Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:51, 26 January 2012

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

PCPP

PCPP (talk · contribs) is admonished for editing in areas of his topic ban, further violations will result in a long-term block, no further action at this time. --WGFinley (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning PCPP

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TransporterMan (TALK) 22:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

8 Jan 2012 Recommenced editing article laced with references to Falun Gong (Clarification: the article is laced with them, not his edits)
8 Jan 2012 Ditto talk page
8 Jan 2012 Launched Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion seeking to submit the disputes about that page to dispute resolution

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

Took these actions immediately upon returning from 24-hour block from AE here for editing the referenced article.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am not involved in the editing of the article, but am a mediator/clerk at DRN. Last block was for making edits specifically referencing Falun Gong, but topic ban is from editing any article or discussion related to Falun Gong, as this article and the DRN discussion about this article obviously are. I closed his DRN request for being in violation of his topic ban, but will reopen it if it is decided that no violation is involved with his pursuit of that article and DR about that article.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning PCPP

Statement by PCPP

In addressing Mr Stradivarius's and the admins' points, I composed the talk page comments before the 24 hour block was imposed as a right of reply to Homunculus's analysis of my edits. As now that I realize the full extent of the topic ban to even passing mentions, I have no further intention of editing or discussing that particular paragraph, essentially dropping my objections to anything relating to the banned topic. I opened the case at DRN because I have no intention of further escalating the disputes, but address my issues with the involved users with a third party, and hopefully solve them. In light of this, I have stroke through the points 11 and 12, and have no intention of editing the article throughout the process.--PCPP (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to T. Canens, I wrote the rebuttal points a few hours the talk page discussion appeared, but I found out that I was given a block as I was about to save the page. I copy+pasted it after the first block elapsed.

In response to EdJohnston, I opened the AE case because I felt that the Homunculus has behaved unfairly towards myself in the discussion process, and wish to address such concerns at DRN and hopefully settle them, as I do not wish a repeat of the previous edit wars which resulted in my sanctions. I only edited that article once since my block, and the article's issues, in regards to WP:CRIT, has been noted by several other users in the talk page, as well as Mr Stradivarius from DRN. The two passages I removed frankly fails WP:RS and WP:CRIT, since the former does not implicate CI at all, while the latter one consists of anecdotes from a Chinese language blog - the individual was not implicated in anything. Criticism articles, I believe, should provide a neutral and balanced approach to its subject of criticism.--PCPP (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning PCPP

Comment by Shrigley

Falun Gong features in the Confucius Institutes article primarily as a member of lists of proscribed political movements in China, of which there are many. As a result, there is some competition among fringe movements in China about which among them deserve mention on our articles. If the promotion comes not by aggressive SPAs, then they come from drive-by anonymous editors, like so.

My point is, Falun Gong is grafted onto the page in the same way that the 9/11 Truth movement might be grafted onto any United States government article. There is no organic connection between the Confucius Institutes and Falun Gong. As the filer himself notes, PCPP did not touch any content which mentioned Falun Gong in the article.

The talk page issue is a bit more delicate. A group of users rolled back all of PCPP's past edits on the article, including one which mentioned Falun Gong that got him topic banned, based on bad-faith presumptions.[1] I imagine PCPP felt he had to explain himself amidst accusations that his absence on the talk page was "disruptive" and "uncommunicative".[2] He should be commended for making no direct mention towards Falun Gong in his reply.

The DRN was on track to resolving PCPP's interpersonal issues; content was not discussed, let alone the small minority of untouched Falun Gong-related content. Shrigley (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ohconfucius

AFAICT, this complaint is obsolete as PCPP was blocked for so doing already. The objection to him opening a case at WP:DR also seems prima facie unreasonable because it is every editor's right (especially when he is met with such hostility when making good faith edits), for he seems sincere in his efforts to find an amicable solution to impasse he faces there. I daresay that if PCPP had not made the mistake of mentioning Falun Gong in that DR request – which Transporter Man closed as being in violation of WP:FLG-A – PCPP would have avoided this AE request, but may well have been accused all the same of wikilawyering notwithstanding because on of the edits in question involved removing mention of Falun Gong. In any event, I have advised him not to touch any mention of FLG or Epoch Times, even though we know ET isn't accepted as a reliable source except in matters pertaining directly to the movement.

PCPP's editing style and his efforts at finding such a solution are a marked departure from past confrontational behaviour. In addition, it would be wholly inappropriate to sanction him again bearing in mind he has not edited said articles again since his block. Per Shrigley, the offences mentioned above are technical in nature. Because editors seem to feel the need to leave traces of Falun Gong persecution everywhere, many are mere coatracks, that it is well nigh impossible for any editor on Chinese politics not to come up against these. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Homunculus

A point of clarification: the editor filing the AE noted that PCPP's edits at Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes did not directly relate to Falun Gong. Unfortunately this was not the case. PCPP deleted a whole paragraph of notable, sourced content related to Falun Gong,[[3] and severely redacted another.[4] Both were germane to the topic. As has been pointed out, PCPP was already subject to a 24-hour ban for these deletions. I do not know whether or not he violated his ban again by pursuing the issue further on the dispute resolution noticeboard—that's a question for the admins. Homunculus (duihua) 03:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mr. Stradivarius

Hi all, I was aware of this dispute from the dispute resolution noticeboard and had a brief look at the article and the talk page, but I didn't actually comment at the noticeboard. Regarding TransporterMan's diffs: I'm not sure about the first one, but the second one does seem to be, in part, carrying on the conversation about PCPP's edits to the section mentioning Falun Gong. In particular, points 11 and 12 from that edit seem to be referring to diffs 11 and 12 from this post by Homunculus, of which number 11 seems to be one of the diffs for which PCPP received his recent 24h block. I also wanted to say that, while PCPP's topic ban is potentially problematic if he chooses to further edit Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes, when I looked at the article I saw systemic problems relating to WP:CRITICISM, which I believe PCPP was trying to correct. Because of this, I think this dispute could respond well to dispute resolution, although, as always, this would depend on all parties maintaining good conduct and a commitment to collaboration. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning PCPP

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

Confucius Institute is neither directly connected to Falun Gong nor inextricably intertwined with that topic. Unless the particular edits are related to FLG - and I'm not seeing it, there is no violation here. T. Canens (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stradivarius makes a good point regarding the second diff. I'd like to hear a response from PCPP about that diff before taking action, though. As to Homunculus' comment, those diffs have been dealt with already in the previous thread. T. Canens (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand your comment, PCPP. Are you saying that you composed the post before the block but didn't get to post it until after it? T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. PCPP's explanation is that he composed the comment pre-block, got stopped in the middle of posting it by the block, and then posted it after the block by copy-paste. Considering that most parts of the comment is compliant with the topic ban, and the only violating part did not refer to FLG by name, it is quite plausible that he simply overlooked the infringing part's relationship to FLG (I know that I did when I first looked at it). PCPP also states that he now recognizes the full scope of the topic ban. Under these particular circumstances, I don't think a block is necessary at this time. I would close this thread with a warning that the next topic ban violation will indeed result in a long block. T. Canens (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mr. Stradivarius' point. The current view of topic bans allows editors to work on sensitive articles so long as they don't change anything regarding the topic area from which they are banned. PCPP appears to be failing to stay within the prescribed bounds, since it is clear that he edited Falun-Gong-related material on January 6. He was already blocked for that, but now he is raising a complaint at WP:DRN that seems to show no awareness whatever that he is banned from some of the topics he is raising. Inevitably any discussion of his DRN complaint is going to be a discussion of Falun-Gong-related material since numbers 11 and 12 of his diff here concern that material. In closing the January 6 AE with a 24-hour block, NuclearWarfare stated "Hopefully this will make him reconsider, because the next one is going to be a lot longer/indefinite otherwise." PCPP seems to be totally oblivious to the problem. The time may have come for a longer block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After more review, I'm now recommending that PCPP's ban be extended to include the topic of the Chinese government and any of its institutions.

In a new comment, PCPP has clarified the sequence of events and he should no longer be considered oblivious of the Falun Gong problem. I've checked through some of PCPP's edits since January 1, and looked into the overall drift of his complaint at WP:DRN, the one that was the occasion for TransporterMan to file this AE request. PCPP's edits at Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes did not appear neutral to me. For example in this edit he removed reliably-sourced mentions of misbehavior of two directors of particular Confucius Insitutes. His edit summary for this was "Individuals not representative of the institution." In an article on 'Concerns and Controversies', he wants to remove specific reports of controversies at Univ. of South Florida and Univ. of Waterloo on the grounds that these are problems with *individuals*?

This is only one of a series of edits that were commented on by Homunculus at Talk:Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes#Recent edits. I share many of the concerns expressed by Homunculus in that thread. As he says "An editor has recently made a series of fairly substantial edits to the page, but has neglected to provide any explanation of said edits.". In a later response on the same talk page, PCPP states "I believe both Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury acted in bad faith towards me in this discussion"..."And to Homunculus, I don't need self appointed minders you hounding me over every one of my edits in China related articles.."

So here's the sequence of events:

PCPP makes a series of 23 edits to the article that revise it substantially, but says nothing on talk.
Homunculus responds on the talk page, lists some objections he has to specific edits, and asks PCPP to respond.
PCPP comes back with a charge that Homunculus was acting *in bad faith*, and only then provides any explanation of his article changes.
Without waiting for any answer from Homunculus, PCPP opens a complaint at DRN in which he charges Homunculus with showing hostility.

It is within the scope of AE to widen PCPP's topic ban if he shows himself unable to edit neutrally in matters concerning the Chinese government, even beyond the Falun Gong question. PCPP's topic ban from Falun Gong was indefinite and it is open for review any time after May 9. I recommend that the ban be *widened* to include the topic of the Chinese government and any of its institutions, such as the Confucius Institute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that we can stretch the discretionary sanctions that far. First, I'm not sure that "Chinese government" is a closely related topic to "Falun Gong", at least in the way that phrase has been interpreted by this board in previous cases. Further, even assuming that this is an available sanction, I don't think we can employ the FLG discretionary sanctions on edits wholly unrelated to FLG. T. Canens (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PCPP is effectively under an indef TBAN, just blocked on 6 Jan for violating the TBAN and then two days later launches right back in to it again. Seems like there is little else to do but a longer block, I'd suggest 30 days with a note the indef is next. --WGFinley (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jiujitsuguy

Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from P-I articles, broadly construed. --WGFinley (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Jiujitsuguy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: asad (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

16/12/11 Re-adds the "Archaeology museums in Israel" cat to the Rockefeller Museum article after it was removed with an edit summary of "Not in Israel". JJG provides no real explanation as to why he re-added false information.
09/01/12 Adds " Ex Nazis" as a belligerent on the versus Israel side in the info box on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article.
09/01/12 Revert and re-adds the same info without bothering to start a discussion on the talk page.
12/01/12 Revert and edit-wars the material in a third time, but decides to finally bring something up about it on the talkpage.

JJG cites Israeli historian, Benny Morris, who writes, "Several dozen Britons, most of them former British army or police officers (by mid-March 1948 some 230 British soldiers and thirty policemen had deserted), also served in the Palestinian Arab ranks, as did some volunteers from Yogoslavia and Germany. The Yugoslavs, possibly in their dozens, were both Christians, formerly members or the pro-Axis Fascist groups, and Bosnian Muslims; the handfuls of Germans were former Nazi intelligence, Wehrmacht, and SS officers."

The Benny Morris source also states that the Jewish Yeshuv side was supported by at least 100 Americans. The only thing JJG focuses on are the “handful of Germans”. When you compare the amounts (a handful of German ex-Nazis to 100 Americans and dozens of British) you would think, in the interest of neutrality, that JJG would have added the American flag to the Jewish Yeshuv side to represent the 100 Americans or added the British flag to the Arab side to represent the "several dozen" British soldiers. But of course JJG's purpose on Wikipedia would explain why he did not decide to do that. Throwing in a reactionary and emotional symbol like a Swastika, which immediately becomes associated with the Arab armies, is a very clever way to push a POV by playing on the emotions of someone who is reading the article. Considering that he was previously topic-banned for "persistent ideological POV-pushing across many articles", one would think he would try to steer clear from these kinds of edits. All of this goes without mentioning the slow-paced edit-warring that was involved, namely two reverts within 72 hours.

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

Topic-banned on 4/3/11 by Sandstein (talk · contribs) for "persistent ideological POV-pushing across many articles"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Jiujitsuguy is probably one of the most POV-warrior minded editors who I have come across. Recently, he barely escaped sanction for misrepresenting sources to push a POV. In fact, it appears as if the only reason he was not sanctioned, was do to lack consensus among admins, as one admin in particular objected and viewed the issue as a "content dispute" rather than a conduct one. The issue with this admin was later [5] clarified by ArbCom, to the understanding that such an issue is one of conduct.

You would think someone so close to facing a lengthy topic-ban, and who was recently topic-banned for manipulating sources to push a POV, would be more conscious to avoid the type of POV pushing that he has engaged by the evidence of above. But it is very clear now that Jiujitsuguy just intends to use Wikipedia as another tool of his to push one of the most minority-POVs that exist in any major political subject in the world.

@ElComandanteChe- It is not a content dispute. There were more British and American forces who took sides during the war than there were Ex Nazi (this according to the source JJG provided). JJG cherry-picked the the belligerents and only added the Nazis and their flag to the Arab side. The first edit is shows the pattern of what behavior that JJG continues to display, and has displayed since he last topic ban expired two months ago for source distortion and POV pushing. -asad (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley- The issue is not JJG having a reliable source or not, the issue how he used it. If you want to AGF, that's your prerogative, but I know that an editor who has a history source abuse will only have done what they did with the belligerent section because they were, once again, abusing the sources. By all the evidence and the quotes that JJG has brought to the admins attention, there is no doubt that he is well read. So then the question becomes -- why did he only put the flag of the Nazis to represent a handful of Nazis and not put the flag of the British or Americans to represent an equal or greater amount of troops? The only "good faith" answer available is that a known source abuser somehow, miraculously, did not read the part about the Americans of British. But I don't think that is what JJG is even claiming. He even said to User:Sandstein a few months back that he "[understands] that misrepresenting a source is a serious offense that undermines the integrity of the entire project." [6] If those are the kinds of standards of AGF to be upheld, say bye-bye to any reliability and objectivity to anything in the I-P area.

Of course, there is the tendentious part and the gaming of the 1RR. He made two reverts in three days and on the second revert opened a discussion. It was not just an ordinary revert -- but a revert of highly controversial, cherry-picked material. And it wasn't just one revert of controversial material, but two reverts (mere hours apart) adding back the same controversial material. JJG exhibited the same sort of behavior at the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. Not only does he add highly controversial material into the article without consensus, he has the audacity to add it to the lead! If that wasn't enough already, he reverts without a even bothering to open up a discussion. I sure wish a ban from adding flags in a belligerent box on a single article would fix this kind of repeated POV pushing behavior. -asad (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

Discussion concerning Jiujitsuguy

Statement by Jiujitsuguy

According to Zeev Schiff, under "Makeup of Arab forces," he states that "volunteers came from among Yugoslavian Muslims, deserters from the British Army and ex-Nazis." (History of the Israeli Army, Page 29)

According to Leslie Stein, “Some 500 Yugoslavs plus a number of Germans” fought on the Palestinian behalf. (The Making of Modern Israel, 1948-1967, Pages 44, 45)

Benny Morris notes on page 85 that the Arab ranks included "some volunteers from Yugoslavia and Germany." The Yugoslavs were drawn from both pro-Axis fascist groups and Bosnian Muslims. The Germans were composed of Nazi intelligence, Wehrmacht and SS officers[8]. (1948, Page 85)

With respect to Morris, I utilized that source to specify the composition of ex-Nazis and units they were drawn from and not the quantity. Asad has misleadingly drawn your attention to the wrong page. I used page 85 and my edit (which identifies the makeup of involved German units) precisely corresponds to that page. I also utilized Zeev Schiff as a source as well and I can scan and email you the page if you don’t have access to the book. Asad, in mendacious fashion leaves out the fact that I used Schiff as a source. I could have also used Stein but believed that Morris and Schiff were sufficient.

The edits were well-sourced, accurate and explained on the discussion page[9] as well as the pages of an involved editor[10] In addition, rather than reinserting the edit I offered to compromise[11] and this suggestion was met with a positive response and agreement[12] I was glad to see that we were making progress on the issue and indicated this on respective talk and discussion pages here and here where I noted the following A discussion on the matter was held on our (GabrielF & JJG) respective talk pages and agreement as to the precise text concerning German and Yugoslav volunteers seems within reach. I'll formulate something over the weekend. The statement represents a clear indication by me to work collaboratively on the issue.

Asad deliberately misstates the record and omits critical portions from his narrative. In an attempt to formulate a compromise, I specifically offered to remove the flag as well as other modifications. Please note my compromise offer; "Would you object to something like "foreign volunteers" (without the flag stuff) similar to that which appears on the Israeli column? Could that be a possible compromise?" The response I received was a positive one and one which looked as though the issue was about to be resolved; "I would not object to the phrase "foreign volunteers" - particularly since there were volunteers from Arab countries not mentioned. I would object to the use of flags or to listing countries of origin in the info box." My response to that was, "Excellent. Progress is always a good thing. It is refreshing to deal with editors who are open-minded I'll work on something over the weekend and present you with a modified text." This exchange represents the best of collaborative editing and is removed from Asad's convoluted narrative. In fact, Asad didn’t even participate in the discussion. It seems as though his sole role was to wait on the sidelines for the opportunity to strike. Sigh

In sum the edits were well-sourced from reliable verifiable sources, the edits were discussed (in fact, I was first to open a discussion on the matter), A compromise was within reach, there was no violation of 1r, and I offered to work collaboratively as evidenced by the diffs. Moreover, if any admin wishes to have a scanned copy of the sources, I would me more than happy to comply--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - I absolutely noted Yugoslavs and the noted sources don't mention American participation under disposition of Arab forces. Foreign volunteers for the Israeli side have already been noted under Mahal. I don't understand. I did everything by the letter and spirit of the book. I made edits that were reliable and verifiable. I did not violate 1r. I was the first to open a discussion at not just the discussion page but at the talk pages of involved editors. As noted above, I indicated a strong willingness to collaborate and compromise and was making headway in that regard and now somehow, this becomes a referendum on me? I've done a helluva lot of good for the space improving the Yom Kippur war article, the War of Attrition, creating a half-dozen articles on military battles. I have provided you with the sources. I scanned and emailed them to you and you can share with any admin you'd like. I'm going well above and beyond what is required and acted in strict accordance (by letter and spirit) with the rules. What more do you want? What annoys me the most is that Asad brought this AE after I left the following comment on the discussion page; A discussion on the matter was held on our (GabrielF & JJG) respective talk pages and agreement as to the precise text concerning German and Yugoslav volunteers seems within reach. I'll formulate something over the weekend It appears that he brought this AE simply to preempt the possibility that the article would include compromise language that he would object to.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Per the discussion on your talk page, I'll stay low for a few weeks.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Looking at the matter in hindsight, I believe that the addition of the flag icon without a contemporaneous comment at the discussion page was wrong. I tried to rectify the problem by attempting to formulate modified text that would exclude the flag icon as well as other modifications[13]. Regardless, I thought that since other scholarly texts (Schiff, Herzog, Stein and Morris) included the facts that I noted, it would be prudent to do so here. This is especially so since the Israeli belligerent column includes foreign volunteers. In any event, I recognize that the manner in which I added the info was incorrect and offer apologies for the stir.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ex-Nazis is precisely the term that Zeev Schiff uses and I will email the source to you if you provide me with an email address. It is not tendentious if that's the term the source employs. If you don't want to provide me with your email, then have HJMitchell forward it to you because I already gave it to him. I also added Yugoslavs. Some 500, composed of Bosnian Muslims and former pro-Axis militia, volunteered. Is that tendentious as well? I employed precisely the terms used by the source.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Zeev Schiff: "Other Volunteers came from among Yugoslavian Moslems, deserters from the British Army and ex-Nazis."
  - Leslie Stein: "The Jews were not alone in mobilizing foreign volunteers. Some five-hundred Yugoslavs plus a number of Germans, Poles and over 50 Britons fought on the Palestinian behalf."
  - Chaim Herzog also notes that the Arab side employed Germans, Yugoslavs, British deserters and Poles to drive vehicles loaded with bombs into Jewish populated areas. (page 25)
  - Morris notes on page 85 that the Germans were drawn from ex-intel, Wehrmacht and SS officers and the Yugoslavs were drawn from Bosnian Muslim ranks and former pro-Axis militia. I used Morris only to note the composition of Germans and Yugoslavs.
  - Schiff was used to note that volunteers came from the ranks of ex-Nazis and Yugoslavs. Morris was used to note their specific composition, and sub-types. I noted Stein and Herzog at the discussion page. If other notable scholarly texts include these facts, should this content not be added to Wikipedia?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, use of the icon without contemporaneous comment of the matter on the discussion page was not the correct way to go about things. The information was accurate, though admittedly I could have gone about it differently and I noted this on the discussion page even before the instant action was initiated. In fact, I was in the midst of a discussion on the matter and was making progress and I was going to offer revised text, absent the icon as evidenced by the above-noted diffs.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jiujitsuguy

Comment by ElComandanteChe

I don't actually see any sense in this complaint. It's quite clear that Asad dislikes JJG, and that JJG has certain political views, but none of these is sanctionable. The first diff is month old. The rest is a content dispute, discussed right now on the relevant talk page. May be there are signs of slow edit-warring here, but JJG is the one who started the discussion on the talk page, and simultaneously worked in a collaborative manner to build a consensus version (here and here), while his opponents just kept pushing the revert button. The presented evidence is too weak to draw the sound analysis next to it. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 00:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZScarpia

I'd say that the List of Belligerents quite clearly got out of hand. What readers would expect to see is a list of the major participants, which on the Arab side should probably be a list of Arab states (I doubt that Pakistan should be listed as a belligerent) and perhaps the Arab Liberation Army. I doubt that political parties should be listed as belligerents, or the 'foreign volunteers' listed on the Israeli side, who didn't serve in their own separate units. Better judgement would have precluded translating a reference to handfuls of Yugoslavs and Germans fighting on the Arab side into extending the belligerent list, particularly into making the leap of labelling Morris's ex-members of Nazi intelligence (presumably the Gestapo), the Wehrmacht and the SS as Nazis, when that isn't what Morris says, and of including the flag of Nazi Germany. ← ZScarpia 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the facts that Jiujitsuguy gave Schiff, who explicitly uses the term ex-Nazis, as a reference in addition to Morris and that, in a passage other than the one quoted, Morris does himself use that term, so I was incorrect to state that Jiujitsuguy misrepresented Morris. My apologies to everyone. ← ZScarpia 13:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Z and thank you for your honesty. Apology whole-heartedly accepted without reservation.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ← ZScarpia 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@No More Mr Nice Guy, 07:40, 21 January 2012: Ohiostandard isn't questioning whether sources are reliable, but whether they're being used in a non-neutral way. ← ZScarpia 13:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Honestly, I had been thinking about bringing this to AE myself. One other article where JJG has recently been creating problems is the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. Diffs of his edits there:

The wording about "if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs" was inserted into the lede of the article. His changes in the third diff with regards to scholarship are clearly tendentious, and his choice of sources leaves a lot to be desired. JJG's edits there seem to be trying to lay accusations of ethnic cleansing entirely on Pappe and by inserting material from numerous negative sources about Pappe, at times even presenting their remarks in the editorial voice as though they are facts, he is seeking to discredit the accusations themselves. JJG is cherry-picking sources and using them to push an extremely hostile POV, something he has done before. Back two months or so he was brought to AE for using travel guides to claim the Golan Heights were Israeli territory. This kind of behavior goes well beyond your typical content dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Netzer On the 1948 war article it was only after a second revert that JJG started a discussion on the talk page, making sure to revert my revert before he did. He has exhibited the same behavior on the Nakba article where he made sure to revert the revert before going to the talk page to explain why his blatant POV-pushing was in perfect conformity with policy, avoiding NPOV and focusing on WP:V naturally. That goes back to the Golan case where he engaged in the same kind of wikilawyering to avoid the fact that he was cherry-picking and misrepresenting sources in order to push his own agenda on the article. You may find that harsh, but I am just noting what is there for all to see.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the Nakba article, JJG didn't even initiate discussion on his changes there. Roland initiated discussion after JJG objected to a different edit having been removed months before.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also opened a discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard regarding the reliability of the obscure source which Jjg has used as backing for his edits.Comments welcomed. RolandR (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Shuki How about WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:DE, WP:POINT, and WP:GAME?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Netzer Just so we are clear, I waited three days (longer than I had to wait) after his first revert for anyone to start discussion or revert him before finally performing the second revert. In contrast, JJG's revert of my second revert came within ten minutes and only then did he start a section on the talk page. When he did that, I was getting ready to put up a much larger comment on the talk page on general issues I saw with the article of which I felt JJG's edit was simply a symptom. That I wanted to start a broader discussion about the article is why I didn't start up a discussion the first time he reverted my revert.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WG Seriously, look at the diffs I provided in my comment above. This is not about flags or what's in the belligerents section. You are certainly familiar enough with the last report involving JJG to know that this is the case. You are using the designed-to-fail restriction imposed on Nableezy as a precedent for a restriction that a child would have little trouble obeying, while still allowing JJG to continue other disruptive behaviors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MichaelNetzer

There is no pre-requisite in WP policy to open a talk page discussion before an edit. It is only "required" when the edit is contested, which is what JJG did, in all the cases mentioned in this complaint. It's becoming increasingly difficult to work in this area as some editors are pulling no punches in turning Wikipedia into a one-sided referendum on the topic, and removing any edits that try to bring POV balance to the articles. This contrived complaint is another such example. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: "Ending up here" is no indication of being guilty as charged. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: This complaint is about the charges it makes, not a referendum on how the encyclopedia "benefits" from an editor. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your time on Wikipedia might be better spent advancing arguments for how these charges are invalid, or reading the policies you claim have not been violated, rather than taking potshots at comments by administrators who work hard to ensure that the right result comes out of these complaints. Have a little faith in us. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have complete faith in admins here, HJ, and I try not to take potshots. From what I'm seeing, AE is being abused by editors who are more than happy to see a one-sided tone overpower articles in this space. They resist well sourced edits that seek balance with persistent contrived arguments that make collaboration very difficult. The talk page discussions in this case alone show this. It's natural for admins to have a difficult time seeing through it the way editors who suffer from it do. I think that's one of the reasons editors involved in this area are welcome to comment here. In light of the facts presented by JJG, should not Shuki's comment about this misleading complaint be taken into consideration? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shuki

This is a simple content dispute and one of the most frivolous AE's opened on ARBPIA since no guideline has been violated and the nominator has not even stated which guideline of ARBPIA has been violated. Editors, like Asad, (especially experienced ones who have already commented on AE before) who open misleading AE's should instead be sanctioned themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights, welcome to ARBPIA, or other admin, can you please take the initiative and add User:Asad112 to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#2012. Asad has already proven he knows about the page, so this is a mere formality. Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What disturbs me most about the admin's waving their swords below is A) ignoring WP:BOLD, and B) a clear attempt at preventing updating of WP based on what they think is right (a content issue). Adding the word 'Nazis' to the article is clearly sourced and valid (part of history, duh), and if having the Nazi flag is a bit provocative JJG already apologized, and giving JJG a topic ban because he added the flag is quite disproportionate. Me thinks with Nableezy sidelined, (often protected here) the admins see an opportunity to 'even up' the field. FWIW, with several regular I-P editors already banned or coming off bans over the past year, things have already calmed down dramatically. --Shuki (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that OhioStandard did prove that this is a content issue after all. --Shuki (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

Not sure what policy has been violated here. I do agree that Nazi flag is way OTT. I welcome JJG's self cooling proposition. I also agree with Z that the list got out of hand. At the same time, am I the only one who is sick and tired of tit for tat AE requests? This one in particular look rather meritless, and warrants wp:boomerang. - BorisG (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Shuki.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, could you please comment in your own section? - BorisG (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ohio Standard has just revealed himself as an ardent propagandist for one side. I would have hoped that admins would give less weight to partisan and one sided comments from strongly partisan editors. I also think his unsourced characterisation of Benny Morris as ultra-extremist is a BLP violation and should be striken out. - BorisG (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by One Night In Hackney

MichaelNetzer's comment of "There is no pre-requisite in WP policy to open a talk page discussion before an edit. It is only "required" when the edit is contested, which is what JJG did, in all the cases mentioned in this complaint", Jiujitsuguy did in fact revert twice before opening a talk page discussion. Just thought I'd correct this misleading summary of events.

The first revert at 04:58, 10 January 2012. Second revert at 22:26, 12 January 2012 . Opens talk page discussion at 22:36, 12 January 2012.

So far from discussing the edit when it was first reverted, he reverted twice to add back the information and only started a discussion after making his second revert. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JJG's edit was reverted twice by the same editor without that editor opening the talk page discussion. JJG opened the discussion 10 minutes after his second revert. Sorry if I was misleading but it seems JJG was alright on that issue in light of the circumstance. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zero0000

Addition of the Nazi flag to the belligerent list was a very obvious and blatant example of POV-pushing, not justified by any policy. It isn't justified by sources either, since the sources only indicate the past background of these (very few) people and do not indicate that they were representing any government, party, or other entity that the Nazi flag is a reasonable logo for. A vastly better case could be made for adding a communist flag to the Israeli column, but of course that would be the opposite POV-pushing. Israel officially recognises 42 nationalities of foreigners who fought on their side. Zero^talk 01:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Maybe it's just me, but the more people come here to say that adding a swastika to an article was "just a content dispute", the less I believe them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ohiostandard

( Please note later timestamp of this "eleventh-hour" addition as compared to timestamps of previously-posted admin comments. Thanks. - Ohiostandard )

Jiujitsuguy's application of the Nazi flag to our article was of course ridiculous and blatant. But to evaluate his other edits responsibly, one has to understand some details of the history and politics of the Middle East. Unfortunately these details are often difficult to follow for people who aren't already familiar with the region's complex history and the sources that write about it. So to try to address that dilemma I suggest we carefully examine just two of his other edits, both quite typical, and see what they tell us about his overall editing pattern:

Analysis posted in collapsed form, since it's necessarily longer than is usual here. - Ohiostandard

It may help orient the reader if I say here that Jiujitsuguy's two edits appear to be motivated by his vehement objection to the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to characterize the effect of Israel's actions in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War during which more than 700,000 Palestinians lost their homes and land.

Since one admin has mentioned below that he's not familiar with JJG's participation history, I believe it's also a fair and appropriate orientation note to disclose that he edits from the perspective of a radical Zionist: When he was brought here a month or two ago, for example, he had used Popular Mechanics magazine as an authority on geopolitics to try to make Wikipedia's voice champion his ultra-extremist view that the land Israel took from Syria during the 1948 war, and still continues to occupy, is actually in Israel, is actually "an integral part of Israel", as he puts it.

This is a position that couldn't be more emphatically rejected by the entire international community; it's so extreme that even the Israeli government itself does not assert it. Finally, I doubt he'll deny that he's previously written on very prominent Zionist political sites to recruit fellow extremists to begin editing Wikipedia in accordance with Israel's nationally-mandated hasbarah ("propaganda" or "explanation") effort.

1st of two consecutive edits

Edit made by Jiujitsuguy at 17:34, 12 January 2012 UTC

Here Jiujitsuguy deleted the following sentence and completely removed its two supporting refs from our article:

The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been widely described as having involved ethnic cleansing^[1], although not all historians accept that characterization.^[2]

^ Ian Black, Memories and maps keep alive Palestinian hopes of return. ( The Guardian, 26 November 2010 ).
^ Review of Efraim Karsh's book, Palestine Betrayed. ( Scoop News, 29 August 2010)

To justify the deletion, he wrote in his edit summary,

"Exceptional claim of 'widely described' requires exceptional source. Not book review critic. Moreover, source is already twice noted & included in lead & that's overkill."

There are so many things wrong with this edit that it's hard to know what to focus on:

Most innocuously, his deletion of the "IANBLACK" named ref created a cite error in the article's footnotes.
His edit summary statement "source is already twice noted" is misleading. If you look at the article in its then-current state, you'll find that Black's piece in Great Britain's prestigious Guardian newspaper is referenced one other time, exactly, and then only in an indirect way.
The claim that he's responding to "overkill", to over-reliance on the Ian Black ref he deleted, just isn't credible when one considers that the article had 43 cites to works by journalist and Black co-author Benny Morris, and that in his next edit, JJG added a 44th ref to Morris.
The statement saying the depopulation had been "widely described" as ethnic cleansing does not come from a "book review critic". If he'd examined the refs he deleted before doing so, he'd have seen that the phrase "widely described" is sourced not to the book review, but to Ian Black's statement that "Abu Sitta is a leading expert on the nakbah and what is nowadays widely described as the 'ethnic cleansing' it involved." (emphasis added)
Ian Black is, indeed, an "exceptional source" for this purpose. He's the Guardian newspaper's Middle East Editor, he's a 2010 recipient of an international journalism award, and he's often interviewed as a mideast expert by other news organizations. Just yesterday, for example, the BBC World Service broadcast an interview with him that I heard via (US) National Public Radio about his in-country experiences in Syria regarding the populist uprising there.

2nd of two consecutive edits

Edit made by Jiujitsuguy at 17:37, 12 January 2012 UTC

Here Jiujitsuguy replaces the content he just deleted with an attack on author Ilan Pappe's book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, that attack coming via an Israeli political advocacy website from a man the Claremont Institute rightly calls "Israel's most contentious historian", Benny Morris.

What's really strange about JJG's replacement text is not that he relied exclusively on partisan Zionist authors to try to make his point. But what is odd is that he cites Benny Morris in an attempt to discredit the characterization of the expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948 as ethnic cleansing. Morris is completely comfortable with that term; he even champions the phrase and the principle it describes, and someone who's as intimately familiar with mideast politics and sources as Jiujitsuguy is surely knows this.

For example, consider these exchanges, excerpted from a 2004 interview with Benny Morris which first appeared in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and which is cited via the Logos Journal in the article JJG was editing:

Interviewer: So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

Benny Morris: I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.

Interviewer: You do not condemn them morally?

Benny Morris: No.

Interviewer: They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

Benny Morris: There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

Interviewer: And that was the situation in 1948?

Benny Morris: That was the situation...

Interviewer: The term “to cleanse” is terrible.

Benny Morris: I know it doesn’t sound nice but that’s the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed.

( emphasis added in three quotations above )

< snip > ...

Interviewer: Are you saying that [the supreme commander of Israeli forces] Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

Benny Morris: From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer [of the Palestinian population]. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea...

In passing I'll also observe that in the same interview Benny Morris makes many comments that unquestionably show him as ultra-extreme in his views. For example, he characterizes the entirety of Palestinian society as a serial killer and says they should be treated as such, put in a kind of cage, at least, unless they're executed instead. He likewise remarks, "The Arab world as it is today is barbarian." It's simply indisputable that he's not a man to go to for a balanced opinion on anything to do with Israel or Middle East politics at all. I'm sure our Jewish friends here would say the same of any author who had expressed similar views about Israeli society.

But my main point in including the interview excerpt above is to show that it's simply misleading to try to use Benny Morris to argue against the phrase "ethnic cleansing" as a characterization of the events of 1948. Morris has since tried to make a case that it wasn't deliberate, but he nevertheless embraces the phrase "ethnic cleansing" for just that application.

Relatedly, if Jiujitsuguy had truly been interested in presenting a neutral point of view concerning Ilan Pappe's book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, rather than trying merely to discredit it, he could easily have found and used the review of the book by Publisher's Weekly, which describes it in part as follows:

Framing his argument with accepted international and U.N. definitions of ethnic cleansing, Pappe follows with an excruciatingly detailed account of Israeli military involvement in the demolition and depopulation of hundreds of villages, and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arab inhabitants. An accessible, learned resource, this volume provides important insights into the historical antecedents of today's conflict, but its conclusions will not be easy for everyone to stomach...

Also, along with many others who've expressed similar concerns on the article's talk page (link/permalink) and at RSN (link/permalink), I find it troubling that Jiujitsuguy replaced so widely respected a source as the Guardian's Ian Black with so heavy a reliance on economics professor Leslie Stein's book, The Making of Modern Israel, when Stein is very much a partisan apologist for Israel, according to third-party review quotations at RSN. I likewise find it a bit troubling that contrary to his week-ago promise (apparently rescinded?) on the article's talk page, Jiujitsuguy appears not to have forwarded any page scan from this book to those he promised it too, a book that none of have so far been able to access. I'd be less concerned about that if he had responded to requests for verbatim quotations that support his edit that he bases on Leslie Stein's Making of Modern Israel.

In conclusion, in these edits Jiujitsuguy deleted neutral, eminently-respected sources, using a verhy misleading edit summary to do so, and replaced them with with extremist sources, including heavy reliance on a book that is much less accessible and that he has so far refused to quote from directly to try to support his edit. In addition, he cited one extremely partisan author, Benny Morris, as if Morris objected to the description of the events of 1948 as "ethnic cleansing", which he most emphatically does not.

Finally, think about Jiujitsuguy's user name, for a moment. He doesn't edit articles on Asian martial arts, that I'm aware of, so why that name? If you'll "sound it out" slowly, you'll probably notice that the name can be interpreted as a double-entendre declaring its owner as a champion on behalf of Jewish ideology. Whether that play on words was intentional or not, the name does well-represent his combative editing behavior here.

It's my strong opinion that Jiujitsuguy's edits are first and foremost those of a hasbarah warrior, a zealous propagandist without intrinsic allegiance to Wikipedia and its principles except to the extent they can be used to disseminate his preferred message. The entirety of his editing here, never mind his explicit off-site canvassing for new partisans for just that purpose, demonstrates such contempt for the goals of the encyclopedia as I've rarely seen equaled among established editors. – OhioStandard (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, its my belief that a careful analysis of these of Jiujitsuguy's edits, quite typical for him, of the other incidents in this report, and of his very long history of using the encyclopedia to promote ultra-extremist views and of encouraging others to do so, make him entirely unsuitable as an editor in any article remotely connected to this difficult topic area. He's shown time and time and time again that he simply will always give his POV goals precedence over every other possible consideration. – OhioStandard (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the preceding section-title makes clear, this section of the page is for my own comments; it's not an invitation to open a debate here. Your own comments belong in their own separate and dedicated section. Similarly, please refrain from posting remarks in the "Results" section of this page if you're not an administrator. Thank you. – OhioStandard (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What pisses me off most (not just here but in general) are the attempts to get into one's head and to interpret his behavior and his language based on own views. This is a faulty way of thinking which produces zero valuable information. Always assume people mean what they say. Always look into what people do, not why they do it. JJG shall be judged according to his deeds, not his supposed motives. Morris credibility shall be judged according to his weight in academic word as historian, not moral assessment of his interviews. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 22:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, OhioStandard would agree if we were discussing someone from his "side of the the political gulf in Mideast politics". [17] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Since apparently the admins are taking OhioStandard's analysis seriously, I'd like to point out some inaccuracies (I'm AGFing when calling them that).

1st edit:

I don't know what he meant by "journalist and Black co-author Benny Morris", but Morris is a serious professor of history and a leading expert in the field, which I doubt anyone who is familiar with scholarship on the IP conflict doesn't consider a reliable source. Black is a journalist, and this piece is a book review. I think any serious wikipedian would expect an article like this to contain many more references to scholarly works than to book reviews, even if they are from "Great Britain's prestigious Guardian newspaper".

Taking the very extreme step of typing both names into Google yields this from Benny Morris' wikipedia page: 'When Conrad Black bought the Post in 1990, Morris was one of the Israeli left-wing journalists. [Morris] continued to write as a freelance, producing Israel's Secret Wars, co-written with Ian Black of The Guardian'. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you did type both names into google you know that professor Morris is one of the leading scholars in the field of history of the IP conflict. I highly doubt anyone who has more than a passing interest in the history of the conflict doesn't know that. Good on you for using wikipedia as a source though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. You wrote 'I don't know what he meant by "journalist and Black co-author Benny Morris". I simply indicated that it was a trivial task to discover a) that Morris had a career in journalism, and b) that he co-authored a book with Black. The fact that he is also a Professor is neither here nor there with regard to understanding the sentence you indicated. There is no need to take Wikipedia's word for the sentence I quoted - simply follow the sources in the article for his work as a journalist and check Amazon if you don't believe he co-authored the book with Black.BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's you who's missing the point. He was a journalist 20 years ago. Now he's a professional historian, and has been for quite a while. Calling him a journalist is just another attempt to make it seem he's not a high quality reliable source, when he very obviously is. He's one of the world's most prominent experts in his field which happens to include the subject of the article in question. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that he's referenced extensively, as opposed to referencing what an actual journalist wrote in a book review, for example. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that he is a reliable source, a Professor, and a legitimate person to cite extensively. But given that you claimed not to know what the sentence in question meant, I thought I would enlighten you. Please stop making a mountain out of a molehill.BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is from a book review written by a journalist. Not exactly the highest quality RS. Better sourcing was requested multiple times on the talk page but none was forthcoming. You'd think that if something was "widely considered", some scholars would note that. This is classic REDFLAG.
That Black was interviewed on the BBC about Syria has what relationship to a book review he wrote about something other than Syria?

2nd edit:

OS notes that the Clairmont Institute calls Morris "Israel's most contentious historian" (implying that he is not reliable). What makes Morris contentious (particularly to a conservative think tank) is that he is one of the leading New Historians who question Israel's traditional historical narrative. Again, this is common knowledge to anyone who is familiar with the scholarship.
OS then attempts to impinge on Morris' scholarship based on a newspaper interview and OS's opinion thereof. I challenge him to take Morris to RS/N and see if anyone, including pro-P editors, think he is not a high quality RS.
OS appears to be saying Leslie Stein is not a reliable source and is a "partisan apologist for Israel", linking to the RS/N discussion which doesn't seem to support his conclusion that Stein is not RS.
OS continues by trying to pass a positive review of Pappe's book as "neutral" (I doubt that's what NPOV is about).
But the piece de resistance is OS's opinion one what JJG's username sounds like when you "sound it out slowly", and what that implies. Someone has Jews on the brain apparently. Here's an alternative explanation - JJG likes Jiujitsu but doesn't edit articles on martial arts. Occam's razor says...?

In summary, OS is apparently not well versed in who the leading scholars of the history of the IP conflict are. He obviously has a very partisan outlook regarding which sources should be considered reliable, based on his political opinion (which he is not shy about, as can be seen by the diff I posted in his section above). This colors his "analysis" throughout. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Brewcrewer

Sanctioning JGG for this complaint will create a disturbing precedent. This is as close as possible to a simple content dispute. The edit was clearly silly, but the usual consensus of editors that did not make that one judgement mistake ruled the day. No harm resulted, and that's exactly the way things are supposed to play out where volunteer editors are using their editorial judgement. A sanction here will be a sanction for poor judgement, something AE was clearly never intended for, and will cause a chilling effect here on Wikipedia. Editors will be afraid to make reliably sourced albeit controversial edits lest they be dragged to AE on the grounds that the edit was not sound. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jiujitsuguy

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

I'm not too familiar with the history of Jiujitsuguy, so I will have to look into that more, but the above doesn't look too good. Given the history of sanctions, I would think that to include material like that he would want to bring it up on the talkpage first. Obviously awaiting Jiujitsuguy's response before trying to pin down how long any sort of sanction would be. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelNetzer I'm fully aware that discussion is only required when an edit is contested; however, given his history of sanctions I would expect him to be more circumspect, especially given the potentially inflammatory nature of his addition. I'm finding it hard to believe that he wouldn't have expected someone to contest it, and the best thing to do when making a potentially controversial edit after having been sanctioned for making similar edits would be to discuss it first. That way, he probably could have avoided ending up here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from JJG before anything is decided, but the above amply demonstrates the kind of battleground mentality the topic area would be better off without. The edit-warring and selective quoting of sources to effectively skew the facts, taken together with the long history of sanctions and block of which JJG has been the subject would suggest a long topic ban is in order. It seems little has changed of JJG's attitude over the past few years, except that he has learned to play the game well enough to avoid being sanctioned for any one edit. His attitude is not completely out of the ordinary, but many of those with similar attitudes are currently blocked or topic-banned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @JJG: The thrust of the complaint is not the verifiability of the claim that ex-Nazis were involved, but the neutrality of it when you didn't think to mention the British, American, or Yugoslav participants that were referenced on the very same page. But you're a clever guy, you knew that. You've also failed to address the combative reverting and general battleground mentality I raised concerns about. So let me ask you a direct question: how does the Israel-Palestine topic area benefit from your presence? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - OK, I missed that you noted the Yugoslavs as well, my apologies. I still think your conduct in reverting leaves a lot to be desired—re-adding content you know is controversial without first gaining consensus is never a good idea, regardless of whether it violates a technical restriction on number of reverts. I also think you're smart enough to know that adding the Nazi flag to such an article is likely to be seen as provocative.
      I think you would benefit from voluntarily taking a break from the topic area for a few weeks, and I'm still thinking of proposing that you should be obliged to explain your reasons for any revert both in an edit summary and on the talk page, but hat could take the form of a voluntary agreement rather than a formal sanction. Other than that, I would suggest that you try very hard to act collegialy and avoid being seen to act combatively, because the more combative you're seen as being, the more likely you are to find yourself in the dock here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rockefeller edit is stale and I'm not even sure why it was even mentioned in this context. I concur with ZScarpia's corrected comment, to me this flag stuff is nonsense and JJG knows it and knows it's the kind of thing he needs to stay away from. I concur with HJM's original comment, there is little else we can do here but long term or indefinite TBAN. With regard to asad, I don't agree with his synthesis of what happened in JJG's last case here or making reference to me without at least letting me know about it. --WGFinley (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are times when I would love to just gather up the regulars here and ban them from the I/P topic area. I'm not convinced that JJG should escape this thread without sanction, but topic bans are blunt instruments. Perhaps a more refined sanction, like a 0RR, a requirement to discuss all reverts or something else that might address the problems complained about here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Ex-Nazi edit is plainly tendentious. (And yes, tendentious editing is a conduct issue that is within the jurisdiction of AE.) I think a topic ban is appropriate. @HJ: Sometimes blunter is better. Just look at the track record of the relatively "refined" community sanctions at issue in the Betacommand case. Besides, how do you craft a sanction that addresses tendentious editing without excluding the editor from the topic area outright anyway? T. Canens (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor For Consensus

It seems to me JJG missed the initial point about the use of the Nazi flag, seems to be clear to him now. I want to AGF he is being honest about that but his history is less than clean from the ban. He appears to have reliable sources to back up his position but went about it in a completely wrong way. I would suggest some leeway was given in a similar circumstance about inserting "Palestinian" in various articles and categories, perhaps a similar remedy could be crafted here banning the editing of belligerents and use of flags for 6 months with the understanding the next infraction will be a long term TBAN. --WGFinley (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd be fine with that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)~~ In light of what OhioStandard points out above, I see something a lot more problematic at work here. Getting overly focused on the Nazi flag issue will prevent us from seeing the forest for the trees. I think a topic ban of some long length would be called for at this point, as I can clearly see from OhioStandard's comments above that there's a level of tendentiousness I missed before. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Palestine is one of those topic areas that provokes extremely strong feelings in a lot of people. Those strong feelings have a tendency to blind each party to the potential that the other may be acting in good faith, and they can drive editors to do things that, outside of such areas, they would never normally contemplate. Thus, I think some editors are just not suited to edit in areas where they have such strong feelings. In Israel–Palestine, there are several (some of whom are currently on long-term topic bans), and I think JJG is perhaps one of them. As much I dislike the lack of sophistication in a blanket topic ban, I'm recommending a topic ban of no fixed duration, but to be reviewed after six months. Alternatively, if JJG were willing to step away voluntarily for six months, I would be willing to consider it a gentlemen's agreement, rather than a formal sanction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This case has gone on long enough, there seems to be a consensus of opinion that a long-term TBAN is in order and I was not totally adverse to that myself. The time has come, indefinite TBAN which can be reconsidered at a later date after harmonious editing elsewhere in the project. --WGFinley (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yfever

Yfever (talk · contribs) warned. of R-I General Sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Yfever

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Professor marginalia (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Discretionary sanctions warning for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

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

Activity SPA

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor was advised in Dec by Aprock [18] who is not an admin. The involved articles continue to be plagued by gaming and proxy editing on behalf of topic banned editors following the arbitration decision, and just one of the games has been to cry foul with the "nobody warned me first" defense. Besides the SPA pattern evident in the edit history, I have other reasons for being very concerned this is another new proxy account recruited to take over where others left off. I'm asking that an official notification be issued by an admin so there is no unresolved ambiguity over procedural enforcement.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Yfever#Arbitration enforcement

Discussion concerning Yfever

Re T.C.: Race and intelligence, which is an area that OBVIOUSLY needs more agenda driven single purpose editors. I wonder which banned editor influenced this individual to come and refight old battles. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yfever

Comments by others about the request concerning Yfever

WP:ARBR&I is the applicable case, I believe. I have no prior involvement in any of this, for the record, just following the trail from DRV. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a checkuser report on this user at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev as a precaution because of intervening edits to Compensatory education by an obvious ipsock of Mikemikev. In the meantime, I think this type of editing reminds me more of Rrrrr5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He was identified as a usurper of the administrator account Spencer195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't quite know how this can be checked. Mathsci (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a historic link to the checkuser case where some of the problems with this user's edits are mentioned. Mathsci (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley, the remedy proposed is not a sanction, but rather to officially notify the user of WP:ARBR&I. aprock (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but that didn't really need an AE report, any editor can do the notification. --WGFinley (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Yfever

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

Which arbitration decision are we talking about here? T. Canens (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hipocrite & Tarc: Yeah, I see it now. When I made that comment above the request didn't contain any reference to an arbitration case. It was subsequently added. T. Canens (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being an SPA in an and of itself is not subject to sanction, it's something to consider when accounting for behavior. We need some illustrations (diffs) of behavior that is subject to sanction to take any action. --WGFinley (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sander Säde

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

Request concerning Sander Säde

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

As a result of this I am banned from interacting with ANY member of the EEML, not just those who are banned from interacting with me.
I brought attention to the weird sanction placed on me yet not on other EEML members here. My concern back then, and still is today, is that editors can game this one-sided interaction ban as a battleground tool to sideline editors from articles and discussions. I can provide recent examples where this has occurred.
Carcharoth (talk · contribs) posts a response, which from that day forward I have used in my interactions on WP---comment on content, not on the editor.
User:Fuseau posts problems with an article here
I post some comments in relation to Fuseau's comments.
Sander Sade posts a comment requesting a scholarly source which states specific information.
I post such a source because I have the source and am familiar with the source and the subject. Nothing in that violates "comment on content, not on the editor".
I post information which is not directed at Sander Sade, but at readers in general, and anyone who has any clue on this area will see that it is making the point that think-tanks and organisations with an agenda (social, political, economic, etc), and even though they may well be widely cited, their agenda that they are driving should be noted (using the "absolute joke" examples I made mention of), and that actually scholarly analysis is freely available and should be more highly considered. This is clearly commenting on content.
Sander Sade posts a response to me, and finishes with "Also, Russavia, isn't your interaction ban still active?"
The desired effect is achieved by Sander Sade, and I have removed myself (without comment) from any further participation on this article talk page. This is even though my comments are focussed entirely on content and are clearly targetted at article improvement, and I make no comments on editors. This self-removal of myself from the article within my area of interest (foreign relation of Russia) is done to prevent an editor such as Sander Sade using this as a reason to report me to AE; this is something that does occur and is a problem. It is wrong that editors get to effectively "topic" or "article" ban myself through using an interaction ban as a weapon.
Sander Sade all but accuses me and another editor of sockpuppetry. This is a demonstration of bad faith against both me and Fuseau, and it is an accusation that is without basis nor evidence, and for which I have no right of reply except for this request. The accusation is also highly problematic because Fuseau is doing a great job providing counter-arguments to editors on the article talk page, and Sander Sade is clearly trying to bait Fuseau, whilst also attacking myself after I have been evicted from the article by Sander's Sade invocation of the interaction ban.

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

Warned on 9 December 2007 by Thatcher131 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am requesting that Sander Sade be given an analogous interaction ban as has been placed on me at Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted. i.e.

Sander Sade is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.

Only then am I going to be able to return to the article talk page and continue to engage in content discussion.

I am also posting this AE request to Carcharoth's talk page, because I would like specific input from Carcharoth on this suggestion of theirs, and whether my actions and Sander Sade's actions on the talk page are within the spirit of their suggestion. This is particularly important because the Arbcom themselves have stated many times in the past that interaction bans are never supposed to prevent creation of content, and creation of content requires discussion. It is impossible to engage in article creation/expansion/etc when editors are being sidelined by nefarious use of an interaction ban when that was never the intent of the ban in the first place.

I am only presenting evidence relating to myself, other editors may have problematic edits from Sander Sade which need looking at too. I will also leave it up to admins to see if any further sanction may be required for what is clear battleground behaviour by Sander Sade. The issue of Eastern European topics being an editorial battleground is a long fraught problem.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Sander Sade informed [19]
I have notified Fuseau of this discussion also as a courtesy [20]

Discussion concerning Sander Säde

Statement by Sander Säde

Sigh. How badly it is possible to misconstrue what happened?

"Also, Russavia, isn't your interaction ban still active?" was me asking in good faith if the interaction ban is still active or not - as otherwise we might have yet another enforcement request which ends with Russavia getting an addition to his/her extensive block log. I really would rather not have yet another such episode of wikidrama. I know there was an ArbCom case to remove the interaction bans, supported by all Russavia, Nug and Vecrumba, but as I usually don't follow ArbCom cases, I have no idea if the interaction bans were lifted or not.

"Sander Sade all but accuses me and another editor of sockpuppetry". Uh?! I think the diff shows rather clearly I am saying that I don't think Russavia and Fuseau are the same person - what I am saying is that I haven't seen a scholarly source presented by Fuseau. Having just re-read the whole section, I still cannot find a any scholarly sources whatsoever from Fuseau. Can you please provide the diff with the source, as I might have just missed it completely?

I don't mind the interaction ban. I usually don't edit the same pages as Russavia, so it would have a very little effect. I was hoping to get help from Russavia with an article about a historian Anatoli Razumov, but perhaps there is someone else who could help?

--Sander Säde 14:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuseau: an article by Natalia Narochnitskaya on a random webpage as a scholarly source? I hope it is just a really tasteless joke. Can you at least show me how that article passed peer review and is published by a reputable scientific source? --Sander Säde 17:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Sander Säde

Comment by Vecrumba

I strongly urge that interaction bans in the Baltic/EE/Soviet legacy space be lifted, as they have been interpreted consistently as meaning something other than (mutually) "editor A discussing editor B and not their edits" and other than "editor A contacting editor B on their talk page"—which is only what they should be. And even there, editor A should be able to address editor B with regard to the content of an edit at an article where both are active, and to revert or change each other's edits, as in any other content-based interaction.

Either vacate all the bans or interpret interaction bans in a manner which promotes collegial and cooperative conduct between the parties involved. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrik et al., I would appreciate some thoughts on a strict interpretation of interaction bans, i.e., stay off each other's user talk pages and not discuss each other (i.e., discuss the editor and not the content); but that all normal interactions having to do with content are permitted. Anything else has the effect of granting a party de facto ownership and, by a participating in any venue, the effect of a party's participation being misconstrued as an act of attempted ownership, and any manner of interaction, no matter how innocuous, being taken as violations or attacks. Thanks. Quite frankly I am tired of a setup which has become nothing but a soapbox inviting editors to eviscerate other editors.

Is there some reason there's no appetite for taking the advice (my perception) of participants in conflicts as to what actions would ameliorate circumstances? I've made suggestions for years on substantive actions to take to disarm combatants and all I ever hear is crickets chirping.

PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fuseau

diff requested by Sander Säde. I hope he doesn't dispute that a degree of Doktor nauk shows the author to be a scholar.--Fuseau (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute. Many politicians have doctoral degrees, and politicians are by definition politically biased. --Nug (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nug

I see no issue with any of Sander Säde's talk page comments. I also note that Sander is not subject to any interaction ban, and there is no reason for one to be imposed as he does not have a history of submitting vexatious AE reports as a way of winning content disputes or perpetuating past conflicts. --Nug (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Greyhood

In the discussion in question, Sander Säde has made this rather problematic comment. Supposedly it indicates that only fringe elements in Russian society ("Russian ultranationalists, skinheads and conspiracy theorists") would disagree with Freedom House (an organisation criticized by many countries and respectable persons, including Noam Chomsky), or that me or perhaps other participants of the discussion are representing or supporting the views of those fringe elements in Russian society. This is could be a violation of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned. GreyHood ^Talk 20:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Estlandia

Right now I don't see a reason to admonish one side (Sander Säde). It is just a discussion regarding a content dispute. It looks like one side tries to circumvent the discussion and enforce their view by gaining administrative sanctions against their opponents - which seems unlikely to happen. I don't know if Russavia's interaction ban is still alive or is applicable in this case, but the diff he presented here doesn't show any violation of wiki policies. How did Sander's question violate any policy? Neither does this diff reveal actual accusations of sock puppetry. In sum, there is nothing that warrants sanctioning the party reported here. Estlandia (dialogue) 10:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Seems to me like Russavia is using this AE request as a backdoor to amending the Arbitration case, by violating the restriction he wants to amend. It stretches credulity to accept Russavia's argument that he was not talking to Sander Sade in this instance. His comment is immediately after Sander's and is plainly responding to Sander's comments. This is clearly an interaction and thus a violation. If he objects to the sanction Russavia should be presenting this at Requests for Amendment or filing an appeal. Violating it and then using an editor's reaction to that violation as cause for incrementally implementing the desired change by requesting that admins impose an interaction ban is disruptive. More to the point, having a one-way interaction ban made into a mutual interaction ban is a common-sense amendment that I think most admins would support. There is no good reason to piggyback off an AE request to achieve it and doing so just seems like an effort to make a point.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sander Säde

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

The diffs presented in this case are in my opinion not sufficient to establish conduct that warrants sanction. I would be inclined to close this case without any action than a general whack on the head on all involved to start valuing neutrality over nationality and refraining from continuing to lob potshots at each other. (The participants, being veterans at this, are no doubt used to such admonishments however). henrik•talk 20:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only of the particular comment that prompted this AE thread, I would say that it does not, in and of itself, justify a sanction, but it is unnecessarily hostile and combative, and not to the standard we should be expecting of any editor, much less those involved in contentious areas subject to arbitration remedies. I recommend Sander Säde be admonished not to unnecessarily comment on editors with whom he disagrees, and Russavia in particular. I would also remind him that repeatedly side-tracking discussions to talk about editors with whom he disagrees may result in sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do these admonishments ever do anything? T. Canens (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SonofSetanta

SonofSetanta (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles and spaces concerning The Troubles broadly construed as well as participating at AE (other than to appeal this ban) for 90 days. --WGFinley (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning SonofSetanta

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SonofSetanta (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

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

16:06, 23 January 2012 Revert 1
13:37, 24 January 2012 Revert 2, within 24 hours of revert 1 thus breaking the 1RR ruke
13:09, 25 January 2012 Revert 3, within 24 hours of revert 2 breaking the 1RR rule again

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

Not needed, been blocked twice for breaching this sanction, including a one week block which expired only days ago.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SonofSetanta has previously been blocked by a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71#SonofSetanta for edit warring over content including the piece of text he just added back, as can be seen at this revert, this revert and this revert. The original wording was:

George Lapsley, a World War Two veteran (as can be seen by the decorations he wears) who had been a Troop Commander in the Coleraine Battery of the Territorial Army. His occupation was as the headmaster of a local primary school. With his previous military experience he was deemed fit to command and was appointed as Company Commander, E Coy, 5 UDR in Coleraine.

The current wording (exlucind the irrelevant Major, just as I excluded the irrelevant prefix text in the original version) is:

George Lapsley from St Jonston in County Donegal was a World War Two veteran who had been a Troop Commander in the Coleraine Battery of the Territorial Army. His occupation was headmaster of a local primary school. With his previous military experience he was given command of E Coy, 5 UDR in Coleraine

Pretty much word for word the same, and since it's the same editor there can't be any disupute he knew it had been in the article before. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This editor has been warned about his behaviour by admins recently for provoking edit warring on the Ulster Defence Regiment article and was clearly warned by User:Elen_of_the_Roads to stop asserting that I am a reincarnation of another editor". Could anyone point me to these warnings (plural, since more than one admin is referred to) I have received about my behaviour, and could anyone also point me to where I even said anything about him being a reincarnation recently? I can only assume he is referring to the text "since it's the same editor" which doesn't refer to anyone except SonofSetanta, since all I am doing is saying the same editor reverted to add back the same material in 2010. Obviously someone needs to check diffs more carefully before making accusations.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Here

Discussion concerning SonofSetanta

Statement by SonofSetanta

This editor has been warned about his behaviour by admins recently for provoking edit warring on the Ulster Defence Regiment article and was clearly warned by User:Elen_of_the_Roads and User:EdJohnston @ [[21]]to stop asserting that I am a reincarnation of another editor. This editor is gaming. The information provided by me was in good faith and is very relevant to the article. The book used to source the information was only printed in 2010 and wasn't in my possession until a week ago so I can't be the person who posted the original information twice. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Murry. The disputed content in this case is not the subject of any RfC. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellen. I wasn't a member a year ago so it couldn't have been me who put in the original text. I have not included this information before. I simply added a bit of text. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning SonofSetanta

Comment by Murry1975

SonofSetanta has just come back from a week long block for edit warring on the UDR article this added to this[22] 48 hour block for edit warring on the UDR article. He has called for an RfC on this article and for discussions on the talk page [23] "I'm quite happy to wait for more opinions" and sidestepped these and called for quick edits instead [24] "I think it should happen today". The RfC runs for a month only one editor who has not edited the article previous has came forward through the RfC not that it is a given to wait for completion.Murry1975 (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Elen of the Roads

Note that while I did warn a lot of people a while ago to stop calling each other sockpuppets, I can't see anywhere here that anyone is doing that. Hackney seems to be saying that SonofSetanta had previously added the same text last week, so putting it back after someone removed it this week was a revert. Hackney, I'm not seeing where you/whoever removed that sentence prior to 23rd Jan - can you point me to the diff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Devil's Advocate. Indeedy, thanks. So SonofSetanta had added it a year and more ago as part of a larger edit, it got taken out pretty well immediately by Mo Einm, added back by SoS, taken out again by Domer, and presumably stayed out of the article until Monday, when SoS put it back in again. Odd that he would say he didn't, when the wording is so similar it's either a copyvio or a resurrection. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mo Ainm, he has indeed [25], just inside 24 hours. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

I think he means this edit: [26]. One of the changes made there was to include this paragraph, though it was in a different section. However, I don't see any discussion where that specific insertion saw objections before. Seems like it was simply reverted because it was part of other changes the editor had made. Restoring the part of a reverted edit that saw no prior objections does not, in my opinion, constitute a revert.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mo ainm

SonofSetanta has just reverted again, making any discussion about whether the first revert was in fact a revert moot as the second and third reverts are clear reverts. Mo ainm~Talk 13:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning SonofSetanta

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

The diffs prove out the violations, that and the WP:BOOMERANG below, and prior history of blocks in this subject area which demonstrate his familiarity with the Troubles decision, has earned SonofSetanta (talk · contribs) a 90-day TBAN. --WGFinley (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
90 days sounds about right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One Night in Hackney

Closed without action per case above. --WGFinley (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning One Night in Hackney

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SonofSetanta (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: One Night In Hackney (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

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

24/01/12 This editor is stalking and removing content without any prior discussion.
24/1/12 This editor is reverting without explanation on a very sensitive board which is subject to sanction.
Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Warned on 12/01/12 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) Name of administrator who imposed warning 1
Warned on 11/01/12 by Elen_of_the_Roads (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has reverted information at Ulster Defence Regiment in contravention of advice given by admins that all reversions should be discussed and agreed by concensus. The editor did not discuss this on the board. It is suspected that this editor is part of a tag team and that other editors who support him will now revert the information thus trying to keep ownership of the article and provoking an edit war. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Added This editor's behaviour is spurious in the extreme and this warring on the UDR article is part of a larger strategy to prevent articles on the Irish Troubles from being editied with a neutral POV. The policy seems to be remove and reduce anything which is favourable towards the subject and that is what is happening. Major George Lapsley is an Irish citizen who joined the British Army and Ulster Defence Regiment. Hackney disputed this information should be there although why I cannot understand as it is very relevant to the article. He removed the information on the grounds that the reference was not verbatim. Another reference was found "within Wikipedia" to support what he wanted but I suspect the information will soon be removed on another pretext because apparantly it has been removed by the cabal before which his complaint against me highlights.[reply]

@WGFinley. The reuest from RepublicanJacobite tp see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKernel_Saunters&diff=prev&oldid=472979133 here does not refer to any of the subject matters being discussed at AE but instead to a discussion about the "background" section which Kernal Sanders will be posting. There is no boomerang beecause I posted my complaint at the same time. I am a very slow editor and didn't realise that this Hackney chap was posting a complaint about me at the same time on thse very spurious grounds. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:One_Night_In_Hackney#Warning

Discussion concerning One Night In Hackney

Statement by One Night In Hackney

Frivolous. The diffs at the time of typing refer to two different articles. The revert on the UDR article is a revert of where SonofSetanta attempts to add back material deleted over a year ago, and his edit warring in relation to this is the subject of a report on this very board. As for the Baxter article, John Potter is not the "UDR historian", or certainly not described as a historian by any reliable sources. The idea that I am not allowed to fix policy violations by making a single edit to an article is a tendentious one, and SonofSetanta should cease trying to guard his policy violating edits by making frivolous reports. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed my edit summary of rm unsourced and incorrect assertion is incorrect as Flexdream alleges, and the information is in the source cited "i.e. Potter's book entitled "A Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1969 - 1992"" (page 132 the footnote quite clearly says by the way) perhaps Flexdream would be so good as to provide a quote from page 132 that sources the text in the article as he alleges? Could he also explain why if page 132 sources the text as he alleges, SonofSetanta had to make these edits claiming a totally different page in the book sourced the text? (It doesn't by the way, just for your information). Or, since none of that will be happening any time soon, perhaps Flexdream would be prepared to admit he hasn't read the book (I can provide a diff from yesterday that confirms that if you really want?) and accept that I have a copy of the book and know exactly what it does say on page 132, and page ix for that matter? Morals of that story - putting a footnote at the end of a sentence doesn't mean everything in the sentence is necessarily sourced, and people who don't even know what the book says shouldn't rush to judgment.

As for the "doubt", you'll find the "doubt" was very well-founded. You see if we rewind all the way back to 3 November 2008 we'll find the virtually identical text in the article, whereas the new source added was published on 18 March 2010. I note you have conveniently "forgotten" to add the rather salient "especially due to the footnote placement" part of my edit summary). The text added read:

Major George Lapsley from St Jonston in County Donegal [footnote] was a World War Two veteran who had been a Troop Commander in the Coleraine Battery of the Territorial Army. His occupation was headmaster of a local primary school. With his previous military experience he was given command of E Coy, 5 UDR in Coleraine

As "was a World War Two veteran who had been a Troop Commander in the Coleraine Battery of the Territorial Army. His occupation was headmaster of a local primary school. With his previous military experience he was given command of E Coy, 5 UDR in Coleraine" isn't apparently covered by the footnote, it's very important to include my edit summary in full. The new source (whose footnote wasn't even placed in a place which suggested it sourced any of the text after "County Donegal") wasn't even published when the text was originally in the article, yet we are expected to believe it just happens to source word for word the text that was there? I say "word for word" as there are no real differences between the two versions of the text, only minor cosmetic details. So yes, anyone fully aware of the facts would have quite understandable "doubt" about which part of that sentence is actually sourced by the book in question, due to the footnote placement and the publication date.

In summary, Flexdream knows little about my edits or the sources and has made a series of incorrect assumptions. He is correct about one thing though, I am focussing solely on the 1RR breach as that's the sanction that's been broken. Even if SonofSetanta's edits were correct (which they aren't), he's breached 1RR. The same can't be said of me, given the two diffs refer to two different articles and one of them isn't even a revert. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning One Night In Hackney

Comment by Murry1975

Of the examples given one is on the UDR article, one is on the Harry Baxter article, so what is the breach of guidelines? The warning given is about sockpuppet accusations which doesnt relate to either edit and hasnt been mentioned or asserted. A waste of time being brought here in my opinion.Murry1975 (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SonofSetanta, where it asks about warnings, it means has the user been warned that there is an active Arbitration Enforcement that he is at risk of falling foul of. Not has there been some general admin banter about behaviour. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Flexdream

Edit 1 - Harry Baxter: One Night In Hackney removed '(the UDR historian)' as 'unsourced and incorrect assertion'. The source was cited, i.e. Potter's book entitled "A Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1969 - 1992" and 'UDR historian' seems a fair description of someone who writes the 'Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment'. To say it is 'incorrect' is simply an assertion. Setanta has started a discussion on Potter Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Major_John_Potter and One Night In Hackney could contribute to that. I see no policy violation by Setanta and nothing misleading or unhelpful in describing Potter as 'the UDR historian'.

Edit 2 - UDR: One Night In Hackney removed all mention of Major Lapsley as he had 'doubt all the additional text is sourced'. 'Doubt' seems insufficient, when the additional text is not controversial or irrelevant and I am puzzled why anyone would choose to remove mention of Lapsley. I see no policy violation in adding this content. As there is no article page for Major Lapsley the UDR article seems appropriate.

One Night In Hackney has raised previous cases against Setanta, which seem to be based on the 1RR rule, not on the content of edits. Setanta is trying to add useful content to articles with sources and shows a willingness to discuss and consider content on the article talk pages. Guidance on commenting edits and when to discuss on talk pages might be useful.--Flexdream (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RepublicanJacobite

WGFinley see here, Hackney said he was waiting for the finished draft before commenting, which is not unreasonable. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SonofSetanta. How is he supposed to take part in a non-existent discussion? Did you start a discussion after your edit was reverted? No, you just edit warred to add it back. I see multiple discussions started by Hackney on the talk page about edits he's made with detailed explanations. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning One Night In Hackney

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

I don't see any violations in these edits this appears to be a clear boomerang from above to me. ONIH does need to participate in the discussion though and not do all his explanation in edit notes, I would consider an admonishment there. --WGFinley (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WGFinley, this should be closed as frivolous just like the thread below. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mo ainm

WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED; further discussion about SonofSetanta should take place in the thread above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Mo ainm

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SonofSetanta (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mo ainm (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

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

25/01/12 This diff shows that by subterfuge the editor has tried to get around the 1RR restriction by reverting four passages at once. He has no explanation which would be inline with Military Task Force thinking or with recommendations on the UDR article.
Date Explanation
Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Warned on Date by Name of administrator who imposed warning 1 (talk · contribs)
Warned on Date by Name of administrator who imposed warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor is part of an editing cabal who try to frustrate other editors wishing to improve articles which touch on the Irish Troubles. In this case you can see he tried to harden up the text about "killings" and removed an insert by me, properly sourced, about how women were more suitable as radio operators. There is no explanation for this other than to suggest the editor is gaming. Given that others in the cabal have made appearances on the page and similarly tried to frustrate edits by myself and others I believe it can be assumed this article is currently a target and will remain so whilst anyone tries to edit. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WG Finlay. Yes the diffs show where the information removed was sourced by ME. I put the information in, Mo Aimh removed it. 4 reverts in one edit, without reason and without benefit to the article - so why would you suggest a 90 day ban for me? Furthermore I am not aware of editing anything since I posted this report. (apologies if my memory is wrong). SonofSetanta (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@BorisG> What do you mean most diffs are broken links? I provided one link only and it's working fine. Are you suggesting that I should receive sanctions for that? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mo_ainm#Warning

Discussion concerning Mo ainm

Statement by Mo ainm

A bizare report. Between his revert at 13:37 and 17:17 yesterday, a number of changes were made to the article, the majority of them by SonofSetanta. I disagreed with some, but not all, of the changes for a variety of reasons, which I explained here. For example as I point out on the talk page the information about Greenfinches and radios was already in the article, the text reads "Through time the role of women was expanded as it was realised that their higher pitched voices were more suited to radio transmission than men". Therefore the claim that "He has no explanation which would be inline with Military Task Force thinking or with recommendations on the UDR article" is false as I posted to the talk page before reverting SonofSetanta's changes, and fully explained why I "removed an insert by me, properly sourced, about how women were more suitable as radio operators".

SonofSetanta's response to this has been to post here saying "I happen to disagree so the information will be put back the way it was. Anyone who wants it removed should seek concensus here". This is turning consensus upside down, his changes to the article were reverted by me, therefore it's him who needs to seek consensus. "I happen" to disagree" is not even an adequate response to my reasons either, and his post was followed by a 1RR breaching revert.

I am perplexed by this report, is SonofSetanta planning to file AE reports every time anyone reverts one of his edits? Mo ainm~Talk 13:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

Obviously bad faith report. No sanctionable contduct has been reported. Most diffs are broken links. User:SonofSetanta should be sanctioned. - BorisG (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Mo ainm

Comment by RepublicanJacobite

As Mo ainm has said both here and on the article's talk page, the sourced information being talked about ("removed an insert by me, properly sourced, about how women were more suitable as radio operators" according to SonofSetanta) was removed because it duplicated existing content. Look at the the Greenfinches section in SonofSetanta's version;

It was then discovered that women's voices projected much better on radio transmissions so women were appointed as radio operators (third paragraph of section)
Through time the role of women was expanded as it was realised that their higher pitched voices were more suited to radio transmission than men (fifth paragraph of section)

I was unaware something being "sourced" was a reason to duplicate content? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Flexdream

This seems to be getting a little out of hand and is distracting from what wikipedia should really be about. I think a 90 ban would be excessive in the circumstances and punitive, but a short cooling off period might help everyone.--Flexdream (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mo ainm

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

This one is completely frivolous and justifies a 90-day TBAN for SonofSetanta (talk · contribs), the diff provided even shows where information in the article was sourced. I am of half a mind to do 90-days simply for invoking the cabal but the bad faith behavior demonstrated here is enough for me. Unless there's a serious admin objection, since the filer has continued to violate 1RR since these were filed I intend to issue the TBAN. --WGFinley (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with WGFinley's assessment of this and will institute such a topic ban myself if WGFinley does not do so in the next day or so. Additionally, I would be inclined to include a ban from filing AE reports concerning other editors for the same duration (obviously this would not proscribe the filing of an appeal). CIreland (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

79.181.167.83 and other ips in the 79.181 range

Page semi-protected, little else can be done with dynamic IP editing. --WGFinley (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning 79.181.167.83

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RolandR (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 79.181.167.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and others

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

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

22:44, 23 January 2012 Removal of image, with incomprehensible explanation
00:15, 25 January 2012‎ First reversion, again with incomprehensible explanation
00:31, 25 January 2012 Second reversion, again with incomprehensible (but apparently untrue) explanation
25 January 2012‎ Third reversion, again with incomprehensible explanation

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

Warned on 00:17, 25 January 2012 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
Warned on 02:18, 25 January 2012 by RolandR (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As well as the IP listed above, this edit has been made by User:79.181.161.119 and User:79.183.171.70. The edit has been challenged and reverted by myself, Malik Shabazz and Sean Hoyland. The explanation offered by this user (clearly the same person, with a dynamic IP) has been bizarre and incomprehensible. Despite a rewuest by Malik, and a warning with detailed explanation from me, the editor has continued to remove this image, and is close to breaching 3rr, let alone 1rr.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[27]], [[28]] and [[29]].

Discussion concerning 79.181.167.83

Statement by 79.181.167.83

Comments by others about the request concerning 79.181.167.83

It's unclear whether this lovely edit by 79.181.150.79 is related. On the plus side, all this did highlight the fact that Salim Tuama, a BLP, had no sources...every cloud... Sean.hoyland - talk 15:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning 79.181.167.83

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

Semi-protecting the page. Since the user seems to be using multiple IPs and is well versed in editing seems to be some anon socking going on. Little else to do given the dynamic IP use. --WGFinley (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Osama57

This request does not appear to be for enforcement of an existing arbitration remedy. General user conduct issues should b brought up at WP:ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Osama57

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Golfballz (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Osama57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Osama57&diff=473263965&oldid=473262602 Explanation
Date Explanation
Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Warned on Date by Name of administrator who imposed warning 1 (talk · contribs)
Warned on Date by Name of administrator who imposed warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Osama57

I've had problems with this user I removed one of his refences in 2010s in fashion which I thought was pointless,especically if it's on Youth hairstyles and you're taking about what women like.He undoes it and then said it's vandlism which it was not. A couple of minutes later I commented on his page telling him to not call someone a vandal just because they don't like a reference and he replays by saying "Go cry emo kid. Nobody likes you." now he's saying i've harassed him go figure.

Statement by Osama57

Instead of providing evidence the emo look is still fashionable (which it isn't) in the article's talk page, he insults me by calling me a troll, and tries to intimidate me by warning me not to "start drama." The link i added (together with a statement by MCR), plus my own observations (hardly any emos left these days and fewer bands making emo music) seem to suggest the subculture is declining. I'm not scared of golfballz's bully-boy tactics and have nothing but contempt for users who resort to threats and unfounded accusations to stifle the views of others because they can't debate like mature adults. He was rude to me, i basically told him to go away as i don't talk to people with no manners. Here's what he posted on my talk page:

Vandalism are you trolling? I was just saying how pointless your reference, especically if it's on Youth hairstyles and you're taking about what women like? please don't try and start drama just because you don't like an edit-Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfballz (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Osama57

Result concerning Osama57

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

Golfballz

See above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning golfballz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Osama57 (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osama57 Accuses me of trolling, harrasses me after i correct his vandalism, and tries to intimidate me by wrongfully reporting me
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010s_in_fashion&oldid=473165242 Vandalises page, removes section on emo fashion declining
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_video_games&oldid=473054680 Making unconstructive edits

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

Warned on Date by Name of administrator who imposed warning 1 (talk · contribs)
Warned on Date by Name of administrator who imposed warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning golfballz

Statement by golfballz

Ok first of all removing a reference is not vandlism like i said above(especically if it's on Youth hairstyles and you're taking about what women like)Just because i think you should of used a better reference does not make me an vandal. I never made a direct personal attack against him. I was just informing him he was in the wrong for calling me a vandal.

Comments by others about the request concerning golfballz

Wrong venue, as there are no arbcom cases covering video games, hairstyles or dancing fashions. Should this not have been reported at WP:ANI if anywhere? Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning golfballz

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta

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

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

Appealing user: SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – SonofSetanta (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: this AE Report

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by SonofSetanta

There has been no attempt at frivolity by me. Mo Aimh made an edit at Ulster Defence Regiment which clearly reverted in one edit four different edits I had made the previous day here - none of which removed anything from the article. [30]. This is a clear breach of the 1RR policy on the article. There is nothing frivolous about that. One Night in Hackney stalked me to the Harry Baxter article to revert text about the Ulster Defence Regiment there without explanation or discussion which I felt was absolutely necessary given the current high feelings about the Ulster Defence Regiment article: that in addition to reverting an edit I made at the UDR article. The banning editor made it clear he was unhappy about the sourced text being removed but seemed to be under the impression that it was I who had reverted it - not true. I made the complaint in good faith, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Mo_ainm.

I fully realise that the situation is confused. By walking into two editing traps I have found myself blocked twice for nothing more than trying to edit an article. There is nothing contentious about my edits and all are sourced but the same couple of editors always step in to remove them and preserve the article as it stands. I am not a very experienced user but do my best on this noticeboard to comply with what is required of me. The truth is I'm very confused about it all. I'm left feeling that I have been successfully gamed again and that fair play hasn't been shown.>

I would like the sanction lifted and the genuine, good faith complaints against Mo Aimh and One Night in Hackey to be looked at afresh. I sincerely feel the wrong editor has received a topic ban.

@HJ Mitchell. In my defence I would ask you to look at my editing history. How many blocks I have received, where and why? My contention would be that I am not a troublemaker. I have an interest in military history and make good edits on Wikipedia in good faith. As far as the Ulster Defence Regiment is concerned though I am not permitted to make any changes it appears. I've not been involved in trouble anywhere else which is why I don't know how to make complaints properly or even fight my own corner. On this board I am lost but no-one seems to be in a mood to assist or even extend good faith to me.

@WG Finlay. I have not posted a complaint in response to any complaint against me. No complaints about me where on the board when I clicked the link to make my own complaint. I am not very good at filling out the complaints forms however and it seems that on two occasions mine have come in second as a result. Had I been faster then it would be the others who would be in this position. Look at the times, that should confirm what I'm saying. I ask you: whatever happened to "extend good faith" and "don't bite new editors"?

@T. Canens. I have already stated that I made no frivolous or vindictive complaints. Please try to extend good faith to me. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@All admins. See post below by Domer48 to illustrate how I have been treated on the several occasions I have tried to edit the UDR article. Always the same people and always preventing me from doing anything - sourced or not.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested. I am still able to edit and post on the UDR discussion page. Is this ban I've been given some kind of voluntry thing on my part?

Statement by Wgfinley

For the record I wasn't notified but the filing party from the previous AE did so.

This case is a result of three different recent closures here at AE, they are listed above but for simplicity here are the three closures:

There was support from multiple admins in all three of these cases for a TBAN of SonofSetanta that the report concerning him/her had evidence of revert violations on Troubles related articles. There was also support from multiple admins (I didn't close the first case) that the cases SonofSetanta filed were frivolous and without merit. Given his/her revert and battleground behavior also evidenced by previous blocks in this topic area, invoking the cabal and filing multiple AE reports in response to an AE report filed against him/her that started this whole spat he/she is entirely deserving of the 90 day ban from Troubles and AE. --WGFinley (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mo ainm

SonofSetanta says "The banning editor made it clear he was unhappy about the sourced text being removed". This refers to a comment he made in his bizarre AE report on me here, which read "and removed an insert by me, properly sourced, about how women were more suitable as radio operators. There is no explanation for this other than to suggest the editor is gaming". Before that AE report by SonofSetanta, I had posted to the article's talk page here regarding this, giving my explanation for the removal of that content as "already covered in the same section". I repeated the same point on the AE report here. RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) went even further than me when replying to the AE report here and pointed out the text of both the original text and the duplicate addition, and pointed out which paragraph they could be found in with a link to the version being talked about. So I don't know why this "he removed sourced content" card is still being played despite it being pointed out not once but three times the information was removed because it was duplicate information. SonofSetanta made a series of new changes to the article. I disagreed with some of them, and I reverted the article once here while keeping the changes I had no problem with, and explained my reasons for doing so on the article's talk page here. SonofSetanta reverted my revert, breaching 1RR in the process. SonofSetanta's post to the article's talk page regarding this is here, and reads "I happen to disagree so the information will be put back the way it was. Anyone who wants it removed should seek concensus here". As I've already said in the original AE report this is turning consensus upside down, Some of SonofSetanta's changes were reverted by me, I explained why, it was up to SonofSetanta to seek consensus for those changes. Instead he didn't take part in the discussion in any meaningful way, he reverted me and filed a bad faith AE report because I had made one revert which I explained on the article's talk page. Mo ainm~Talk 15:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Domer48

SonofSetanta from their first talk page edit way back on the 13 October 2010 requested a mentor. They made the same request on their very first post on an editors talk page, asking that the mentor should have a "neutral point of view." There first edit to the UDR article was to remove a citation tag, and their fourth edit was to add an Attribution needed tag. In their very first talk page post we get the claim that Potter "is the official historian" and the very next day we had the whole " UDR historian" nonsense repeated again, again and then we get what appears to be an exact quote from the Potter book which says that Potter is the "official UDR historian, at the invite of the British MOD." This of course was completely untrue as the book says no such thing. Within three days of starting to edit, they post not only on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard but start treads on both Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and then on the very same day the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard before going onto WikiProject Military history/British military history task force. It won't be the first time that we get the call of help, I'm an inexperienced editor. This editor has been at this since October 2010. They have been making the same claims, starting the same discussions, and claiming inexperience. They understood enough about wiki from the start of their editing so its time to change the record. Asking WG Finlay "whatever happened to "extend good faith" and "don't bite new editors"? is a complete joke. Still claiming that they are new in 2012 and inexperienced is really pushing it. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SonofSetanta

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta

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

Unless there is more to the story than the diffs presented above, I can't see any merit to an appeal of the "verdict", so to speak. The only grounds on which an appeal might succeed would be an appeal of the sanction itself. I see nothing so far that would make me think a 90-day topic ban is unreasonable, but I would be willing to listen to an argument to that effect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original complaints by SonofSentanta are apparently vindictive and at least one is also manifestly frivolous. 90 days is probably lenient. Decline. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2012 (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.

[3] Ian Black, Memories and maps keep alive Palestinian hopes of return. ( The Guardian, 26 November 2010 ).

[4] Review of Efraim Karsh's book, Palestine Betrayed. ( Scoop News, 29 August 2010)

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 926: / Line 926: @@
 @All admins.  See post below by Domer48 to illustrate how I have been treated on the several occasions I have tried to edit the UDR article. Always the same people and always preventing me from doing anything - sourced or not.[[User:SonofSetanta|SonofSetanta]] ([[User talk:SonofSetanta|talk]]) 17:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
+'''Clarification requested.'''  I am still able to edit and post on the UDR discussion page.  Is this ban I've been given some kind of voluntry thing on my part?
 ===Statement by Wgfinley===

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