Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:11, 19 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

Dalai lama ding dong

Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs) cautioned; no formal action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 18 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 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]
@User:Wgfinley, User:HJ_Mitchell, you're mistaken in concluding that the content Dalai Lama removed was unsourced. It was sourced in the article and there's no doubt at all that Dalai Lama knew that. There's no requirement to keep repeating citations in the lead that're elsewhere in the article. And the crucial point is that Dalai Lama knew the content was sourced when he falsely characterized it and later removed it from the lead entirely because he didn't like it. It's clear he was aware of the source because before he removed the content he added that it was based on a poll. He could only have known that if he was aware of the ref for the content that appears later in the article. Dalai Lama isn't some arbitrary passerby at Itamar attack; on the contrary, he's one of the most extensive contributors to the article in recent months and one who's gotten into conflicts with numerous other editors in the past for trying to delete reliably sourced content not consistent with his POV. See the long series of edits and reverts in August-September 2011 to see that this is indeed the case.—Biosketch (talk) 10:27, 16 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 [1] —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[2] 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.[3] 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.[4][5] 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[6] - although Jaakobou thinks not, as he affirmed in the edit summary of a previous revert.[7]

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[8][9][10] by the people he has been edit warring with over this content,[11][12][13][14][15][16] 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.[17]
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.[18]

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.[19] 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.[20][21][22][23][24][25] He has also pointedly ignored the objections raised to this content.[26][27][28][29] 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.[30][31][32][33][34] 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.[35] 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.[36]

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.[37][38] 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]

Perhaps I should also point out that the "supernatural rats" claim is only the most egregious of J.'s misrepresentations. He has in fact misattributed a slew of statements to "Palestinian newspapers" that in fact were made in op eds. These include statements that the rats were "twice as big as normal rats" and that they "breed four times as fast", as well as earlier misattributions that the rats were dog sized, "liked to attack Palestinian children" and so on. The point is that in articles which are clearly employing sarcasm as a mode of expression, one cannot possibly know whether these statements were meant to be taken literally or if they are just examples of the writers' attempts at sarcasm. Jaakobou however, approaches these statements from the assumption that they must all be literally true, because it suits his POV to do so. Consequently, he sees no problem with misattributing these statements to "Palestinian newspapers". The problem with such an approach ought, I think, to be self evident. Gatoclass (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update to evidence

Jaakobou's latest edit demonstrates that he simply doesn't get it.[39] He thinks that by removing the quotes from "supernatural rats" he is somehow solving the problem, but his new edit if anything makes the passage worse. The problem is not that there are quote marks around the term "supernatural rats", the problem is that he is attributing the term to Palestinian newspapers, when the term originates from an obviously sarcastic statement in an op ed which almost certainly was never intended to be taken literally. There is no evidence whatever that Palestinian newspapers ever asserted that Israelis were releasing "supernatural rats" - if they had made such a ludicrous claim it would surely have been reported in more than one place. Jaakobou's new "solution" indicates that this is at least as much an issue of competence as it is of battleground mentality. I think at this point he's had more than enough chances to get it right. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some further clarification, in response to Jaakobou's latest comments.

Jaakobou asserts that his latest edit, which substituted the term "rats with supernatural qualities" for his original "supernatural rats", has resolved the problem, but it hasn't even begun to address it. His edit still egregiously misrepresents the Palestinian newspapers in question because it attributes to them an (exceptional) claim we have no evidence they made, ie that supernatural rats, or rats with supernatural qualities, were being released by Israel. The characterization of these rats' qualities as "supernatural" comes not from these Palestinian newspapers, but from an opinion piece satirizing their story. Jaakobou's edit, in other words, misattributes an opinion expressed by a newspaper columnist to the original news report published by Palestinian newspapers. This doesn't just misrepresent the newspapers (and the sources) in question, it also clearly breaches at least three elements of core policy, WP:Attribution, WP:REDFLAG and WP:RSOPINION. And it does so in such a way as to defame the Palestinian organizations in question, which is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.

RSOPINION states that Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. Why is this policy necessary? Because of the recognition that many opinion editors routinely distort the facts in order, for example, to make a point, pillory their political adversaries, appeal to the prejudices of their readers, or just write in an entertaining way. It should I think be obvious that the hazards of relying on satirical opinion pieces for statements of fact are much greater still, because in such articles the facts are typically distorted to the point of absurdity to achieve the desired satirical effect.

Again, it isn't just one such factoid lifted from a satirical op-ed by Jaakobou and misattributed to Palestinian newspapers, but a whole series of them. The assertions that Palestinian newspapers described the rats as "dog size" or "twice as big as normal rats" (take your pick), that they were "breeding four times faster", "like to attack Palestinian children" and so on, were all sourced to various satirical op eds - most of them to just one[40] - and misattributed by Jaakobou to the papers themselves. Any of these statements could be, and likely is, an exaggeration made for the sake of parody. An experienced editor should surely understand this without needing to have it explained, but in Jaakobou's case he went on - and still goes on - adding these claims in contravention of multiple core policies even after being reminded of those policies. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou is now trying to justify his misattributions by (retrospective) reference to an alleged quote from the original Palestinian report that appears on the Palestinian Media Watch website, an Israeli advocacy site. Even working on the assumption that the quote accurately reflects the views expressed in the original Palestinian report, the quote does not include statements that the rats are "supernatural", that they are "twice as big as normal rats" or that they "breed four times faster" than a normal rat. These are all statements taken not from the original report, but from an opinion piece satirizing that report. By misattributing these statements to the original Palestinian report, Jaakobou has perpetrated a falsehood which has had the effect of portraying "Palestinian newspapers" in the worst possible light. Gatoclass (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ynhockey

Truly extraordinary that an admin whose own user page states that "nearly every significant edit I've made to an Arab–Israeli conflict-related article so far has been dubbed, directly or indirectly, a POV push" would attempt to pass himself off as an uninvolved admin in the I-P topic area. That aside, your claim that misrepresentation of sources is a "content dispute" not actionable at AE is patently wrong, as shown by this thread. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JH Mitchell and T. Canens

Firstly, thankyou both for your continued engagement with this case. I must however take issue with your comment, HJ, that Jaakobou only "arguably" misrepresented the sources - I believe he demonstrably misrepresented them, by repeatedly misattributing hyperbolic claims from satirical opinion pieces to "Palestinian newspapers", as detailed above.

With regard to the question as to whether J.'s conduct is "serious" enough to warrant sanction - I obviously believe it is or I would not have brought this case. My concern is not simply that Jaakobou repeatedly misattributed statements, it's that the effect of those misattributions was to invite scorn for Palestinians. In my view, any content that tends to promote ethnic or cultural stereotypes should be subject to the utmost rigour and only included if that information is unambiguously relevant, notable and impeccably sourced. Hopefully then, it will be clear why I think that misattributing hyperbolic statements to make it appear that Palestinians claimed they were being tormented by "supernatural rats" is an offence occasioning some sort of sanction. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[41]

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.[42]

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."[43]

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.[44]

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."[45] 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.[46]

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"[47]

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: [48] 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.[49] 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.[50] 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.

@Response to Gatoclass' -- 12:56, 15 February 2012 -- update:

The Palestinian fable about rats capable of chasing away cats and of being immune to poison (source, pg. 10) can be summarized with the term "supernatural qualities" ("supernatural rats" is gone) without anyone throwing a fit over it. I can't explain why the "update" ignores the changes and attacks the already removed text. Maybe Gatoclass is more competent than I and is capable of explaining this discrepancy. Regardless, it is frivolous behavior and a waste on everyone's time. I could have, for example, continued helping the concerns raised regarding 'Israel-Palestinian conflict'[51] instead of responding to this politically motivated harassment.

To make things easier on reviewing admins:

"cats run away from these rats because of their size and ferocity... All of the conventional efforts to kill them have not succeeded, because they seem to be immune to poison" - Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), controlled by the office of Mahmoud Abbas, July 18, 2008 (source, pg. 10)

I can't explain why Gatoclass insists this does not qualify as a conspiracy theory when there's enough sources (PMW analysis report and op-eds) that treat it as such and no sources that say the opposite. As long as he tries to throw weight around in order to impose this politically motivated belief into wikipedia article space, it might be a good practice to ban him from WP:ARBPIA topic area.

From when are the diffs?

I'd appreciate input on this query. From what I'm seeing, the latest diff not from this month is summarized with:

"Not yet finished, but this deals with most issues content-wise. Still haven't dealt with "supernatural" issue which I've opened for discussion" -- Jaakobou, 20 May 2011

Have I even edited the article between that edit and the edit which prompted Gatoclass to file this complaint?

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]

Jaakobou has repeatedly argued that these edits are acceptable, because they are sourced to Palestinian news reports. However, his source is not the alleged original reports themselves, but hostile citations in Palestinian Media Watch. This site has been discussed several times at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [52][53][54][55], and the consensus is that it cannot be considered a reliable source except for its own views. It should not be accepted as a reliable source for the views of third parties. Jaakobou is aware of this, since he has himself taken part in these discussions. Given this, he should not be attempting to use PMW as a source for such contentious claims; such claims should be cited directly from the original, if it can be located. If it cannot, the most that can be said is that PMW alleges that such statements were made. RolandR (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any consensus by univolved editors--Shrike (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is there a consensus to what RolandR is claiming. There is a general agreement that (a) their translations are reliable, (b) their analysis is not entirely impartial, (c) it is preferred to use more mainstream and/or original sources where available. I haven't seen anyone successfully claim PMW's "hostile" translations are not a reliable source. CNN and other major sources, believe they are reliable and use their translations for reports. They were even joined by Senator Hillary Clinton in a joint press conference introducing a report on Palestinian schoolbooks.[56]

Further samples: The Washington Times^[57]^[58], Washington Post^[59]^[60], BBC^[61]^[62], Jerusalem Post^[63]^[64], CBS News^[65], CNSNews.com^[66]^[67], Haaretz^[68]^[69], The Ottawa Citizen^[70], United Press International^[71].

Regardless of RolandR's (false) claims of widespread rejection, it is clear PMW were not widely rejected as well as that they are most definitely a reliable source.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—it seems that Gatoclass is taking a content dispute in which he is involved to WP:AE in hopes of getting the opposing editor sanctioned. Even in the admin section (where I might've placed this comment, but I have had too many interactions with both Gatoclass and Jaakobou for that), the discussion is whether Jaakobou's edits violated content policies, which is not an argument for WP:AE. If Gatoclass has a problem with the content Jaakobou is inserting and believes that there's a problem with the sources or WP:SYNTH or whatever, he should seek consensus on the talk page, and failing that, open a content RfC. If anything, misrepresenting content disputes as behavioral issues in order to remove any opposition is an act of gaming the system and should be summarily dismissed by the administrators at WP:AE. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:06, 18 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]

OK:

Jaakobou re-ignited a content dispute by reverting an arguably tendentious edit
Jaakobou (re-)added material which was not fully supported by the sources cited, arguably misrepresenting them
Jaakobou sourced at least part of this material to a source whose reliability he knows has been questioned on several occasions (NB, determining the reliability of sources is outside the remit of AE)

The question is: does this rise to a level where a sanction ought to be considered? Input is requested from other uninvolved admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, whether or not we end up imposing a sanction, this request isn't frivolous. To be frivolous, a request must not have even arguable merit. The fact that we have to discuss the proper resolution at length is strong evidence that it at least makes a colorable claim of sanctionable conduct. Nor, as far as I am aware, does Gatoclass have a history of filing largely inactionable requests, so sanctions are unwarranted on that front as well.
Second, misrepresentation of sources is a conduct issue that is within AE's jurisdiction. Even if a source is accurately represented, I am of the view that knowingly and intentionally using sources that is plainly of low quality in an effort to push a particular PoV is also sanctionable misconduct, as such behavior is plainly inconsistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. While we do not generally interfere with good faith disagreements over sources, when no reasonable editor, well versed in our policies and practices, would have used a particular source, we can and should intervene.
As to whether sanctions are warranted in this particular case, I'm a bit torn and very tired right now. I'll hopefully make up my mind tomorrow. T. Canens (talk) 06:25, 19 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, he appears to have a major conflict of interest with the article as is seen from the vast amount of material on cold fusion on his user pages as noted by others. He thinks many editors are "Many editors don't have a clue and don't want to have a clue. Many editors are pathological deniers who believe they are doing wikipedia a huge favour by fighting off and deleting anything they think "is not worth" of being in an encyclopedia." [72] [73][74]

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

See [75] 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. This list isn't exhaustive.

Direct diffs: [76]

He refers to me having a "prejudiced POV" [77] and when I complain about this characterization as a personal attack against me he misconstrues another editors comments to make what appears to me another personal attack. THe diff he refers to is when I commented on a thread where someone was making a wikiquette assistance complaint. [78] (original complaint here: [79])

He has a battlefield mentality when he refers to me being a "team mate" of another editor with [80]. More teams: [81]. [82] "I will just keep working on the cold fusion article. I have no interest in fighting off even more ignorant editors who think they are the defenders of the thruth." [83]

He also attempts to wikilaywer to get his way such as requesting reliable sources to prove that a source is unreliable: [84]. The source at issue was a scientific journal where one of the papers used had "review" of 1 day. Several uninvolved editors on RSN noted that it was unreliable: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Current_Science (note that when he first brought it to RSN he tried to represent it as a magazine not a journal when it had already been pointed out that it was not a magazine [85], [86]).

Unnecessarily assuming bad faith: [87] He is attempting to consistently wikilaywer to have NASA mentioned in the article even though the scientist concerned expressed serious doubts about Cold fusion saying that it was not reproducible etc [88].

[89] [90]

He finds it necessary to attack the scientific ability of others (although he does not appear to be a scientist): [91]

Comment "What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ?" doesn't seem to be WP:AGF. [92]

Accusing me of policy shopping: [93].

Mid discussion at RSN he kept reinserting the line under consideration when the consensus was against its inclusion: [94], [95]. (it was not until a separate secondary source was found that due weight was established)

I should mention that I have no interest in Cold Fusion and the Energy Catalyzer beyond ensuring the wikipedia articles do not expound fringe theories. I came across the issues with the articles solely through the fringe theories noticeboard. I have no more interest in Cold Fusion than any other fringe science wikipedia article.

It seems there is a group of editors who are trying to make Cold Fusion seem mainstream by the careful cherry picking of sources (and in fact they argue it is mainstream).

Latest edits: IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

84.106.* has also taken onto himself to try and blank this section: [96] IRWolfie- (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and again [97]

For those concerned I updated my filing, the original filing is here: [98] IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that my original filing consists of a link to 3 divs with another link to 8 more divs. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[99]

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.

Full response

Addressing each point of the requestor’s updated filing separately would definitely blow this case out of proportion and would be contra-productive. Other editors have already commented here that I ‘’waste their time’’ with my contributions on the talk page. I think that the length of requestor’s filing and the comments so far clearly show that the fault of wasting time in discussions is not solely on my side.

I feel that with his update the requestor has presented a huge collection of contributions (diffs) that he has taken out of the original context to present them here in his own context, especially the bolded ones. Obviously I feel they are cherry picked and misrepresent my conduct.

It appears to me that the request for enforcement is partially driven by an antipathy for SPAs and once more I am confronted with baseless allegations that I am a sock-puppeteer. The Arbcom enforcement however does not prohibit SPA accounts from editing the topic. Sock-puppet investigations can be done by a checkuser if there is a profound suspicion. I believe the topic of SPA and sockpuppet do not need to be addressed here.

That leaves us with two main topics: Civility and NPOV, 2 of the 5 pillars of WP’s fundamental principles.

Civility

I am accused of using personal attacks frequently. However, other editors have assessed this in the past (on Wikiquette assistance) and did not see any personal attacks. I am baffled that the same diffs are brought up here again. As AndyTheGrump has noted below the discussion are sometimes heated because it is a contentious topic. I use clear and strong wording to voice my opinion if I feel that that is appropriate. Some wording may be regarded as “overly strident”, but I take care not to become uncivil, as other editors have also noted below.

I would like to highlight that the requestor did not object when other editors were ridiculed by comparison of cold fusion with "unicorn poop" and I am very shocked to see that one of the diffs the requestor provides here as evidence of a "personal attack" was my complaint regarding this ridiculing which I referred to as "babbling". [100], [101]. I think that is extreme cherry picking.

On another occasion I was attacked by User:TenOfAllTrades who accused me of sock puppeting and being a stubborn POV pusher with an “I-didn't hear that attitude” after I had conceded in a discussion. The requestor did not protest this personal attack either. I assume it is fair to conclude that the requestor is not really interested in generally improving civility and that his motives to accuse me of personal attacking him must be other.

NPOV

Content disputes are portrayed here as "advocating a minority point of view", ie POV-pushing. I feel that when an article can improve on NPOV by adding reliably sourced content regarding the "minority POV", those additions should not be equated to "advocating". In the case of Cold Fusion, the majority POV (=mainstream science) is that it is proven that it doesn't work. The minority POV is that there might be something unknown going on after all. A common misconception is that the minority POV is solely propagated by shady con-men trying trick investers into paying money and that many are blinded by the propects of limitless free energy and have become gullible.

In fact, the minority POV is dominated by several credible scientists from renowned institutions, who are researching the topic, according to RS. Such institutions are ENEA, SRI, University of Missouri, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, MIT, Purdue University, NASA, SPAWAR, Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). I fully agree that it is a minority POV, but not one that is dismissible. I also feel that mentioning a selection of these institutions to illustrate that, contrary to popular belief, research is indeed happening does not constitute to malicious "advocacy". I understand very well that the article should not be turned into a long list of "ongoing research", but it is not malicious "POV pushing" to add things like that to the article. Again, they are all verifiable by RS, but as other editors have mentioned, the reliability of sources is often disputed and thus another cause for long discussions.

I really try to be NPOV, there are numerous times where I have edited or discussed to advance "the majority view" to achieve NPOV, where I deleted non-RS “minority POV” sources or where I argued that adding some “minority POV” facts would be undue. Many more than I will add here for reference: [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]

I came to this topic mid 2011, since then several interesting new facts about the minority POV have appeared. I do not think that it would be a good idea to include all of that to the article, but some are certainly worth it. I have also discussed such interesting facts on the Noticeboards to see what other editors think about it. For instance, in a recent discussion on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Washington_Post_on_Cold_Fusion I asked the question if recent developments could be explained as indications that the mainstream view on cold fusion is changing to taking it slightly more seriously. Please note that User:Mathsci immediately replied that I was "advocating personal views" and implied that I was misusing the noticeboard. He argued that the Washington Post "does not usually count as WP:RS for writing wikipedia articles". Yet, later on in the discussion other editors were willing to understand and somewhat agree to the point I was making.

I am blamed for wasting other editors’ time in the discussions. I agree that often I have to discuss at length to counter many objections, but some of the objections are just silly, like the one just mentioned about Wash. Post "usually not being RS". I think that some of the objections may be fueled by blatantly not assuming good faith and that others are driven by a different understanding of NPOV.

A good example of a long discussion is about the mentioning Yeong E. Kim's theory proposal in Energy Catalyzer. It started off with the addition of a mainstream science blog explaining the mainstream majority POV to which I didn’t object. Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_10#.27ScienceBlogs.27_article_on_the_E-Cat.

After that addition, in order to keep NPOV, I proposed to also mention Yeong E. Kim's theory proposal which led to a very long discussion, which took also a lot of my time addressing all the complaints and digging up further evidence to convince other editors of the legitimacy of my proposal: Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_10#Yeong_E._Kim_paper, Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_10#RSN_yeong, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_113#Few_body_systems.

Please also note that only after this very long discussion the addition of the one-liner on Kim was finally accepted, however an uninvolved editor on RS/N had assessed from the very beginning that the addition was not undue and that there was no objection to add it. Yet, I feel that they made me go through hoops to get a simple one-liner in. Thus, the complaint that I am the only cause of long discussions and that I waste their time is completely unfair.

Finally

I have always adhered to the WP principles and the WP spirit and have cooperated with Arbcom enforcement:

In the past I have revealed my other account that I do not use currently to Arbcom because there was an unfounded concern (initiated by a banned user!) that I was a sock puppet. I have even offered to waive the "usual requirements" to more easily enable somebody to checkuser me. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Request_for_Admin_Review_at_talk:cold_fusion
I helped with enforcement of the banned user mentioned above. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive175#User:POVbrigand_reported_by_User:128.59.171.184_.28Result:_Declined.29, User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_25#VanishedUser314159_.3F. Please ask User:EdJohnston of his assessment of my conduct.
I have helped to keep WP clean from OR: [107], [108], User_talk:AldenEPark, note that User:Enric Naval was also active there. I explained in kind words without offending the editor what "OR" is and that we can't use that here on WP and the editor apparently accepted that.

My point of view is not that cold fusion "is real" and that this fact must be propagated here in WP.

My point of view is that "there exists a significant minority view that some unknown effect is happening that warrants further research and that research is ongoing". I feel the WP-readership should be offered a fair insight into that minority view together with the majority view.

I think that Cold Fusion is currently fairly NPOV, but there are a few heated content disputes ongoing that led to this filing.

I feel that if I, and some other editors, would be topic banned, the article would very soon only present the mainstream science majority POV. See Enric Naval’s comment “Once he is topic banned, we'll have to see if the problem still continues and if more editors need to be topic banned.”

I agree that there is a problem and that I am part of that problem, but not the only one; it is a difficult topic, with a lot of emotions, without participation of impartial contributors.

I call for mediation on the current content disputes “Current Science” and “NASA” where verifiability, reliability of sources, undue weight and other content guidelines will be assessed. I have no problem with accepting the outcome and I am ready to learn from it.

--POVbrigand (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning POVbrigand

Comments 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.[109] 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]

Collect (talk · contribs) is as usual adding comments at WP:AE which seem less than helpful. The main point about POVbrigand is the amount of other users' time that he wastes on talk pages and on noticeboards with tendentious edits. At the very least POVbrigand should be given an official notification of discretionary sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The novel aspect here, since the Abd-WMC arbcom case, is the significant non-neutral POV-pushing on the article Energy Catalyzer. That article is highly problematic, both from the point of view of actual edits to the article as well as contributions to the talk page.[110] There is a similar problem with edits to Talk:cold fusion. [111] Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors HJMitchell gave an official templated warning of discretionary sanctions to Gregory Goble ~~but forgot to log the entry on the arbcom case page.~~^{now logged} The IP 84.106.26.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) commenting here, who was blanking sections and adding disruptive comments to the original request and was blocked by TCanens, is a single purpose user who has been editing disruptively.[112][113][114][115][116][117][118] He has already been blocked on a previous occasion following a discussion at WP:ANI.[119] I suggest that he also should receive at least a logged warning concerning discretionary sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 04:39, 16 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

[120] 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 ?" [121].
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 [122].
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[123]. 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)[124]. 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]

P.S.: I am not asking a ban because he hold a specific view, but because he keeps bringing low quality sources, or sources that don't support what he and others want to insert in the article. And then editors have to spend lots of time explaining why, really, seriously, I am not not kidding. And that's just in archive #42. In archives 42, 41, 40 almost every thread is related to the pushing of fringe POV via bad sources, or to misrepresentation of acceptable sources. And POVBrigand has participated in almost all of them (in #40 some of the threads were still by 84.106.26.81 and Objetivist), and he was always proposing to use a primary source or a low quality source, and always to push the article towards the same POV. And every source gets fought tooth and nail. And there is a new thread every time any little workshop or interview pops up, in a bad case of WP:RECENTISM. POVBrigand has lasted this long only because he is POV pushing is usually civil. But civil POV pushing is still POV pushing, and this is a SPA editor that is POV pushing a certain position, and he is continuously trying to uphold all sort of low quality sources to insert his POV into the article, and this is an area under discretionary sanctions.

We already topic banned Pcarbonn (twice!) for his civil POV pushing, and then we banned User:Abd for the same reason, and User:Objetivist for the same same reason over several areas here, and User:JedRothwell for not-very-civil POV pushing. Those editors also kept trying to push low quality sources to promote the same fringe POV as POVBrigand (that cold fusion works, is considered mainstream, etc.) The article has improved as a result of those topic bans, and the talk page became workable again. Now it's risking to become again a swamp of advocacy, with more new editors adding to the advocacy of low quality sources. There are more editors that are giving problems, but POVBrigand is the most problematic editor and he has been going at it for months. Once he is topic banned, we'll have to see if the problem still continues and if more editors need to be topic banned. --~~

The section "Proposed solution by IP" is authored by 84.106.26.81 (talk · contribs), who is also advocating a fringe POV in cold fusion and some other articles like Dowsing. You can see him removing as a personal attack a detailed explanation of why POVBrigand had been wasting the time of other editors[125], and removed as an uncivil edit an explanation of why one of his sources was absolutely unreliable[126]. He also assumes bad faith of the editors that are just reflecting the views of mainstrem science [127]. In Talk:Dowsing he is pushing a fringe POV via unreliable sources. His advice should be taken with a very big grain of salt. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POVBrigand was never oficially notified in his talk page, but there is a warning box at the top of both Talk:Cold fusion and Talk:Energy Catalyzer, and it was advertised in the talk pages here and [128][129], and he replied to two differents comment in two different pages that mentioned the sanctions[130][131]. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:16, 15 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 [132], 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 [133]. 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]

Proposed solution by IP

~~I propose anyone who claim to see evidence against POVbrigand here in this arbitration Enforcement Request should be banned indefinitely from wikipedia.~~ There should be zero tolerance for fabricated reports like this. This report contains not one valid DIV. It has a link to a posting where 3 DIV's are offered. Only the first one of those 3 actually applies to POVbrigand and there is nothing disturbing written there. Adding such divs after comments are posted is not appropriate.

This makes it clear the above are comments that try but fail to fabricate additional evidence against the user.

"he is very biased in the topic, in favor of cold fusion and against of mainstream science." - Enric Naval

This is your excuse for a topic ban Enric?

"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.'" - Mangoe

This is your excuse for a topic ban Mangoe? A fabricated "flying cars" story?

"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?" - TenOfAllTrades

This is your excuse for a topic ban TenOfAllTrades? This report has no divs in it so you decided to make something up? lol? "consequences"? He didn't actually do anything wrong. Is the user name now on trial?

"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." - Mathsci

This is your excuse for a topic ban Mathsci? To stop all editing and save the wiki? Cool story bro.

I don't even know anymore if it was the "instability", the "reputation & consequences", the "flying car" or if it was the "against of mainstream science" part that made me laugh hysterically. But boy did I laugh.

I do agree we should accuse this user of something to protect science from the evil that is cold fusion but I'm not sure if that single div is really good enough Wolfie-. There is nothing wrong with his posting. It looks to me like you are spoiling everything by using such a poor div. Maybe it will still work out as a provocation I don't know but please don't let it happen again. You've made the entire strategic-writing team look foolish.

Or wait no, you got the entire strategic writing team banned indefinitely. That would be the correct response to this.

Here are POVbrigands recent contributions to cold fusion:

We don't have better contributors to "cold fusion" and/or related articles. Non of the above posters are this productive. Within the scope of the topic this is our most productive editor.

We don't need any "better", the contributions are clearly good enough to fit the guidelines. Extra points are granted for the additional effort made by the user to answer many lame talk page comments. Some not even worthy of a reply.

The editors who want him topic banned are the kind of editors who repeatedly remove valid material from the article. Editors who only remove things, even calling themselves "editors monitoring the pages". Who will drive by and shoot at you that "a complete rewrite of the articles is out of place". Evoking the rule of "tendentious editing".

Behavior designed to shut down the productive editor.

Quite successfully I should add.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Collect

Andy's comments are spot on. The user has not been blocked at all (and I trust will not be blocked by any involved admin as a result of this complaint), amd has certainly not reached the level at which arbitration enforcement would normally be considered at all. Have a cup of tea, folks. Collect (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone kindly remove Mathsci's unhelpful personal attack on me? I find it disconcerting to see such unwarranted extraneous comments on this noticeboard. Collect (talk) 17:14, 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.

I might have a thought once I set aside a couple of hours to look at this. Really folks, "Brevity is the soul of wit." I think it's really time for us to take a look at the AE ground rules. --WGFinley (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu

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

Request concerning Anonimu

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Codrin.B (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu, Conditions to provisionally suspend Anonimu's ban, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive86#Anonimu

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

05:24, 11 February 2012, 20:45, 11 February 2012,[134] - 1RR, incivility violations at Moldova
12:44, 20 January 2012, 16:38, 20 January 2012, 16:54, 20 January 2012, 14:04, 25 January 2012 - 1RR, incivility violations at {{History of Romania}}
[135], [136], [137], [138], [139] - edit warning, article locked for edit warring, 1RR violation at Communist Romania
[140], [141], [142] - 1RR Violation at Victor Ponta
[143], [144] - 1RR violation at Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
[145], [146], [147] - Edit warring, near 1RR violation at Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism
13:46, 14 February 2012 15:28, 15 February 2012 - Edit warring, cleverly dodged 1RR violation (timed it to be 24h + 1h42min later) at Moldovans
[148], [149], [150] - attack on WP:ROMANIA main project page, edit war, cleverly dodged 1RR violation, vandalism, WP:STALK

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

Warned on 3 October 2011‎ by The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs) (his response was to remove and ignore the warning)
Warned on 14 January 2012 by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) (his response was to remove and ignore the warning)
Warned on 20 January 2012 by Codrinb (talk · contribs) (his response was to remove and ignore the warning)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Besides the "technical" violations described above, which only happened in a short time since the last arbitration enforcement request in April 2011, Anonimu has been engaged in a rampage of WP policy violations and very suspicious activities, as follows:

Obsessive WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH of a Communism and Soviet-related agenda and actively minimizing the impact Communism and the Soviet Union had (and still has) in Romania and Moldova

From the only 16 articles he created since 2005, the majority are about Russian-born "Romanian" communists like Pavel Tcacenco, Haia Lifşiţ, Leon Lichtblau - people celebrated by Soviet regimes installed in Romania and Moldova after World War II and directly responsible for over 50 years of suffering in both Romania and Moldova.
[151], [152], [153], [154] - WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at Communist Romania
[155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161] - Minimizing/In defense of Communism impact
[162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167] - Minimizing/In defense of Soviet Union crimes
[168], [169], [170], [171] - Edit warring, WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing at Fântâna Albă massacre, removal of valid templates like Template:Anti-communism in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, shocking "dialogs" on the Talk:Fântâna Albă massacre, considering this is an article about a massacre
[172], [173], [174], [175] - Attack on, later removal/redirect of article, on Valeriu Boboc, a recent victim killed by the Pro-Russian Communist regime in Moldova during 2009 riots; also trying to downplay the involvement of the government in the victims death

While it is ok to write an academic article about Stalin or Hitler, if this is all you do, and the rest is disruptions and WP:POV pushing, WP:PUSH related to extremist views, this is a huge problem.

Obsessive WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH of WP:FRINGE/purely political Soviet/communist theories that Moldovans are not Romanians

[176], [177], [178] - WP:STALK, edit warring on the WP:ROMANIA project page (!) to force the project to be limited to the geography of Romania in scope without being a member, attempting any civil dialog or suggestion (especially to keep it out of Moldovan-related pages, i.e. read Soviet/Russian sphere of influence on Wikipedia?!)
[179], [180], [181], [182] - Edit warring on the {{History of Romania}} template, to exclude Bessarabia (Moldova), even though is an integral part of Romanian history)
[183] [184] - 1RR Violation, Edit warring, WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing at Moldovans
[185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190] - WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at History of Moldova
[191] - Removal of {{WikiProject Romania}} tag from the talk page Talk:Moldova, article which covers a wide range of topics obviously related to Romania
[192], [193],[194] - edit warring, WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at Moldova
[195], [196], [197] - WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at Romanians
[198] - WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom
[199], [200], [201], [202], [203] - Removal of sourced content, edit warring against multiple users, WP:OWN, blatant Soviet WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH at Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
[204], [205], [206], [207] - WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH, Moldovans not Romanians in census

Constant anti-Romanian activities

[208], [209], [210] - WP:OWN, WP:POV pushing/WP:PUSH on census related articles, to deliberately keep the number of Romanians low
[211]
[212], [213], [214], [215] - Edit warring, WP:OWN at Dobruja

Constant conflicts with many users violating civility parole and behave impeccable conditions from previous ban (appears to strive in conflict)

[216], [217], [218], [219] - Conflict with User:Darkness Shines (insults, incivility)
[220], [221], [222], [223] - Conflict with User:The Last Angry Man (reverts, insults, incivility)
[224], [225] - Conflict with User:Man with one red shoe
[226], [227] - Conflict with User:Constantzeanu
[228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233] - Conflict with User:Vecrumba (insults, incivility)
[234] - Conflict with User:Logofat de Chichirez
[235], [236], [237] - Conflict with User:Octavian8, reverts, insults, no communication
[238], [239], [240] - Conflict with User:Estlandia, reverts, insults, no communication
[241] - Conflict with User:DDima
[242] - Conflict with User:Prometeu, insults

Very negative attitude towards newcomers/inexperienced editors/IPs in stark contrast with WP:BITE

[243], [244], [245], [246] - mostly reverts, insulting comments; no welcoming, no coaching; no dialog

He constantly fends accusations by attempting to falsely portray himself as some sort of "hero" trying to "save" Wikipedia from "nationalists" and "fascists", a typical, decades-old Soviet propaganda/cover. The fact that his user page has a morbid quote which reads "Viermuiesc fasciştii printre morţi şi tunuri." (in approximate translation "The fascists are swarming among the dead and guns") speaks for itself (mind you, other Wikipedians have user boxes, contributions and friendly messages). It is apparently a quote from Teodor Balş, one of the very few individuals who passionately opposed the Union of Wallachia and Moldavia in 1862, against the wishes of the majority of Romanians. Apparently Anonimu put it on his user page after returning from a previous ban, as a sign of a "positive return". With such a radical and aggressive position, I fail to see anything positive coming out of his contributions in the future, while the past and present already speak for themselves.

In the past I personally made countless attempts to invite him to collaboration, team work, and to created an enjoyable environment around the articles of shared interests. But by now it had become beyond doubt for me that this seems hopeless and impossible given his activities and agendas. The end result is never ending disruptions, a negative environment and lot of time spent trying recover articles from his disruptive edits or filing enforcement requests instead of working on quality content and something enjoyable.

And above all, I fail to see how he respects ANY of the conditions imposed after his ban was suspended.

The majority of his "contributions" are blatant breaches of these conditions imposed into him when his ban was provisionally suspended:

that you are subject to 1RR revert parole
that you are subject to civility parole
and you behave at all times impeccably

He also violated the closing provisions of the last arbitration enforcement request:

1RR was violated, but no block is being issued. Anonimu is warned not to edit war.
Ask for advice from experienced editors
Anonimu is still under WP:1RR directly from Arbcom, and this topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC

I don't care if someone is communist, anti-communist, fascist or anti-fascist, pro-Soviet or anti-Soviet or whatever in his personal life (although being pro-communist or pro-Soviet in 2012 after knowing about the huge number of victims, it is a problem by itself!). But when it becomes a full time job to push such convictions on Wikipedia at any cost, along with incivility, disruptions and violations of WP:ARBMAC conditions I think it is big problem.

You may ask yourselves, why is this User:Codrinb re-opening the case on Anonimu and here is why. While putting a lot of effort and time from my personal life into creating something positive like WP:DACIA, Commons:WikiProject Romania, Commons:WikiProject Dacia, trying to stimulate activity at WP:ROMANIA, contributing over 1200 images, and with over 25k edits globally, I've been constantly WP:STALKed, sabotaged by Anonimu and/or colliding head on with his anti-Romanian views and activities. It is impossible not too. So for me, this is not personal and I am not here to make a profile on Anonimu or deal with arbitrations, but it has become unbearable to contribute in such a negative environment. But, as you can see, the majority of reported incidents are with a variety of other users and not with myself.

Because of all this situation and never ending disruptive editing, I am sadly forced again to request a thorough review of his case.

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

Minimally a topic ban on Moldova, Communism and possibly Romania related topics; Alternatively a block

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification diff

Discussion concerning Anonimu

Statement by Anonimu

I recommend admins actually check the diffs. If they really prove anything, is harassment on the part of Codrinb. The accusations of 1RR and incivility are simply spurious. Basically all the edits in the diff section are in the current version of the articles and were confirmed by other users or by talk page consensus. The others are simply reverts of simple vandalism (including BLP vandalism on Victor Ponta).Considering the rest of the statement is a long diatribe of slanderous comments and abject attacks against my persona, I request the user be sanctioned, and an interaction ban be imposed to prevent continued harassment. Anonimu (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the severity and vileness of the personal attacks, I request the "Aditional comments" section of the comment be oversighted after the process is finished (I have no problem with the diffs, just with the defamatory statements.Anonimu (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out that CodrinB doesn't seem to be able to make the difference between an edit and a revert. Thus I reiterate my request to any admin reading this to check the diffs. Anonimu (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Anonimu

User Anonimu seems to be very interested in a limited number of topics, namely dealing with Romania, Moldova and the Communist past of these states, and while this is perfectly legitimate and acceptable, the constant politically motivated tension that the user has encouraged - is not. As is the case with a number of historical and political related topics, these articles deal with a number of contentious issues, such as the role of communism in the two countries, the impact of Soviet occupation, the identity of the inhabitants of former Bessarabia, etc. While one cannot deny the occasionally positive effects of communist administration, user Anonimu has constantly and tirelessly pushed for a very one-sided interpretation related to these issues. What is however more concerning is that when other views are likewise presented in a way as to reflect the plethora of opinions on a given subject, Anonimu has constantly deleted, reverted and erased any other view except those reflecting his own. At least on two occasions, I believe, he has actually been warned about engaging in edit wars. Contrary to the comments above, the user's edits are not reflective of the pages as they stand now and are under no means reflective of a consensus. It would be great if Anonimu would step back and take a look at these comments and objectively assess himself whether there 'may just be some truth' to the issues brought up here. Having said that, I must also say that Anonimu has also contributed by creating maps or articles on a number of lesser known historical figures and I respect his contributions in those fields: I think that Wikipedia and its readers have only to gain if Anonimu decides to work on articles that - as described above - deal with Russian-born Romanian communist figures (as long as of course the negative effects of communism are not downplayed in the process). However, a topic ban on the really contentious topics related to Romania, Romanians, Moldova, Moldovans and the role of communism in these states as well as a serious warning would probably go a long way in ending some of the edit wars and adding neutrality to some of these topics.Dapiks (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my edits presented in CodrinB are indeed alive (one surely isn't since you took care to revert it), and many are confirmed by explicit consensus. Also, please note that the WP does not have to give the same weight to all "opinions on a given subject"; per WP:WEIGHT, it has to follow mainstream scientific works, and occasionally can presents obsolete views such as those held in the past by nationalists, but not as if those view were accepted facts. As for the spurious claims I only wrote articles about Russian-born Romanian communists, this is just another spurious claim by CodrinB. I expected you to actually check the facts and not take CodrinB vituperation at its face value. Seems my ethical standards are too high.Anonimu (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well WP does have to give the same weight to the plethora of opinions on a subject that is contentious. Obviously, if you will take the stance that WP does NOT have to do that even in such cases, then that explains most people's frustration above - namely, that you consider YOUR opinion as superior and therefore worthy of MORE weight then others which leads to you deleting anything that is not fitting YOUR IDEA of what WP should have on these subjects and ultimately leading to edit wars and uncivilly towards other 'inferior' contributors and their work. As to the articles you created, look, I really do not care if they are of Romanian-Russian communists or not - I said it once and I will say it again, I do believe that, even if they are, they are quite valuable to WP and its readers. My problem is not with your areas of interest and ideology but with your very politically-driven actions for many years now on a few selected topics where you just simply blatantly push for your own point of view at the expense of others'. Dapiks (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:UNDUE, a policy the WP community has agreed upon: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views". You can try to change it if you don't find it fair, but as long as the policy stays in its current form, it is the duty of s WP editors to enforce it, and remove undue weight given to fringe nationalist views.Anonimu (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu, this response is very illustrative of the issue I bring up above. Yes WP agrees that neutrality should represent all significant viewpoints without giving undue weight to minority views. The problem is that you want to have full control and monopoly over WHAT constitutes a significant view, a non significant view and a minority view, i.e. significant is what you believe, everyone else is part of a fringe nationalist insignificant minority view and thus their "nationalist" contributions should be erased and if there is more of them and if they persist well then engaging in un-civility and revert wars is perfectly fine - after all they are just a fringe minority so who cares? Right? Dapiks (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only ones having "monopoly" over what's a prominent view are reputable sources. And attempting to "balance" a corpus of recent research with "sources" more than half a century old that have been scientifically superseded is indeed a violation of WP:UNDUE that every editor who is here to build an encyclopedia (as opposed to promoting his personal opinions) can and must correct.Anonimu (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While some diffs may be more damning than others, the salient point is that we have here a pattern of incivility, a pattern of anything-but impeccable behavior, and a pattern of 1RR breaches. This following conditions still in effect allowing Anonimu to return to editing, and this following a previous AE report where it was very clearly emphasized to Anonimu that the conditions are still in effect. Unfortunately for Anonimu, spurious accusations of "harassment", "slanderous comments and abject attacks against my persona" and "severity and vileness of the personal attacks" should not and will not deflect from the main issue, which is his misconduct. Codrinb is a hard-working, productive contributor who volunteers his time in actually improving the project, adding content and bringing sense and structure to Romania-related pages. Unsurprisingly, his patience with Anonimu has been exhausted after numerous encounters with the latter's policy violations. Given how many productive editors he has rankled, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Anonimu has not only exhausted the patience of Codrinb, but also of the community as a whole. And given the undeniable pattern of miscreancy, I fully endorse calls by Codrinb and by Dapiks for at a minimum a topic ban from areas in which he finds himself in constant contentiousness and where he has proved unable to edit constructively, or simply a block. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out at least one 1RR breach? I expect an established user as yourself to have a better understanding of what 1RR actually means. As for your comments regarding a supposed "incivility" on my part, considering our past history and your repeated attempts to get me banned me so that nationalism can freely reign in Romania-related topics (generally not by your actions, but by your inaction and encouragement of users who believe there's an anti-Romanian - and by extension anti-Dacian and anti-Vlach - world conspiracy that seeks to belittle their nation), I think they are not relevant. Anonimu (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Anonimu continues to accuse fellow editors, there's no need to bring any other examples, here's a clear example of him accusing an editor of scheming to promote nationalism. I think that goes against the "that you are subject to civility parole and you behave at all times impeccably" condition for which I understand his previous ban was lifted. man with one red shoe 01:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, I say Biruitorul is indulging Romanian nationalist editors, while CodrinB is accusing me of being some sort of Russian-paid anti-Romanian Soviet apologists, and I'm the uncivil one?Anonimu (talk)

I think that accusing people of indulging nationalist editors and accusing people of stereotypes as you did on talk:Moldova is a grave behavior, especially for somebody who is on civility probation (and it general it poisons the discussions). I don't know about CodrinB I suspect though he's not on civility probation and in any case an evil doesn't justify another. man with one red shoe 19:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out the existence of a personal history that may led to skewed views on the peers has nothing uncivil in it. It would have been ethical for Biruitorul to point out this history at the beginning of his comment, yet he didn't, so I had to make things clear.Anonimu (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the edit differences presented in the case. In the first example ("1RR, incivility violations at Moldova"), Anonimu removed an unsourced statement saying, "At the census, citizens could declare only one nationality. Consequently, one could not declare oneself both Moldovan and Romanian" with the notation, "Demographics: on the census form, nationality had a fill-in field, anyone could declare anything it wanted". He removed it again saying, "nothing prevented them from filling in "Russo-Moldovano-Romano-Klingonian".[247] He then added a tag ("Disputed-inline|Census forms") to the unsourced material which had been re-added. I do not see incivility. Many of the other differences presented are complaints from other editors, but do not include the differences to which they are complaining. The complainant writes, "I don't care if someone is communist...", then writes "although being pro-communist or pro-Soviet in 2012 after knowing about the huge number of victims, it is a problem by itself!" This seems to be a content dispute. TFD (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The census form in question [248] seems to have a section labelled "Naţionalitate", with a fill in field. Admittedly, one might have difficulty writing in "Russo-Moldovano-Romano-Klingonian" through lack of space, but otherwise, it seems that Anonimu was pointing out a simple fact here. In contrast, user: man with one red shoe seems to be indulging in WP:OR, asserting that "it's pretty clear..." and "it stands to reason..." in spite of clear evidence that the census form itself did nothing other than ask for "Naţionalitate", and let the person concerned fill it in. I've no idea what else was going on, and whether the census was rigged or not, but to suggest that a form actually asks the question it did, rather than another one, hardly looks like a violation of anything. I suggest that Codrin.B, rather than giving us a long list of less-than-convincing 'violations' points out the most self-evident examples (if there are any), so we can see if there is a genuine problem, rather than this being just another content dispute/nationalistic custard-pie fight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the long list of violations in itself is quite indicative of a 'problem'. And the list is by no means one of "less-than-convincing violations". But to answer your comment on the census, I do have to point out that although yes, there is a section labelled "Naţionalitate" and while in theory respondents were free to declare whatever they wanted including the aforementioned "Klingonian", 1) it is a very well known fact that observers noted how respondents were "encouraged" to declare "Moldovan" over "Romanian" (nobody disputes this and even in the edit wars this issue has never been called into question). 2) Secondly, whatever data respondents provide, the statistics institute does adjust responses such as "Klingon" for example. Do not expect to see a 0.02% Klingon population among the official data actually released. Moreover, some sources have argued that the same happened with a number of "Romanian" cases as well and in previous versions of the article a statement did exist about the issue (with a cited source) but I guess in the long line of edit wars somehow that "disappeared" as well. 3) Thirdly, respondents could indeed declare only one nationality - the space next to 'nationality' did not allow for one to declare "Moldovan-Romanian" for example. Lastly, if one reads the census data released, I think that it is quite self-evident that the official statistics do not include multiple responses as in the case of the Canadian Census for example. The resident-population in the country is divided among "Moldovans", "Russians", "Ukrainians", etc. without reporting a rubric for "Moldovan-Ukrainain" for example. This in itself I think proves - without the further need of explanation - that respondents could not declare more than 1 ethnic origin or declare "WHATEVER they wished" as it is assumed above. For that reason, the section that Anonimu deleted was actually quite sourced (just look over the rubrics released and you will notice the lack of multiple national responses). Dapiks (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you fail to understand is there's no "long list of violations", just a long list of fairly random diffs. Just because I can surf through your edits and pick some links and list them doesn't mean you've done anything wrong (or anything good for that matter). Regarding the census: 1. It's a content dispute. 2. Arguments that start with "it is a very well known fact" or speak about "self-evident" facts are statistically most likely to contains fallacies. And you do prove statistics right. 3. Your attempt at explanation is nothing but original research, which is specifically forbidden per policy. Anonimu (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no my explanation is simple logic - which as far as I know WP does not forbid. You just do not like it when people actually have the patience to explain for the 1000 time things that have been made quite clear on talk-pages before. What's worst is that you accuse them, this time accusing me of original research. Not very civil, I must say. I thought that even though you may have your own pre-conceived ideas, you are at least willing to listen. I see that I was wrong, you are truly just aggressively insulting anyone that does not agree with your views. Dapiks (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple logic is 1+1=2 or that 1 revert per day does not constitute 1RR. You argument, on the other hand, is based on a whole construction of unverified assumptions and "common knowledge". So you indeed engaged in original research, and there's nothing uncivil in remarking it. Anonimu (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu, are you on here like 24/7? I didn't even finish writing that comment and here you are always aiming to have the last word, regardless. Simple logic is when Anonimu speaks, when everyone else has something to say that is not 100% what Anonimu wants, then they are doing original research.Dapiks (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually ec-ed a lot, so the problems is others editing while I write my comments, that forces me to reread the comments to make sure my edit went live. I explicitly request you to stop putting words into my mouth.Anonimu (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject, since somebody talked about me in this section. I actually think it's good Anonimu brought that to the talk page, I just didn't like how he did it by accusing fellow editors of stereotyping. By the way, he was accusing editors by interpreting a primary source which was a clear WP:OR. I provided a reference removed the "debatable" content (although Dapiks explains pretty well why one could not declare multiple nationalities) and the matter was solved from what I could see since the edit lasted already a number of days. I don't have a problem with him raising the issue, I had a problem with how he did it. If you see his edits you'll see that he was a warring mentality and uses sarcasm and accusations a bit too much for somebody who is supposed to be on civility probation. man with one red shoe 18:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing wrong with removing unsourced statements based on primary sources. If I would have edited the article to say "Citizens of Moldova could declare both Moldovan and Romanian <ref to primary source>", then indeed I would have been guilty of original research. There's a huge difference between people just re-adding unsourced statements because they feel like it, and adding referenced info, as you did. That's why I made no attempt to modify your edit, even if, if I were to believe Dapiks and Codrinb, I was expected to.Anonimu (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you what's wrong, you claimed that because there's a write-in field people could declare themselves multiple nationality, that's original research, but again, this is not a content dispute, we can continue the discussion in talk:Moldova if this issue was not satisfactory solved, the problem is that you jumped to accuse people of stereotyping and indulging nationalism when you are under civility probation, I personally don't think that's very civil. man with one red shoe 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unsourced statements doesn't require a source. It would be nonsensical.Anonimu (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more out of curiosity than anything else, if the quote on Anonimu's user page is indeed by Teodor Balş, would anyone be able to clarify how someone who seems to have died in 1857 could be writing about Fascists, swarming or otherwise? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's another Teodor Balş [249], a Communist era poet.Estlandia (dialogue) 10:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. CodrinB's claim is as spurious as his every other claim, and comes due to his "anti-Romanian conspiracy" mindset. While it doesn't really matter what I put on my user page, the line is actually from a poem about the first major engagement between Romanian and Nazi troops after Romania quit the Axis in 1944. They even have a memorial plaque about it. Anonimu (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to comment or indulge in lengthy debates here about accusations and counter accusations. I already brought enough evidence and illustrated here a very long list of incivility, violations and very negative behavior. I didn't know that there is another "Theodor Balş", a Communist poet, although it is a very weird coincidence. Mea culpa for that but I am not reading much about communists. This is not my topic of interest at all. There is no bad faith here, but the quote from that poet still remains morbid and illustrative of an entire attitude, regardless of who the author is. The problem is who puts it on his user page and acts upon these ideas. Yes, some, many, of the diffs are also content disputes and can be addressed individually. And yes, over the years Anonimu learned how to win disputes and game the system. And yes, some of his comments on his almost daily "revert work" can look very convincing. However, despite his claims, downright lies, that consensus is reached upon his daily reverts, Anonimu almost NEVER starts a discussion on the talk pages of the articles before his reverts. That you can easily check if you have the patience. But you have to look deeper, as I didn't bring this diffs here to dispute the content. It is simply the wrong forum for that. And I can tell you (and you can see it from my edits) that I am personally not interested in Communism and Moldova. But I am interested in and disputing the incivility, the violations and the general negative behaviour here. I am glad to notice that many users came forward with the same issue about Anonimu's behaviour. At least I know I am not drunk when I see this obvious un-academic behaviour. So this is not Codrinb vs Anonimu or Anonimu vs Moldova. This is Anonimu vs his unacceptable behaviour. This is my last comment. I am busy working on many other projects and I don't like to waste time and dwell in negativity.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but the same disinformation already presented in the "Additional statement". However, now the coherence and language proficiency is much higher, and I wouldn't exclude 3rd party help in composing the message. Anonimu (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu why is this relevant? How is CodrinB's language proficiency of any relevance and who cares if he had third party help composing the message? Maybe he didn't, apparently he lives in the States, if I am not mistaken, where the language he would use in his every-day life is English. This is just another of your sneaky little personal attacks, as in "he gets 3rd party help" and thus 1) either he is part of a larger "nationalist" conspiracy to shut me up, ME the defender of the oppressed! Or 2) come on guys, don't take him seriously, after all he doesn't even write his own posts! Why do you not actually tackle the issue at hand? To every one of the messages above, your response is always "disinformation, nothing but disinformation and lies" without actually explaining WHY we should all just dismiss this as simply "disinformation and lies". Dapiks (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's about ethical standards and assuming your own opinions. And mixing Brit and American English is surely not what you'd expect from a text written by someone who uses English in every-day life. Also, per WP:AGF, I'm not required to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary. And past evidence has explicitly shown that one of the editors who commented above has tried in the not so remote past to use behind-the-scenes means to get me banned. There's no "issue at hand", the diffs speak for themselves to anyone who cares to read them. Apparently not one of the editors accusing me of wrongdoing has done such.Anonimu (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond what I expected even from you Anonimu and I was really, really (!) ready to no write anything here anymore. I've been living in US for over 12 years, my English is not perfect yet is not my mother tongue. And yes, I don't like how Americans spell color and behavior, yet I am a US Citizen. US is a great and free country, where I can use the spelling of my choice, en WP doesn't belong to US, and this is not an article! I already made public who I am and where I live. I don't hide behind a name like "Anonimu", with near empty user and talk pages, with the only witness of their emptiness being the histories of your reverts against a multitude of warnings and even blocks accumulated over years! This is just another fine example of how Anonimu drives everyone nuts. Others write for me, really?!! Is that all you have to say against continuous blatant violations. All the 1RRs, edit wars violations reported above are real, they are the work of Anonimu and no one else. You can use all tactics on the book, but Wikipedia has a wonderful feature called "Page History" and if you have patience, you can see everything. I really hate the fact that I have to spend my time to write such a report and respond to all these miserable attacks. I ask, no, I really, really insist to the willing administrators to take the time and review in depth the entire activity of this individual. All his violations, all his reverts, all his fights, all the patterns of incivility and extremism. It will save a lot of time for everyone in the future.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, Anonimu, CodrinB is supposed to assume good faith but you are not? Don't you think that the reason why this issue is brought up here is because a number of people, not just CodrinB, think that you have constantly been pushing for a very one-sided view in a number of articles and when others have tried to correct the bias, you have engaged in revert wars with them? Anyone that cares to actually read the diffs and understands the issue at hand would most definitely agree that the issue is quite serious and quite real. Dapiks (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To "correct the bias" means bringing articles closer to mainstream scholarship, not pushing views rejected by mainstream scholarship such as protochronism and ethnic nationalism. Please realize that WP works specifically because it's based on verifiability in reputable scholarship. For those who don't like the model, there's always Conservapedia and Metapedia.Anonimu (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for 'sending me to Conservapedia; honestly, I am quite surprised that I am not being sent to the gulag for 're-education' for "daring to say that your contributions betray a one-sided view of what is acceptable and what is not". As to the protochronism and ethnic nationalism, I guess anyone not agreeing with you is guilty of being a "nationalist" and should be banned to Conservapedia if possible. This is how you plan on defending the accusations of incivility brought against you?Dapiks (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you nowhere. Of course, if you feel you are better represented by their values than the ones of WP, I'm not going to be the one attempting to change your mind. And yes, I do think that promoting imaginary things like the Dacian script is protochronist, and dismissing several social studies that point out that Moldovans don't consider themselves Romanians is an expression of ethnic nationalism. If everybody would just follow mainstream, up-to-date sources, and not their own opinions, Wikipedia would be a better place, both for editors and readers.Anonimu (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that rather engaging in this unseemly back-and-forth 'debate', that those wishing for action to be taken against Anonimu select one or two of the most significant diffs, which they see as clear evidence of wrongdoing, explain exactly what is wrong, and then leave the issue to be sorted out by uninvolved parties? At the moment we've got a huge list of diffs, and selecting a few at random I couldn't see anything of significance - it isn't reasonable to expect people to trawl through the lot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that going through the entire list might be cumbersome but I think that just the presence of a huge list like that is itself illustrative of repeated wrongdoing. It would be very hard for all the people that wish for action to be taken against Anonimu to achieve a consensus on which cases to present (there is quite a lot of them, mind you :). Besides, I think that would only fuel Anonimu's belief that there is a "conspiracy" against him if everyone would start writing here on the "BEST" cases to put forth against him. I can only speak for myself but the examples I have brought up are generally on the few selected topics mentioned above. Dapiks (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to make such a list of actual violations. I promise I won't hold it against you. Anonimu (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already took the time to group all recent 1RR violations and significant edit wars in the top list. The WP:1RRs are multiple reverts in less then 24 hours. Someone just has to look and compare the dates of his edits. It is very easy. The rest of the lists and diffs are for incivility, the patterns and the agenda pushing. That would take some time to analyze by the willing ARBCOM members. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify the mathematical system you used in counting reverts? I tried again and again, and could not find more than 1 revert in 24 hours... Anonimu (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, you are right, I wouldn't lose my time to go through those diffs myself, I just want to bring to your attention that on this very page Anonimu accused people of "indulging nationalist editors" and on talk:Moldova he accused fellow editors of stereotyping. This comes from somebody who is supposed to be "subject to civility parole and behave at all times impeccably". I don't think this kind of poisoning of the discussion is good even from an editor who is not under civility probation... Example, in this page he said to Talk: "your repeated attempts to get me banned me so that nationalism can freely reign in Romania-related topics", not only that he threw an accusation to Biruitorul, but this also shows that the editor has a warring mentality and he thinks he owns the Romania-related subjects and if not for him bad things would happen to Wikipedia, that's a dangerous mindset. man with one red shoe 19:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) MWORS, what else should I call people who reinstate unsourced POV opinions just because they think they are right? I consider "stereotyping" to be the most euphemistic way their action could be characterised.Anonimu (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul's aversion towards me has went public anyway, so probably my statement that his desire to ban me was motivated just by his desire to give nationalism a free hand was an exaggeration. This doesn't change the fact that he wants be banned at all costs.Anonimu (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that you don't have any other choice but to accuse editors en masse when you don't like how something is treated in an article. You don't need to call editors anything, you just need to point that something is not properly sourced if that's the case. man with one red shoe 20:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call editors anything, it was just a polite request to stop editing out of instinct. While quoting oneself is not generally considered in good taste, I have to do it here, so others can understand what I mean: "Dear fellow editors, please stop making decisions based on stereotypes, and actually check the facts".Anonimu (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if anyone has patience to look through all diffs provided by Codrin.B. I checked randomly a few diffs in the end of his statement. This comment is clearly inappropriate. I also paid attention to this. A few last phrases are about US and Indians. This is clearly unrelated to the article under discussion. This is a soapboxing, a misuse of wikipedia article talk pages for political discussions, and Anonimu suppose to know this.Biophys (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Anonimu

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

Oversight may not be used for those purposes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have some sort of word and diff limit for AE requests. These threads have routinely become unwieldy. For now, the filer is requested to provide a concise summary of this request, not to exceed 250 words, along with no more than 20 representative diffs illustrating the alleged misconduct. If you can't make out a case for sanctions in 20 diffs, you probably don't have a case anyway. T. Canens (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer son

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

Request concerning Al Ameer son

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Al Ameer son (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

18:58, February 17, 2012 Largely reverted changes I had made with completely different information.
20:33, February 17, 2012 Removed POV tag that I had added (based on talk page discussion) without even adequately addressing the issue.

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

(Not sure how to check this.)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[250]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In order to expedite a questionable DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Khader Adnan), Al Ameer appears to be removing any critical information that might delay it. The article is clearly heavily POV, as strongly evidenced by the fact that the images used in the article are the political cartoons of Carlos Latuff -- a hyper-partisan of the conflict.

Al Ameer should be officially listed on the notice of remedies in WP:ARBPIA.
Nobody has yet disputed the fact that Al Ameer violated 1RR. He is a talented and prolific editor and clearly should have been aware of this. Such a violation should carry with it the appropriate penalties.
As BioSketch has noted here, "there's a serious issue with the Latuff cartoon being used in the article given that the subject is still living and representing him with a political cartoon by a controversial artist is inviting all sorts of BLP-related complications."
The Khader Adnan article has serious neutrality issues that must be addressed. Any objective reader would recognize that it's clearly biased. I mean, there's a political cartoon being used to make an equivalence between an individual that is reportedly part of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, an organization that has explicitly stated one of its goals is to destroy Israel, and Ghandi. Please. Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Al Ameer son

Statement by Al Ameer son

Apologies if I technically violated 1RR, but I have to say this thread is borderline ridiculous and unnecessary. I changed Plot Spoiler's edit "Israeli authorities consider him to be a terrorist and a leader of the PIJ movement" to "Israeli authorities have not charged him, but say he was arrested for 'threatening regional security'" because Spoiler's edit was inaccurate. Israel did not say he was a terrorist but that he posed a threat as quoted above. As for his leadership role, this was actually not stated explicitly by Israel but most mainstream sources support the notion and that should be reinstated although at the time we already had written he was a "spokesman for the PIJ in the West Bank."

As for the POV tag, Spoiler brought up one valid point: Israel designated the PIJ as a terrorist group and that should not be included in the article. I believed I had addressed his concerns by mentioning that fact twice, once in the lead and another time in more detail in the relevant section. Then I removed the POV tag. Another concern Spoiler had was the use of an opinion piece on Al Jazeera English by Ali Abunimah which was used to cite solidarity demos for Khader Adnan in three US cities. He removed the source and added a cite tag in its place. Although this concern did not appear valid enough for the source's removal, I did not restore it when I removed the POV tag, leaving the sentence uncited. It was later restored after a bit of discussion on the talk page in which Tiamut had confirmed what I thought was an unreasonable removal of the Abunimah/AlJazeera source. Lihaas, who was reviewing the DYK nomination also concurred. In retrospect, we could have waited for Spoiler's reply before restoring the ref out of courtesy. Spoiler's designation of the article as "highly POV" is not just highly exaggerated, but simply false. As for his/her tirade against using Latuff's images in the article, I think this is also ridiculous. His illustrations are all over wikipedia and have even been used for DYK.

Honestly I would prefer we don't take up much time on this thread and instead discuss any issues at the talk page instead of coming here every time we have a little problem. I don't know else what will satisfy Spoiler's concern that are within the realm of reason. Israel hasn't said diddly squat about Adnan other than the quote above. We added Israel's views on the PIJ of which Adnan is a member of. If Israel has any other relevant views, Spoiler could add them his/herself because other editors and I have apparently missed them. As for the Abunimah/AlJazeera ref and the Latuff images, there's no good reason to not include them. However, if we have a "better" source for the former then we'll use it instead. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Al Ameer son

This is a witch hunt in the sense that the source addition made was to a RS (as agreed by MULTIPLE editors) and removed as bias. The user then cites POV when he is clearly against the grain of consensus by the same MULTIPLE editors concerned, despite the fact that Ameer answered his grievance. Then there is apparently a need to censor content to take something agianst consensus on the talk page to DYK and here as well where the law of averages might support one of the grievances. See the talk page (which is where this should be discussed) to see the consensus against the complainants view. And consensus is not even vote counting but explained by each user. Further the DYK has another user to counter the cartoon claim. and blaming an individual instead of the content is not npov ("Carlos is historically biased"). Although since thats not the talk page i think its unwarranted to include the OTHER persons' support and oppose.

Further the alleged 1rr is NOT a revert because the pov tag was removed with THREE editors concurring and 1 oppose. now.

Agree with Ameer that these multiple threats are move towards a witch hunt to insert X view. Further, one can note the other comment of an editor not involved in these discussions. (yet aware of the page edits where he contributes)

Could be BOOMERANGed on the premise that the "not ADEQUATELY\ discussed" bit entails an "adequate" discussion that leads to a favourable outcome. A clear consensus against one challnge (as was his right) is an

adequate" discussion on consensus. (and im not saying consensus cant change)

Definately BOOMERANGed, the first diff inserts SOURCES against POV and WTA. No doubt the complainant seems to have a pov here. The 2nd diff also adds sources to clear the tag, despite consensus on the talk page. And what is "hyper-partisan" if not a personal ov?Lihaas (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 71.204.165.25 (talk)

A clear and unambiguous violation of 1RR, and the excuses being made, that 3 editors agreed with the reverts, or that that the reverts were to corect "inaccurate" information are wholly beside the point. 1RR is a bright red line, and it was breached. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it wasnt a revert...it was consensual per tag removal procedures and a SOURCE additionLihaas (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Al Ameer son

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

Your first diff isn't showing up correctly; could you fix that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll have a look later this evening if I get the chance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the first edit is a revert. T. Canens (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[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 218: / Line 218: @@
 :"cats run away from these rats because of their size and ferocity... All of the conventional efforts to kill them have not succeeded, because they seem to be immune to poison" - Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), controlled by the office of Mahmoud Abbas, July 18, 2008 ([http://palwatch.org/STORAGE/special%20reports/Genocide_Durban_2.pdf source], pg. 10)
 :I can't explain why Gatoclass insists this does not qualify as a conspiracy theory when there's enough sources (PMW analysis report and op-eds) that treat it as such and no sources that say the opposite. As long as he tries to throw weight around in order to impose this politically motivated belief into wikipedia article space, it might be a good practice to ban him from WP:ARBPIA topic area.
+==== From when are the diffs? ====
+I'd appreciate input on this query. From what I'm seeing, the latest diff not from this month is summarized with:<br>
+:"Not yet finished, but this deals with most issues content-wise. '''Still haven't dealt with "supernatural" issue which I've opened for discussion'''" -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoological_conspiracy_theories&diff=430047279&oldid=429623918 Jaakobou, 20 May 2011]
+Have I even edited the article between that edit and the edit which prompted Gatoclass to file this complaint?
 ====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