Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg

Frivolous request, not actionable

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

Request concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg

User requesting enforcement: Divot (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

Brandmeister [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
Grandmaster [6], [7], [8]
John Vandenberg [9]

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The fact is there is no independent media, which would be writing about adopted a document of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts (see JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE. Thursday, February 25, 2010, discussion and commentary. If Massachusetts takes a political decision, it must be published in the American media. Moreover, it is an international document. But the opponents were returned information with reference to the Azerbaijani media. They do not want to understand that about the official document adopted by Massachusetts are required to report American media, not the Azerbaijani newspaper. When I put the information that this only view of Azerbaijani media, and on the website of Massachusetts there is nothing about this, they began to delete this information (John Vandenberg [10], Grandmaster [11] ) Divot (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg

Statement by Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg

Comments by others about the request concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg

This is forum shopping by a user who was (apparently properly) reverted by multiple other users, and eventually blocked for disruption related to the behavior he's complaining about. I recommend close, no behavior actually subject to AE sanctions involved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Georgewilliamherbert: you must be mistaken to judge the content instead of conduct of the editors. There is a clear violation of rules by other editors too and it has to be addressed. If 1 disrupts, it doesn't justify others. You could have "filed" this request yourself, if you were against disruption. At least 2 of the above users: Grandmaster and Brandmeister has also been spotted multiple times in similar conduct and were also banned, unlike Divot's past. Aregakn (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the situation. In my opinion,

There was disruption, but it was by Divot, who may be sincere but is acting wrongly in this instance under Wikipedia policy.
There is no violation of a Wikipedia arbitration decision which has occurred here, so there is nothing to enforce here at this noticeboard.

I understand why you and Divot are upset, but you need to calm down and listen to the criticism people have made of the behavior. You're doing something wrong. Trying to escalate a larger abuse case, in response to being told you're wrong, warned you're wrong, blocked for being persistently wrong, is not a good way to accomplish things on Wikipedia.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really upset because of what you might think but because of some manner of judgement (If I was, I'd be reverting too). Please review what I wrote and consider the behavior of the above editors as well. If you think there was no revert violation by them, then state it that way. But accusing Divot only is not the way. If the other editors noticed a disruptive way of editing, they should have dealt with it as intructed in Wiki. I think you'd agree. Aregakn (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On first review, they did deal with it the way you are supposed to on Wikipedia. Reverted and discussed on the talk page; when that failed and Divot kept disrupting, took it here to this page (see case above against Divot, halfway up the page). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling, that if I revert edits and bring it to the discussion, and the other editor continue editing the same thing (reverting), my further reverts will be justified? Aregakn (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Divot is reporting may not be actionable (except for Brandmeister) but see my remark here, there were more reverts than he reports, example for John Vandenberg when there in fact was 3 reverts. Also see the comment here by AGK. Nothing excuse Divot, he should have known better. On the other hand, I find Brandmeister overal contribution actionable. He had more than reasonable revert and Divot and Brandmeister should have both been sanctioned, on Karabakh Khanate for example, he reverted without giving specifics as to why the version was innacurate. I tried pleasing both sides by keeping Shusha and replaced Azeri with Turkic and not Iranian or Caucasus, and he reverted me twice and he never bothered using the talkpage. Even his first edit recently was a revert if we check the history of the article. Ionidasz (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg

As noted by Georgewilliamherbert, this is a frivolous request and is closed as not actionable. The reported reverts to Khojaly Massacre appear to reflect a content dispute, which cannot be resolved through arbitration enforcement. It is not explained how they violate any applicable conduct norm. Divot was properly blocked by AGK (talk · contribs) for his part in that edit war and warned that he may be subject to discretionary sanctions if he continues disrupting Wikipedia. Such disruption may also include continued forum shopping. Sandstein 05:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NickCT

NickCT (talk · contribs) blocked 48 hours by PhilKnight

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

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

Request concerning NickCT

User requesting enforcement: Breein1007 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # [12] Personal attack calling me a bigot when I wasn't even talking to him.

[13] Failure to AGF, accusing an editor of gaming the system by POV pushing under the disguise of some good faith edits.
[14] More incivility, after I asked him to AGF because he drew conclusions about the intentions of another editor and accused them of making valid changes only to mask supposed "POV pushing".
[15] It gets as petty as following me around to other pages where he is completely uninvolved and attacking me with no clear purpose.
[16] Edit warring Mossad as the perpetrator after consensus was reached 2 months ago (NickCT was part of the discussion on the talk page that reached this consensus) to only label them as a suspected perp.
[17] Failure to AGF again, starting his comment with an accusation that "Breein is likely going to edit war this".
[18] Personal attack against me in response to an admin warning him not to use personal attacks.
[19] More of above.
[20] Personal attack against me after I submitted a valid (CU was warranted), albeit incorrect SPI.
[21] Edit warring - removing content two months after consensus called to keep it
[22] Edit warring - same as above
[23] After I warned him against removing sourced content against consensus (there was a long discussion on the talk page of the article and the agreement was the the sentence should not be removed - two months later he came back and deleted it again), he responded that if I submit an AE report it will be frivolous. I'm only including this one to show that I tried to warn him recently about the possibility of bringing this to AE, but he has continued with his disruptive and hostile behaviour since that warning.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # [24] Warning by Shuki (talk · contribs) Edit warring

[25] Warning by Shuki (talk · contribs) 3RR Violation
[26] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Edit warring
[27] Warning by Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Personal attacks
[28] Warning by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) civility/AGF/NPA
[29] Blocked by Ged UK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Personal attacks/Harassment

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): To be honest I'm not sure what is appropriate here. I have only encountered this negative behaviour in the Israeli-Arab area on Wikipedia, so maybe a topic ban would help. I don't know if he behaves similarly in other topic areas. If so, maybe an overall block is necessary. Either way, I trust that admins will be able to determine an appropriate way to guide NickCT to better editing habits.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: NickCT and I have a fairly long history, and we have had our share of bickering in the past. I have tried to avoid interacting with him because the past has proven that the two of us do not get along. He was previously blocked for harassing me with personal attacks, and the diff of the warnings and block of that are noted above. For a while, we stayed away from each other. Recently, our paths have crossed again and his personal attacks and harassment have resurfaced. It is highly frustrating and difficult for me to edit the encyclopedia and make positive contributions or attempt to collaborate with other editors when he butts in and interrupts with personal attacks wherever possible. It has gotten so bad that he has even followed me around to other user's talk pages to hound me (the diff is above). Not only are the personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and harassment disruptive, but they have led me to notice that he has been edit warring again. The most troubling edit warring is the instances where he has come back to articles after several months to edit war against consensus that he was originally part of attaining.

I encourage everyone to consider this case after reading the following sections of ARBPIA: Decorum, Editorial process, Editors reminded.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [30]

Discussion concerning NickCT

Statement by NickCT

Comments by others about the request concerning NickCT

It would have been helpful if this had been focused on recent behavior - some of the diffs are from December - but I agree with PhilKnight's block based on his two replies to you on Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy in the last two days - [31] and [32]. Those were clearly inappropriate behavior on his part ( WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL ) and entirely appropriate to bring to a noticeboard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the block. I have a different take than George as to what was listed -- Some sysops are fine just seeing recent diffs. But others would like to see a longer-term pattern of behavior. The above diffs should have satisfied both approaches, and I would suggest that George's well-meaning remark not be understood to reflect the approach all sysops will take. Reflecting both recent diffs, and longer-term diffs, is still IMHO the best approach, as it covers the spectrum of sysop preferences.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Useful feedback. Let me refocus a bit. It would have helped if the diffs were sorted into clearly labeled recent and historical lists, so we could see the current incident clearly and then the historical context. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fast response Phil, thank you. But to be honest, I was hoping to see some discussion first. While I understand that there isn't much discussion needed to determine that Nick was incivil and sent multiple personal attacks my way, and that a block is deserved after previous warnings and blocks, I still think this case deserves added attention. My reason is that I don't think a 48 hour block will reverse the disturbing edit warring, consensus-undermining removal of content, and complete opposition to collaboration, especially since the block was specifically given for the personal attacks. Can you Phil, or any other admins, please take a look and comment on the edit warring? In all honesty, I'd rather Nick keep berating me but stop edit warring and going against consensus. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, so if it's a choice of being insulted and having good articles or having someone play nice but continue edit warring and deleting sourced content, I would choose the first one. Obviously the ideal is to fix both though... Breein1007 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's on the record that he went way too far this time and has a history of having done so in the past several times as well. I hope he won't continue it, but the next admins along if he does should be able to take it from here. It might help to discuss it more on his talk page, specifically what was wrong etc, to try and defuse it though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

Result concerning NickCT

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

Blocked 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dan

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

Request concerning Dr. Dan

User requesting enforcement: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren# Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: 1 [33] & [34] - uncivil, bad faith, personal attacks (discussing editors) and thus creating unfriendly atmosphere (in particular, language like "compromised, sockpuppeteer", "highly discredited and banned". Please note that this edit was after a while removed by an editor who recognized it as a personal attack: [35]; 2 [36] - not as uncivil, but still involves unnecessary commentary about my person ("the Prokonsul is banned from participating at that forum")
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): 1 [37] Warning by Ioeth (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I am not fond of asking for an editors to be blocked. Perhaps an indef restriction on discussing other editors (unless they have started to discuss him first) would be better (why indef - see below). If it can be shown that I or anybody else has a habit of making similar comments about Dr. Dan, I would support such a restriction being two-sided (that said, I do not believe this is a case, and I would ask for anybody who would like to make such a point to start their own new AE thread).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Please note that this is not some exceptional slip - Dr. Dan was placed on the restriction in the first place because such comments are a continuing part of his behavior. In fact, this behavior has led to at least two editors leaving or vastly reducing their activity on that project: [38], [39]. I cannot speak for Nihil Novi, but speaking for myself, such comments as noted above certainly don't encourage me to keep contributing to this project. All I am asking is that the "Comment on content, not on the contributor." policy is enforced. Thank you,

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [40]

Discussion concerning Dr. Dan

Statement by Dr. Dan

Thank you for your patience and allowing me time to respond. This proceeding is a very sad event. That it should be seriously entertained by anyone with authority to allow such a travesty to take place is equally sad. If anyone supposes that I should back pedal my comments and make a conciliatory "hat in hand" type of statement, I'm sorry but I can't do that. First of all because nothing provided in the so called "evidence", that I said, is untrue. It was not a personal attack, and most definitely in the context of those discussions, it was also not "incivil". Strongly worded perhaps, but not rude, and only in response to insulting and provocative comments made towards me and other editors. Secondly, when a participant in this proceeding accuses me of the criminal offense of blackmail and the parties involved who are supposed to adjudicate this matter do not immediately intercede and put a stop to such statements, this body needs to reassess it's priorities and objectivity. Or has allowing someone to call a Wikipedian a "blackmailer" become acceptable behavior here? If it is, I would appreciate hearing any evidence that I have ever blackmailed or intimidated anyone, anywhere, let alone on Wikipedia. I don't expect any evidence to be forthcoming, anymore than evidence was presented to prove the accusation claiming that another editor made "death threats" to this party [41].

This entire matter arose over a content dispute at the Chopin article which was carried over to the Polish Project page, where I disagreed with Nihil's belief that Piotrus' participation had a "salutary" influence on the discussion. I'm still unsure if moving the discussion to that forum was a violation of the canvassing policy or not. In all fairness I did not even make a deal of Nihil novi's outbursts against me:

Like here [42]
And here [43] (very unkind mocking of Frania Wisniewska)
And here [44]

In further fairness I have never brought any party to a proceeding like this in order to censure them, block them or anything of the like. Even when I have been called some pretty outlandish things. Fortunately I was not born in a society where people who are considered "opponents" need to be stifled. At this time it would be superfluous to recapitulate the remarks made by Skäpperöd, who beat me to it. I'm in full agreement with his comments, and if he had not already presented them, that would have more or less my concluding remarks. It is my hope that the persons reviewing this matter will find that this case against me is motivated out of former unsettled grudges, and therefore throw this one out. Respectfully Dr. Dan (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Dr. Dan

It was I who advised Piotrus to file an Arbitration enforcement request in relation to this incident, so I will recuse from formally taking action. But my primary comment here will be to say that I do not think comments such as this to be acceptable. AGK 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the diffs cited above illustrate Dr. Dan's style of contributing to discussions. He is given to sarcasm and ad-hominem attacks, to intimidation and blackmail, to verbosity that conveys little substantive content but that may impress naive or inattentive readers who confuse prolixity with profundity. An uncivil attempt by him to challenge an opponent may be found here: [45]. Nihil novi (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re Dan's description of NN as 'compromised, sockpuppeteer': It was I who recently posted the opinion that Nihil novi is a restart of User:Logologist, at Coren's talk page and at NN's talk page [46], [47]. So the responsibility for publishing this allegation is mine. Logologist as a sock puppeter was confirmed Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Logologist. Nihil novi has neither confirmed nor denied the connection. SPI forthcoming, since the sockpuppetry policy asks that restarts identify themselves if/when they reenter previous disputes. Novickas (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Skäpperöd

Regarding Dan's comments about Piotrus

According to Piotrus' request above, Dan made a PA by discussing editors (not content). In fact, Dan discussed the question whether it is appropriate to continue a discussion that belongs to the article's talk page at the Poland noticeboard for the only reason to allow Piotrus to participate. That argument has merit and is not a PA. If arbcom had wanted Piotrus to participate in discussions at article talk pages, they would have unbanned him for these talk pages and not just for the Poland board.
It is neither bad faith, nor uncivil, nor a PA to state that Piotrus is discredited and banned, because he is. In the final decision of the recent EEML arbcom case, he was desysopped, admonished for disruption, blocked and banned from topic areas he caused disruption in. To that add the prior arbcom cases which were decided in dubio pro Piotro because the evidence that led to his conviction in the EEML case was not yet available then.

Regarding Dan's comments about Nihil novi

That Dan addressed Nn as "compromised, sockpuppeteer" does not sound like Dan is just throwing out allegations for fun. Either, Dan has proof, or Dan mistook Nn for someone else. If the latter is the case, I am confident that he will withdraw the allegations once he is made aware, if the former is true however I am awaiting Dan substantiating the claim.
The "satirical" part of Dan's statement (the "boorish" remark) was actually a rebuttal of a PA of Nn: "Your gratuitous advice to "calm down" shows that your are as great a boor as you are a bore." Dan was right to ignore the PA when it was made, but he is also in his rights to point out that the absence of further such PAs is not due to Piotrus' involvement, but rather to Nn refraining from continuing making them. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Loosmark

Skapperod's comments above are a bit unreal. Dan has not "discussed the question whether it is appropriate to continue a discussion that belongs to the article's talk page" as Skapperod claims above. Had he really wanted to do that he could have just said something one the lines that he feels the discussion belongs on the other talk page. Instead he launched a completely and totally unprovoked ad hominem attack calling people "discredited", "banned", "compromised", "sockpuppeteer" etc. Skapperod's interpretation of what the Arbcom wanted or did not want doesn't make sense either, please check Coren's comments on the WikiProject Poland page: [48], [49]. But of course now Skapperod knows better what the ArbCom intended than a sitting arbitrator...

Skapperod's claim above that Piotrus "was desysopped" is also false. Piotrus voluntary resigned his tools as soon as concerns about his actions were raised back then. Finally I have deep concerns about Skapperod's attempt to paint the ad hominem attack as some sort of "satirical" semi-innocent comment. It sets a dangerous precedent and frankly it's the last thing that topic area needs. Dr. Loosmark 11:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I find it interesting that Skapperod, Varsovian and Deacon of Pndapetzim, all known for countless disputes with Polish editors in the past, all came here trying to get Dan off the hook by trying to divert attention on Piotrus. The reality of the matter is that the incident is in no way Piotrus' fault, he did not even mention Dan in any way shape or form, nothing - Dan started a totally unprovoked bashing of Piotrus and that is not acceptable. Period. I understand it's hard to defend Dan's ad hominem but come on blaming Piotrus seems to be a real Alice in wonderland theory. Dr. Loosmark 14:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Varsovian

I'm holding off on my full comments until I see Dr Dan's reply. However, I do find it interesting that after he has been "banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year" Piotrus is within one year engaging in discussion about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish. Is Polish nationality not connected with Eastern Europe? Varsovian (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Could Dr Loosmark kindly refrain from his standardous comments that I am a racist? Varsovian (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Deacon of Pnpadetzim

Piotrus' complaint here is in violation of his topic ban... "Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban."Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Piotrus_topic_banned He still has most of this to serve. Piotrus' ban from this kind of thing was not negligence on ArbCom's part ... it was precisely to give the community a break from this kind of forum-shopping. To illustrate, the warning posted noted by Piotrus above comes from 2007. If Dr. Dan is to get a censure for his words--and even this would be a way over-the-top intervention--he should at least be warned. AE listing is complete overkill (and an example of the kind of escalatory tendencies which have caused so many problems in the area). So, a block for Piotrus, and closure of this thread. If an admin wishes to review Dr Dan's "incivility" independently, he should be encouraged to do so; but this thread and Piotrus' failure to deal with his "complaint" in the spirit of collegiality shows that, despite his three month ban, it is still unlikely that Piotrus is interested in anything more than getting one of his "enemies" punished. Very disappointing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Sandstein

Editors who have been previously involved in Eastern Europe disputes (i.e., everybody above) are kindly requested to shut the hell up unless they have something useful to say. Everything which does not help administrators to decide whether and how to respond to this specific request is not useful, most especially general bickering and complaints about the user who is the subject of the request, or about other users. Editors who continue to make unhelpful comments may be banned from commenting on AE requests not concerning them. This is not a dispute resolution forum and indeed not a forum of any kind. Sandstein 17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Dr. Dan

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

Will await a statement from Dr. Dan, but I am minded to impose a civility/sarcasm parole for six months. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hummphf. A "sarcasm parole" is certainly something new. [Insert obvious joke about sarcasm here]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a rule I think civility paroles are a waste of time, but I suppose if it is felt that this user's only negative influence stems from his unpleasant way of wording comments then it's the best course of action. AGK 14:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also awaiting a statement, but in general terms I do not recommend applying any kind of parole. The community at large is already under a good conduct parole as far as this topic is concerned, as ArbCom has made very clear. Any misconduct should simply result in escalating sanctions. Sandstein 17:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the request and find it to have merit. The comments by Dr. Dan entered as evidence, [50] and [51], violate Wikipedia's rules of conduct in that they make serious accusations against Nihil novi ("compromised, sockpuppeteer") without providing any diffs to prove them (I note that Nihil novi has never been blocked for sockpuppetry or anything else). Moreover, they are incivil and/or personal attacks against Piotrus ("banned, highly discredited") and Nihil novi ("churlish behavior as boorish", "base fawning"). It is entirely unhelpful to conduct interpersonal disputes in what seems to be a content discussion about a composer.

The statement by Dr. Dan does not help his case, because he maintains that such comments are acceptable. They are not. Insofar as Dr. Dan alleges misconduct by Piotrus, Nihil novi or others, any such misconduct is not relevant to the request made against him here, and does not excuse or mitigate his own conduct, but can (if necessary) be made the subject of a separate enforcement request. In particular, while Skäpperöd points out that the "boorish" may relate to an earlier personal attack by Nihil novi against Dr. Dan, this does not give Dr. Dan the right to reply with attacks of his own.

Contrary to what Skäpperöd says, the problematic edits are not made less problematic by being made, as Skäpperöd believes they were, in the context of a useful discussion ("whether it is appropriate to continue a discussion that belongs to the article's talk page at the Poland noticeboard for the only reason to allow Piotrus to participate") because discussing this matter does not require such accusations and attacks. Skäpperöd is also incorrect to state that "it is neither bad faith, nor uncivil, nor a PA to state that Piotrus is discredited and banned", because "discredited" is a personal opinion about the editor's merits that does not appear in any arbitral decision against Piotrus, and "banned" is shorthand for "site-banned", which Piotrus is not (he's only topic-banned).

For the reasons explained on my talk page, I believe that filing this enforcement request constitutes necessary dispute resolution and therefore does not violate Piotrus's Eastern Europe topic ban. Editors who disagree may file a separate enforcement request about this.

Taking into account Dr. Dan's previous block for incivility, as well as the reminders to the community at WP:DIGWUREN#Editors warned and WP:ARBRB#Editors reminded, Dr. Dan is hereby sanctioned as follows pursuant to WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions: He is blocked for 72 hours, and he is also banned from commenting on or otherwise directly interacting with Piotrus and Nihil novi for three months, except for the purpose of necessary dispute resolution (as determined by uninvolved administrators in their sole judgment). Sandstein 08:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Varsovian

Request concerning Varsovian

I've chosen not to use the AE template so as to provide a fuller account of this long story, but all the required content is here.

This filing is about Varsovian further to an Arbitration Enforcement warning here [52] then a block here [53] then my ANI here [54] which led to a DIGWUREN Arbitration Enforcement warning by User:Sandstein on 26th April here [55] and then most recently sanctions from User:Sandstein here [56]

The DIGWUREN wording is clear: "If you, Varsovian, continue to fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (including the policies cited above), in the Eastern Europe topic area, you may be made subject to blocks, bans or other sanctions according to the cited arbitral remedy without further warning."

I recently took a look at London Victory Parade of 1946, which is where much of Varsovian's troublesome activity has been. Sadly it appears that Varsovian has returned to his old ways there despite my ANI and the consequent warning that DIGWUREN sanctions may be applied.

Firstly, these edits are of most concern: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]

In these edits, Varsovian has repeatedly re-added or defended a piece of data that other editors have contested; he has also personally synthesised this data from other pieces of information in the citation; he appears to have done this to enable him to make his own desired assertion that 'no more than 8,000 members of the Armia Krajowa were full-time armed members as of 1943' and variants of this.

It seems that the citation he uses does not specifically provide us with the data, but Varsovian has made his own calculations from data in the source and reached this statistic himself. While that could have been an uncontroversial breach of WP:SYNTH easily dealt with, the bigger problem is that the synthetic data is being used in breach of WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE. He appears to want to use this synthesised statistic as a weapon to compete with other editors on the page. Varsovian has been at WP far too long not to know that he was in breach of WP:SYNTH, and that he should not have disputed other editors' problem with this material. But he continues to defend it aggressively.

Other editors cut the data because they cannot find anywhere in the citation. Varsovian is warring to keep the data in place. As can be seen from edit summaries and Talk page discussion, there's little respect by Varsovian for the normal process of consensus-building and collegiality that is the ethos of our community.

Eventually, User:PTwardowski complains about all this on the talk page here [62] and asks where Varsovian's behaviour should be reported. According to the above mentioned DIGWUREN warning, it should have been reported here at WP:AE.

Varsovian finally explains his rationale as to why he is reverting to keep the data in place, in response to User:PTwardowski here [63]. In fact Varsovian's explanation demonstrates that his additions have been a clear case of WP:NOR. It had baffled other editors because the data was not in the citation, and yet Varsovian presents himself as if he has vindicated himself with the explanation, and moreover that he is the victim: "I would be most grateful if you could kindly refrain from calling me a liar." This is some kind of strange behavioural game.

Then, as can be seen from the discussion chain [64] User:Loosmark joins in, with a valid question: "What exactly has that number to do with the London Parade?" The question is a fair one: the data is made up, being warred over as well as irrelevant.

Then, something even more concerning can be observed. Having already demonstrated a breach of WP:NOR, Varsovian goes on to reveal that his underlying desire is not to have any data at all: "I personally feel that information regarding size of contribution to WWII have no place at all in an article about the London victory parade" he says. So why the tendentious addition of the 8000 figure if he doesn't really care about it in the first place? It seems that by adding the data, he hopes to use it as a bargaining tool that will lead to all data being removed. Varsovian should communicate his wishes in a straightforward manner, instead of continuing to play games that could be interpreted as WP:TE.

The 8000 figure is just the tip of the iceberg.

After the completion of the ANI and the warning on 26th April, I edited the "Political Controversy" section of London Victory Parade of 1946, up until this edit [65] on 27th April. In response to my changes, Varsovian chose not to revert them (which was often his behaviour) but thankfully disputed them on the Talk page instead here [66].

In his dispute, he alleges I engage in WP:TE, which is precisely what my ANI about him had just been about, and had led to his DIGWUREN warning. I chose not to report Varsovian's allegation against me at WP:AE, despite the severe DIGWUREN deterrent he is under, because I hoped it would all cool down instead.

Around the same time, Varsovian took up his issue about the London Victory Parade of 1946 at the Chopin page here [67] This seems to be an attempt to canvas editors in dispute with alleged Polish nationalists, to gain support at the London Victory Parade of 1946 .

There was then an ANI about off-topic incivility at the Chopin talk page here [68] which could probably been reported here at WP:AE instead.

Varsovian's Talk page dispute with my edit of London Victory Parade of 1946 failed to gain any support whatsoever. Between my edit on 27th April until 18th May my edit seems to have proven generally uncontroversial, and in broadly in keeping with consensus. There were edits by other editors, and Varsovian reverted several of them.

Two weeks after my edit and Varsovian's talk page dispute of it, he still hadn't gained even one voice of support, while the edit history indicates that my edit seems to have been largely in keeping with consensus. But Varsovian disregards that, and states he is going to go ahead and apply his desired changes anyway: [69]. User:Loosmark protests, and a very long fight ensues between them on the talk page.

Despite Loosmark's opposition to Varsovian's proposed changes, Varsovian carries on regardless. Early on he attacks me directly in this edit summary [70], alleging my use of bold text in a block quote is a case of me manipulating the source: "Removing false claim that source emphasizes certain information" he says.

I made a "false claim" by bolding some text within a block quote? A more helpful edit would have been to add "[emphasis added]" at the end of the quote, as per WP guidance. Varsovian's incivility was unnecessary, in defiance of the DIGWUREN warning, and seemingly an attempt to provoke my reaction. I didn't react. But a week later, Varsovian is back again, and rips out the entire block quote, including the citation that I had transcribed it from: [71]

All of the above demonstrates Varsovian's unwillingness to learn or to change his ways, and his wilful contempt for the ethos of our community. I am reporting all this in keeping with Administrator guidance at the ANI and the DIGWUREN warning, both linked above. I hereby request enforcement.

I have not recently looked up Varsovian's behaviour elsewhere, other than what is mentioned here, but I have been troubled by Varsovian's edits at other Poland-related articles. I defer to Administrators' judgement, but I am aware that my request is needed here. Given the issue now is less about attempting to improve Varsovian's behaviour, and more about preventing him from damaging Wikipedia, I would have to recommend a ban. -Chumchum7 (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: I have just seen a thread (dated after Varsovian's DIGWUREN warnings) at the Chopin talk page where Varsovian seems to indicate his general, long term axe to grind: [72] where Varsovian says "I'm sure that it will be unacceptable to certain editors (who all just so happen to be of a certain nationality)." The innuendo is unequivocally a generalised pre-judgement about Wikipedians from Poland. User:Kotniski replies with a comment about the "anti-Polish" gang, when instead he should have said nothing and taken it up here at WP:AE. Varsovian's immediate response: "Could you perhaps refrain from accusing other editors of being racists? Thanks in advance." Later in the Chopin talk page, Varsovian spells out his feelings [73] with a list of Poles who he says many Poles deny are Polish because they don't fit Polish national myth. These denials by Poles might after investigation turn out to be verifiable, but Varsovian's apparent pre-judgement and generalization about Wikipedians from Poland is unacceptable. He goes on to imply Polish nationalism is motivating some Wikipedians here [74]. This is equally as unacceptable as it would be to allege British Nationalism on talk pages. Now, the cause of anti-nationalism is a noble one, but it should not compromise fundamental Wikipedia standards. I am saddened that Varsovian is still stuck on the same mission, because much time ago I took the step of expressing my heartfelt concerns here [75] and here [76]. This was an opportunity for Varsovian to see the problem. But Varsovian took offence, and said the latter was an accusation of racism, here [77] and in so doing dismissed my concerns as unreasonable. That was all a long time ago, and Varsovian has had plenty of opportunities to change, but his actions prove that he hasn't. There is a wider policy issue for Wikipedia, beyond this case, and I would like to know if it is addressed in WP guidance somewhere. Especially in the WP Eastern Europe topic area, we should be as vigilant about the assumption of nationalism as we are about nationalism itself. The former can be used as sport, to provoke nationalistic responses. Remember that Senator McCarthy fought a noble fight against American communism, and yet he himself was probably the single US citizen most obsessed with American communism. He made his own monsters in order to slay them. History indicates his moral crusade was less than candid. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Varsovian

Statement by Varsovian

Please note that I am actually out of the office (and so limited to posting on my iPhone, which makes searching and copy pasting rather tricky) until at least Monday of the week after next, not thursday of next week. However as the last time I explained that to a certain admin, that admin decided to ignor my statement and sanction me anyway (despite giving me one hour from my next edit to provide information he requested), I fully expect to be perma-banned by the time I next log on from my computer. Which means that a certain somebody will have won the content dispute and can write the article exactly how he wants it to be. Varsovian (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Varsovian

Result concerning Varsovian

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

Standard header structure added and awaiting statement by Varsovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has indicated on his talk page that he is unable to edit until Thursday, so this request should be held until then or until he edits again. Sandstein 05:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (Fake timestamp to prevent archiving: Sandstein 00:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Wikifan12345 et al

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

Request concerning Wikifan12345 et al

Related discussions:

User requesting enforcement

ChrisO (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lev Reitblat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
98.233.73.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions.
Also violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLE

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

22:29, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Addition of self-published source for commentary on living person, in contravention of WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources
22:36, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Addition of defamatory claim that the subject of the article "allowed dozens of black people who were unfairly tried to be executed" and comparison to Josef Mengele
23:45, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Restoration of the above after it was removed on BLP grounds with no consensus to restore
16:19, 27 May 2010 (Jiujitsuguy) Restoration of the above with no consensus to restore
16:50, 27 May 2010 (Jiujitsuguy) Restoration of the above with false claim of "Rv vandalism"; violates 1RR in the process.
00:42, 28 May 2010 (Lev Reitblat) Restoration of the above with no consensus to restore
04:08, 28 May 2010 (98.233.73.108) Restoration of the above by one of the above editors while logged out to evade 1RR
09:51, 29 May 2010 (Lev Reitblat) Restoration of the above with no consensus to restore

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

Wikifan12345 - [78], [79], [80]
Jiujitsuguy - [81], [82]
Lev Reitblat - [83], [84]

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

Article ban for editors listed above, indefinite topic ban for Wikifan12345

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This request relates to a biography of Richard Goldstone, a South African judge and leading anti-apartheid figure, who has also headed the UN war crimes tribunals and various UN commissions. He has recently attracted controversy for a report on the Gaza War. On 6 May 2010, the Israeli tabloid newspaper Yedioth Ahrinot (YA), which has been very critical of Goldstone's report, published claims about his record in South Africa that are contradicted by the overwhelming majority of previous sources, are plainly wrong in fact, and that have been rejected by the man himself and by his judicial colleagues in South Africa. A discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard reached no consensus about the suitability of YA as a source and it was widely considered unsuitable to source extraordinary claims.

A number of editors have repeatedly sought to edit-war this material into the article and, in addition, add material sourced to WorldNetDaily, unequivocally an unreliable source (per numerous BLP/N discussions); self-published material in violation of WP:BLPSPS; a malicious and defamatory quote comparing Goldstone with the Nazi war criminal Josef Mengele; and a malicious and defamatory quote relating to a fringe individual's attempts to ban Goldstone from entering the US; the latter are violations of BLP's avoidance of biased or malicious content and claims that rely on guilt by association. These issues are discussed in more detail at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Summary of BLP issues. In the subsequent discussion, a substantial majority of editors (including virtually every uninvolved editor) agreed that none of this content should be included.

WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content states explicitly that "consensus must be obtained first" (emphasis added) before restoring content deleted due to good-faith BLP objections. This has been ignored repeatedly by Wikifan12345, Lev Reitblat and Juijitsuguy and 98.233.73.108. They have made no attempt to pursue dispute resolution, or in Juijitsuguy's case even to participate on the talk page, but have attempted to bulldoze the content into the article without consensus and over the objections of the majority of editors.

In addition, the editors listed above have consistently pursued a hostile approach to other editors and to me in particular. I have done a great deal of work to expand and improve the article using numerous academic works, journals and contemporary news articles (compare before and after). The revised version has been welcomed by most editors, including all the uninvolved ones who have commented. The editors above have responded with a constant stream of denunciations, sarcasm, assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks and unrelenting hostility. Wikifan12345 has been by far the worst in this regard; the following is just a sample:

Wikifan12345: "Clearly many editors here have an agenda to silence the important stuff because it violates "BLP." What a joke.", ""I think you guys are simply trying to sandbag anything of substance or remote controversy, inventing bogus excuses to avoid legitimate discussion.", "ChrisO, you came to this article with an agenda and you removed all things controversial and replaced it with total fluff. Then some POV warriors came in and agreed with your massive deletions, and suddenly we have a "consensus" to steamroll editors that support a collaborative process that isn't predicated on mob-rule.", "we really didn't go through anything other than failed admins shouting down users who dare to edit according to policy and not Goldstone's sensitivity", "This victimhood and hysterical response to anything critical of Goldstone is nothing short of fear-mongering." "As far as I'm concerned, many editors here are extremist and partisan."

Wikifan12345 has a long history of disruption and was topic-banned from the entire Israel-Palestine topic area for much of 2009. He has been by far the most disruptive and hostile editor on this article. He is exhibiting exactly the same behaviour that got him topic-banned last year (see [85] and [86]). This Wikiquette alert from nearly a year ago documents identical problems and this administrator's comment on AN/I from last July perfectly describes his behaviour here: "His editing and use of sources is poor, he reverts constantly, and filibusters on talk pages, making normal editing close to impossible on whatever page he's working on. When thwarted, he reverts to insults." His mentor has recently advised him not to violate civility [87] but he has continued regardless. He's had enough warnings but shows no sign of changing his behaviour.

Jiujitsuguy was blocked for wilfully violating a 1RR restriction in force on this article, and was previously blocked for "3RR and endless aggressive edits" in this topic area.

Lev Reitblat is a new single-purpose account, created on 14 May 2010, and has edited nothing other than his own talk page and this article. The account looks extremely socky. (Another involved editor, Momma's Little Helper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of NoCal100. It would not surprise me if this was a reincarnation.)

98.233.73.108 is clearly one of the above editors trying to evade the 1RR limit by editing while logged out. The timing suggests that it is probably Lev Reitblat.

Trying to deal with these editors has been an incredibly frustrating experience. I have done my best to answer their queries. Uninvolved editors have attempted to get them to suggest changes to my rewrite of the article, other than merely restoring the removed content. However, it's clear that they reject entirely any BLP or sourcing concerns. They reject out of hand everything that I have added to the article, apparently because it does not fit with their evident hatred of the article's subject. They denounce my rewrite as "fluff" without ever saying what they object to. They falsely accuse me of "eliminating all criticism" despite the fact that I've systematically added it to the article. They are consistently hostile, incivil and tendentious. They disregard BLP's requirements. Several of them have repeatedly restored material removed because of BLP concerns, even though they know there is no consensus to restore it as required by BLP, and in one instance violating a 1RR restriction.

These comments of E. Ripley, an uninvolved editor, sums up the situation. This can only be resolved by article- or topic-banning these disruptive editors so that those of us who aren't trying to re-fight the Arab-Israeli conflict on a South African judge's biography can get on with editing peacefully.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Wikifan12345 [88]
Jiujitsuguy [89]
Lev Reitblat [90]
98.233.73.108 [91]

Discussion concerning Wikifan12345 et al

Statement by Wikifan12345

ChrisO has been threatening numerous editors at Goldstone with arbitration for questioning his edits. I really don't like being constantly threatened with sanctions in talk over basic content dispute. I've ceased editing the article for now and have regulated the dispute to talk. I can't gauge the goal of this AE other than removing disputing editors from the article permanently. This has almost become a cliche. Content dispute, arbitration request, arbitration closed, repeat ad nauseum. Why bother? Can't we resolve disputes without banning other editors from the show? Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit: I actually decided to read Chris' wikilawyering post in its entirety. I vehemently reject his personal attacks and his attempt to paint me as some rogue editor. I have not been the most vocal editor nor "disruptive." Chris has been extremely hostile and dismissive to me and others, and routinely accuses editors of trying to smear Goldstone and being a part of a witch-hunt to taint his legacy. It's becoming extremely frustrating and the whole process wreaks of fear-mongering.

ChrisO came into the article and removed nearly 4 paragraphs worth of information with a very, very weak rationale. Apparently many users supported this, others did not - and since then Chris has been trying to silence users who support edits that may conflict with his own version. This is unacceptable. I might have reservations about the articles' present status but I'm not gonna try and ban editors who don't agree with me. Is this not a serious abuse of the wikipedia process - using AE as a means to censor other users? If ChrisO was genuinely interested in collaborating on Goldstone and gaining a legitimate consensus, he would first go to dispute resolution before trying to ban others. I also don't understand why he has selected me specifically. There is nothing particularly controversial or unique about my statements - several users in talk have the same issues I do. I wasn't the first. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume the most extreme interpretation, we're dealing with talk-based incivility. As demonstrated by numerous diffs, it seems many other editors in talk could potentially be topic-banned, including you - if we apply your methodology. This whole situation has been exacerbated by constantly relying on enforcement-systems to settle content disputes. I didn't come into the article and unilateral remove paragraphs of information, then send most of the users in talk who disagree with me to AE. Can't we all just get along? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't solely about talk-page incivility. The focus of my complaint, and the most serious issue here, is the way that you and the other editors I listed above have repeatedly violated WP:BLP by repeatedly attempting to bulldoze content that was removed for BLP reasons back into the article without consensus. You haven't even acknowledged that there are any BLP concerns. Many editors including Jimbo Wales disagree with you. It's absolutely not acceptable to simply ignore good-faith BLP concerns. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, that's moving the goalposts. Wikifan12345 has not edited the article for several days, so there is no basis for admin action against Wikifan for BLP violations, if he's not even putting anything into the article right now. We're not going to block someone for something they did weeks ago. As for talkpage incivility, yes, there are definitely problems, but if we're going to take administrative action because of it, we would probably take action against all editors involved, which would include yourself. Better, at this point, would probably be to try and wipe the slate clean, and then take action if there are any future incidents. In fact, I know I would see it as a very positive sign if everyone would review their comments on the talkpage, and refactor/remove anything inappropriate. That would probably be very helpful towards de-escalating this dispute. --El on ka 20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if I wasn't constantly being threatened with topic-bans in general content disputes I would be more inclined to assume good faith Chris. I don't think it is so outrageous to show concern over extreme unilateral editing. You replaced pages of content with your own research, and dismissed critics as being part of a campaign to smear Goldstone. How can we collaborate when the talk page has been divided into a zero-sum game? This a seriously one-sided AE. If I'm topic-banned there are loads of other users in talk that reiterated my complaints and could be potentially topic-banned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is expanding an article a bad thing? This is one of the main problems we have had with this article. You have been consistently hostile towards my editing, denouncing the well-sourced, relevant material I added as "fluff". Yet you have not once said what you consider to be wrong with it. The impression I get from your approach is that you disapprove of adding anything that does not fit with your picture of Goldstone as (to quote your favourite commentator) "an evil, evil man". That is not a basis for productive editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing hostile about denouncing fluff as fluff. I wasn't the first person to say this. You removed practically 3 pages worth of information, and replaced it with your version unilaterally. Then you edit-warred anyone who tried to restore cited information, claiming it was a BLP violation. You first said the paragraphs were removed because they were predicated on unreliable sources. This was false, only a single sentence was supported by world net daily. You removed the Jpost, haaretz, and ynet information without any sort of reasoning beyond blanket policy links. I and others were very explicit about what we saw wrong with the article. One of our biggest disputes was over Alan Dershowitz. You repeatedly referred to him as a fringe, extreme and partisan activist. Dershowitz has been one of the most vocal and cited critics of Goldstone, it is totally bizarre to deny him a voice. You clinged to the Nazi-analogy, but a user provided this link that includes serious, non-emotional commentary on Goldstone as a judge (not simply the report). It seems the discussion has been less about the article and more about what Chris wants. You've shown questionable ownership issues and its become impossible to suggest anything remotely controversial without being accused of trying to smear Goldstone and taint his legacy as a judge in Apartheid South Africa. IMO, the article reads as if Goldstone himself wrote it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you one simple question. How much research have you done about Goldstone's career prior to his Gaza report? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not respond to my post above? Do you disagree with what I'm saying? As far as Goldstone goes, I didn't even know he existed prior to the Goldstone report. Did you edit the article before the report was released? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I have no interest in his report. My interest is in his career relating to South Africa and Yugoslavia. But your admission that you knew nothing about Goldstone is a perfect example of what is wrong with your approach to this article and to Wikipedia in general. I have done a great deal of research on the subject. You have apparently done little or none. I have expanded the article considerably using academic works, legal reviews, contemporary news reports and South African sources. You have constantly denigrated and rejected that work. I would understand it if we were disagreeing on some point of fact, because then we could have a reasonable discussion. But your disagreement is based purely on personal opinion and prejudice against the article's subject. You object to the material because it feels wrong to you - it doesn't conform to your view of Goldstone. You haven't identified any specific fact you object to because you don't know enough to dispute the facts. Instead you complain vaguely about "fluff" without ever specifying what you object to. You present nothing with which anyone can engage with you. I've made arguments from solidly researched fact, which I can cite at length. You constantly make arguments based on ignorance and prejudice. That is the antithesis of what a Wikipedian should do. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused ChrisO. I never said I didn't do any research on Goldstone or know nothing about the man - rather, I didn't know who he was until the Goldstone report. Most people didn't know who he was. Did you know who he was prior to the Goldstone report? I don't see any edits by you prior to his appointment by the UNHRC. Obviously you have no interest in the report because you have removed everything of substance about his collaboration with the UN out of the article. I've come to understand this over time. And no, I have not constantly rejected your edits. I have said nothing about your draft that you researched all on your own, so don't get offended because I failed to congratulate you. What I have objected to, as you should know - is your refusal to admit information that is controversial even if it is supported by reliable sources. I am an inclusionist and don't think information should be removed simply because it might make Goldstone not look like the perfect apartheid judge as he was. The fact that you inferred users who didn't tow the line as being part of a smear campaign is suspect as well. I'm not here to get other editors banned, yet you continue to make this dispute personal when it isn't. This is not a minority opinion - many users have similar concerns. Are they all wrong Chris? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jiujitsuguy

Real world obligations have prevented me from responding sooner. My sole contributions to this article were two reverts within 24-hours. I was unaware (my fault for not paying closer attention to my Talk page) of the 1R restriction and received a sanction of a 24-hour block. I have not made an edit to the article since and intend to abide by the 1R restriction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lev Reitblat

1RR is the only restriction on the disputed article and I’ve never violated it. WP:BLP is a stronger restriction, if it was applied there were no sense for applying 1RR. So the fact that the only mentioned restriction is 1RR proves that WP:BLP is not a case. It’s a very strange situation when a person gets a notification not to apply a reversion more than 1 time in 24 hours and is send on Arbitration enforcement for exactly 1 reverse per 24 hours

Statement by 98.233.73.108

Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345 et al

Comment by cptnono

There were mistakes all around and this list could be longer or shorter depending on your tolerance. Chriso might have been overprotective of his edits and some of what Wikifan referred to does happen. He of course should have worded it much nicer since an extra pointed word or two in an edit summary is enough to set editor's off in this topic area (that includes me). Since this is not about Chriso, I'm going to mention my thoughts on Jujitsuguy. It is no secret that I see the good in his edits even though I have seen him hit the revert button when he shouldn't. Since he was already reprimanded on the 27th for his second revert listed here there should be no worries unless he does it again.

The talk page could have gone much better. The article is still in desperate need of some reworking to limit WP:RECENTISM and to get some of that sourced criticism (better in a chronological order instead of a separate section) in. Disagree that defamation is a problem overall. Some sources are OK and some aren't. I'm surprised that some of the sources were written off.Cptnono (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the focus of my enforcement request is about editorial behaviour, not the quality of sources. We have established routes (noticeboards, dispute resolution etc) to address the latter issue. The problem here is with the behaviour of four editors who persistently deny that there is any BLP issue to address, who have been systematically disruptive and incivil in Wikifan12345's case, and who have repeatedly sought to bulldoze content into an article after it has been removed on good-faith BLP grounds which a majority of editors and virtually all uninvolved editors have supported. That is an absolutely textbook example of incivility, disruptive editing and violating BLP's consensus requirements. It's been going on for about two weeks now, there have been plenty of warnings and requests of the editors concerned, and in Wikifan12345's case there have been literally years of prior warnings and conduct restrictions, which he has learned nothing from. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to post your previous, frivolous AE at the beginning of the discussion? I am not edit warring, engaging in PA, nor have I threatened other users with banishment. And no, not all users here are looking to restore the 4 paragraphs you removed in one sweep entirely. In fact, I agreed with the consensus that the Chomsky quote was a BLP violation. Rather, I disagreed with the misrepresentation of content claiming it was all supported by WND, which in reality only a single sentence was supported by WND. Jpost and Haaretz are all reliable sources. You claimed Ynet was a "tabloid" newspaper and unreliable, which is simply not the case. You and others also claimed Dershowitz was a "fringe" and "extremist" which again is simply not true. Consider my presence in the article and talk discussion suspended for now, I don't have time for this. I can't be looking over my shoulder, waiting for an AE case every time I get into a content dispute with ChrisO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing from the article "for now" is not a solution. You've been behaving unacceptably disruptively for a very long time; the community has shown you an incredible amount of patience, which you've not reciprocated. Your topic ban in 2009 should have sent you the message that you need to change your behaviour. You haven't, and frankly I don't think you're either willing or able to change. That's why I've advocated a permanent topic ban. It's needed because you will just turn up somewhere else doing the same thing until someone finally deals with you. How many last chances do you need? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I still "Disagree that defamation is a problem overall." And I assume continuously stating that it was good faith BLP doesn't help his frustration when bulldozing could be seen both ways. Does not excuse it. If those comments were bad enough to warrant an indef is something I dispute but that luckily isn't my place here. Cptnono (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the case of Wikifan12345 the reason I'm proposing an indefinite topic-ban is because he has a long history of this sort of behaviour; he's repeatedly been blocked and had a five-month topic ban which ended only a few months ago. His comments here are merely indicative of a long-term pattern of behaviour. If you look at the discussion which preceded his topic ban, you can see that he was banned for exactly the same kind of behaviour as that which I've being documented above. We expect editors to learn from blocks and topic bans. Wikifan12345 has evidently learned nothing as he has continued to behave in exactly the same way. At some point you just have to say "enough is enough". -- ChrisO (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you there (look at my previous thoughts on another editor here for example) but do not agree that those comments were nearly enough for an indef in the topic area. That might be because I have seen worse or because I completely agree with why he was frustrated in the first place. Also, is a checkuser on Lev Reitblat and 98.233.73.108 within AEs power? JJG has received his block and another Wikifan's is open to some sort of debate but if either tried to buck the system that is enough to warrant some trouble. I will be really disappointed if it was either of them and want to give them the benefit of the doubt.Cptnono (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An admin, HJ Mitchell, has suggested a CU and another admin, Georgewilliamherbert, has said he wouldn't oppose it (Talk:Richard Goldstone#semi-prot). I have no particular preference either way but if it's to be done, I think it would make sense to do it in conjunction with this enforcement request. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

ChrisO forgot to mention that an uninvolved admin who protected the page said some of this information should be allowed into the article [92] [93], but he, as OWNer, refused to allow it.[94] This is obviously a content/WP:OWN dispute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell can advise but he's bound by consensus, as are the rest of us, and there is a clear consensus against including the disputed material - plus his premise that all criticism is being suppressed is completely untrue, as I pointed out in my reply to him.[95] But that's a side issue - the four editors in question have not sought to restore "some of this information", they have sought to restore it all against the opposition of a majority of editors and virtually all uninvolved editors. WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content is very clear that consensus must be obtained before content deleted on BLP grounds is restored. This has been pointed out many times by myself and others, to no effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were presenting a rather one sided account of events, so I added some information as to what a genuinely uninvoled admin said about the issue.

While I agree that restoring all of it is too much, you won't allow any of it in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^Exactly. I was never in favor of restoring all of the content, and I don't think any editor in the discussion supported such a thought. However, some editors can't justify the deletion of 4 entire paragraphs that are supported by reliable sources. Anything that conflicts with ChrisO' unilateral editing is dismissed, and editors who continue to disagree are shipped to AE. Continuing to rely on wiki-punishment system to settle content disputes makes it hard to assume good faith. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why I don't think it belongs in the article. It's up to the editors who want to see it to propose an alternative version and to get consensus for its inclusion. I'm happy to discuss that. So far none of you have bothered to do that and the only edits to the article relating to this issue have been repeated attempts to stick it all back in against the existing consensus for exclusion. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nomoskedasticity

I expect that the reception of this request will be colored in part by the fact that it is ChrisO who has made it. I think it would be unfortunate if that sort of concern dominated this discussion. I was headed towards AN/I myself concerning Lev Reitblat, who received good advice re editing BLPs but has showed a rather recalcitrant attitude, on his own talk page and in his article edits. AE might be premature for Jiujitsuguy; the block seems to have gotten his attention. As for Wikifan12345, I think the comments regarding filibustering, insults, and hampering of normal editing are spot on, and it is extremely frustrating to see this kind of persistent behavior. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by E. Ripley

At its heart, this is a dispute about the adequacy of sourcing and appropriateness of including very contentious claims on a BLP, which has been made almost intractable by the volume of uncivil accusations and snide personal remarks on the talk page by people on both sides of the argument. My own involvement has been primarily attempting to get people on the "include" side to make a real attempt at engaging in fruitful content discussions, which routinely were ignored in favor of more heated rhetoric.

As it currently stands, I believe the question of whether Yediot can be used to source the contentious claims it has made has been resolved as a no. Very contentious claims require very reliable sourcing and Yediot does not qualify; this was made clear with the discussion at the WP:RSN, which at best resulted in no consensus -- to my mind, the level of disagreement exhibited there means Yediot can't be considered a "very reliable source" for this purpose. The BLP guidelines clearly state that when information has been removed as a good-faith BLP violation, which this was, a consensus must be gathered to re-add the information. That consensus has not appeared -- opinions are very clearly split, which means until a stronger consensus to include emerges, we should err on the side of exclusion. In that sense, people who have been edit warring to re-include the disputed information are behaving contrary to policies. To the extent that a content dispute remains, it involves whether it is appropriate to reference the incident that Yediot reported on not by using Yediot as the primary source, but by noting that other outlets that can be considered reliable have mentioned the Yediot story, or mentioned Goldstone's refutation of the accusations, absent any new reporting on their part to try to verify or refute the original claims. There is also no consensus on this topic, with the sides breaking down as before.

ChrisO has made some regrettably intemperate remarks and his passion for the subject has at times led him to flirt with some ownership issues. However his position has been one of erring on the side of caution, which I personally believe is appropriate in the absence of a strong consensus, and I believe his intentions are good.

Of the group Chris has accused in this request, Wikifan12345 has been the most recalcitrant and sharp-tongued (although I would add, for steaming up the talk page, No More Mr. Nice Guy and before, Momma's Little Helper (since banned as a sock) have done just as much to help derail productive debate). Jiujitsuguy and Lev Reitman have helped exacerbate stability problems on the article through reverting over the past couple of days but as relative newcomers I'm not sure their activities rise to the level of disruption -- particularly on the talk page -- exhibited by others in this group.

My own suggestion would be to again query RSN and possibly BLPN to ask whether other uninvolved editors believe it is appropriate to include anything about the flap over Yediot's original claims (including Goldstone's denial), sourced to more reliable sources, or whether the questionable nature of Yediot's reliability, since it so far is the sole source asserting the veracity of the claims, should be enough to keep any specific reference to the claims out entirely. If a strong consensus to include arises, or if opinions are again split, then I think an administrator should enforce the community's decision in either helping to craft something referencing the flap, or to enforce the BLP policy about requiring information removed as a BLP violation to garner a consensus before it is re-included, depending on how the opinion goes. — e. ripley\^talk 15:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring the matter back to the BLPN is a good suggestion, and I note that there is an ongoing discussion about a case which is exactly parallel to this one - Jimbo Wales himself has posted an important contribution. See WP:BLP/N#Arthur Jensen: Do serious accusations from potentially biases sources require a higher standard of proof?. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to BLPN again would make sense only if the involved editors stayed off the thread; someone uninvolved should be the one to post the query as well. I'm slightly doubtful in any event; it was there once, with results as described by e.ripley, and the I/P editors seemingly took no notice (to me, that is the most frustrating aspect here) -- it's not clear to me how/why it would work out differently after another round. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to list again is because it's materially a different question. The answer being sought is not whether Yediot is a reliable source for the information, but rather whether Yediot as a sole source is so unreliable that it's not appropriate to include other reliable sources referencing the conflict, or even referencing Goldstone's denial, in the absence of any new reporting that would substantiate or refute Yediot's original claim. I agree that it would be best for comments to be restricted to uninvolved editors, but I don't see how that could realistically be achieved. — e. ripley\^talk 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this at WP:BLP/N#Richard Goldstone and contentious accusations from biased sources. Jimbo Wales has posted a comment that I think should be read by all parties here. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Danger

To clarify, my statement to Wikifan on his talk page should not be construed to mean that I believe his behavior is the sole disruptive force in this situation. I am agnostic regarding the behavior of the other involved editors. In my capacity as mentor, I commented solely on Wikifan's behavior, since I have no reason or standing to evaluate the behavior of the other editors in this dispute.--Danger (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Breein1007

In the nature of AE, I think we need to look deeper into ChrisO's role in this issue. There is a serious problem in the pattern of editing he has displayed recently both in relation to the Goldstone article and stemming to the Israeli-Arab conflict in general. Aside from the WP:OWN mentality mentioned above as well as severely hostile and incivil comments to people he disagrees with, there are a few other things that remain unsolved. Since I started seeing ChrisO's name appear in articles that I edit, I have noticed that he is using WP:ARBPIA as a tool of intimidation against editors with whom he is in dispute. He has given the template to a handful of editors recently, all of whom he was heavily involved with. First of all, the template is clear: it is only effective if given by an admin. Second, after drama ensued regarding his giving of these logs contrary to the template, he went ahead and unilaterally changed the wording of the template to remove the requirement for an admin to give it! Since then, an admin has reverted his change, and a conversation has developed on the talk page of ARBPIA concerning whether or not the admin requirement should stand. Through the duration of this conversation, where a majority of editors and admins have commented that it is an important and necessary requirement, ChrisO has continued to use the template as a tool of intimidation, notifying additional editors. Furthermore, he has recently followed another editor to an AfD and voted against him after having another dispute with him. I find it highly unlikely that he randomly found his way to that editors AfD after never having contact with him before. This is just another example of the WP:BATTLE mentality that ChrisO is accusing all these other editors of demonstrating. What's particularly troubling is that ChrisO is no stranger to the Arab-Israel conflict on Wikipedia, and has been reprimanded by ARBCOM in the past for his role in I-A issues, along with others, which eventually led to him being desysoped as an admin. However, the behaviour appears to be continuing and something needs to be done to stop it. Taking a voluntary 2 week break from Goldstone will not send the message, I'm afraid. Breein1007 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add, before ChrisO gave the ARBPIA template to one of the editors, he even asked admin HJ Mitchell on his talk page to do it, because he knew that an admin has to do it for it to be effective. HJ Mitchell responded that he would think about it, and since that wasn't good enough for ChrisO, ChrisO went ahead and did it himself.

Also, just to note, ChrisO was warned against "rubbing salt into wounds" by admin HJ Mitchell a few days ago on his talk page, but since then has continued to be incivil and attack other editors. It appears the warning did not accomplish anything. Breein1007 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dishonest and selective account. Breein1007 omits to mention that he was blocked for 24 hours for deleting notifications (he was not one of the notified editors); that the notifications were endorsed by another administrator; and that his complaints were rejected by another administrator. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#block of User:Breein1007. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely not dishonest and does not excuse any of your behaviour that I mentioned in my comment. The fact that I got blocked for 24 hours for reverting your notifications does not have any bearing on your actions. Just because I got blocked for reverting your notifications, does not mean you should have given them in the first place. I will repeat: using the ARBPIA template as a method of intimidation is despicably inappropriate and several admins and editors have agreed with this on the ARBPIA talk page. Meanwhile, you have continued to use the template against editors with whom you are in dispute. Furthermore, if we are going to give the full story regarding my block, we will note that it was enforced by an admin with whom I am heavily involved and who has consistently shown his dislike for me in the past, even going so far as to threaten to block me for being a sockpuppet when it was completely unwarranted. I will be addressing this issue in the appropriate forum shortly, but we are focusing on you and the editors that you brought up here, not me. And my complaints were not rejected by any administrator. You are the one being dishonest here. You linked to an AN/I where I did not post even one comment. I have yet to make my complaints public, and when they do, we will see what happens. Until then, nobody has rejected anything. Breein1007 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint was posted to User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Requesting an explanation and was rejected, as I said. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. I am not going to complain to Georgewilliamherbert about something that Georgewilliamherbert did wrong. I decided to give George a chance to comment on his actions before I brought the matter to other admins and the community to investigate. That does not mean anything was rejected. What exactly do you think I was expecting George to do - accept my complaint and reprimand himself? This is getting ridiculous. You are ignoring everything that has to do with you in this case and only commenting on things that have to do with me and are therefore unimportant in this AE. As such, I'm going to leave now and will give you the great pleasure of having the last word. But for the record, you have yet to speak for any of the horrible behaviour you have demonstrated, and only attempted to defend yourself by smearing me. Breein1007 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I reject your baseless claims of "intimidation". Informing editors that articles are under a set of restrictions is something that should be done as a matter of course as a way of avoiding any future misunderstandings. I've notified probably hundreds of editors of various arbitration restrictions without spurious complaints of "intimidation". One of the problems throughout this issue is the way certain editors - you are one of them - have consistently assumed bad faith. This is just more of the same. -- ChrisO

Comment by Sean.hoyland

I would like to thank ChrisO for his efforts and patience despite the typical provocations, unpleasant behavior and general nonsense that are unfortunately commonplace on the BLP talk pages for people who have criticised the actions of the State of Israel since Operation Cast Lead as part of their professional duties. I also commend his attempts to remind editors that they must comply with the sanctions.

Someone said AE is premature for Jiujitsuguy. It isn't. Can someone please have a word with him to make him understand that Wikipedia is not a battlefield in the I-P conflict. I find the comments below particularly inappropriate.

I was the one who submitted the SPI against Momma's Little Helper and while in theory I strongly object to being cast as a combatant in I-P conflict for doing so, in reality I couldn't care less. However, what I do object to is the rabble-rousing and general battlefield attitude. That isn't just Jiujitsuguy of course. There isn't a single editor who has advocated inclusion of this material that should be going anywhere near the Goldstone article. The sanctions quite clearly say "Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area." Perhaps it should say "are counseled that they will be topic banned" because people clearly aren't getting the message. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify something, I have no interest whatsoever in the Gaza conflict. My involvement with the article was prompted by following a link from International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia - a topic in which I do have an interest. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly, it doesn't matter. Anyone, no matter whether it's Gandhi, an artificial intelligence machine or an editor who foolishly wanders into the warzone, anyone who tries to simply apply policy in an article within scope of the Israel-Palestine conflict will eventually find that they have apparently inadvertently joined Hamas and become a Palestinian militant (or part of the "anti-Israel 'mobs.'" on Wikipedia as the RS JPost puts it) without even applying for membership or they've somehow become an evil censor/part of a conspiracy standing in the way of the truth in a righteous battle. It's puzzling, it's nonsense and it has to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional commentary in response to administrators

In response to HJ, I'm willing to take a voluntary two-week break from the article from the end of today (I'm currently doing some work on it on issues unrelated to the dispute at hand). However, I continue to believe that a permanent topic ban is warranted for Wikifan12345 given that his conduct indisputably is a continuation of the behaviour for which he has previously been warned, blocked and topic-banned. (Not sure which section to post this in - please move it as needed.) -- ChrisO (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wikifan12345 et al

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

I am still looking into this, but do agree that Lev Reitblat (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account that is engaging in edit wars at the article. The single-purpose nature may not necessarily be a problem, but the reverts are, so I have asked him, informally, to abide by 0RR for awhile[96] to try and help stabilize things. --El on ka 13:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(continuation) Considering that Wikifan has not edited the article since May 17, I see no reason for any kind of page or topic ban. However, I do agree that the rhetoric at the talkpage, from multiple editors, has been getting out of hand. I am especially concerned by these comments by ChrisO, such as accusing another editor of "juvenile hysterics", being "obsessive", having "adolescent tantrums",[97] or being "blinded by hatred".[98] To be fair, ChrisO has been refactoring some of his comments,[99] but it's not helpful to the editing environment to make comments such as those. All editors should be strongly encouraged to keep comments focused strictly on the article, not on other editors. If there are any further personal attacks, then the relevant editors may risk temporary bans from the talkpage. --El on ka 13:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe ChrisO is complaining about Wikifan's talk page conduct. I've spent the best part of two weeks trying to deal with this mess and while I'm not best pleased that ChrisO has chosen to go over my head, I think a few relatively short page bans might help to improve the quality of the discussion. I'd like to see someone file an SPI to find out who the 2 IPs are with a view to page banning their owners. I suggest a page ban of around 2 weeks for all those named by ChrisO above with the exception of Jujitsuguy who has already served a 24 hour block and for ChrisO in order that the less vocal editors can voice an opinion without being shouted down by those who disagree with them. I say this without bias for or against any party, but I think it would be best for the quality of the discussion on the talk page if these editors were to take an enforced break from the article and its talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "2 IPs", which ones exactly are being referred to? --El on ka 13:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

98.233.73.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (revert) and 208.54.7.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (revert), who both showed up during the 1RR sanction and reverted each other, basically. The timing suggests perhaps two people who logged out to revert in order not to get caught violating the 1RR restriction. (I apologize for answering here as I'm not an administrator, but it seemed an appropriate place.) — e. ripley\^talk 14:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. It might indeed be worth filing a report at WP:SPI; however, it might also be moot since the Richard Goldstone article is currently under indefinite semi-protection. This means that new and anonymous editors could not edit the article even if they wanted to. So that particular problem (people logging out to revert) is not going to recur. --El on ka 20:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding HJ Mitchell's suggestion, I personally feel it's a bit extreme, but neither is it completely unreasonable. Just to spell things out, if we followed this course of action, it would mean the following:

The editors on the below list (sorted alphabetically) would be banned from editing the Richard Goldstone article, and also banned from participating at Talk:Richard Goldstone, for two weeks:

What about discussions at other WP:DR locations, such as at WP:RSN and WP:BLPN? Would the ban extend to there as well? Note I'm still not saying that I'm fully in support of this idea, but it can't hurt to think it through. --El on ka 20:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think just the article and its talk page would be sufficient. I don't really think it's extreme- it's less severe than the action ChrisO requests and my hope is that it would give everyone an opportunity to calm down and perhaps focus their energy in less contentious areas. In the meantime, the less vocal editors might be able to get a word in edgeways on the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a reasonable action to take, and I have no serious objections. I'd say go ahead and make it so, effective immediately. Let me know if you'd like help with the paperwork. --El on ka 02:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Jiujitsuguy from the list, since I noticed that you said the ban was not necessary on that account. --El on ka 02:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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