Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:56, 14 August 2011

WP:AE

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

NickCT

No action against NickCT. He is warned to observe civility when discussing I-P articles. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning NickCT

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: —Biosketch (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#Decorum/WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded

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

12 July – editor accuses me of being "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior," with no accompanying evidence
13 July – editor repeats the accusation, again with no accompanying evidence.
15 July – editor accuses me of concealing previous accounts, with no accompanying evidence.

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

Blocked on 21 December 2009 by Ged UK (talk · contribs) for harassment
Notified on 2 March 2010 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) of ARBPIA ruling
Blocked on 27 May 2010 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) for personal attacks

Enforcement action requested

Topic ban for a duration of one week to one month, per escalation from previous.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For the past month or so I've been having to put up with increasingly hostile and personally oriented rhetoric directed against me by editors in the I/P topic area. When at this very Noticeboard Tarc (talk · contribs) thrice accused me of sockpuppetry without citing a single diff as required per WP:NPA#WHATIS, I let it slide. After Nableezy (talk · contribs) attributed to me a batshit insane obsession with his edits for two edits I made, he redacted and I accepted. More recently, Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) called me an ass on his Talk page for trying to engage him in a calm one-on-one discussion; but he too struck the remark per my request and the matter has more-or-less been settled. NickCT (talk · contribs), on the other hand, not only called me "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior" without any evidence, but into the bargain has been repeatedly suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet or hiding previous user accounts, also without any evidence. I insisted that he withdraw his original comment or substantiate it in three different places to avoid creating a scene – but to no avail.

If people have a problem with my edits in I/P or have gotten into their heads that I'm a sockpuppet, it doesn't excuse attacks against me that violate WP:NPA and WP:ARBPIA#Decorum/WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded. I understand Decorum isn't as strictly enforced as other ARBIA principles are, but specifically in the case of User:NickCT, he has been sanctioned here before for his hostile interactions with editors he disagrees with in I/P, so either he genuinely doesn't understand what these policies entail, or else he's incapable of abiding by them. Either way, considering the perpetually tense atmosphere at I/P and NickCT's problematic conduct in the topic area in the past, I am requesting enforcement in this case. Every other means of reaching an understanding with this user has been exhausted in vain.

Appendix: In anticipation of the some of the comments likely to follow, I offer these preformulated responses. It isn't essential that the Admins considering my request read them.

"This is a frivolous request, only one attack." First of all, it wasn't one attack. The first time he attacked me, I templated his remark with Template:RPA, but he removed the Template and reiterated his attack. Later, when I tried in the gentlest way possible to communicate to him the problem with his remark, his response was to attribute bad-faith motives both to my initial comment on User:Malik Shabazz's Talk page and to my comment on his own Talk page. And then, when I took the matter to WP:WQA for community input, he began with his string of allegations that I'm a sockpuppet. These aren't frivolous attacks. They are textbook personal attacks against me relating to an active-arbitration topic area, without evidence to back them up and serving only to discredit me and disrupt my interactions with other contributors. Secondly, the pattern of recurring personal attacks doesn't need to be established by my diffs alone. It is already established by his block log.
"AEs should not be filed against editors one is in conflict with." The response to that is simple. NickCT and I weren't in conflict anywhere in the Project; indeed, as far as I know, this was only the second time he and I ever crossed paths.
"If all these people are attacking you, maybe you're the problem and not them." I'm open to criticism relating to how I edit, as anyone who contributes regularly to I/P should be. I'm also aware of WP:BOOMERANG. If someone's convinced there's a case to be made that my edits are a problem in I/P, let them make it like through the appropriate channels. Otherwise, shifting the blame onto me and making ad hominem remarks in my regard is counterproductive and needs to be identified for what it is – a sordid red herring. This is an AE about NickCT. Any comments not directly relating to that user and his remarks toward me don't belong here.
"This isn't within the purview of AE." The language and context of the attack make it related to the Arab-Israel conflict, broadly construed. If this were an I/P-banned editor, he would not be allowed to attack another contributor as "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior." Furthermore, NickCT was sanctioned at AE before for similar infractions.—Biosketch (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the forum shopping charge, that's an exceedingly slanted interpretation of what led to this AE. It says at the top of this page, "ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution." Had I come here immediately following the I/P-related personal attack, it might have been considered impulsive and premature. Instead, I tried resolving the incident where it initially took place; then I tried at the editor's Talk page; and then I tried at WQA. So I think I followed procedure to the letter and even showed more restraint than other people in similar situations have.

Additionally, in coming here I also relied on the comments of several Admins in good standing, which indicated that personal attacks are sanctionable at AE – for example, Gatoclass (talk · contribs), "Speaking of which, gratuitous comments on contributor are sanctionable in this topic area, so I strongly suggest you avoid making them", and Zero0000 (talk · contribs), This is your only warning, next time I'm filing a report, who rebuked editors for remarks that were far less severe than what I endured.

Lastly, regarding the wikilawyering charge, that's also detached from reality. WP:NPA is unequivocal: "Serious accusations require serious evidence" (emphasis added). And WP:ARBPIA ruled, "Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." It could not have been stated any more clearly than that.—Biosketch (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens (talk · contribs), had this been a slip on his part, he had only to strike out his attack and that would have been the end of it. That he undid my template and reiterated his attack, and then declined my requests that he withdraw it, means it was no slip. Also, it's true I have enemies here. I never would have thought of him as one of them, though. He literally appeared out of nowhere; and not only that but I think it's because of his hostile rhetoric against me that Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) thought I came to his Talk page looking for blood and ended up calling me an ass. You see how his comment interrupted a civil discussion I was trying to have with another contributor, simply because he looked through my edit history and saw that I edit articles in I/P. He can't even articulate a compelling argument as to why I may be "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior."—Biosketch (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified at user's Talk page: "You have demonstrated to me that you either do not understand WP:NPA or do not see yourself as needing to comply with it. I have requested enforcement of ARBPIA rulings against you here."

Discussion concerning NickCT

Statement by NickCT

Not sure how seriously I should take this, so I'll just make several quick points -

1) People should probably review this conversation as example of the kind of complaints Biosketch seems to have a penchant for.

2) re "repeatedly suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet" - I never suggested Biosketch was a sock. I suggested he had an account previous to his current account, which he almost certainly has had and additionally, has made no attempt to deny. I explained the difference between those two things here. I'm not sure why he repeatedly mischaracterizes my comments.

3) Bio initially filed a Wikiquette complaint for the material above, which didn't seem to gather any momentum. He seems to be going to multiple places now trying to get someone to agree and act on his complaints. As such, I think AE request could justifiably be called forum shopping.

4) Biosketch really represents the worst of the Israel-Palestine wikilawyers. This kind of "throw some accusations around and see what sticks" tactics has got to stop. It's a waste of time, and distracts from WP's core mission. I think a clear message could be sent here with some punitive anti-wikilawyering measures.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning NickCT

I see that the two admins commenting have had plenty of breathing room which is rare here. So disregarding everything else, all I want to ask is if making the charge with the wording:

"...a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior, simply seeks disparage the actions of an admin that Biosketch regards as too neutral on his pet position."

is OK. It wasn't an article's talk page discussion but it was an unprompted comment on a user page discussing the topic area that did nothing but rock an already unstable boat. Overall it was rude which was not the editor's first breech of WP:ARBPIA 4.1.2: "Decorum".

It doesn't matter if Nick assumes it was one thing or the other. Was that comment acceptable?

Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the third diff, I think it is important that the etiquette rules be relaxed on administrative pages like that one and this one. There has to be a limit, of course, but these are places where editors should be able to express their opinions honestly without fear of sanction. Zero^talk 09:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that editors have more leeway in discussions here or on noticeboards. The first diff mention above twice for the admins wasn't either of those though. It was on an editor's talk page. Nick wasn't even involved in the discussion but decided he wanted to start talking mean. So if the final decision is that we are allowed to ignore decorum as long as it isn't on an article's talk page I am down. I have a lot of things to say to some people here and if saying whatever I feel about them on talk pages with no regard for decorum is OK then I look forward to it.Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed. I'm not gonna lie, I am totally ignorant to this AE and haven't spent a lot of time looking through the diffs. However, a little clarity on this would be nice: "It is a concern when the person complaining about incivility is one of the most vigorous spokesmen for one side of the I-P dispute and a frequent poster at WP:AE. This hints that his interest in the matter is more than a dispassionate desire to raise the tone of the I-P discussions"

I totally agree with this premise. However, Biosketch doesn't even rank when it comes to the top I/P AE filers. Yet I have never seen an administrator make such a comment towards the filer. Biosketch's motives shouldn't take precedence over ARBPIA violations. So if AE is going to make an exception for Nick then perhaps Ed's philosophy should become official ARBPIA policy. Just a thought. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning NickCT

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

So...I take it that no one is willing to sanction NickCT then? NW (Talk) 05:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do here, and the situation is a bit more complicated as I haven't dissected it all... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looked Over Zero0000's link; agree on principle (I actually don't find anything in that diff to be out of the ordinary.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum is tricky. On one hand we don't want the already fragile ARBPIA editing environment to deteriorate even further, but on the other hand we don't want occasional slips to be used as "weapons" to "win" a content dispute or "neutralize" perceived "enemies". Certainly we don't want to encourage AE reports every time someone made a slip. Still thinking on this... T. Canens (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed a lot of diffs and checked NickCT's overall contribution record. Nick does seem to be testing how close to the line he can get. Biosketch did file some of these diffs at WQA and did not get any traction there. It is a concern when the person complaining about incivility is one of the most vigorous spokesmen for one side of the I-P dispute and a frequent poster at WP:AE. This hints that his interest in the matter is more than a dispassionate desire to raise the tone of the I-P discussions. On the evidence presented here, I would not take any action, but I'd notify NickCT that he can avoid future trouble for himself if he will watch his language. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking more and more that this area could use another arbcom sweep. Regardless, I think we can close this along the lines of EdJohnston's suggestion. T. Canens (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing per the above with no block or ban. NickCT is warned to watch his language in I-P disputes. He may not be so lucky next time. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frederico1234

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

Request concerning Frederico1234

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Broccolo (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Frederico1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Decorum/WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded

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

18 July 2011 Voted on deletion request for Mein Kampf in the Arabic language assuming a bad faith and demonstrating a battleground mentality "Having that said, as deletion discussions are polls, the article will be kept due to "no consensus", as there are plenty of socks of banned users, POV-pushers etc out there." As it is seen from deletion request pratically all uninvolved editors including a few administrators voted to keep the article.
04:14, 27 July 2011 First revert
28 July 2011 second revert less than 24 hours later
13:45, 26 July 2011 Misrepresents the source that clearly states "Copies of the translation are understood to have been distributed to London shops towards the end of last year and have been selling well."
20:52, 26 July 2011 first revert
04:14, 27 July 2011 second revert less than 24 hours later
17:40, 4 August 2011 Removing sourced information with edit summary "Undid revision 443046855 by ברוקולי (talk) The WP:LEAD should summarize the article, not add new stuff"
17:41, 4 August 2011 Removing sourced information with edit summary "Undid revision 443046855 by ברוקולי (talk) The WP:LEAD should summarize the article, not add new stuff"
08:54, 19 July 2011 comment on the deletion request and states that his point "commenting on this AFD" " to prevent serious editors from wasting their time, as the article will be kept no matter the quality of their arguments. A secondary point was to protest how inherently flawed Wikipedia deletion "discussions" are when the subject article is in the domain of the I-P topic field, and thus subject to all its glory of sock-puppetry, off-wiki-canvassing, tendentious editors etc."

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

Topic ban for a month.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Today the article was at the main page and a few IP users and users had some questions about the article. They posted their questions to the article's talk page here and here. I added required information that I believe should go to the lead. Even if this information should not be in the lead Frederico1234 should have discussed where is the proper place to add the information versus simply removing it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff link

Discussion concerning Frederico1234

Statement by Frederico1234

I'm aware of the 1RR rule and agree that the article in question is covered by it.

3. Broccolo is mistaken. The edit did not occur within 24h.

4. This was an error of mine. Sorry for that.

6. This is a 1RR violation. In this case I thougth it would be easier for everyone to just use the edit summaries to do the explaining. In hindsight, I should probably have taken that to Talk.

7. and 8. Should count as one revert as they were made directly after each other. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Frederico1234

Comment by asad

Besides the reverts dealing with the Palestinian Authority publishing the book, I can't see how anything else relates to ARBPIA. -asad (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Volunteer Marek

While strictly speaking this may not be in the IP topic area it does appear to be some kind of a proxy war related to it. Having said that I don't see anything wrong with the comments in the first and last (#1 and #9) diffs provided. Being critical of Wikipedia or, in particular, of the atmosphere in a specific Wikipedia topic area is not objectionable. Neither does someone *have* a battleground mentality simply because they point out that a particular area *is* a battleground (more so if it happens to be true). Likewise, it is not forbidden to assume bad faith for editors who have substantial experience and interactions in a particular topic area - especially when the comment is not directed at anyone in particular.

Diffs #7 and #8 appear to be a content dispute (Frederico1234 is essentially right with regard to the letter of MOS but there could be exceptions).

Diff #4 is also a content dispute and, in case he's wrong, could be just an error on F's part - it would be more troublesome if this was a repeated edit, but as far as I can tell it's not.

This leaves diffs (3,4) and (5,6), which are potential violations of the IP 1RR restriction - assuming that this article does indeed fall under that topic's scope. Ok, then, just to make sure, is Frederico1234 aware of this restriction? I don't see the "Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) " section in the above report but given that F seems familiar with the topic area perhaps it wasn't required here. Still, in cases like this the usual practice is to give the user a "standard warning" from one of the AE admins before imposing any sanctions. Maybe that's all that's needed here.

Ok now to the diffs themselves. First problem is that diffs 2 and 6 are the exact same diff. This is a revert but it also appears to be a rephrasing and an answer to PlotSpoiler's question. Second is that these concern different material. Overall I'd call this a mild violation of 1RR. Additionally, if these edits are in breach of the 1RR sanction (if this article is indeed covered by the topic area), then so are those of PlotSpoiler from 20:20 July 26 and 2:13 July 27.

So at the end of the day what you got here is a possibility of a somewhat mild transgression, combined with a whole bunch of diff-padding to make it look much worse than it is.

I'd warn Frederico and PlotSpoiler and remind them of the 1RR restriction again, and warn Broccolo for perpetuating battleground in the topic area by filing somewhat spurious AE requests full of diffs that don't show much of anything. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wikifan12345

Fred doesn't have a history at ARBPIA log and he has zero blocks. I know I/P has tighter rules than other areas of wikipedia but for a first offense a topic ban seems rather excessive even assuming he has done the things he is being accused of. I guess one could argue from a behavioral standard but I'm not the best judge. I think this should be closed with a mild warning to all parties involved. Anything beyond that would be unfair IMO. Wikifan^{Be nice} 09:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

In response to T. Canens' query as to how this article relates to the A-I conflict, to quote just one paragraph from the article in question:

The distribution of Mein Kampf has been pointed to by Israel as an example of the influence of Nazism for Arab nationalists in their war against the Jewish State. In a speech to the United Nations immediately following the Suez Crisis in 1956, Golda Meir stated that the Arabic translation of Mein Kampf was found in Egyptian soldiers' knapsacks.[9] Historian David Dalin wrote that during the 1967 Six-Day War, many Egyptian soldiers were found carrying an Arabic edition produced by the Arab Information Center in Cairo.[10]

I think that quote speaks for itself. Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence wasn't supported by the sources. I had added a citation request to it earlier, but it was removed at some point. In any event, I've refactored the sentence to something that the sources cited can support, and moved it to the appropriate section. Whether or not mentions of Egyptian soldiers carrying copies of the book in their bags makes this article a part of the A-I conflict, I'll leave up to admins to decide. ← George^talk 09:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Golda Meir said in her speech to the United Nations, but it's hard to imagine the PM of Israel bringing up such a factoid for any other reason than to discredit her nation's adversaries. Apparently she had no doubts about its relevance to the conflict. Zionist propaganda has for decades sought to delegitimize Arab grievances by blaming Arab hostility to Israel on antisemitism. The alleged popularity of Mein Kampf in the Arab world is a regularly cited example of that. So yes, I think this topic falls squarely within the purview of ARBPIA. Whether Frederico's edits to the page in question fall within the topic area, I don't know since I haven't looked at them, so I might leave that to others to decide. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"it's hard to imagine the PM of Israel bringing up such a factoid for any other reason than to discredit her nation's adversaries". The article gives more sourced context now, and it's pretty much along the lines you suspected. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would group this with articles like Hummus - very loosely related to the A-I conflict in reality, but having their connections magnified by Wikipedia editors. After reading through the sources, Mein Kampf was most notable for its role in the Arab nationalist movement of the 1930s. Modelled on the Nazi movement, Arab nationalism had its own twinge of hatred of Jews and racial superiority (the irony of course being that the Arabic translations had to be modified to remove racist remarks directed at the Arabs themselves). I know that some use the terms "Jew" and "Israeli" interchangeably, but I'm not one of them, so I'm somewhat disinclined to consider something that largely pre-dates the state of Israel a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I don't have strong opinions on the subject, so I'm fine either way. ← George^talk 19:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, George. It's not appropriate to post this here, but reading the article I was reminded of something I read from a vol. I noted, and browsing, bought, in a secondhand bookshop while travelling in the antipodes this summer:

'The life of the villagers was dominated by their feud with a neighbouring Arab village. They seemed little concerned with the Jewish presence in Palestine and, although they had heard of both Hitler and Churchill, they did not know which of the two was the leader of the British war effort.' K. A. Lodewycks, The Funding of Wisdom: Revelations of a Library's Quarter Century, Spectrum Books, Melbnourne 1982 p.67. Apologies for the interruption, but that's just too good to be true. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZScarpia

From appearances, item 4 should be discounted. Firstly, the quote starts: "Copies of the translation are understood to have been distributed ... ." What the word 'understood' means is that the writer was unsure about the veracity of what followed or had been unable to verify it. That sentence, therefore, can't act as a source of validation for the statement of fact made in the Wikipedia article. Secondly, the quote is about a delivery to London bookshops. It specifically mentions London, it specifically mentions bookshops, it doesn't say who the books were sold to (Arabs aren't the only ones who can read Arabic), it doesn't even say that the bookshops were supplying the books to UK customers. The sentence that Frederico edited read: "... and sells well in Arab neighborhoods of Great Britain." Somehow, a previous author invented the concept of Arab neighbourhoods in the UK. Perhaps that editor thinks that the UK is like the West Bank, but with Arab settlements. Or maybe London was being confused with Paris. In any case, the source says only that the books were supplied to London bookshops. It says nothing about the locations of those bookshops or the ethnic composition in those areas. Frederico was certainly correct to say that the Telegraph article in question didn't support the statement in Wikipedia. ← ZScarpia 17:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article had a bunch of other amusing inaccuracies, like the Arabic language Mein Kampf being a bestseller in Turkey. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cptnono

Just to clarify, the article is certainly under ARPIA. The article could be used by editors supporting Israel to make Palestinians look bad (or at least that concern could be assumed by editors with a pro-Palestinian slant). There is actually a discussion over on the talk page and at the Palestine-Israel Collaboration project since the high sales in the Palestinian Territories with possible support from the PNA is a contentious topic. Maybe the article still isn't clear enough but it is part of the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is true moral clarity, my friend. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Frederico1234

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

Can someone explain how this article is related to the A-I conflict? T. Canens (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this article was created just 3 weeks ago on July 16 and was tagged on the talk page just 2 hours later by the creator with {{ARBPIA}}. I'm not sure if this truly should be covered by ARBPIA or not; I do not have a long history of monitoring ARBPIA, but I haven't seen anything that defines exactly which articles are subject or lists them. Broadly construed, I think that someone could assert that Arab nationals and Palestinians might use Mein Kampf to support Anti-Jewish beliefs. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Golda Meir claimed that Egyptian soldiers carried Mein Kampf in their knapsacks, I think it's enough of a connection to place this article under ARBPIA. With regard to the actual diffs above, there does not seem to be any serious transgression. As someone pointed out, Frederico1234 has never been blocked and so far his name is not mentioned in the WP:ARBPIA log. Frederico has admitted above that he broke 1RR at least once in this sequence of edits and he has apologized for that. I suggest closing this with a reminder to Frederico not to assume bad faith regarding groups of editors in the I-P articles and to be careful to stay within the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this request since there have been no further comments in five days. Frederico1234 is notified of the discretionary sanctions. He is warned against any further violation of the 1RR restriction and reminded not to assume bad faith regarding groups of editors in the I-P articles. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR

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

Request concerning RolandR

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

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

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

Requests by Jaakobou (merged case):

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

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

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

Additional diffs merged from case request by Jaakobou:

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@EdJohnston,

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Replies by Biosketch to editor comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning RolandR

Statement by RolandR

This is ridiculous; an entirely spurious and worthless claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: At the time of 11:22, 30 July 2011 and of subsequent reverts, the 3 sources (Irish Times, Haaretz, Israeli Court Judge) did verify the serious charges made. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning RolandR

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Volunteer Marek

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

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

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

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

Comment by Wikifan12345

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

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

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

@ Roland

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

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

Possible 1 rr violation

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

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

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

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

Comment by Gatoclass

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

Gatoclass,

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

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

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

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

Dear Gatoclass,

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

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

Comment by Cptnono

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

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

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

Comments by ZScarpia

(Comment 1)

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

(Comment 2)

Biosketch wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Comment 3)

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

Comments by Nishidani

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

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

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

Result concerning RolandR

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

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

Jaakobou

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

Request concerning Jaakobou

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

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

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

Interaction ban

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

Date See below

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Jaakobou

Statement by Jaakobou

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

As a show of good faith, while the link poses a gray area which called up this distraction and drama, I'd rather not have it up and have removed it.[16]
I'd rather avoid any IBAN issues even if it seems like a proper link. With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou

Comment by a Biosketch

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

Comment by Volunteer Marek

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Jaakobou

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

Smatprt

Warned that his ban from the topic of Shakespeare includes talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Smatprt

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Peter cohen (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Smatprt's_community_sanction_endorsed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Discretionary sanctions

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

05 August 2011 Smatprt violates topic ban while disingenuously pretending he does not know it violates the ban.
05 August 2011 Smatprt reinstates above post after I reverted it.
05 August 2011 Smatprt asks Jimbo a question while disingenuously failing to mention his connection with the external article and incidentally links that article from one of the most watched pages on Wikipedia.
05 August 2011 Smatprt asks AGK the same question again failing to mention his connection with the external article.

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

Informed of topic ban on 03 November 2010 by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs)
Informed of Arbcom decision including endorsement of topic ban on 22 February 2011 by AGK (talk · contribs)
Warned on 22 Feb 2011 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) and reminded of scope of ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Smatprt was community topic banned last year for tendentious editing at Shakespeare authorship question (SAQ) and related articles. Arbcom held a case earlier this year which endorsed the topic ban and applied discretionary sanctions to SAQ-related material.

Earlier this month an article appeared in IEEE Spectrum by Mark Anderson one of Smatprt's fellow "Oxfordians" criticising Wikipedia's handling of the SAQ and the related dispute. Smatprt provided the author with an interview from which a quotation appears in the article. (I have Googled the words of the quotation and they do not appear elsewhere except in derivative sites.) All well and good so far. Smatprt is entitled to say what he wants elsewhere. However, he then posted in the discussion on Wikipedia about the article defending his associate and promoting this associate as a legitimate source on the SAQ. This is a clear violation of the topic ban. There is some meally-mouthed wording in which he claims not to be sure it is a violation but, as he was previously reminded of its scopt by Future Perfect at Sunrise, I am sure he was fully aware of the violation and was just trying to protect himself against action by pretending he did not know and would be content to be reverted by an uninvolved admin. I am neither an admin nor uninvolved but as the violation was so blatant I decided to revert it. Smatprt reverted me and then went and posted on Jimbo's and AGK's talk pages pretending to need advice about whether he really was violating his ban. His post on Jimbo's talk page happens to link the Spectrum article thus bringing it to the attention of the many watchers of that page. In all three posts he has made he has failed to disclose that he was interviewed for the Spectrum page and is thus associated with his fellow Oxfordian.

I initially reverted Smatprt's post and then when he reverted me I also posted a warning on his talk page. At the time I thought this was appropriate action. However I now think this was mistaken for the following reasons.

First, I was not aware of Smatprt's contribution to Anderson's article. In writing in support of each other, Smatprt and Anderson can be compared to apes indulging in mutual grooming. As one of the fleas who might fall victim to this reciprocal arrangement, I feel that this relationship increases the seriousness of Smatprt's violation of the topic ban.

Second, I was not aware of Smatprt's post to Jimbo's page. In posting a link to the Spectrum article to which he contributed, Smatprt is violating his topic ban. He is trying to influence other Wikipedians to look on the Oxfordian position over the SAQ and at his own topic ban more sympathetically. His plea about this being a genuine question is calculated to reduce the chance of the post with its link to the article from being reverted.

Third, I was not aware of Future Perfect at Sunrise's previous warning to Smatprt about his violation of the topic ban. This has convinced me that he knew full well that he was violating the topic ban and so has made me see his expression of doubt on the matter as calculated, meally-mouthed and disingenuous.

As far as sanctions are concerned, an extension to the topic ban is what I consider most appropriate. Smatprt has been pretty inactive during the period of the topic ban except when it was lifted during the Arbcom case. The article in which he has been most active in recent times concerns an organisation with which he is associated. He therefore does not seem to be greatly invested in Wikpedia except as a tool to promote his Oxfordian views.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smatprt&diff=443447023&oldid=443291799

Discussion concerning Smatprt

Statement by Smatprt

Comments by others about the request concerning Smatprt

Comment by LikeLakers2

Are you sure he was fully aware of the topic ban? Perhaps he forgot about it, or perhaps he was actually telling the truth about that he didn't know it extended to that. (unless I'm misunderstanding, as I don't even know exactly what the topic ban was for) Basically, are you sure he was intentionally violating his topic ban? LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the wording of the topic ban on Smatprt's talkpage, LikeLakers2.[17] The admin who instituted the topic ban per ANI consensus (LessHeardvanU), made himself extremely clear about its extent. Smatprt is "topic banned from Shakespeare and Shakespeare related articles, broadly construed, including their talkpages, your talkpage, and the talkpages of other editors, and other Wikipedia pages in relation to the subject matters, for 1 year, etc."[18] I don't see how Smatprt could think that formulation leaves any room for doubt, or any occasion for the forum shopping Peter Cohen describes. Bishonen | talk 18:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Result concerning Smatprt

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

I happened to see the incipient revert war between Smatprt and User:Peter cohen about the Signpost news article. This led me to research the text of the topic ban, and find that the text was already posted on Smatprt's talk page (and still visible). It can be seen at User talk:Smatprt#You are topic banned from the Shakespeare and Shakespeare authorship related articles for 1 year. The wording thus prevents Smatprt from commenting on Shakespeare anywhere on Wikipedia. I drew this fact to his attention by a post on his user talk. Unless Smatprt contests the issue, or continues to discuss Shakespeare, this should end the matter, and this report can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A warning for now should be fine. It's been a while so I don't think a block is appropriate, and we normally don't reset on the first topic ban violation. If there is another violation, then either a reset or a block (or both) would likely be in order. T. Canens (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. Smatprt is warned that his ban from the topic of Shakespeare includes talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre

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

Request concerning Miradre

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Another edit of this kind occurred in the section on "criticism" in Sociobiology, a week into the topic ban. The beginning of the section makes it clear that the criticisms were related to the debate on race and intelligenc: there is a wikilink to the article race and intelligence. This material, including its relation with sociobiology, is also covered in the article on the history of the race and intelligence controversy. Miradre edited the section here[20], two paragraphs after the paragraph where the debate on race and intelligence is discussed. Miradre has edited other parts of this article more recently.

Miradre added the section on IQ in psychopathy 2 days before the topic ban,[21] which is fine. But correcting somebody else's edit to it after the ban [22] does not seem quite right. Mathsci (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC) further edits. Mathsci (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

further comments

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

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

Miradre proposed moving the section here. [23] He had moved another section to Nature and nurture previously by deleting it and copy-pasting it into that article. Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Sample "agenda driven" editing of Miradre: Miradre adds BLP violating information about Amy Goodman [24] to Democracy Now! based on a public tax declaration. Maunus removes the citation to the source. [25] I remove the unsourced BLP violation per WP:BLPPRIMARY. [26] On the talk page Miradre then suggests[27] using an extract in the article drawn from this quote from a website:

click to view

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

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

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

Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC) and more recently this attempted BLP violation. [28] Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

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

Captain Occam and Ludwigs2 Please see this request by Captain Occam. [29]. Captain Occam might find it helpful to look at this ArbCom case and in particular this remedy. Mathsci (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A pinch of salt Memills claims of 'agenda driven' editors apparently extend to uninvolved administrators, so those commenting here should please be careful. Here [30] Memills refers to Dougweller, Sandstein and MaterialScientist as a WP:TAGTEAM because they all suggested page numbers were recommended in citations from lengthy sources. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taking into account the views of multiple experienced editors commenting here about Miradre's edits (presented as a consequence of Captain Occam's comments), it would appear that Miradre might be heading for a, regrettably unavoidable, indefinite community ban. That of course is not a concern of this noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [31]

Discussion concerning Miradre

Statement by Miradre

The topic ban is regarding the intersection of race and intelligence. There was no discussion regarding race. Neither was there a discussion regarding intelligence. I was simply pointing out that the given source does not mention evolutionary psychology at all.[32] I was making no claim regarding and did not discus either race or intelligence and thus not their intersection. The Reification (fallacy) is of course not something limited to race and intelligence or for that matter invented by Gould but a general logical fallacy discussed in numerous other areas. Miradre (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Futhermore, the claim by Matschi that the terms intelligence and reification are somehow inseparable from the race and intelligence discussion and "has never been used in another context to my knowledge" is very strange considering that there is no mention of race in the "Reification fallacy" section. Furthermore, there are 18,600 Google Scholar hits for the terms "intelligence" and "reification". Most do not seem to mention race.[33]
Not sure why Mathsci brings up that quote from Gould's book. As noted above, I made no claims regarding and did not discuss either race or intelligence. Obviously therefore not their intersection. I stated that there is no mention of evolutionary psychology in the claimed sources.[34] Neither does the "Reification fallacy" section discuss the race and intelligence controversy or mention race at all. The Reification (fallacy) is a common logical fallacy in numerous different fields. Miradre (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci has more recently also added a diff from the sociobiology article which he claims is related to an hidden, unsourced link several paragraphs away[35]. The link is hidden under the name "controversies in the history of intelligence testing" and the article text itself does not mention race. Anyway, the is–ought problem is about statements of the type "if there is rape/infanticide/incest among some animal species, then humans ought to practice rape/infanticide/incest also". It is not about the race and intelligence controversy. None of the race and intelligence articles mention that problem.Miradre (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note also this seems be part of a general harassment of me. Wherever I go Mathsci and sometimes Aprock appears to oppose me, even if they never had made any edits to the articles before. In particular Mathsci's almost only recent activity in Wikipedia is following me around as can be seen from his edit history. Often to articles he has never edited before I started editing them. As well as making numerous different complaints to various noticeboards or persons regarding me or the articles I edit. Something should be done about what seems to have become an almost scary obsession with me. Miradre (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the earlier topic banned Mathsci has clearly broken his promise to the ArbCom to stay away from this area. [36] See for example his edits here in a discussion regarding Lynn's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations: [37][38][39]. Miradre (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci has now added a strange, misleading, and inaccurate misrepresentation of a dispute at the Democracy Now article. I did not mention that quote in the talk page in response to removing the information from the tax statement as Mathsci claims. I mentioned that biased quote as an ironic counter against the equally biased self-congratulatory, self-published quotes that are prominent in the article. As anyone can see on Talk:Democracy_Now!#NPOV_Dispute:_Quotes. As well as Mathsci's refusal to include anything negative. Also, this is unrelated to this AE case.Miradre (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci continues with his misrepresentations. First he implies that I had made a COI complaint while I only asked him to consider this on the talk page of the article. It was Mathsci who made a complaint regarding this on COI board which lead to no action since I had made no COI complaint. Regarding the copyright complaint Mathsci had uploaded a copyrighted paper to his webpage and gave a public link to this. This link was of course removed by the reviewing administrator. Also, again, this is completely unrelated to this AE case so I do not understand why he takes it up. Seems to be further harassment.Miradre (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci continues with completely unrelated issues. Yes, I accept the result of the discussion at the BLP board which I initiated but it has nothing to do with the topic ban. Miradre (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing with yet more unrelated issues, Mathsci now starts talking of an "unavoidable, indefinite" community ban. Every one of the critical editors who have expressed opinions here are editors who have been involved in extensive content disputes with me. They are not uninvolved or representative of the community. I note that I edit constructively and add substantial new material to Wikipedia from academic sources while Mathsci's only activity these days seems to be to participate in disputes and WP:WIKIHOUND and revert those editors he dislikes. See also Captain Occam's comments regarding this below.Miradre (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci is now accusing an evolutionary psychologist objecting to his view of having a COI. This is just as incorrect as it would be to accuse the anthropologists supporting him of having a COI. Also, it likely violates the prohibition against using COI accusations in order to gain the upper hand in disputes.Miradre (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Aprock: Aprock has already tried to get the ArbCom to ban me for editing such articles in the Request for Clarification but he was ignored. Again taking up exactly the same accusations (including the book Human Accomplishment and its rankings of the fame of individuals) that was ignored by the ArbCom is harassment. None of the articles are about either intelligence or race. Obviously therefore not about their intersection. See also my earlier reply to his identical, ignored accusations earlier before the ArbCom: [40] Miradre (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he includes an edit that I had self-reverted: [41]

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Miradre

Comments by aprock

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

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

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

A Darwinian Left: [42] genetically determined behavior
A Natural History of Rape: [43] genetic evolution of rape
Aggression: [44] evolutionary explanations of aggression
Antisocial personality disorder: 9 edits. [45] genetic vs. social explanations
Beard: [46] evolutionary psychology explanations for beards
Causes of sexual violence: [47] evolutionary explanation of rape
Cognitive bias: [48] promotion of evolutionary psychology
Criticism of evolutionary psychology: 106 edits. (see discussion above)

Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology: majority of talk page

Criticisms of socialism: [49] evolutionary criticism of socialism from A Darwinian Left
Cultural anthropology: 5 edits. [50] evolutionary/genetic explanations

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

Evolutionary ethics: 7 edits. [51] removing eugenics information
Evolutionary psychology: 10 edits. [52] criticisms of environmental explanations

Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#Controversies_section_violates_NPOV: talk page discussion

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard: notice board discussion

Gender and crime: [53] genetic explanations for gender differences in crime
modularity of the mind: 9 edits. [54] added evolutionary psychology content
Nature vs nurture: 5 edits. [55] moved evolutionary psychology material to the article
Physical attractiveness: [56] promotion of evolutionary psychology
Psychopathy: 96 edits. [57] evolutionary explanations

Talk:Psychopathy#Prenatal_precursor_section: talk page discussion

Social anthropology: 6 edits. [58] social vs. evolutionary explanations
Sociobiological theories of rape: [59] evolutionary explanations of rape
Sperm competition: [60] link article to Sociobiological theories of rape
The Blank Slate: 35 edits. The article is about a popular book that argues for more consideration of genetic explanation of human behavior

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

Violence: [61] evolutionary/genetic explanations of violence
War: 10 edits. [62] Inserting evolutionary psychology views from The Blank Slate

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

Editing of articles to promote Charles Murray's book:

Discussion at NPOV/N: [63] (archived version: [64])
Aristotle [65]
Einstein's awards and honors [66]
Genius [67]
Historiometry [68]
Isaac Newton [69]
Leonhard Euler [70]

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

Shakespeare's reputation [71]

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

Comments by ResidentAnthropologist

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

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

Comment by Captain Occam

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

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

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

That’s only the articles in which Mathsci’s absolute first edit to both the article and its talk page was reverting Miradre. If one also includes articles where his first involvement was opposing changes from Miradre without reverting him outright, there are three additional examples: The Blank Slate, in which the first edit Mathsci ever made was tagging content that Miradre added as being non-neutral, [77] as well as Leonhard Euler and Democracy Now!, in which Mathsci’s first-ever participation was to oppose Miradre’s edits on the talk page. [78] [79] The edits that Mathsci opposes from Miradre are on topics as diverse as the possible over-representation of liberals in academia, a book by the psychologist Steven Pinker, and public radio broadcasting. The only common theme to these edits is that regardless of where Miradre goes on Wikipedia, or what sorts of articles he edits, he can always count on Mathsci following him there and opposing him.

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

Mathsci’s habit of restoring his posts in Miradre’s user talk when Miradre attempts to remove them. For example [80] [81], [82] [83], or [84] [85]. (Note the threatening edit summary in the last diff.)
In addition to that edit summary, there have been a few other examples of Mathsci trying to intimidate Miradre by threatening him with a community ban, such as [86] and [87].
This isn't the only example of Mathsci being uncivil towards Miradre, but it might be the best one: [88] [89] [90] [91]
As I understand it, this last exchange (“Please respect my privacy”, and Mathsci’s reaction) is referring to another type of harassment that Mathsci has directed at Miradre, which is publicly posting what he thinks is Miradre’s off-wiki identity and where he thinks Miradre lives. The DeviantArt account that Mathsci claims belongs to Miradre lists its owner’s real name on its main page, so this is an indirect way that Mathsci has revealed what he thinks is Miradre’s real name.
Mathsci has also continued to bring up Miradre’s alleged location in subsequent content disputes, even though Miradre has never voluntarily disclosed this information. [92] [93]

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Slrubenstein

I won't comments specifically on the R&I arbitration. However, I have yet to see Mirardre make a well-researched NPOV contribution to an article. I do not think Mirardre fits the bill of "single-purpose editor" but she is one step away. At the Race and Intelligence article, it turned out that the most persistent arguments that blacks are inherently inferior to whites in intelligence came from people promoting evolutionary psychology, which took Mirardre to EP articles. Then it emerged that one of the established academic disciplines most critical of EP is anthropology, which took Mirardre to Anthropology articles. I just spent the past few days undoing Mirardre's tendentious edits to various anthropology articles (in short: Mirardre found one journal article that had a comment to it that encouraged dialogue between anthropology between EP and anthropology. On the basis of this comment alone, EP added a whole new section to each article on the importance of EP within anthropology.[94] Do I have to tell you how many peer-review articles are published on anthropology each year? Imagine if, for each article, we created a new section in the encyclopedia article! And Mirardre was not even drawing on the article, but on a comment to an article. Note: academics do not list such comments on their CVs because they are not peer-reviewed (whether Mirardre doesn't know this fact or knows it but disregards it, either way it suggests she is not qualified to edit on academic topics. I deleted the addition because it gave undue weight to a fringe view, and from an inappropriate source.

The really troubling thing is this: the article itself was an interesting article on the nature-culture divide, and was accompanied by several comments. I pointed out to Miradre that there are a number of other articles on this theme, and that she could draw on these different articles and write a very informative and appropriate section on emerging new approaches to nature-culture in anthropology.[95] I was trying to take Mirardre's edit, and make a good-faith effort to consider what kind of work would lead to a genuinely positive edit, and give Mirardre constructive feedback. Mirardre just changed topics.

Mirardre then went on to argu that a whole chapter of a current textbook on cultural anthropology is about EP.[96] Again, my concern was, how to turn a source into an imporovement to our article, and I asked Mirardre to summarize the chapter. Mirardre became evasive, and refused to discuss the contents of the chapter, insisting that the important point is that there is a whole chapter.Well, it turns out that is just a lie. MathSci took the time to verify Mirardre's claim and discovered that there is no such chapter.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_anthropology&diff=prev&oldid=443685189 As Matchsci demonstrated, the topic occupied two pages in a 450 page book.[97] Then Maunus found the textbook, read it, and discovered that the textbook "describes EP as a discipline that 'impinges on cultural anthropology.'"[98]

From this, we can see the following:

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

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

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

Comment by Itsmejudith

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

Comment by Maunus

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

Comment by AndyTheGrump

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Memills

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

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

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

Result concerning Miradre

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

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

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

Jonchapple

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

Request concerning Jonchapple

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Domer48_'fenian' 12:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

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

22:12, 9 August 2011 First revert not a violation.
06:26, 10 August 2011 Second first revert. No violation.
10:28, 10 August 2011 Second revert. This violates the above enforcement.

21:58, 9 August 2011 First Revert.
22:10, 9 August 2011 Second Revert. This violates the above enforcement.
06:27, 10 August 2011 Third Revert. This violates the above enforcement.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor is well aware of the enforcement and sanctions, and has made it a habbit of arguing the point regardless. As the notices placed on their talk page illustrate, this disruption is spreed over a number of articles. As this edit summary and edit show, the editor is just not intrested. The editor is knowingly violating this enforcement. Should addition diff be required I'm more than happy to provid them.

Having explained the nature of the sanctions as best I could the editors responce here supports my post above. My post here considered a "tantrum."
Having explained the articles covered by the sanctions already, there responce to their next violation was they diden't know much like they are suggestion now.
The editor suggests that they "forgot" that an article on a former Provisional IRA prisoner would be Troubles related?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[99]

Discussion concerning Jonchapple

Statement by Jonchapple

Bugger. All I can say in my defence is that I honestly forgot that this article would be subject to 1RR in my eagerness to try and enforce WP:MOSBIO—i.e. that nationality, not ethnicity, should be referenced in the lead. This was unhelpfully reverted by Domer48 with no edit summary or explanation at all, so he's not entirely innocent in all this either.

I object to being told that I'm "just not interested" for removing Domer48's notice from my page—I'm entitled to keep my talk page at whichever revision I see fit; a right he exercised not two hours ago when I civilly tried to give an explanation backed up the MOS for my edit. However, it's true that I've been warned before and should have remembered 1RR, especially considering the subject of my edit was directly involved in The Troubles, so I'm at fault there. Go easy on me; I've kept my nose clean up until now. JonChapple ^Talk 13:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "I didn't know Eamon was directly involved in The Troubles" quip was clearly meant as a joke (he was 87 when it all started), much like my remark about the UDA underneath. Additionally, your removal of a discussion about the County Londonderry page from your talk page in which I was nothing by civil was removed with a summary stating "nonsense", so you're again also guilty of what could be considered inappropriate edit summaries. JonChapple ^Talk 15:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been 10 hours since Domer48 added the latest three edits that he says are proof of my violating the Troubles sanction, but he has yet to leave even a warning on the talk page of Nogger; the editor with which I had this editing disagreement. This, I believe, is poor form and clear evidence of an ulterior motive for this request for enforcement – namely that I feel often disagree with him with my edits and he clearly dislikes me. Nogger should have at least been warned, especially as Domer48 clearly feels very strongly about this particular sanction. JonChapple ^Talk 06:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple

Jonchapple is new into the whole sphere of Northern Ireland related articles, so a sense of naivity and initial forgetfulness can be very plausible. Note that Jonchapple did notify another editor that they had violated the 1RR and should revert it - after being reported here so the message has got through i believe, especially after this.

In fact if you look at Jonchapple's first comment in that section of Ruairí Óg's talk page i've linked you too you can clearly see that he has now got it into his head to remember about the 1RR as he clear states that he can't revert the editor because of it.

Also it is very plausible that Jonchapple forgot as i've been involved in Northern Ireland articles for years and i regulary forget about the 1RR (even though i've yet to breach it as far as i'm aware as i usually stay out of Troubles articles). Thus a topic-ban for this i think would be an extreme punishment, and a probation does make the most sense as it allows for admins to see whether they are a trouble-maker as Domer48 is trying to make out or just actually a naive editor. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jonchapple

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

I find it somewhat implausible that one can forget such a restriction, having been warned no less than three times. I find it concerning that if we accept Jonchapple's word at face value, he allows his "eagerness" to lead him to forget restrictions, not indicative of a measured and calm approach to editing. I am even more concerned that he is using the "other people did it too" defense by bringing up Nogger, an approach which never helps, and often leads merely to increased sanctions for the one trying that as a "defense" and sometimes to sanctions for the other party - but mind you, "he did it too!" is not a plausible defense for one's own actions. I'm thinking a ~~full topic ban~~ probation period, given Jonchapple's "eagerness" and inability to remember the editing restrictions, for a period of 3 months; any violations to be dealt with by a series of increasing blocks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC) - Note, I would also support a 1 week block, given that a topic ban is not listed among the choices for enforcement. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can do that. If I'm reading the case correctly, the only sanctions available under TROUBLES is either a block for the 1RR violation, or Troubles probation, which is basically a 1RR/week restriction plus civility parole. T. Canens (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dang,you're right. For some bizarre reason, ArbCom limited the enforcement to probation (1RR/wk) or blocks. Ok, amending my preferred response to 3 months probation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tim and KC that three months Troubles Probation is appropriate. Jonchapple would be limited to one revert per article per week on all Troubles articles. All parties are advised that archiving of sanction warnings is preferable to deleting them from your talk page. If you want your good faith to be easy to observe. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia

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

Request concerning Russavia

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

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

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

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

22:05, 12 August 2011 Russavia's reverts my earlier edit[100].

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified [101]

Discussion concerning Russavia

Statement by Russavia

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

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

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

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

This is also not the first violation of the mutual interaction ban by Tammsalu, so any block should take this into account.[102] One would also have to ask Tammsalu why if they have grown tired of the battleground bullshit (as per their talk page), they have clearly created one here knowing his own history and history of clarification from Arbcom?

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia

Comment by Petri Krohn

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

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

Karen Drambjan is an article on a current event--an gunman attack with international media coverage. It seems a little weird to allow only your friends to edit "your" article. Drambjan is described by Sky News as "a member of the marginal left-wing United Left Party. The party is not in parliament and until recently claimed legal succession to Estonia's Soviet-era Communist Party." [103] Wikipedia's article on Far-left politics says in the lead: "This generally includes anarchists, communists and revolutionary socialists."FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment by uninvolved Collect

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

Result concerning Russavia

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

I'm so far not quite convinced that Russavia's edit was intended as a revert of Tammsalu's edit - which is prohibited by the interaction ban - as opposed to an edit made in the normal course of editing. In other words, I'm not seeing evidence that Russavia knew that Tammsalu is the one who added the category or is willfully blind to that fact. With that having been said, it might be appropriate to prohibit, per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, these two users from editing the same article, since it is apparently that the standard interaction ban didn't really solve the problem. T. Canens (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by DIREKTOR

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from "all Balkans articles and talkpages, broadly construed, for 6 months"
imposed at User talk:DIREKTOR#ARBMAC [104]
logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#January 2011 – [105]

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

Notification of that administrator: [106]

Statement by DIREKTOR

User:Fainites has imposed sanctions in pretty obvious violation of WP:INVOLVED for the purposes of POV-pushing on two separate talkpages. The user has imposed a six-month topic ban, broadly construed, which incorporates all subjects I edit (to all effects and purposes an effective six-month block) on the basis of WP:ARBMAC, while engaged in two disputes with myself. The user is fully involved in two content discussions with me, is opposed to my position in both, and will directly benefit from my ban in that his preferred position in the two disputes will now go through without any opposition whatsoever. Diffs follow on the user's involvement in the two talkpages. The disputes are long and complex, so please accept my apologies for the length of the disclosure.

Talk:Draža Mihailović, an absolutely huge discussion and dispute lasting well over a year now, with Fainites as a full participant for several months - almost always in opposition to whatever I may advocate. I will list here only a few of the most recent examples (the rest are available for review at Talk:Draža Mihailović and the archives thereof).
- For most current (and for Fainites probably the most significant) example, on Talk:Draža Mihailović/ethnic conflict drafts you will find two proposals: "1st Proposal" by User:Nuujin (yes the very same Nuujinn lobbying to get me banned), which is currently actively supported by Fainites; and the "2nd proposal", which is supported by myself. User:Fainites and I were in active opposition on this content issue at the time of the ban. Please note that the direct result of the sanction is that opposition to the "1st Proposal" draft is now effectively pushed out of the way, and the text version preferred by Fainites is marked for inclusion in the article.
- For another example one may review the exchange between Fainites and myself on August 2, three days before the ban on August 5, in this section of Talk:Draža Mihailović, this post in particular, an excerpt of which I will post as an example

“

MacDonald describes two main forms of Croatian revisionist propaganda in this area. One emanating largely from the Croatian Diaspora which was overtly pro-Ustasa. The other which sought to play down the NDH and the support for it during WWII, portraying it as a reaction to Serbian genocidal aims. Tudjman tried to satisfy both. His regime was financially obligated to Diaspora Croats so he needed vindicate wartime Croatia and deny Ustasa atrocities. He also wanted to please Western Governments who were watching like hawks for revisionism. The solution to this lay in downplaying Croat support for the NDH whilst avoiding being seen as pro-Nazi. He made a number ofststaements designed to place Pavelic and Mihailovic on a parallel. Both sides of course were portraying themselves as victims of "holocausts" in WWII and of genocide in the 1990s. So there was a certainly a strand of revisionism that had an interest in portraying the Chetniks as as bad or worse than the Ustasa. Part-time collaborators are portrayed as being as bad as Nazi's and '....Cetnik unofficial collaboration was somehow worse than the than the official highly publicised Ustasa variety'

”

— 11:25, 2 August 2011

This is the brief version of examples for the first dispute between Fainites and myself that he has so elegantly "resolved" just now. Again, a quick read through the talkpage will show the user is in fact completely involved in the dispute, and opposes my position therein.

Talk:Serbia under German occupation is the second talkpage. I will only be posting a few examples, as copying over the whole months-long discussion would not be productive, and its available for review on the talkpage.
- [107]. Here, in one of the more obvious examples, Fainites argues against the map label I introduced ("NGS"), supporting another one, and argues for using the term "puppet state" in the article (which I oppose). Its interesting to see him later protest "I don't argue for or against anyone" [108], after having been arguing for days :).
- Here Fainites' very nicely describes his opinion. This is my post where, after days of discussion, having agreed on an article lead, I protest Fainites entering his own, completely undiscussed version of the lead. And this is Fainites' completely unwarranted hostile response, where he judges I've apparently been "insulting everyone" and that I should "learn" something from him. This is hostility by way of lies and slander, plain and simple. He has stricken that remark after a while, but its effect is unmistakeable: I am the villain. User:PANONIAN, who posted things like "any intelligent discussion with you is obviously impossible. Anyway, consider your bullishness temporary. Your attitude will very soon get you blocked for good and then I will revert you" [109], is apparently the victim. This ban is the second time Fainites has ignored the hostility of others, and only condemned and sanctioned me.
- Here is Fainites, for another example, pushing for the lead version preferred by User:No such user ("NSU" in the text), proceeding, it seems, to make fun of my language: "Schhliivvvovisshhishishish" I assume would be how Fainites pronounces "Slivovitz".
- The text of this section, is an example that does not require a detailed read-thru of the whole dispute. Here you will find Fainites proposing content edits, arguing for the implementation of this version or that, and in the end implementing a new lead version of his own writing. Also understanding full well (as he would admit later), that his edit goes against what I've been proposing (I won't go into details), and directly supports what I've been opposing.

Please note these are by no means the only cases depicting the WP:INVOLVEMENT of User:Fainites in the relevant content disputes, only a few of the more obvious examples are listed. The user is fully involved in the disputes in general (just like all other users), and the entire talkpages could be listed here for review to that effect. The full text of the disputes is of course available on Talk:Draža Mihailović, Talk:Draža Mihailović/ethnic conflict drafts, and Talk:Serbia under German occupation. I do earnestly believe however, that this is more than enough, and that even fewer of these quotes should suffice.

P.S. I will note that this issue was brought-up on ANI, essentially by mistake, as this is an issue of misuse of an WP:ARBCOM decision. There, as an uninvolved observer noted rather colourfully [110], the discussion was effectively swamped by hostile comments (complete with false accusations of sockpuppetry [111]) on the part of half-a-dozen involved users, all of which involved users who support Fainites' position on the two talkpages, and oppose my own. No doubt there will be attempts to label this appeal "resolved", in spite of having been posted in the wrong place, in spite of the lobbying by the group that supports the same edits as Fainites, and frankly, in spite of quite overwhelming evidence of a breach of WP:INVOLVED. When I was advised at last to bring this up here in the proper venue, I did so immediately. The comment was also made there that "WP:INVOLVED is the most commonly broken policy by admins" [112]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I'll add (as I had on ANI), that I perceive the behaviour of Fainites as deliberately hostile and a form of hounding. I had, in fact, previously been the only party in a dispute to receive sanctions by Fainites in the form of a month-long "topic ban on the Balkans, broadly construed" [113] (on the basis of WP:ARBMAC [114]) on April 9, while engaged in a discussion with me on Talk:Yugoslav Front. On April 2, for example, Fainites can be found posting things like this on the talkpage, arguing against an RM I was proposing there at the time (in accordance with extensive Google testing). In fact, for several weeks at that time, the user was involved in various discussions on Talk:Yugoslav Front, arguing, proposing content changes, and on numerous other talkpages in heated discussion on content issues with myself (see for example here, an excerpt from Talk:Croats). (As a side note, in spite of my pointing out numerous times, conclusively and with diffs, that the other party in the dispute did his absolute best to provoke a conflict, these objections were ignored by Fainites.)

At the time I essentially accepted the one-month ban without major opposition, as an admin's decision and one to be respected. However, since then I've begun to perceive something of the larger picture. Every major discussion I've been involved in included Fainites (since I met him some eight months ago). It became impossible to get involved into a discussion without Fainites arriving sooner or later, and assuming the role of self-appointed "arbitrator" of who's right and who's wrong. And sure enough, in every issue of every discussion for the past six months, I cannot remember a single discussion or dispute I've had, where Fainites was not present and where he did not oppose my position, whatever it might be. As you might imagine, its very hard to participate on Wikipedia when you've got an admin inevitably appearing every time and throwing his weight against you in every single disagreement that might come-up. The atmosphere eventually created by this pattern of behaviour, in my perception at least, was that of mistrust, frustration, and hostility. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@In response to Fainites post below, I must say I believe I've shown in the examples above that Fainites certainly did not restrict himself to "sourcing issues". That frankly seems to me a custom-contrived argument only for the first example I've brought up. In the example of this thread alone, Fainites has proposed two versions of the article lede [115] [116], and in the end implemented his own version [117] in the article, without agreement from all parties, and against my position (throughout the discussion the pivotal issue was the usage of the term "puppet state"). However, while I do believe these are not particularly honest statements on the part of Fainites, even if that were not the case, in my impression the policy does not leave room for interpretations of this sort: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

To me it certainly seems that Fainites has, at least to an extent, assumed the role of "Headmaster" (as he puts it) of the Balkans disputes (one assumes the participants are the "errant children"). Under the pretext of a form of "self-proclaimed mediation", and "following the sources" he arrives at disputes and effectively renders his judgement on the content issues and users involved. If someone disagrees with his position on resolving a problem of a source conflict, for example, one continues to do so at one's own peril: WP:ARBMAC is swiftly applied. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@FuFoFuEd. Regarding Karchmar, I have never, never mind you, proposed that the source should be excluded from the article (that was the position of User:PRODUCER). User:Fainites, whether deliberately or no, continuously acted as if that were the case. All I have suggested, and still do, is that in light of he fact that numerous historians contradict and/or do not include one particular speculative allegation of Lucien Karchmar, he should simply be attributed to this allegation in the text. That is all. As far as I'm concerned, Karchmar has to be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia policy. User:Fainites, and frankly User:Sunray as well, seemed (deliberately or no) to misunderstand my posts, and threatened me with WP:ARBMAC sanctions on my talkpage [118]: "I view your continued dispute of use of Karchmar as a source here... as disruptive". If I posted a blog, I did so to support my statement that the user source has a negative reputation in some parts of the Balkans, as I said here "I certainly don't expect anyone to take my word or his "reputation" as a reason to disregard him as a source".

I've been around on Wiki for just under 5 years, I have some 35,000 edits overall, next year I hope to graduate from medical school and I have participated in the publication of a (rather interesting :)) paper - I do know something of sourcing one's claim. (Concerning source misuses, I just don't do that. And I don't think I've ever done it.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fainites

Here is the relevent ANI thread at which a number of editors of varying degrees of involvment expressed their views.

Link to list of articles which I complied given DIREKTORs original allegations, showing which Balkans articles I have edited in.

For ease of reference, my posts from ANI on issue of "involved"

Dealing with the "involved" issue, no I am not involved in content as such. I do not write content. I make occasional suggestions based on talkpage discussions and matters of that kind, such as suggesting a variety of solutions to the naming issues for Serbia under German occupation. I do express views on sourcing issues as described below. I have no personal POV on any Balkans matters. I don't care who were the goodies or baddies in any of the various wars. (By saying I don't care I don't mean accurate articles aren't important - just that it means nothing to me personally). However, in endeavouring to assist constructive and collaborative editing on these pages, WP policies on sourcing have to be applied. Having edited in areas myself that are rife with relentless POV pushers, I know how frustrating it is when there is no admin assistance except for drive by all-round wrist slaps. There are areas like this where an admin needs to understand what is going on to be effective. This is not about WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Anybody passing can deal with that. The problems are far more long term. My role for some months has been to endeavour to create a situation on various Balkans pages where actual source based discussion can take place without constant revert wars and the refighting of old battles. Protecting pages from edit-warring, and starting and "mediating" discussions on refined issues has been quite successful in a number of cases, particularly long-term repetitive disputes over symbolic and nationalist flash points like info-boxes, article names and the ethnic make-up or nationality of various famous Croats/Serbs'Bosniaks etc. My hope was that more serious editors would be encouraged to come back and edit as many of the articles are in a parlous state and show signs of past edit wars and nationalist POV pushing. Over time it became apparent that nationalist SPA's and IP's were one problem, but long term, tendentious, POV pushing another. Rightly or wrongly I took the view that this was also a matter appropriate for admin attention. I have by now read or have available to me a number of the mainstream, most cited works and become familiar with the revisionist approaches pushed by the various "sides". There are particular revisionist sources used and also the process of "cherry-picking" bits of reliable sources. I have attempted in various discussions to pin editors down to the provision of sources to support their claims and to the refining of what the argument is actually about. Otherwise the same old arguments go on and on and on. Serbia under German occupation has been through bad-tempered renaming disputes about 5 times already this year. Draza Mihailovich was in mediation for well over a year. It stalled and people just gave up. It is now producing results. The talkpages are so dishearteningly repetitive over years it makes you despair. From time to time on talkpages where an argument is going nowhere I attempt to summarise where a dispute has got to and what the issues now are. When people stop talking and start reverting I protect the page and re-start a discussion. When editors make sweeping claims about sources I do check the sources to see if their claims are accurate. When editors are arguing with no or inadequate sources I sometimes post a quote on an issue from a mainstream source or reinforce a request for sources. If editors relentlessly pursue tendentious arguments I try and bring the discussion back on track with reference to sources. I have added relevent chunks from what sources I have to the specially created quotations page. I have had discussions in which information from sources I have on revisionist history has been discussed. I can see why at first this may look like involvement. I do not however edit content except for copy-editing or putting in what I understand to be an agreed position after discussion on a talkpage. (In fact my lack of content editing in the last 6 months is quite dramatic compared to my earlier activities.) I do not get involved in content on these articles because if I did I could not be an admin - which in my view was what the area needed.

I realise this may all sound a little headmistressy. If the community in general should decide that admins can't "admin about" in sourcing issues and talkpage discussions in difficult areas like this in this way - then so be it. I'll go back to content editing. I don't mind. I do think however that it is an area that needs careful consideration as there are other areas apart from the endless Balkans wars where this issue arises - ie what is meant by "involvement" when trying to effectively admin in complex and difficult areas to enable collaborative editing. I suspect there are plenty of grey and borderline areas here. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is where taking diffs in isolation is difficult. The diff produced by DIREKTOR above does not show me "voicing an opinion over and over again". DIREKTOR also "liked" and agreed with the majority of Nuujinn's draft as far as it went but wanted to add a lot more detailed information on a particular issue. I was suggesting the use of Nuujinn's draft and a more modest, summarised expansion of additional information. Nuujinn had suggested a more detailed treatment of the additional issue on the Chetniks page rather than the Mihailovic page. In relation to the point about reflection of historians views, the issue about Karchmar had been discussed at great length after DIREKTOR made an extreme statement about the historians reliability which he then completely failed to source despite repeated requests, eventually posting a nationalist blog on his talkpage. Mostly what I did was ask DIREKTOR and another editor to provide sources to support his claims and challenge his interpretation of sourcing policies particularly the oft repeated proposal that editors should analyse the primary sources used by historians with different interpretations in order to decide which is the most relaible. The mediator considered the discussion about Karchmar to be at an end. On the naming of the Serbia under German occupation article I made a number of suggestions for participants to consider ranging from looking to see how the issue of description of occuped countries was dealt with in relation to Norway, to suggesting 3 articles, one on the territory, one on the civilian administration and one on the military administration - which DIREKTOR approved of. Again, mostly what I did was ask DIREKTOR to source his assertions. Other editors had sourced their proposals as to what the "entity" was called. I also checked out the sources produced by another editor which DIREKTOR claimed were a product of "quote mining" or "quote fishing". I was eventually able to help resolve part of the issue by providing a better description of the phrase "puppet state" which was causing so much trouble amongst the editors, which DIREKTOR agreed with after doing his own researches. Following this, agreement was reached on the name. I then made a variety of suggestions for the lead sentences based on the talkpage discussions, one of which was eventually agreed by all. I also try to stop editors derailing discussions by personalising the issues. DIREKTOR is not the only offender in this regard - just one of the most prolific. Perhaps I should also say at this point that I do not accept at all the suggestion by DIREKTOR that this is all about him or getting at him or opposing his views. A careful reading of the discussion pages will not show this - but they are very very lengthy. detailed and repetitive. That's one of the problems. Fainites ^barleyscribs 05:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a matter of interest,hereis an exampleon the Ivo Andric page which doesn't involve Direktor at all. This was an attempt to find a solution to a slow motion edit war about Andric'c ethnicity etc etc. The discussion also spilled onto some infobox disputes.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed tend to arrive on Balkans pages where there is edit warring or arguments getting out of control. (For example Ivo Andric link above, Serbs of Croatia talkpage about the infobox, Serbs of Bosnia and Herzogvina, infobox again, Croats, on Emir Kusturica ethnicity/nationality. A number of these discussions do not involve Direktor at all or only minimally and uncontroversially. Direktor tends to be involved in articles involving WWII, particularly the activites of the Chetniks and Tito. My first major activity was on Yugoslav Front where the battle was over putting the Chetniks in the Axis or Allies belligerents column and they sometimes ended up in both as a consequence of edit warring. I suggested a third column. This activity grew over time - partly as a consequence of various editors realising I was prepared to look at and take action in Balkans disputes. If you look at my talkpage you will see that a variety of editors, including Direktor, have asked for my assistance over particular issues and on particular pages. I also learned that if you stop an unproductive argument on one page, for example over whether to put a genocidal fascist into the infobox to represent a people, some editors will go and carry on essentially the same argument on another article talkpage.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response to specific allegations of DIREKTOR

Response to DIREKTORs "Part 1" allegations. Sorry it’s a bit long. You can avoid reading this by reading the whole of the talkpages.

Serbia under German occupation. Naming disputes have been ongoing since long before I came along. It's been on my watchlist since the previous-but-one dispute (Nedic's regime to Nedic's Serbia). Apologies to readers but you need to read the talkpage from here. One side says whatever it was the Germans created in old Serbian lands when they carved up Yugoslavia was called "Serbia". The other says it wasn't but should be named after either the German Military Administration or the Quisling government, the "Government of National Salvation" or equivalent. Anything else, like” puppet state” or even the name "Serbia" implies it was a proper country or state which is nationalist propaganda. Other editors proposed various solutions. I made a variety of suggestions, some of which DIREKTOR liked and some of which he didn't. I was trying to help find one acceptable to everybody. Panonian produced sources describing it as a "puppet state", "rump state" etc. DIREKTOR dismissed this as "quote fishing". I checked PANONIANs sources - they were all pretty mainstream books by well known authors. I looked to see what the sources I had in my possession said and posted those. I repeatedly asked DIREKTOR to produce sources on his vehemently expressed claims. This went on and on. Readers can decide for themselves what they think of the tone of the exchanges. I was not arguing for "puppet state" but pointing out the sources produced said "puppet", "rump", "satellite" state and asking for any sources demonstrating DIREKTORs version. I restarted the discussion several times to refocus things after bad-tempered, repetitive exchanges between editors. Eventually the matter was resolved here when DIREKTOR agreed the current title.
The slivovitz bit came when I congratulated everybody on achieving consensus on this long running and vexed issue and posted a picture of bottles of slivovitz here. I thought it was all over! Within a few hours it was apparent that there was no agreement as I had thought - the same dispute was on-running - though now based round the label on the map and the lead sentence. That's why I said "more slivvovovvishhishs anyone". Then I asked for my slivovitz back. The ensuing argument appeared to be resolved here when I posted a fuller definition of "puppet state" as it occurred to me that a basic misunderstanding of the fact that a puppet state is not a proper state, may be the source of the problem. I said “Hooray!” because I thought that now it was understood that “puppet state” meant it was ‘’not’’ a proper state, there would no longer be any problem in reconciling DIREKTORs arguments that the article should not pretend there was a real, independent state, with all the sources describing it as a puppet state. In fact though, the dispute carried on regarding labels in maps and infoboxes and over whether all the sources, when they said “puppet state” had really meant to say “puppet government”. DIREKTOR remained adamant that the territory should be described as the Government of National Salvation on maps and in infoboxes and so on, which was not agreed by other editors, and for which no examples or sources, apart from one inconclusive page very late, were produced to support DIREKTORS various strongly worded assertions.
Regarding the article lead, I posted on the talkpage here approximately 5 different versions for a lead sentence, which were discussed by other editors, trying to find a version on which all could agree, including DIREKTOR, using words like "territory" and "administrative area" to avoid contentious flash points whilst maintaining accuracy. DIREKTOR entered my first version. Presumably he approved of it. Unfortunately he also made wholesale changes in the infobox which were issues that were the subject of the dispute, leading to a revert exchange with PANONIAN until I protected the page. (It had been agreed on the talkpage that editors would sort the lead and ‘’then’’ tackle the infobox issues). I edited just the lead to reflect what I understood was agreed on the talkpage, copy edited the rest of the lead. DIREKTOR disagreed with it. I still don’t know why. However, it was always plain that I did not care which version they used – as long as it had consensus and wasn’t going to lead to edit warring. The exchange with DIREKTOR which I struck was based on my misreading of his post. I thought he said "...playing the understand game..." which implies bad faith, hence my post. He protested and when I read it again I saw I had misread it so I struck my comment and apologised. The believe the current lead is the one of my suggestions that DIREKTOR approved of most.
The map business is quite complicated. DIREKTOR asked me on my talkpage to intervene saying another editor had changed the long-standing consensus version (from "Government of National Salvation" to "Serbia - under German occupation"). I took this complaint at face value and started a map discussion here. I expressed some concern about calling it the "GNS" or “NGS” because that particular regime did not cover the whole relevent period. DIREKTOR was still arguing that there was no such place as “Serbia”. PANONIAN then made some long complicated posts on the maps. After checking it out on Commons, it appeared PANONIAN had created the map in 2010 on commons, setting out his sources including about 8 linked source maps and 12 other sources. In the 8 available on the internet the territory is either called nothing or "Serbia" with various second line qualifiers like "under German occupation" or "German military authority". PANONIAN also produced a scan of the Times Historical Atlas map (used as a source). DIREKTOR had, without consulting PANONIAN, on 4th June, changed the colouring and the name of the territory from "Serbia under German occupation" to "Government of National Salvation", though his record of change only states ‘’ Rm borders and margin + entered a new color scheme’’. This was shortly before the current round of naming disputes – though the issues are much the same as previous rounds. PANONIAN changed it back. DIREKTOR then copied the map and all the sources and created a new map showing his chosen description. This however, is not supported by any of the 9 source maps I saw. WhiteWriter changed it back, DIREKTOR reverted. There was a rather aggressive exchange on the commons talkpage between DIREKTOR, PANONIAN and WhiteWriter. DIREKTOR replaced PANONIANs map with his in the article. He did the same to PANONIANs other map on 31st July. This latter occurred right in the middle of the on-going naming dispute on this very point on the article talkpage. In the circumstances, calling his map the "consensus version" on my talkpage when asking me to intervene and revert to his version was somewhat disingenuous. Following resolution of the naming of the article to "Serbia under German occupation", WhiteWriter, presumably believing the issue was now resolved, (wrongly as it turned out), had taken DIREKTORs version, copied it, changing it back to "Serbia under German occupation". This was what DIREKTOR was objecting to.
All have to say on Draza Mihailovic is – read the talkpages, particularly the Karchmar dispute here. Yes it often seems bad-tempered and a bit personal, but everybody has been arguing the same or similar issues for ever on and off. The sourcing issues are typical. If DIREKTOR has sources to illustrate his assertions - fine. Produce them! Then people have something concrete to discuss instead of endless unsourced arguing which frequently becomes offensive. I actually spent a long time myself hunting on the net and in books for any mention of Karchmar, whatever it said. This current process seemed to me like a last effort to get to grips with Mihailovic, followed hopefully by other WWII and Chetnik related articles. The process does require that apparently agenda pushing, tendentious, filibustering editors are pinned down on issues of sourcing. If they are not actually agenda pushing, tendentious and filibustering editors, no doubt they will have sources to support their assertions. I do not personally care whether Mihailovic was pursuing a pre-war agenda to create Greater Serbia or was an incompetent who lacked the cojones to control his lieutenants. I do however, care that the articles should present the most accurate and well sourced version of history that they can and not a revisionist version of whichever side is the most aggressive, persistent, numerous or skilled at gaming the system.

Regarding DIREKTORs characterisation of this as a content dispute with everybody else as a group pushing a particular version of content, this is nonsense, but the editors concerned, particularly Sunray the mediator, and Nuujinn, and some others, answered themselves at ANI.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Karchmar/content

I don't think anybody was suggesting that Karchmar either be excluded or should "outrank" any other decent source. As you can see my concern was that having said Karchmar, Nuujinn, is a biased source and has been discredited on several separate occasions in Balkans discussions (and not by myself I'll add). The author is a Serb nationalist, an emigre I believe, who adopts a very slanted view on Balkans history., quite an extreme statement, DIREKTOR failed to evidence it but argued about at great length, seeming to expect editors would take his statement at face value. This sort of thing was why the mediator got the mediation participants to agree to sourced assertions only on the talkpage, to avoid the usual TLDR offensive nationaist exchanges so common on these pages and which effectively stall them. I can see FuFoFuEd's point though about subsequently expressing an opinion on how the sources should be represented. I accept that appears to be a step to far. I do not however, think it is being "involved" to insist on editors sourcing their bold assertions in highly contentious areas.

Nuujinn produced the Kitroeff review in that discussion here FuFoFuEd.

Regarding the discussion on revisionist sources - this was actually a bit off topic. Someone had the brilliant idea of setting up a quotes subpage as editors trading rival quotes tend to make the talkpages very complicated. It also meant that if a quote was being "cherry-picked" or used out of context, the rest of the quote could be added. This could be a very useful resource for a whole range of articles. I added a bit from MacDonald about revisionist histories in the area. The subsequent discussion between me and DIREKTOR is really just chatting about Tudjman and the diaspora Croats and so on and me summarising bits of MacDonald for him. They're not my opinions - they're MacDonalds. I hadn't thought of this exchange as particularly germane. Presumably neither did DIREKTOR think the quote was germane hence his query as to why I put it on the quotes page.

As I said, I can see FuFoFuEd's point about expressing an opinion on how the sources should be represented in that last comment on Draza M. I can also see the point about puttng a case together for AE. Of course, had it not been for ArbMac this wouldn't have arisen in this way. I think one of the problems is - I didn't go into this to ban and block editors. I went in to help moderate and focus discussions to enable source based collaborative editing. Neither did I go in with any views on any of it and I still don't have any now really. I did occasionally issue short blocks for edit warring but mostly I would protect the page for a short period and get people to discuss instead. It was only over the course of several months that it gradually became apparent to me that long-term disruption, OWN and TEND by DIREKTOR was one of the biggest problems in the area. Hence the 1 month topic ban followed by this one.

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by DIREKTOR

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Support appeal. I am 100% uninvolved here and I followed this a bit when it was at ANI (though due to being busy didn't get a chance to comment there). Basically, DIREKTOR is exactly correct: the topic ban was instituted by an administrator involved up to his/her ears in these disputes, Fainites, and as such is 100% illegitimate. In fact I should strike that "support appeal" at the beginning of this paragraph and simply say "there's no need for an appeal because the topic ban is obviously not legitimate, hence there's really nothing to be appeal" - DIREKTOR should simply ignore this faux-sanction. But since we like our bureaucratic procedures on Wikipedia I guess making it an official appeal makes sense

Now, it might very well be the case that DIREKTOR engaged in behavior which would merit a topic ban. I'm not that familiar with the topic area or his edits there - my sense is that there were some hi-jinks involved but I'm not convinced that they rise to the level of seriousness of a 6 month topic ban. However that is completely irrelevant. You just can't have involved administrators sanctioning users in order to win content disputes. That kind of behavior is grossly unfair, disruptive and against Wikipedia policy (in fact, Fainities probably deserves some kind of sanction for this). If tolerated and permitted, it sets a chilling and dangerous precedent.

So the topic ban on DIREKTOR should be vacated and Fainities should be at least warned. If a truly uninvolved admin then finds fault with DIREKTOR's edits then they are of course free to reinstate the topic ban (sort of like it's fine to post on behalf of banned users, provided you assume personal responsibility for the edits). In fact, later, after this is closed, and DIREKTOR recommences editing in the topic area Fainities would of course be in his right to bring his concerns to AE (which is what s/he should've done here). However I would wait for this kind of reconsideration until and if a new issue arises, since sanctions are meant to be preventive not punitive.

Ok, in case that was tl;dr, let me repeat: The topic ban on DIREKTOR should be vacated and Fainities should be at least warned.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FuFoFuEd

I think Volunteer Marek is being too acerbic here. By all appearances, Fainites is well-meaning in protecting the integrity of Wikipedia as he states (as opposed to advancing some nationalist POV agenda). I have no doubt that the area is "rife with relentless POV pushers", as Fainites says, and that when faced with two nationalist camps, which both are likely to "cherry pick" only sources/passages that suit their POV, it is hard to establish WP:CONSENSUS by just surveying what that kind of editors say on Wikipedia. Fainites' diligence in checking the sources himself, both for accuracy and sufficient context is quite commendable. However, extensive participation in forming consensus about the reliability of sources in non-straightforward cases like potentially biased historians, and opining in content issues, e.g. what is a good overview of some topic, constitutes content involvement.

I've spent some times looking though AE archives trying to find some how-to-proceed-properly in a case like this. It seems to me that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive93#QuackGuru is a good example of filling a case against a persistent POV pusher who misused sources. I'm not making a comparison between QuackGuru and DIREKTOR. What I am saying here, is that it would have been far better form for Fainites, whom through his extensive talk page participation had intimate knowledge of DIREKTOR's statements, to have assembled a list of what he saw as source misuses, and a list of (alleged) WP:IDHT threads by DIREKTOR, and to have submitted them to the attention of others (WP:AE or ARBCOM) admins having no shade of content involvement. It's quite human to see someone repeating a point you disagree with as over-the-top disruptive, even though uninvolved observers may just see it as "Wikipedia as usual". I've done it myself not so long ago, LOL. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content observation

As for the spat over Lucien Krachmar's authority as a historian, I agree that DIREKTOR made some unsupported statements (blogs notwithstanding) and they were even potentially BLP-violating. However, some of Krachmar's conclusions have been received coldly or outright rejected by other historians/reviewers [119] and his work is seen as more sympathetic to the Chetniks than other accounts. [120] So, it depends which statements one wants to include, and how they are balanced against other views. There is no such thing as absolute reliability or unreliability in these matters. Nor can one find a completely unbiased historian. (One can find an even more sympathetic account published in the same period by the Hoover Institution [121]) Take care, FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by DIREKTOR

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

I am tentatively of the view that Fainites is an involved administrator and the ban should be lifted. While ARBMAC has no specific provision governing administrator involvement (therefore WP:INVOLVED applies), the involvement provisions in other discretionary sanctions cases are instructive. Many arbcom decisions provides that "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." (e.g., WP:ARBAA2#Discretionary sanctions, WP:ARBPIA#Uninvolved administrators, WP:ARBSCI#Uninvolved administrators); others provide a narrower formulation, that "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions." (e.g., WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions). WP:ARBCC#Involved administrators specifies that "an administrator will be considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute, (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic".
Even on the narrowest involvement provision, I don't see how this can be characterized as anything but a "current, direct, personal conflict on the topic" - and even if it can, it is beyond doubt that Fainites "participated in [a] content dispute[] on articles in the area of conflict". It is immaterial whether Fainites edits the article as well or just participates in talk page discussions. Unless their edits are purely in an administrative capacity - and it is plain that they are not - they should not be imposing sanctions in this topic area. T. Canens (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 206: / Line 206: @@
 *:It appears that this article was created just 3 weeks ago on July 16 and was tagged on the talk page just 2 hours later by the creator with {{tl|ARBPIA}}.  I'm not sure if this truly should be covered by ARBPIA or not; I do not have a long history of monitoring ARBPIA, but I haven't seen anything that defines exactly which articles are subject or lists them.  Broadly construed, I think that someone could assert that Arab nationals and Palestinians might use ''Mein Kampf'' to support Anti-Jewish beliefs. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 *Since Golda Meir claimed that Egyptian soldiers carried Mein Kampf in their knapsacks, I think it's enough of a connection to place this article under ARBPIA. With regard to the actual diffs above,  there does not seem to be any serious transgression. As someone pointed out, Frederico1234 has never been blocked and so far his name is not mentioned in the [[WP:ARBPIA]] log. Frederico has admitted above that he broke 1RR at least once in this sequence of edits and he has apologized for that.  I suggest closing this with a reminder to Frederico not to assume bad faith regarding groups of editors in the I-P articles and to be careful to stay within  the 1RR.  [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
+:*Closing this request since there have been no further comments in five days. Frederico1234 is notified of the discretionary sanctions. He is warned against any further violation of the 1RR restriction and reminded not to assume bad faith regarding groups of editors in the I-P articles. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 14:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 == RolandR ==

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