Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:01, 24 August 2011

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Shortcuts

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

RolandR

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning RolandR

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: —Biosketch (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— (edit conflict merge) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

Requests by Jaakobou (merged case):

Ban on twinkle privileges
Temporary ban from Israel related topics (widely construed)

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

30 July 2011 – POV-pushing: editor reverts reliably-sourced information added to an article and describes the reverted edit as vandalism
4 August 2011 – POV-pushing: editor attributes to Wikipedia's voice a claim made or implied by a fringe website

Additional diffs merged from case request by Jaakobou:

12:23, 30 July 2011 claims, "editor has repeatedly added an unsourced allegation of a conviction for a sexual offence to this BLP. S/he relies on an article in Hebrew, which s/he apparently does not understand, but I do. The article does not make this allegation, nor any similar claim."
RolandR misrepresents 3 reliable sources as a single Hebrew source and claims the one Hebrew source (aka "an article") "does not make this allegation" of conviction of sexual offense.
11:22, 30 July 2011 reverts with twinkle, removing 3 reliable sources, stating:
1. Irish Times, "Ezra Yizhak Nawi, who was convicted of having sex with an underage Palestinian youth in 1992."[1]
2. Haaretz, Translation: "Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor" (Google auto-translate)[2]
3. Israeli court: State of Israel vs. Nawi Ezra, Translation: "He was convicted in the past in violations of sodomy of a minor and making threats..." (Google auto-translate) page 2, section 4
11:51, 30 July 2011 reverts again, "[Haaretz] does not make this claim"
12:00, 30 July 2011 reverts "vandalism" with twinkle, removing the 3 sources yet again.
12:24, 30 July 2011 reverts "vandalism" with twinkle again - self-reverts

p.s. I used Google only to show that my own translation (native Israeli) was correct.

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

Blocked on 7 April by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)
Blocked on 1 June by Courcelles (talk · contribs)

(Is it necessary to copy-paste the diffs to all the other blocks at his Block log?)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Firstly it should be noted that I tried to engage RolandR (talk · contribs) on his Talk page prior to coming here in the friendliest and most nonthreatening way possible. I was more than willing to assume good faith on his part and offer him the chance to explain his edits. But hardly did 15 minutes pass and he reverted my query, basically leaving me with no other alternative but coming to AE.

Now, I'm not a believer in drawing conclusions regarding an editor based on a superficial glance at his contribs; on the other hand, I'm also not about to spend hours going through User:RolandR's edits to cherry-pick the ones that support labeling him a Marxist anti-Zionist. I suspect, rather, that he himself will embrace that label as applying to him without considering it an affront to his identity. If not, though, I'm perfectly willing to strike out the suggestion and apologize to him if in the event that I've misjudged him.

To the matter of the diffs. In 1992 Ezra Nawi, an activist for various Palestinian causes, was convicted by an Israeli court of statutory rape of a Palestinian boy. It was in the news extensively then, and it's all over the news again now because of the presidential elections in Ireland. (See the New York Times, for example.) Yet there's no mention of Nawi's conviction anywhere in his article. No, it's not that no one ever tried to add that information to the article. On the contrary, many have. It's that RolandR has been repeatedly thwarting their attempts. In the diff that I've cited, RolandR reverts an exceedingly well-sourced addition to the article by another editor – and to make matters worse, he labels the other editor's contribution vandalism.

At anti-Zionism, RolandR reverted an edit by Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) such that he attributed to Wikipedia's neutral voice a claim made or implied by a fringe website. According to his edit, some Jews are anti-Zionist, from which it follows that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic. This is a problem because the website he references, jewsnotzionists.com, isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. What it is is an advocacy site for Jewish anti-Zionists.

Taken together, these diffs represent problematic behavior on RolandR's part, of projecting his personal values and beliefs onto the Project and disrupting sincerely constructive edits of other contributors. Again, I tried to seek clarification from RolandR regarding his behavior at his Talk page, but to no avail.—Biosketch (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes by Jaakobou
A self-professed anti-Zionist with a prominent history of enriching the project with anti-Israeli advocacy content and adornment of editors (and activists like Ezra Nawi) with a similar perspective (~~two~~ samples: [3], ~~[4]~~, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), RolandR has managed to lose the ability to read Hebrew properly on Ezra Nawi, edit war and repeatedly remove 3 wiki-reliable sources, and led an admin, trusting an overdrawn claim of one a Hebrew related claim, into repeating the same action.[10] I believe RolandR can contribute to the project properly if he keeps his political beliefs and idols out of his arguments (and stops removing well cited content, 3 wiki-reliable sources in this case, as "vandalism" using twinkle).

p.s. I apologize for the merger, but this is the best solution IMHO after seeing another case was put forth while I was finishing up mine. With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC) touch-ups 21:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.p.s. I've just noticed a few comments were made by an editor with whom I share an interaction ban. This would not have been an issue had I posted a case without merger, I am not sure on the best way of handling the issue (repost as a single case? ignoring each other on this post? other?). Let me know. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC) - extra update/clarification+diffs 14:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston,

Can you please direct me to a diff where RolandR has stated, prior to your revert (i.e. 13:20, 30 July 2011), that the issue is a "poorly-sourced sex charges and possible overstatement of the gravity of the offences."? All I could find is a patently false claim, made on 12:23, 30 July 2011 (and prior to that as well), regarding the Hebrew text of the Haaretz article. i.e. referring it as the only source and that it, supposedly, "does not make [a conviction for a sexual offence] allegation, nor any similar claim." when Haaretz, as well as the other 2 sources (3 reliable sources) say he was convicted of "sodomy of/having sex with a minor/Palestinian youth". The details of the conviction are important for balance, sure, but they are irrelevant to RolandR's argument for reverting and of nudging you to revert as well on his behalf. It wasn't the Ezra Nawi debate which raised the red flag, but a straightforward misrepresentation of sources.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia is a collaborative project. RolandR's claims and repeated reverts were certainly enough to discourage any new editor -- seeing that 3 reliable sources are so easily misrepresented and removed again and again -- from making further contributions. Also, RolandR had not admitted to any fault in regards to Ezra Nawi (As of now). Just imagine the long term impact of his behavior if it is allowed to become a norm in the Israeli-Arab content area. New editors discouraged from making contributions and the old POV warriors would make an abundance of patently false claims about Hebrew and Arabic sources. Arbcom enforcement would be faced with extraordinary levels of battleground mentality, mud slinging and drama. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I really wish you had just answered my last message here. I was more than willing to listen and consider your perspective. But seeing as you aren't interested in dialog, I've referred your conduct to AE here.

Replies by Biosketch to editor comments

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), you mean to tell me that Hummus is I/P but trying to censor details pertaining to an Israeli who raped a Palestinian boy isn't? And I didn't mine through anyone's contribs. I used to closely monitor Anti-Zionism and it's still on my watchlist, and the incident involving Ezra Nawi is being featured prominently in the news now, and I naturally was interested in knowing what Wikipedia had to say about the guy. I found it peculiar that the editor who insisted on attributing to Wikipedia a claim made by jewsnotzionists.com was the same editor who insisted on whitewashing the biography of an Israeli activist for Palestinian causes convicted of statutory-raping a minor.—Biosketch (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR (talk · contribs), "vexatious abuse of this noticeboard"? Next time someone asks you for clarification on your Talk page, maybe you oughtn't ignore and delete their message after fifteen minutes. You made it clear to me you had no intention of discussing the diffs I called your attention to. What exactly did you expect me to do?—Biosketch (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), it's neither here nor there what my feelings are about Jewish anti-Zionists. The point is one cannot claim that there are Jewish anti-Zionists using Wikipedia's voice in reference to an advocacy website that is itself anti-Zionist. The claim must be sourced to a WP:RS or formulated in such a way as to attribute the claim to the organization itself. You have insisted on the same standard of scholarship in your debates with other editors, so you shouldn't be applying a different standard in this case. With regards to Hummus, if it's being edit-warred over because of editors' political affiliations, yes, it should be subject to the same discretionary sanctions as more obviously I/P articles.—Biosketch (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaakobou (talk · contribs), I don't mind at all that you merged your Request into mine. I would advise you, however, to strike out forthwith any comments you made that may have been in violation of your interaction ban. Based on previous AEs, if you do so soon enough you'll preempt any sanctions against you.

@Everyone, apparently it needs to be stressed again: I didn't file this AE on a whim. It could be considered frivolous if I was sitting around my house reading Wikipedia articles, found a couple that weren't to my liking, and then came here to whine about it to the Admins. That seems to be the impression some users have formed below. But no. Ezra Nawi is being featured prominently in the news now for something that was being (per my argument deliberately) omitted from his BLP by RolandR. At the same time, RolandR was attributing a controversial claim to Wikipedia's voice that was sourced to a fringe anti-Zionist website. Upon observing his problematic edits on those two occasions, I tried to engage RolandR on his Talk page and solicit an explanation from him directly. He demonstrated that he had no intention at all of explaining his edits, and that was when I came here. If someone has an idea as to how I could have handled the matter differently than I did, do share it with me.

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), you're conveniently overlooking another aspect of RolandR's edit at Anti-Zionism. The way that sentence was formulated, beginning with the contrasting adverb yet, it conveyed to the reader that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic. This is a more subtle but also a more problematic aspect pertaining to that diff, which either you aren't picking up on or you're trying to sidestep now. So let me make it clearer: RolandR inserted the sentence, "Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists," immediately after the sentence, "Others contend that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence, it is inherently antisemitic." RolandR usurped Wikipedia's voice to make two claims: (a) there are Jewish anti-Zionists, and (b) the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists undermines the claim that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. I don't know about all the other editors here but I do think you're prehensile enough to understand how that's WP:OR and, in RolandR's case since he's a Marxist anti-Zionist, an instance of him pushing his POV onto Wikipedia's voice.—Biosketch (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), you're wrong for two reasons. 1. This incident transcends the scope of a content dispute and has clear implications regarding user conduct in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. It was the nature of the edits that triggered my alarm and the fact that, when considered together, they pointed to a bias on the editor's part in violation of NPOV. 2. You think I care that RolandR (talk · contribs) is a Marxist anti-Zionist? I don't – just as no one here should care what I did in my life between the ages of 18 and 21. But it also shouldn't be obvious to me from examining two of his edits that that's what he is. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." At Ezra Nawi User:RolandR did not represent proportionately all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. He repeatedly removed significant views that had been published by reliable sources under pretexts of vandalism. At Anti-Zionism RolandR again did not represent fairly all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. He used an unreliable source to represent his own view – that the purported existence of Jewish anti-Zionists is a counterargument to saying that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. Clearer now?—Biosketch (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston (talk · contribs), "Should this use be considered to violate WP:ARBPIA?" – see Discussion page, since this is more of a meta-level question and the discussion here's gotten bloated.—Biosketch (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), I'm aware of his comment, though I'm not sure I completely get his drift. At any rate, my response to you addresses his concerns as well.—Biosketch (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning RolandR

Statement by RolandR

PLEASE NOTE that I shall be going away tomorrow morning (UK time), and likely to have only sporadic internet access for the next two weeks. I therefore request that, unless this case is closed tonight, any decision is postponed until the end of the month. I should also point out that any sanctions over the next two weeks are likely to be purely symbolic rather than effective. RolandR (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous; an entirely spurious and worthless claim.

In the first place, it is not an offence to be a Marxist and an anti-Zionist; nor even to edit Wikipedia while being a Marxist and an anti-Zionist. That comment should be struck out. Not because I am "affronted", but because it is irrelevant, an apparent attempt to have me sanctioned because of my beliefs, not my edits.

Second, both blocks noted by Biosketch were swiftly reversed; in both cases, it was accepted that I had been attempting to protect biographies (one of a living person, one of a recently murdered person) against abusive edits by sockpuppets.

As to the specific edits adduced here: on the Ezra Nawi article, Biosketch claims that my edit on 30 July was invalid, and that I should have known this because of an article published in the New York Times on 3 August! It is not the case that the case itself was "in the news extensively" in 1992; part of the problem here is that there appears to be no contemporary account, in Hebrew or English, of the incident, and it has been extremely difficult to establish the facts. Certainly, at the time of my edit, the information was sketchy, and the source cited did not verify the serious charges made. My edit was perfectly legitimate.

On Anti-Zionism, I was reverting a removal of text, which had been justified with the edit summary "a) unreliable source b) infers jews cannot be antisemitic. that is a fallacy". I pointed out that any inference drawn from the text was the editor's own synthesis, and that the source was indeed reliable for the organisation's own views. Biosketch may strongly dispute these views, as is his right; but he cannot deny that many Jews do indeed hold them. Again, I do not see any way in which my edit was illegitimate or disruptive.

I think that this complaint is entirely without merit, and hope that it will be rejected out of hand, and Biosketch warned against such vexatious abuse of this noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Wikifan thinks that I wasn't "involved in" Anti-Zionism. Toolserver shows that I am the fifth most frequent contributor, with 78 edits over the past five years. None of the first four has edited the article in the past year, making me in effect the most prolific currently active contributor.

Nor do I see the problem with my edit. Wikifan removed as poorly sourced material which, as others have noted here, barely needs a source. I replaced this, and he has since reverted me. I intend to replace this later, with other sources. But really, is this AE based on the claim that I have replaced a source removed by another editor as "fringe"?

Regarding the Ezra Nawi article, I repeat that the Haaretz article relied on does not confirm the facts it was adduced to prove. It does not mention a Palestinian youth, it does not state that Nawi has been sent to prison at all, let alone twice, and it does not mention any dates, including 1992, 1997 and 2006. I still maintain that, under the circumstances, using this article as evidence for alleged facts it did not confirm was a breach of BLP. The edits which I made reverting what I described as vandalism were accompanied by warnings to the editor involved for breach of the policies on edit-warring and biographies of living people.[11][12] This was a legitimate use of Twinkle, in support of maintaining core Wikipedia policies. RolandR (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both Haaretz and the Israeli court source only mention the conviction but do not mention the sodomized youth was a Palestinian. That politically incorrect detail is located in the Irish Times. IMHO, There is a limit to the BLP argument when the basis for that claim was that the Hebrew doesn't say he was convicted when it does. Btw, the court source edit-warred over says Nawi was in prison twice (page 7, section 16). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan now writes "I never suggested you were not involved in Anti-Zionism. I said, specifically, you were not involved in the talk discussion". Just to jog his memory, what he actually wrote was "What is odd is that Roland wasn't even involved in the article at the time. It just feels weird to know he is following me around." That looks to me like specifically saying that I wasn't involved in the article. And I'm not "following him around"; as one of the main editors on the article, of course I have it on my Watchlist. RolandR (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? That was a reference to this AE you filed against me pertaining to West Bank Barrier, an article you had no presence in. Nothing to do with Anti-Zionism-related edits. For the record, this was the source Roland inserted into the article. I'm pretty certain that is unreliable, though I haven't searched the RSN threads. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Regarding RolandR's paragraph starting with, "As to the specific edits adduced here: on the Ezra Nawi article" above. At the time of 11:22, 30 July 2011 and of subsequent reverts, the 3 sources (Irish Times, Haaretz, Israeli Court Judge) did verify the serious charges made. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC) +clarify 20:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning RolandR

The first diff cited is not in the ARBPIA topic area, the second is using a primary source for the views of the source (namely that the group is Jewish and against Zionism). There is an unfortunate tendency on display here, one in which an editor mines though others contributions so that they may attempt to find any diff that they feel can be used as damning evidence of misconduct. Fortunately, those efforts largely fall flat on their face as any truly damning diffs would be noticed as they occurred. This is one such instance. Biosketch in his lengthy commentary above writes that the source Roland used in the second diff is an advocacy site for Jewish anti-Zionists. Now, that pretty obviously says that there are Jewish anti-Zionists. Which is the only thing that Roland used this website as a source for. To argue that this is "POV-pushing" is, well, POV-pusing (namely, the attempt to exclude a specific POV).

Now to the first diff. The first sentence is sourced (though the use of the word sodomy is not, the cited article says convicted of having sex without specifying the type of sex), though the rest is cited only to Hebrew language sources, one of which is the actual court case. The court case cannot be used in a BLP, as we are required to use reliable secondary sources for any contentious claims (and a claim of a criminal conviction is certainly contentious). As this is a BLP, I personally would prefer the source cited be in English so that it is more easily verifiable, but if it actually does support the material then I suppose it would be fine, but as I cannot read Hebrew I cannot say whether or not it does so. But either way, whether or not this person was convicted of drug possession or any other crime is not in the ARBPIA topic area and as such is irrelevant for this board. nableezy - 20:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biosketch, do you really, honestly, dispute that some Jews are anti-Zionist? That is the only thing that Roland sourced to this website. It is something that cannot possibly be under any dispute, to the point that it honestly should not even need a source. Hummus should not be in the topic area either, but because some of the editors here are, well Ill leave that word untyped, that there has been long-term edit warring over what categories belong, or what languages belong, or other such trivial nonsense. But no, whether or not this person was convicted of rape or drug possession or any other crime is not in the Arab-Israeli topic area. In short, I agree with the volunteer below. nableezy - 20:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biosketch, I cant disagree with the premise that sources should be of a certain quality, and further I say that in this topic area in particular sources should be held to a higher standard than we see in the rest of Wikipedia. Perhaps Roland would have been better off just citing any other higher quality source instead of the primary source he used. My point is that the line does not even need a source, it cannot be disputed by somebody acting in good faith, and to that point you yourself appear unwilling to dispute the statement above, choosing to instead side-step past the query. To use the restoration of that sentence as evidence of "POV-pushing" and disregarding the removal of a clearly relevant and undeniably true statement is itself evidence of "POV-pushing". And honestly, if you had a problem with the use of that source, the place to go would be the article talk page. Not here. nableezy - 06:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not overlooking anything, conveniently or otherwise. What I am seeing is that an editor is manufacturing a conduct issue out of a content dispute. That Roland used a source you dont like is not an issue for this noticeboard. You claim that his removal of your comment on his talk page left you no choice but to come here, but that is so obviously not true that I struggle to find a suitable way to describe the claim. You could have gone to the article talk page, the reliable sources noticeboard, or the OR noticeboard (as he was citing a primary source). In fact, you should have gone to each of those places before you went to his user talk page, much less before you came here. Roland is under no obligation to discuss anything with you on his user talk page. He is however required to address concerns on an article talk page, and respect consensus. If you were interested in anything other than getting somebody whose Marxist anti-Zionist views you apparently find so objectionable blocked you would have gone there instead of here. nableezy - 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biosketch, you are attributing arguments to Roland that he did not make, kindly dont do that. See ZScarpia's comments on why your view is more a product of your imagination than fact. nableezy - 14:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Volunteer Marek

With regard to the first diff - there was actually several other reverts on this article as this was essentially an edit war between RolandR and User:Cckkab. However, this IS a BLP and the text being inserted by Cckkab was a potential BLP violation. In fact EdJohnston subsequently protected the article [13] and removed the same text that RolandR was removing [14]. This was also addressed at 3RR. This suggests that content-wise RolandR was NOT POV-pushing.

The second diff is a single revert, and while strictly speaking RolandR should have attributed the opinion to the source just to make sure, this is at bottom another content dispute. Nothing to see here.

This appears to be yet another essentially frivolous AE request related to the IP area. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure everyone's on the same page: reverting others, by itself, IS NOT against any kind of Wikipedia policy or ArbCom decision. In fact, in many cases reverts can be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Hence, putting up diffs of a revert here or there by a particular editor really serves no purpose, except as "diff-padding".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wikifan12345

I guess I should weigh in cause my name is mentioned. The only complaint I have about RolandR is his occasional uncivilized demeanor. Like Bio mentioned above, Roland accuses me of inserting my own synthesis when I removed an unreliable source. I opened a discussion here which I know RolandR has seen but apparently hasn't responded to. Also, Roland recently opened up an AE against me over a 1RR violation demanding a topic ban. That generated a lot of drama and ended up with a warning.

What is odd is that Roland wasn't even involved in the article at the time. It just feels weird to know he is following me around. Also, I know editors have more rights over their talk page but I found this response totally unnecessary: Removing unwanted nonsense. A cordial reminder about how AE's are carried out in a notice he filed himself? Wikipedia is all about collaboration and honestly I'm kind of afraid to edit articles articles RolandR dominates - like anti-Zionism because he won't engage in talk discussion and will remove all my contributions.

However, I don't see how this violates ARBPIA. I have to go with Marek here. Editors rely too much on AE to resolve content disputes. Dismiss and warn Bio. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Roland

I don't understand why Wikifan thinks that I wasn't "involved in" Anti-Zionism. Toolserver shows that I am the fifth most frequent contributor, with 78 edits over the past five years. None of the first four has edited the article in the past year, making me in effect the most prolific currently active contributor.

I never suggested you were not involved in Anti-Zionism. I said, specifically, you were not involved in the talk discussion. Your revert was IMO baseless and without merit. You re-inserted a very unreliable source, then accused me of SYNTH? Seriously? Look at my revert, look at the discussion. Collaborate, communicate, etc. Wikifan^{Be nice} 14:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible 1 rr violation

I've come to understand how important 1rr is in I/P conflict. So is this a violation?

2 reverts in 7 hours. The first edit looks like Roland removed cited content. A few days ago Roland filed a 1rr violation against me calling for a topic ban just to be clear. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this is a violation of 1RR. But, to prevent any possible breach, I have self-reverted my second edit, and restored the highly POV content, with which I personally agree but which is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also, note that the restriction states: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty". The second edit was a reversion of an edit by an anonymous IP, so in any case exempt from the sanctions. RolandR (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

Another frivolous case initiated by Jaakobou - and unfortunately by Biosketch, who is rapidly establishing a similar pattern. Whether or not one agrees with RolandR's reversions in this instance, they were clearly within the remit of WP:BLP, and EdJohnston, an uninvolved admin, effectively endorsed Roland's cautionary approach when he made the same revert "per BLP" before protecting the page. Moreover, the issue appears to be reaching a resolution on the article talk page, so there was absolutely no need to initiate a case here. Gatoclass (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass,

EdJohnston acted in good faith and trusted RolandR's claim that there is only one Hebrew source (per "an article") rather than 3 and that the Hebrew did not say "Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor" when it does say this. RolandR misled EdJohnston into making that revert.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. please avoid making personal attacks (per "another frivolous"). See also poor form. 11:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack - nonsense. AE exists expressly to discuss the behaviour of editors, you have been warned about presenting meritless cases on many occasions previously as I recall, indeed only a few months ago you received a formal warning from Sandstein for the very same. Personally I think it's well past time you were sanctioned for this sort of conduct, but I haven't the time or inclination to compile the history, so I suppose you will get away with it yet again. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gatoclass,

Do you have any diff made by RolandR which explains why he would misrepresent Haaretz (aka "an article") and state "does not make this allegation" of conviction of sexual offense when it clearly says: "Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor"? Can you find an explanation by him during the time of his multiple reverts which explains why he claimed: "sources cited do not confirm this claim"[15] when the 3 sources do, in fact, confirm the material in the paragraph?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cptnono

Disregarding ARBPIA completely, a discussion might be appropriate regarding the suspension of Twinkle privileges. Not sure if that should be somewhere else but to make a few quick points: It should be more obvious vandalism and the edit summaries should have been clearer regarding feelings on BLP. The situation may not have have escalated if an editor was not being repeatedly called a vandal.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first request. The latter one I've made can be rescinded if there were to be made an acknowledgement of error. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was not clear. I wasn't trying to comment on the merit of the request or anything like that. Just trying to get the ball rolling here or somewhere else (not sure what the perfect venue is) on not letting the editor use an anti-vandalism tool since he used it in a content dispute.Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ZScarpia

(Comment 1)

My Projectionometer™ is registering a strong signal in the vicinity of the Additional notes by Jaakobou section. ← ZScarpia 13:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment 2)

Biosketch wrote:

So let me make it clearer: RolandR inserted the sentence, "Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists," immediately after the sentence, "Others contend that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence, it is inherently antisemitic." RolandR usurped Wikipedia's voice to make two claims: (a) there are Jewish anti-Zionists, and (b) the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists undermines the claim that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic.

Biosketch's logic is faulty. Roland made an existential statement about anti-Zionist Jews, but without indicating the implications of the statement or conclusions that should be drawn from it. There are many conflicting possibilties, but none of them positively implied by what was written. I think that Biosketch drew the inference he did because he saw what he wanted to see.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives many different meanings for the word yet, most of them having to do with time. In spite of appears to me to be the one closest to what Roland meant. Substituting the use of the word despite, then, the meaning of Roland's sentence is:

Despite the contention that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence it is inherently antisemitic, some Jews remain anti-Zionists.

Looking at that I can think of a different possible implications of that, but nothing definitely implied. For instance, it could be possible that: some Jews could be antisemitic themselves; some Jews could believe that Zionism is worse than antisemitism; some Jews may not believe that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. The reasoning which probably produced Biosketch's conviction that the inevitable implication of Roland's sentence is that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic is too deterministic for me. In fact, probably in common with a lot of editors here, the reading I've done has supplied reasons why there are anti-Zionist Jews, which include the following. Some Jews are anti-Zionist because it is an ideology which offends their political or ethical beliefs. Some are because it offends their religious beliefs (for instance, some believe that Jews should have waited for God to send someone to lead them back to the Promised Land). Some are because Zionism threatens their safety (in a past example, there was opposition to Zionism in its early days from Jews already living in the Palestine area because they believed that it would inevitably lead to inter-communal violence; Zionism was also opposed because it was thought that antisemites would use it as a propaganda weapon to claim that Jews' proper homes were somewhere else).

Biosketch called the statement that there are anti-Zionist Jews "a controversial claim" and one that "must be sourced to a WP:RS or formulated in such a way as to attribute the claim to the organization itself."

In its introduction, WP:RS says: "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything." The latter part of that sentence justifies the existence in Wikipedia articles of huge numbers of unsourced non-controversial statements. They are there because there truth is so obvious that nobody challenges them.

Looking, as an example, at the Zionism article, we hit the unsourced statement: At that time, the movement sought to encourage Jewish migration to the Ottoman Palestine. The statement is not there because editors are too lazy to challenge it, but because its truth is so obvious that nobody sane, who understood the rules, had a passing knowledge of Zionism and who wasn't trying to make trouble would challenge it. To me and, I'm fairly sure, a large number of other editors, Roland's sentence is obviously true too. I'm sure that many people involved in the IP area of Wikipedia could run off a list of bitterly fought over articles whose subjects are anti-Zionist Jews without having to give it much thought. Why would Biosketch challenge the sentence? One of the odd things about it for me is that one of his sentences here tends to indicate that he accepts the existence of anti-Zionist Jews. He wrote: "@Nableezy, it's neither here nor there what my feelings are about Jewish anti-Zionists." Another odd thing is that I'm sure that he must know that Roland, as well as being an anti-Zionist Marxist, is Jewish and therefore a living example of the thing whose existence he is challenging.

← ZScarpia 01:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC) (correction made: 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

(Comment 3)

@Biosketch, 08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC): I'll try to explain myself more clearly. As far as the Anti-Zionism article is concerned, you've misrepresented what the sentence prior to the one added by Roland said. You've misrepresented the purport of Roland's sentence. And you've invented a motivation for Roland. In other words, you've constructed a rather nasty straw man. Having invented your straw man, you're using it to try and have Roland sanctioned and to stop the addition of Roland's simple statement of transparent truth to the article. If anyone is POV-pushing, it is you. ← ZScarpia 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nishidani

Roland's revert, the first above, was completely justified because what was involved was a piece of linguistic sleight-of-hand. The source says he was convicted of sodomy. This was phrased as a conviction for sodomizing a minor. Perhaps it is a sign of the decay of the times, or is it the drift into pornomorbid sleaze in public discourse and tabloid politics, that the obvious distinction here is lost on many. 'Sodomy' is generic, and refers to acts deemed characteristic of homosexual behaviour and in violation of the law forbidding the same in certain backward (sorry about the pun) countries (sorry about that too). 'Sodomize' is specific, and refers to anal intercourse. Do I need to refer readers to the extensive memoirs of the Bloomsbury and Homintern writers where this distinction was well-known, and where many homosexuals a court might have convicted of 'sodomy' in the legal sense (homosexual acts) disdained anal intercourse. I don't want to go into the details, but no one has a right to infer that a conviction of sodomy implies a type of act. Many of the lads in England thought intercrural rapports were the best, and that, while a case in legalese of 'sodomy', has nothing to do with sodomizing. Precisely this inference on the part of those editors who supported the text which Roland rightly reverted was an instance of WP:OR and WP:BLP violations. Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly raised an interesting linguistic concern regarding the use of 'sodomising'[sic], but I don't see that this is what RolandR meant when he deleted the entire paragraph. If he clarified this somewhere, I would appreciate a diff.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning RolandR

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

I prefer that this report be closed by a different admin, since I previously took action myself to fully protect the Ezra Nawi article per a complaint at WP:AN3, due to edit warring about poorly-sourced sex charges and possible overstatement of the gravity of the offences. I rolled back the article to an earlier version per WP:BLP, waiting for a proper summary of the sex charges to be arrived at by consensus on the talk page. Should Nawi be described as a pedophile or a rapist? Should his article be placed in the Category:Child sexual abuse? Some caution about this is required under WP:BLP.
The history of admin action is explained at Talk:Ezra_Nawi#Unprotected. Edit requests were filed during the period of protection and some of them were acted on by other admins. Since protection was lifted, the referencing of the article has improved quite a bit. The New York Times made a good summary themselves on August 3 due to events that occurred in Ireland since the original article protection was imposed.
On the question of whether anti-Zionist Jews exist, I hope that some other admins (or uninvolved editors) will look into whether there is anything of substance. So far I don't see anything, and I don't at this time see any good reason why the report can't be closed with no action. One of the two diffs included by Biosketch in his original report as (in his view) a violation of ARBPIA is this one, where RolandR links to jewsnotzionists.org as a source for their own beliefs. (Technically, to verify the statement 'Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists'). Should this use be considered to violate WP:ARBPIA? Of course it is up to the consensus of editors whether it is important enough to remain in the article, but that's normal editorial process. The fact that Roland believed that a link to http://www.jewsnotzionists.org could be used to verify a statement in the article is not an issue to be brought to Arbitration Enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no other admins or uninvolved editors comment soon, I am planning to close this request with no action per my above comment. Valid concerns about BLP justified the RolandR edits, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: The reasoning in this complaint is very thin. An admin decision was taken to impose full article protection for BLP reasons at Ezra Nawi based on RolandR's complaint at AN3. The events in the article could be skewed to be described as pedophilia, so the BLP risk was serious. Should we then punish RolandR for his part in reverting what he thought to be BLP violations prior to the protection? Do some anti-Zionist Jews exist? Must we have unimpeachable sources before this can be asserted? Is the world round? The only admin who commented is Gatoclass, though he usually does not post in the 'Result' section on I/P cases. He states "there was absolutely no need to initiate a case here." No other admins have commented in 13 days and no other editors who identify as uninvolved, so the report is closed with no action against RolandR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre

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

Request concerning Miradre

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mathsci (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Topic ban under WP:ARBR&I.

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

[16] (historic record of discussion on Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): A warning was given in the discussion above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Miradre has been editing the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology for a while now. The subject is not directly related to the topic ban, but there is nevertheless some proximity with topics covered in Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy. The article currently contains a section Reification fallacy (historic link) which in its first paragraph discusses in detail the reification of intelligence, a topic introduced by Stephen Jay Gould in the precise context of the debate on R&I in the two articles above (it is discussed in those articles). I have advised Miradre that even discussing that section, or proposing that he would move it and thus edit that content, is a clear violation of the topic ban imposed by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The responses of Miradre in the section linked to above were evasive and gave no recognition that this particular topic ("the reification of intelligence") lay well within the topic ban. The discussion took place on the talk page of the article because Miradre has previously blanked messages from me on their user talk page.

Another edit of this kind occurred in the section on "criticism" in Sociobiology, a week into the topic ban. The beginning of the section makes it clear that the criticisms were related to the debate on race and intelligenc: there is a wikilink to the article race and intelligence. This material, including its relation with sociobiology, is also covered in the article on the history of the race and intelligence controversy. Miradre edited the section here[17], two paragraphs after the paragraph where the debate on race and intelligence is discussed. Miradre has edited other parts of this article more recently.

Miradre added the section on IQ in psychopathy 2 days before the topic ban,[18] which is fine. But correcting somebody else's edit to it after the ban [19] does not seem quite right.

Userspace edits like this [20], with an explicit discussion of R&I content and literature, are also blatantly pushing at the limits of the topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC) further edits. Mathsci (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

further comments not directly related to this request

The content in this case specifically concerns Gould's use of the term "reification of intelligence" in the debate on race and intelligence as the historic link above shows. It has never been used in another context to my knowledge. Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have written, one of the references in the section under discussion is to Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. The subject is taken up in that reference in Chapter VI, "The Real Error of Cyril Burt: Factor Analysis and The Reification of Intelligence". In that chapter, Gould writes, "It is scarcely surprising that Arthur Jensen used Sir Cyril's figures as the most important datum in his notorious article (1969) on supposedly inheritable and irradicable differences in intelligence between whites and blacks in America." That makes the context very clear and leaves little room for ambiguity. Mathsci (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre proposed moving the section here. [21] He had moved another section to Nature and nurture previously by deleting it and copy-pasting it into that article. Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to comment on Miradre's edits elsewhere, which have involved conflicts with multiple editors and administrators on articles that prior to his editing were neutral and unproblematic. That is not the concern of this noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted an edit by A.B.C.Hawkes (talk · contribs), identified by checkusers as a sockpuppet acvount and now indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry by Sandstein. The original puppetmaster seems to be A.K.Nole, based on similar postings in the past on ArbCom-related pages (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole). Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My voluntary withdrawal from editing articles or talk pages directly related to race and intelligence, as interpreted by me, is my own choice. I am not under any formal ban. List of international rankings has nothing to do with the topic of R&I and Miradre is misguided in suggesting otherwise. Strict ArbCom topic bans apply to Miradre, Ferahgo the Assassin, Captain Occam and Ephery (= David.Kane). Mathsci (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe that Captain Occam can comment here. He appears to be breaking the terms of his extended topic ban; and certainly, in reviewing my edits, which are subject to no formal restrictions, is way off-topic here.He is indeed treating this ArbCom noticeboard as if it were WP:ANI, in a frivolous manner. I have made a request to ArbCom here to clarify this matter. There I have also brought up the issues of meatpuppetry in which Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Asassin have been involved over the past year, in that way breaking the terms of their own topic bans through proxies. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another side comment In the past two weeks or so Mikemikev has created a flurry of sockpuppets, some extremely malicious. The most malicious involve outing explicitly in user names. All traces of these have been removed from wikipedia, thanks to the kind help of Fred Bauder, Casliber, Elen of the Roads and LessHeard VanU. In addition Mikemikev has posted nasty racist comments on Stormfront and created two racist attack pages on ED.ch, dealt with by an administrator there with an account here. As Comicania he created an attack file on Commons which was dealt with here and on Commons with the kind help of MastCell, Moonriddengirl and Philippe Beaudette of WMF. It has taken a lot of effort and vigilance in project space, with the dedicated help of checkusers, to deal with this disruption connected with WP:ARBR&I. Arbitrators have been kept informed about these problems and continue to be extremely helpful. Captain Occam's suggestion that I be restricted in project space shows no awareness of the ongoing problems caused by the community banned editor Mikemikev or of similar disruption by his own meatpuppets. Mathsci (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sample "agenda driven" editing of Miradre: Miradre adds BLP violating information about Amy Goodman [22] to Democracy Now! based on a public tax declaration. Maunus removes the citation to the source. [23] I remove the unsourced BLP violation per WP:BLPPRIMARY. [24] On the talk page Miradre then suggests[25] using an extract in the article drawn from this quote from a website:

click to view

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

"Democracy Now’s pro-Muslim and anti-Christian bias shows again in their lopsided reporting on events in the Ivory Coast. If you hate Christians and support all Muslim actions, no matter how radical or violent, then you will love the reporting that issues from Democracy Now.

"Far left media outlets such as Democracy Now are not so much actual media outlets as they are pro Muslim propaganda machines for the spread of radical Islam globally. A more appropriate name for what they are doing might be: 'Global Jihad Now' as every single news item which covers the Mideast out of this portal is strongly slanted in support of the global Islamic cause."

Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC) and more recently this attempted BLP violation. [26] Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Samples of Miradre's editing in project space Firstly on WP:COIN here Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 51#Academia:, where two separate queries were raised by Itsmejudith and me. Miradre had suspected that Itsmejudith and I might be academics (he had repeatedly questioned us) and therefore should not be editing the article Academia per WP:COI. On WP:COIN Miradre is warned about harassment by Atama and his complaint dismissed as frivolous by multiple users, including MastCell. Secondly here on WP:CP, where Miradre tries to get me sanctioned for reproducing inaccessible text for discussion and also temporarily making available off-wiki a copy of a source, that later turns out to be freely available on the web. Miradre had previously created content using only the abstract without checking the source, to which he had no access. Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Occam and Ludwigs2 Please see this request by Captain Occam. [27]. Captain Occam might find it helpful to look at this ArbCom case and in particular this remedy. Mathsci (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My editing Contrary to Captain Occam's suggestions, my break from creating new articles this year is not due to a lack of interest but events in real life (research in mathematics, lecturing in Cambridge, a major concert commitment in June, several minor problems of ill health, including bronchitis in April-May and a head injury sustained near the Porte d'Aix two weeks ago, etc). Article creation for me at least is very time-consuming. At present I am more than halfway through learning BWV 529 from Trio sonatas for organ, BWV 525–530, which I'm contemplating making into a blue link. Mathsci (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pinch of salt Memills claims of 'agenda driven' editors apparently extend to uninvolved administrators, so those commenting here should please be careful. Here [28] Memills refers to Dougweller, Sandstein and MaterialScientist as a WP:TAGTEAM because they all suggested page numbers were recommended in citations from lengthy sources. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Boothello This is a WP:SPA created shortly after the topic ban of Captain Occam was extended to Ferhago the Assassin. He edits exclusively in the area covered by that topic ban and with their point of view. Despite the fact that he edits relatively little and in no common areas to me, he shares the same animosity towards me [29] as Captain Occam, Ferahgo Asassin and one of their meatpuppets SightWatcher (whose real life identity has already been confirmed with ArbCom). Prior to Miradre's topic ban, Boothello has been outspoken in his support for Miardre's editing;[30] it is hard to know how to interpret that now. Like SightWatcher,[31][32] without warning he has made requests concerning me directly to members of ArbCom. [33][34] Perhaps because of the questionmark hanging over his account, shared by other users, his requests have gone unanswered. Like Captain Occam, Boothello is participating here as if this arbitration enforcement board were WP:ANI. Boothello has explained his editing history on previous occasions[35][36]: he is a reformed vandal, previously editing anonymously, who in November suddenly developed an interest in race and intelligence because of a course at university. There are other more plausible explanations of Boothello's editing history. Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by Mikemikev Two IPsocks of Mikemikev—easily identifiable in view of his suspected and confirmed socks and their editing history—have disrupted this request, the second with racist abuse, some of which is still visible. (Aprock and I reverted all but one of the edits.) Both ipsocks have been blocked at my request. Miradre is now attempting to use that disruption for their own purposes. [37][38] The sockpuppetry was blatant per WP:DUCK, although Miradre chose to question my identification. Miradre's reactions and continued wikilawyering about this disruption looks like WP:GAME to me and that game is not cricket :) Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding comments The extended topic bans imposed here on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin should probably be revised to exclude compulsarily participation in WP:AE requests related to WP:ARBR&I in which they are not involved. As a result of Captain Occam's intervention, others, including me, have made general comments here on Miradre's editing patterns following his topic ban.

Taking into account the views of multiple experienced editors commenting here about Miradre's edits (presented as a consequence of Captain Occam's comments), it would appear that Miradre might be heading for a, regrettably unavoida.ble, indefinite community ban. That of course is not a concern of this noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [39]

Discussion concerning Miradre

Statement by Miradre

The topic ban is regarding the intersection of race and intelligence. There was no discussion regarding race. Neither was there a discussion regarding intelligence. I was simply pointing out that the given source does not mention evolutionary psychology at all.[40] I was making no claim regarding and did not discus either race or intelligence and thus not their intersection. The Reification (fallacy) is of course not something limited to race and intelligence or for that matter invented by Gould but a general logical fallacy discussed in numerous other areas. Miradre (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Futhermore, the claim by Matschi that the terms intelligence and reification are somehow inseparable from the race and intelligence discussion and "has never been used in another context to my knowledge" is very strange considering that there is no mention of race in the "Reification fallacy" section. Furthermore, there are 18,600 Google Scholar hits for the terms "intelligence" and "reification". Most do not seem to mention race.[41]
Not sure why Mathsci brings up that quote from Gould's book. As noted above, I made no claims regarding and did not discuss either race or intelligence. Obviously therefore not their intersection. I stated that there is no mention of evolutionary psychology in the claimed sources.[42] Neither does the "Reification fallacy" section discuss the race and intelligence controversy or mention race at all. The Reification (fallacy) is a common logical fallacy in numerous different fields. Miradre (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci has more recently also added a diff from the sociobiology article which he claims is related to an hidden, unsourced link several paragraphs away[43]. The link is hidden under the name "controversies in the history of intelligence testing" and the article text itself does not mention race. Anyway, the is–ought problem is about statements of the type "if there is rape/infanticide/incest among some animal species, then humans ought to practice rape/infanticide/incest also". It is not about the race and intelligence controversy. None of the race and intelligence articles mention that problem. Miradre (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci also objects to me removing an incorrectly placed citation mark in the psychopathy article.[44] Had nothing to do with the intersection of race and intelligence. Shows the desperate nature of the accusations.Miradre (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note also this seems be part of a general harassment of me. Wherever I go Mathsci and sometimes Aprock appears to oppose me, even if they never had made any edits to the articles before. In particular Mathsci's almost only recent activity in Wikipedia is following me around as can be seen from his edit history. Often to articles he has never edited before I started editing them. As well as making numerous different complaints to various noticeboards or persons regarding me or the articles I edit. Something should be done about what seems to have become an almost scary obsession with me. Miradre (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the earlier topic banned Mathsci has clearly broken his promise to the ArbCom to stay away from this area. [45] See for example his edits here in a discussion regarding Lynn's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations: [46][47][48]. Miradre (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci has now added a strange, misleading, and inaccurate misrepresentation of a dispute at the Democracy Now article. I did not mention that quote in the talk page in response to removing the information from the tax statement as Mathsci claims. I mentioned that biased quote as an ironic counter against the equally biased self-congratulatory, self-published quotes that are prominent in the article. As anyone can see on Talk:Democracy_Now!#NPOV_Dispute:_Quotes. As well as Mathsci's refusal to include anything negative. Also, this is unrelated to this AE case. Miradre (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci continues with his misrepresentations. First he implies that I had made a COI complaint while I only asked him to consider this on the talk page of the article. It was Mathsci who made a complaint regarding this on COI board which lead to no action since I had made no COI complaint. Regarding the copyright complaint Mathsci had uploaded a copyrighted paper to his webpage and gave a public link to this. This link was of course removed by the reviewing administrator. Also, again, this is completely unrelated to this AE case so I do not understand why he takes it up. Seems to be further harassment. Miradre (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci continues with completely unrelated issues. Yes, I accept the result of the discussion at the BLP board which I initiated but it has nothing to do with the topic ban. Miradre (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing with yet more unrelated issues, Mathsci now starts talking of an "unavoidable, indefinite" community ban. Every one of the critical editors who have expressed opinions here are editors who have been involved in extensive content disputes with me. They are not uninvolved or representative of the community. I note that I edit constructively and add substantial new material to Wikipedia from academic sources while Mathsci's only activity these days seems to be to participate in disputes and WP:WIKIHOUND and revert those editors he dislikes. See also Captain Occam's comments regarding this below. Miradre (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci is now accusing an evolutionary psychologist objecting to his view of having a COI. This is just as incorrect as it would be to accuse the anthropologists supporting him of having a COI. Also, it likely violates the prohibition against using COI accusations in order to gain the upper hand in disputes. Miradre (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci has also not so subtly accused me of antisemitism. That is offensive and incorrect. I have never made any such edits or comments. In fact, I have repeatedly reverted deletions of material by antisemitic editors regarding IQ. As well as argued that recognition of racial differences in IQ is necessary in order to explain differing group achievements which otherwise likely are seen as unjustified exploitations by high IQ groups and can have, and have had, consequences like persecution and genocide of high IQ groups. See my comments here copied from an earlier ArbCom case: User:Miradre/sandbox2 Miradre (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition Mathsci apparently thinks that the topic ban prohibits me from defending myself against such accusations since he cites the sandbox quoting an earlier arbitration case as additional evidence. Miradre (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Aprock: Aprock has already tried to get the ArbCom to ban me for editing such articles in the Request for Clarification but he was ignored. Again taking up exactly the same accusations (including the book Human Accomplishment and its rankings of the fame of individuals) that was ignored by the ArbCom is harassment. None of the articles are about either intelligence or race. Obviously therefore not about their intersection. See also my earlier reply to his identical, ignored accusations earlier before the ArbCom: [49] Miradre (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he includes an edit that I had self-reverted: [50]
Aprock is also adding various grossly inaccurate personal editorials regarding my edits: "Criticisms of socialism: evolutionary criticism of socialism from A Darwinian Left" (The book argues the opposite), "Bride price: evolutionary psychology explains it all" (Certainly never claimed that), "Incest taboo: genetic explanations for incest" (evolutionary psychology argues for a genetic aversion to incest) (Update: This particular inaccuracy has been fixed now), as well as making claims of promotion due to simply adding evolutionary psychology templates to evolutionary psychology articles. He is also trying to insinuate, for example, that I made 96 edits to the Psychopathy article regarding genetic causes when such edits are only a very small minority of my edits to that article. Miradre (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aprock has added some more incorrect commentary. First, I rarely use primary sources but instead use textbooks and reviews. Second, adding new views is not prohibited but part of NPOV. Third, aprock seems to be arguing that adding any evolutionary psychology material at all is undue in itself since he objects to articles having any mention at all of such views. Fourth, his complaints makes it perfectly clear that he is trying to use AE to win unrelated content disputes. Miradre (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to ResidentAnthropologist (As well as Maunus, AndyTheGrump, and Itsmejudith who consistently turn up and argue with the same strong personal POV on these topics): This comment is somewhat weird. He seems to be arguing that all pages with a discussion of liberal and conservative views are related to race and intelligence. I can assure him that they are not. Also his claim that my view is that "the mainstream consensus is wrong on R&I" certainly does not describe my POV on that issue. My POV is that the majority view among academic IQ researchers as has been determined in surveys is correct. Currently one focus for me is improving Wikipedia's articles on evolutionary psychology subjects which also include the application in anthropology. That is a sensitive subject for some anthropologists who reject evolutionary psychology. Which may be behind ResidentAnthropologist's (as well as Maunus's) objections. However, there are many things in politics and psychology that are not about the race and intelligence controversy. I have avoided any edits concerning either race and intelligence and thus also their intersection. Some seem to be using the topic ban as an excuse to stop me from editing any topic they personally disagree on. Miradre (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment to AndyTheGrump: He claims without any evidence that "almost all anthropologists 'reject evolutionary psychology". Of course, I have already cited evidence to the contrary such as introductory anthropology textbooks on the Cultural Anthropology talk page. But I think his complaint illustrates quite nicely the attempt to use AE enforcement to win content disputes on issues unrelated to the topic ban. Miradre (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment to Itsmejudith: She argues that my "English is poor too so when s/he adds large amounts of content, other people have to clean up afterwards." I am not a native speaker. But I have almost all of what I add on my watchlist and "cleaning up" does not seem to occur to any significant degree. Also, this does not seem to be an AE issue. Miradre (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Slrubenstein: Since Slrubenstein is another anthropologist ideologically opposed to evolutionary psychology also look above. First, the representation of the debate at the cultural anthropology has numerous factual errors and misrepresentations but since Slrubenstein admits it did not concern R&I arbitration there is no reason to go into details. Second, evolutionary arguments are not an important or even at all part of the debate and evidence regarding whether racial differences in intelligence are genetic or not. That evidence concerns statistical analyzes of IQ tests, brain scanning, reactions time, genetic testing, and on. Now, there may be evolutionary explanations if it is proven that the differences are genetic but that is another issue. The race and IQ debate is not dependent on evolutionary psychology but it may be that certain views and ideologies in anthropology that some anthropologists here endorse do are dependent on evolutionary psychology views not being true. Again I have avoided any edits concerning either race and intelligence and thus also their intersection. Some seem to be using the topic ban as an excuse to stop me from editing any topic they personally disagree on for other reasons. Miradre (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Miradre

Comments by aprock

I'll start by noting that Miradre has been testing the boundaries of his topic ban from day one. His request for clarification for precise delineation of "broadly construed" was submitted within 24 hours of his topic ban. Since then he has gone on to make edits in a large number of articles testing the boundary. The topic area is "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed" as described in the case amendments. Miradre has pursued two topic areas related to the topic ban. Miradre's edits in these topic areas have generated significant dispute and disruption. Extensive walls of text have been produced on talk pages and notice boards involving a diverse group of editors. Links to such discussions are included.

The first topic area is that of evolutionary explanations for behavior and ability. This is a generalization of the point of view that Miradre was pushing in the topic area when he was banned. Specifically, Miradre was promoting content which supported the position that intelligence is genetically linked to race.

Over the past month, Miradre has pursued the promotion of evolutionary psychology across 43 articles, many of which had no previous mention of the topic. Much of the content added is based on synthesis of primary sources, and generally adds undue weight to the view of evolutionary psychologists. This is exactly the same disruptive editing pattern that characterized Miradres approach to editing race/intelligence related articles. I ask that this specific issue addressed. If this is not the correct venue for this behavior to be addressed, I ask that an admin or ArbCom member suggest a more appropriate forum.

Editing of artilces to promote the views of evolutionary psychology and genetic determinism.

A Darwinian Left: [51] genetically determined behavior
A Natural History of Rape: [52] genetic evolution of rape
Aggression: [53] evolutionary explanations of aggression
Agoraphobia: [54] evolutionary psychology explanations
Antisocial personality disorder: 9 edits. [55] genetic vs. social explanations
Archaeology: [56] biology vs. sociology
Beard: [57] evolutionary psychology explanations for beards
Bride price: [58] evolutionary psychology explains it all
Causes of sexual violence: [59] evolutionary explanation of rape
Cognitive bias: [60] promotion of evolutionary psychology
Concealed ovulation: [61] evolutionary psychology explanations
Criticism of evolutionary psychology: 106 edits. (see discussion above)

Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology: majority of talk page

Criticisms of socialism: [62] evolutionary criticism of socialism from A Darwinian Left
Cultural anthropology: 5 edits. [63] evolutionary/genetic explanations

Talk:Cultural_anthropology#NPOV_dispute: talk page discussion (quite the worthwhile read)

Darwinian literary studies: [64] promoting evolutionary psychology
Disgust: [65] undue synthesis based on single primary source
Dowry: [66] evolutionary psychology explanations for dowries
Evolution of morality: [67] undue synthesis based on single primary source
Evolutionary approaches to depression: [68] promotion of evolutionary psychology
Evolutionary developmental psychopathology: [69] promotion of evolutionary psychology
Evolutionary ethics: 7 edits. [70] removing eugenics information
Evolutionary musicology: [71] promotion of evolutionary psychology
Evolutionary psychology: 10 edits. [72] criticisms of environmental explanations

Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#Controversies_section_violates_NPOV: talk page discussion

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard: notice board discussion

Evolutionary psychology of religion: [73] evolutionary explanation of religion
Gender and crime: [74] genetic explanations for gender differences in crime
History of evolutionary psychology [75] touting of evolutionary psychology
Incest taboo: [76] genetic explanations for incest taboo

Talk:Incest taboo#NPOV_dipuste: talk page dispute

Kinship: [77] evolutionary psychology theories

Talk:Kinship#Thesis: talk page dispute

Modularity of the mind: 9 edits. [78] added evolutionary psychology content
Nature vs nurture: 5 edits. [79] moved evolutionary psychology material to the article
Phobia: [80] evolutionary explanations
Physical attractiveness: [81], [82] promotion of genetic and evolutionary psychology content
Prehistory: [83] spamming evolutionary psychology
Psychopathy: 96 edits. [84] evolutionary explanations

Talk:Psychopathy#Prenatal_precursor_section: talk page discussion

Social anthropology: 6 edits. [85] social vs. evolutionary explanations
Social anxiety disorder: [86] evolutionary explanations
Sociobiological theories of rape: [87] evolutionary explanations of rape
Sperm competition: [88] link article to Sociobiological theories of rape
Syncope (medicine): [89] evolutionary psychology views added
The Blank Slate: 35 edits. The article is about a popular book that argues for more consideration of genetic explanation of human behavior

Talk:The Blank Slate#Book reviews: talk page discussion

Trypanophobia: [90] evolutionary psychology added
Violence: [91] evolutionary/genetic explanations of violence
War: 10 edits. [92] Inserting evolutionary psychology views from The Blank Slate

The second topic area is in the promotion of Charles Murray's book Human Accomplishment. As author of The Bell Curve Charles Murray is a key figure in the race and intelligence debate.

Editing of articles to promote Charles Murray's book:

Discussion at NPOV/N: [93] (archived version: [94])
Aristotle [95]
Einstein's awards and honors [96]
Genius [97]
Historiometry [98]
Isaac Newton [99]
Leonhard Euler [100]

Talk:Leonhard_Euler#Removing_Charles_Murray.27s_Human_Accomplishment: talk page discussion

Shakespeare's reputation [101]

Note that the diffs provided above are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all topical edits.

Comments by ResidentAnthropologist

I too like Captian Occam have been observing the MathSci/Miradre. MathSci is quite open about tracking Mirandre's edits to the encyclopedia. Miradre seems to spew their POV in any article they can think of. Examine the Scenarios Occam Pointed out, where Mirandre attempts this to continue their own POV pushing here:

Academia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Implicitly by suggesting that "Liberals" are in control of Academia and that they all in a massive "group think." (Thus the mainstream consensus is wrong on R&I) and does the same thing to Academia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
NPR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Template:Public broadcasting are other great examples of continuing "Liberal Vs Conservative" war consistent with far right thinking by attempting to suggest their harmful.
Social anthropology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Cultural Anthropology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) pages are extension of promoting the heredterian POV. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Captain Occam

I should start off by mentioning that although I’m topic banned from R&I, my topic ban makes an exception for AE, based on this request for clarification in which ArbCom determined that topic bans are not intended to prevent editors from opening or posting in AE threads. In the AE thread where my topic ban was expanded, the suggestion that I not participate in AE threads related to the R&I topic area is listed as "not compulsory". This exception is based on the linked request for clarification: "The latest clarification request may have carved out AE requests as a special case, but I see no justification to expand that exception further."

I’ve been paying attention to this issue involving Mathsci and Miradre because of an e-mail Mathsci sent me on June 30th, threatening me with some of the behavior that he’s directing at Miradre if I attempt to appeal my topic ban. (On June 30th I’d had no contact with Mathsci in the past several months—the only context of him e-mailing me was that I was discussing the possibility of appealing my topic ban with Newyorkbrad.) The last time I had to endure the full extent of this from Mathsci was sometime in February, so I’ve been watching his interaction with Miradre to get an idea of how he currently acts towards people whom he regards as his adversaries. What I’ve seen isn’t encouraging.

I am aware of five examples of Mathsci following to Miradre to articles he had never edited before in order to revert Miradre’s edits. In all five examples, literally the first involvement Mathsci ever had in these articles was reverting edits by Miradre.

That’s only the articles in which Mathsci’s absolute first edit to both the article and its talk page was reverting Miradre. If one also includes articles where his first involvement was opposing changes from Miradre without reverting him outright, there are three additional examples: The Blank Slate, in which the first edit Mathsci ever made was tagging content that Miradre added as being non-neutral, [107] as well as Leonhard Euler and Democracy Now!, in which Mathsci’s first-ever participation was to oppose Miradre’s edits on the talk page. [108] [109] The edits that Mathsci opposes from Miradre are on topics as diverse as the possible over-representation of liberals in academia, a book by the psychologist Steven Pinker, and public radio broadcasting. The only common theme to these edits is that regardless of where Miradre goes on Wikipedia, or what sorts of articles he edits, he can always count on Mathsci following him there and opposing him.

There are a few other ways that I think Mathsci’s behavior towards Miradre could be considered harassment:

Mathsci’s habit of restoring his posts in Miradre’s user talk when Miradre attempts to remove them. For example [110] [111], [112] [113], or [114] [115]. (Note the threatening edit summary in the last diff.)
In addition to that edit summary, there have been a few other examples of Mathsci trying to intimidate Miradre by threatening him with a community ban, such as [116] and [117].
This isn't the only example of Mathsci being uncivil towards Miradre, but it might be the best one: [118] [119] [120] [121]
As I understand it, this last exchange (“Please respect my privacy”, and Mathsci’s reaction) is referring to another type of harassment that Mathsci has directed at Miradre, which is publicly posting what he thinks is Miradre’s off-wiki identity and where he thinks Miradre lives. The DeviantArt account that Mathsci claims belongs to Miradre lists its owner’s real name on its main page, so this is an indirect way that Mathsci has revealed what he thinks is Miradre’s real name.
Mathsci has also continued to bring up Miradre’s alleged location in subsequent content disputes, even though Miradre has never voluntarily disclosed this information. [122] [123]

Does it require any explanation what’s wrong with this? Anybody who’s been a Wikipedian for as long as Mathsci must be aware that it isn’t acceptable to try and intimidate another editor by posting private information about them, and that the request “please respect my privacy” from that editor should be responded to with something other than “Ha, ha, ha, ha.” More importantly, Mathsci has already been sanctioned for behavior that’s similar to this. I think in the past year I’ve improved on the behavior for which I was sanctioned in the R&I case (edit warring, etc.) but when I compare Mathsci’s behavior over the past month to the behavior described in his finding of fact, I don’t see any improvement.

---

I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about the quality of Miradre’s editing, so the purpose of this post isn’t to defend him. However, I think that Mathsci’s recent behavior is problematic enough that admins should consider the application of WP:BOOMERANG here. Perhaps the most appropriate response to this thread would be for Miradre and Mathsci to both be sanctioned.

I’m aware that in the past Mathsci has been a valuable editor because of his useful contributions to articles about math and classical music. However, according to his comment here, as of the beginning of this year Mathsci has lost interest in making contributions to articles. Looking at all of his recent contributions, his exclusive focus now is on pursuing the editors that he regards as his adversaries. This is after several arbitrators already told him here that he should cease his involvement in the R&I topic area. Quoting what Roger Davies said to Mathsci there: “I expressed the hope in the motion lifting the topic restriction that you'd walk away entirely from R&I-related issues. This is because I do not believe that participants in cases are the best people to push for enforcement as it only opens old wounds (as has happened here). If another editor's conduct is egregious enough, it will be noted by other - less involved - editors, who can initiate appropriate action. That advice still stands and I urge you to follow it.”

I should reiterate what my reason is for caring about this: even though Mathsci has mostly left me alone since his attempt to get me site-banned in February, his e-mail to me on June 30th makes it as clear as possible that this is only a temporary respite from him until I attempt to appeal my topic ban. Therefore, it is almost certain that in the future I’ll once again have to put up with the behavior he’s currently directing at Miradre, unless something is done to stop it. It would be beneficial to the community if Mathsci could somehow be encouraged to stop defying the instructions he was given by Roger Davies, and go back to making useful edits on math and music articles. I don’t have a strong opinion about how that should be accomplished, but I think admins should consider the suggestion that Ludwigs2 made in the amendment thread linked above: that Mathsci be placed under a restriction that disallows him from commenting on the behavior of other editors.

Update 8/16: Can any admins see the edit summary in this diff? This edit summary was the most recent example of outing from Mathsci, but it’s apparently been oversighted now. I saw what the edit summary said before it got overisghted, but I’m assuming that I shouldn’t repeat it here, because the whole point of content being oversighted is to make it not visible anymore. If any admins can access this edit summary, I think it’s Mathsci’s most blatant policy violation in this thread—although the fact that it’s been oversighted probably makes that obvious, since oversight isn’t used for run-of-the-mill personal attacks.

Response to EdJohnston: It was a request for clarification, not a formal motion, and it's here. In other words, an actual modification wasn’t necessy, because ArbCom decided that my topic ban hadn’t been intended to extend to AE in the first place. When Ferahgo’s and my topic bans were extended by you and Timothy Canens in this thread, the extension made a specific exception for AE because of this request for clarification. The instruction to not post about others’ behavior at AE was listed under the heading “The following is advice, and it is not compulsory”. The diff of where you included this exception is here. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: As I said above, I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about the quality of Miradre’s content editing, and it may be that there are some legitimate POV problems with it. However, it’s important to understand that this isn’t just an issue of Mathsci following Miradre from one article to another. What makes this a problem is that it’s being combined with other types of behavior that can also be considered harassment, such as restoring his deleted comments in Miradre’s user talk, trying to intimidate Miradre by posting as personal information about him, and responding with incivility when Miradre asks Mathsci to respect his privacy. These are the specific things that cause Mathsci’s behavior to rise to the level of what I consider harassment, although it certainly makes it worse that there doesn’t appear to be anywhere on Wikipeda that Miradre can go to escape from this.

I'm kind of amazed by how often I see the attitude that some other editors are displaying here, which I think is best summarized as “Incivility and attempted outing are okay when the editor doing them is right about content.” Is there a policy that says this that I don’t know about? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Slrubenstein

I won't comments specifically on the R&I arbitration. However, I have yet to see Mirardre make a well-researched NPOV contribution to an article. I do not think Mirardre fits the bill of "single-purpose editor" but she is one step away. At the Race and Intelligence article, it turned out that the most persistent arguments that blacks are inherently inferior to whites in intelligence came from people promoting evolutionary psychology, which took Mirardre to EP articles. Then it emerged that one of the established academic disciplines most critical of EP is anthropology, which took Mirardre to Anthropology articles. I just spent the past few days undoing Mirardre's tendentious edits to various anthropology articles (in short: Mirardre found one journal article that had a comment to it that encouraged dialogue between anthropology between EP and anthropology. On the basis of this comment alone, EP added a whole new section to each article on the importance of EP within anthropology.[124] Do I have to tell you how many peer-review articles are published on anthropology each year? Imagine if, for each article, we created a new section in the encyclopedia article! And Mirardre was not even drawing on the article, but on a comment to an article. Note: academics do not list such comments on their CVs because they are not peer-reviewed (whether Mirardre doesn't know this fact or knows it but disregards it, either way it suggests she is not qualified to edit on academic topics. I deleted the addition because it gave undue weight to a fringe view, and from an inappropriate source.

The really troubling thing is this: the article itself was an interesting article on the nature-culture divide, and was accompanied by several comments. I pointed out to Miradre that there are a number of other articles on this theme, and that she could draw on these different articles and write a very informative and appropriate section on emerging new approaches to nature-culture in anthropology.[125] I was trying to take Mirardre's edit, and make a good-faith effort to consider what kind of work would lead to a genuinely positive edit, and give Mirardre constructive feedback. Mirardre just changed topics.

Mirardre then went on to argu that a whole chapter of a current textbook on cultural anthropology is about EP.[126] Again, my concern was, how to turn a source into an imporovement to our article, and I asked Mirardre to summarize the chapter. Mirardre became evasive, and refused to discuss the contents of the chapter, insisting that the important point is that there is a whole chapter.Well, it turns out that is just a lie. MathSci took the time to verify Mirardre's claim and discovered that there is no such chapter.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_anthropology&diff=prev&oldid=443685189 As Matchsci demonstrated, the topic occupied two pages in a 450 page book.[127] Then Maunus found the textbook, read it, and discovered that the textbook "describes EP as a discipline that 'impinges on cultural anthropology.'"[128]

From this, we can see the following:

Mirardre does not have the reading comprehension level of a college student (the audeicne for the textbook)
Mirardre misrepresents sources in order to promote Mirardre's views
Mirardre gets upset when other editors actually know more than her

I admit that this discussion on the surface is not about race and intelligence, but if you go back to the attempted mediation at R&I by Ludwigs, and subsequent arguments there, anthropology was consistently deprecated by advocates of EP in scholarly debates over race and intelligence.

A final comment on MathSci, whose editing has been impugned. It is true that MathScie has written a great many articles for WP, all impeccably sourced and well-written. It is true that he does not write as many new articles any more. I do not either. That is because my job requires m to write articles for which I will get credit, and WP does not count. I cannot speak for MathSci but I think a minimum requirement for an editor of an encyclopedia is the ability to comprehend that volunteer editors have more pressing and time-consuming obligations that mean they contribute erratically. We must judge MathSci not by the frequency of his edits by by their quality. I just went into some detail about an exchange on a talk page because this is the kind of contribution Captain Occam deprecates. Yet here we see that MathSci's contribution was exemplary and in fact just the kind of talk page contribution WP depends if it is to exist: Matchsci provided the evidence that Mirardre lied about there being a whole chapter on EP; MathSci provided the evidence that Mirardre was violating WEIGHT; along with Maunus MathSci demonstrated that Mirardre misrepresented the source. Were Mirardre left to her own devices we would have articles with lots of sources - but the articles would be poorly written, misrepresent the sources, even lie about them, and misrepresent scholarly debates. I have tried to work collaboratively with Mirardre and Mirardre has shown no interest in real research. Until Mirardre is banned, someone will have to check every source she cites, and correct her mistakes. This is a takes MathSci has assumed. He (and Maunus) deserves our praise and thanks for this Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Itsmejudith

I don't have much time to edit right now, but would just like to say in reference to comments above that Maunus and SlRubenstein are real experts in social science topics, while Miradre, as far as I can see actually is working like an SPA. His/her level of English is poor too, so when s/he adds large amounts of content, other people have to clean up afterwards. There seems to be a lack of understanding of how to summarise from academic texts, as opposed to direct quoting. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Maunus

I would like to say that given Miradre's past and current behavior it is fully justified, indeed necessarry that editors who are aware of his history review his edits to almost any page that he might edit. He is clearly agenda driven in the large majority of his edits - wikipedia cannot afford to let that go unsupervised. There is a difference between hounding and actually watching out for potential content problems based on documented experience with certain editors editing patterns. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AndyTheGrump

I'd like to second Maunus's comments. I'm not going to suggest that any of us can ever approach Wikipedia with a truly neutral POV (I don't believe that such a thing exists), but I think that Miradre not only edits in such a way at to push a particular POV beyond any acceptable limits, but that also, from the evidence offered, actually goes out of his/her way to find ways to do so, knowing that this will provoke a response. Frankly, I see no way that this attitude can be seen as compatible with Wikipedia's objectives. If Miradre wishes to change public opinion, and/or the opinions of academia regarding issues of race, heredity, and related issues, fine - that is his/her right - just not here, and not in the belligerent manner exhibited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Miradre writes above: "Currently one focus for me is improving Wikipedia's articles on evolutionary psychology subjects which also include the application in anthropology. That is a sensitive subject for some anthropologists who reject evolutionary psychology". Given that almost all anthropologists 'reject evolutionary psychology' (or does Miradre have evidence to the contrary?), such 'improvements' are nothing of the kind - they are instead attempts to apply undue weight to theories of little relevance to the topic in question. This is further evidence of Miradre's endless POV pushing and general combative attitude. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now Miradre responds by claiming to have 'cited evidence' in Talk:Cultural anthropology regarding the significance of evolutionary psychology to the subject. Fine. Except that the 'evidence' turned out to be almost entirely based on misrepresentation of the sources - again proving precisely the point I made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Slrubenstein is another anthropologist ideologically opposed to evolutionary psychology". And yet again, Miradre insinuates that any attempt to point out that the overwhelming consensus within cultural/social anthropology is that evolutionary psychology is of limited significance to the subject is based on 'ideology' - a highly dubious proposition, entirely lacking evidence. Anyone remotely familiar with the often-heated discourse within social/cultural anthropology will find the proposition that there is a common ideology laughable. Still, insinuations of bias are easy to make, and have the advantage that you don't have to offer evidence. Not directly related to this AR/E discussion, of course, except in that it may indicate why any topic ban is going to fail as long as Miradre persists with this battleground mentality and endless search for new articles to promote an ideologically motivated (yeah, I can do it too...) biological determinist perspective in subjects where such perspectives are fringe, if not entirely irrelevant.AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a response to Memills (below): are you going to offer any evidence to back up your suggestions that those commenting here have 'another agenda', or are you just going to leave it hanging, like the vacuous insinuation it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And while Memills is at it, what the heck is an 'anti-biological POV'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Memills

The concept of a "construct" has a long history in science, long before Gould. Nor is it limited to studies of intelligence; the term "construct" is used in many, if not most, areas of science. See the relevant WP article: constructs. That several editors above think that it only applies to intelligence is rather shocking. Rather, given the very strong anti-biological POVs of these editors, I suspect another agenda.

The editors criticizing Miradre fail to note that there was previous discussion on the Talk page about moving the "reification fallacy" subsection, as well as other sections, and was initiated by several other editors (not Miradre), (see here and here). The rationale for the move was that many of the criticisms of evolutionary psychology are actually more germane to the nature vs. nurture page than to evolutionary psychology in particular. The editors above who label evolutionary psychology as "genetic determinism," and/or who suggest that editors who are trying to accurately describe evolutionary psychology are "promoting" it, betray a strong anti-biological POV.

The attempt to associate moving the "reification fallacy" subsection with the topic of intelligence (to snag Miradre) is a red herring. It seems to me to be a POV-motivated attempt to harass and silence an editor with whom they philosophically disagree. Memills (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Boothello

It's a shame that more uninvolved people haven't shown up to offer their opinion on Miradre's editing. So far everyone criticizing him seem to be R&I regulars who followed him to other topics after he was topic banned (well, except for Itsmejudith who was recruited by Mathsci specifically to oppose Miradre [129]). We could get a clearer picture about whether Miradre's editing has been a problem if some of the editors active on other articles he edits (like, from the looks of it, psychology and public broadcasting etc) would post, instead of just the core group of editors who have historically opposed him on R&I and then followed him elsewhere.

For the record, I think there are some issues with Miradre's editing. The biggest one I've seen is his long, circular, and often off-topic arguments with other editors (Mathsci in particular) on talk pages. See a recent typical example of this here. This began as a question of whether Memills has a COI by commenting here as Mathsci claimed and then removed. This quickly devolved into an argument about whether it was a personal attack when Mathsci said that Miradre's arguments "are like those of a small child." Two uninvolved editors, Olyeller21 and Atama, complained there about how Miradre and Mathsci tend to waste other editors' time with this endless bickering.

I think Mathsci is more at fault here than Miradre. In my own experience I've seen that it is possible to resolve content disputes with Miradre, it just takes some effort and patience. On the other hand I've found that reasoned discussion with Mathsci is often impossible. Mathsci does not comment on the talk pages of R&I articles, apparently because he has promised ArbCom not to, so whenever he disagrees with one of my edits he responds with threats and accusations in my user talk.

Some examples of Mathsci accusing me of colluding with other editors: [130] [131] Note his comment "This strategy of tracking a single editor is ill-advised" yet he has no problem doing the same thing to Miradre.

Some examples of Mathsci commenting to threaten me with sanctions: [132] [133]

Some examples of Mathsci continuing to comment in my user talk after I asked him to stop: [134] [135]

Two things worth noting here. First is the sheer quantity of this: nearly half of all revisions to my talk page are from Mathsci. Secondly, this is literally the entirety of my interaction with him. Never have I interacted with him on talk pages or articles, I have no prior history with him, and did not even know who he was until he started threatening me in my user talk. Based on my experience and observation, Mathsci has virtually no interest in collaborative discussions about content. When he disagrees with anyone's edits, he generally just resorts to belittlement, accusations, and threats.Boothello (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on disruption of this request by ipsocks of Mikemikev

collapsed for readability

These comments originally followed Captain Occam's comments about two edit summaries removed by oversight.

(No apologies for posting here.) This edit summary was removed by oversight as a result of an email request by me. It was Fred Bauder who responded to my request. Prior to that I made a request to LHVU and several arbitrators, who are completely aware of this situation. In the meantime an antisemitic rant has been deleted on the user page [136] of an ipsock of the same editor, Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At present a complete range of IPs has been blocked for a month at Imperial College, London as a result of these and similar edits by Mikemikev. In view of his postings from his account at that university, which incited racial hatred, completely contrary to the conditions of use of such university accounts (and also the laws in the United Kingdom), it is possible that an official complaint is lodged with the computer services at ICL. Mathsci (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you’re saying that you asked Fred Bauder to oversight your own edit summary? (Anyone who looks at this diff can see that the edit summary in question was from you, not from Mikemikev.) What makes this even stranger is that it was oversighted immediately after I asked someone else to oversight it. I hope you won’t mind me checking with the relevant people to verify this. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I sent an email to oversight. There were two OTRS tickets, 2011081210004067 and 2011081210004625. Fred Bauder wrote a reply to me in the first official response: "I suppressed two edit comments as disclosures of personal information. Sincerely, Fred Bauder." (I had previously contacted individually LHVU, Newyorkbrad, Elen of the Roads and Casliber.) That is the normal process. Mikemikev's real life name is not a secret since he identified himself in one of his first edits to wikipedia.[137] Some of his posts on wikipedia and elsewhere (on Stormfront for example) have contained undiluted incitements to racial hatred. That is why he is community banned. Here is a selection of what he has recently written on video internet sites.[138] Mathsci (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that diff you gave above there is certainly no clear evidence that the person named in that diff is the IP editor or if he is that he wants his identity outed to the world. You also makes accusations that can have very serious real-world consequences. There is certainly no excuse for the outing of your identity, whoever is doing it, but that does not justify you on dubious grounds outing other people with accusations than have potential serious consequences.Miradre (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have complaints of any sort about the rights of Mikemikev and the ipsocks that he uses, I suggest you address those complaints directly to checkusers and oversighters (including members of ArbCom) who help keep the sockpuppets accounts of this highly problematic user under control. At the moment, you seem to be condoning accounts that have been blocked as confirmed sockpuppets of Mikemikev. Please don't do that, even if it is unintentional, as it is highly offensive. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no complaints regarding the block of the ipsocks and I do not support the actions they have done. But in effect naming a specific person based on that dubious diff, and in addition making serious accusations that may have real-world consequences against that named person, do is very offensive. Especially strange considering your own complaints regarding outing. Miradre (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember if there was more than one request, but I thought the request by Mathsci to suppress that inappropriate edit summary was righteous, so did it. Protecting an editor is not a proper reason for suppression; there were other appropriate reasons. Most of the arbitrators can view it and discuss it, if need be. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I sent the request twice, because I left out a diff in the first email. Mikemikev is the only user who has used that range of IPs for editing wikipedia. Using another IP in the range he had posted a racist attack page, now deleted at my request. The whole range has been blocked for one month by HelloAnnyong. 19:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There were no dubious diffs; the whole range of the first IP who posted here was blocked following an SPI report for Mikemikev. The two ranges of IPs 146.179.212.* and 146.179.213.* from Imperial College, London have been used exclusively by Mikemikev for editing wikipedia and, from August 2010, for evading his ArbCom ban/community ban. He has disrupted this page recently with his trademark attacks ("hysterical faggotry"/"faggotry"). Some of the postings from the second range of IPs just used contain his signature.[139] This is another typical posting from that range.[140] Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP range was not my point. The point being that you have above (in your 17:28, 16 August 2011 edit) in effect named a specific living person as being responsible on very dubious grounds. Based on that diff you gave there is certainly no clear evidence that the person named in that diff is the IP editor or if he is that he wants his identity outed to the world. It may well be someone unrelated (or an acquaintance) to the named person and who dislikes that university who made that edit. The story may also just be a form of subtle vandalism. In addition, you makes serious accusations against this named person which may have serious real-life consequences. Especially strange considering your own complaints regarding outing.Miradre (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic long-term abuse of wikipedia—the posting of racist comments and attacks—could result in an official complaint from WMF. That is certainly within policy. Mikemikev self-identified on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated, there was certainly no clear self-identification. Again, I find is strange considering your own complaints regarding outing that you yourself in effect name others on very dubious grounds and in addition with accusations with possibly serious real-life consequences. Miradre (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that people at Imperial College, London are "impersonating Mikemikev" is not even vaguely probable since all the editing is similar. Sockpuppet investigations do not work in that way, nor does WP:DUCK. Your concerns about an editor who systemastically uses wikipedia for inciting racial hatred seem disingenuous. A little while back I asked Newyorkbrad in private about the problem posed by Mikemikev's sockpuppetry and I believe that that matter is still under discussion. Thanks,Mathsci (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maybe he can get Yahweh to come and deal with the wicked racist goyim. 146.179.213.110 (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Is this one of those ICL people "impersonating Mikemikev", or is it possibly the real thing? Mathsci (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do no misrepresent me. The point being that you have on dubious grounds in effect named a specific living person as being responsible. Miradre (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real life identity of Mikemikev is known to arbitrators. You have chosen to ignore the antisemitic remarks above. Instead you appear to be continuing to attack me in a disingenuous way. Please see WP:STICK. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, This is my own section of this thread, not yours. You shouldn’t have commented here instead of in your own section to begin with, and I especially don’t want you using my section as a place to argue with Miradre about Mikemikev socks. If you don’t stop commenting here, I’m going to move this entire thread (beginning with your first reply to me) up to your own section above, which is where it should have been in the first place. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no rules about subthreads here. I have already made a private complaint to three arbitrators about your comments above. Like Miradre, please see WP:STICK. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you apparently aren't willing to stop posting in my section. At AE, everyone has the right to move comments in their section by another editor to that editor's own section, so I'm doing that now. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Miradre

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

I hope that User:Captain Occam can supply a diff to the place where Arbcom modified his ban to allow him to comment at Arbitration Enforcement in R&I requests where his own edits have not been mentioned. This Arbcom action would, I assume, have been a formal motion. Lacking such evidence, I urge him to cease commenting here. The only edits being reviewed in this AE are those of Miradre and possibly Mathsci. (Mathsci's own edits are subject to review since he is the submitter). EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, per the Captain's response, I agree that his previous topic ban allows him to comment at AE. Should the admins here decide that his posts are not helpful, they might comment on that or take action on that when this report closes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia

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

Request concerning Russavia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Martin Tammsalu (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Russavia_restricted

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

22:05, 12 August 2011 Russavia's reverts my earlier edit[141].

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

Sanctioned previously twice before for violating interaction ban: blocked for 2 days and blocked for 4 days

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Reverting edits is a violation of an interaction ban per WP:IBAN, note the same policy allows asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party, see WP:IBAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans and as affirmed by a subsequent clarification request to Arbcom. I don't know why Russavia feels he has to inject himself into this particular article Karen Drambjan, but his arrival is disruptive to my further involvement in this article as we are under a mutual interaction ban. In this case I am requesting that an admin undo the violating edit so that my further involvement in this article is not compromised.

Reply to Petri Krohn. Whether or not the article belongs in Category:Far-left politics is a content issue. You had ample opportunity to revert this edit yourself if you disagree and we could have discussed this on the article talk page. However with Russavia's revert I can not be involved in the subsequent discussion on talk due to the mutual interaction ban, and thus this disruptive. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, your suggestion for a RFC is a good one, however we already have two uninvolved editors here supporting the inclusion of the article in Category:Far-left politics while Petri Krohn agrees that it ought to be included into a sub-category. In my experience getting one or two uninvolved editors commenting is a pretty good outcome for an RFC in this topic area. That said, if Russavia's edit is a technical non-intended breach, then reverting his edit is a viable enforcement action by an admin per Wikipedia:IBAN#Enforcement_by_reverting. That would then reset everything and if someone else like Petri Krohn wants to remove that category that's fine, we can have that discussion of the talk page. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohn initially objected to to the article's conclusion in the category when he stated "I see absolutely no way the article on Karen Drambjan should be included in the category Category:Far-left politics"[142].

FuFoFuEd challenged his objection: "Drambjan is described by Sky News as "a member of the marginal left-wing United Left Party. The party is not in parliament and until recently claimed legal succession to Estonia's Soviet-era Communist Party." Wikipedia's article on Far-left politics says in the lead: "This generally includes anarchists, communists and revolutionary socialists"[143].

Petri Krohn subsequently moderates his stance "The issue is not about whether Karen Drambjan is in the general topic of left-wing politics, that we all agree on. The edit in question was about inclusion of the article in the category. If you bother to have a look you will well see that the category is a top level category, not a place to dump individual politicians. I have no objection to the article being in some subcategory". So his objection doesn't appear to extend to a sub category of Category:Left-wing politics.

Collect follows up stating there is sufficient reason to characterise Drambjan by the category: "WRT the claim that a person is not "far left" I consider the statement in the article that a person is "left-wing" and quotes him as saying : He calls Estonia a morally bankrupt neo-Fascist county is quite likely sufficient for the characterisation"

I'm okay with a sub-category, perhaps Template:Left-wing politics in Estonia or Template:Left-wing activism in Estonia, but of course I cannot add it as it may been construed as a revert of Russavia's edit by some admin. If that isn't your interpretation, fine, open an RFC on my behalf and permit me to participate per your proposal. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, could the scope of the proposed "necessary dispute resolution" solution be extended to include the article Kaitsepolitsei, Russavia moved this article on August 13[144], (marking it as a minor edit). The name has been subjected to edit warring in the past[145].[146], and his latest revert needs to be be discussed on the article talk too. Thanks. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia already raised the issue of my edits of Anti-Estonian sentiment in the previous AE case[147] on June 17, so I am unsure why he would bring it up here again. In any case after that previous AE report closed he subsequently asserted ownership and reverted[148] my edits[149] anyway. In fact he so comprehensively changed the article that it is now virtually impossible for me to edit it now, let alone respond to his comments on talk, without breaching my iBan, so I have given up on that article. Russavia pleads that he isn't a disruptive influence on Estonia topics, yet his latest contribution to that space seems to be making controversial moves [150], spraying articles I created with dispute tags[151] and nominating them for deletion[152] (how am I suppose to respond without breaching my iBan?) or resurrecting deleted images [153].[154] that he previously has edit warred over [155],[156],[157],[158], while seemingly oblivious to the offence caused. While some people have formed a somewhat negative view of his contributions to Estonia related articles as a result[159], I'm certainly willing to give Ed's constructive proposal a go and discuss the content of Russavia's recent reverts via talk or RFC if the other admins here agree. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified [160]

Discussion concerning Russavia

Statement by Russavia

It is plain to see that Tammsalu is attempting to use an interaction ban in such a way that he is able to assume ownership of articles. It has already been made clear to this particular EEMLer that merely editing the same article is not an interaction. Refer to Tammsalu's own request for clarification from the committee at this link.

Moreso, Tammsalu's attempt to fling enough shit in the hope that some of it will stick is disruptive and furtherment of the battleground for which he was banned from EE topics, and also furtherment of harrassment of myself by him. Refer to Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination, in which the committee found that certain editors engage in vexatious reporting (of which this is), and have also engaged in harrassment of particular editors (of which this is), and also found that particular editors have displayed battleground mentality (which this very request is). One can also review Wikipedia:EEML#Martintg where the committee found that Martintg (now known as Tammsalu) has abused the dispute resolution process (which this report is) and also found that he harbours a battleground mentality (again, which this very report is).

Why have I edited on the article? Because it is clearly within my scope of interest, plus it has been in the news (albeit very briefly). I don't have to explain why I edit any article I may edit, but that is the reason. But have I interacted with Tammsalu? NO, I have not.

I am making it very clear here, that if WP:BOOMERANG does not come back to Tammsalu in this case, I will be taking this to Arbcom directly for their intervention, because it is clear that Tammsalu is being disruptive and engaging in battleground behaviour. I am asking that Tammsalu be sanctioned for his artificial battleground creation, with the warning that if there is another such case that I will ask for him to be topic banned for battleground behaviour.

This is also not the first violation of the mutual interaction ban by Tammsalu, so any block should take this into account.[161] One would also have to ask Tammsalu why if they have grown tired of the battleground bullshit (as per their talk page), they have clearly created one here knowing his own history and history of clarification from Arbcom?

I will offer to Tammsalu the same offer that I have in past, drop this frivolous complaint with an apology for even bringing it here, otherwise I will ask that sanctions be placed on Tammsalu for both breaching his mutual interaction ban and for creating yet another EE battleground. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 08:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can I please request that no action or decisions be made at this request until this coming Thursday, 12pm (that is +8GMT) as I am currently on the road, and it is almost impossible to edit WP from my mobile phone. I request this as I further comments on the request, but mainly in relation to suggestions and the like. It would be unfair to reach any decisions in this request without input from myself, so I am asking that this request be respected. There is no major rush as there is no ongoing problems which require immediate intervention. Thanks, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 00:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further statement by Russavia

One has to remember that this is an avenue for Enforcement, hence Tammsalu has brought this here to attempt to have sanctions applied against myself. Wikipedia:EEML#Disruption_4 found that Martin had engaged in misuse of dispute resolution processes and has treated WP as a battleground. Due to Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination in which members of EEML had engaged in harrassment and vexatious reporting in an attempt to have editors driven away from the project Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted was enacted. That restriction very clearly reads:

The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

If one refers to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia it was clearly determined that merely editing the same article is not an interaction. This is clearly stated by the drafting Arb at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Comments_by_others_about_the_request_concerning_Russavia and the issue is also mentioned by FPaS in the same section.

As was found in the above enforcement request, bringing things to AE simply because of editing the same article does not constitute "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution", and therefore, that was found to be disruptive. Given Tammsalu's history of harrassment of myself and history of using dispute resolution processes to get rid of his "opponents" this should be indicating to admins that his very request is simply without merit, and that he should have been warned about this, instead he is being given the green light to continue doing what he was doing during the EEML days. And that is wrong.

Look at his previous requests, where he has used the long-term consentual interactions between myself and User:Miacek as a point of order at AE in the hope of getting me sanctioned. And it very nearly worked!!! Look at Russophobia where he wasn't involved, yet reported goings on on that article to AE, yet totally ignored the fact discussion was occurring on the talk page between parties. Look at his actions on anti-Estonian sentiment where he has totally reverted every edit of mine from the last 12 months (with the deceptive edit summary of copy edit), totally ignoring everything on the talk page. Why has he not mentioned that particular article? Because it will be shown that he has acted, and is acting, in a disruptive way, by using an interaction ban as a way of effectively removing me from articles in which it can be demonstrated clearly that Tammsalu has engaged in extremely POV editing, and has actively assumed bad faith on my part.

In fact, why has this been brought here for enforcement action, rather than going back to the committee for clarification? That would be the non-combative way of doing things, would it not?

If one peruses my own editing of articles within this general topic area an uninvolved editor would find it extremely difficult to credulously come to the conclusion that my editing is disruptive, by any stretch of the imagination.

It also disheartens me that we have here admins who believe that it may be necessary to prevent myself and Tammsalu from editing the same article. If such a proposition was to occur I would either ignore it completely and then have it overturned immediately as it not only rewards editors for attempting to assume ownership of articles by way of using arbitration enforcement, but it also would entail to some extent a topic ban and it has not been established that I have at any stage acted in a disruptive manner, so there is nothing to gain from effectively handing me a topic ban. Additionally, as numerous arbiters have stated, interaction bans were never meant to stop editors from editing the same articles. An example of this opinion is provided by Xeno at Tammsalu's recent request for clarification at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_6. Ed Johnston also states the decision could be made to restrict one of us from editing "Estonia" articles. Given circumstances, this is clearly directed towards myself, and if it were to occur the same thing as immediately before this would occur.

Refer to my edits on anti-Estonian sentiment (check talk pages as well), Talk:Estonia–Russia_relations#Merge_discussion, User_talk:Miacek/Archives/2011/June#Estonia-Russia_relations, User_talk:Russavia/Archive_20#Barnstar and one can see that I am hardly disruptive, nor do I need to effectively be banned from Estonia-related articles, which is the end result of what two admins have suggested, albeit briefly.

As to the current sgguestion of an RfC. I have pointed this out many times, and I will point it out yet again. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions - the words by Carcharoth are what it should be about, and what it has always been about for myself.

My edit to the article was done in the normal process of editing, as has been correctly supposed by the commenting admins here. The category was removed because it is subjective and has been placed there based only on editorial opinion rather than any solid sources. It is normal practice not to characterise politicians (even hardly notable ones) by way of labels such as "far-left", even moreso when there is nothing in the article which indicates this is the case, especially in terms of WP:RS. The removal of the category by myself was warranted, and it could have been discussed without the extra AE dramuhhhhhhhh. I am an adult, not a child, and I am more than capable of discussing things on the talk page, all the while concentrating on content, instead of attacking contributors. So the suggestion of the RfC on my part is totally not needed as we should be capable of discussing without it, but having said that if an RfC is the suggested way, then let's go with it. It would be also perhaps be advisable that EdJohnston and T.Canens, as the two commenting admins here at this request keep an eye on proceedings at any RfC, and see if any real disruption takes places, and whether editors are able to keep themselves focussed on content (as it should be), rather on attacking editors (as has been the modus operandi in the past). --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tammsalu

Tammsalu has mentioned my moving articles and marking them as "minor". When I go the move page, I can't see "mark as minor" button see this screenshot, so I assume that it is standard?

Tammsalu has also raised the disgusting comments by an editor who recommended not to collaborate with "RuSSavia". This was disgusting back then, and it is disgusting now. I was also derided as an editor by that same editor, and other EEML members, for daring to upload Kremlin.ru materials, and also for content creation. Yeah, this type of activity is really disruptive. It also disgusts me that Tammsalu would dare bring up that disgusting jibe at a 2011 enforcement request.

Tammsalu also raises the issue of my requesting on Commons for the undeletion of an image which is clearly within scope, and isn't a copyvio, for use on Anti-Estonian sentiment. I don't really care if editors find it offensive, hey I find it offensive as well, but Tammsalu is clearly trying to portray that I am the one who created the image, when it is clearly, as marked, a campaign by a Russian newspaper. Tammsalu should also familiarise himself with WP:NOTCENSORED. Muslims find images of Mohammed offensive, yet will Tammsalu go and remove all of those images in support of those sensitivities? Of course he won't. The image is clearly within scope for hosting on Commons (read the undeletion request), and it is clearly a visual form of anti-Estonian sentiment. It was also only undeleted (the request started by myself I mean) because the other image which was in the top right of the article was a copyright violation, and hence the article was without any visual images. What exactly is Tammsalu's problem with this? If he believes that the file should be deleted, he is free to go and re-request for it to be deleted from Commons, however it is no copyright violation. And it is also clearly within the scope of the article.

And I have raised anti-Estonian sentiment as an example of how Tammsalu has clearly used the interaction ban as a way of him attempting to assume ownership of articles. He has undone EVERY edit I made in August 2010, under the false pretense of a copy edit. He did this whilst his last AE enforcement request was still active, yet the admins looking at that request ignored it. So did the two admins whom I approached for advice on how to proceed. So did the arbitration committee when it was raised at Tammsalu's clarification request on his justified block. Perhaps admins on this request would be able to provide their own opinion on whether Tammsalu has acted in a most disruptive way with his removal of all of my edits, and take a look at Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Major_problems_with_this_article where I have presented in plain English what has occurred with the article. At the very least it is an absolute display of bad faith on the part of Tammsalu with my edits, and at worst a display of disruptive and battleground behaviour on the part of Tammsalu. If Tammsalu wasn't so intent of playing the same old games on WP as he was in the EEML days, he would be able to respond on the talk page of the article, without addressing me but rather focussing on the content, as has been suggested by numerous arbiters. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tammsalu, so long as you concentrate on content, and don't make comments on myself (as you have, for example, by linking to the despicable "don't co-operate with RuSSavia" jibes), there is no reason you can't comment on anything, whether that be article content or at an AfD, which I have just noticed is an article you started (and which Twinkle posted to your talk page). There is no reason you can't be collaborative so long as one concentrates on the content only. If you are able to be an adult and do this, I wouldn't be reporting it to AE. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Tammsalu, the above is dependent on whether you are here to collaborate and contribute in a collegial environment, or whether you are just intent on having me sanctioned for anything u can come up with (which of course means nothing has changed from ur EEML days). I sincerely hope that it is the former. Time will tell I guess. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia

Comment by Petri Krohn

Tammsalu/Martin did not create this article, I did. As far as I am concerned, Russavia is welcome to contribute. However I am not at all happy to see Tammsalu editing the article. I try to keep a distance from him and avoid editing or even reading anything he is involved with. I only hope he would extend the same courtesy to me. This time I thought we would see the exception – agree on the content of an article and cooperate, albeit with minimal interaction. This enforcement request once again proves me wrong.

I see absolutely no way the article on Karen Drambjan should be included in the category Category:Far-left politics. I thank Russavia for removing the misplaced category. I cannot see anything in the article history or article talk pages that I would describe as interaction. If Tammsalu cannot agree, I ask him to first explain why he believes the article should be in this category. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Drambjan is an article on a current event--an gunman attack with international media coverage. It seems a little weird to allow only your friends to edit "your" article. Drambjan is described by Sky News as "a member of the marginal left-wing United Left Party. The party is not in parliament and until recently claimed legal succession to Estonia's Soviet-era Communist Party." [162] Wikipedia's article on Far-left politics says in the lead: "This generally includes anarchists, communists and revolutionary socialists."FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not about whether Karen Drambjan is in the general topic of left-wing politics, that we all agree on. The edit in question was about inclusion of the article in the category. If you bother to have a look you will well see that the category is a top level category, not a place to dump individual politicians. I have no objection to the article being in some subcategory.

As the the question of WP:OWN, I am not stating ownership. I am saying that to my understanding I and Tammsalu have been following a voluntary mutual interaction ban. When entering into my editing domain he should follow the utmost courtesy. If he cannot accept this arrangement, then an administrator or ArbCom enforced interaction ban becomes the only option. As for this WP:AE request: it is clear indication of a WP:BATTLEground mentality. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I and Tammsalu have been following a voluntary mutual interaction ban" Ok, I didn't know that. The interpersonal politics in Wikipedia still largely elude me. Tammsalu seems to have a long term interest in (and knowledge of) Estonian topics, as do you. It's not very hard to discern you two don't agree on political issues though. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is news to me that Petri Krohn and I have been following a voluntary mutual interaction ban. The only reason we haven't interacted in the last year or so was that he has not edited any Estonian topics. I don't see any problem with our interaction in the Karen Drambjan article. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @EdJohnston: I do not object to Martin labeling Drambjan as "far left", I object to him being included in a top-level category that contains no other individuals. As far as I am concerned he is free to add the article to an appropriate subcategory. There are however none – Wikipedia seems not to categorize people by their political beliefs.

I would naturally question the labeling as "far" left and require sources. Far left maybe true in Estonia, but Estonia happens to have its own compass for ethics and politics – with the Waffen-SS and their supporters in the center-right and everyone else on the left.

There is a category Category:Estonian politicians by party. The thing to do would be to create the appropriate subcategory. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Collect

This shows a fundamental problem with interaction bans - I see no problem with Martin bringing this action here, moreover. WRT the claim that a person is not "far left" I consider the statement in the article that a person is "left-wing" and quotes him as saying : He calls Estonia a morally bankrupt neo-Fascist county is quite likely sufficient for the characterisation, and should be discussed with all interested parties. I suggest therefore that the 'interaction ban" has been shown to have an unintended consequence which should be examined carefully, with the possible resolution that Martin be allowed to engage in careful and civil discourse on the article talk page, and Russavia also be allowed the same careful and civil discourse on the article talk page, with any admin noting any lack of carefulness and civility and who has no prior involvement in the case be allowed to block either party as he or she sees fit. It is clear, however, that the revert is a technical violation of the interaction ban as written, and Russavia should be given a yellow card. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per note from EdJohnston: I do not like any contentious categorization in any BLPs. Notwithstanding that dislike, the category for "far right" does include BLPs already, so the argument that the corresponding "far left" category ought not include BLPs fails. If the person is clearly and non-contentiously associated with "far left" then there is no WP policy dictating otherwise. Do the editors feel that the person has not been associated with "far left" by strong reliable sources? Collect (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FuFoFuEd

I was asked to expand on my earlier comment. Basically, both Martin and Petri raise potentially valid content-related points, namely that the BLP should be categorized somehow as related to left-leaning politics, but also that a top-level category for that may be inappropriate. (After reading more on the BLP in question, I see subject was also a member of a party representing the Russian minority but with a less clear left-right positioning at some point). I'm fairly confused why this content compromise is being hashed out here. What admins should decide is whether Petri, Martin, and Russavia may participate in that content discussion on the talk page. I've not seen Russavia comment on the content matter besides removing the category with HotCat, thus essentially not spelling out a reason. Given that Russavia's removal of the category is seen as a technical violation of the iban, even if possibly just an unintentional violation, but considering that Petri is also contesting the category, perhaps Martin should be allowed to at least discuss the matter on the talk page there with Petri without this being seen as an iban violation between Martin and Russavia. I see this situation similar to an AfD started by an illegitimate (in this context) editor, but in which other goodstanding editors !vote to delete. Although Petri also wrote that there was an iban between himself and Martin, this one does not appear official, thus unenforceable here. I have no opinion on sanctioning Russavia in any way, because I'm unfamiliar with ibans and how strictly they are normally enforced. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Russavia's counter-request that Martin be sanctioned for bringing the matter here, that seems most unreasonable. (Russavia's thundering tone above is also a little concerning, per se, WP:BOOMERANG-wise.) Where else is Martin supposed to ask for uninvolved admins' opinion on this? The text at IBAN is pretty clear that such an action is not an iban violation in itself: "Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason." Although User:AGK did block Martin for something similar in the past, he later changed his mind: [163]: "[...] On reflection, I agree with Sander Sade's point that the filing of an arbitration enforcement is a necessary exemption from the EEML interaction ban. [...] AGK 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)" FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to EdJohnston: I have no objection to Russavia's participation in the content discussion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to T. Canens: given Petri's comment on the Waffen-SS being today Estonia's center-right, [164] I'm losing my faith in a collegial cooperation in that article on his behalf. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Russavia

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

I'm so far not quite convinced that Russavia's edit was intended as a revert of Tammsalu's edit - which is prohibited by the interaction ban - as opposed to an edit made in the normal course of editing. In other words, I'm not seeing evidence that Russavia knew that Tammsalu is the one who added the category or is willfully blind to that fact. With that having been said, it might be appropriate to prohibit, per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, these two users from editing the same article, since it is apparently that the standard interaction ban didn't really solve the problem. T. Canens (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia technically violated the interaction ban, but I agree with T. Canens that it could have been inadvertent. No action here seems necessary. It may have been overkill for Tammsalu to file an AE complaint about this. The stated reason is that he will be unable to restore the Category:Far-left politics to the Karen Drambjan article without reverting Russavia, which he is not allowed to do. My suggestion would be to open an RfC as to whether that category should remain. Tammsalu can ask an uninvolved admin to close the RfC after a reasonable time. The admin can restore the category if the consensus is to do so. We could make an exemption from the IBAN for both Russavia and Tammsalu to participate in the RfC. I don't see a need to ban them from editing the same articles, though we could restrict one of them from Estonia if this keeps happening. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@FuFoFuEd and Tammsalu: I have re-read the Arbcom restrictions on the EEML participants (which include Tammsalu) and Russavia:

1) Russavia (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.

and

11A) The editors sanctioned by name in this decision [EEML] are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

If a discussion occurs at Talk:Karen Drambjan I think we can view it as 'legitimate and necessary dispute resolution' if both Tammsalu and Russavia participate there to discuss the far-left politics category. I suggest that Tammsalu and Russavia make their opinions known and try to convince the others. Then they should wait for an editor who is not under any restrictions to restore whatever category is arrived at by consensus. If you wish, you can open a formal RfC and get it closed by an admin. In my view, this plan would settle the issues and allow this AE request to be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read 'legitimate and necessary dispute resolution' to mean good-faith clarification, amendment and enforcement requests, not content discussions, as otherwise I don't see a principled place to draw the line. In this case in particular, I'm frankly unconvinced that allowing these two editors to interact with each other is a net benefit. T. Canens (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou

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

Request concerning Jaakobou

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: nableezy - 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

Interaction ban

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

Date See below

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

Notified of interaction ban by by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)
Asked to be more careful in minding the ban following a prior infraction by 2over0 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In the above diff, Jaakobou refers to me as either an editor (or activist) with a "similar perspective" of a "self-professed anti-Zionist". He does by providing an "example" of said self-professed anti-Zionist "adorning" me with a barnstar, linking to this diff in his statement. I dont appreciate the sly coaching in of "activist" by a user for whom I have yet to actually give a critique of their worth in any public forum. As such, I request that the interaction ban be enforced. How it is I leave up to you, though I ask that you consider, taking in to account both the long term and short term activity of this editor, whether or not there would be any tangible loss if the user were banned from the topic area. Looking at his recent contributions, I cant imagine that there would be any loss at all.

I have unarchived this section as it was never closed. If a user is free to disregard an interaction ban then so be it, but yall at least need to say that. nableezy - 19:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]; Ed, the violation is regarding an interaction ban with me, not Roland. nableezy - 17:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Jaakobou

Statement by Jaakobou

It wasn't clear to me how to illustrate that RolandR gives awards to editors who agree with some of his perspectives but this was needed to be clarified as reasoning for RolandR's politically motivated loss of ability to read Hebrew or distinguish that there are 3 wiki-reliable sources saying the same thing (on Ezra Nawi). I used the first two clear examples I found (awards to someone denied use of anti-Israeli content on his user page, and another to someone banned a 3rd time in 2010 for adding 'occupation' to Israeli localities), though I am sure others exist -- though, perhaps not as clear. The second link is to an award handed to an editor with whom I share an interaction ban. This ban was imposed after a lot of drama -- we both called each other 'disingenuous' and similar -- on 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC) and I have followed it for the past year with diligence (one accident, which I immediately tried to correct has occurred in a time span of 10 months). This prompted a complaint, but I believe that the link, which is intended to discuss RolandR's political motivation, should be allowed to be posted on AE. It is of a similar level of IBAN gray territory to that of allowing someone to post a complaint about a fellow IBAN editor. I am, actually, quite pleased with the no-interaction imposition since it saves me a LOT of grief and mucking about politically motivated distractions, tag-team mentality and other nothings and I prefer that I do not share the same editing space where possible. If there is a consensus among admins that the link to RolandR's activity in an AE complaint about RolandR is not in the gray/allowed area and that posting it should not be allowed at all costs, I will quickly retract, but it seems to me pertinent to illustrate RolandR's state-of-mind when he misled EdJohnson into a good faith revert (of 3 reliable sources) and page protection.
p.s. apologies to everyone involved for this drama. I have no intention of causing any and will follow by removing the link -- and avoid anything similar in the future -- if there is a consensus that it is improper -- or "sly coaching". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a show of good faith, while the link poses a gray area which called up this distraction and drama, I'd rather not have it up and have removed it.[165]
I'd rather avoid any IBAN issues even if it seems like a proper link. With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston,

I and RolandR share no interaction ban. Thus, I request that you retract your statement. (Offtopic) In the above thread, I have pointed out that RolandR has blatantly misrepresented Hebrew in order to mislead you into reverting on his behalf. To be frank, I'm not sure you can/should comment as an "uninvolved admin" either here or there. Regardless, RolandR's political beliefs are not an issue at all as long as he does not translate them into improper conduct.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. please read the threads thoroughly before passing out judgement.

Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou

Comment by a Biosketch

Jaakobou (talk · contribs) should strike out the words he wrote in parentheses, and this AE should thereafter be closed per moot point.—Biosketch (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Volunteer Marek

...Annnnndddddd this is about as perfect illustration as you're gonna get of the fact that AE doesn't put out fires in troublesome areas but instead serves as the can that holds the gasoline that is poured on these fires by various involved editors. I'll be frank and here and state my personal belief that we should simply get rid of AE since it causes way much trouble than it solves...

...but since we're here. At first I thought that this was just more bullshit whining and spurious reportin' by people in this topic area. However, it does seem that Jaakobou did indeed indirectly but purposefully, refer to Nableezy in the terms stated, by including this diff in his statement above. Strictly speaking he is not calling Nableezy himself all those things, he's just saying he has a "similar perspective" (to someone who is all these *bad* things), with a link to a bunch of comments by Nableezy. That looks like a pretty intentional violation of the interaction ban, edit conflict or not.

Short block (since this is a first time interaction ban violation), 24 hrs or so (12 if yer feeling nice), as a slap upside the head, to remind the user to observe the interaction ban and don't try and get sneaky with interaction ban violations would probably be in order. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Immensely amusing to read. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Yeah, ARBPIA3. Too many requests here based on the topic area. I blame the admins as much as the editors but I did say a bit ago that this was going to happen.(edit: btw, I made this comment before seeing all of the parties involved. It as in no way a violation of the interaction ban but meant to be a comment on the multiple threads I am watching based on other editors I check in on.)Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FuFoFuEd

I don't care to comment about the substance of the matter here, but the staleness is entirely the making of this board. The diff is from Aug 5, and the report from Aug 6. I understand that alleged long-term POV pushing backed by dozens of diffs is time-consuming to investigate, but this was an NPA-type incident involving one diff, and it was promptly reported. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jaakobou

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

Jaakobou did, in fact, comment negatively about RolandR in a recently filed AE request and the remarks about anti-Zionist editors are clearly non-neutral.
A self-professed anti-Zionist with a prominent history of enriching the project with anti-Israeli advocacy content and adornment of editors (and activists) with a similar perspective (two samples: [166], [167]), RolandR has managed to lose the ability to read Hebrew properly on Ezra Nawi. I believe he can contribute to the project properly if he keeps his political beliefs and idols out of his arguments (and stops removing well cited content as "vandalism").
Jaakobou is not under any topic ban at present, so I suggest that the sanction should be a one-week block. I am also puzzled that Jaakobou was active in merging together two AE requests above (on 5 August), both of them against RolandR, from whom he is interaction-banned. Since neither of these requests involved any criticism of Jaakobou's own edits, it seems to me that Jaakobou was pushing the limits of his own restriction while trying to get RolandR in trouble. I would be inclined to reject that whole request at WP:AE#RolandR with no action, but I'm still hopeful that other admins will comment before I do so. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry for my error about which editor was interaction banned. I'm withdrawing my comment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment about the issue because I'm generally considered an "involved" administrator, but just wanted to note that, as far as I am aware, Jaakobou doesn't have an interaction ban with RolandR, and has never had one. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the interaction ban was with Nableezy, the target of the second diff above. Jaakobou has since struck the link. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so just let it go this time, but remind Jaakobu very very sternly, finger wagging and all, to be careful about observing his interaction ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the staleness of the alleged violation, I don't see a need for any action at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smith2006

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

Request concerning Smith2006

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Smith2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Notice of editing restrictions placed on Smith2006 including "Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth"

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

19 August 2011 "your entries and constant vandalizing of my entries on Sudetenland and other themes, are beyond your field of science" "you pursue an anti-German goal here. I am merely removing highly POV Polish additions and things written in bad English" Also asks the user if he is a Catholic, follows with offensive remarks
19 August 2011 "Maybe, if you look undernearth your cellar in Polish-annexed Breslau, you may find the massacred German original owners buried in concrete" Steps up in offensive comments alleging that the user is living in stolen home whose owners were murdered
18th August ""Marek, first learn proper use of the English language written and spoken, then return. This is not a Polish Nationalist lemma" attacks on other user and ethnic based attacks
18th August "this is not a Polish nationalist encyclopedia", "changed name to English version" Offensive remarks based on ethnicity, the "English version" is actually a heavily Germanized name.
"Grotesque Polish nationalist claims" 15th August

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

Warned on May 2009 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
Warned and blocked on 2 June 2009 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User Smith2006 has previously been blocked numerous times for the same incidents-offensive name calling, pushing extreme biased edits into articles, and POV warring into German-Polish articles. He was first put on editing restrictions with following information 'Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking'. He was later blocked for violation of this issues for six monthsBlock decision with numerous examples of previous offensive behaviour He has now returned after long absence, but with the same problematic behaviour-calling other user entries "nationalist" and engaging in highly offensive remarks like "Maybe, if you look undernearth your cellar in Polish-annexed Breslau, you may find the massacred German original owners buried in concrete". Before he repeatedly violated the block [168]. While his six month topic ban expired, the notice of editing restrictions and civility warning is still valid. Now after long absence he returned but with the same kind of behaviour that led to previous block. Proposed decision:one month block(due to previous misbehaviour and blocks), six month topic ban on Polish-German relations as before.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[169]

Discussion concerning Smith2006

Statement by Smith2006

Comments by others about the request concerning Smith2006

Comment by Dominus Vobisdu

On the 15/16 of August, User:Smith2006 made a series of unsourced, mostly POV (anti-Polish) edits to several articles related to Poland and Czechoslovakia. Most were reverted by me. user:Yopie, user:Volunteer Marek, user:MyMoloboaccount and user:Keith D as unsourced or POV, with a note to discuss the changes and get consensus on the talk page in the edit summaries. I issued a warning on disruptive editing on his talk page. [[170]]

On 18 August, he reverted again without discussing on the article talk pages. Again, his changes were reverted as before.

On 19 August, he reverted yet again without discussion, and left offensive messages on my talk pages questioning my natioality and religion, and telling me: "Maybe, if you look undernearth your cellar in Polish-annexed Breslau, you may find the massacred German original owners buried in concrete by the Urząd Bezpieczeństwa or UB." [[171]]

Among the affected articles were: Henryk IV Probus, Wrocław, Silesians, Bolesław I the Tall, and Sudetenland. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nanobear

The previous sanctions against Smith were already overblown, so I cannot understand why we should add another one to it. On Wikipedia, describing things the way you see them is, for some reason, regarded as worse than the actual things. There's something definitely wrong in that topic area and the involvement of the thread starter should make you stop and think whether Smith may, in fact, have a point. [172] Nanobear (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Smith2006

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

Not much subtlety here. This looks like a replay of the behavior for which Smith2006 was given a 6-month topic ban under DIGWUREN in June, 2009. I recommend that Smith2006 be again banned from from all Eastern-Europe related subjects with an expiry of one year. An alternative might be a one-year block, since he proved unable to observe the topic ban last time around and wound up being blocked for the remaining duration of the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1st choice: Lets go through the motions and give him the topic ban. If he cannot manage to restrain himself and breaks the topic ban, any administrator can (and should) block for the duration. There is always the possibility he has learned to act with some restraint, at least if a block is hanging over him. 2nd choice: skip the topic ban and cut directly to block, as suggested by EdJohnston. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer one-year block. Second choice is one-year topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: The user has continued to edit Wikipedia without responding here. The admin opinions are divided between a one-year block and a topic ban. I am imposing both the block and the topic ban. The editor is blocked for one year, and restricted indefinitely from the subject of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, on both articles and talk pages. The block can be lifted early if the user will respond on their talk page and promise to observe the ban and follow all Wikipedia policies. The topic ban is also negotiable if the user has a change of heart. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZionistSufi

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

Request concerning ZionistSufi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

Violation of the 1RR at The Electronic Intifada:
1. 21 August
2. 21 August
Violation of the 1RR at Peace Now
Violation of the 1RR at Beitar Illit

Additionally, the reverts at Beitar Illit violate the consensus established at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. The user is an obvious sockpuppet and should be blocked on that basis, but until that happens a topic ban should put in place.

The user has continued to remove the material on the illegality of the settlement at Beitar Illit (here)

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

Warned on 21 August by myself

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning ZionistSufu

Statement by ZionistSufu

Comments by others about the request concerning ZionistSufu

Result concerning ZionistSufu

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

Omen1229

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

Request concerning Omen1229

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nmate (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Omen1229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement

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

15:40, 19 August 2011

The editor implied that one of his antipodes in a content dispute is paranoid ,and hates all the Slovaks as well as accused four Hungarian users of being one and the same person, thus creating a battleground atmosphere.

Saying that "this paranoid user judges others by yourself. He hates all Slovaks, his edits (about Hungarian-Slovak articles) are evidence. This user is web programmer and I think CoolKoon, Hobartimus, Nmate, Fakirbakir... are same person". is not acceptable under WP policies.

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

Warning by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [173]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Omen1229 designed his user page in a way which seems very much like depicting the Hungarians as a semi-nomadic tribe living in tents between savage and needy circumstances. I made a complaint about it at WP ANI [174] but it was closed on the grounds that the slur was not completely clear and that we must assume good faith until the contrary is proven. Then said user was blocked for 31 hours for a violation of 3RR which happened on the article Magyarization a week ago [175] for which he received an AE warning as well, and no sooner had he returned to editing Wikipedia than he did the aforementioned personal attack on the talk page of the Magyarization article. Two days ago, Omen1229 filled an odd report related to Magyarization at edit warring board [176], where he was unable to provide 4 diffs about reverts in which I was not even the subject of his report though, I was accused of being a sockpuppet of someone else by him [177] as I have a particular IP range which is used in a populous geographic area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[178]

Discussion concerning Omen1229

I consider myself involved because user:Omen1229 filed a report against me with two reverts within a 24h period instead of the required four [179] He then augmented it with adding a third but outside of 24h, I also consider his user page highly offensive which could also be grounds for involvement. This is a new account but I don't believe this is a new user. He has a total of 181 edits all from 2011, yet he is referencing the "banned user VinceB"[180] and accusing people of being his sockpuppets, who last edited in 2007 four years before the account Omen1229 made his first edit in 2011. Users who were editing during 2007 include [181] [182] and several others. The user page and other incidents might have been isolated ones but early edits such as talking about opinions of historians being "fairy tales" and this indicate the presence of a pattern of WP:BATTLE. Hobartimus (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t know what is offensive on my User page. There are only facts from WP. Ugric languages. Shamanistic remnants in Hungarian folklore. On my User page are only pics with people. Only racists see there any anti-Hungarian sentiment.

Term "fairy tales" was my mistake. Sorry. I thought obsolete theories from 19. century 1. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Omen1229

Totally ridiculous. I was attacked first (CoolKoon said: But despite that it's pretty pointless of Omen1229 and his meatpuppets...1) Here is a whole discussion 2 and make your own opinion. I think this "cause" is another personal attack 3 and only revenge of the Nmate. Are you advocate of CoolKoon or who are you? --Omen1229 (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Omen1229

Comment by FuFoFuEd

Typical dispute between nationalists here. "E1: History book B is anti-X, therefore not RS", "E2: Who says that?", "E1: Site S.", "E2: But site S is a nationalist pro-X site."; sprinkle with some more-or-less vague insinuations ranging from sock puppetry to psychiatric illnesses, pad well with filibustering, and loop forever. No different than the brouhaha involving DIREKTOR above. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Omen1229

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

Someone35

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

Request concerning Someone35

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Someone35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

Violation of the 1RR at Qula

23 August 1st revert
23 August 2nd revert

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

Warned on 23 August by Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
Warned on 23 August by myself. I asked that the user self-revert or I would report him or her for violating the 1RR. The user declined to do so.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user is removing a reliable source, written by a professor from UCLA and published by Columbia University Press on the basis that he or she thinks that the source is wrong. The user is also instructing others not to edit war while, ironically, edit-warring.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Someone35

Statement by Someone35

I'll write my statement here tomorrow, I must go to sleep now-- Someone35 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

This young newcomer to the I-P area thinks it is the Wild West and he/she doesn't need to obey the rules. Disruptive edits like this one indicate that the behavior is unlikely to improve unaided. I suggest a short topic ban plus a warning that continuation of the same behavior afterwards will earn a more severe penalty. Zero^talk 00:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a major leap Zero. First offense. I'd defer to WP:NEWBIES and close this with a formal warning. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He/she got a warning, actually two warnings, after the offense. It only came here because she/he openly refused to obey the 1RR rule. Being a newbie does not excuse that sort of behavior. I'd propose a long block for an experienced user doing that. Zero^talk 00:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He/she was warned for edit-warring. It would be unprecedented to impose such a topic ban on an editor with no prior record, especially over 2 reverts. Dispute resolution is a process and it is tiring to see the same editor go to Arbitration Enforcement every time they get in conflict with someone else. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user was informed that they had already broken the revert restriction and was asked to self-revert. Instead of doing so, the user attempted to claim that everybody else was wrong and refused to self-revert. If the user does self-revert then there is no issue here, but as it stands the user is refusing to abide by the discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 01:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Someone35

Result concerning Someone35

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

Closing: Blocked three days. User is not a complete newcomer. They have been on Wikipedia for four months. They defend their POV very strongly and they have already declined to self-revert after being informed of the 1RR. I think it is not necessary to wait longer for a statement from them. If we have overlooked some key fact about this dispute they can open an unblock request on their talk page and it can be discussed there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 840: / Line 840: @@
 * 1st choice: Lets go through the motions and give him the topic ban. If he cannot manage to restrain himself and breaks the topic ban, any administrator can (and should) block for the duration. There is always the possibility he has learned to act with some restraint, at least if a block is hanging over him. 2nd choice: skip the topic ban and cut directly to block, as suggested by EdJohnston. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 23:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 *Prefer one-year block. Second choice is one-year topic ban. [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 04:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Closing:'''  The user has continued to edit Wikipedia without responding here. The admin opinions are divided between a one-year block and a topic ban. I am imposing both the block and the topic ban. The editor is blocked for one year, and restricted indefinitely from the subject of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, on both articles and talk pages. The block can be lifted early if the user will respond on their talk page and promise to observe the ban and follow all Wikipedia policies. The topic ban is also negotiable if the user has a change of heart. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 03:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 == ZionistSufi ==

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