Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:41, 15 September 2014

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	335	336

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Darkness Shines

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ~~~

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Callanecc‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: notification.

Statement by Darkness Shines

Since the TBAN was imposed I have brought Rape during the Rwandan Genocide to GA status, and the Rape during the Bosnian War article is now a GA candidate, I have expanded and replaced most of the references on the article, removing primary sources as well as newspaper references and replacing them with academic sources. This is a controversial article and I have managed all that work without losing my temper at anyone. I should like the chance to do the same thing with some articles dealing with human rights abuses in the region covering the TBAN. I have also created a few stubs and another article which appeared at DYK, Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War. I believe the TBAN has now become punitive and not preventative, as I have had but one drunken outburst since it was imposed. The following users requested I let them know when I file an appeal, so am pinging them. @RegentsPark: @Drmies: @Bbb23: @Vanamonde93: Darkness Shines (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Glrx: It most certainly was sourced, "the widely held estimate is that almost 200,000 women were raped during those nine months. [sic] Yet in an interview with me in Dr Geoffrey Davis , who was working in Bangladesh in 1972 suggested this number was far higher." Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia p 120. On "The PHR report also showed that ninety four per cent of internally displaced persons (IDP's) had been victims of some form of sexual assault". see Women, Migration, and Conflict: Breaking a Deadly Cycle p50, "94% of displaced households", and that is the source used. On 215,000 to 257,000 victims of sexual abuse, cite to Physicians for Human Rights estimates that during the conflict, between 215,000 and 257,000 of them were subjected to sexualized violence, and now you can say sorry, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, what source misrepresentation? That is a PA as it is not true. I just wrote the quote above. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:. Other than a 1RR restriction, which I would be fine with, (barring the usual BLP, copy vio stuff) I cannot think of anything myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keysanger has declared himself uninvolved, however he is involved in a content dispute with myself and another editor on the WoTP article. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:, I can assure you I will do my best not to lose my temper, and I have been very careful to not get into editing disputes when on the piss. As to your point on sourcing, no can do. The majority of sources I ues are books from academic publishers or journals I access through JSTOR. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:, I am not being intransigent, I got the impression you did not want me using offline sources or paywalled papers. I am OK with the suggestion, but have a question. GA reviews can take up to three months, do I have to wait from when I rewrite an article, nominate it, and then hang around for months before it passes before asking for the TBAN to be fully rescinded? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callanecc‎

As I said when DS asked me on 8 Aug, I would have been happy to lift the TBAN myself if there was nothing of the same behaviour as what led to the ban. However I found some edits of concern so wasn't willing to lift it myself. Now I see why he reacted the way he did but comments like this are just not acceptable under any circumstances. Having said that, if other admins agree that the TBAN can be lifted I'd be quite happy to do it myself but I like some agreement to do it.

Whether it's still required, if others agree I'd be quite happy to lift it as a second chance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Darkness Shines

Statement by Shrike

I think DS did a good work on those articles. So he should be given a second chance.--Shrike (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

For what damage DS may have caused, the penalty may not quite fit the crime at this point. One voice for "second chance" on this. Collect (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

I haven't always gotten along with DS in the instances where we have interacted, but he is an excellent content contributor and I do not believe he deserves a TBAN.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Glrx

The TBAN had other issues besides personal attacks. See insertion of unsourced figure of 200,000 rapes at result/DS. Consequently, I looked at Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War to spot check fact figures; I looked at no other article. There's a claim in the article that "The PHR report also showed that ninety four per cent of internally displaced persons (IDP's) had been victims of some form of sexual assault". There's also a claim of 215,000 to 257,000 victims of sexual abuse. The latter claim can be bound in Reis/PHR report on pages 4 and 59, but it is not on pages 17-18 as claimed in footnote 15. I did not find any support for the first claim of 94 percent. The PHR report does state that 94% of households (a household comprises more than one person) surveyed had one or more incidents of (not necessarily sexual) violence (eg. pp 2, 71). Page 47 states, "Regarding sexual violence, 9% (94) of the 991 respondents reported one or more war-related sexual violence experiences." See also Table 2, page 44, that breaks down the type of violence in households.

I'm concerned that DS is not accurately reporting statistics and that there could be an extraordinary POV bias.

Consequently, I would not lift the TBAN.

I'll commend the claim of only one recent civility incident, but I did not examine civility. Glrx (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:. 1RR does not address misstating sources. (WP:V.) 1RR would prevent an edit war over challenged material, but many incorrect assertions may go unchallenged. The 94-percent-of-internally-displaced-persons statement went unchallenged in RdtSLCW. Even when that statement was challenged here, DS neither understood the challenges nor the source. DS also does not discern that the earlier 200,000-rapes issue is not about the number of rapes but rather that the cited source never stated such a figure. Glrx (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Mea culpa: 1RR was DS' suggestion not yours. Glrx (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this violate the TBAN?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965&diff=624077838&oldid=624064459 DS revert 3 September
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=624123968&oldid=624117101 User query to DS talk about revert
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965&diff=624124592&oldid=624077838 DS self revert

Glrx (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I looked over the original AE request, and given the outrageous conduct by Darkness Shines which led to the AE enforcement request, as well as during the AE enforcement request, and given that this was only a few months ago, I strongly recommend denying this appeal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian

(I am not sure if I am "uninvolved". I have not edited in ARBIPA generally, but I have edited in ARBPIA.)

In my brief interactions with DS, his conduct was fine and civil. I did not agree with any of his edits, but then I disagree with the edits of lots of people, so that is perhaps not too important. I do not have any opinion about wider matters. Kingsindian (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Keysanger

I am very concerned about DS's behaviour in the Talk page of War of the Pacific.

1.- User Darknes Shines cites A Reference Guide to Latin American History (page 155) as support for the 14. February 1879 as the date of the beginning of the War of the Pacific, The source is fine, but here are a few more: [1]. The book states on page 155:

Bolivia responded to Chilean protests by asserting the legality of the tax and declaring war on Chile (March 14., 1879). By that time Chilean forces had already seized the Bolivian port of Antofagasta (February 14., 1879).

There is no support for the 14. February as date of the beginning of the war. He invented a support of a RS where it doesn't exist.

2.- Furthermore, User Darkness Shines had no problem to invent a Combat of Antofagasta, on 14. February 1879. despite I asked DS twice ([2], [3]) to deliver a WP:RS for the statement, DS never did it. He invented a event that never occurred.

3.- In the same comment he states To write "some authors consider the 14 February as the beginning of the war, other not" is OR, as you have no source to support that statement, albeit he self had deleted my proposal (Some authors set the beginning of the war with the first naval battles, others on February 14, 1879) and the given RS: [4]

I ask the members of the committee "to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment". --Keysanger (Talk) 16:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DS, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that what you did. --Keysanger (Talk) 19:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Darkness Shines has, since his TBAN, faked Reliable Sources, invented historical events, misrepresented statistics, insulted other editors, is unable to answer the the most simple questions about his doings, and he finds always a good reason to justify his malpractices. For every of these cases you find facts in this discussion. There is neither remorse nor change. I would suggest that you again read Darkness Shines's long paper trail of blocks and imagine how many deletes, reverts, edit wars, discussions, insults, protected articles, conflicts between editors, how many good editors that never will come back, and how many wasted time for admins has caused his behaviour. Your duty is "to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment" and that is "now" and not "may be tomorrow". --Keysanger (Talk) 15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved OccultZone

@Black Kite: I agree with this proposal. I was thinking of nominating one of his article to GA, he can be helpful. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brief statement by Drmies

I support lifting the ban. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Darkness Shines

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

Note: Without assessment of the request, the relevant TBAN was applied by Callanecc here and modified here (original AE request that let to the TBAN here). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note at the outset that I participated in the administrators' discussion that led to the ban being appealed. The appeal does not address the reasons for the topic ban, so we may assume that their validity is uncontested. Instead, the appeal argues that the topic ban should be lifted because of good article work done by Darkness Shines, and no loss of temper on their part. However, as Glrx points out, the topic ban was not (only) imposed for deficiencies in self-control, but also for edit-warring and misrepresenting cited sources. Because the appeal does not address this misconduct, we can't establish that the ban no longer serves a preventative function. I would therefore decline the appeal. Moreover, Darkness Shines writes in their appeal that they had a "drunken outburst" since the ban was imposed. In my view, people susceptible to drunken outbursts on Wikipedia, however rarely, should not edit sensitive and controversial topics. For this reason, too, I would decline the appeal. Sandstein 19:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Darkness Shines now says (on 19:37, 30 August 2014) about their source misrepresentation that contributed to Callanecc's decision to impose the sanction is at odds with my assessment of their editing in the previously mentioned administrators' discussion. This indicates, to me, that the ban is still needed to prevent similar misconduct by Darkness Shines in this topic area. Sandstein 19:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a slightly more refined restriction that we could impose to recognise DS's improved conduct since the topic ban and allow him to make constructive edits but to keep him away from the conflicts that got him the topic ban in the first place? DS, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Glrx: 1RR was not my suggestion, and is not one I endorse. I agree with you that it would be inadequate, though it would not address the issues you raise, such as your concerns over sourcing in the Sierra Leone article—which is not covered by the current restriction an is out of scope for this board. That said, I'm not convinced that such a blunt instrument as a blanket topic ban from the subject area is (still) merited, and I would be interested to hear sensible suggestions for lesser restrictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an idea. Why not let DS chooose a specified number of articles (say 3) in the TBAN area that he wants to improve/bring up to GA, and let him work on those only for a specified amount of time? Then if this is successful, to come back here and discuss a further lifting of the TBAN? Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems a reasonable compromise, though I'd prefer it to apply to one article at a time and the lack of scrutiny of GAs makes me nervous. I would need assurances on neutrality and sourcing (particularly that that the sources were properly represented—not just assuming good faith for offline/paywalled sources), but if I got those assurances and DS managed to avoid getting into personal disputes along the way, I would be more amenable to loosening or lifting the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - DS, I'm sure you're not the only Wikipedian with a library card. A sensible way could be found to find a third party to check the sources. Now, are the terms I've suggested acceptable or do you think intransigence is going to get you a better offer? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've no problem with you using offline/paywalled sources, I just want a third party to check that the article properly represents those sources; if it does, I'll be much more amenable to lifting the topic ban. I'll let other admins weigh in on your question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haberstr

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Haberstr

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Haberstr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE : Topic ban (at least temporary) from Eastern/Central European topics (or at least Russia/Ukraine)

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

Sept 1 Baseless accusations about some conspiracy which involves myself, User:RGloucester and User:Iryna Harpy and perhaps User:331dot
Sept 1 More unfounded aspersions of conspiracy and tag teaming... in the same comment in which s/he demands that *others* assume good faith towards him/her!
Sept 1 Tendentious wiki-lawyering about the use of the WP:WEASEL word "alleged" (Haberstr wants articles to say everything is just "alleged" when it doesn't match his POV)
Sept 1 WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. More of that in other diffs and in regard to other comments by other users.
Sept 2 More accusations and WP:BATTLEGROUND
Sept 2 "There's an organized and successful effort to make Ukraine conflict articles biased." - baseless WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, conspiracy talk. Later added ". Because there is a team of four or five working together it is impossible for one editor to stop their POV push" [5] (just to be clear, the editors he's accusing of being in a conspiracy together actually *disagreed* with each other about the relevant article. Two of them actually more or less supported Haberstr in this particular instance (they wanted the relevant article deleted) but they had the nerve to disagree with Haberstr elsewhere, hence the aspersions.)
Sept 2 - more of the same.
Sept 6 WP:BATTLEGROUND style comment, more thinly veiled accusations of some conspiracy and strange talk of some "New Cold War"
[6] Battleground section title on another user's talk page
Sept 6 Snide comments on the talk page repeating the implied accusation of collusion or some "secret conspiracy". This is after repeated warnings from other editors and me mentioning that if he continues with these baseless accusations he'll wind up at WP:AE

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notification of discretionary sanctions by User:Callanec on Sept 1 [7], note most of the WP:BATTLEGROUND comments were made *after* the notification/warning was issued.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since User:Haberstr moved over from Syrian-war related articles (where he also apparently got into some trouble) to ones related to the ongoing situation in Ukraine, he's displayed a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, has made a series of baseless accusations towards any editor active in this area who has disagreed with them, and engaged in tendentious editing. I'm mostly skipping evidence and diffs for the last one because it's mostly and specifically content related but it has involved moving talk pages without consensus (while move discussion was ongoing), changing wording to highly POV versions and demanding that his POV is given WP:UNDUE space in relevant articles (see the diff with comment by Kudzu1 above for an example). He's been warned/talked to/notified several times. Initially his most egregious comments were confined to his talk page but he has since began to make similar comments and aspersions on article talk pages.

His behavior has been noted by several editors (though of course, Haberstr contends that these are in a conspiracy against them):

Warning by RGloucester [8] about Haberstr's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems.
Warning by NeilN [9]
Comment by Kudzu1 on the nature of what Haberstr regards as "NPOV": [10]
Warning about the baseless accusations by Iryna Harpy [11] and [12]
Comment from 331dot about Haberstr's accusations [13] [14]
331dot pointing out the problems with Haberstr behavior, and a warning about unilateral page moves [15], [16][17]

Further comments and replies

Reply to HiLo48's edit at 02:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC) (moved here by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

HiLo48, it's not that. Me and you have had our disagreements but I've never seen a reason to take a dispute with you to this particular noticeboard (and if somebody does take a dispute they have with you here, I would be happy to say a few things in your favor - guarded and qualified, of course, but positive none the less). Yes, people will have different perspectives. And it may even be the case that it is very hard for these people to find common points of agreement. The problem with Haberstr' behavior is on a different level, however. It's classic WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT combined with a disruptive approach which says "If I don't get my way, I will get back at you by making your (editing) life difficult". Which is the quintessence of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. EVEN IF somebody happens to agree with the POV they're trying to push, it's hard to defend the way they're going about it. Volunteer Marek 04:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Penwhale: " @Volunteer Marek:, can you answer Sandstein's question?" - I'm sorry, what question are you referring to? I see one question mark in Sandstein's comment and that's at the end of a statement addressed to other AE admins. Volunteer Marek 04:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Penwhale: Well, the word "obviously" and the phrase "on their own" are in that sentence. You should probably ask Sandstein to clarify if you're not clear on what he's saying. My view is that, sure, any particular one of these diffs is not sanctionable on its own. Which is why I didn't run to WP:AE the first time that Haberstr started accusing editors about being in a conspiracy against him. Or the second time. Or the third time. It was only when he kept doing it, when it started to become an issue on talk pages - in that it pretty much shut down productive discussion - that it reached a certain critical point, where it became clear that Haberstr's battleground mentality was disrupting the editing process that I filed this report. I don't disagree with Sandstein's assessment except perhaps in the matter of degree (I'm also assuming that the rest of his comment, the part about bickering is not directed at me but some of the other commentators, as the only other comment I posted here was trying to say something nice about HiLo)

I'm sort of not clear about what is you're asking. Volunteer Marek 18:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of this request [18]

Discussion concerning Haberstr

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Haberstr

You're losing this veteran editor, Wikipedia, and I've made thousands of NPOV edits since 2007. These obviously POV Ukraine entries, where the POV editors don't even allow a widely supported POV tag, that's just not encyclopedic, it's just too much. (Note that this arb com attack on me was apparently sparked by my request here: Ukraine: Volunteer Marek's pre-discussion removal of POV tag (twice) on admin noticeboard.) But, if Wikipedia has taken the side of the U.S. and NATO in the New Cold War, then there's no problem, because Wikipedia now has become the pro-NATO Wikipedia in all its Ukraine conflict entrie. I understand that the Russian-language Wikipedia is appparently anti-NATO, anti-U.S. POV on Ukraine conflict articles. Ain't war by other means just fine and dandy!?

The critical and obvious sign of POV is the following: nearly all RS report certain accusations against Russia as allegations or claims, but the POV editors insist on transforming these claims into facts. Sometimes they do so in the title of entries; see Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014). (On the same article's talk page, see also this discussion: POV: Claims presented as facts. ) Usually, though, the claims transformed into 'facts' are in the introductory sentences of an entry. For example, here is something from the start of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine: "These men were identified as Russian special forces and other paramilitaries." Well, no, RS reported these allegations as claims, not as facts. I of course changed the biased copy and was almost immediately reverted. Much much more on the intro paragraphs bias here[19] and here[20]. Here is something from the lead paragraph of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation: "Russia absorbed the peninsula after staging a military intervention in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ..." The preceding is in fact a claim, and is stated as a claim in all RS news reports. (By the way, the "Annexation" article duplicates 2014 Crimean crisis. Like the "Invasion" entry, I suppose the POV editors just wanted to get a contentious word into the name of another Ukraine conflict entry, and don't care about the duplication violation. Those editors had earlier, and without discussion on the talk page, changed the NPOV 'Incorporation' into the arguably POV 'Annexation'.)

I have a long track record of working well with NPOV editors, working well with POV editors who sincerely want to become NPOV, and an ability to NPOV improve politically charged articles: [21], [22]. And I have attempted to do the same regarding Ukraine conflict entries: I improve Ukraine-related articles with appropriate, balanced, NPOV edits and, when such changes are reverted (as they almost always are), I attempt to discuss the matter on article talk pages, and then as a last resort I appropriately tagging obvious POV entries as POV. I always support POV tag application with a substance-full list of many POV violations. The POV editors never engage, in particular Volunteer Marek, never engage in the normal, substantive discussion, and never allow the POV tag discussion to play out as Wikipedia policy requires. All attempts to get the POV editors to listen to what numerous people have said about their actions, their destruction and embarrassment of Wikipedia on the Ukraine topic have been futile. Anyone who reads their talk pages knows what is going on and disinterested administrators should consider a topic ban for those most resistant to NPOV. They can start with whoever started and still aggressively supports this ridiculous page: Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014).

Let's read that again: "If you have not taken sides and are in fact an editor who is NPOV-oriented, please discuss so we can agree that my lead is more or less (tweaking graciously accepted) NPOV. If you have enlisted with one side or the other in the new Cold War, please be self aware and don't get involved in the NPOV discussion." I stand by it; it seems like excellent advice, and I'm very surprised that an editor would attack such a quote.

I also stand by the following opinion: "There's an organized and successful effort to make Ukraine conflict articles biased." Based on their extensive discussion on their talk pages, a pro-Maidan group is out to make Ukraine conflict edits POV anti-Russian and pro-Maidan. And I admit it is their 'right' to do so, if they can get away with it. However, I promise to desist from making such a claim or allegation in the future. As any dedicated NPOV editor will imagine, I've been very frustrated by the successful pro-Maidan, anti-Russian attack on Wikipedia neutrality. I have never seen anything like it, and I hope we see the back of it soon. At the very very least, though, POV tags should be applied to the worst violators while we wait out the POV editors. We owe that to our readers. In other words, the following sort of behavior needs to stop: [23]. But it is not just Marek who is the problem: note the quick POV tag removal here: POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry. Haberstr (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among editors who are not a party to this request is now closed. Sandstein 10:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by NeilN

"If you have not taken sides and are in fact an editor who is NPOV-oriented, please discuss so we can agree that my lead is more or less (tweaking graciously accepted) NPOV. If you have enlisted with one side or the other in the new Cold War, please be self aware and don't get involved in the NPOV discussion" [24] seems to be an unintentionally ironic but quite telling statement from Habestr. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Haberstr: You realize that that quote sounds as if you're saying, "of course my version is NPOV and anyone who disagrees has taken sides and shouldn't comment," right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 331dot

I believe my comments above that VolunteerMarek has linked to speak for themselves. I think VM has summarized the situation well. I've never commented on this sort of thing before, so if further comment is requested, or if there are any questions by those making decisions here, please ask. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it important to note again that Haberstr has requested the presence of many like-minded users here and that should be taken into account. @MyMoloboaccount:, the finding of Russian involvement in Ukraine is not a "conspiracy theory" but a finding by many reliable sources including governments, NATO, and news outlets. Russia does not have to admit to involvement for it to exist. I am open to more text in the article(or any relevant article) about Russian denials or Russian explanations, but that doesn't mean excising one POV for the other. THat also is only a small part of the issue here, as Haberstr has accused some(apparently not me, but I'm not sure) of being involved in an organized effort against them without any evidence. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be noted that this post by Mondschein English suggests that any collusion here is by that side, not the people who started this discussion. We certainly know most of those posting in support of Haberstr were canvassed to come here by them with a non-neutral request to come here; I respectfully disagree with the admin below that it does not matter.

It also seems that there is an anti-US or Western agenda here, based on the claim in that post that "the English Wikipedia, on some key international issues, seems to be controlled by the US government" or people "might be employed by the US gov" and that people "live" on Wikipedia. I don't "live" here nor do I work for the United States government. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RGloucester

There is no pro-Ukrainian cabal (junta) that is out to get Haberstr, that much I can say firmly. He has no shown no ability to work with other editors, no ability to help improve articles. All he has done is continually dirsupt Ukraine-related articles with tag-bombing and tendencious talk-page requests. All attempts to get him to listen to what numerous people have said about his actions have been futile. I do not appreciate being accused of being part of a junta. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Haberstr: You know as well as anyone that I don't at all support the "Russian invasion" article, for a variety of reasons, and that I vigorously fought its establishment. I was exceptionally disappointed at the decision to keep the status quo, but there isn't anything I can do about that now. Take that up with the closing sysop, not me. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haberstr is now canvassing. He has contacted many like-minded editors, and asked for their assistance here. This is just further proof of the incorrigible behaviour of Haberstr. More examples: 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.RGloucester — ☎ 00:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: I don't disagree with you in many respects. There have been extreme amounts of what we call "PoV pushing" on both sides, from those creating PoV forks like Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014) to those tag-bombing articles like Haberstr. That does not excuse his behaviour. 02:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion by HiLo48 suppressed unread. Please edit only your own section. Sandstein 11:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HiLo48

As an editor that Haberstr did contact (I don't consider it canvassing to be asked to comment on a sensitive issue in which I'm interested), I will observe that Wikipedia's systemic bias almost guarantees that there will be a majority of editors here with a similar political bias on Ukrainian matters. We all have our biases. The important thing is to know one's own biases and try very hard to avoid applying them when editing. Some here don't do a very good job of it. They don't recognise their own biases, and they simply know that Putin is evil. Haberstr may not have behaved perfectly, but it has happened in an area of incredible bias, where he has been in a minority against what may not exactly be a cabal, but it's certainly a culture which isn't very open to differing views. Until the whole discussion becomes a more rational one, this looks to me like a somewhat vexatious attempt to eliminate an opponent from a discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Volunteer Marek's edit at 04:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC) (note added by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The real problem though, as I see it, is the massive amount of blatant POV pushing that goes on in the area of topics on Ukraine. It's a toxic area, and most of the POV pushers suffer no consequences. While Haberstr's behaviour is wrong, asking him to change his behaviour while ignoring the POV pushing is simply not a fair and objective approach. I can tell that he is frustrated by that situation. Can you? HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion by 331dot suppressed unread. Please edit only your own section. Sandstein 11:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandstein has hidden my defence of false allegations made against me. I find that completely unethical. It's yet more evidence to me that the Admin system in Wikipedia is broken. Here we are trying to convict one person for alleged sins, while all the while allowing other bad behaviour to continue unremittingly. The discipline processes here are a cesspool of lies and false allegations, and no Admin will do anything about them. HiLo48 (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dervorguilla

Compare Haberstr's assertion: “Gloucester, you may need to reread WP:ALLEGED, which counsels against use of the VERB allege and not the adjective "alleged" or the adverb "allegedly",”
with the text of the WP:ALLEGED policy: “Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate...." Zero verbs; four adjectives. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tourbillon

I can't say that I have sufficient long-term observations on the user, but there are a few things I would like to point out. First, WP:CANVAS (which brought me here), conspiracy talk and other users' comments on Haberstr's inability to WP:HEAR make up for a good case of disruptive editing. Second, I do seem to be inclined to believe the user is demonstrating a battleground mentality and personal bias. However, the latter has been demonstrated by many other users in the course of this topic's development and surrounding discussions as well, which should be expected given the nature of these events. I'm perfectly aware of the WP:HEAR and conspiracy talk pattern (have been accused of being a "Macedonian government agent trying to deface Bulgarian history" by several users who sincerely believed that) and I know it doesn't lead to anything good, but the proposed sanction is somewhat harsh, in my opinion. This is not an extreme case of disruption involving continuous edit-warring, personal attacks and blatant POV-pushing. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sceptic1954

I received a request from Haberstr to comment. I haven't followed his edits in any detail but would say that in IMO there is a very strong anti-Russian bias on this page. The only things which are absolutely certain are that a plane has crashed and there is an investigation underway and there are claims and counterclaims, but the claims of US intelligence sources made shortly after the incident are elevated to the status of statements of fact. So I hope that whichever uninvolved adminstrators review this will consider whether this is an attempt by one or more 'anti-russian' editors to ban someone of a different point of view. Even if there is an element of disruptiveness to his editing, and I've no idea whether this is the case or not, please also consider whether the interests of balance and neutrality should mitigate any sanction. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC) I hope I don't get sanctioned for writing this but doesn't the name 'Volunteer Marek' in itself suggest something of a battleground attitude? Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian

I have no involvement with this issue except briefly participating in an AfD discussion started by RGloucester on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014) (my vote was delete or merge).

If Sandstein does not see any evidence of misconduct in the diffs, his statement based on Haberstr's comments here constituting part of WP:BATTLEGROUND seem to me too strange and harsh. I have very little experience in WP:AE, but Haberstr's comment is simply saying that they find WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in Wikipedia articles. Notice that all the sources cited below are close to American govt. The statement by Haberstr is not evidence of battleground attitude, quite the contrary. I am not talking here about whether Haberstr is right or wrong about the systemic bias.
Haberstr's comment about the use of WP:RS in the article Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014) is with some justice. It contains numerous examples of things asserted as fact, when they are just reporting claims by parties. For example, the first statement in "Events" section says "In late August 2014, Russia moved self-propelled artillery onto the territory of Ukraine,[27]". The citations is to an NYT article, whose headline is "Russia Moves Artillery Units Into Ukraine, NATO Says". A similar example is in lead, "where beginning when Russia invaded mainland Ukraine.[24][25][26]". The three sources cited are a) NYT article attributing claim to Western and Ukrainian officials, b) an opinion piece by American writer David Frum c) an interview with a former US official and scholar Strobe Talbott. I stress that I do not have detailed knowledge of this issue, but the common practice in WP:ARBPIA is to use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and say that "NATO stated..." or "Western officials stated...". Kingsindian (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of comments. Since there seem to be a lot of people canvassed, perhaps I can clarify that in my case, I was not canvassed, I just have WP:AE on my watchlist. Secondly, Haberstr's comments about POV are a bit broad, and can be read as both a "cabal" and as, more innocuously, WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and WP:NPOV. Anyone who has experience editing in WP:ARBPIA, for example, can immediately understand that many "nationalists" (of either side) edit there, and there is a strong POV bias, without any implication of people being a "cabal". Also, since this is English Wikipedia, it has a strong tendency to use, (and the article in question has used), English sources from Western press, quoting Western officials. There was a recent comment left here, which gives some statistics about a WP:ARBPIA article. Kingsindian (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: As you can see from above, I have already made the analogy with WP:ARBPIA. My conclusion was quite different from yours, though this might reflect my lack of experience and own POV. A couple of illustrations: In the charged atmosphere of WP:ARBPIA, almost everything is attributed. Here, I found numerous examples doing otherwise. Also, there is plenty of source bias (just look at the footnotes to the article and compare it to the link I gave above). Kingsindian (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

Having reviewed this situation upon request by Haberstr, I have the following statement. This is a new user, and the nuances and conversational style of Wikipedia discussions might be unknown to him. Let him learn and help to edit the articles in NPOV way. Currently the articles about Ukrainian civil war are heavily POV and edited in extremely biased manner.Volunteer Marek is unwilling to compromise on reaching a neutral tone and coverage, and is pushing any conspiracy theory as a fact on these articles. It saddens me because I once knew him as neutral and valuable contributor, who I have defended numerous times, but I am afraid that in this case his personal theories and emotional engagement has taken too much hold of him. Let Haberstr continue editing under supervision, there are very few voices that would help in neutral coverage of the subject.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

It should be understood that Marek is coming here with unclean hands. There are many examples of Marek POV-pushing on articles concerning this conflict. Here are just a few: [25] [26] [27]. Marek, unfortunately, has a long-running history of problematic behavior in the Eastern European topic area, being one of the editors in the EEMl case and having been sanctioned multiple times since being allowed back into the topic area. There are POV issues all over these articles and the editors named by Haberstr are indeed part of the problem in that respect.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeKid, while canvassing is inappropriate, the fact is that he is acting out of frustration with POV-pushing going on in the related articles. Removing him from the topic without addressing the POV-pushing on the other side would not do anything to insure the improvement of content in the topic area. It would only insure further slanting of the articles concerning this conflict.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Knowledgekid87

I just wanted to say that there appeared to be WP:CANVASSING per above going on by Haberstr to get opinions on the section listed on [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ukraine: Volunteer Marek's pre-discussion removal of POV tag (twice)|WP:ANI, Using the heading "The POV editors are trying to ban me for NPOV edits of Ukraine conflict entries" certainly is not a neutral message of informing editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Herzen

Below, Sandstein wrote: "the statement by Haberstr is concerning insofar as it alleges an organized propaganda effort by the 'other side' without providing any convincing evidence." I will give an example of what I consider to be clear evidence of some editors wishing to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Consider the section on alleged antisemitism in the article on the Donetsk People's Republic. The sole subject matter of this section was the alleged distribution by rebels of an antisemitic leaflet. The Western media fairly quickly concluded that the leaflet was a hoax, and that rebels were not responsible for it. However the first paragraph goes on for five sentences without mentioning that it was a hoax. That is not explained until the next paragraph.

Given all that has happened in the DPR since its creation, I really don't see why this one incident, the obvious purpose of which was to discredit the rebels and so was an instance of black propaganda (yes, there's even a term for this kind of thing), should get so much attention. So I deleted the whole section. In less than half an hour, Volunteer Marek reverted my edit. I asked him to take this to the Talk page, and he did. In reply to my comment, "I would say that trying to keep a discredited story alive is a violation of NPOV", he wrote: "Because, whether or not it was a hoax, the event was notable and widely covered. Actually 'hoax' is not the right term here - the event happened - what is disputed is who was behind it. The criteria for inclusion is not whether it was 'true' or not but whether it was notable." See what's going on here? The reason the incident happened was to discredit the rebels. The hoax served its function: the media gave it wide coverage. That made it "notable" according to Volunteer Marek. But both sides engage in propaganda every day. This is just one more incident of Ukrainian propaganda, and hence it stopped being notable once the media concluded that it was a hoax. For Wikipedia to give it so much attention is thus to make Wikipedia serve the goal of the people behind the hoax; though the press has long forgotten about this, Wikipedia has not, so the black propaganda lives on in Wikipedia. This is especially the case because the average reader, I believe, is going to conclude that if the article devotes so much space to this incident, there must be something to it. This is how propaganda works.

Finally, another editor wrote, "The leaflet was real, get over it." This is what editors who want to get the absurd pro-Kiev government bias out of the Ukraine-related articles are up against. If Western media say one thing and Ukrainian media say another, some editors will believe the latter, even though Ukraine is in the middle of a war, and the media of war-torn countries tend to propagate a high level of propaganda. Why would another editor tell me to "get over it"? Obviously, because the pro-Kiev side feels entitled to control the Ukraine-related articles. And Volunteer Marek's starting this Enforcement action against Haberstr is just an unusually brazen attempt to exert such control. – Herzen (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by My very best wishes

I support topic ban for Haberstr. This is a highly biased participant who should not edit in this subject area. For example, in this single edit he redefines 2014 Ukrainian revolution as "coup d'etat" and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine as "assisted Crimean security personnel and defecting Ukrainian military personnel in peacefully securing the region" by referencing to the same sources which presumably supported previous version. Speaking about his recent multiple postings such as here and here, this is a clear example of WP:Canvassing and WP:BATTLE and therefore sanctionable. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real problem of Haberstr is not his significant POV (everyone has POV), but his distortions of sources (see my diff above, where the source does not support his edit/claim about the coup d'etate in Kiev), and his open refusal to follow the official policy of WP:Consensus, as should be clear from his statements provided as diffs by Marek. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the problem. Some contributors are involved in Wikipedia-related trolling meaning they conduct irrelevant political discussions (see statements by a few people here as perfect examples) or repeatedly blame others (diffs 1-10 provided by Marek). Such behavior is disruptive, explicitly forbidden by WP:NOT, and damaging for the project. This is more typical for newbies who can hopefully improve. However, such behavior by experienced contributors, who edited in ARBPIA and EE areas, must be sanctioned for the sake of the project. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mondschein_English

There seem to be a few strongly anti-Russian articles on the English Language Wikipedia, which are unheard of in any other Wikipedia. I did not even know there was an article about the supposed "Russian invasion of Ukraine": in Crimea Russian soldiers were already there per previous deals between Russia and Ukraine, and they were simply told to be on alert in case the Ukrainian government in Kiev did not like the results of the referendums and tried to do something stupid, i.e. violent. Who toppled the democratically elected governmets in Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc.? Russia or the US? In Eastern Ukraine there are mercenaries from all over the world fighting for Kiev, and also American soldiers in the form of Black Water, who got there in the very beginning. So if there a couple of hundreds Russians there, unofficially like Black Water, I think it is just fair. Why don't all these articles mention (or give relevance to) Black Water? Why don't all these article mention the proved fact that the US spent 5 billion, Billion with a B, dollars to destabilize the Ukraine? --Mondschein English (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: You are very much welcome! Usually, though, on Wiki you do not just delete something when correcting it (therefore eliminating proof of the error) but you strike a line through it and re-write the word correctly. :-) Moving on, thanks for telling me about this page not being a standard talk page, I was unaware of that rule (but then again, why did you answer here, then, instead of answering on my talk page? Well, I guess I will answer here, as well, in order not to make you feel too bad about that. :-)). Once again, are you calling me a spade, now? At least you could have called me a "duck", since I am indeed a U of O fan! :-) That is unimportant, though, what's important is: where did you see me mention the German Wikipedia? Where did you see me say that the German Wikipedia is better? Did you by any chance see my nick which probably sounds German to you and assumed that instead of talking about many other Wikis, like I actually was, you thought I was talking about the German language Wiki? Talk about misreading and jumping to the wrong conclusions... You also make a whole lot of accusations which do not even have a leg to stand on: I have no idea what you are talking about but here in the US we have a little thing called freedom of speech, among all the other many freedoms that we have, and therefore I respect your post, anyway. Kind regards and "g'dye, mite" (Very American of me to spell it the way it sounds to us!! :-) :-) --Mondschein English (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: You are very much welcome! Usually, though, on Wiki you do not just delete something when correcting it (therefore eliminating proof of the error) but you strike a line through it and re-write the word correctly. :-)Moving on, thanks for telling me about this page not being a standard talk page, I was unaware of that rule (but then again, why did you answer here, then, instead of answering on my talk page? Well, I guess I will answer here, as well, in order not to make you feel too bad about that. :-)). Once again, are you calling me a spade, now? At least you could have called me a "duck", since I am indeed a U of O fan! :-) That is unimportant, though, what's important is: where did you see me mention the German Wikipedia? Where did you see me say that the German Wikipedia is better? Did you by any chance see my nick which probably sounds German to you and assumed that instead of talking about many other Wikis, like I actually was, you thought I was talking about the German language Wiki? Talk about misreading and jumping to the wrong conclusions... You also make a whole lot of accusations which do not even have a leg to stand on: I have no idea what you are talking about but here in the US we have a little thing called freedom of speech, among all the other many freedoms that we have, and therefore I respect your post, anyway. Kind regards and "g'dye, mite" (Very American of me to spell it the way it sounds to us!! :-) :-) --Mondschein English (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Geogene:, are you accusing me of something in particular? If you are, just spell it out, will you? As a Southerner I expect a fellow Southerner to show some manners. --Mondschein English (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene:: You are right I am very new here, and you are also right that this place seems to be extremely difficult to figure out. I realize I have been making mistakes in terms of form, but I am indeed learning, alas slowly, and I can assure you that my heart is most definitely in the right place. The English Wikipedia is way above and beyond what I have been doing so far in terms of Wiki Editing: I am just an old time editor on the German Wikipedia (one of the few to be given the triple Edelweiß award there), the Boarisch Wikipedia, the Alemannisch Wikipedia, the Rumantsch Wikipedia, the Lombardisch Wikipedia (Admin there), and the Italian Wikipedia. That is it. I do appreciate your answer which seems heartfelt and sincere to me. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Geogene

I find it interesting that there are pro-Haberstr remarks here by no less than three editors with whom I have been involved in a content dispute at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, an ARBEE article. All three of them were canvassed here. When was somebody going to drop an invite on my Talk page to leave comments? Respectfully, I disagree with admin Sandstein that this doesn't matter...if everyone agreed that consensus doesn't matter in this process, why have these discussions in the first place? I've never crossed paths with Haberstr but I have been accused of engaging in POV/COI editing conspiracies before. That's ancient history, but I know how irritating those accusations can be, and I have no sympathy for editors that persist in such nonsense after being told not to. This community is much too tolerant of them. Geogene (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mondschein English: I disapprove of the canvass and disagree that it doesn't matter, but I am not petitioning for some sort of censure on you or anyone else that responded to it. I didn't single you out, but in your case, as a relative newcomer, I doubt you even knew about this necessary but counter-intuitive rule. I hope that everyone here still understands that this place is really difficult to figure out--although it may not seem that we do. Although I have mentioned aspersions to you recently, there are no allusions to any interaction that I have had with you, or anyone else involved, or any area of WP involved in this AE, and beyond that the specifics are of no importance. The point is that I have strong opinions about casting aspersions. Geogene (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Iryna Harpy

With respect, Sandstein, I have to agree with Geogene that you are being too dismissive of Haberstr's canvassing alone. It may only be a guideline, but it exists for a reason. If it weren't for his violation, half of the contributors commenting here would not have turned up and started wasting administrator and contributor time and energy; confounding the process by provoking arguments; tossing arbitrary and blatant advocacy into the mix (Mondschein English), ad nauseam. This was supposed to be an investigation into Haberstr's tendentious editing practices, not a free for all as to their personal views on what the content of articles should or shouldn't contain. I am personally involved as one of the editors at the receiving end of the accusation of being part of some form of cabal. If canvassing under the header of "The POV editors are trying to ban me for NPOV edits of Ukraine conflict entries" targeting more than 10 other contributors who have been selected explicitly for the fact that they have a history of constant content conflicts (i.e., beyond simple disputes and ending up at the ANI) with the editors being accused of being part of a cabal isn't deemed worthy of being sanctioned in itself, then the act of casting WP:ASPERSIONS most certainly should be reason enough for a topic ban. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a personal attack, Iryna Harpy. You also misspelled "Ad Nauseam". Latin is a difficult language isn't it? --Mondschein English (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mondschein English: Thank you for proof reading and noting my error in such a courteous manner: adjusted. On a second note, this is not a standard talk page, so please keep your comments restricted to your own section. This page has already been cleaned up once by administrators frustrated by bicker-bloat. Finally, if I'm to be admonished by anyone, it should be the administrators. I was, however, making a more generalised statement about the severity of the impact of canvassing. In your case (WP:SPADE), I was commenting on content which, when parsed, reads as [EDIT] --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)~~how much better German Wikipedia is, and why~~ anyone who can't accept that the scenario is a simple one - that is, as you present it - is just plain wrong. I would take that as being an 'ergo they're POV-ers who couldn't possibly be neutral and, resultantly, shouldn't have the right to edit these articles if they don't agree with a simplistic evaluation of current affairs'. You're making simplistic assumptions as to the position of the mainstay of editors who've been working on trying to balance the content for months on high traffic articles attracting POV-ers. That said, your comment was designed to justify Haberstr's months of tendentious editing. Severely tendentious editing is not justifiable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I'm disappointed to find that you've made assumptions as to my neutrality, and the neutrality of other mainstay editors who were named by Haberstr as being part of a cabal numerous times. As you haven't been involved with these articles, you would be unaware of concerted effort to merge duplicate POV articles and delete a multitude of spin off articles not meeting WP:GNG surrounding events in Ukraine: we've not even finished identifying how many there are flying under the radar. If you'd care to read the talk pages (including numerous of archived pages) of just a couple of the main articles attentively, you might be surprised to find that there is consensus over their needing to be reigned in and cleaned up. This is why the major articles have featured RMs to delete or merge proposals. It is also why they're going through major restructuring. I'm not going to discuss my personal take on the political circumstances as the content is proscribed by sources. You should certainly be aware that you are discussing in your comment is subject to WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and, most prominently, WP:OR. What you suggest regarding Haberstr is incorrect: if s/he was the unfortunate victim of nitpicking, I would not be supporting sanctions and blocks. If I were POV, would I be arguing to exclude these sources and reverting content such as this? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nishidani

I've looked at, but only made, one edit in this area. One certainly needs in these cases some tolerance for NPOV rigourists, and if Haberstr is such, then nitpicking to get him off the page, whatever the disagreements, is a dangerous move. That the conflict looks like a possible recycling of a Cold War scenario (not only a Russian POV: several Western analysts (Michael Hudson (see here),Stephen M. Walt (see here) share it, and Obama is busy denying it), is all over the sources (here) (here), and yet Marek dismisses this. There are huge geopolitical interests clashing, as NATO tries to drag the Ukraine into its orbit, and Russia strives to retain its traditional hegemonic interests (that Russia is governed by kleptocrats is no excuse: so is the Ukraine, past and present: Europe does better, its governors act on behalf of kleptocratic interests, but disallow direct representation), and most of our source articles tend to reflect the former's interest, as you can see by the extraordinary lenience, against its own rules, which the IMF displays in lending huge amounts of money to a country which is technically incapable of paying them back in defiance of its own in-house rules.(p.s.Iryna. I don't have a political pref. either way: I just suspect that the inhabitants, of whatever ethnicity or persuasion, are going to be thoroughly screwed up, by one or both, sides, abetted by the puppets within), and since we cater to the world, we should be extremely wary of our own 'Western/Nato/US' source bias.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely well said! I could have maybe said something similar if I were half as eloquent! --Mondschein English (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna. I made no assumptions about you. I had to override my instinctive desire not to offend an editor for whom I have high regard, and whose edits have always struck me, where I encounter them, as informed by fine judgement. Note particularly, that I wrote if. I.e. I am not competent to make a call on Haberstr's edit history, and leave that to others. I am competent in judging (I listen wide-eyed, and read wide-eyed, innumerable press and television reports on that area that are farcical, as they are in the I/P area) WP:Systemic bias, and that is a very real risk in articles on the Ukraine, most notably in 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014). I work daily in one of the worst POV-driven areas, and with many editors whose approach there strikes me as erratic, nationalistic, and worse (on both sides, though mainly one). I just put up with it. If I ran to AE on strict principles, I'd be here all day, instead of actually resolving edit impasses concretely. It should be a measure of last resort, and Marek's evidence, and the fact that so many serious scholars think Western reportage is woeful, inspired my reluctant note. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Moscow Connection

I am against any ban or topic ban for Haberstr.

I've looked at the diffs provided by the requester and I see nothing bad apart except some mild frustration from not being able to change the articles. It is understandable that when a person sees something terribly unfair, he wants to fix it immediately and is frustrated that he is being reverted and drawn into a never-ending discussion. The articles are indeed pro-Maidan POV and there are indeed some editors who may have looked to Haberstr like they were supporting each other in the purpose of keeping the articles in their present state.

As for the accusations of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, I think Haberstr behaved "civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation". Even if he said something impolite, when all his changes were being reverted, there wasn't not much choice left but to "fight" for the good of Wikipedia. Cause non-neutral articles like these discredit the whole encyclopedia.

(I don't want what I said to look like I'm accusing RGloucester and Iryna Harpy [cause the diffs mention the requester and them two]. They certainly don't "work with" Volunteer Marek, they are polite, they listen to other people's opinions, and I think they try to be neutral. But the problem is that their political views aren't exactly balanced... So if anyone wants to make an article less non-neutral, he has to put a lot of effort into convincing them... For example, I went away after this and this cause I understoood that Wikipedia is not worth the effort. But Haberstr stayed and "fought" for a better Wikipedia, and the requester tries to have him blocked for this. What will the outcome be? One good editor less? Ukraine-related articles fully controlled by Volunteer Marek and people [understandably, cause the whole Western press is like this] biased towards the current Ukrainian regime?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Haberstr

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

A notice to all bystanders: Please stop arguing and bickering among yourselves, you're wasting your time. I couldn't care less about whatever opinions any of you might have about who is at fault here. The only thing that matters to me as an admin here is evidence, i.e., dated and explained diffs of actionable misconduct.

Now, I see a lot of assuming bad faith on both parts of the dispute here, but I'm currently at a loss as to how we might translate this into useful admin action. None of the reported diffs by Haberstr strike me as obviously sanctionable on their own. Nonetheless, the statement by Haberstr is concerning insofar as it alleges an organized propaganda effort by the "other side" without providing any convincing evidence. This contributes to a picture of a battleground attitude that might require a topic ban. Any other admin opinions? Sandstein 11:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AE is part of the Arbitration umbrella, and as such we generally do not like people making threaded comments (especially since it can spiral out of control quickly). That being said: Allegation (both the term and action of Haberstr) should not be used unless that is the actual case. Thus, @Haberstr:: can you provide hard evidence to back up your allegation? @Volunteer Marek:, can you answer Sandstein's question? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: I believe that Sandstein's assessment refers the diffs supplied by you (the "None of the reported diffs by Haberstr strike me as obviously sanctionable on their own." part), and I would like some more information on them. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading this thread makes me instinctively want to topic-ban several participants, including Haberstr and Herzen for contributing to a battleground atmosphere by casting fellow Wikipedians in the role of operatives of a propaganda network, as well as others for casting aspersions and pointless ranting. (The only thing that does not bother me is the canvassing. This is not a consensus-based process, so it doesn't matter who makes statements.) Assuming that most of my admin colleagues will not want to go along with that, I recommend that we close this request with no action, except a reminder that others expressing opinions or making content edits with which one disagrees does not necessarily make them POV-pushers or enemy intelligence operatives. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Sandstein 18:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to propose something a little more refined than a topic ban, Sandstein, I'd be open to persuasion. Perhaps a specific restriction against casting aspersions, backed up by lengthy blocks for violations? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of complicated sanctions. They tend to lead to an enforcement overhead that is not proportionate to their usefulness. Sandstein 10:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing is bad behavior, even though AE has some structural immunity to being swayed by canvassing. Blocks for bad behavior are something we can consider here. Also, consider how we would normally handle complaints of WP:ARBPIA violations. If we saw so much partisanship and blanket accusations of ganging-up in an ARBPIA complaint we would probably issue topic bans for WP:BATTLE editing. I suggest admins should consider rereading the diffs 1 through 10 provided by User:Volunteer Marek at the top of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of continued bickering and battleground-like conduct among editors who are not party to this request, I've closed off discussion among them, although any existing informative opinions should of course still be taken into account. Now, on the merits, I think that we should close this with a warning to most participants that any battleground-like conduct, canvassing, soapboxing etc. may lead to a topic ban without further discussion. But if any admin wants to impose topic bans or other sanctions on the basis of the evidence already before us, then I could understand that too. Sandstein 10:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA :

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

13 September 2014 Reverting in middle of discussion by 5 editors [28] that said the article shouldn't include this information and yet instead following WP:DR he reverted.In my opinion its classical case of WP:IDHT.
13 September 2014 Violation of WP:NPA by calling fellow editor ignorant and WP:BATTLE behavior by accusing other editor in vote stacking.
9 September 2014 Disrupting WP:OR board to WP:SOAP about an event by presenting his version of WP:TRUTH instead discusing WP:OR problems
8 September Blatant source falsification to WP:POVPUSH nowhere the source say that " settlers, who argue the presence of Palestinians is driving them off" .I could not find in the source that settlers said that.The source quite clearly says what is the reason by quoting head of settlers community.This edit was meant clearly to conceal those reasons to show settlers in negative light clearly WP:TE.
25 August 2014-"Your disingenuousness" - clear violation of WP:NPA and fail to WP:AGF.
22 August 2014 "Some idiot" Clear violation of WP:NPA.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

The editor was banned indefinitely in WP:ARBPIA2 the topic ban was lifted by appeal

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 12 MAY 2012 by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor was banned indefinitely by ARBCOM for exactly the same violations [29] namely "edit-warring ([71], [72]), as well as incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ([73], [74], [75])." Though his topic ban was lifted nothing has changed in user behavior--Shrike (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Its clear that his incivility and failure to WP:AGF with source falsification to promote his own WP:POV make him unsuited to edit WP:ARBPIA area.

- - Please stop with Straw man arguments no one claimed that the user is not discussing.The user has clearly acted against consensus and reverted.
  - WP:NOTTHEM
  - Please explain what his edit has to do with WP:OR argument?
  - The diffs are not stale only one recent diff should be provided from the past week [30]--Shrike (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nomoskedasticity: So its OK to make personal comments about other users? And the phrase "his ignorance of international law" could be only construed as violation of WP:NPA also you forgot that was not the only problem in his comment but accusing of other user in vote stacking is clear indication of WP:BATTLE.--Shrike (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zero0000 and Johnuniq: Then why not simply give a reasons the source talks a lot about that.This nothing more simpler then that.This edit was meant clearly to conceal those reasons to show settlers in negative light clearly WP:TE.--Shrike (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[31]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Nishidani

Statement by Zero0000

Disclosure: I edit in the I/P area, though I never edited this particular page or its talk page. Zero^talk 05:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd first like to comment on the diff #4 of 8 September, which Shrike calls "blatant source falsification". Please read the source At West Bank rally, settlers demand Palestinian-free buses:

“What parent would allow his daughter to travel on a bus full of Arabs?”

“Jews are wary of traveling on buses full of Arab workers from Judea and Samaria,” Katzover said. “A large number of them support terror. No one knows when one of them may pull out a knife for this or that reason… your average good Jew is scared to travel.”

Amazingly, Shrike thinks that Nishidani's summary "settlers, who argue the presence of Palestinians is driving them off [the buses]" is a misreport. On the contrary, this exemplifies Nishidani's carefully measured style of writing, since the source would clearly justify a much stronger summary. Zero^talk 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next, why is Nishidani's revert (diff #1) actionable, while the immediately preceding revert of Plot Spoiler and the immediately following revert of Shrike (both of the same material) are not? Turning to the talk page discussion, we see that Nishidani has spent much more time discussing the text than either Plot Spoiler or Shrike have. One should also note that the debated text tells both sides of the argument, which is a normal feature of Nishidani's edits and why he is such a valuable contributor. Zero^talk 04:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding diff #2, Shrike had written, inter alia, "Hamas of course control the borders of Gaza" and Nishidani attributed this to Shrike's ignorance of international law. This was an error on Nishidani's part; he should have just noted the astonishing chasm between Shrike's claim and the facts without theorising as to why Shrike made it. Zero^talk 09:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Re diff 2 [32]: "ignorance of international law" is of course not the same as "ignorant". The comment to which Nishidani responded shows that the editor is indeed unfamiliar with international law as relevant to the topic that was being discussed. Combined with Zero's points above, the observation reinforces my sense that this entire report is itself an exercise in bad faith and disingenuousness, perhaps rising to the level of WP:BATTLE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

Diffs 5 and 6 are stale (and not actionable). To avoid WP:TLDR, I will address diffs 1, 2, 3.

Diff 1 is the most silly. Plot Spoiler (original revert) has made a grand total of 2 talk page edits, Shrike has made 34 edits while Nishidani has made 265. Who is discussing stuff and who is not? This is typical of Plot Spoiler's behaviour. I can give examples if requested.
Diff 2 is about an RfC which I started, in which everyone agreed on a compromise except the editor concerned (MarciulionisHOF). The editor initially insisted Sep 12 on putting up a long rant in the RfC header, and kept going on after the RfC closed. This is typical of his behaviour on the talk page. I do not want to get him into any trouble - he is probably new.
Diff 3 is about a content dispute. It took place both on the talk page and the WP:NORN. Needless to say, there is nothing actionable there.

Call me prescient, but I knew this kind of gaming would happen. Kingsindian (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Diff 4 asserts that this edit was "Blatant source falsification" because the source does not say "settlers, who argue the presence of Palestinians is driving them off". However, the edit is not falsification—it is simply a brief summary of the key points from the source. The source's heading includes "settlers demand Palestinian-free buses", and paragraph 4 includes the view of a spokesman that "...they've [Palestinians] occupied the buses, not out of malice. They've scared away the Jews..."—in other words, the presence of Palestinians on the buses is driving away Jewish travelers. The source gives reasons that the settlers are reluctant to travel on a bus under the conditions described, but the text added by Nishidani is merely an accurate and neutral description of the key points—separate transportation systems were abolished, and settlers have protested because the presence of Palestinians has made settlers unwilling to travel on the buses. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Shrike's comment at 08:24, 15 September 2014: The article is Israel and the apartheid analogy and Nishidani's edit addressed the fact that certain separate transportation systems were abolished (that is, were not apartheid). However, it would be misleading to leave the text at that as if Palestinians and Israelis were happily traveling together—accordingly Nishidani's edit identifed that the arrangements had been protested. How can that be tendentious editing? By contrast, adding commentary to justify the protests would be off-topic and minor POV pushing on the basis that any mention of an Israeli action must be accompanied with text to justify the action. Shrike's claims are very strong (blatant source falsification, tendentious editing) and would require strong evidence whereas I see only assertions. If reviewing admins agree, perhaps Shrike should be counselled against this approach. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarciulionisHOF

Personal attack

Nishidani caricaturized me a person crying that everything is antisemitic (pro-Palestinian theme - sample, generally derogatory - sample at "zion crime factory"):

"you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic" ... (excuse for attack) - 08:56, 31 August 2014

Justified the attack as deserving:

"The evidence for what I wrote is in the section heading you created." 15:43, 31 August 2014 (No. There is no evidence there.)

Cheese head (read: inappropriate) commentary

"the unilateral Israelocentric POV drafting"..." inside some Israeli ministry.:)" 21:36, 30 August 2014.
There's a bunch of other small ones which he did not respond to when asked for clarification -- e.g. needless use of "mass civilian deaths" in an edit summary, alleging "distaste" was the argument presented (when it wasn't). Ignoring major changes (the formation of a unity government) as "No sensible objections".."presented. Let's move on."

Side notes

I've asked for guidance. Sandstein suggested I ignore 'pettiness of others'. I also specifically asked about the history of Nishidani but only now learn of an indefinite block and other blue cheese spread pettiness. Fabulous.
"Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert." Kingsindian -- cannot be considered a good idea (I would hope). I see this type of thinking as 'Goya-worthy' and feel this a good place to get clarification for everyone. Please. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nishidani

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

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 410: / Line 410: @@
 Diff 4 asserts that [[Special:Diff/624648955|this edit]] was "Blatant source falsification" because the source does not say "settlers, who argue the presence of Palestinians is driving them off". However, the edit is not falsification—it is simply a brief summary of the key points from the [http://www.timesofisrael.com/at-west-bank-rally-settlers-demand-palestinian-free-buses/ source]. The source's heading includes "settlers demand Palestinian-free buses", and paragraph 4 includes the view of a spokesman that "...they've [Palestinians] occupied the buses, not out of malice. They've scared away the Jews..."—in other words, the presence of Palestinians on the buses is driving away Jewish travelers. The source gives reasons that the settlers are reluctant to travel on a bus under the conditions described, but the text added by Nishidani is merely an accurate and neutral description of the key points—separate transportation systems were abolished, and settlers have protested because the presence of Palestinians has made settlers unwilling to travel on the buses. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 *Re Shrike's comment at 08:24, 15 September 2014: The article is [[Israel and the apartheid analogy]] and Nishidani's edit addressed the fact that certain separate transportation systems were abolished (that is, were not apartheid). However, it would be misleading to leave the text at that as if Palestinians and Israelis were happily traveling together—accordingly Nishidani's edit identifed that the arrangements had been protested. How can that be tendentious editing? By contrast, adding commentary to justify the protests would be off-topic and minor POV pushing on the basis that any mention of an Israeli action must be accompanied with text to justify the action. Shrike's claims are very strong (blatant source falsification, tendentious editing) and would require strong evidence whereas I see only assertions. If reviewing admins agree, perhaps Shrike should be counselled against this approach. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
+====Statement by MarciulionisHOF====
+=====Personal attack=====
+{{U|Nishidani}} caricaturized me a person crying that everything is antisemitic (pro-Palestinian theme - [http://beirut.indymedia.org/images/2004/04/1133.png sample], generally derogatory - [http://zioncrimefactory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/jew-cry-antisemitic.png sample at "zion crime factory"]):
+* "you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic" ... (excuse for attack) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=623552691&oldid=623552357 08:56, 31 August 2014]
+Justified the attack as deserving:
+* "The evidence for what I wrote is in the section heading you created." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=623587265&oldid=623583194 15:43, 31 August 2014] (No. There is no evidence there.)
+=====Cheese head (read: inappropriate) commentary=====
+* "the unilateral Israelocentric POV drafting"..." inside some Israeli ministry.:)" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=623495480&oldid=623494669 21:36, 30 August 2014].
+* There's a bunch of other small ones which he did not respond to when asked for clarification -- e.g. needless use of  "mass civilian deaths" in an edit summary, alleging "distaste" was the argument presented (when it wasn't). Ignoring major changes (the formation of a unity government) as "No sensible objections".."presented. Let's move on."
+=====Side notes=====
+* I've asked for guidance. {{U|Sandstein}} suggested I ignore 'pettiness of others'. I also specifically asked about the history of {{U|Nishidani}} but only now learn of an indefinite block and other blue cheese spread pettiness. Fabulous.
+* "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani&curid=5313389&diff=625453117&oldid=625451993 Kingsindian] -- cannot be considered a good idea (I would hope). I see this type of thinking as 'Goya-worthy' and feel this a good place to get clarification for everyone. Please. [[User:MarciulionisHOF|MarciulionisHOF]] ([[User talk:MarciulionisHOF|talk]]) 09:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====

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