Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:30, 15 February 2012

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334

Shuki

Shuki (talk · contribs) banned from Golan Heights and Golan Heights indefinitely semi-protected. All editors reminded that AE is not a battleground, nor a venue through which to air interpersonal disputes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Shuki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: asad (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki

Statement By Shrike

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by RolandR

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by MichaelNetzer

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

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

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

Statement by Brewcrewer

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

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

Result concerning Shuki

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

Will it never end for some folks? Here we are to consider the removal or addition of a single noun describing a segment of the population in the Golan as "settlers" or not. This has led to a revert war putting the article back into protection again and this case on AE. I think we need to seriously approach our work in this topic area and if the same folks are going to come here time and time again with some fight or another then they shouldn't be editing this topic. Then we have the polite exchange among various parties as well. Don't even know where to start with this one. --WGFinley (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing is clear though, I definitely agree that article needs to be indefinitely semi-protected, it's under constant disturbance from anon editing, with the number of bans in on this topic there's a good chance it is sock editing and deserving of protection. --WGFinley (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this request can be readily disposed of on the ground that Shuki failed to observe the restriction which requires a talk page explanation for the revert. No opinion on other matters, though I do find this massive fight over six letters to be frankly perplexing (just when I thought nothing in this topic area would surprise me anymore...). T. Canens (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Though I'm not terribly shocked an all-out brawl would happen over something like this, as I've read enough about this subject (Robert Fisk and Amira Hass, but others as well) to have seen this happening in the real world, I don't think people who engage in it really belong editing those articles. I'll look over the rest later, but this doesn't make Shuki look good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Shuki; I'm trying not to rush to judgment here, I'm merely trying to make it clear what impression I have. I always enter these with an open mind, but I try to make my thoughts known so you don't have to guess. Since telepathy is not among the tools received upon adminship, the best way to communicate that is to write it here, it doesn't make it my final answer; my mind can always change. My reading list above is also suppoeed to be demonstrative, not exhaustive; Hass has reported on it in the past anyways, so I've read the prosaic and condensed version of certain news events. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's concerning that an editor only too well aware of the contentiousness of this topic area would make such an edit, which any reasonable person could tell was going be to a source of further contention. I don't know what sort of action would be appropriate, but I think it would be a mistake to allow that sort of provocation to go unacknowledged.
It's equally concerning that a group of editors, and Sean.hoyland in particular, would see an AE request against a third party as an appropriate venue to thrash out their personal differences. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and AE certainly isn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addenda:
- I've given Sean.hoyland a formal notification of the discretionary sanctions. Other editors should be aware that hijacking AE threads (especially those on third parties) for interpersonal disputes will lead to sanctions should it recur.
- WP:ARBPIA#Log of blocks and bans shows that Shuki ~~has a long and troubled history at the Golan Heights article, and~~pardon me, I seem to have misread the log. Apologies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC) in the Israel-Palestine area generally, leading to multiple topic bans, blocks, and restrictions. Template:Editnotices/Page/Golan Heights, which is displayed when one edits the Golan Heights article, very clearly advertises the restriction which Shuki allegedly violated, and, as I said above, I think any reasonable editor would have known that that edit would cause controversy. As such, I am suggesting an indefinite ban from the article Golan Heights. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Remedies

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

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

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

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

At this moment I agree with 1, 4, and 5. As to 2, Sean.hoyland has just been notified of the discretionary sanctions like a day ago and the offending edits predate that notification. We can probably still find constructive warning from his past participation at AE (so sanctions are not entirely impossible), but I want to consider his response to the proposed sanction first, considering his apparently clean history. As to Brewcrewer, I'm not quite seeing the PA right now. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sean is well aware his behavior here is subject to sanction, it's spelled out boldly at the top of this page and he has 149 edits here. We also previously held formal warning wasn't required for someone who participated on WP:AE, I reopened a case I closed because of it. As far as Brewcrewer telling an uninvolved admin he shouldn't be providing an opinion that is a clear personal attack. It's a politely worded "you don't know what you're talking about" and GTFO -- using flowery verse doesn't make it any less personal. Admins shouldn't have to wear industrial strength flame retardant suits to patrol here, this type of behavior needs to stop. I have found all the admins who patrol here are receptive to constructive criticism, people shouldn't be bashed over the head with it. --WGFinley (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to Sean: Yes, I remember that. I wrote the comment that caused the reopening of that case...As I said, we can probably find constructive warning, but since HJ just made a formal notification, I'm a little wary about piling on with a sanction immediately afterwards.
As to Brewcrewer, I'm not convinced. I'm very wary of sanctioning people for criticizing AE admins, even if the criticism is totally misguided. If Blade really were totally clueless, how is someone supposed to point it out? Since admins need not recuse simply due to criticism directed at them, no matter how heated, people who go overboard with their comments do so at their own peril (compare WP:BUTT), since they risk antagonizing the admin and being treated less favorably. I'm not convinced that actively sanctioning criticism, no matter how misguided, is a good idea. T. Canens (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion as always Tim but I just think you are going lightly on this one. Taking action to protect WP:AE from becoming a constant battleground just carried out in a different venue is not piling on. Sean contributed to the ensuing very heated disturbance and Brewcrewer was happy to take a swipe at Blade when Blade did little more than make a passing reference to some recent reading he had done. Getting criticized is part of taking the mop and to be expected, even more so here given the nature of it, I think this went well beyond criticism, it was disproportionately hostile. I wish you would reconsider but understand and will see what others think. --WGFinley (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I agree with Tim here. I don't think Sean was in need of anything more severe than a warning for what appears to be a first offence. I'm less certain about Brewcrewer's comment, which was unhelpful and patronising, but I wouldn't say it was a personal attack and Tim is right that we should be wary about sanctioning people for criticising administrators. Also, #4, while sensible, seems redundant, sicne the article is already protected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Dalai lama ding dong

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

Request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: —Biosketch (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions/WP:Tendentious editing

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Response to comments

@User:Jd2718, an article ban at Itamar attack would be fine minimally for knowingly adding a false POV-motivated characterization to the lead and for falsely summarizing the removal of sourced information as unsourced. But when the same user who knowingly adds false information to the lead of a hot-button article and dishonestly summarizes the removal of sourced content he knows is sourced also goes around making changes to other articles in a systematically POV manner, that makes his edits collectively WP:TENDENTIOUS. Tendentious editing in the Israel-Palestine topic area has been considered sanctionable under ARBPIA discretionary sanctions at AE before, so your request to narrow the scope of this enforcement request would be asking Admins to apply a different standard to this case than has been applied in the past to similar cases brought against POV editors.—Biosketch (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning Dalai lama ding dong

Statement by Dalai lama ding dong

Comments by others about the request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

Why hasn't this guy been hammered for having an offensive name? Jtrainor (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, compare and contrast with [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been discussed before. See User talk:Dalai lama ding dong#Username. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief. It's just a song. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment by uninvolved jd2718

The complaint/request should be narrowed. I have questions about a couple of the diffs. Of the two diffs that make this an AE matter, in the second I see removal of unsourced information. Is the source elsewhere in the article? Of the five diffs showing the editor has been warned, Ed Johnston's is ARBPIA, the rest are general edit warring? And of the three diffs being used to illustrate tendentious editing, I consider the latter two (balancing the ordering) to be legitimate topics for discussion (but of course not for edit warring), and far from tendentious. Jd2718 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I'm still not seeing the source (in the back and forth between Biosketch and Dalai lama ding dong on the latter's talk page, Biosketch asserts that it is there, but doesn't cite it). And, yes, one ARBPIA warning is indeed enough. However, it appears that the report was expanded with unrelated or unsupporting diffs, including non-AE warnings. Thus my suggestion that the report should be narrowed. Jd2718 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comments by 71.204.165.25

@ jd2718: Yes, the source is in the aticle, and was pointed to to DLDD on his talk, as explaine in the filer's comment accompanying the second diff, which says "removes sourced information about the poll's findings from the lead with an edit summary claiming that it is unsourced, and subsequently refuses to self-revert despite being directed to the source on his Talk page" - I've bolded the part you are apparently having difficulty with. And I would think ONE ARBPIA warning is more than enough. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ jd2718: A quick glance at the article in question shows that the claim is indeed sourced, exactly as Biosketch claims: "An opinion poll conducted by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 63% of Palestinians surveyed opposed the attack while 32% supported. The groups interviewed 1,270 adults face-to-face in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip from 17 to 19 March 2011.[62]" Did you look at the article at all before posting your comment? And BTW, you are clearly involved in the topic area, so you need to remove the misleading "uninvolved" from "comment by uninvolved jd2718"

Result concerning Dalai lama ding dong

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

Don't really see enough behavior that should be subject to sanction. The first diff appears to be editorial that should have a source otherwise it's WP:SYN but I don't see a huge violation there. The second diff did remove unsourced information and any user can remove it. If the source is in the lead you should still cite it again per the Citing sources guideline. The following 3 diffs are much more telling of some general battleground behavior but I don't know if it's enough to sanction. This editor doesn't seem to know what the talk page is for though and should be relying on it more and edit comments less. --WGFinley (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reminder to use talkpages more frequently and a strong encouragement to discuss contentious edits should suffice. Not seeing anything worth an extended ban just yet, although I'd suggest that continuing down this path could result in a long topic ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing unsourced information is, of course, a legitimate editorial action, but it looks to me like this user has been very careful to only removed unsourced information when it suits their POV, which is tendentious editing. I don't know if there's anything outright sanctionable, though a stern warning that this path leads only to a topic ban certainly seems in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou

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

Request concerning Jaakobou

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Gatoclass (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

08:41, 7 February 2012 Gross misrepresentation of sources; use of substandard sources; WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour; see additional comments section below for explanation
08:57, 7 February 2012 As for first diff above

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

Jaakobou clearly knows about ARBPIA as he was a party to the original case[9] and has since been sanctioned under ARBPIA several times:

14:17, 18 March 2008‎ - one week ban imposed by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
14:28, 1 May 2008 blocked one week by FayssalF (talk · contribs)
21:58, 29 November 2010 - interaction ban imposed by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)
06:09, 20 April 2011 - "warned not to make clearly meritless requests for enforcement, especially requests that make obvious misrepresentations of fact" by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In the first diff provided in the evidence above, Jaakobou states that two Palestinian newspapers including official [Palestinian] news wire Wafa ... described "supernatural rats", twice as big as normal rats and breeding breed four times faster. He supplies three sources for the paragraph. Only one is a news article; it makes no mention of "supernatural rats", twice as big as normal rats and breeding four times faster.[10] The other two sources are (sarcastic) opinion pieces, which as Jaakobou must surely be aware by now, cannot be considered reliable as sources for facts per WP:RSOPINION. Even so, neither of these refer to supernatural rats ... twice as big as normal rats and breeding four times faster.[11][12] One does make mention of "giant rats" and includes an unattributed quote "large as dogs" - which, assuming it is accurate, may be a direct quote from the Palestinian news wire itself, or just a colloquial expression quoted from someone interviewed for the story. Regardless, these sources are not remotely sufficient to justify the inclusion of a truly exceptional claim such as that an "official news wire" of the Palestinian Authority accused Israel of releasing "supernatural rats".

Had Jaakobou not been so eager to restore his defamatory paragraph, he might have noticed that a fourth source, which actually contained the extraordinary claims he is so keen to include, was previously removed from the article - but this source too was only an op-ed, and a heavily sarcastic one at that[13] - although Jaakobou thinks not, as he affirmed in the edit summary of a previous revert.[14]

Jaakobou is well aware of the objections to the misuse of heavily sarcastic jibes sourced from op-eds and presented as straight fact. We know this because he has been reminded of it in edit summaries[15][16][17] by the people he has been edit warring with over this content,[18][19][20][21][22][23] and because it was explained to him long ago on the article talk page. He simply doesn't care.

A couple of further comments. Jaakobou is an editor with a long history of misconduct in the topic area (see the comments about him from other users in the original WP:ARBPIA case, for example). As I recall, he narrowly avoided a siteban some time ago over this. When he was more active on the project, he acquired a reputation for filing meritless requests for action at both AE and AN/I. In my experience, he also happens to be one of the more unpleasant characters to deal with here; rather than discuss content, his communications on talk pages are leavened with vague insinuations of impropriety on the part of his respondents; an example being my last contact with him, last year, in this discussion, where he finds fault with almost everyone while managing to avoid practically any concrete discussion of content. IMO he has avoided a topic ban this long only because of his lack of recent activity, but he has had years to reform and as his latest edits demonstrate, has apparently learned nothing in all that time. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to HJ and Blade

@HJ and Blade: My apologies for apparently failing to explain the issues clearly enough. With regard to the charge of "gross misrepresentation of sources", allow me to present the two edits in question again.

In the first diff, Jaakobou added the statement that In 2008, two Palestinian newspapers including official news wire Wafa [...] described "supernatural rats", twice as big as normal rats and breeding breed four times faster.[24]
In the second diff, Jaakobou added the statement that Palestinian newspapers reported that settlers had flooded the Old City of Jerusalem with "supernatural rats", twice as big as normal rats and breeding four times faster.[25]

In both cases, Jaakobou attributes the quote "supernatural rats" to Palestinian newspapers (one of which is apparently an official news wire of the PA). But this quote does not come from "Palestinian newspapers" - it comes from a heavily sarcastic op ed parodying the reports in those newspapers.[26] The effect is to hold up "Palestinian newspapers" - and by extension, Palestinians - to ridicule. I want to emphasize the seriousness of this misrepresentation: Jaakobou is charging that an "official news wire" of the PA credited the Israelis with having and employing supernatural means in their struggle with Palestinians.

That is not merely an exceptional claim - it's an outrageous one. Such a claim would clearly require exceptional sourcing, but Jaakobou's source for this tosh is a heavily sarcastic op ed which is obvously employing exaggeration for effect - exaggerations that Jaakobou has presented in the article as factual statements. So apart from misrepresenting the sources, Jaakobou has also grossly breached the requirements of WP:V.

There is plenty more I could add, but in the interests of brevity, I will conclude simply by noting that these gross breaches of policy are not the result of mere rashness or carelessness on J.'s part - he has restored this trash no fewer than six times over the course of many months.[27][28][29][30][31][32] He has also pointedly ignored the objections raised to this content.[33][34][35][36] So these are not only gross breaches of policy on J.'s part, they are also deliberate and calculated breaches, carried out over an extended period. Gatoclass (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to HJMitchell

Having already clarified my evidence, I am surprised to find that you still apparently see nothing "tendentious" about Jaakobou's edits. To recapitulate: he cherry picked the most prejudicial phrase available - supernatural rats - from a collection of sarcastic opinion pieces of highly dubious value as reliable sources. He then totally misrepresented the phrase by attributing it to a news story in "Palestinian newspapers", in such a way as to make it appear these newspapers, including one associated with the Palestinian Authority, were making the ridiculous accusation that Israel had released "supernatural rats" - thus inviting contempt for the associated Palestinian organizations. He did this a total of five times over the course of many months.[37][38][39][40][41] His last restoration was so careless he neglected to include the very source from which his cherry picked phrase originated - this in spite of the fact that he knew the phrase had been challenged by at least two other users.[42] At the same time, he doubled down on the offence by including an image of a rat with a caption even more misleading than the phraseology in the original misrepresentation.[43]

With regard to your comment that the edit Jaakobou reverted was itself tendentious - presumably on the grounds that you think a section on the rat story was justified - you are entitled to that view. But I am obliged to point out that Jaakobou did not have consensus for his restoration of that section on the talk page, as at least two editors - myself and Poyani - had objected to its inclusion, while two others - Roscelese and Marokwitz - had expressed objections to the sourcing.[44][45] My own objection to the inclusion of the section in question can be read here, and I must reject any suggestion that the argument presented there is "tendentious". Gatoclass (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[46]

Discussion concerning Jaakobou

Statement by Jaakobou

To be honest, I'm having difficulty following the complaint and it seems to underline the severe battleground behavior which I've long put behind me (since 2008). Gatoclass, however, has never really been an honest participant in discussions relating the Arab-Israeli dispute whether it was content related or user behavior related. A review of his participation will quickly show a clear pattern of personal preference to a certain type of user -- and I'm not talking about good contributors.

On point, Gatoclass has not approached me with his concerns and, certainly, his view was more than challenged on the talkpage and on article space -- by an admin no less.[47]

His explained reasoning to remove said paragraph (which is about a ridiculous conspiracy theory) was "None of the sources refer to this specifically as a conspiracy theory." .. "Neither would it be unreasonable for Palestinians to conclude that the rats were being released in a malicious attempt to affect their quality of life. For something to be a conspiracy theory, it has to include a major element of irrationality."[48]

How about the fact that Jews live in that neighborhood also? Where's the rationale behind racist rats?

The [Palestinian official newspaper] report said that "Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the occupied Old City of Jerusalem. Settlers flood the Old City of Jerusalem with rats." It is not clear how these rats were taught to stay away from Jews, who also happen to live in the Old City.[49]

I've noted this to Gatoclass on the talk: The mere suggestion that Jews bring in rats with a goal to kick out Arabs and replace them with Jews falls under "conspiracy theory" whether it is correct or isn't correct. "Such [conspiratory] allegations reflect a sick mindset and are part of a long-standing tradition of blaming Israel and Jews for almost everything that goes wrong in Arab countries and the rest of the world."[50] In this event, the only reason that there are regular rats -- not the cat chasing ones that can distinguish Arab from Jew -- is low sanitary conditions in the Old City and not an evil Jewish plot. Regardless, it is not up to you or me to judge the rationality of these conspiratory allegations. We're here to convey what has been published by reliable sources.[51]

To be honest, if this is just about the phrasing used, then it doesn't belong here -- and, certainly, I did not invent any of the terms used myself but used the terminology of sources. If the phrasing has not been best, Gatoclass can certainly refine it. However, Gatoclass first choice of complete deletion and claims that this is not a conspiracy theory unless that term is specifically expressed, followed by this rushed non-collaborative attempt of complaint -- present my case for the underlying problem in Gatoclass's behavior.

Direct quotes of the original Palestinian allegation include: "cats run away from these rats because of their size and ferocity.", "they seem to be immune to poison", "this female rat gives birth seven times a year, each time giving birth to 20 babies"[52]

In this context -- this complaint as though my behavior of returning the paragraph (after it was deleted a few months ago, when editors stopped paying attention) seems wholly unproductive and personal.

I have no problem with the idea that the paragraph could be fixed a bit but this complaint has little to no merit and, if anything, I believe Gatoclass should be reprimanded for wasting everyone's time like this.

p.s. I've managed to work relatively well with editors who are not interested just in drama (Quasi-Barnstar Memorabilia - click links) -- including on the conspiracy article. Sample: [53] Gatoclass, for his own participation, has been blocked a year ago when edit warring with a third editor on the very article in question on this complaint. I incidentally changed his edit after he violated WP:ARBPIA which could be an added incentive for his non-collaborative approach. However, he still seems interested in removing anyone working on the page and deleting the paragraph rather than in correcting the phrasing to his liking. Maybe this is not the case but just my perception due to this rushed complaint. If he states to the contrary, I will certainly take their word for it.

@Admins:

Gatoclass has been blocked a year ago fighting a 3rd editor on the conspiracy article and managed to sustain the same spirit as before. I would like to promote that he (a) be reprimanded for this complaint, and (b) (optional) article banned for a short period (24hrs?) for maintaining a politically motivated, non-collaborative, battleground promoting behavior that is detrimental to the spirit and purpose of the project -- I think it is a bad idea to let people maintain such spirit over more than a year without a wake-me-up. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens:

The rat conspiracy paragraph was blanketed out and I reverted after a few months of not noticing the edit. I also added a picture with a bit of existing text (presented here as 2 diffs despite being done in one editing go). The term "supernatural" is not important and I am not attached to it. Gatoclass has not bothered to approach my edit on the talkpage and explains here that he (a) assumes bad faith, and that (b) his participation is politically motivated -- this explains why he's trying to game the system rather than build consensus. His activity here, specifically the usage of diffs, is to a fault on a number of levels as well. At least a few his new "clarifying" diffs come from time periods where I was completely oblivious to the article. His "clarification" is not a fair representative of his activity, which got him blocked, or my activity.

The term "supernatural", btw, is not far off from the direct quote and explains it with clarity. Rats in Jerusalem do NOT chase away cats, are NOT immune to poison, and the females do NOT give birth SEVEN TIMES a year to 20 babies.[54] Regardless if the term "supernatural" is used in sources or not (and it is used, e.g., in the last ref's title), I am not attached to it and have no issues with rephrasing it. It is mere semantics as long as the paragraph about the rat conspiracy is in the article and presents the conspiracy theory about ... above average(?) rats.

p.s. English is not my mother tongue and I am more than open to discussion and suggestions. You'll excuse me if I'm not as open to blanket deletions and/or politically motivated bad faith accusations.

@HJ Mitchell:

As far as I can tell. The word "supernatural" was used by Palestinian Media Watch -- a reliable source for translation and news about Palestinian media -- and not by the Palestinian newspaper. However, the exact translation describes rats which are certainly beyond the normal. The whole problem, IMHO, stems from Gatoclass' idea that the story is somehow legitimate (per: "Neither would it be unreasonable for Palestinians to conclude...") and not a concocted conspiracy (per: "not a conspiracy theory"). Had he approached the text with collaborative suggestions rather than a battleground mentality, I believe he would not have been blocked and would not have filed this time-wasting report.

@Admins:

I hope you will address this problem, where an editor is pushing a clearly politically motivated deletion effort while using this forum to badger a fellow editor. No one is perfect, but the spirit of the wiki project is collaboration, not arm wrestling.
To ratify my earlier comment -- that I am not overly attached to the semantics used in the article and that my main concern was battleground mentality regarding the existence of the "not a conspiracy theory" paragraph -- I've gone ahead and fixed the 'supernatural' issue based on the best source material available.[55] I would have fixed this issue had Gatoclass approached my renewal of the paragraph's existence using the talkpage but it seems he's still under the [politically motivated] intent of having the entire text completely removed.

With respect.

Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou

So, after an uninvolved administrator told Gatoclass that it is misleading to list these two diff separately , as they were made 16 minutes apart with no intervening edit, he goes and repeats his charge, treating each one as a separate incident.

@T.Canens: On your user page, you have a sub page, "AE" , containing instructions for filers. One of these instructions is "There must be at least one recent edit that is alleged to violate the remedy. If all the edits cited are old, the case will likely be closed as stale without action, and the filer may face sanctions for filing a meritless request. As a rule of thumb, edits are not recent if they are more than a few days old.". When filed, both diffs used here were more than 6 days old, and they are now a week old. Can you explain why the filer shouldn't face sanctions for filing a meritless request?

You further state " Attempting to mislead or deceive is a very bad idea and may result in sanctions." One of the admins here has commented that 'The edits were made sixteen minutes apart with no intervening edits, so it seems a little misleading to list them separately". Does that admin have it wrong, or is there some extenuating circumstances here, beyond the fact that the filer is himself an admin, that would prevent sanctions from being applied to this frivolous and misleading report? 71.204.165.25 (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jaakobou

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

The edits were made sixteen minutes apart with no intervening edits, so it seems a little misleading to list them separately. To the edits themselves, I do not see anything remotely resembling "gross misrepresentation of sources"—Jaakobou's edit seems like a reasonable summary of the Jerusalem Post article to me. I note also that Jaakobou was actually reverting an edit from November 2011. The lack of edit summary for what was clearly a contentious edit look plainly tendentious to me, and I can understand why Jaakobou might feel aggrieved by that edit. I don't see anything actionable here, and indeed I'm tempted to say the request is completely frivolous unless I've overlooked something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really seeing anything either; what I was just going to write is essentially what HJ Mitchell wrote above, so I won't repeat it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we looking at the same article? As far as I can see nowhere in the Jerusalem Post article did the author mention supernatural or otherwise gave any indication as to the rats' (supposed) size or breeding rate. T. Canens (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those seem to come from one of the other refs Jaakobou provided. The sourcing for those claims seems very poor, and one could make an argument that it's novel synthesis, but I don't follow Gatoclass's leap to the conclusion that this is tendentious, and the edit he was revering certainly appears tendentious (albeit long stale) to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POVbrigand

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

Request concerning POVbrigand

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: IRWolfie- (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: POVbrigand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Enforcement

Topic Banning seems most suitable as it is a long term issue.

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

See [56] for some diffs. A cursory glance at Cold Fusion and Energy Catalyzer may also be helpful. If more diffs are required I can get more.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are other single purpose accounts on the two cold fusion related pages which are also being used similarly.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[57]

Discussion concerning POVbrigand

Statement by POVbrigand

I am working on my statement. I have to dig through a lot of archives and I am not so fast at it. Is there a time constraint to my statement ?

Some comments I want to make in advance:

the provided diff on "edits that violate this sanction" are a mix of edits by several editors.
- the first diff concerns me, but is harmless, the middle chuck is a quotation of a NASA website.
- the second diff does not concern me at all.
- the third diff does not concern me at all.

The extra diff provided from "Wikiquette_assistance" shows the assessment by other editors who did not find personal attacks.

I must say that I am shocked and saddened by the replies for other editors. Knowing their position and willingness to get me banned or blocked is not very comforting.

Please allow me some time to get a full response, were I will address the main points and still try to be concise. In the mean time I would like to invite User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris and User:Robert_Horning to comment on this case.

Comments by others about the request concerning POVbrigand

Comment by uninvolved Mathsci

This single purpose account has been editing in an odd way and this has been the case for quite a while. He has a subpage recording reports User:POVbrigand/Noticeboards. I am mentioned by name, because in a previous ANI report I pointed out this diff from then.[58] It sums up his WP:BATTLEFIELD approach to the topic area and in addition what would appears to be a form of advocacy. The recent new claims, mentioned in the original request, create an instability on the articles and their talk pages which sucks up the energy of those editors monitoring the pages. Any pressure to do a complete rewrite of the articles is out of place and represents tendentious editing.

These comments are very general, since like others I only watch from afar and do not edit articles in this topic area, but this seems to be the problem here. Like Enric Naval, I took part in the relevant ArbCom Case (WMC & Abd) where standard discretionary sanctions were put into force in the general topic area of cold fusion. This is the first time a request has been made in this topic area to somebody other than Abd, now community banned from WP and indefinitely blocked on various other projects including Meta. Mathsci (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note from TenOfAllTrades

The single-purpose account POVbrigand was created to distance this editor's behavior on cold fusion topics from the reputation and history of his previous account(s). He states explicitly on his userpage that he may choose to go back to whatever his old account was whenever he loses interest in cold fusion. What should we make of an aggressive username combined with a desire to shelter his 'real' Wikipedia reputation from the consequences of his editing in this area? He feels freer to engage in disruptive conduct in this area because he doesn't have any 'skin in the game'; he can always go back to the seven-year-old account name he had before, and carry on with his primary identity intact. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from formerly involved user Mangoe

I had already suggested this action was needed back in November. He also appeared at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Washington Post on Cold Fusion pushing a extremely weak, "some day we will all have flying cars"-style article. This constant rain of not-really-reliable and primary source material on these articles is becoming extremely wearing. A temporary block at least would allow everyone else a chance to take a breather on this. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved Enric Naval

[59] indicates committed advocacy for a minority viewpoint plus a battleground approach to editing. (from Mathsci).
In the wikiquette report there should be enough diffs to get someone topic banned from an area under discretionary sanctions.
he has been inserting a fringe POV and weakening the view of mainstream science (that it has never been reliably replicated and that it's unlikely to ever work) which means that he gets reverted all the time. Thus his complaint: "There are too many mainstream science zealots just waiting to revert anything I do. (...) Or are they only good at deleting what other editors put in ?" [60].
He is a SPA. Almost all his edits are to cold fusion, to related articles like Energy Catalyzer and Patterson Power Cell, and to related disputes, like the banning of User_talk:AnnaBennett. He is also a SPA in the German wikipedia [61].
he is very biased in the topic, in favor of cold fusion and against of mainstream science. See his poem about how mainstream wants to destroy cold fusion[62]. Seriously, what the heck.
a month after starting he was blaming others for his problems August, which gives little hope for redeeming him. I thought that he had learnt some things about quality of sources of weight, but I just realized that in the German wikipedia he is pushing some of the sources that were rejected here for weight reasons (I can see Bushnell's quote from radio interview, Duncan's endorsement in 60 Minutes, the patent video from NASA website)[63]. Several editors had to make many explanations to him and others about why these were bad sources, and now I see that he is still promoting the same bad sources somewhere else, introducing the same promotional bias in an article.

I recommend a topic ban to "cold fusion topics, broadly constructed". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved Robert Horning

While I will be the first to admit that POVbrigand certainly comes to editing these topics with a clear bias in terms of being in favor of cold fusion and a bent to promote the technology, I fail to see what the real issues are that are causing all of the fuss. In some ways, this looks like an attempt by a group of editors to squelch alternate points of view from participation in the development of these articles as well, of which I would point out that many of those bringing this complaint up at the moment seem to be of a contrary point of view. These cold fusion related articles clearly are battleground articles that seem to attract a whole bunch of biased edits, including from anonymous users and users who are simply new to the concept of Wikipedia.

What I have not seen from this particular user is flagrant reverting of the edits of others, and a quick glance through some of the recent articles that I am looking at seem to show generally good faith edits that may generally be considered productive and useful to the articles. There may be disputes in terms of the quality of the sources being used, and as somebody who certainly has a POV bias there are grounds to at least review his edits, but I fail to see how that falls out of normal editorial processes that exist on Wikipedia. POVbrigand certainly has been active on the talk pages, and to my view has not edited contrary to consensus achieved on those various talk pages. There may be some particular edits that would raise some questions, but I fail to see a consistent pattern of refusing to follow general Wikipedia policies. That is the very nature of editing on Wikipedia, that we must learn to get along with others that may even have a very different POV from our own.

I can't speak for de.wikipedia, and for that matter his actions there are completely irrelevant in terms of what is happening here on en.wikipedia. As for a "single purpose account", again I fail to grasp the relevancy in terms of a general topic ban other than it will take something of interest to this particular user and end his participation on something he cares about. On these particular topics and articles which POVbrigand has been editing, there are several editors who have expressed strong POVs on those topics where I have seen reverts and warring edits that I have disagreed with. This particular editor, POVbrigand, is not even the most belligerent of those editor either from my viewpoint. I would just like somebody who is impartial to actually review these accusations with an unjaundiced viewpoint to realistically see what is happening and not squelch one particular voice because he doesn't quite share the same POV as other editors who are involved. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved AndyTheGrump

I have been involved in several heated debates with POVbrigand regarding the Energy Catalyzer article, and while I've been somewhat frustrated by POVb's attempts to include questionable material, and to generally put the E-Cat into a more positive light than seems merited from a normal Wikipedia policy perspective (i.e. avoiding giving undue weight to contentious fringe claims), I've not seen anything that would justify a topic ban. This is a contentious issue, and it is inevitable that there will be friction between contributors, but I've been getting the impression that POVb has been more willing to compromise recently. I cannot usefully comment on POVb's contributions on the Cold Fusion article however, as I've had little to do with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note from anonymous IP

Those considering imposing penalties here should please consider the following sources which have recently been discussed on the cold fusion talk page without having been added to the article: NASA [64], CERN, DTRA, MIT, the Navy, SRI International, and Mitt Romney (audio.) Also please note that the mediation for cold fusion decided to include a much broader variety of material than the subsequent arbitration now allows, due to strict de facto content restrictions which have allowed editors to almost completely remove the point of view that the topic is legitimate and the difficulties have been due to experimental error as described in [65]. It might be helpful to consider whether that result relative to the WP:NPOV policy was the intent of the committee's decision. 83.142.230.178 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning POVbrigand

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 327: / Line 327: @@
 @HJ Mitchell:
 :As far as I can tell. The word "supernatural" was used by Palestinian Media Watch -- a reliable source for translation and news about Palestinian media -- and not by the Palestinian newspaper. However, the exact translation describes rats which are certainly beyond the normal. The whole problem, IMHO, stems from Gatoclass' idea that the story is somehow legitimate (per: "Neither would it be unreasonable for Palestinians to conclude...") and not a concocted conspiracy (per: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoological_conspiracy_theories&diff=prev&oldid=430168314 "not a conspiracy theory"]). Had he approached the text with collaborative suggestions rather than a battleground mentality, I believe he would not have been blocked and would not have filed this time-wasting report.
+@Admins:
+:# I hope you will address this problem, where an editor is pushing a clearly politically motivated deletion effort while using this forum to badger a fellow editor. No one is perfect, but the spirit of the wiki project is collaboration, not arm wrestling.
+:# To ratify my earlier comment -- that I am not overly attached to the semantics used in the article and that my main concern was battleground mentality regarding the existence of the "not a conspiracy theory" paragraph -- I've gone ahead and fixed the 'supernatural' issue based on the best source material available.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoological_conspiracy_theories&action=historysubmit&diff=476986885&oldid=475545229] I would have fixed this issue had Gatoclass approached my renewal of the paragraph's existence using the talkpage but it seems he's still under the [politically motivated] intent of having the entire text completely removed.
+:With respect.
 ====Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards