Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:36, 25 April 2008

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

Edit this section for new requests

Eleland issues persist

Arbcom case: 'Case Final Decisions' .

Eleland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Incivility and personal direct and indirect attacks

The following is a list of problematic occurrences following an Eleland successful unblock request where Eleland justified his unblock request saying:

“

referring to anothers' edits as "idiocy" and "garbage" is inexcusable. I apologize for the insulting language. -- User:Eleland unblock request. (00:34, 15 February 2008)

”

See #Comments leading to the block included

Post unblock incivility

Note: The comments are clearly directed -- during conflict -- at editors, not content and pose a huge disruption to proper conflict resolution.

"[Jayjg] fairly ludicrous interpretation" Eleland, 20:19, 18 February 2008

Making "vague" and "indirect" comparisons of right-wing Israeli politicians with Wiki-editors he's in conflict with:
- "I've noticed an odd tendency on WP to over-emphasize the "Palestinian-ness" of Jordan, and I can't help but wonder if a person or persons is pushing for the POV of the Israeli extreme right that "Jordan is Palestine." Eleland, 00:16, 20 February 2008
- "Sidelines about incivility (or whatever) will not distract from the real issue here... Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman (e.c. see POV/BLP below) do not hold "veto power" over our presentation of facts in this encyclopedia. Nor do their adherents." Eleland, 16:02, 20 February 2008
- "I'm aware that there are far worse Israeli right-wingers than Netanyahu. Some of them edit Wikipedia." Eleland, 23:28, 20 February 2008

Comments from the last month

"Breathtaking inanity. ... Your argument is intellectually dishonest, of course, and not meant to be taken seriously." Eleland, 21:51, 28 March 2008.
"paper-thin rationalization for tendentious behavior" Eleland, 16:45, 29 March 2008.
"in accordance with your own extremist POV." Eleland, 21:46, 2 April 2008
"rv exremist POV-pushing" Eleland, 22:17, 2 April 2008
"I don't believe you're capable of sincerity" Eleland, 16:25, 23 April 2008

To remind, editor has continued uncivil commentary even during the 7 day time to which he made his civility pledge while getting unblocked.

Comments leading to the block included

"a [[User:Jayjg|time honoured tradition]]... makes you look rather desperate" Eleland, 23:52, 18 January 2008
"your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes" Eleland, 09:15, 20 January 2008
"you continually waste time with this idiocy?" Eleland, 15:38, 14 February 2008

See #Post unblock incivility

Comments/Discussion

I request some administrative action performed on Eleland (talk · contribs) to clarify to him that his conduct is in contrast with the purpose of wikipedia. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it's mostly not of my concern, I have been indirectly notified of this discussion and will add my 2 cents. I definitely agree that Eleland has serious civility issues. In a somewhat heated discussion between User:Pedrito and myself on Talk:Avigdor Lieberman, Eleland chimed in with this comment, which is a direct personal attack. His previous edit to the same talk page was also a personal attack of sorts. Reviewing the rest of his edits in the 'last 250' for Talk:Avigdor Lieberman, it appears that he also made personal attacks against Jaakobou.

Analyzing the data, it appears that nearly 100% of Eleland's comments on that specific talk page (in the last 250) were personal attacks. Therefore, this is surely not a one-time issue, and it appears that Eleland uses personal attacks and ad hominem attacks very often. I am counting on the admins to take a fair course of action, in light of at least one previous block against Jaakobou for similar (mis)conduct. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have "analysed the data," you should demonstrate this, rather than simply asserting it, so that your anaylsis can be confirmed or disputed. And calling a statement "remarkably foolish," and then providing copious documentation to falsify that statement, is neither a personal attack nor an ad hominem. <eleland/talkedits> 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this behavior is disruptive and not the way to engage in collaboration. The ArbCom remedies were quite clear, and short of mentors taking this editor to account, a one month ban from related articles may be a way to cool off the spirits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you talking about me, or Jaakobou? Because the only diffs from the last two months which Jaakobou has presented relate to Avigdor Liberman. I would urge you to look into that issue in more depth than just a few scattered duffs. Much like his actions on Palestinian fedayeen which got him taken to ArbCom, Jaakobou was removing enormous sections of text, and when asked about it he would only provide quibbles and cavills about particular phrases or citations, rather than justifying his blanket removals. He was claiming that quotations were "taken out of context," but he refused to explain what "context" would, in his view, correct the problem. This is his standard modus operandi - act outrageously, then quote the outraged reactions out of context and fire them off at administrators. What I can't believe is how easily this tactic seems to work on you folks. <eleland/talkedits>

Eleland's view

This posting is a mélange of exaggerations, half-truths, and simple nonsense. Jaakobou has previously been given a final warning for trying to use WP:AE as a weapon for block-shopping [1] and yet here he repackages many of the same claims from his "dodgy dossier" and "sexes it up" with a truly despicable accusation of blood-libel (related to an eight-months-stale dispute!)

Those admins who would like to know Jaakobou's history of such spurious accusations should examine Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jaakobou#Evidence of disputed behavior. <eleland/talkedits> 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani's view

I have reposted this here because it was unaccountable removed and relocated in a separate space on the grounds that it dealt with content. In fact it did not deal with content. It addressed User:PhilKnight, who had just posted. By removing both pieces and fixing them in an unalterable archive page below, Jaakobou appears to me to be 'fixing' the page to suit his suit. I am not a technician of rules, but it appears to me that he is determined, having raised a complaint, to manage comments in the order he likes, as if he owned the page. Therefore I append my comment here, where, not being archived, it can be adjusted, expanded or corrected. I should add that while rules ask for civility, repeated futile, tendentious and wall-eared editing, often in disregard of the talk page conversation, to establish a text which then is regarded as authoritative, and may only be modified by persuading its one editor, Jaakobou, to do so on the talk page, is exasperating, and exasperation provokes. I have no intention of building cases against other people, as Jaakobou appears now to do as part of a personal campaign. But I do think it a very grave breach of whatever rule governs interactions in Wiki that he persistently compiles dossiers, over time, on separate administrator pages, without so much as a hint to his targeted victim, in order to disseminate a deeply negative impression about people he has conflicts with in several administrators' minds. His excuse, when this is noted, is invariably, 'Oh sorry. I forgot. Cordially' etc.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This document compiled by Jaakobou is one of several dossiers, apparently, that he is compiling against editors he often finds himself in conflict with. They are usually tailored so as to be unrecognizable to those whose comments are quoted. To control each diff and evaluate them requires several hours, not to speak of lengthy checking of the actual discursive run on talk pages. But what I vigorously disagree with is that, once with myself and now with Eleland Jaakobou lays his evidence out incrementally, day by day, before selected administrators (jpgordon in Eleland's case, yourself, Phil, in my case, without the slightest hint to his intended victim, that he is laying a serious complaint. I only found out that he was doing this by sheer coincidence, several days after he began seeding your own page with a section on complaints against me. By the time the dossier assumes depth, without one's ability to contest each piece, the impression is created of a systematic Israel-bashing lout. I think this unethical. In my own case, I preferred not to waste time even treating this tactic seriously. Eleland appears to think it worth detailed arbitration. I have corresponded with Eleland on this here and on my talk page. I don't think Wiki should be systematically transformed into a whingeing room, there's far too much work to be done. But I do vigorously protest this ominous new tendency by Jaakobou to mount selective dossiers, behind people's backs, and use them with a series of distinct administrators to create the impression, discretely, that a whole gang of marauding louts invest the articles where he himself edits, and that somehow he is a victim. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps.Perhaps I should say what I should have said some time back, (when my own dossier was compiled), to save further extenuatingly laborious administrative cases. Were I to adopt a consistent policy of cherry-picking every provocative remark you have made in my regard,Jaakobou, I could quite simply mount exactly the kind of case you have mounted against Eleland. You accuse me of, in a mere two paragraphs on PhilKnight's page of:-

(1) 'making bigoted explanations'. No evidence supplied.

(2) ostensibly about 'how racist and criminal the people of Hebron are'. I never said that of the people of Hebron. I said that of their 'spiritual leaders' and when questioned, provided links in Wiki and elsewhere that document the point. Several of them have, as you yourself know, long criminal records, including murder.

(3)you completely rip out of all context the phrase 'the problem for Jewish/Israeli editors here', to make it look odd. Check the context. It isn't.

(4) I you invent the idea that I 'suggest' all Israel are criminals. I never said any such thing, indeed, such an absurd thought had never even crossed my mind until you attributed it to me.

(5) 'Finkelstein is definitely an anti-Zionist and also a borderline anti-semite.' This is extremely naive. A very large number of Jewish intellectuals and a substantial number of Israelis could be defined as 'anti-Zionist' if that means opposition to taking more Palestinian land. It is a neutral descriptive label: you use it as though to embrace that position were an index of prejudice. It isn't. Secondly, you brand a RS a 'borderline antisemite' and, in context, in that I cite this source, tar me with the same brush. 'Borderline' is a word in psychaitric jargon to define a certain pathology which you directly attribute to a scholar, and by innuendo, to people like myself you cite him. 'Antisemite', well: I'm only bemused by that, though I could feign shock, and adduce it as evidence of improper language.

(6)When I briefly countered your innuendos, you replied speaking of my bogus disclaimer claims (don't worry, I won't niggle you on the tautology).

(7) You take as somehow a breach of ethics that I 'previously debated the qualities of anti-Zionist sources'. ('JewsagAgainstZionism.com' and 'Neturei Karta International: Jews United against Zionism'.' So? All this means to an inquiring mind dragged in to examine the matter is that, when you elided a ref. to Neturei Karta (antizionist talmudic scholars)as fringe and not RS you at the same time introduced a text from a hate site. I noted that you can't use a principle against one edit, and then ignore it when pushing another. This last point is something everyone remarks on. You change your wiki criteria according to what you want in or out. No consistency. And this causes much exasperation in those who edit with you.

Take these points collectively, and you get the following picture of me. I am a bigot who brands an Israeli community as racist and criminal, who indeed thinks all Israeli/Jewish editors suspect, thinks all Israelis criminal, uses borderline (slightly mad) antisemitic sources, and in defending myself against your verbal innuendoes engages in bogus disclaimers, and, vilely, debates the merits of anti-Zionist sources. Were I to recognize myself in all this, I'd beat you to the race to have myself hauled before the appropriate Wiki administrative court, while checking in with an analyst to have myself treated. That's a tough rap (also in the musical sense) to wear. Now, as you yourself know, I have never seized on this to worry an administrator. Water off a duck's back. No other Israeli editor with whom I have collaborated, most often productively, has ever levelled charges like this against me. Indeed I get on rather well, despite some very trying cavilling debates one has to endure, with almost everyone here. In our lengthy and vigorous exchanges I have written to them as I have spoken to you, yet you are the only one to feel imperilled and insulted. This is a hard place to edit, and despite the rules, people at times, who have done some very good work, vent their frustrations, as you have here. I certainly have in the past, much less so now, because the new measures have indeed worked to improve conditions. I suggest therefore that we pass over the intemperance, you have dished out as good as you have gotten. Let's get on with editing. I do suggest, finally that less editing, certainly less of this incessant roping in the bureaucracy to win points and claim victimization, and more off-line reading of book sources, rather than scouring the net 24/7 for info that jives with one's POV to plunk into these pages, is worth considering. Remember booklearning lasts: much of this trivia we scoop up via links can fail: theorists say it may well crash over the years into a tohu-bohu of broken links. Book references won't suffer that way. Books of quality, finally, are the work of long years of research and reflection: journalistic articles are quicky pieces, full of ephemera, and lacking a long perspective. Try that, and not only the quality of one's life improves but, notably, also the quality of one's edits, and thus we all gain, esp. wikipedia. Regards (ps.this may be soapboxing. Feel free to denounce, I won't complain)Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh's view

I totally back Nishidani's observations above. Jaakobou is an incredibly frustrating editor to deal with, often stirring up huge talk page debates over relatively simple issues of language and sourcing, especially on articles that he wants to claim ownership of. His mission here as well seems to be to ramp up as much material as he can that pushes a very right wing Israeli POV, or that criticises public figures who he appears to dislike (eg Gideon Levy and Saeb Erekat) on the assumption that this is simply in response to the allegedly egregious "Palestinian propaganda" that otherwise dominates Wikipedia. This leads to fairly robust debate on talk pages, but very rarely any genuinely insulting or ad hominem attacks. Culling together a few random quotes from such encounters, going back months, does not provide a balanced reality of Eleland's & Jaakobou's interaction. And most of those quotes, as has been pointed out, are anyway aimed at fallacious arguments not at Jaakobou or any individual editor. And beyond that Jaakobou is quite capable of taking on his interlocutors and making pretty broad and unfounded accusations, as evidenced by the diffs presented here. In turn he has taken to forum shopping with multiple complaints against the same editors, often for the most trivial (bordering on fraudulent) of reasons - and he seems to be oddly proud of that behaviour, as evidenced by the "Memorabilia" section on his own userpage. If I had more time I'd add more diffs. --Nickhh (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedrito's view

I too would like to second the statements by User:Eleland, User:Nishidani and User:Nickhh. User:Jaakobou is here only to push his own, somewhat radical POV on all articles regarding the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His constant edit-warring and wiki-lawyering are a serious impediment to the advancement and improvement of all aritcles in this area.

WP:AGF was tried many times and failed. As a recent example, consider his recent edits on Avigdor Lieberman and compare them to his behaviour at Gideon Levy and Saeb Erekat. In the former he edit-wars to remove criticism of a politician he likes whereas in the later he edit-wars to have such criticism included, displaying, in both cases, completely opposite interpretations of policy and/or judgement. This is not the work of somebody following policy and contributing constructively, but of somebody pushing his or her POV.

I have complained about User:Jaakobou here before (here, here), as have many other editors, usually to no avail. Interactions with his mentor have had the same frustrating result. Recently he's been accusing User:Nickhh, User:Eleland and myself of tag-teaming against him, an accusation which he refuses to prove or drop and persistently uses as an excuse to flout WP:3RR or WP:BRD and massively disrupt articles which are not to his liking.

Summarizing: this is not an isolated incident, but yet another incident by a chronic, un-repenting repeat offender.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.04.2008 14:43

content related material - retracted - and discussions

Decided to remove content related complaints. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC) retracted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC) added comment by Nishidani intended to PhilKnight. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Durova

Suggest refactoring the "yet again" out of this request title. Not sure what else to say here, so I'll be taking a tall glass of water plus a good meal and a good night's rest before posting on this matter again. Durova^Charge! 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, much better now. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive use of sources and POV/BLP violation

NOTE: The following input might be more difficult to follow than incivility since it's content related. However, it depicts a POV source related problem.

Previous activity

Previously Eleland has,
(a) Rejected Washington Times and the BBC to promote -- alongside PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- the WP:FRINGE theory/blood-libel that Battle of Jenin was (supposedly) a large scale massacre.[2], [3], [4]
(b) Replaced "partisan-hackery links" (CAMERA, AIJAC) with (neutral?) ElectronicIntifada.net.[5]
(c) Rejected 'Arutz Sheva', a leading right wing Israeli news outlet for it's (alleged) - "reputation for producing outright fraudulent "news", calling it a "disreputable racist fringe source".[6]
(d) He even rejected the word 'documentary' to describe a video only using live-recorded clips of real life situations based on the notion that "it's full of lies".[7]
(e) He's also made a similar BLP violation, reinstating a quote made on March 5 into a lead paragraph on Operation Defensive Shield, an Israeli response to a month of suicide bombings culminating with a March 27th attack;[8] this after the paragraph/quote context was explained more than once ([9], [10]).

April 2008 activity

"rv extremist POV" diff removed NPOV text from the article and ended up using a "branded such proposals as racist and illegal" quote on notations that don't appear in it's source.
- The removed NPOV text:
  "Liberman added that he was ready to evacuate his West Bank settlement home in Nokdim to achieve this proposal." source: http://www.dawn.com/2004/05/28/int8.htm (reuters)
Removing context (attacks on March 2-3) and adding anti-Israel, Islamist Al-Jazeera smear article as a source '5 April 2008', after Momento and Ryan Postlethwaite expressed BLP concerns also.
Again (21:46, 15 April 2008), this time on a compromise version which included only "following 9 Palestinian attacks on Israelis" as pretext, apparently, not compromise enough.
"offered to provide the buses" Eleland, 21:41, 15 April 2008
Text is sourced to "According to another report" in violation of WP:REDFLAG.

Content related discussion

The 'removing context' stuff centres around whether the context was properly sourced. That is whether there were adequate sources linking the events to the politician's remarks. I think removing this context, when it wasn't sourced is a justifiable edit. I agree there are legitimate BLP concerns about the entire controversy section, however I'm not convinced that removing inadequately sourced content is being disruptive. I'm not saying the edit was correct, but I'm saying that in my humble opinion, it wasn't disruptive. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the removal of nyjtimes.com and adding an al-Jazeera link kinda dismisses your WP:AGF, but that's my personal opinion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This document compiled by Jaakobou is one of several dossiers, apparently, that he is compiling against editors he often finds himself in conflict with. They are usually tailored so as to be unrecognizable to those whose comments are quoted. To control each diff and evaluate them requires several hours, not to speak of lengthy checking of the actual discursive run on talk pages. But what I vigorously disagree with is that, once with myself and now with Eleland Jaakobou lays his evidence out incrementally, day by day, before selected administrators (jpgordon in Eleland's case, yourself, Phil, in my case, without the slightest hint to his intended victim, that he is laying a serious complaint. I only found out that he was doing this by sheer coincidence, several days after he began seeding your own page with a section on complaints against me. By the time the dossier assumes depth, without one's ability to contest each piece, the impression is created of a systematic Israel-bashing lout. I think this unethical. In my own case, I preferred not to waste time even treating this tactic seriously. Eleland appears to think it worth detailed arbitration. I have corresponded with Eleland on this here and on my talk page. I don't think Wiki should be systematically transformed into a whingeing room, there's far too much work to be done. But I do vigorously protest this ominous new tendency by Jaakobou to mount selective dossiers, behind people's backs, and use them with a series of distinct administrators to create the impression, discretely, that a whole gang of marauding louts invest the articles where he himself edits, and that somehow he is a victim. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see in the meantime that PhilKnight has removed his comment. But this remark was addressed to him.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bluemarine

Is this user a ban evading sock? Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All signs to point to yes. Please block and revert his edits and Talk Page vandalism on the Matt Sanchez article. --Tanstaffl (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've only made a handful of edits on that account. Which is your main account? I think I'll wait for others to weigh in before doing anything. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a checkuser last night. Came back unrelated. Must say I'm still uneasy. Be aware that in this particular dispute spoofing/joe jobbing has also been a significant possibility. Durova^Charge! 14:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to roll back all of his edits, as some of them need to be discussed, and there is a lot of whitewashing/promotion there. Horologium (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add Tanstaffl (talk · contribs · count) to that Checkuser request? Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Eleemosynary and related socks. I requested Oversight last night on that. See my comment to the CU request. Durova^Charge! 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not averse to that idea, but do I simply edit the RFCU? And how do I justify checking Tanstaffl without running afoul of "no fishing"? Horologium (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User shows up at arbitration enforcement within their first five edits. User appears to be involved in spoofing or Joe jobbing. I think there are strong reasons for suspicion. It is not fishing when there are reason. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added Tanstaffl and Eleemosynary. This looks like it's going to be so much fun </sarcasm>. Horologium (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW (really short summary here because I've gotta run), during last month's AE thread User:Benjiboi and User:Eleemosynary got trolled on their talk pages by an AOL IP address. Then very shortly afterward they got friendly follow-ups by a sock that acted like User:Pwok. Looked like Matt had trolled them, only Matt was in France and couldn't have accessed AOL, and when I contacted him he didn't know anything about it (I still have the chat log; he acted genuinely surprised). So that looks like a joe job. Add to substantiate Matt's claim to having been in France at that time:

He was interviewed on a French television program. The link was fresh the day the suspicions got raised.
When he returned he uploaded pics of Normandy to Commons with metadata from the right time frame.
(this one bites) I caught a French IP address trolling the same people not long afterward, and when I confronted Matt he promptly admitted that was indeed him.

So the AOL IP trolling from a month ago was probably Pwok and the French IP trolling from a month ago was definitely Matt. Is that murky enough for you? I had a hard talk with Matt afterward. He pledged to cease the trolling on-wiki. And although I'll be unavailable most of today I'm very interested in the results of the investigation and checkuser. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute Durova's discussion, but do point out that AOL has (or at least, used to have) numbers that could be dialed into internationally. - Philippe 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yep, they still do. See this for example: [11]. There's one for Paris. That's all I checked for in France. - Philippe 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm still skeptical. Sanchez has never been especially sophisticated about evading checkuser, while Pwok runs a dedicated anti-Sanchez website and has a long history of spoofing Sanchez around the Internet. It doesn't make sense that Sanchez would dial into AOL from France, successfully defend himself with evidence that he's in France, and afterward give away the show by trolling on a French IP address. If that were deliberate, wouldn't he have continued the AOL scheme or invented something else as clever, rather than giving himself away with a clumsy IP and admitting to it as soon as he was confronted? I wish the waters weren't so muddy, but I just won't rule anything out at this point. Durova^Charge! 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it's Pwok or Sanchez. Simplest answer is that it's a friend of Sanchez who has taken an interest in helping him out. He or she certainly doesn't write like Matt. I don't know what policies would be in play for that. Cary Bass ^demandez 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally a sensible response to Durova 'Master sleuth'! As the 'friendly followup' anon IP that 'acted like Pwok' in posting to Benjiboi's talkpage, it's just as insulting now as then to be blamed for anti-gay pro-Sanchez garbage posted by that troll from AOL. Always a conspiracy? People have friends, Durova, at least off-Wiki. And to be clear, as I said then, I am also NOT Pwok. I posted from Ohio, not Washington. I don't write like Pwok. My comments are my own, as an interested observer. Always gotta be that insidious Pwok and his legions of 'gay jihadists' ! My bet as to the real AOL culprit - Matt. He does this Jekyl and Hyde bit regularly off-Wiki. Or maybe its a friend or client of his. (Or is that 'meatpuppet' in Wiki-paranoia) As someone who has been watching this educational Wiki-fiasco since its inception, I think your wild accusation that Pwok "has a long history of spoofing Sanchez around the Internet" is simply outrageous. Call his site "anti-Sanchez" if you must, but c'mon, the rest is just way off base. If 'mentoring' Matt involves believing his word about things and relying on his promises of good behavior....well, you're in for a bumpy ride. Anyway, your 'skills' got you in trouble before Durova, remember? ('!!'...)

Its merely your mind that's muddy. Hang it up already Sherlock... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.174.251 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy editing for a banned user is a bannable offense, IIRC. And while the new editor is more civil, he demonstrates Sanchez's rather bombastic style; note especially the "recommendation" that Lawrence Cohen stop editing the article (at the bottom of Talk:Matt Sanchez#Reported service as an escort, and the changes he made are almost exactly the same as what Sanchez has been requesting. Cary, you have access to OTRS; perhaps you can verify some of the tickets with these changes, although I realize you will not be able to discuss their contents here. Horologium (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brian Landeche, the namesake of this user, is the founder of NYC's gay bar Splash.[12] I rather doubt this bar owner is the same person as this user. Banje boi 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that there's some unfair editing here. Matt sent me the OTRS, I spent a bit of time going through the issues and I made the changes. The sources seem kosher. Was I wrong? Brianlandeche (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume good faith with you, but you should be very angry with Sanchez, who knows better than to have another user proxy-edit for him. Editing on behalf of banned users is prohibited, and usually results in a block for the editor involved. Considering your extremely brief edit history, you might qualify for some type of leniency; it will be up to a qualified administrator to make a decision. My recommendation would be to topic-ban you on all subjects relating to Matt Sanchez, including publications for which he has worked and anything relating to the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. I am going to revert all of your edits to Talk:Matt Sanchez (as set forth in the banning policy link above). Please do not reinsert them.Horologium (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban sounds reasonable to me. I'd only want to see a complete ban if the user defied the topic ban or was otherwise disruptive. Aleta ^Sing 01:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity could you also explain your user name? I found that coupled with your editing on behalf of Sanchez peculiar but will also await an explanation. Banje boi 02:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a violation of the username policy. Durova^Charge! 06:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the violation of "username" policy? Why should I explain my name to anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlandeche (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names. Is Brian Landeche your real name? Aleta ^Sing 10:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not my real name, nor is Aleta yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlandeche (talk • contribs) 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone else please look at this. I have again rolled back Brianlandeche's edits to Matt Sanchez. He denies editing by proxy, but has admitted above that Sanchez asked him to look at the article. Horologium and I could use some additional eyes here. Aleta ^Sing 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just rolled back (for the third time) all of his edits to the talk page. He needs to be blocked; this is nothing more than disruptive editing. Horologium (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a block seems reasonable, but as I'm involved, I'm not going to do it. The username may itself be hard blockable based upon the evidence by Benjiboi and Brianlandeche's statement that it is not his real name. Aleta ^Sing 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef blocked for proxy-editing for a banned/blocked user, with notification that they must send name verification per WP:U to be reinstated. I strongly suggest a checkuser as well, to determine whether this is clearly Bluemarine or not. - Philippe 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser was conducted, with negative results (although two socks of an indef-blocked user were flushed out). Horologium (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser was Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bluemarine; it's the most recent case. Horologium (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I re-read and was coming back to strike that statement when ya'll beat me to it. - Philippe 16:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

Thomas Basboll

We have a big problem at this article with a tendentious group of editors who have conducted a straw poll and decided that those who believe in fringe theories may write about them as if they are mainstream views.[13] This horrendous POV pushing needs to be stopped, and policies such as WP:UNDUE need to be enforced. There is an arbitration decision, I believe, covering all 9/11-related articles. Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summmary refers to the talk page which includes a poll. Under the poll (and in the summary) I explicitly said I was making a bold change and would not object if anyone thought it was too early. I had invited Jehochman to participate in the poll on his talk page and the discussion had run for a week, clearly leaning to one side. I now see why Jehochman (and perhaps others) did not participate in the poll and discussion. He believes that there is a policy (and an ArbCom decision) that makes discussion unnecessary. This is once again a good opportunity to determine whether what I am doing here is POV-pushing (as has been alleged many times before), and whether the discretionary sanctions should therefore be applied.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been involved in the 9/11 articles because they're such a battleground, but the diff that Jehochman provided is accurately summarized in his phrase "horrendous POV pushing." I'm not sure what the arbcom sanctions cover (as mentioned I've avoided the articles), but it would be a travesty if they did not apply here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing subtle here. Truthers have been trying to whitewash the article for quite some time, and a variety of editors have been attempting to restore neutral point of view. Id est: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] At some point people need to understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advancing fringe theories. The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough. Jehochman ^Talk 08:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've invoked the arbcom decision to ban Thomas from September 11 attacks-related articles. I've noted such on his talk page. Raul654 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will of course respect this ban. I will be appealling directly to the committee, however. I believe that my edits over the last several years have been consistently contributing to the improvement of the articles (on both sides of the "pushing" that I am allegedly doing). Jehochman and I disagree about a very subtle content issue and I have been discussing it openly and civily throughout. If it is impossible to convince the community that I am here for the right reasons, then I have misunderstood the ArbCom case that brought me back to editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have appealled the ban Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Topic_ban_ofThomas_Basboll.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions Raul654 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a truly uninvolved editor needs to look at the administrative abuse of Raul654, as shown on the evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions. Raul is heavily involved with 9/11 articles and has strong POV about this subject. He also did not warn Thomas before blocking him. Inclusionist (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A look at Thomas's contributions shows that he was closely involved in the arbcom case in terms of both evidence and the proposed decision. It is simply not credible to propose that he was unaware of the decision and its enforcement provisions, and thus needed a warning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another one - Pokipsy76

Here's another long time source of POV pushing on this article. [20] This editor should be subject to the same sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reverting your unilateraly editing without consensus is certainly NOT "POV pushing". Your unilaterally editing wothout consensus could instead be viewed as a form of "POV pushing".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that my editing is supported by verfiable sources and seeks to follow neutral point of view. You would do well to listen to feedback, rather than digging in and continuing to battle. Jehochman ^Talk 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to you to decide whether your edit is supported, is NPOV or is nice: it's up to the wikipedia community by means of consensus.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and those of us in the Wikipedia community who aren't here to push a fringe agenda are thoroughly tired of your POV-pushing. You know very well that there will never be consensus for anything on that article, because you're part of an activist bloc which elevates stonewalling to an art form. <eleland/talkedits> 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same could obviously be said of other people who tries to push your POV.
You are deliberately assuming bad faith and personally attacking me without any ground.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might note that you also re-inserted a pretty egregious BLP violation just yesterday because it advances your fringe POV on the issue. --Haemo (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being very dishonest: of course I reverted an unilateral edit without any estabilished consensus and discussion from an estabilished version of the article, like you also have done many many times, didn't you? --Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support an immediate topic ban based on that diff. That's an article probation violation and a BLP violation all in one. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Two-month topic ban imposed, communicated to the user and logged.[21] Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without any previous warning? Please read what the arbcom wrote about this "discretionary sanctions" before implementing them in the wrong way.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely arbitrary. You are just deciding to ban people who seems to have a POV different from yours. This is obviously not the spitit of the wikipedia project.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're banning people who are disrupting the project. Be glad that you were given just two months. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is just your personal opinion, we all know your extreme positions and I really don't think that a neutral admin should act according to such unbalanced views.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've just violated your ban.[22] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them for that edit; although it's not to an article, such a line of argument would be verging dangerously close to rules-lawyering. The comment on the talk page served no purpose but to inflame discussion from the peanut gallery, and such behavior needs to be discouraged. east.718 at 07:40, April 22, 2008

I explained in my talk page why I made this mistake.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wowest

I'd ask for consideration of action on this editor as well. His quote sums up his purpose here pretty well: The mainstream account is propaganda created by the Bush regime, repeated verbatim by a captive domestic media, then parroted again by foreign media. [23] Look at this revert [24] "an uncounted, but presumably large number of members of the engineering community"?? Presumably?? Why do we have to put up with this? RxS (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning given. The next disruptive or tendentious edit will result in a topic ban on 9/11 related articles, broadly construed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an edit placing lots of OR in Conspiracy theory, and another tendentiously stonewalling regarding sources on Talk:9/11 Truth Movement, both after Raymond Arritt's final warning. As such, I've banned Wowest from all 9/11-related pages for about five weeks. east.718 at 11:01, April 22, 2008

The edit you are referring to in Conspiracy theory is the expressin of the consensus on the talk page which is clearly against the deletion of that section.
Really Conspiracy theory can be considered a 9/11 related topic (and therefore under the arbcom rules)? Actually it is about conspiracy theories in general.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pokipsy76, this tendentiousness really has to stop. There are plenty of Wikipedians around who can help resolve disputes. As you have been topic banned already, you may find yourself blocked if you continue to involve yourself in conspiracy theory disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiutwel

Xiutwel (talk · contribs · count) is another user engaging in tendentious pro-Truther soapboxing and stonewalling. [25] [26] Additionally, they left me a bogus warning, apparently in retaliation for my involvement above. [27] This account proudly declares on their user page that they are here for the purpose of ideological struggle.[28] I suggest either a final warning, topic ban, or indefinite block for disruption, as appropriate in the discretion of the administrator who reviews this request. The time for nonsense on these articles has come and gone. Xiutwel participated in the arbitration case, so they are certainly on notice about what is acceptable, and what isn't.[29] Jehochman ^Talk 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also got a "warning" from Xiutwel. [30] This has been going on for 2+ years with him. At this point, I don't seem him changing his way on 9/11 pages. --Aude (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also "warned"` Raul, which wasn't a particularly well-advised action. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiutwel has been one of the most singularly disruptive influences on 9/11-related articles. The stonewalling and absolutely tendentious arguments he has repeated for literally years come in ebbs and flows — at first, I thought he simply didn't understand Wikipedia's policies and was having language issues understanding them. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case — he simply wants to interpret them in a way which will advance his personal point of view on the issue. Endless thousands of pages of text have been written addressing his novel interpretations, which will (at best) simply induce him to change his argument — never what he is advocating, which just so happens to agree with is POV on the matter. He doesn't see this as a problem, and doesn't view any of his behavior as the issue, since he's convinced himself that he's neutral and everyone else is biased — although the sheer breadth of his fringe advocacy, from 9/11 conspiracy theories, the OKC bombings, and fringe science to the moon landing hoax, is very telling. --Haemo (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiutwel's disruption is well-documented. As Haemo writes above, Xiutwel is extremely disruptive. Not only is Xiutwel disruptive, but he often begins discussions which lead to disruption by other users. A topic ban (or indef block) enacted against Xiutwel would be the best effect of the ArbCom decision. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on reviewing the comments above, I tend to think that Ice Cold Beer is probably right. I'm too new at this to stick out my neck as far as seems indicated to me as justified, though. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, then will somebody please apply the appropriate sanctions to Xiutwel? Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is painfully obvious that Jehochman is using arbitration enforcement to stiffle different opinions and views he personally disagress with. Jehochman is attempting to silence the contributions all of the editors he is in an edit war with, and involved admins such as Raul654 are silencing these editors, with no warning as the arbitration decisions demands.

Everything that Jehochman claims these users are guilty of he and other "deletionist" editors are guilty of also. I find it very ironic that Haemo writes: [Xiutwel] "convinced himself that he's neutral and everyone else is biased" when Jehochman, Haemo, Ice Cold beer, Aude and other editors here, who have extremely strong biases against alternative views about 9/11, feel that only their views are NPOV. It is clear that Jehochman and the rest of these "deletionists" are also in an "ideological struggle". Jehochman is as guilty of edit warring as these other users. He did not abide by the straw poll which he lost. The blatant hypocricy here of the "deletionists" here boggles the mind.

Xiutwel's, Thomas's, Popsy's and the other conspiracy theorists ideas about 9/11 are silly and have no basis in fact. But a large minority of people agree with these users, and if Wikipedia is truly to have a "neutral point of view" these "conspiracy theorists" sourced views belong on Wikipedia also. Inclusionist (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travb (talk · contribs), this is not an Inclusionists vs. Deletionists battle. Editors have been banned for being tendentious and disruptive, not because of their views. Jehochman ^Talk 05:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your classification, not giving undue weight to fringe theories constitutes an "extremely strong bias". I don't feel my views are NPOV, and you would be hard pressed to even know what they were from my editing. I try and ensure that these contentious areas are not used to advance fringe theories that are not supported in reliable sources — for that, I am accused of being a "deletionist". You talk a lot about inclusionism and neutral point of view but, like all people who propound Wikipedia giving these theories credence, you totally ignore the other part of the policy — and one which is incredibly important in these subject areas. You appear determined to throw everything and the kitchen sink at anyone who disagree with you, and believe you are engaged in some kind of struggle against a monolithic whole who seek to suppress dissent. You're not — you're up against broadly involved admins and editors with a long history of investing in an encyclopedia and who wish to see the project advance as an encyclopedia — and not as a place to promote fringe theories. --Haemo (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiutwel (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely banned from all pages related to 9/11 by Chetblong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). east.718 at 12:11, April 24, 2008

User:152.131.10.133

Following in User:67.164.76.73's footsteps (see resolved, below), except he's already done 2 each today on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center‎, Jesse Ventura, and Template:911tm‎.

Has claimed in the past to be User:Bov, who has been warned many times, but not necessarily since the Arbcom.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you look at the IP's deleted userpage there's an note about Bov using that IP there as well. The contribs make it pretty clear it's the same user. RxS (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bov's user page implies that there are multiple IP addresses from which he regularly edits. Anyone know the others, so that I can take a holistic view of his recent edits? GRBerry 14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.164.76.73 is pretty clearly him as well. RxS (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:76.103.153.118 in addition. RxS (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now this from Bov (as 133)[31] This is what they do, nonsensical bans on people to block the information they don't want out there and to keep the labels attached to people they need to try to discredit. (there's more)...seems like a commitment to keep at it, and personally I'm sick of it. RxS (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 arbitration

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

forum shopping, dupe thread

Regarding the Thomas Basboll block by Raul654, Raul is:

not an uninvolved editor Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and motions#Raul654_is_NOT_an_.22uninvolved.22_administrator
did not follow the guidelines before blocking Thomas Basboll. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions#Raul654.27s did_not_follow_the_arbcom_guidelines

Can someone lift the "September 11 attacks-related articles" ban on Thomas Basboll? This case cannot be anymore clear cut. Inclusionist (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This matter was appealed at WP:RFAC. Creating a duplicate thread here, when no enforcement action is even possible, is disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 06:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jehochman. No forum shopping, please. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IRC

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

[32] That link is to an edit by Giano on FT2s talkpage that appears to violate his civility restriction. I'm sure everyone has had enough of dealing this particular subject for awhile, and yet... Rather than havign a random admin point this out on IRC, and have the whole thing devolve from there, can we have a discussion about this edit and its edit summary (rantings of a disruptive troll) on this page before anyone takes action? Avruch^T 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that too, but not until a few minutes ago. It was done while I was writing the point made in my next sentence. I've made the point here that I fear that FT2's lengthy analysis and posts, done outside the remit of an arbitration case, have been a constant annoyance to Giano. Consequently, I've asked FT2 to step away from this, to allow Giano to calm down:
  "Fair enough. I think we've both made our points. The best way to de-escalate things might now be if we all step away. Repeating things won't help at this stage, and from what I can see, your continuing comments are not helping (and mine probably aren't either). If you really want Giano to calm down, please consider reducing or archiving or summarising the material currently on your talk page. To be clear, I'm going to make a conscious effort to step away, and I hope you and Giano do as well."
  Before anyone objects that this will allow anyone to get upset and ask an arbitrator to stop such analysis, I would like to point out that Flonight (also an arbitrator) said this:
  "I would like to remind both of you that when you speak of Giano that you are talking about a real person. I feel uncomfortable with the manner that you both are analyzing him. Debating about him outside of our normal dispute resolution process is not helpful to the situation, I think."
  Do we really want an arbitration case about whether arbitrators can analyse at length outside of arbitration cases? And even if FT2 was wearing his administrator's hat, I think the point still stands - he is trying to exert his authority as an arbitrator and, frankly, is (unintentionally) inflaming the situation. I will repeat here my call for everyone to just step back and calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Update: FT2 has responded to my request here. I also posted to Giano's talk page here. I really am stepping away from this now. I've done as much as I can, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I too am very concerned about FT2's behaviour here. If we were to see nearly 200Kb of analysis about another editor, on any random user talk page here, we'd be castigating the person who wrote it, not the person whose personality was being analysed in minute detail. That it is being written by an arbitrator, an administrator, and a person who (more and more clearly) is in dispute with Giano just makes it that much more unacceptable. This has to stop. From WP:NPA:
  Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all...The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.
  Emphasis mine. Risker (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano made a couple similar edits yesterday. I do think that edit summaries such as "removing rantings of a disruptive troll" [33] and "removing more lies" [34] can reasonably be viewed as assuming bad faith. These comments about Until1==2 can also reasonably be viewed as assuming bad faith independent of FT2's comments: [35] [36]. In particular, the first of these two, on WT:ANI, has no context in the discussion, and appears to be intended as personal criticism. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The committee is currently voting on a proposal that would restrict who may enforce the sanctions in this case. Any administrator even considering acting on this should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions#Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC before acting to see if their authority to act has been restricted. GRBerry 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better link here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2's overanalysis of Giano is getting extremely disruptive. Editors have been unnerved by FT2's long posts about Giano for almost a week now, yet he is still doing it. If you're insistent on blocking Giano, at the very least ask FT2 to stop baiting him. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think long posts associated with Giano are de riguer these days - that he is currently choosing to be upset by FT2s is neither here nor there. FT2, whatever you think of his analysis, is not under a case remedy mandating civility. Giano is. It is instructive that the views on FT2s posts line up roughly with the sides of the general dispute, so I think criticism of his 'psychoanalysis' as its been called should be taken with a grain of salt. At any rate, the question here is this: Is that edit, and the others pointed out by CBM, uncivil and a violation of the case remedy? Note that the motion to restrict who can act on this remedy has not passed, and last I checked didn't have wide support by the Committee. Avruch^T 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's instructive to read your view of the power relations between an arbitrator and an ordinary editor: "FT2 ... is not under a case remedy mandating civility. Giano is." Wow. As for your suggestion above, Carcharoth, that FT2 is inflaming the situation "unintentionally"... you don't see it as starting to stretch belief at all, that FT2 treats a request for less psychobabble as a request for more psychobabble? Hallo? Am I still inaudible ? Is the ~~arbitrator~~ emperor wearing any clothes today? Bishonen | talk 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

FT2's edits are a matter for some other forum to discuss. The only relevant question here is whether Giano's edits (see my post above) can reasonably considered incivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. The question of provocation is also relevant. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, FT2's edits are an essential component of determining the above. Context is necessary. Risker (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that two of the diffs I posted above were unrelated to FT2 and that in one of them Giano appears to have joined a thread "unprovoked" simply to give a personal criticism of Until1==2. But, per the section "Are you sure this is the page you are looking for?" above, the only questions pertinent here are whether Giano has breached his arbcom sanction, not his motivation for doing so.

So here is a direct question: is anyone arguing that Giano's edits, linked in my post above, cannot reasonably be considered incivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are claiming that editor A is assuming bad faith about editor B, the evidence regarding B's actions is required for two reasons. First context, as Risker points about above. Second, because if B's actions show evidence tending to indicate that A is correct then it is wrong to say that A is assuming. In this matter there is also history, during the IRC arbcomm Tony Sidaway admitted that he had been trolling on IRC with the specific intent to get Giano driven away from the project. I honestly can't see Giano assuming anything that is not supported by evidence in the diffs. He may or may not be right, but there is enough evidence in support of his position to conclude that he is not assuming. GRBerry 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is not that Giano is assuming bad faith, only that a reasonable admin could conclude from his edits that he is. In particular, I think a reasonable admin could conclude that "removing the rantings of a disruptive troll" [37] is both incivil, a personal attack, and an assumption of bad faith, as is Giano's assertion that if disruption didn't come from ANI, Until1==2 would "stir" it on IRC [38]. In this situation, I don't think anyone can assert in good faith that FT2, an arbitrator, is trying to drive Giano from the project; and the thread where Giano attack Until1==2 didn't have any mention of Giano at all before he posted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the diffs cited above, this is most clearly out of bounds. The issue of FT2's talk page is complex. FT2 thinks he is helping by trying to analyze the situation and give advice. Many others do not see it that way. However, FT2 is a big boy, and if an arbitrator can not stand being called a troll once in a while he probably shouldn't have run. However, calling out another editor in an unrelated discussion is clearly out of bounds, whether one has a past history with that editor or not. Giano's comment here is a blockable violation.

I also do not give any weight to the pending vote on a special enforcement commission. Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution and enforcement requests are not occasions to re-argue the merits of the case or the remedy. enforcement is a routine matter that may be handled by any admin, although it certainly is required that the admin be familiar with the particulars of the case and remedies, and exercise good judgement in applying sanctions. Until and unless the special enforcement commission passes, the IRC case is just another routine case. Put another way, the committee's ongoing deliberations do not immunize Giano (or any other editor named in a pending amendment) from enforcement action while the matter is pending.

The only matter I am considering at this point is whether to block Giano now that the edit is almost 48 hours old, and was not the original subject of the complaint. Thatcher 20:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Thatcher. With respect to the edit in question, it was already addressed by User:EVula, who elected to warn rather than to block. (Discussion from Giano's talk page here.) The situation was not unaddressed; an administrator in good standing addressed it and appears to have considered it resolved. Risker (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "staleness" on the order of two days is a determining factor on its own in this case, because the Giano's edits today can be viewed as part of a continuing multi-day incident. The arbcom sanction was justified by a very long-term pattern of edits each of which, on its own, barely pushes the edge. If it appeared that the edits from April 21 had been the end of the matter, it would be certainly be better to ignore them and move on, but it doesn't appear that that is the case here. It's also relevant that Giano's previous block was for personal comments regarding Until1==2; it does not seem to have been successful at ending them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a lot of respect for EVula, a very experienced and respected administrator who has dealt with many complex situations in the past. I have the same respect for Thatcher, who has demonstrated by his extensive work here at WP:AE that he can ably manage complex issues. It's been my observation that administrators of this calibre normally respect the decisions of each other and will not overrule unless there are very extenuating circumstances. Risker (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the diff of Evula and Giano's conversation doesn't give me the impression that Giano actually retracted the attack or agreed to desist. Evula's final comment in that thread is especially lacking in optimism. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but other than the FT2 business, he has not repeated his comments. Thatcher 22:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<grin>You're saying Giano hasn't made any other edits violating the sanction, except those other edits he made that violate it?</grin> You may be right that we should just hope Giano will let the matter rest, although that's the strategy that led us to this point. I don't agree that comments involving FT2 are somehow immune from the arbcom sanction, since the question whether the recipient is a big boy (or girl) who can handle the comments isn't part of the criteria for blocking. But I can consider this complaint resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that long posts may be hard for some to handle. But these posts contain nothing more than the usual descriptions and admin assessment of Giano's on-wiki activity, plus answers to people's questions, rebuttals of unhelpful statements, and so on. The length is much more related to the need for extreme thoroughness, given the bad-faith interpretation and accusations going around, and the number of users with an interest. In this case, an administrator was driven into retirement, accusations and allegations abounded, bad faith was shown, and there was significant effort to deflect the actual issue [39]. None of this was necessary. (Diffs/links are in the discussion.) These all kept it long.

It would also have been a lot shorter if those discussing had stuck to the point, and discussed "was the comment itself, and the conduct thereafter, reasonable for an admin to deem uncivil, bad faith or personal attack", or if people had sought to reach agreement that this was "unhelpful conduct, don't do it again", instead of fielding questions on many other issues such as:

IRC freenode hosting,
en-admins policy and history,
giano's history,
the entirety of civility policy,
another user's mis-reading of a log,
whether en-admins issues are handled appropriately,
whether en-admins should exist,
the effects of problematic conduct on users and the community,
what has been asked of Giano on multiple occasions, and
the minutiae of whether it was within norms for the community.

This would have kept the whole thread short. As it was I got asked everything from "what are your views on the civility police", downwards. That's how it got long. Avruch actually commented to Giano, ""You don't dispute FT2's account, but it solidly contradicts any account you've given of the event and its core issues"" link above. See User_talk:FT2#Bringing_the_threads_together for the thread broken down by topic area that had to be covered. I must have stated a dozen times now and previously that if conduct changed then admins would have zero interest. In such extreme circumstances, a few extra words to ensure intention is not misrepresented and is clear to any reader, is probably unavoidable. Ironically, the admin who would have written less, was driven off the project earlier. As Doc G says, one doesn't get to poison the well, then complain about the water [40]. A number of users have made clear that fuller answers are valued. Instead we got this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief point for one. KWSN has returned already and experience tells me he will be back fully active and kicking. He is not THAT kind of a user who would leave the beloved adminship that gives him an illusion of importance and being in position to "run things". As for the rest, including on Giano's being responsible for KWSN's "departure", I will post later. --Irpen 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This primarily a continuation of the past block discussion as has occurred elsewhere, especially on FT2's talk page. We can close it as resolved and move on since questions about the block have been asked and answered. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be done for now. Thatcher 22:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And so it begins again

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

All parties are reminded of the committee's second, and unenforcable remedy "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." The instruction here is to find an approach that will achieve consensus. I suggest that such an approach will result in some pages kept, some merged, and some removed - but you all already knew that. Eusebeus is specifically reminded that it isn't particularly wise to engage in the same pattern of behavior that got another editor sanctioned by the ArbComm. The diffs presented do not move me to take action outside arbitration enforcement. GRBerry 14:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eusebeus, who is well aware of the decisions of the recent episodes arbcom case, has begun blindly restoring redirects, without the slightest bit of prior discussion, citing WP:FICT as his basis for this, despite the fact it is still under discussion--Jac16888 (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have to say that's pretty egregious. Just a note for an admin with actual experience. I'm inclined to simply block them to stop this disruption. --Haemo (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As requested. The arbcom case this is related to is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, and User:Eusebeus is the only party involved, since attempts to discuss it with him have resulted in blunt, somewhat rude responses which basically equate to "I'm doing this and you can't stop me"--Jac16888 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs would make this much easier to investigate. It is not clear that there is a remedy in this case which is enforcable, and if there is no enforcable remedy then diffs won't matter for arbitration enforcement. They may, however, lead an administrator to act based on those diffs in and of themselves, without it being arbitration enforcement. GRBerry 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, heres a few, but it should be noted that so far Eusebeus has redirected around a hundred pages, episodes of Scrubs so far. [41],[42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. He has also begun edit-warring with User:Rebecca, reverting her undoing of some of his redirects, [50], [51]. In addition, he has redirected all .hack characters (admittedly not something i am familiar with) based on one persons suggestion of doing so, [52], [53], [54], [55], and has since been reverted by User:Ned Scott, and has also begun redirecting House (TV series) characters, [56].--Jac16888 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about how you approach the situation. I didn't directly revert Eusebeus for the .hack characters, because I also added merge tags and I told him that they should still be merged, but we needed to plan it out (the merge target had basically no content at all, and there were multiple games/shows/etc that might be better organized on more than one list). Part of the problem is that it's easy to see these situations as all-or-nothing, even if there are other options. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scrubs episode articles have been discussed for consisting of nothing but plot since November 2007, and the only way to rectify this per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT is to expand or merge/redirect. The expand didn't happen (it's not even clear that this is possible at all), so it's the latter now. Eusebeus resumed merge discussions after the arbcom case closed (middle of March) and is only taking actions now. Based on that, it would be hard to interpret his actions as wrong. It's been almost five months after all. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be other issues here as well: backhanded apology to White Cat, insulting another user, and this use of obscenity in edit summary. Now as for the "discussion" on scrubs articles, I'm not sure these are helpful: he says "We are part of the Imperial Cabal of Evil Deletionists, and the campaign to ruin Wikipedia is simply a first step toward the larger goal of Total World Domination," accuses others of "bitching", and he says "That is not to say that I am not evil AND ruining wikipedia for everybody." Consider also his post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean, when everyone is arguing to keep, including those who initially nominated and argued to delete, he tosses in a delete in which he mocks me. On my talk page he outright says, "I am not a keen contirbutor of content, having only rarely done so. I prefer the ruining it for everyone part" and let's not forget that during the ArbCom he declared his intention to proxy on TTN's behalf. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you're told g*d-knows-how-often that your evil deletionism will eternally ruin wikipedia (although your edits are totally in line with policy and guidelines), one way is to just "admit" it before the others can get to you, in order to demonstrate how silly these accusations would sound. And Eusebeus is simply "admitting" it. I share Eusebeus' odd sense of humor in real life (i.e. off-wiki), but I know that sarcasm may not translate well in the series of tubes. Which seems to be happening here. I don't expect anyone to ignore or excuse Eusebeus' "humor", but I still see no truth in Jac's initial claims (except citing FICT - Eusebeus should have cited NOTE and EPISODE to get the same results). Anything else is just muddying the water in a situation that has been testy for everyone in the last few months. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is enough disagreement that many would argue his edits are not in line with policy and guidelines as interpreted and understand by multiple good faith editors. What frustrates me is that I have made at least two (see here and here) attempts to be friendly with him in the hopes that even if we disagree we'd at least have had some pleasant and constructive interactions that would make any future disagreements more civil. I have not really been extended the same courtesy or generosity. Moreover, what bothers me is that generally speaking anyone who leaves some kind of anti-inclusionist missive on my talk page actually argues to keep articles far less frequently (if at all) than I argue to delete articles, as I did in these discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt harp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdenominational Church of Huberianism (Apostolic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jieming Unit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular coffee for a regular guy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2, etc. Finally, per the ArbCom case's evidence page (see here and here), it is apparent that the case was not just about TTN. Consider as well this proposed rememdy that SEVEN editors (Casliber, Edison, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, Maniwar, Pixelface, Tim Q. Wells, Ursasapien, and Yukichigai) supported and only three opposed (other than Black Kite and Ned Scott, the third one of the opposed was ban evading sock User:Jack Merridew, so really only two legitimate opposes). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this thread about Eusebeus and his edits to the Scrubs episode articles (and by extention to the .hack character articles), or isn't it? If it is, he did no such thing as what Jac claims (E. did discuss Scrubs for many many months, and since no-one else fixed the articles to be in line with policy, he did; .hack did not result in anything but a friendly disagreement without any edit-warring so far). If it's not about Scrubs and .hack, I could list all the extremely positive encounters I had with Eusebeus, and no-one would be any smarter. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone notified Eusebeus about this discussion? I don't see anything on this talk page, so I'll leave him a note there as well. -- Ned Scott 19:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jac16888, what part of Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page do you not understand exactly? I don't mind that you want to bring enforcement down on me since, it's true, I'm not a keen contributor of content, having only rarely done so. I prefer the ruining it for everyone part. But there's some pretty basic etiquette here; failure to notify is reprehensible, devious, shameful and cowardly. I don't feel I need to defend any of my edits. I was WP:BOLD and redirected a bunch of miserable .hack articles. These were reverted by Ned who said he would fix them and sobeit. Otherwise we'll take them to AfD. But where, exactly, is the edit warring in the face of disagreement over my .hack edits? Scrubs is a self-evidently justified merge. And if you wish to add further consideration, I will soon be merging some House characters as well per the ongoing discussion at the talk page there. Pumpkin, what can I say ? Stop being so churlish. Eusebeus (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise Eusebeus, i did intend to inform you, but got dragged away by the real world before doing so, and then forgot. Believe me or not, its the truth. Do you really think that comments like the above really help? You have your opinion i have mine, character assassination achieves nothing. As for not edit warring, what do you call this [57]? And bold doesn't apply if there have already been several discussions about such edits. Nothing in your comment above even slightly defends your edits, rather it is just an unjustified attack on myself. And by the way, i have already raised the issue of House--Jac16888 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually made a good faith effort to improve an article you created as a peace offering and you replied with this and this. So, you removed the sources I added, but did NOT add the sources you cite in your edit summary (the article currently has NO sources). Now imagine if the article was on some popular culture item or was a list; under the same circumstances you could AfD this relatively new article with "unreferenced" claims. So, if anything is frustrating it is when one attempts to find somewhere in which we might get along and even that is rebuffed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll accept your explanation. But you are trying to get me blocked - blocked note - based on discrediting my contributions and my record, mischaracterising my actions, and inflating a set of edits that share clearly evident internal consistency and integrity into some kind of wanton spree of vandalism. Oh, and you don't bother to notify me you've done this. So, perhaps you will accept that I don't look too favourably upon the matter. Hint: if you don't have time to provide the notifications, don't file the complaint until you can do it properly. That's just good manners son. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to be patronizing or is it just how you normally talk? And i don't see how you can talk about good manners considering some of your recent comments, as Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles has demonstrated. Staggering though it may sound, i am not trying to get you blocked, i really have no desire to see any non-vandal blocked, i simply started this discussion because i saw your redirects taking place without discussion, and in my opinion(which, by the way, i am entitled too), thought they were out of line, and thus was dragged back into arguments like these which i have been avoiding for months. I have not "mischaracterising your actions" i stated what you had done and gave proof, i leave it up to the community to decide who is right, and will gladly accept whatever decision comes out of this, whether it is in support of your edits or not. Can you say the same thing? --Jac16888 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, Jac, take note since instead of contrition for your wanton breach of conduct, you offer a passive-aggressive defense of your caricature of my actions. Based on your own feelings, based not on Wikipedia praxis or policy, you are unhappy that I merged Scrubs material which does not satisfy our standards at WP:FICT - which in recent review has reconfirmed with additional forcefulness our injunction against standalone articles as vehicles for plot summaries; moreover, WT:FICT is a discussion to which you cannot apparently be bothered to contribute, although you have plenty of time to report me to AE, although not enough time to notify me. But I harp.

I discussed this merge at some length and explained, with specific reference to our policy pages and ongoing discussions why this merge was justified by consensus practices. I - note, I - was then reverted without explanation by several editors who didn't bother to discuss the matter with me, but simply undid my efforts with a "no consensus" explanation. I have notified editors Catchpole and Rebecca that their dismissive revert, absent discussion, despite the heretofore referenced discussion which I had initiated and the actions which I had substantiated, was unacceptable. Both are cognisant of, but indifferent to, the consensus practices to which I had repeatedly made reference and to which they had the opportunity to contribute but simply - like you - could not be bothered. And yet you have time to bring me to AE. But don't have time to inform me. But I harp.

Apparently you don't have enough time to read the Arbcom ruling either. This is not a victory for one side or another, despite the apparent widespread conviction that it sanctioned content deemed otherwise unacceptable per WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. That is not true. The arbcom case:

Was explicitly about TTN's actions, not mine; and
Enjoined editors from abusive editing practices and edit-warring.

No good faith evaluation of my efforts or my edits, combined with my extensive contribution history of improving and adding content to Wikipedia, including the kind of shit translation work that few editors bother to do, could be interpreted as constituting a breach of that ruling, at least not without first bringing your concerns to me so I could politely and reasonably provide you context for the actions undertaken with which you disagree. In case you hadn't noticed, my sobriquet is Eusebeus not TTN. But then, if you hadn't time to notify me of this attempt to smear my editing record, why should I expect you to have the time to read the arbcom case you were referencing. Or even time to notify ... But I harp.

Listen, I understand you are unhappy that Wikipedia is not a fansite and I wish you had chosen to talk to me civilly about this instead of needlessly wasting up the time of arbcom and imputing my good faith and my intent. I have contributed to the discussions and debates that provide the context for my actions and i reject your appeal that permits you to engage in this drive-by without being called to task for it. Your Who-Me? shucksterism in comments like i stated what you had done and gave proof, i leave it up to the community to decide who is right doesn't wash. You should at least show contrition for the way you have proceeded in violation of the good faith principles, consensus practices and guideline and policy discussions that serve to keep this project vaguely glued together. Not whine about my supposedly supercilious attitude.

As for the diffs provided by Pumpkin they are hardly germane. The "obscenity" he refers is used to describe an article that I myself authored - go read the article if you like and try to watch more George Carlin. The ruining it for everyone is a joke; but I urge you to read the diff that Pumpkin provides in that instance because I think it offers an excellent summary of that editor's disruptive and pointy practices. But this is irrelevant to the larger problem posed by your conduct here, as I see it. Eusebeus (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think all everyone is asking is for you to stop editing in a disruptive and pointy fashion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebeus continues to display TTN-type behaviour by edit-warring over redirects and ignoring talk page discussion that disagrees with him. See [58] and Talk:House (TV series). Catchpole (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Eusebeus seems to be repeating the disruptive behaviour of TTN. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Firstly, As i have already said, i am not attacking you, despite what you think ([59]) if you actually read my opening comments you will see that they are in fact a pure statement of fact, although if anyone else feels i am attacking Eusebeus please tell me so, its seems very much the other way around to me, nor am i doing this because of any particular bias i may have, i tried to distance myself from these discussions long ago and only came back because i do see your edits as violating the arbcom case i.e. the bit about " stopping abusive editing practices and edit-warring". While you may not be violating the letter of this ruling, i believe (yet again my opinion) that you are violating the spirit, especially since you appear to be proxying for TTN. I do not need to be reminded what wikipedia is not, i spend a fair amount of time keeping the scrubs articles free of too much cruft, even though admittedly work does need doing, that is not a reason for redirecting them. I believe you yourself need to be reminded what wikipedia is not, that is ,it is not a battleground. Need i remind you that i did attempt to discuss your edits (civily, as i always do),[60], and your response was more of an attack on my motivations than an attempt at peaceful discussion,[61].As for your claim that you discussed these reverts, the discussion you linked to took place quite a while ago, and there was no consensus to merge. In no way have i violated good faith principles, just as i feel that you haven't, i'm aware that you are acting in good faith, that doesn't stop me from disagreeing, i was well within my rights to begin this discussion, and a as wikipedian you should accept the possiblity that you maybe subject to such discussions about your conduct, rfc/u's, rfcu's, 3rr reports etc.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TTN and notability tagging?

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User warned ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen TTN (after Ep & Char 2) tagging articles for lack of notability (see, eg here) Now, I'm not trying to call him out on this or get any enforcement going, but I see people a bit upset at these edits and thus seek clarification to make sure that he's not stepping on the toes of this.

The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

Now

The articles in question are only video game articles. Note that during the injunction of the case, any character related article, not just television, were granted protection from deletion. "To be interpreted broadly" could imply any fictional character, not just television related.
Notability tagging is not necessarily the same as a "request" for merge/redirect/deletion, but again "broadly" could be interpreted as such.

Everything else he's done (only within the last week sicne the case was closed) seems reasonable (trimming character lists but not deleting or merging or redirecting anything). Again, I only seek clarification if the broad interpretation of the ArbCom relates to the notability tagging activities, and if TTN should be warned that he's getting close. If he's not close to any issue raised by Arbcom, then end of discussion. --MASEM 14:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that TTN is getting close, as the wording was broad enough to include behavior such as this numerous tagging of articles. A warning may be suitable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[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]