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

Edit this section for new requests

Immediate removal of editing privileges

I'm requesting immediate removal of editing privileges of user Aude with regards to the 9/11 attacks article as well as removing any of his/hers revisions. This user made enormous, even preposterous changes in the main space without sharing a single thought on talk page! Such actions are in direct violation of each and every decision Arbcom made and thus constitute outrageous and utterly unacceptable form of vandalism (harsh, but most appropriate allegation this is!). We are witnessing utter disregard to our policies, utter disregard to the community and utter disregard to the consensus by a single editor. Let me ask you, what sort of place we have here if the free minded editors who act in good faith have to bow and take these sorts of insults, a slap on the face of our whole community this is! I'm expecting immediate response to this issue; there are no words strong enough to condemn actions of this particular user and the complicit silence which follows his/hers unacceptable behavior. Tachyonbursts (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This request is absurd. Nothing Aude has done constitutes disruptive behavior. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reply is absurd; we all know the sensitivity of the issue. We all have to follow our guidelines. Hours were wasted on reaching consensus for that section and then this Aude persona comes along and without single explanation implements changes of vast proportion utterly disregarding our policies and patient discussions we had? As ludicrous as unacceptable such action is. Good folks suffered indefinite bans for lesser mischiefs. There is not a single editor on Wikipedia that can take ownership of that (or any other) article; we do not carry double standards here. Those changes constitute vandalism (they are way beyond disruptive behavior!), those changes our one of the worst implementation of POV I've seen in a while and as such they cannot pass unsanctioned. This is not the hegemony; we have means to deal with rogue editors who are running amok and we should use those without any discrimination whatsoever. What user Aude did there is in no way different from what we're sanctioning on regular basis. How would you act if the person would jump into main space and state that WTC 7 was brought down by the means of controlled demolition? No, this swindle goes both ways, and any editor who acts on his own while neglecting decisions of Arbcom should and will be held accountable. Tachyonbursts (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no violation of the arbcom decision here. I would advise Tachyonbursts to carefully review Wikipedia's definition of vandalism and its policy on personall attacks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Eleland issues persist

Arbcom case: 'Case Final Decisions' .

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

Incivility and personal direct and indirect attacks

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

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

See #Comments leading to the block included

Post unblock incivility

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

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

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

Comments from the last month

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

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

Comments leading to the block included

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

See #Post unblock incivility

Comments/Discussion

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

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

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

• Clearly, this behavior is disruptive and not the way to engage in collaboration. The ArbCom remedies were quite clear, and short of mentors taking this editor to account, a one month ban from related articles may be a way to cool off the spirits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you talking about me, or Jaakobou? Because the only diffs from the last two months which Jaakobou has presented relate to Avigdor Liberman. I would urge you to look into that issue in more depth than just a few scattered duffs. Much like his actions on Palestinian fedayeen which got him taken to ArbCom, Jaakobou was removing enormous sections of text, and when asked about it he would only provide quibbles and cavills about particular phrases or citations, rather than justifying his blanket removals. He was claiming that quotations were "taken out of context," but he refused to explain what "context" would, in his view, correct the problem. This is his standard modus operandi - act outrageously, then quote the outraged reactions out of context and fire them off at administrators. What I can't believe is how easily this tactic seems to work on you folks. <eleland/talkedits>
    • Some of the comments that Eleland responded to were unreasonable, and if Jossi is suggesting a month ban for Eleland, then in my humble opinion that would be excessive. The purpose of the sanctions is to ensure the smooth running of the project, and I don't think a month is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• This complaint does indeed indicate a persistent problem, both the initiating factor, and the responses to it. There is no doubt that there are issues with many of Jaakobou's edits; however, a certain set of editors, including, quite frankly, those listed below, have taken that as a license to insult and revert him with impunity, mercilessly tag-teaming him, and even publicly encouraging each other to revert him. When he opens discussion on Talk: pages, they often mock or ignore him entirely. When he comes here for relief, they insist he is vexatious, and should be sanctioned for complaining about being insulted, reverted and ignored. WP:CIVIL is still policy, and the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Decorum principle is quite clear. Nonetheless, these editors somehow feel they have free reign to violate these policies and principles even on the AE board itself: gratuitous insults like "User:Jaakobou's endless whingeing" are a violation of both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's civility policy, and are also covered by the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Jayjg, while there is some truth in your comments, it should be noted that half of his complaint was so frivolous that it has been removed. PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Eleland's view

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

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

Nishidani's view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nickhh's view

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

Pedrito's view

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

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

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

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

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.04.2008 14:43

193.109.81.249's view

Comment on extremism

The complainant in this case appears to be a political extremist who cannot be expected or trusted to usefully contribute to a reputable reference work. He is on good, personal terms with violent (and convicted, I think) criminal settlers so extreme that even Israel is abandoning them. The unlimited time he has to wiki-lawyer so harmfully drives away good editors. The mediator who claims to be improving his conduct is world-famous for paranoia and abuse of procedures in Wikipedia. And seems to act only to protect him. I fail to see how WP can expect to be taken seriously while this kind of thing goes on. I'd like to add that nobody brought me to this page, I happened to be looking at the contributions of a different editor I suspect of being a serial abuser. 193.109.81.249 (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And how are the rest of us to know if you are not an agent provocateur. What you say of Jaakobou is an unwarranted (on the only evidence that counts, Wiki evidence) and what you remark infamously of User:Durova in this tirade, ostensibly in favour of the defendant, makes those of us who strongly protest User:Jaakobou's endless whingeing look like your cronies. I don't think I am alone in dissociating myself from these remarks. Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

193.109.81.249's comments are in line many others I've seen on Wikipedia, and there is no reason to believe complicated conspiracy theories regarding them. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I made no statement of belief. I have always been highly sceptical of conspiracy theories and theorists. So I endorse exactly your point,Jayjg If you check you will see that the gravamen of my remark was to reprove the anonymous editor for his disgraceful remarks, not to suggest he was part of a conspiracy. Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

204.52.215.95's view

In his response to 193.109.81.249, Jayjg speaks more accurately than he knows. Indeed "193.109.81.249's comments are in line many others ... on Wikipedia," although I would suggest that they more accurately represent a common reaction to Jaakobou's tendentious editing style. In the last several months I have witnesses at least a half dozen instances in which Jaakobou has initiated long and painfully drawn-out wiki-lawyerly arguments designed to stifle BOLDness and to promote his own non-neutral POV, but like 193.109.81.249 I have also been disinclined to whistle-blow for fear of reprisal.

Jaakobou has a long history of frivolous POINT edits that appear to be employed as punishment for those who cross him[2][3] . He seems to have a great amount of time on his hands despite suggestions that he is occupied as a student, and as a result he is capable of binding articles up in states of perpetual limbo by dogmatic refusal to compromise and OWN-like behavior. To the average editor this can be very frustrating and behavior such as this tends to drive editors (especially new editors) away from wikipedia.

When confronted with the fact that his position is in fact in the extreme minority, Jaakobou has made threats to return at a later date, subsequently placing these broad consensus articles on his "unresolved" list to remind himself that he personally took issue with them[4]. The fact that such an editor may return to the article at a later date is enough to turn away many good editors and I believe this is the intent of making such an otherwise unnecessary remark. Although he makes frequent accusations of others stalking him, I do not believe that he is above the same tactics which considering his disruptive editing is of great concern to those who fear reprisal.

Such fear is not without warrant. As both Nishidani and Nickhh have pointed out, Jaakobou collects one-sided dossiers on those he perceives as his enemies and later uses his collection of quotes stripped of context in order to impugn the names of otherwise valuable editors. To make the collection of such quotes easier for himself he engages in baiting behavior and general tendentiousness to provoke editors against their better judgment. His most recent victim of such character assassination is eleland. This AE action was actually filed in response to eleland's RfC action which can be found here. It is a true pity that there has not been greater response to this RfC, but I believe there are two reasons that other editors who would gladly certify the veracity of the claims have not done so. The reason editors like 193.109.81.249 and I hold back is for fear of reprisal. The more unfortunate reason for those few who have had the courage to oppose Jaakobou (all members of Jaakobou's offensive "memorabilia" gallery) is that they have been involved in so many disputes with him and have been implicated by Jaakobou so many times as belonging to some imagined cabal against him that they hold back for fear of demonstrating bias. I would argue that bias against a manipulative and corrupt editor is wiki-appropriate bias however I am in no position to criticize these editors' very real concerns.

Like 193.109.81.249, I have similarly found my way here without anyone telling me about it. I have, in fact, not participated in any of the Israel-vs.-Palestine articles which seem to be Jaakobou's main hangout. Yet, after a brief meeting with him, I have observed Jaakobou's actions as a concerned and editor for some time now because I believe that he represents the worst kind of wikieditor - an intelligent manipulator. I don't believe anyone here would disagree that Jaakobou is clever, but his use of one-sided character-smearing dossiers are exceptionally dangerous for wikipedia. Most administrators are extremely busy and as a result they do not have time to delve deeply into problems which have brewed for months or years. In such cases, for better or worse, administrators are likely to be heavily swayed by an apparently fully detailed log documenting a long history of disruptive, biased, and racist edits even if this log comes from the other editor concerned. By storing these dossiers on the talk pages of other administrators and failing to inform his intended victim, Jaakobou simultaneously gains an ally in that administrator who hears only a one-sided story and covers his tracks for anyone not stalking him. Nishidani and eleland have both recently discovered the cost of not stalking Jaakobou. When it's time to launch an AE case, Jaakobou has a storehouse of goodies to draw from as well as the support of a neutral administrator.

Above all this, however, the fact that Jaakobou seeks to become an administrator himself is the thing which worries me the most. I feel terrible for Durova who seems to be a very wiki-conscious and all-around good mentor. She has been forced into the position of endlessly defending Jaakobou's actions against his "enemies" and she must by now be getting quite a headache from his controversy-ridden edit-wars. I think Durova sees some good in Jaakobou as she is his mentor after all, however I think this view is misguided. The potential which Jaakobou has to be a good administrator (as evinced from his intelligence, doggedness in defending/promoting his ideals, and perseverance in the face of adversity) is unfortunately dwarfed by the potential he has to be a bad administrator (as evinced by his strong political views, uncompromising attitude, and penchant for malice).

I strongly dispute the charges against eleland and would recommend, instead, a strong warning if not a temporary ban against Jaakobou to remind him that wikipedia is neither an appropriate venue for personal philosophies, nor a BATTLEground where GAME-playing and rhetorical wiki-lawyering are the weapons. My dream scenario involves a permanent topic ban resulting from violation of the final AE warning, however I recognize that this is unlikely. Finally, I would recommend that Durova review her decision to mentor Jaakobou and I plead for the anonymous editor in general that such an editor not be released as a full administrator without thorough proof that he can look beyond his own POV. 204.52.215.95 (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify. I don't hold back in fear of being caught for 'bias'. I wear on my pages, the badges of my infamy quite proudly, injustices mostly, but froth off that notable acquatic creatures back. I tried to advise Eleland of what I thought was an inopportune time for defending himself. I'll say publicly what I thought privately when he asked me if I was interested in commenting on his appeal. If Eleland is punished, I'll leave wikipedia in protest (no big loss). He is a fine, trenchant and knowledgeable editor as far as I can judge. I think his own complaint self-defensive, and in so far as it takes Jaakobou's absurd dossier seriously, a sign of a lack of confidence in arbitrators (mind you, perhaps he has good reasons to lack confidence there. If he like myself belongs to Jaakobou's scallawag brigade of trophy heads to be mounted on his Memorabilia Wall, and has his name constantly thrown up before administrators as a scoundrel, I understand his countermove. It's just that being lazy, I couldn't give, to use an old bushman's idiom, a proverbial rodent's rectum for wasting several hours, every time I am accused, in working up those dangfounded diffs to defend myself. I'd much prefer to edit, and protest only when some stray administrator takes Jaakobou's inquisition seriously. I'm quite open about my sympathies, use at times strong expressions, and have openly said that, while I'm very happy to embrace the new regime of editing rules, I will participate in the style that is natural for me. That of civilized dialogue which, even in the most urbane of classical rhetors, does not deny itself a natural outburst on occasion, of calling a spade an effen shovel. If administrators, seeing this clipped out, don't check, and fault me for it, I'll pay the penalty for my sincerity. Administrators should understand that in one of the most difficult areas to edit in Wikipedia, etiquette is fundamental, but an exasperated outburst or two should be neither here nor there, or a touch of soapboxing either. One needs that leeway, if one is to stay in here and work half one's time fighting a totally misguided warrior idea of patriotic editing, and not fake a voice that is all courtesy up front, and daggers underneath, in the editing manner of people one knows to be pronouncedly and dogmatically intent on inserting national biases into this encyclopedia. Jaakobou is intensely exasperating, and I have fought him to a standstill on his own ground every now and then. A huge waste of time, his mainly, because he is wasting years on putting in material that can be struck down anytime in ther future, near or far.

p.s. I hope more people come in. This is all quite entertaining. We all must look like tiddlers gasping at the bait Jaakobou has thrown to reel in, gugdeon after gudgeon, the notorious off-line school of a fishy pro-Palestinian cabal CAMERA talks of!!!!Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

content related material - retracted - and discussions

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

Comment by Durova

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

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

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

---

Disruptive use of sources and POV/BLP violation

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

Previous activity

Previously Eleland has,
(a) Rejected Washington Times and the BBC to promote -- alongside PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- the WP:FRINGE theory/blood-libel that Battle of Jenin was (supposedly) a large scale massacre.[5], [6], [7]
(b) Replaced "partisan-hackery links" (CAMERA, AIJAC) with (neutral?) ElectronicIntifada.net.[8]
(c) Rejected 'Arutz Sheva', a leading right wing Israeli news outlet for it's (alleged) - "reputation for producing outright fraudulent "news", calling it a "disreputable racist fringe source".[9]
(d) He even rejected the word 'documentary' to describe a video only using live-recorded clips of real life situations based on the notion that "it's full of lies".[10]
(e) He's also made a similar BLP violation, reinstating a quote made on March 5 into a lead paragraph on Operation Defensive Shield, an Israeli response to a month of suicide bombings culminating with a March 27th attack;[11] this after the paragraph/quote context was explained more than once ([12], [13]).

April 2008 activity

In continuation with the previous "rv extremist POV" diff (above) Eleland was also taking part in a WP:GAME team war approach -- following Pedro Gonnet (now Pedrito) and Nickhh -- to creating/supporting BLP violations on Avigdor Lieberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a right-wing Israeli politician.

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

Content related discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Bluemarine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: Yep, they still do. See this for example: [14]. There's one for Paris. That's all I checked for in France. - Philippe 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Brian Landeche, the namesake of this user, is the founder of NYC's gay bar Splash.[15] I rather doubt this bar owner is the same person as this user. Banjeboi 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

Thomas Basboll

We have a big problem at this article with a tendentious group of editors who have conducted a straw poll and decided that those who believe in fringe theories may write about them as if they are mainstream views.[16] This horrendous POV pushing needs to be stopped, and policies such as WP:UNDUE need to be enforced. There is an arbitration decision, I believe, covering all 9/11-related articles. Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

There is nothing subtle here. Truthers have been trying to whitewash the article for quite some time, and a variety of editors have been attempting to restore neutral point of view. Id est: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] At some point people need to understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advancing fringe theories. The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough. Jehochman ^Talk 08:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another one - Pokipsy76

Here's another long time source of POV pushing on this article. [23] This editor should be subject to the same sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ouch. Two-month topic ban imposed, communicated to the user and logged.[24] Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've just violated your ban.[25] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

User:Wowest

I'd ask for consideration of action on this editor as well. His quote sums up his purpose here pretty well: The mainstream account is propaganda created by the Bush regime, repeated verbatim by a captive domestic media, then parroted again by foreign media. [26] Look at this revert [27] "an uncounted, but presumably large number of members of the engineering community"?? Presumably?? Why do we have to put up with this? RxS (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

1. The edit you are referring to in Conspiracy theory is the expressin of the consensus on the talk page which is clearly against the deletion of that section.
2. Really Conspiracy theory can be considered a 9/11 related topic (and therefore under the arbcom rules)? Actually it is about conspiracy theories in general.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

   Pokipsy76, this tendentiousness really has to stop. There are plenty of Wikipedians around who can help resolve disputes. As you have been topic banned already, you may find yourself blocked if you continue to involve yourself in conspiracy theory disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel

Xiutwel (talk · contribs · count) is another user engaging in tendentious pro-Truther soapboxing and stonewalling. [28] [29] Additionally, they left me a bogus warning, apparently in retaliation for my involvement above. [30] This account proudly declares on their user page that they are here for the purpose of ideological struggle.[31] I suggest either a final warning, topic ban, or indefinite block for disruption, as appropriate in the discretion of the administrator who reviews this request. The time for nonsense on these articles has come and gone. Xiutwel participated in the arbitration case, so they are certainly on notice about what is acceptable, and what isn't.[32] Jehochman ^Talk 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also got a "warning" from Xiutwel. [33] This has been going on for 2+ years with him. At this point, I don't seem him changing his way on 9/11 pages. --Aude (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:152.131.10.133

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now this from Bov (as 133)[34] This is what they do, nonsensical bans on people to block the information they don't want out there and to keep the labels attached to people they need to try to discredit. (there's more)...seems like a commitment to keep at it, and personally I'm sick of it. RxS (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)