity acknowledged as being a cause for reasonable concern. The questions of when, where, and how such "loaded" words should be used, when less emotive words are preferable, and the relative prominence or weight to give them, have so far as I can see not yet been addressed. And those are the concerns which are at the heart of the ID matter raised here. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Arbs: I think one question which perhaps is in some way actionable here is Adjwilley's question "Does Intelligent design fall into the category of Obvious pseudoscience (obviously bogus) or Generally considered pseudoscience (theories that have a following but generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, like Astrology)?”" If as is perhaps understandable ArbCom believes they should not be the ones to determine this perhaps they could request community input in clarifying guidelines in this matter. I would think such a clarification or revision might merit such a request of the community. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by iantresman

The problem as I see it, is as follows:

  1. Because of the Demarcation problem, there is no "obvious" pseudoscience.
  2. Yet Wikipedia gives the impression that there are gifted editors who are able to make this judgement using WP:SYNTH and a handful of often dubious sources (rarely peer reviewed).
  3. Wikipedia sets a high bar for contentious material, requiring several SECONDARY sources. Yet we readily label subjects as "Pseudophysics", and even as "fringe", when there are ZERO sources that may describe a subject as such, contrary to the requirement that the "Categorization of articles must be verifiable"
  4. Even where we have additional sources, eg. Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, editors cherry pick those subjects to fit their own agendas[5], and exclude subjects that are "inconvenient".
  5. In reality, in the outside world, individuals have their own opinions and reasons why they consider a subject to be pseudoscience. In general, mainstream science does not, and leaves the matter to the philosophers of science.
  6. Statements such as "<Subject> is considered pseudoscience by a majority of scholars" is untestable, unverifiable nonsense, pretending to be science. Where have we heard that description before?
  7. For the record, I have no problems attributing a description of a subject as pseudoscience, but consider the general label to be wholly inappropriate as it generally fails WP:V and WP:RS.

--Iantresman (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @John Carter. Thanks, I don't recall seeing that page and list before. --Iantresman (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Second Quantization. I have no problem with classic examples of pseudoscience, such as astrology, where there are books and a preponderance of quality secondary sources. My issue with the more modern examples, where editors take a handful of primary sources, often from personal blogs, and judge for themselves (ie. WP:SYNTH) that they feel that a subject meets certain criteria, and that the editors decide that this means that a subject is considered pseudoscience. And then based on a dearth of sources, they write that "mainstream science considers...", or "the majority of academics consider..." where no such consensus is verified in reliable sources. Hence we should not be claiming that a list of subjects are considered pseudoscience, just because you and I may think that a subject meets some vague and subjective criteria. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't do it, and no science dictionaries do it. That Wikipedia does it uniquely, raises red flags. --Iantresman (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @dave souza. Thanks for that. This seems that Arbcom have made an extraordinary content decision: that despite the Demarcation problem, gifted editors can somehow clearly identify articles as "Obvious" or "Generally considered" pseudoscience .. "without more justification". Does this imply that uniquely, and contrary to Wikipedia core policies, editors do not need to meet the exacting standards of WP:V and WP:RS, when such contentiousness suggests that we should be using WP:V and WP:RS far more carefully? The Demarcation problem is a philosophy of science issue, not an excuse to subjectively label subjects under the guise of science. --Iantresman (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @dave souza. Yes I'm well aware of WP:ARB/PS (I started the case), and its "Appropriate sources". But the principles "Obvious pseudoscience", and "Generally considered pseudoscience", and "Questionable science", all seem to blur their requirements for WP:V / WP:RS, and how also how editors word their findings. eg. Articles which sources suggest would be "Questionable science" at best, and according to the description "generally should not be so characterized", are actually described as if mainstream science as described them as pseudoscience. This has been going on since I started with Wikipedia, and the reason I brought the original WP:ARB/PS case. --Iantresman (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @jytdog. I oppose your amendment to deal with the term "pseudoscience", because (a) of the demarcation problem (b) there is no general agreement of the term "pseudoscience" (c) there is no general agreement on the reliability of sourcs (d) science itself does not label topics in this way (e) it is, and always has been one of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia (f) the label adds little to a topic, when there is already much non-judgemental and well-sourced critical material available. --Iantresman (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog My apologies and thank you for the clarification. I oppose the WP:FRINGE/PS statement "Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." as it clearly contravenes WP:V and WP:RS. Any topic that is "obvious bogus" will have numerous reliable secondary sources that will both verify this view, and allow it to be checked. There is no reason why this labelling uniquely does not require justification (verification). --Iantresman (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog and jps. Perhaps jps could clarify whether he is asking for clarification on the orignal principles in WP:ARB/PS, or on the naming of the List of psuedosciences,[6], [7], as this may change the emphasis of the discussion? --Iantresman (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Second Quantization

  • ArbCom made no content decisions that I can see nor have they set any policy. They have some principles that underlie their decision, but that is not a content decision. We are not obliged to follow, read or care about their principles they operated under. There is no reason any editor should pay one iota worth of attention to what is written there since it's not indicative of what editing policy we should operate under. Some editors under the misapprehension that arbcom dictates content policy put undue emphasis on the ideas of some arbitrators some time ago. So this is a non-issue; we are under no obligation with respect to that behavioural decision. Second Quantization (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is the specific text Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Policy_and_precedent: "The Committee does not rule on content". They can suggest ways of seeking remedies, but they can not provide remedies. This is policy, Second Quantization (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Iantresman "Because of the Demarcation problem, there is no "obvious" pseudoscience." Demarcation is one of ongoing philosophical research but is an issue for the borderlands between science and non-science, not for the obvious cases. There are certain examples that meet most criteria of philosophers, and are recognised by the scientifically literate as obviously pseudoscience. Astrology, Time Cube etc are obviously pseudoscientific. Care to provide a specific example of point 4)? For 7), on the contrary, where I've seen it used it's generally well sourced. Second Quantization (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience identified four groups, two of which could apply to intelligent design (ID):

From the outset, it was obvious to experts on science and science education that ID is not science, but creationist religious views relabelled as science. That said, it clearly had and to some extent still has a following outwith science, essentially among creationists or proponents of its predecessor creation science.
The scientific community, educators and philosophers of science have clearly shown that ID is a religious view presented as science and is not science, failing to meet the methods an standards of science. Several mainstream sources have specifically described ID as pseudoscience.

In talk page discussions there has been clear consensus that ID is pseudoscience, but continuing wrangling over wording in relation to sources determining that ID is not science without specifically using the word "pseudoscience". I therefore propose the following additional group:

  • 5. Non-science claimed to be science: Arguments or beliefs presented by proponents as science, such as intelligent design, but which are specifically described by the scientific community as not being science or as pseudoscience, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Once a topic has been categorised as pseudoscience, the article should conform to WP:PSCI policy including "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." This is policy. . . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

John Carter draws attention to the point that "pseud-" words are specifically included in WP:WTW which is a guideline, not policy, and as it says at the top, is "a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Common sense clearly indicates that pseudoscience is a well established term, one which forms part of Wikipedia policy, and is a word which may be necessary in clearly describing a topic as pseudoscience.
The boxes included in John Carter's comment appear to invite Arbcom to set specific wording for articles, determining article content in a manner going beyond the WP:ARBPS decision and beyond policy. This prescriptive proposal is wholly inappropriate, and unnecessary given the clear policy. Obviously the best way to achieve the policy is a matter for article talk page discussion to achieve consensus. . dave souza, talk 21:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Iantresman as of 11:31, 22 July 2014; perhaps you've not read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, or failed to recall the various principles listed including, for example, Appropriate sources. Obviously the various policies apply. . dave souza, talk 14:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by logos5557

I am uninvolved, practically; just came here to greet jps's (was known as scienceapologist previously) allusion to one of my comments. @QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: I suppose you can safely refer confused ones to this. Logos5557 (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by jytdog

With respect to John Carter's concern about surface contradictions with the WP:LABEL section of WP:WTW, last night I proposed an amendment to deal with the term "pseudoscience" and after a series of only-approving comments, tonight I implemented it. To save clicking, here is what I added:

"With regard to the term, "pseudoscience": per the policy Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such." Per the content guideline, Fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. In addition, there is an Arbcom ruling on pseudoscience topics that explicitly authorizes use of the term "pseudoscience" in specified contexts."

There is no more surface contradiction (if that amendment sticks).Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC) (struck the reference to Arbcom "authorizing" any content. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

With regard to the request for clarification, I support the request of jps to vacate the 4 principles. It is not clear to me on what policy or guideline each of those principles were based, and the Finding of Fact #9 that "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics." seems to me, to be all Arbcom needed to define the field in which DS may be applied. In light of thinking through this more, I have changed the amendment above at WP:LABEL Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

iantresman the amendment to the guideline, WP:WTW (which itself is a fork of the WP:MOS guideline) simply brings it in line with a) the WP:NPOV policy (specifically the WP:PSCI section) which is quoted in the amendment and specifically says that pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such"; and b) the guideline, WP:FRINGE, which explains WP:PSCI. Your argument is with NPOV policy and with FRINGE, not with me or this amendment clarifying the style guideline; WP:WTW was simply out of step. Thanks to John Carter for pointing it out. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

iantresman the statement that you now oppose from WP:FRINGE/PS, namely "Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification", is based directly on one of the four principles that are the very subject of jps's original post, seeking clarification. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Markbassett

Meh. I think the article is unretrievably biased, mitigated by it's obviously so, but for arbitration consideration I will say that the relatively recent (April) add of "pseudoscience" to Intelligent Design seems just phrasing difficulty resolvable on existing wiki principles and revisit bullets I said in Talk:

  • There seems misunderstanding or overenthusiasm of the Talk Lead and Arbitration material. At point 1 and FAQ Q2 it says avoid portraying ID as science or theory as it is not accepted by the relevant bodies as such, and to use words like concept or assertion. It does not say to add "pseudoscience".
  • WP:UNDUE Pseudoscience seems simply not the word that the academic community commonly labels ID. The most frequent and prominent scientific body positions seems simply to reject it as not science, and outside of them the label in general use seems creationism. There are relatively fewer and minor mentions of pseudoscience, so it seems undue weight to give that prominence and incorrect attribution to portray that as the wording from scientific bodies or as a definite fact in Wikipedia voice.
  • WP:OR Talk history makes it look like "pseudoscience" was just something editors pushed in from word-smithing and their desires rather than from cites or article accuracy. Logical arguments can be made that it applies (or not), but that is a generated conclusion and not a simple fact or something that would be usable for wiki article as neutral and fair reporting of common use or prominent outside source.
  • The wording pseudoscience also has two minor issues in article construction First, the article starts with labelling it 'creationism' and the body has much about that, so the phrase pseudoscience comes off as a confusing disconnected and unsupported oddity. Second, the article stripped the phrasing 'theory' out which conforms to guidelines but now the article does not portray anything that looks like attempting to be science so that core issue is not presented.

Hope this helps pull discussion back to better sources and some edits ... Markbassett (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The background principles adopted in this arbitration decision (which dates from 2006) do not govern how lists in mainspace are organized in 2014. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Fascinating though this is, I'm not seeing a significant actionable issue here. The 2006 case reflected the thinking of the 2006 ArbCom in 2006 circumstances and, in any event, cases do not create precedent.  Roger Davies talk 09:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As has already been said, principles are not remedies and are not authoritative. Those that are citing them as policy (in distinction to guidance) should stop. At the same time, the fact that they are causing problems in one discussion on one article talk page among a handful of editors does not, to my mind, justify extraordinarily vacating a third of a previous decision.

    More precisely, it does not counterbalance the significant arguments in favour of the committee keeping an intact record of its previous decisions. In fact, I imagine I would not even strike through the text of the principles, which would make it clear to readers that they are no longer in force, because that would disturb this old case and its actors. Given that the associated topic area will always be contentious, to do so is to invite trouble. Decline. AGK [•] 23:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Agreed. The Guide to arbitration states that "Principles highlight the key applicable provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice and, where appropriate, provide the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute." They are intended to provide context for the case, not to act as remedies. I would echo AGK's point that they should not be cited as policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Per my colleagues, I don't see anything we need to do here. WormTT(talk) 08:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Infoboxes

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Sandstein

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Pigsonthewing and infoboxes, "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."

At WP:AE#Pigsonthewing (permalink), administrators, including myself, disagree about whether this recent edit by Pigsonthewing violates this restriction. Pigsonthewing argues that they did not violate the restriction because they edited, rather than added, an infobox. I am not persuaded by this because the edit added an {{Infobox}} template that wasn't there before.

I ask the Committee to clarify whether or not that edit violated the previously mentioned sanction.  Sandstein  13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrators, thanks for the clarifications. This settles the matter for me. I've communicated to Newyorkbrad that I think that the tone of his reply is not in keeping with his usual reputation for professionalism.  Sandstein  09:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Montanabw

This is really hair-splitting. Andy's first edit was here. No infobox. The article in question had a manually-created "infobox" made out of an image template that in terms of syntax, was this. Andy then took ONLY the existing parameters plus one very logical addition -and put them into a template here. In essence, he took an improperly formatted infobox and made it into a proper one. I really find it absurd that the someone wants to take this to a drama board. Criminy. Montanabw(talk) 18:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Boing!

Sandstein seems to be on his own on this one with his over-literal definition of what an infobox is - there's a clear consensus that Andy was simply fixing an existing badly-formed one. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll only add one comment in response to Neotarf's comment below, and that is that "Yet the main argument for supporting the proposed topic ban for Nikkimaria was "I like infoboxes"" grossly misrepresents the various reasons expressed for supporting a ban. There were many people there, and to dismiss everyone's opinions like that is at best disrespectful — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Kurtis

Always remember:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Kurtis (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Neotarf (uninvolved)

Not so fast.

While ArbCom has fiddled with its Latin, ANI has burned, and Wikipedia has lost yet another admin, based on the comments of arbitrators that have been made here so far.

In view of the above development, if you can wait 12 hours or so, I will attempt a Cliff's Notes version. In the meantime I would have to say, much as it pains me to do so, that Sandstein is right, and that Andy did violate the letter of his ban, if not the spirit. If you want to see the difference between an image box and an info box, see the Merkel images at "Infoboxes: After the war" and the difference in treatment between the German Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to focus on what it is that bothers me so much about this.

Nikkimaria, who has just now resigned as an admin, has been around the infobox subject for a long time. When other users decided it was pointless to stick around and try to edit classical music/opera/composers articles because of the Infobox Wars, Nikkimaria stuck it out, and tried to resolve the issues that had driven the other editors away. My impression is that Nikkimaria has acted a bit like Fram did in the Richard Farmbrough case.

One of the recommendations that came out of the ArbCom case was that a community discussion be held. This has not been done.

Instead, it seems like the individuals who styled themselves as "pro-infobox" have decided to go after individuals they view as having opposed them in the ArbCom case. If you look at the diffs that were presented in the ANI proposal to topic-ban Nikkimaria, some of the diffs were more than a year old, predating even the ArbCom Infoboxes case. Others had nothing whatsoever to do with infoboxes, but involved some dispute about edit summaries. This whole Nikkimaria topic-ban proposal is starting to look like "He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue!"

But there really is no "pro-infobox" faction. Nobody is against infoboxes. Some have said that many current boxes are not fit for purpose because of poor design. Yet the main argument for supporting the proposed topic ban for Nikkimaria was "I like infoboxes". This conflict is starting to damage the Wikipedia again. It is time to move to the more formal community discussion recommended in the case decision, but I have no idea how to jump-start it. A lot of ideas are at the "Infoboxes: After the war". There are more rationales and background at the talk page for the case decision, if anyone cares to wade through that morass.

This particular request may be finished, but the Committee may wish to consider whether they have some further role with the Infobox topic itself.

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • "The mountains will be in labor, and a ridiculous mouse will be brought forth." This is not worth discussing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Roma locuta, causa soluta. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know Greek or Latin, so I'll just say it in English: that wasn't adding an infobox. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems pretty clear that there was an infobox there. Just because it didn't use the infobox template doesn't mean it wasn't an infobox. WormTT(talk) 09:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that this was not the addition of an infobox and did not breach the restriction. Still, I do see why that could at least be in question, so I don't find the request for clarification unreasonable in itself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This edit was not in violation of his restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I also don't see this as actionable as the parties now seem to agree. This can be archived now, I think,  Roger Davies talk 09:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As this is settled, clerks: please archive. AGK [•] 23:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Holding to consider further developments. AGK [•] 12:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control

Initiated by Gaijin42 (talk) at 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by Gaijin42

I am currently topic banned from Gun control per the ArbCom case above. Recently there has been two cases brought at ArbEnforcement resulting in two additional topic bans and warnings (including a boomerang topic ban for the filing party). During these cases I was explicitly mentioned at least twice, and implicitly mentioned several more. (As well as mentioning other affected users in the same boat as myself) (snips below). I did not comment due to my topic ban. However, it seems poor form to be discussing the actions and statements of those who cannot reply or clarify. For the current two cases, one is already closed, and the other appears that it will close shortly but in the future if a similar situation comes up, are topic banned editors allowed to reply on administrative boards where they are being discussed? I had asked some of the administrators at AE about this and Callanec replied that they could not grant an exception to the TB since it was applied by ArbCom.

  • "Removing the entire Background section and Legal challenges sections I added (which even now topic-banned Gaijin42 did not dispute) to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban page."
  • "The third link [30] is to a nearly 8-month-old ANI that nearly boomeranged [31] on the editor who brought it against me. (It is also another example of pro-gun editors - three of whom are now topic banned - talking about my behavior, without diffs.)"
  • "Perhaps one of the topic-banned pro-gun editors is harassing me." (An accusation, without evidence, against people who can't respond)
  • "My frustration right now reminds me of that I felt when I was a new editor to gun-control and in a "discussion" with about 10-12 experienced editors using jargon I'd never heard and referring to processes I knew nothing about."
  • " And the 1 (Gaijin42) who voted "complicated," and mentorship-else-ban is topic banned for Battleground conduct. Is it possible that I (1 new editor against numerous experienced) was the victim of battleground conduct at the article I brought up at ANI?"

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Question to commenting arbs/admins Thank you for your comments below. As there seems to be some situations in which a statement would be acceptable, and others in which it would be a ban violation, and the delimiter is somewhat vague, could you perhaps clarify if you think it would have been acceptable for me to comment in response to the statements I posted? (Obviously there are things that I could say that would be "too far/too much" but the crucial bit is would ANY comment have been so construed?) (Perhaps to use the terminology below, was I being discussed, or just mentioned? In particular the accusation that one of the topic banned editors was harassing LB is of interest) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

In my opinion as one of the admins active at WP:AE, the policy-level exceptions to topic bans described at WP:BANEX also apply to Committee-imposed topic bans. Therefore, a topic-banned user may make such statements as are required for "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". In the context of enforcement requests, this means that they may briefly respond to direct accusations of misconduct against themselves, especially as concerns allegations of topic ban violations. However, in view of the purpose of a topic ban, they should be as brief as possible, or they risk being blocked if an administrator decides that the seventh reply in an angry back-and-forth of mutual recriminations is no longer part of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

Also, in order to help topic-banned editors respect their topic bans, administrators should suppress and, if needed, sanction allegations of misconduct against topic-banned editors if these allegations are not supported by useful evidence in the form of diffs (see WP:ASPERSIONS), or if the allegations are not helpful for resolving the problem at hand. This may often be the case because the topic ban will have made the allegations moot.  Sandstein  15:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Sandstein's analysis is about right. Unless explicitly prohibited from doing so by the specific applicable t-ban, t-banned editors may respond briefly and circumspectly in DR fora to accusations directly concerning them. Indeed, doing so will often assist the process. They may not however use the door that has been partially opened to launch into sweeping and tangential counter-accusations against all and sundry. That said, there's probably not much more to add here.  Roger Davies talk 07:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree in part; if an editor has been banned from a topic area, it means that his participation there has been so disruptive that it has been deemed necessary to expel him from it. The necessary conclusion is that all exceptions to limited bans need to be construed restrictively. For that, I interpret the "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" exception to only apply when an editor's actions are being discussed and not when they are merely mentioned. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Salvio's analysis generally matches mine. Merely being mentioned should not allow for discussion, but it the editor is being actively discussed, I would expect them to be able to comment. WormTT(talk) 09:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I also largely agree with Salvio, and I think the discussion would need to be substantive, not just a mention in passing. I would add, however, that there would seldom be a good reason for other editors to bring a topic-banned user up in such a discussion, and it should generally be discouraged unless there really is good cause. A topic ban is not an excuse for other editors to take gratuitous jabs at someone while they're restricted from answering in return. (Not saying that happened in this case, mind, that's just a general statement of principle.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with the comments above; discretion should be applied by all parties that editors who are banned from a discussion are not disparaged or brought up needlessly; editors, even t-banned ones, have an option to respond towards direct discussions involving them, but it's not the place to rehash disputes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Salvio. Mention of a user does not necessitate reply, but topic-banned users who are being actively discussed should be allowed to respond. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To answer your question, @Gaijin42: I do not think it would ever be acceptable for you to offer a statement in a discussion you are not the subject of. Please remain completely away from this topic area unless actions you have made are being discussed in an enforcement venue. AGK [•] 23:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Motions

Requests for enforcement


Captain Occam

Khabboos

Monochrome monitor

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 Monochrome monitor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 10:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Monochrome monitor (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
ARBPIA :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 09:03, 28 July 2014 First revert
  2. 08:42–09:33, 28 July 2014 Second revert
Regarding the first revert: The text deleted was first introduced in 2011 but has been fought over countless times since then (I can supply a list of more than 20 diffs in which the text was modified in a hostile fashion). The most recent edits were in March this year: [8] [9] [10] [11]. The most recent of those can be taken as the reverted edit, if it is thought that a specific edit must be indicated.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 06:43, 10 July 2014 36 hour block for 1RR violation
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 

I don't make reports like this unless I think we would be better off without the editor concerned. Shows a strong pattern of editing to a personal POV.

@Callanecc: I think that a ban would require a more extensive report than I have made, so in this instance I believe a temporary block would be adequate. Given this editor's recent block for the same offence, the block should be of duration appropriate to a repeat violation.

@Shrike: The first contiguous sequence of edits deleted existing text together with it's academic source. I wouldn't call it a revert if it was a mere rewording or replacement by a better source, but in fact it was deletion of cited text in order to substitute text with a different pov. Ergo, a revert.

@the panda: Actually I think the meaning of "revert" has been taken too literally recently and there is a danger of losing sight of the purpose of the rule, namely to suppress or at least slow down edit warring. I regard the first diff to be a revert, not just because it changes and deletes previous text but because it is done for the clear purpose of pressing one pov while deleting another. These edits removed two pieces of text, both well cited, that refer to the Palestinians having deep roots in Palestine, and inserted in the place of the first a reference only to recent times. This is one of the major point of contention in the subject and such a change is clearly edit-warring. In addition, the edit that deleted the sentence cited to scholar Alan Dowty had the edit summary "sentence flow, slight reword" which is very hard to see as a summary made in good faith. Zerotalk 12:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein @Monty : I have added to the complaints section an indication of which previous edit was reverted, of March this year. Zerotalk 10:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Monochrome monitor

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 Monochrome monitor

Okay, I didn't violate anything. That's just shoddy reporting. The first citation is my edit to the article. The second edit is me reverting someone who undid my edits to the article. I stopped advocating my edit after that. I did absolutely nothing wrong. --monochrome_monitor 11:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What the hell? It was one revert. My first was an edit and the second was a revert to that edit. And are you serious? You think wikipedia would be better off without me? That's absurd. If you read my edits they were not biased and I've been told that I've greatly improved NPOV by different editos. The fact that the same admin wants to report me is also absurd. --monochrome_monitor 11:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I did not mean to attack him ad hominem, if it was offensive I apologize. --monochrome_monitor 11:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So it seems like we established that I didn't break one revert, can I leave this kangaroo court? I already apologized for the offense I didn't know that we couldn't refer to users even if we didn't address their names.

@zero Your definition of revert isn't revert. And I did not substitute one POV for another. I used the prevailing POV—that Palestinians have roots in Palestine since 780ish, even the article admits Palestine wasn't Arab until then. This article endorses the historical revisionist view that Palestinians are all the the people who existed before them simultaneously. I was trying to make the article NPOV. The purpose of the article is obviously to promote the "palestinians as indigenous" narrative when it should address ALL narratives. I tried to use to most centrist narrative as possible. And as per the reference, I tried to add a reference from a more neutral source but broke the reference link so I deleted it. You don't need to presume that all of my actions have some sort of insidious intent. I just think moderation in this area is very important considering all the rhetoric right now and its accompanying violence. --monochrome_monitor 12:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So, yeah. I'm trying to make the article NPOV because it advocates a fringe idea. Just as scholars don't have a consensus on any Palestinian national identity, they don't have a consensus on Palestinian indigineity. However you spell that. I understand this will only further enrage the people who just want to see me reported, so be it. --monochrome_monitor 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's it from me I obviously didn't violate the rule though I was rude and I'm sorry for that. I just wish there was someone who could understand where I'm coming from here. The page needs changing, I tried to change it by adding statistics/date and not the research of some Palestinian guy.--monochrome_monitor 12:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


@Nishidani "Like every other sentence"—nice ad hominem attack. How petty. "You made a grammatical error", hilarious. I usually fix grammatical errors as you yourself acknowledged in your reversion. Some of my edits in talk namespaces contain grammatical errors and I don't address them because the message is conveyed. Many other users make grammatical errors, yet you don't seem to care about them. Meanwhile, way to insult me by calling me "racist", an absurd and hypocritical accusation. I have not used one epithet except "antisemite", as you're a far-left anti-israel third-wordist with a talk page explicitly stating your contempt of Jewish editors and Israel. You consider Jews to be greedy land-grabbing colonialists and when someone calls you out you cry "racism". You call accepted demographic facts "talking points" just because they don't fit your fringe idea of Palestinians as some ancient civilization of peaceful olive-grove dwelling nomads. You assume that I have some insidious purpose because I (and any moderate person) disagree with you and the bias in this article. It does not present the mainstream opinion and instead uses an extreme as a default. I HAVE read the historical scholarship, including the historical revisionism peddled out by the likes of Yasser Arafat, and it's just that, revisionism. I'm not saying there are any "real owners", it's not some sort of blood-land feud, but this articles deliberately misleads the audience into thinking Arab Palestinians (who arrived in the late 8th century) are directly related to obsolete unrelated biblical entities. The fact that you consider Canaanites to be Palestinian, for example, proves I have legitimate concerns about your neutrality. My edit actually provided the definition of a Palestinian refugee, something it was missing, as well as a guide to the application of "Palestinian" vs "Israeli Arab".--monochrome_monitor 17:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


@sandstein Thanks for adding your input. Please check my other edits, like those on Rachel Corrie which have been very well received, to see I'm just trying to add nuetrality. I was being aggressive towards that user but in my personal opinion that doesn't justify a topic ban considering the actual content of my edit is not questionable. I apologize for the edit summary, it was written halfway through editing and not updating. I think it would be reasonable to assume good faith since I wasn't subversive. On my complaints, check that user's (very inflammatory) talk page, he has been called antisemitic many times before. I'm just one of many to object. Instead of shooting the messenger, ask yourself if our objections are valid. Along with some obvious extremely anti-israel POV the user is also very condescending to users who disagree with him.--monochrome_monitor 18:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Nishidani changed "I don't particularly mind the crude racist insults documented on my page" to something very different, making him guilt of exactly the same offense he is currently outraged for (calling him antisemitic). When I revised my edit he reinstated it to make a point, therefore I will put it here lest someone think he's above petty libels. --monochrome_monitor 19:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


So anyway I'd really like to end the dispute it's really stressing me out. I hope you can understand my aggression as defensive when being targeted as breaking a rule I didn't even break. --monochrome_monitor 19:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Apologies to all. Especially Nishidani whom I addressed on his talk page. --monochrome_monitor 00:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

Exactly to what version "the first revert" was reverting?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Also in general in past AE cases first edit was considered a revert if it was explicitly reverting something but this not a case as far a I can see.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Here what is written by User:Timotheus_Canens

I don't think DLDD's first edit is a revert. AE has repeatedly held that edits falling within the technical definition may nonetheless not qualify as a revert; in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#SlimVirgin, for example, the first edit at issue removed an entire section, but it was nonetheless held to be not a revert

--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I noticed that Monochrome monitor added then removed a comment at User talk:Nishidani. The removal edit summary was "deleted my question, convo with you will get me no where (blatant antisemite)" (diff). The removed comment included "Looking at your page you seem to biased and a bit antisemitic, I think I'll consult more neutral parties". MM should be informed that discussion about an article belongs on its talk page, and that attacks on other editors are not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

This edit, referring to another editor as a "total tool", adds to my impression that Monochrome monitor is not going to make a constructive contribution to the I/P editing area. I was going to post about his calling Nishidani an anti-Semite as well, but I see that's already been addressed above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Sandstein's fastidiousness is puzzling. The first revert indicated by Zero in the initial report is a revert insofar as it removes Dowty as a source and also changes "majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times" to "majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are closely related to Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant" -- thus removing the notion of current residents being "descendants". It doesn't matter who originally added it -- what matters is that Monochome deleted it: a revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

'The article fails to history.' That, like every other sentence I've examined from monochrome writer, is ungrammatical. But the list of remarks that follows it, shows that this editor has zero knowledge of historical scholarship, since it systematically trots out clichés in 'fact sheet handouts' printed to 'guide' activists in the I/P area (for how complex this is see Demographics of Palestine. Whatever, by 1900 94% of the population was 'Arab'(Muslim/Christian), who were not blow-ins barging into a Jewish land to dispossess the real owners, i.e., since Byzantine times an exiguous minority. All this is straight out of Joan Peters's fictional book and even poorer sources. I don't particularly mind the crude insults (5)imputing me with racism documented on my page, some while he was reported here. But in this area we do not need walk-in editors brandishing a programme of pseudoids to conduct edit-wars.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the editor is new to the area, no sanction is necessary. A warning on her page is sufficient. The WP:AGF problem was addressed on my page with an apology that is a first up for the dozens of people who have thrown that accusation my way, sign of reflection, and bona fides. Thirdly, mentorship is underway, and that itself is sufficient. One note to the newby. Optimal editing here, which is all that is acceptable given the conflictual bitterness, requires close reading of scholarly sources and avoidance of any meme-driven sourcing. One should never, particularly when young, delude oneself into thinking one 'knows' the facts about a situation and history as complex as this one.Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

What constitutes a revert is defined in Wikipedia policy as follows: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." On this page and other noticeboards, in adjudicating claimed breaches of XRR editing restrictions, there has been a long-term tendency for admins to apply their own personal interpretations of what a revert is, ignoring or modifying the policy definition in various degrees. This has led to arbitrariness in interpretation of the rules and confusion among editors as to what they and other editors can or cannot do. Thus, various admins in the Result section are maintaining that a modification to text in the article only counts as a revert if the original text was added or changed recently. The long-term confusion over what a revert is has led to various unsuccessful attempts to clarify the policy relating to it, such as this one by Passionless.

@The Panda: "If mono's first edit included any text that had recently been added and reverted, then the first edit can be considered to be a revert. It appears to be a rather extensive edit, but may have combined previous edits with new edits in order to make it appear to be a new edit." I find that there is so much ambiguity in that comment that I don't know exactly how to read it, but it appears to be saying that unless Mono (an unfortunate abbreviation for anyone who knows a little Spanish) changed text that had been recently added or modified, his change was not a revert. If that is the case, can you justify your interpretation of what a revert is by relating it to policy or derived consensus, or are you applying an entirely personal qualification to what the policy says a revert is?

@Monty: "In my opinion, an edit that makes a change to text that hasn't been touched recently is not a revert." We have a policy definition of what a revert is, so shouldn't you be relating your interpretation of whether or not a revert was made to that rather that applying your own personal definition? Perhaps what you should have written was not, applying your own definition, that "a change to text that hasn't been touched recently is not a revert", but that you don't think that a change to text which has not been touched recently should be treated as a revert when arbitrating how the 1RR restriction on ARBPIA articles is applied?

@Sandstein: "As submitted, this is not actionable because the request does not make clear which edit the first reported diff is supposed to be a revert of." However, the diff shows that a change was made to the existing text, which means that, unless Mono was altering text added by himself (and I'd say it's fairly clear it wasn't originally added by him), that he was altering one or more editors' actions in whole or in part, the policy definition of what a revert is, wasn't he? Why exactly are you insisting that evidence of the route by which the original text came into the article be given? Now, if Mono had been copy-editing the original text, that is, improving its style but not changing its meaning, you could argue that he has not 'altered' other editors' actions in a meaningful sense. What he did, though, was to grossly change sourced text which said that Palestinians are the descendents of many peoples who lived in the land, to saying that they are the descendents only of Arabs, who the Zionist version of history says arrived from Arabia displacing, rather than amalgamating with, the existing inhabitants. "We don't care about whose position is more historically correct ... ." You should perhaps care that Mono subverted sourced text to misrepresent the given sources, though?

    ←   ZScarpia   12:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Irondome

I am MM's mentor. I took on the task a few days before I left for a ten day totally off-line break, so I have only caught up with events a few hours ago. I have been in email contact with MM extensively in the last few hours and I can gladly confirm that MM's completely unwarranted and inaccurate slur on Nishidani was based on skimpy reading of a past post without reading its overall context and inexperience. I have taken MM to task on that and MM unreservedly apologises. I am taking measures to ensure MM reads all WP policy guidelines and gets some WP:CLUE. Said editor will consult with me and on relevant talk pages when considering edits and will seek consensus in future. I think MM has a good future as a productive member of the community if given the correct guidance. Said editor's age is precocious with regard to a subject of such sensitivity, and I would suggest we attempt to retain young editors who have the guts to register and be so open about themselves. We must not scare off young female editors. MM has potential if she plays by the rules and is given communal guidance. Irondome (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Monochrome monitor

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

  • Zero0000 Are you requesting a block for the 1RR vio or a ban of some sort? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Regarding 1RR, when looked at as two groups the edits are a 1RR violation, see this one (separated by sean.hoyland's edit) then this one however we probably need to look more deeply into this. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Shrike If mono's first edit included any text that had recently been added and reverted, then the first edit can be considered to be a revert. It appears to be a rather extensive edit, but may have combined previous edits with new edits in order to make it appear to be a new edit the panda ₯’ 11:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As submitted, this is not actionable because the request does not make clear which edit the first reported diff is supposed to be a revert of. Everybody, please save yourselves and us the content discussions. We don't care about whose position is more historically correct – this is AE, we are all about conduct, not content – and personally I know so little about the history of the region that I wouldn't be able to identify any but the most evident bias. At a conduct level, I am concerned by Monochrome monitor's general aggressiveness as seen on this page, as well as by the personal attack ("tool"), the implicit and as far as I can tell unfounded accusation of antisemitism towards another editor above ("You consider Jews to be greedy land-grabbing colonialists") and the misleading edit summary "sentence flow, slight reword" (whereas in reality substantial alterations were made). Does this warrant a topic ban on its own?  Sandstein  17:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The 1RR issue is a bit convoluted but I'd concentrate more on the general attitude to editing from this editor. Historically in the IP area, persistently throwing out accusations of anti-semitism against other editors tends not to end well, and there are other NPA issues as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, an edit that makes a change to text that hasn't been touched recently is not a revert. In the absence of anyone being able to figure out how long the text has been there, I can't consider the first set of edits to be a revert. However I also agree that his recent attitude, including the personal attacks, combined with his previous block less than 1 month ago, and the fact that we even need to discuss whether the first edit is a revert, all speaks to the need for an additional sanction. Perhaps a topic ban in the 1-3 month range? Monty845 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Sandstein that this is not actionable as a 1RR report. I recommend closing this. There is justified alarm about Monochrome monitor's attitude to other editors working on I/P articles but probably not enough for a topic ban. Unless this editor changes their approach they are likely to be back here soon and shouldn't expect much sympathy if that occurs. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd agree with a close with no restrictions, but given the evidence presented we would be remiss to close this with no action and hence giving everyone the opportunity to say that Monochrome monitor has done nothing wrong. Instead I think at the least we should be giving a logged warning. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Uishaki

John Carter

Sean.hoyland

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 Sean.hoyland

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Sean.hoyland (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 - topic ban :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 16:01, July 28, 2014 Revert #1
  2. 19:13, July 28, 2014 Revert #2
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 11:07, June 28, 2014 Blocked for disruptive editing in ARBPIA topic area
  2. 22:07, 21 September 2012 Blocked for edit-warring
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I notified Sean.hoyland that he violated 1RR at Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip (the article name has been changing) and should revert but he refused and in effect said he was above the law[16]. Unfortunately, Sean.hoyland has become an increasingly combative editor as of late (see his recent disruptive editing block) and has been editing more or less exclusively in the I/P topic area over the past several months (just see his contributions). I think he would be well served by taking a break from the I/P topic area and making constructive edits elsewhere.

@Sandstein, there could be a better title than "attack tunnels" ("terror tunnels" would be a pretty clear POV title, in comparison), but the term has been used throughout many mainstream media outlets e.g.:
@ZScarpia, your reading is mistaken. I was not advocating for the title "terror tunnels" - that is a pretty clear POV title. I was demonstrating that the term "attack tunnels" has been employed in mainstream media -- not that there might be a be a suitable title than "attack tunnels". Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Nishidani, I don't appreciate your bizarre personal attack that my username signifies that "there is a plot against an unnamed country in wikipedia [Israel] and I as editor will unravel its insidious presence." My original username was "ShamWow", but I was forced to change it on short notice because that is a trademarked product. Sorry if I like movies. You should know better than to make bizarre personal attacks of no merit. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[23]

Discussion concerning Sean.hoyland

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 Sean.hoyland

I'm not going to contest the 1RR violation. I made 2 reverts. The first was to remove material that was unrelated to the subject of the article, something the editor who added it really should have known if they had read the source, and the second, intended to allow a discussion on the talk page to proceed and come to consensus without drive by interference from a non-participating editor imposing their personal view. As I said "I don't mind being blocked for that. I stand by the edit." I do however contest the notion that what I said on my talk page" can be reasonably be described as "in effect said he was above the law". That is, in fact, gross misrepresentation. Editors should not be allowed to do that because it's wrong. Not sure about "increasingly combative" either. Increasingly robotic perhaps. My response was the opposite of combative. I'm not a combatant and editing Wikipedia is not a battle, and yet battle rages everyday in ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • My actions were necessary and correct. I removed content unrelated to the article and nullified the effects of an editor who ignored the ongoing discussion, a discussion that showed the lack of consensus for PS's edit. PS ignored BRD and imposed their personal view, a view inconsistent with numerous sources. Editing like that cannot be tolerated in ARBPIA and it must be nullified regardless of the consequences for the individual editors who understand and do what is necessary. The fact that admins can't see that is unfortunate but an inevitable consequence of being uninvolved. I do what is necessary in ARBPIA fully prepared to take the consequences because admins don't police the topic area.
  • Just in case someone raises the issue that a self-revert was not an option by the time I logged in because the article had already been moved at 2014-07-28T21:27:30 as a result of the discussion (which of course resulted in a title that didn't include the word 'attack'), I want to be absolutely clear that I would not have self-reverted even if it were an option or I had been specifically instructed to do so by an admin. I can't make edits that I believe are not in the interests of the project. That includes self-reverts that facilitate editors who ignore ongoing discussions. I can't do that and I will never do that.
  • I see admins making comments about the content. Are you involved or uninvolved ? If you are want to be involved and comment on content, you need to do the research, do it properly by examining a large set of sources and participate in the discussions that produce consensus. Of course there are sources that use the term 'attack tunnels'. Sources use a whole spectrum of terms but advocates don't care about complexity and contradictions and will pick the language they like most. It's a characteristic feature of advocacy in ARBPIA, systemic bias in source sampling rather than rational source based discussion to find consensus. It would be better if admins became involved and made hundreds of edits in ARBPIA. In fact I think it should be a requirement so that admins have a better understanding of the topic area and can make decisions that address the core issues. They will quickly figure out what is necessary to keep a lid on the non-stop WP:NOTADVOCATE disruption there.
  • When considering the length of my topic ban consider that in 3/6/12 or any number of months times, if I see an editor do what PS did I will revert them no matter whether it happens to be my first edit or part of a sequence of contiguous edits or a technical 1RR violation because someone else happened to make an edit after my first edit. Editors can't be allowed to ignore ongoing discussions in ARBPIA and it is foolish for admins to facilitate that behavior. It's one of the root causes of conflict in the topic area and has been for years. It has to be suppressed. Technical 1RR violations and all sorts of policy violations occur countless times a day all over the topic area. Almost nobody cares, least of all admins. I don't mind being topic banned for a 1RR violation but it really isn't in the interests of the project to perpetuate the illusion that admin actions are preventative or have any effect. Admins have no control over what happens in ARBPIA and cannot prevent anything. Anyone who edits regularly in ARBPIA already knows this. The presence or absence of editors like me and the tens of thousands of edits I've made in ARBPIA have had and will always have a negligible impact relative to the very substantial numbers of editors and socks who violate WP:NOTADVOCATE every single day. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

The back story:

  • 15:21, 28 July 2014 I moved the article to Palestinian tunnels (not a very satisfactory title, but just to get rid of the rather NPOV article title); I also participated on the talk-page, together with the article author and User:Sean.hoyland, and several others. Basically, only the original author argued for the original title, with the controversial word attack in it.

The article is (presently) named Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip; an article name most editors seem to be able to live with.

Now, you can argue if there should be two different articles about these tunnels, but if it is, then we should clearly not have material in article A which only pertain to article B. And this is what User:Sean.hoyland 1.st revert was about: removing irrelevant material.

Plot Spoiler unilateral move of the article, without any form of consensus, without any discussion, to an extremely controversial article name which was not supported by those who participated on the talk-page: this was clearly out of line. I think Plot Spoiler should perhaps edit in other areas than the I/P area for a while. Huldra (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Shrike: good question. The way I saw it was that there was clearly no consensus for keeping the contentious word attack in the title. So I moved it to the easiest option: ie, the same title, minus the word "attack". Huldra (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

User:Huldra did you had any consensus to move it in the first place?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Huldra As far as I can see there was no consensus to move it either.There is no WP:Deadline you should have waited and initiate discussion per WP:RM/CM to gain consensus .I think it should be true for any WP:ARBPIA article--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

Plot Spoiler wrote: "the term has been used throughout many mainstream media outlets e.g ... ." The only one of the linked to sources which uses the term "terror tunnel" (an alternative source for the Financial Times article is here) is the Times of Israel, but then, apparently, only as a category for grouping articles. In the four most recent articles included in that category the phrase used is 'attack tunnel'. 21:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler, apologies, my mistake. You might like to remove the Financial Times from your list, though. It doesn't, as far as I can see, refer to attack tunnels.     ←   ZScarpia   15:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

The inflamed events of the I/P world have recently lead to a huge overload as editors rush to write new articles. Naturally, reports of ARBPIA infractions increase. There’s exasperation over both the inhumane work load being created for any conscientious practitioner of WP:NPOV, since the volume of bad edits is unmanageable, and, more particularly, the 1R is now being broken every other hour, even by serious experienced wikipedians, whatever their sympathies, pro/contra/neutral. I don’t report them because I respect the editors involved – their interest is in page improvement, so reporting them would be getting at editors to game wikipedia, even if they revert me. Worst of all, in several cases recently, admins, who should (a) give us guidance and (b) find a way out of the problem several editors (Sean Hoyland, Zero, Scarpia) have mentioned, have, perhaps understandably, just concentrated on 1R application, while, as is evident to everyone, the rule is being interpreted differently from admin to admin. There is no agreement, from complaint to complaint, among esteemed and highly experienced admins, as to the way that rule must unequivocably be read. All someone like myself can do is proceed thinking ‘I can only edit a page once a day’, while watching most editors happily copyediting, revising, removing, adjusting any one text, under furious attention from numerous posters, without paying much attention to the extreme niceties of interpretation. It is immensely frustrating to old I/P editors who have survived the insanity of this area for years. The only people being reported are egregious newbies or notable editors sanctioned in the past, or people often thought of as having membership in an I/P gang or clique. This is the context of the two cases where Sean Hoyland has been reported. In both instances, he broke the rule, and of course, a sanction is inevitable. But application of the sanction in lieu of remedies for the chaos, though inevitable in this case, will not solve anything but only complicate things. Take the reporter, Plot Spoiler.

If you look at Plot Spoiler’s contribs, most of it exhibits chronic instant reverting: he’s a removalist of anything critical of Israel or favourable to Palestinians, and one who rarely confers with editors on the talk page. I always think of him as a drive-by reverter. He ‘talks’ only when reporting someone. Here a just a few examples from the last few days. I find most of his edits questionable, but will use these as a minimal sampler of what he does.

  • 1.Thane Rosenbaum’s ‘Controversy section’ is removed wholesale on WP:BPL grounds, when all controversialists have controversy sections here

What did he remove?

(a) Conor Friedersdorf, The Dangerous Logic Used to Justify Killing Civilians The Atlantic 23 July 2014.

Comment. The article appeared in The Atlantic, which is a perfectly middle-of the-road, respectable magazine, impeccably S. Plot Spoiler defied the usual rule to respect strong rs retention.

(b)Thane Rosenbaum Hamas’s Civilian Deaths Strategy Wall Street Journal 21 July 2014.

Comment: The article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, which no one questions as RS. Plot Spoiler ignored the usual rule to respect strong rs retention.

(c) Daniel Larison, Non-Combatants and Gaza The American Conservative 21 July 2014.

Comment: The article appeared in The American Conservative, eminently rs, and Plot Spoiler ignores the rule to retain such strong rs

In sum, three eminently adequate RS are expunged because Plot Spoiler apparently either dislikes criticism of Israel, even in mainstream journals, or does not tolerate any expansion of articles by notable journalists that see problems with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. That kind of editing is self-evidently POV pushing, and the pretextual expunging of S can find not basis in wiki policy or practice.

Comment. PL removes links to the man whose bio is dealt with on the page, links to him speaking on youtube, or a detail of where he lives. That is hostility to his views operating, and many BLPs have links to their youtube talks. There is nothing wrong in this. But Braverman’s talks are about Palestinians.

Comment. While Plot Spoiler spends much of his removing references to Electronic Intifada, this is a mechanical removal at sight which is wrong, because while EI can be questioned, the scholar interviewed by EI here, Gilbert Achcar is an authority in his field who happened to concede an nterview to EI. Achcar is often highly critical of Palestinian figures as well, and Achcar’s stature is such that it trumps the venue where his views, which PS expunges, are aired. Most of us understand that. PL doesn’t care. He just reverts, and doesn’t notify the talkpage of why Achcar cannot be cited directly from EI.

Comment. This is a bravura piece of specious edit summarizing, which deceives anyone who does not go on to examine what PL actually did. On any comparable page dealing with figures like Gideon Levy, Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Goldberg or even Pamela Geller, you will find numerous citations from their op eds and articles published in the mainstream press. Plot Spoiler won't allow this for a Palestinian intellectual. The mass revert not only expunges Moor's articles published in the Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Al-Jazeera ETC., but 'takes out' precisely the kind of material Plot Spoiler himself stipulates is required Namely, secondary sources like Rachel Gotbaum, 'Local Groups Mobilize Support For Israelis, Palestinians,' WBUR-FM 9 Nov 2012, which are 'secondary sources commenting on his (Moor's) opinions.' This is the ultimate of editorial whimsy and chutzpah, removing precisely material that satisfies the otherwise arbitrary criterion for inclusion set by the deleter himself. I'll lay a bet that nothing like this defiance of the most elementary rules can be discovered in the long history of Sean.hoyland's edit history, but Plot Spoiler's spoiling to get rid of him. Why?Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment The repeated use of ‘activist source’ for any non-strictly ‘mainstream newspaper’ is improper. Mondoweiss is borderline –it has a notable number of highly empirical reports that are superior to much mainstream reportage in it, for example- but can be used, as can Electronic Intifada, depending on circumstances, for notable opinions, not for facts. In this case, Scott McConnell is a respectable journalist and founder of The American Conservative, and that is sufficient to permit his views to be cited on a case regarded that scholar. The point is identical with the suppression of a comment from Gilbert Achcar above. If the author is notable, the grey RS area of Mondoweiss, or Electronic Intifada is less relevant.

Comment The facts reported could have been ascertained in five seconds of googling, providing any editor with confirmation that the same information reported by Mondoweiss and other ‘activist sources’ was reported by mainstream RS. i.e. here (The Huffington Post), here (Jews for Justice for Palestinians); or here (The Telegraph). Rather than build the page by improving sourcing, PS just uses the RS argument to expunge an exbarrassing fact, widely attested.

Comment Deceptive edit summary, note most. The sources removed include several articles from the Israeli mainstream press on Aloni, i.e., Haaretz and Ynet, and Columbia University Press which qualify as rs. Here, here, here, here, here and and here. Rather than build the article, Plot Spoiler just expunges a list of several eminently good sources that direct editors to improvement.

Comment. This is an edit summary in egregious bad faith. He removes his usual object of his objections Mondoweiss, and yet immediately after that source we have the Israeli West Bank settlers’ mouthpiece, Arutz Sheva, which has no pretensions to reportorial investigation characteristic of much of Mondoweiss, and which on identical grounds could be challenged as not rs. So Plot Spoiler understands by non-Rs anything critical of Israel, but does not apply the same criterion to a source with a ultra-Israel ideological slant.

Comment: removes rs sources (though the urls had to be corrected) Institute of Palestine Studies (rs); The Guardian (rs); The Nation (rs), together with two of her own articles appearing in Counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/hijab08072006.html here) and Mondoweiss (http://mondoweiss.net/2013/10/without-political-framework.html here). My understanding is that a reputable scholar/author/writers articles can be used as reliable sources for his/her views, even if the source is not ‘mainstream’. Were that not so, only people writing for the partisan mainstream press would ever be heard on wikipedia.

The ‘crap’ about this ‘peacock’ Palestinian consists also in (1) an article on him appearing in BBC News

(2) a write up appearing in the San Francisco Chronicle,

(3) Another on his company in here from Reuters, i.e., impeccable RS, etc.

From these 10 cases just over the last two days, a very high hit-rate for bad edits, it is evident that Plot Spoiler trawls articles, particularly on Palestinians, and systematically removes content, easily resourced, verifiable, or already present in mainstream rs, by a mechanical or contentious spin on rs policy, simply to impoverish articles rather than fix or improve them, and throwing the burden of improvement on other editors. The editing is generally hostile to the subject of the article. I should add that virtually every article on Rabbbis in wikipedia is largely sourced to articles that fail RS, but only an antisemite would comb through them to wreck them on a strict or distortedly severe reading of that policy. Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

PL has complained here (cui bono?), and expects his record to be ignored. Well, frankly his record is infinitely more problematical than HS’s, whose interest in the I/P area is mainly focused on isolating abusive serial violators of NPOV, and POV advocacy warriors, like Plot Spoiler (the name says as much: 'there is a plot against an unnamed country in wikipedia and I as editor will unravel its insidious presence'). Of course, he has asked for a sanction and will get it. But the peculiar hypocrisy of the plaintiff in objecting to SH while behaving precisely in the manner SH has identified as deleterious to the encyclopedic ends of wikipedia merits examination, and, in my view, a sanction as heavy, at least, as anything that admins will duly hand out to Sean Hoyland, whose exasperation is such he is asking to be guillioteened. Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

My aside on what your handle suggests to a close, native reader of English in context is expendable. The evidence I supplied constitutes the gravamen of my argument, and this you ignore. Such snippets culled from a short sampling of a vast record I could expand ad nauseam and only cite because I'm fed up with the abuse by bad or indifferent editors of administrative recourses to get rid of competent contributors. Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sean.hoyland

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

  • Because Sean.hoyland does not contest violating the 1R restriction, we must evaluate which if any sanction is appropriate. Sanctions are preventative, that is, they should be set up so as to effectively prevent the recurrence of the conduct they are imposed as a result of. As Sean.hoyland says that "I don't mind being blocked for that. I stand by the edit", it is apparent that a block would not have the necessary preventative effect. Under these circumstances, only a topic ban would have that effect. – Concerning Plot Spoiler, while I know very little about the particulars of the ongoing conflict, I find the move to "Gaza Strip attack tunnels" worrying from a NPOV perspective. That's not the kind of neutral terminology I've come across in mainstream media, but rather appears intended to convey a moral judgment about these tunnels.  Sandstein  20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • PS probably needs time out from the area as well. Unfortunately, because of how Sean responded to PS, I would recommend a slightly longer TBAN to Sean, but also TBAN to PS. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 22:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Since User:Sean.hoyland declined to self-revert when given the opportunity to fix his 1RR a three-month topic ban may be justified. User:Plot Spoiler was warned at AE less than two weeks ago but I'm not seeing what we would consider to be the bannable offence here. One of the newspaper articles cited by PS shows the tunnels being called 'cross-border attack tunnels,' which is not that different from 'Gaza strip attack tunnels' as used by PS. Wanting to distinguish these from smuggling tunnels is a valid motivation, though the term now in place (after discussion on the article talk page) is Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip which has a more neutral sound. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Inclined to agree with EdJohnston's reasoning, which is evidence-based. Zad68 02:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, if this "attack" terminology is being used in the media, then we probably don't have grounds for a sanction against Plot Spoiler. Agreed with the 3 months topic ban for Sean.hoyland.  Sandstein  06:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Amoruso

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 Amoruso

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Amoruso (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
ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 06:04, 29 July 2014 Breach of topic ban
  2. 06:05, 29 July 2014 Breach of topic ban
  3. 06:08, 29 July 2014 Breach of topic ban
  4. 06:16, 29 July 2014 Breach of topic ban
  5. 06:33, 29 July 2014 Breach of topic ban
  6. 06:34, 29 July 2014 Breach of topic ban
  7. 06:36, 29 July 2014 Breach of topic ban
  8. 06:37, 29 July 2014 Breach of topic ban
  9. 06:41, 29 July 2014 Breach of topic ban
  10. 06:43, 29 July 2014 Breach of topic ban
  11. 12:28, 29 July 2014 Breach of topic ban
  12. 12:31, 29 July 2014 Breach of topic ban
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 20:38, 11 April 2010 Indefinite topic ban. details
  2. 13:46, 15 April 2010 Blocked for breach of ban
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Amoruso was indefinitely topic-banned on 11 April 2010.[24] At the time, he was warned that "Any violation of this ban, especially in order to disrupt, may result in an indefinite block."[25] On 15 April 2010, he was blocked for 24 hours for breaching this ban.[26] After the expiry of this block. he made a few edits, but appeared to have retired from editing on 17 April 2010. He returned to editing this morning, immediately making several contentious edits to an article covered by the topic ban, and claiming falsely that he was no longer topic-banned.[27]

Sandstein, of course Amoruso is mentioned by name in the final decision. He was one of the editors involved in the many disputes leading to the arbitration, he was mentioned by name in the discussions, and he was identified later as one of the first editors to receive a notification. In any case, even if I had made an error in not deleting that sentence (I did not add it, it was by default in the original template), that would not discredit the complaint nor absolve you of your responsibility to judge it on its merits. Your dismissive response demonstrates once again your pettifogging skills and your disregard for principles and essentials. I request that you recuse yourself from any further involvement in this request, which I do not believe that you are able to assess on its merits. RolandR (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Here


Discussion concerning Amoruso

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 Amoruso

I only came to Wikipedia this time to counter user:Zero0000's defamation here, and completely baseless accusations -Personal Ruthless Attack. I couldn't be bothered with it at the time but decided to respond now. He removed WP:RS which he by his own admission in the past confirmed that it's an WP:RS. There's really no doubt that something has to be done about user:Zero0000, his personal attacks and his personal disregard of Wikipedia policies. user:RolandR himself is a very problematic user too (both users have a history of blocks). He makes several mistakes/lies in his claim. For example, I never said I was not topic banned, just that it wasn't the right topic. His request was properly denied since it's full of mistakes.

As for the topic ban of four years ago if still relevant, like was mentioned above, I did not think that this was anything to do with the Israeli - Arab conflict. It's simply an internal Jewish - German historical issue with no mention of Palestinians or Arabs at all. There was no indication in the talk page like mentioned above. If someone feels for some reason that this was a violation of some kind, I apologize. That was of course never my intention. It is not my intention to edit anymore on this or other related topics at this time anyway. Again, I apologize if I mistakenly violated the ban. Thank you. Amoruso (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

I think there was some misunderstanding as talk page of the article didn't contain template that it covered by DS. I have added a relevant template [28]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

Sandstein wrote: 'The request incorrectly asserts that Amoruso is "mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above".' The Final Decision section of the ARBPIA request for arbitration consists of the whole of section 4, in which Amoruso is mentioned in subsections 4.6 and 4.7.3. Therefore Sandstein's assertion about the assertion made in the request is actually the one which is in error.     ←   ZScarpia   21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Penwhale: "In theory, the Final Decision does not encompass the Logs (of notification and sanctions)." Maybe, but in practice (according to the section structure) it does.     ←   ZScarpia   23:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

Amoruso is one of the most disastrous editors I have met in my 11 years in Wikipedia. I could easy list half a dozen offences worse than the offences he was topic-banned for.

But it isn't necessary. It doesn't matter if he was mentioned on any particular page either. Enforce the ban already.

@EdJohnston : You ask whether Amoruso was aware that the article was covered by his topic-ban. To help you decide, I'll mention:
(1) One of Amoruso's violations refers to "establishment of a Jewish state".
(2) The event that Amoruso calls "an internal Jewish - German historical issue" was an offer by this Zionist splinter group to fight on the Nazi side in return for German help to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Amoruso wrote a lot of that section: [29]
(3) Amoruso has edited this article more than 200 times so the fact that it is an article explicitly about the Arab-Israeli conflict may have come to his attention. Zerotalk 06:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42

I am fairly new to the ARBPIA area, and have not interacted with Amoruso in any capacity, nor was I even aware of the Lehi article (or indeed real-world entity) prior to this report. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone would not think the article is within the scope of ARBPIA. The article repeatedly refers to the founding of Israel, The British Mandate, and directly (and directly contrary to Amaruso's statement) to conflicts between Palastenian Arabs and the group Lehi_(group)#Deir_Yassin_massacre. Even a cursory reading of the article would lead to the conclusion that this is solidly and clearly in the israeli-palestinian topic area. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Amoruso

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

  • The request incorrectly asserts that Amoruso is "mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above". I stopped reading the request at that point. Why should I take the time to assess the request when the requester doesn't bother to compose it with reasonable care?  Sandstein  20:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ... In theory, the Final Decision does not encompass the Logs (of notification and sanctions)... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know why a (not necessarily) formalistic error in the filing is a reason to discard the request. There was an indefinite topic ban which the editor proceeded to violate several times in a row. The article in question is about a "militant Zionist group" that existed around World War II up through 1948; there's no question it's covered by the terms of the TBAN. We need to give TBANS a liberal reading to avoid attempts to circumvent them and cause disruption. I recommend a block. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Certainly this is against Amoruso's validly-issued topic ban, but I wonder if it was obvious to him that Lehi (group) was under WP:ARBPIA. Amoruso was not mentioned by name in the ARBPIA decision, but that could be fixed by the submitter of this report by striking out the errors. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)