Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:28, 5 March 2011

WP:AE

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Shrike

Both Shrike (talk · contribs) and Passionless (talk · contribs) placed under various restrictions. T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Shrike

User requesting enforcement: Passionless -Talk 08:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies

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

[1] One in a long list of complete reverts, hours later, Shrike was formally warned of ARBPIA -assumptions of bad faith, edit warring
[2] This revert was made less than 24hours after Shrike's last revert by User:Banu hoshech who was quickly blocked as a suspected sock of Shrike's as seen here-Breaking 1RR.
[3] Reverted my work when I broke no policies -assumptions of bad faith, edit warring
[4] Reverted my work when I broke no policies -assumptions of bad faith, edit warring
[5] Canvassing a few days before warning
[6] Blanking - disruptive, not working towards consensus
[7] One of his first reverts of my work- he called me a vandal in his edit summary. He has also called Pixise a vandal here, and Usama707 a vandal twice- [8], [9], among other editors-[10],[11].-Personal attacks

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

[12] Warning of policies he was breaking on the article Refaat Al-Gammal by Passionless (talk · contribs)
[13] Warning of general disruptive edits by Pexise (talk · contribs)
[14] Warning of calling edits vandalism by Duk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[15] Warning of ARBPIA by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Permanent block, or permanent topic ban, the latter probably more appropriate

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I'm not sure how much detail is needed, so I only posted the diffs that happened after or very soon before his warning from HJ Mitchell. By looking at the revision history of Refaat Al-Gammal, one will see this has been going on between Shrike and I for awhile, and before that between Shrike and Usama707. I realize I was edit warring, but while this was happening I was adding compromise text to the article to try and settle it, I added the sources, [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], shrike demanded even though I can only speak English, and I went to Third Opinion, while I saw absolutely no good faith at all from Shrike. If relevant, but old edits of Shrike's would be appropriate to add, or if you want all reverts done by Shrike to Refaat_Al-Gammal posted here, let me know and I will come back and do that. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 08:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Served

Discussion concerning Shrike

Statement by Shrike

First of all the claims of the User:Passionless are not true there was no edit warring between me and user:Usama707 becouse I accepted his last version.As time passed by various anonymous users deleted the information so I reverted the vandalism then User:Passionless came and reverted me back to the vandal version.[22] deleting all the information and against the consensus that we reached with user:Usama707. The diff that he claims that he proposed as a "compromise" wasn't proposed in talk in any way and there was no discussion about it.Also I tried to incorporate all the sources thatuser:Passionless brought as could be seen in the last version of the article.The claims about that user:Banu hoshech is my sock puppet was based on one edits that he reverted user:Passionless disruptive edits, there were other users that did the same for example [23].It only natural that Israeli(I am not sure if it is) will revert from POV version to more NPOV version on this matter and like I said before he was not the only one

The deletion of material in United Nations Human Rights Council was done after another user [24] deleted part of the subsection so I thought the best alternative would be deletion of the whole subsection and just redirect to the main article.

About the canvassing I was not familiar with the rule and I wasn't aware of it as it was pointed I just wanted to bring other people to the article I understand now it was mistake the way I did it.

The user:Passionless was too warned by ARBPIA [25] for his edit warring [26] The User:Passionless was engaged in edit warring in the same article.[27],[28],[29] and many more as could be seen from the history of the article.

I am asking that if the request is accepted it will be case against User:Passionless too as he broke ARBPIA guidelines.If not I will file separate case latter.--Shrike (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Shrike

Please note I never abused WP:Rollback- each time I used it I was undoing multiple edits and I did leave a message in the talk page each time too. This is in following the guideline- "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". Passionless -Talk 01:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is gaming the topic area? The diffs listed show where I had broken 1RR, than self reverted a minute later, than later reinstated my explained edits. And can someone please tell me what sanctions are against me so I can edit again? Passionless -Talk 06:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the three-month topic ban, Shrike continues to edit on contentious pages, where he has previously edit-warred [30]. RolandR (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not allowed to edit talk pages I will delete what I have written.I want clarification from admins--Shrike (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone my edit if it will be allowed I will re-add it latter.--Shrike (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Passionless have broken sanctions against him[31] and created new I/P article [32] the article should be deleted.Also he tried to circumvent the ban and asked another user to write article for him [33].--Shrike (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions have been changed since that old diff Shrike...and when I asked NightW to help write I only meant write, I was begging anyone to help me write until the end,[34].Passionless -Talk 20:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are both blocked for 1 week for violating your topic bans, not even 24 hours after they were instated. It's rare to see that kind of disregard for discretionary sanctions, but there ya' go. AGK [•] 23:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shrike

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

The ArbCom remedy that authorises discretionary sanctions for this topic area requires that any editor sanctioned must first be notified that that remedy exists. Shrike and Passionless have both been notified as such[35][36]. The edit warring over the ABC reference and the POV tag between Shrike and Passionless is damaging to this article and is not how we edit on Wikipedia—and especially on a contested topic such as Palestine–Israel. The result of this request is that I am banning both editors from editing this topic, for a period of three months. AGK [•] 00:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request primarily concerns long-term edit warring on the Refaat Al-Gammal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. To somewhat simplify consideration of the matter, I'm considering only edits made in 2011, except to the extent that older edits are considered when needed for contextual purposes and in determination of sanctions. There appear to have been a series of reverts made by Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Passionless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

In this edit on 15 January 2011, Shrike reverts the article to an version they edited on 16 September 2009 (See [37]) using an edit summary of "Restored deleted information". The revert was performed indiscriminately, as evidenced by the fact that it removed the {{PERSONDATA}} information, the "See also" section, an interwiki link, and changed section title "In popular culture" to "In Popular Culture" in contravention of the Manual of Style.
The interwiki link was subsequently restored by a bot. On 17 January 2011, Passionless reverted Shrike's edit with the summary "bad format, spelling, and changed facts". This was followed by a series of reverts: Shrike, 18 January 2011, Passionless, 7 February 2011, Shrike, Passionless (using rollback)
At this point Shrike added a {{POV}} tag to the article.
Then, Why Me Why U (talk · contribs) (which I just blocked as a sock/meatpuppet per WP:DUCK) made an edit that was essentially the same as Shrike's previous version with only certain minor differences.
This is followed by a series of reverts, with occasional intervening edits that are subsequently reverted: Passionless, Shrike, Passionless, Shrike, Passionless, Shrike, Passionless, Banu hoshech, Passionless, Shrike, Passionless, Shrike. Each user reverted 6 times in a 7-day period.

A sockpuppet investigation concludes that Banu hoshech (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a sockpuppet of Shrike (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) based on behavioral evidence, which was not contradicted by technical evidence. Having reviewed the matter, I concur that it is more likely than not that Banu hoshech is either a sockpuppet of Shrike, or someone acting in concert with Shrike.

I conclude that both parties have engaged in sanctionable misconduct.

Shrike (talk · contribs) has abused multiple accounts, used inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete edit summaries ([38][39]), made spurious allegations of vandalism ([40]), made indiscriminate reverts to his preferred version from 2009 without regard to intervening changes ([[41]), and engaged in long-term sustained edit warring (diffs linked above; see also pre-2011 edit warring on the same article), in contravention of WP:SOCK, WP:EDITSUMMARY, WP:VAND, WP:NPA, WP:EW and WP:OWN.
Passionless (talk · contribs) has engaged in sustained edit warring, misused the rollback tool on edits that are not clearly vandalism ([42][43][44]), and attempted to game the topic-area 1RR ([45][46][47]).

In addition, Shrike (talk · contribs) has also engaged in edit warring on the United Nations Human Rights Council article ([48][49][50]) and has a history of edit warring, dating to at the latest 2007, in this topic area (e.g.,[51][52][53]).

Accordingly, unless another uninvolved administrator objects, I intend to impose the following sanctions per WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:

For Shrike (talk · contribs), a six-month topic ban from the area of conflict, followed by an indefinite topic ban from Refaat Al-Gammal and an indefinite 1RR/week restriction in the area of conflict.
For Passionless (talk · contribs), ~~a three-month ban from the area of conflict, followed by a three-month 1RR/week restriction.~~ a three-month topic ban from Refaat Al-Gammal, with a concurrent six-month 1RR/week restriction in the entire area of conflict.

T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what happened there: I didn't get an edit-conflict notice when I posted that most recent comment of mine, and I didn't notice yours until I'd banned both editors and logged my decision. I would have deferred to your judgment had I read your comment before instating my bans. I am happy to combine your proposed sanction with mine, or to remove my sanctions and allow you to apply yours. Please accept my apologies, T. Canens. AGK [•] 00:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yet another case of the broken edit conflict resolution system :| I'm amending my proposal slightly - and it looks like my revised proposal pretty much subsumes the ones you imposed, with the exception of Passionless (unlike Shrike, the disruption seems to be more limited in that case, and I'm willing to see if a page ban could work). Though, I'm interested - do you think mine is too severe? T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that six months is justifiable but perhaps too long for a first sanction. I can be a little eccentric in my choice of terms for topic-bans, though: I tend to be lenient for those who have never before been topic-banned, but severe on those who have previously been topic-banned. So I'll defer to your judgment on the matter of how long Shrike's ban should be. I would agree with your proposal for a 1RR I/P restriction but think it should be for six months (not indefinite), and am fine with the indefinite topic ban but would rather it be limited to five months (ie. two months after his three-month topic ban expires). Just my thoughts; and, as you got here first, I'm happy to lift my sanctions and let you deal with all of this, if that's what you'd prefer. AGK [•] 00:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I generally start from 3 months as well, but Shrike's history is quite bad - well beyond the ordinary first-time offender, and I also do not have much tolerance for socking - speaking of which, I'll add a formal single-account restriction, I think. I think we can consider an appeal (of the 1RR and the limited topic ban) later, if there is good conduct elsewhere, but I don't think it's a good idea to pre-set an expiration date in this instance. If you can lift your set of sanctions, I'd like impose mine. T. Canens (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid confusion, I'll let you simply replace mines with yours; that way the editors won't so much be released of their sanctions then re-sanctioned as have their sanctions modified by another administrator by general agreement. So go ahead and just replace mines with yours on the case page log, and then I think we'll be done here. By the by, I intend to action the above reports of sanction violation. AGK [•] 23:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this. Per AGK's agreement above, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:

Both parties are admonished for using Wikipedia as a battleground, and warned that escalating sanctions may be imposed if the disruption continues.
Shrike (talk · contribs):
- is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, until 00:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC), and thereafter banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions and other content related to Refaat Al-Gammal, broadly construed across all namespaces;
- is limited to one account (the account "Shrike"), and may not edit using any other account, or while logged out;
- is indefinitely limited to one revert per page per 168 hours on all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces.
Passionless (talk · contribs):
- is banned from all articles, discussions and other content related to Refaat Al-Gammal, broadly construed across all namespaces, until 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC);
- is limited to one revert per page per 168 hours on all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, until 00:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
- is admonished for misuse of the rollback tool, and warned that the tool will be removed for future misuse.

These sanctions replaces the three-month topic bans imposed by AGK; the one-week blocks imposed by AGK remains in effect. T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alinor

Banned from editing Kosovo and related articles for 3 months. Sandstein 13:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Alinor

User requesting enforcement: Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBKOS#Modified "Editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in (...) or other disruptive editing,". Also WP:ARBKOS#Kosovo_related_articles_on_Article_probation, Alinor was doing copy/paste moves without consensus in an article under probation.

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

[54] Copy/pasting all of Kosovo into Republic of Kosovo, he undid my revert [55].
[56] Copy/paste 2/3 of Kosovo into Kosovo (region), he undid my revert [57]
1. Alinor was unable to gather consensus in his RfC for a split, but he went ahead and made a copy/paste split, and then he re-made it.

Clarifying:

Original edit, 11:41, 25 February 2011, was reverted;
First revert, 10:34, 26 February 2011
Second revert, 07:35, 27 February 2011
Third revert, 10:04, 28 February 2011

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

[58] Warning by Enric Naval (talk · contribs)
User_talk:Alinor/Archive_1#1RR_violation_on_Kosovo Blocked for 1RR in Kosovo's infoboxes by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Dunno, maybe forbid him from implementing or proposing any Kosovo-related splits or merges?

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Alinor started an RfC about splitting the article, it has 7 options, 6 of them involve splitting the article. Now he is trying to summarize himself the conclusions here. Then he has done these two copy/paste moves. As far I am concerned they are clearly splits from Kosovo, and an implementation of one of the split options in the RfC. Alinor claims that he has performed no splits and no moves, and that it's not necessary that an admin makes a formal closure of the RFC, see here.

A split proposal had already been rejected in August here. A month before Alinor's RfC, there had been an unsuccessful ~~RFC~~ proposal to split the article here. Alinor says that he only wants to clarify the topic of the article, but his new RfC has 7 options to choose from, with only 1 of them not involving an article split.

He had already proposed similar splits in October here. He has rejected all arguments about WP:COMMONNAME, for example here.

So, thia split has been rejected twice already, he didn't get consensus either in his RfC, he has not addressed the arguments against the split, and now he is forcing the split. It is disruptive editing to force your changes when you are unable to get consensus for them.

He claims that this is not a move, but a copy but he has been modifying several redirects to the Kosovo article, so they would point instead to his copy/pasted text in "Republic of Kosovo" [59][60][61][62][63][64] and other 9 redirects.

It seems like all options in Alinor's RfC involved a split. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alinor. Read your own statement here. You labelled option 1 as "no change to status quo. Kosovo topic is RoK+APKiM.", that's why I supported. Now it turns out that the status quo is only kept if you vote option 6, "Kosovo topic to be changed to RoK" which doesn't say anything about status quo, and it actually says that the topic has to be changed.

Now look at your recent comment, you twist the comment made by Fut.Perf to make him support a split, you are telling him that he does want a split, and you forcing him to choose between several splits. This is not a way to gather any consensus, this is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and steamrolling your own opinion. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit made by Alinor only remains in ethe article because Alinor and WhiteWriter have ignored all arguments raised against the change. See the end of Talk:Kosovo#Infoboxes, they just point to this discussion that Alinor and WhiteWriter have flooded with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT comments, stonewalling and claims of consensus and keeping a status quo that was changed after the ICJ's advisory opinion.

(addressing Elinor's arguments) Alinor copy/pasted almost 100% of the text of Kosovo into Republic of Kosovo. It's borders in wikilawyering to claim that the 1RR doesn't apply to the copied article. I just compared the text of "Kosovo" when Alinor made his copy/paste move with Alinor's paste in "Republic of Kosovo" diff for Alinor's changes. One of the changes he made was removing a hidden comment that includes "DO not ENGAGE IN EDIT-WARRING ON THIS ARTICLE or any related articles." (emphasis added) apart from that he only removed 2 infoboxes and he changed the first paragraph). He also removed the hidden comment when creating Kosovo (region) diff and this time he also removes 1 infobox, removes all the politics-related sections, and he doesn't change any text in the lead. Kosovo (region) still has the exact same lead and text as Kosovo except for the removed content changes since Alinor created the copy/paste. And not only Alinor is edit-warring, but he is also using 3RR as an endorsement to make 2 reverts every 24 hours[65]. (I have now copied the hidden comments myself. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

So, Alinor is using WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT all the time, making RfCs into polls, setting up the poll options so they can say whatever he wants, all RfC options supporting his opinion and not giving any option to people who oppose it, twisting the opinions of other editors to claim they support actions that they are complaining about, edit warring in a copy/paste of Kosovo, claiming that he can use 3RR to make 2 reverts/day in an article related to Kosovo... after removing the hidden comment that warns about not edit-warring in articles related to Kosovo. This is the sort of disruption that probation is intended to address. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [66]

Discussion concerning Alinor

Statement by Alinor

First, to make it clear, I haven't made any split/content-move of the Kosovo article. My edit there is [67] - few changes to the navigation templates on top. Following my edits the Kosovo article text (including lead, infoboxes, etc.) remains unchanged and still has its status quo topic "APKiM+RoK", that doesn't make any sense - and that I have proposed multiple times to change to something meaningful. So, I haven't changed anything in the Kosovo status quo topic or text.

I'm not an editor involved in the Kosovo or Serbia articles, but as a passer by some time ago I found something strange at Kosovo article and I asked at the talk page: Talk:Kosovo/Archive_26#Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija_-like_redirects. At first, by looking at the article, I (as a passer by reader) thought that it's topic is RoK (Republic of Kosovo), but there was a navigation note on top about APKiM redirecting there and I asked why (APKiM/Serbia province and RoK/independent state are the competing political entities that claim the territory of Kosovo (region), They should be mentioned in each others article - as the competing side in the dispute, but I couldn't imagine any reason for these two to redirect to each other.) The answer I got was - no, there is no mistake, the article topic is about both APKiM and RoK. Then I made a proposal to arrange RoK content at Republic of Kosovo, APKiM content at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–), Kosovo region content at Kosovo. But because of the Serbia POV vs. Kosovar POV there were editors opposed - because each sides hopes somehow to outmaneuver the other side and to get the Kosovo article name for itself. At the time of my initial involvement the Kosovar POV had the upper hand and was managing and enforcing a pseudo-consensus/compromise (citing a less than a day long discussion where only they participated) to merge the multiple infoboxes into one infobox with heading "Republic of Kosovo", but showing map of Kosovo-as-part-of-Serbia. They also tried to remove APKiM redirects. Eventually, the article was restored to a more balanced state (still in Kosovar POV favour), but in all discussions it is obvious that the editors opposing content arrangement to properly named articles with clear topics are doing this with the hope to get Kosovo topic changed to their preferred one (but they never say that openly - they aways say "I like status quo, no consensus for change" - without real explanation why do they like a non-sensible mixed topic of APKiM+RoK). In addition, IMHO, constant edit-warring (and trying to force the other side topic out - step by step) and discussions about "who gets the Kosovo article name" prevented real progress with the actual content of the article - and I identified a serious gaps there. Nobody of the "who gets the name" people cared about that. IMHO the best solution is Kosovo to be a redirect - to Kosovo (region) (NPOV), Kosovo (disambiguation) (NPOV) or even Republic of Kosovo (if Kosovar POV camp convinces others about their COMMONNAME claim) - but the issue of "who gets the article name" to be decoupled from editing the actual content. Anyway, the status quo APKiM+RoK topic doesn't comply with their COMMONNAME claim either - but they support the status quo vigorously. Looking at past edits, IMHO this is because they hope to get rid of APKiM elements step by step (but nobody supported option6 in the RFC: "change topic to RoK" - strange, if they claim that this is what COMMONNAME shows. I think a NPOV redirect is better solution). We've been trough a RFC presenting all 7 options (previous discussion were about "status quo vs. particular-split" - this one presented all possible options for topic change). I know Wikipedia is not a democracy/polling, but the status quo camp is obviously in minority and most people supported one of the two NPOV redirects plus establishment of RoK and Kosovo region articles.

What I did was to establish the articles Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) (and related redirects) - both have clear, sensible topics about notable subjects - see Talk:Republic of Kosovo#Notability of the Republic of Kosovo and Talk:Kosovo (region)#Notability of Kosovo as a region. The case of Republic of Kosovo is very telling - this is an independent state recognized by over 70 countries, but it doesn't have an article in Wikipedia about it. All other states, even those with limited recognition, like RoK, that are in dispute with another state - all have their own articles, where the topic is the independent unrecognized/partially recognized state. Only RoK didn't have such.

Anyway, I invited anybody that questions RoK notability or Kosovo region notability to do this on their talk pages. There are users supporting the creation of these two articles. The opposing opinion is not about their notability, but some "no consensus for Kosovo article split" comment. But there is no change to Kosovo article made - it remains with its topic of APKiM+RoK, nobody has made changes to that or to its text - if the editors at Talk:Kosovo think APKiM+RoK is a notable and sensible topic - then it will remain, as it is in its status quo. This doesn't make RoK less notable. And APKiM is represented in two articles - its own article and the APKiM+RoK article (Kosovo). RoK should also have its own article, like APKiM and all states. And I haven't seen any objection to RoK notability as a subject so far.

ZjarriRrethues below points to the only block on my account so far. This block is for 1RR violation at Kosovo - because I thought that restoring the consensus version is not a revert and then made additional revert after an edit-warring/POV user pushed for a non-consensus version. As you can see in the article - the edit I got blocked for is valid and still remains on the page. So, my edit is correct and still stands, but I got "burned", because of the constant edit-warring and POV pushing by some at Kosovo.

I don't think I have made any disruptive edits and I try to refrain from editing Kosovo/probation articles. Alinor (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Enric Naval made some changes to his initial statement above and now implies that all options of a past RFC involved a split. In fact option1 is "status quo". And nobody is changing Kosovo - despite the overwhelming majority of responses at the RFC rejecting the status quo.

Fut.Perf. also complains about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, maybe because he doesn't read my comments or haven't checked what the status quo topic of Kosovo article is. He also didn't responded to my questions on the talk pages. And I don't see 1RR/week or probation at the articles he cites. If there is such, then I excuse me for overstepping. Alinor (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night w, with whom we have many hatches to bury, speaks about 1RR/day and as I said above I still think the articles in question are at 3RR/day, unlike Kosovo that is at probation and 1RR/week. I will repeat again - if this is not the case I excuse me for overstepping. On the rest of his comment - no forking of content is done - RoK and Kosovo region topics are not the same as the topic APKiM+RoK mix (at status quo Kosovo). Whether APKiM+RoK is a sensible or notable topic is under dispute at Talk:Kosovo, but the other topics are notable each on its own. Alinor (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In replay to Night w - you can read the three relevant talk pages. Alinor (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you can see that not only me, but other users restored to "my" version. Alinor (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again Night w - nobody has conducted votes. As you can see in the RFC summary there are names put at multiple options. Do you think these users voted multiple times or what? This list is just to see who supports what option (and some editors support multiple versions). And also, I repeat that haven't made any split of Kosovo - it remains at its status quo "APKiM+RoK" mix topic. A separate issue is whether there is consensus to delete/redirect the articles about RoK and about Kosovo region - these are highly notable subjects, and I think there is no consensus to delete/redirect these two - but that's IMHO of course. Alinor (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again Enric Naval. I don't understand your comment about option1 and option6 - status quo topic "APKiM+RoK" mix of Kosovo is retained by option1. This includes lead with "disputed territory" instead of "independent state", includes three infoboxes instead of RoK infobox, etc. If you want topic of Kosovo to be changed to RoK and the status quo to be changed accordingly - then you support option6 and not option1. And I have asked you personally the same question during the RFC without getting an answer. My question to Fut.Perf. that you cite didn't force him anything, I just asked him to clarify his previous comment. It's not just "Alinor and WhiteWriter" - you can see at the talk pages (including RFC) and in the reverts history that there are other editors. The hidden text comment was not copied into the articles, because as I already said - I think that the Kosovo probation does not apply to these two articles. If it applies, then the hidden text should be added. And yes, Kosovo and Kosovo (region) leads are the same, because the "APKiM+RoK mixed issues" topic of Kosovo is in practice very similar if not the same as "Kosovo region" (and IMHO that is the primary topic associated with "Kosovo" - the reference to the physical place in general, not to any specific political entity or claim). But because of a few (minority) editors objecting any change to Kosovo topic to something sensible the creation of another article with topic "Kosovo region" was needed to cover this topic. You mention the non-consensus changes made after the ICJ advisory opinion - this was already rejected, but if you want to pursue this way (of sneaky non-announced topic change of Kosovo following a blitz discussion) you can propose this there. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - it seems that others apply it successfully, since they tend not to answer any question, that doesn't advance their POV and then continue to act as if no question was asked. Nobody is making RfCs into polls/votes - as you can see in the RFC summary I made - there are users whose names stand at multiple options - do you think these users have the right of multiple votes or what? About the 1RR/3RR - I already explained that I think that the 1RR/week probation over Kosovo doesn't apply to Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region). And I already asked to be excused if it actually applies there (if this is the case I think it would be good a 1RR/week and probation warnings to be placed at edit-view and talk pages. And the hidden text about edit-warring to be added.) Alinor (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Alinor

BorisG

It is unclear to me as an uninvolved editor how the diffs presented violate the ArbCom ruling. - BorisG (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteWriter

This is not violation of ARBKOS, as BorisG already stated. Alinor is fantastic user who edited the sensitive subject with great care and respect, while listening the others and always staying cool headed and peaceful. Also, Alinor edits are following great discussion and majority agreement as "Option No 5". And he didn't eves still implemented that what we agreed. This unfounded request should be disbanded urgently. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein. It is alredy written. Wikipedia:ARBKOS#Modified. But he just obviously didn't breached it. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZjarriRrethues

Alinor has been trying for months to get a consensus and every time the result of the discussion wasn't the one he wanted it to be(article split), he restarted the same discussion. He was eventually blocked for violating 1RR and at that time he said to the blocking admin I'll give you time until the blocking period ends - and if the account is not unblocked in advance I will not forgive you this hostile act.. After the block he continued starting new discussions, but this time didn't even say that his discussion was regarding the split of the article and when the consensus again wasn't the one expected he started making similar changes. Btw I didn't block him, since I'm not an admin.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf.

Alinor is now blatantly edit-warring, clearly breaking the 1R/week rule and scraping just along 1R/day for several consecutive days, despite admin warnings that the main Kosovo article restrictions also apply to these fork pages ([68]). They have reverted their copy-and-paste fork at Kosovo (region) three times on 26 Feb, 27 Feb, 28 Feb, and that at Republic of Kosovo once on 26 Feb. Moreover, their talk page conduct is showing signs of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, engaging in multiple repetitive assertions that their actions were "not POV forks", that the three separate pages are necessary because all are "notable", or that the current topic of Kosovo is "APKiM+RoK mixed issues" (whatever that means), without reasonably engaging other contributors' arguments. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night w

On Kosovo (region), in the last 3 days, there have been 3 reverts of 3 different editors. The last one violated 1RR rule, since the previous revert was less than 24 hours prior.

I'm actually confused as to where there was a consensus for such major forking of content. He's split Kosovo into Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region), but kept the main Kosovo article, which apparently deals with the Republic of Kosovo and the Serbian province together. This makes Kosovo (region), describing a "disputed territory", seem like a rehash of Kosovo, but maybe that's just my reading... Nightw 13:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Alinor, I'll refrain from discussing my issues with your edits here, but the main question remains unanswered: Where was there a consensus for this? You were reverted by 3 different editors on just that one article...which doesn't seem to indicate one. Nightw 15:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I see from those talk pages is you equating WP:VOTEs with consensus, when there clearly was none. Since policy states quite clearly that Wikipedia is not a democracy, since protocol instead dictates that you attempt to achieve a consensus through persuasion and compromise, your use of vote-counting was inappropriate. And when your presumption of consensus was refuted on the talk page and your subsequent actions were reverted, you kept pushing despite a clear non-consensus, and you violated 1RR in the process. That is edit-warring. Nightw 10:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hint for next time: When you have multiple editors disagreeing over whether there is a consensus to do something, that's usually an indication that there isn't. Nightw 10:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change the fact that you kept reverting even after it was clear that consensus had not been reached.

Eliko

Since I'm uninvolved in the articles in question, I afford to intervene.

User:Alinor should be forgiven, due to the following 3 reasons:

Whether the articles in question (Republic of Kosovo, and Kosovo (region)) are under 1RR, is still an open question (or rather, a question in dispute: see above).
User:Alinor was not aware of the 1RR - if applicable here, as they have already declared.
The edit page of the articles in question, does not warn editors not aware of the 1RR - which is not a universal rule - i.e. not applied in most of Wikipedia articles. Notice that the edit page of other articles (e.g. Kosovo) under 1RR, does warn any editor opening the edit page.

Eliko (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Alinor

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

Please fix the link to the specific sanction or remedy that is believed to be violated. Sandstein 20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence shows that Alinor (talk · contribs) has edit-warred (reverted at least three times) to insert part of another article into the page Kosovo (region) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in violation of WP:EW, and did so without citing the source of the copy-pasted content in the edit summary (and therefore without attributing the authors of the source content), in violation of Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure. Therefore, in application and enforcement of WP:ARBKOS#Modified, I am banning Alinor from editing Kosovo and related articles for three months. Sandstein 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Alinor

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

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

Appealing user: Alinor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Alinor (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

listing my name at Wikipedia:ARBKOS#Modified as result of the enforcement request right above.

If de-listing requires lifting of the ban, the I appeal it too. Alinor (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notification of that administrator: [69]

Statement by Alinor

I'm not sure if this is the correct procedure, so excuse me if this is not the proper place for it.

I have a question - does this "Kosovo ban" enforced on me spread to talk pages? I assume it doesn't, but ask just to be sure.

My compliant. I don't agree with the reasons for the topic ban - I haven't broken the 3RR rule (neither 3RR/day nor 3RR/week; and the admin statement of "reverted at least three times" should read "reverted only three times") and from the wording of the admin ban enforcement I don't understand if the Kosovo (region) and Republic of Kosovo were under 1RR when I made the reverts or not. There is no such warning on their edit-view or talk pages so I still think they aren't under 1RR. And I said on the arbitration page that I'm sorry if these were under 1RR and asked to be excused in such a case.

The second reason given speaks about violation of Wikipedia:Splitting, but I haven't done a split, but a copy (with minor modifications). And the issue of not announcing the source of the copied (not moved) content in the edit-line summary (if applicable) was quickly corrected on the talk pages.

I'm not particularly troubled by such a ban, because I'm not a Kosovo involved editor and I don't intend to edit these articles anyway - as a passer-by I just tried to help cut the Gordian knot there. So, I don't want to ask for the ban to be reconsidered - it can remain - but I ask my name to be deleted from Wikipedia:ARBKOS#Modified together with the related edit-history. Alinor (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, should I then appeal both the ban and the listing? If so, then OK - the arguments are the same.

And does the ban apply to talk pages or not? Alinor (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

This appeal does not contest the article ban (which does not extend to talk pages), but only its listing at Wikipedia:ARBKOS#Modified. It should be declined because the decision expressly provides: "Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here." In addition, the appeal is in the wrong venue, because the decision does not allow appeals to this board. Any appeal should therefore be directed to the Arbitration Committee. Sandstein 16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Alinor

Result of the appeal by Alinor

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

I agree with Sandstein that any ban issued has to be logged. There is nothing for us to do here, so the appeal should be declined. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alinor now seeks to have the entire ban lifted. I have checked through Sandstein's work, Here is a relevant part of WP:ARBKOS:

9.1) Editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruptive editing, may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Next, I see the 1RR restriction which was imposed by Nishkid64 in 2009 on the Kosovo article: [70]. Some editors might assume this would apply to material cut and pasted out of Kosovo as well, since any such new article would also be covered by WP:ARBKOS.

Finally, I checked the wording of Sandstein's topic ban:

The evidence shows that Alinor (talk · contribs) has edit-warred (reverted at least three times) to insert part of another article into the page Kosovo (region) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), in violation of WP:EW, and did so without citing the source of the copy-pasted content in the edit summary (and therefore without attributing the authors of the source content), in violation of Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure. Therefore, in application and enforcement of WP:ARBKOS#Modified, I am banning Alinor from editing Kosovo and related articles for three months. Sandstein 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This all looks proper to me, so I do not favor granting Alinor's appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jiujitsuguy

Topic-banned for six months. Sandstein 13:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Jiujitsuguy

User requesting enforcement: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Discretionary sanctions

Violation of npov.

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

Jijutsuguys long term behavior of pov pushing, violation of npov, is a long term problem and was brought up in a previous enforcement request where he added to articles that the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and East Jerusalem "were Israel": [71]

Admin Gatoclass replys to the evidence brought forward about Jijutsuguys non neutral pov edits/tendentious editing: [72], another admin HJ Mitchell replys to Gatoclass comment:[73] and [74]

Jijutsuguy was topic banned 3 months from the Arab -Israeli conflict articles:[75]

His topic ban was then reduced to two months and lifted on 2 February: [76]

Unfortunately, the very same of Jijutsuguys behavior of non neutral pov pushing/tendentious editing, removing neutral worldview and replacing them with views of one country, inserting of falsehoods into articles and presenting them as facts, and other disruptive behavior, has continued after his latest topic ban was lifted prematurely:

3 Feb. At the Yom Kippur article, I and two other editors discussed several changes to the article. One of the sentences we discussed can be seen here: [77], I then added it to the article with the edit summary: "Map and regained okeyd at talkpage.", we also discussed changing "defenders" to "Israelis", all agreed [78] and it was changed:[79]. I also copy edited a sentence, removing negative wording referring to Syria regaining control of its territory: "fall" had been used:[80] and added a fact tag at a location:[81].

When Jijutsuguy topic ban was lifted, he reverts what I and the two other editors had discussed and agreed upon, and reverts my copy editing and the fact tag I had added, with the edit summary: "tweak". He does not say anything at the talkpage.

3, 6 Feb. At the Gamla article there was a discussion about the map in the infobox[82]. I and Nablezzy did not want to use a map of a different country (Israel) then the country Gamla is internationally recognized as located in (Syria). Jijutsuguy participated in that discussion and there was no consensus that we should violate npov and use a map of a different map then the country where Gamla is located. Per that a map of Israel for a location in Syria was in the article, tags were added:[83][84]

After Jijutsuguys topic ban was lifted, and him being fully aware of that both me and Nableezy are topic banned (Nablezzy was topic banned together with him and he knows I was [85]), he goes back to the article, makes a dishonest question that has already been replied to in the discussion where he participated in, and him being aware of that neither of me or Nableezy can repeat our comments: [86], and then later he removes the tags "Tags removed having received no response at Talk".

7 Feb. Mount Hermon is a mountain completely located in Syria and Lebanon, part of it in Syria is also in the Golan heights. There was a location map in the article showing the two countries the mountain is located in, Syria and Lebanon. Jijutsuguy removes this location map following the international view and also ads Israel to the infobox: [87], he is claiming that the Golan Heights is Israel. At the talkpage he claimed that the location map highlighting the two countries Mount Hermon is located in, Syria and Lebanon "violates NPOV and is extremely misleading.", and claims it is located in a "third" county. He has removed a location map from the article following the international view, based on his pov believes that Golan Heights "is Israel".

7 Feb. At the Rujm el Hiri article he previously removed the location map:[88], he did not explain his edit so it was reverted:[89] he then comes back and removes the location map of the country it is internationally recognized as part of and replaces it with with a location map showing it within Israel: [90], he does the same pov edit at two more articles, removes the international view, and replaces it with the view of one country:[91] [92].

10, 14 Feb. At the Syria article there is a six day war section, Jijutsuguy removes sourced information showing that: "Israeli tractors with police protection used to go into the DMZ." and makes it into a Syrian claim when there were two sources in the same section alone showing that it wasn't a Syrian claim. He removes that "Israel also expelled Arabs from the DMZ and demolished their homes.", he removes that the Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said that Israel provoked more than 80% of the clashes with Syria. He removes the reason why Syria supported the Palestinians because of Israel taking over more land in the DMZ and why the Palestinians refugees started raids on Israel, and because they were denied the right of return or compensation. When Jijutsuguy twice removes all of these things and only keeps one side of what happened, he then calls his edits "NPOV" [93][94]

15 Feb. At the 2006 Lebanon War article, Jijutsuguy replaces the "Golan heights" with "northern Israel" [95]

17 Feb. At the Hexagon pools, article, about a place in the Golan heights, Jijutsuguy changes it to: "The Hexagon Pool in Israel" and "Golan Heights, in northern Israel." [96]

18 Feb. At the Golan Heights article there is a "Territorial claims" section, I previously explained at the talkpage why I had removed the claim that France got "primarily in exchange for French concessions in the oil rich areas of Iraq", and replaced it with that Palestine got lands in Syria and Lebanon including the entire sea of Galilee: [97], Jijutsuguy previously reverted me: [98] and said at the talkpage: [99]. I then explained in great detail why the source he wanted to use is unreliable about what happened [100],

Then, without saying anything, without addressing any of the points I brought up at the talkpage, he reverts it once again: [101]

18 Feb. At the Six Day War article there was this sentence in the article: "Israel also expelled Arabs from the DMZ and demolished their homes", the sources used in the article say: "Arab villagers residing in the DMZs were evicted and their dwellings demolished, 'as the status quo was all the time being altered by Israel in her favor.' The Security Council called on Israel to let the villagers return, but Israel..." p.131, "On the latter point, Bull's reflections are worth quoting in full: I imagine that a number of those Arabs evicted settled somewhere in the Golan Heights" p.132, "'the status quo was all the time being altered by Israel in her favor' as Arab villagers were evicted, their dwellings demolished, and 'all Arab villages disappeared' in wide swaths of the DZs." p.186

Jijutsuguy changes this sentence to: "Israel also expelled Arab squatters and trespassers from the DMZ and demolished their homes." [102]

20, 21, 23 Feb: Jijutsuguy repeatedly uses insults in his edit summary's when reverting other editors contributions, calling them "troll" at Jerusalem: [103][104], and at 2006 Lebanon War: [105][106]

25 Feb: At the Golan Heights talkpage there has previously been long discussions about the map in the infobox:[107]. Jijutsuguy and a few others wanted to use a modified CIA map where the placement of the name "Syria" is moved from a place internationally recognized as part of Syria, and "Israeli occupied" is removed underneath "Golan Heights". Jijutsuguy participated in the discussion and the arguments he used were replied to: ([108] Reply) * ([109] Reply) * ([110] Reply Reply), after his last argument he used, he had previously also changed the map in the middle of the discussion to the modified one:[111]. Overall in this discussion with many participants, no consensus was established to use the modified map.

Despite this, now after, Jijutsuguy has once again changed it to the same modified one:[112]

Reply to JJG:

I addressed the Gamla tags above, JJG knew why the tags were in the article and knew that I and nableezy couldn't repeat it.
At the Mount Hermon talkpage, JJG has picked a couple of sources that follows the pov of Israel including a source saying "Israel's Golan". JJg is a smart guy, and he knows this is the view of Israel and not the International community, he also edited text at the main Golan Heights article about the view of the IC:[113], this text is sourced to a GA resolution voting 161-1. The lead also contains UN Resolution 497. This is something that is easily researcheable and JJG is an active editor within the topic area, other sources for the IC can easily be found.
Concerning JGGs edits at Gamla compared to my at Yom Kippur War, me and his edits have nothing in common as he claims. At Yom Kippur War, there was no "alleged" discussion, there was a discussion between different types of editors, and we had disagreements between each other, and we agreed to the changes, and it was said so in the edit summary, and my other content edits I made, were reverted. I did not misrepresent the edit summary pretending "no reply" at talkpage like you did, I discussed the changes with other editors, and I added what we agreed upon. User:Raul654 who I had the most disagreements with could all the time reply to me and he did. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AT SDW, that a long term active editor needs to be told not to change sourced text of an article so it doesn't follow the source is astonishing.
At 2006 Lebanon War, the source shows the war also was in the Golan heights. You also called him troll after his second edit to the article, and you did not discuss it either at the talkpage like him at that point of time.
As shown above, the map was discussed in great detail with many editors, JJGs arguments were replied to, there were clearly no consensus to change it, yet still he changed it to the same one without any new discussion.
I explained in great detail at the talkpage why I removed the views of two US presidents from the article. Please see here:[114]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Sol Goldstone, I had no idea what he did, so I asked him to come back. I just saw now that he was blocked this morning. What does that have to do with me? At the Golan Heights article and talkpage a wide range of socks have shown up to do the same edit as JJG, nick fatzpatrik: [115] same pov, changed the Dayan quote as JJg has done the same [116] another one, removes from the infobox that its internationally recognized as part of Syria: [117] same edit as JJg did recently to the article: [118]. This has nothing to do with you, the same Sol Goldstone has nothing to do with me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJG claims that I "stalked his every move", this is inaccurate, every single article I brought up of JJGs edits I have on my watch list and I have edited them before. JJG on the other hand, during my topic ban, he went through many of the articles that I have edited and reverted my edits with inaccurate and sometimes no edit summarys at all, as shown above, this includes the Six day war, Yom kippur war, Golan heights, Nimrod Fortress, Rujm el hiri, Gamla, Mount Hermon, Syria, Hexagon pools, 2006 Lebanon War, all the edits I brought up by him, are his reverts of my edits. Some of these article he never touched before including Nimrod Fortress, Hexagon pools and two others that I didn't bring up: Berekhat Ram and Katzrin ancient village and synagogue. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Slp1, the source says on p 187 "Yet in a statement not quoted by Oren, head of Israeli military intelligence General Aharon Yariv bluntly acknowledged shortly before the June war that Syria backed these raids "because we are bent upon establishing ... certain facts along the border" - i.e., in retaliation for Israel land grab in the DZ", and p 132-133: "Yet, the basic motive behind Syrian support of the Palestinian guerrillas seems to have been rather more prosaic - the Israeli incursions in the DMZs.". This supports the sentence why Syria supported the attacks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read these sentences with considerable care, both previously and now again. Note Finkelstein's use of "yet" and "seems to have been", even within the sentences you quote. What is given is Finklestein's tentative opinion, (backed up with sources) that is specifically placed in contrast to historian Michael Oren's different view that the reason for Syrian support is "obscure" and "inscrutable". The context clearly requires this particular "cause" of support must be attributed as the opinion of Finkelstein (and others?), not a "fact". Cherry picking bits of sentences like this is a dangerous practice. Please be more careful in future. --Slp1 (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well since it was the head of Israeli military intelligence General Aharon Yariv who said this, then this should be regarded as much higher then anything else. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I agree that a primary, involved source is "much higher" than anything else in terms of sourcing. Secondary sources including historians such as Oren and Finkelstein are much preferred per our policies and guidelines. But if you did use a primary source such as Yariv, it would still need to be attributed as his opinion. --Slp1 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): [119]

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

Topic ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[120]

Discussion concerning Jijutsuguy

Statement by Jijutsuguy

I am currently a bit busy in RL but will respond shortly. Thank you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your indulgence thus far. Real Life obligations have prevented me from responding sooner. Apologies to all for the delay. I am now in the midst of compiling the many diffs necessary to prove my case and rebut these spurious charges. Unfortunately, unlike SupremeD, I didn't have a month to prepare so it will take some time and making matters worse, my computer is acting up thus delaying me further. Accordingly, I ask for a bit more time to set forth my defense. Once again, thank you for your indulgence and patience.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will address each and every issue point by point but before I do so, what I find astounding is that SD would stalk me so closely as to watch each and every edit I made during the period of his topic ban and not two hrs after his ban is prematurely lifted, he files an AE against me. Some may feel that there is nothing inherently wrong in doing so but let me point to HJ Mitchell’s wording when lifting SD’s ban I've lifted your topic ban and amended WP:ARBPIA to reflect this. In lieu of the remaining month on your topic ban consider this a caution to edit within the letter and the spirit of ARBPIA and all applicable policies and guidelines. Consider it a chance to prove that the topic ban was unnecessary. I suggest that at the very least, this AE violates the spirit of the reprieve if not the letter. Let me also point out that, as indicated by tool server, SD has made more edits to AE than nearly any other editor, nearly 400 posts[121]. This is an astonishing figure when compared to others in the topic area. The instant AE, coming not 2 hrs after the lifting of the ban coupled with the frequency with which this particular editor appears on these boards, both as a respondent and a complainant, evidences a battleground mentality in the extreme.

As for my own actions, I consider myself a content editor who complies with WP policy concerning WP:RS. I’ve made extensive use of article talk pages and attempted to iron out differences at IPCOLL. There is not one example in SDs complaint evidencing edit warring, violation of 1r, gaming or lack of usage of talk pages. I try to edit from an NPOV perspective but I am human and accordingly, I am prone to making mistakes. However, when I do make mistakes I acknowledge them and self revert as will be amply demonstrated below. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for my colleague, SD.

At Gamla 3 & 6 Feb, I removed the Tags but only after addressing the matter at the Talk page and waiting for comment.[122] After receiving none, either con or pro, I removed the Tag.

Similarly at Tourism in Israel 9 & 13 Feb, I removed the Tag but again, only after posting at the article’s Talk page for discussion on the matter[123]. Having received no response, I removed the Tag. I also made another edit to the article but again, only after posting at the article’s talk page and providing sources for the edit.[124]

At Mount Hermon, 7 Feb. I made edits that I believe made the article more compliant with NPOV but only did so while making simultaneous commentary on the article’s Talk pages, providing sources including those from National Geographic and Popular Mechanics to buttress support for the edits.[125] Please also note this comment from me indicating a desire for collaborative editing I'd like to hear from others on the subject. In the interest of collaborative editing, I'm perfectly willing to self-revert if consensus establishes otherwise and these [126][127] One can not deny that I made extensive use of talk pages and I received support from other editors as noted at the article’s discussion page.

At Yom Kippur War 3 Feb, I contributed massively to this article and improved it by adding content and resolving many disputes at the Talk pages, receiving accolades from editors from across the spectrum. [128] [129][130] [131] [132] By contrast, SD’s edits there were singularly focused, nay obsessed on establishing Syria’s claims to the Golan Heights. There is nothing per se wrong with that but in conjunction with his other edits, portrays an editor who is an edit warring SPA. Let me further point out that the edits that SD complains of concerning this article were minor and were not reverted by a single editor. Moreover, the discussion that SD allegedly had at the article's Talk page concerning those edits were made when I was unable to respond or partake in the discussion as SD was fully aware. The Chutzpah here is that this is precisely the same conduct that SD complains of in connection to my post at Gamla's Talk page. He is "guilty" of precisely the same "offense," if there even is one. It represents hypocrisy in the extreme.

Six Day War 18 Feb. Here I acknowledge my error but as usual, SD tells only half the story. Another editor alerted me to my problematic edit and I immediately acknowledged that I was in error[133]. He also conveniently omits the fact that I self-reverted edits that the same editor saw as POV pushing.[134][135] As I stated earlier, I am human and try as I might to avoid them, I make mistakes. The mark of a good editor is one who acknowledges mistakes and tries to learn from them so that he or she can become a better editor. My actions in this circumstance speak for themselves. I immediately acknowledged my mistake and self reverted edits that another editor believed (rightly so) violated NPOV. The other editor subsequently thanked me for my conciliatory responses and remedial actions.[136] Another editor who observed the exchange, praised us both for the amicable way in which the matter was resolved.[137] I should also note that my work on the Six Day War article earned me recognition from my peers[138]

Additional clarification: Let me say from the out set, so that there is no ambiguity. I completely and freely acknowledge the error on my part. However, I acknowledged the error long before the instant AE. Please refer to this comment where addressing this very issue I stated the following: You're correct, I should not have done that. I would have self-reverted but the editor with whom I had the exchange beat me to the punch and reverted[139]. Now an outside observer might be skeptical of this claim of self-reversion and might say something like, "sure, now he says he would have self-reverted how do we know that's true?" Well the answer to that is this. The editor who questioned the edit expressed concern over a different edit that I made, claiming that it violates NPOV. Upon review of his concerns I stated the following at his Talk page Oh, I see your point. In the spirit of collaborative editing I will remove the portion of the caption that you object to. and subsequently did just that [140] with the following edit summary Self-revert pursuant to concerns noted by Sean at his talk page. As I stated earlier, it did not take an AE to make me realize the error of my ways and the momentary lapse. As I stated, I acknowledged the mistake almost immediately and made best efforts to rectify. As I also stated, the mark of a good editor is one who is open and honest and willing to acknowledge wrong-doing and grow and learn from the experience in the hope that it would never be repeated. I have acknowledged the mistake and expressed sincere contrition, expressed in deed and in word, well before the instant AE.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Slp1. Thank you for your informative and insightful comments. As I stated ealier, I freely acknowledge that that edit was my bad and that acknowledgement came well before the bringing of this action. I had expressed contrition and was going to self-revert but Sean had already done so. The experience, I feel, has made me a better editor and I will scrupulously avoid making such errors in the future. My actions following the edit, both in word and in deed, confirm that this singular stupidity on my part will never be repeated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Lebanon War 15 & 25 Feb. Concerning my use of the word “troll” in connection with an IP hopping editor from Georgia, again SD tells only half the story. The IP in this case began making contentious edits to the article’s infobox without use of the article’s talk pages, despite being told to do so by another editor.[141] Not only did the IP fail to engage on Talk, he actually began editing from a different IP leading Ed Johnson to place the article under Semi Protection with the following comment in the edit summary Changed protection level of 2006 Lebanon War: Violation of the 1RR restriction by an IP-hopping editor from Georgia As for my edit reflecting the situs of the conflict to Northern Israel,[142] that is precisely the way major news outlets reported it. See for example, VOA Rockets hit Northern Israel Canada.com Dozens of Hezbollah rockets hit northern Israel and MSNBC Rockets knock down a three-story house in northern Israel. I think that it was a reasonable edit considering that that's the way it was reported internationally.

Golan Heights 25 Feb. Here I introduced a map that I thought was better because it shades and highlights the region in question so that the reader can get a better viewing of the disputed area. My edit was accompanied by the following edit summaryBetter map though if anyone thinks the previous is better, pls note so at talk and I'll self revert. Thanks The edit summary speaks for itself and my reasoning for making the edit was sound. I should also point out that Sol Goldstone, a user who sided with SupremeD on the map issue and made this edit[143] in connection with the map issue has just been indefinitely blocked, in part for abusing multiple accounts[144] It is interesting to note that the last person to leave a comment on Sol Goldstone's Talk page (just prior to his block) was SupremeD with the message Come back

Now let us examine SupremeD’s edits just coming off the topic ban. He makes 8 edits to the Golan Heights in rapid succession including the reversion of these two which include the views of United States Presidents[145][146] and then, like a coiled spring, he jumps in immediately with an AE against me. This coupled with his propensity to frequently appear on these boards, either as a respondent or complainant and the fact that he’s made nearly 400 posts to AE, evidence battleground mentality. I think I have explained my position clearly enough. If I inadvertently left anything out or overlooked something, please inform me of same and I will gladly offer explanation and include whatever diffs are necessary. Thank you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed statement. Could you please amend it to include the dates Supreme Deliciousness uses in their request so that the request and your statement can be more easily compared? And could you please also respond to my concern that your 18 Feb edit to Six Day War attributed statements to the source cited there (Finkelstein, 2003) that the source may not actually support - for instance, by quoting the text from the source that does support your changes? Sandstein 08:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's not a problem but the hour is late and I'm extremely tired. With your permission of course, I'll comply with your request tomorrow when I'm fresh and not seeing double. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein. Pursuant to your request, I've added dates and additional clarification on the 6-day war edit. I hope this suffices but if it doesn't, please feel free to request additional information and I will gladly comply.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Response to Slp1, moved here] That is an excellent question and thank you for raising it and giving me the opportunity to reply. I thought that Sean had reverted the entire edit based on a cursory view of the article's edit history and concurrent discussion on his talk page concerning the edit. I actually did not realize it was a partial revert until the instant AE brought to my attention. I want to reiterate, and I can not overstate this, that I whole-heartedly accept responsibility for this stupidity on my part. It was a one time infraction that I acknowledged before this action was commenced and it will never be repeated. I learn from my mistakes and you'll see that on the whole, I'm a pretty decent editor whose contributed a lot to the project. I say this with all sincerity, if you think that I do more harm than good to the project, I'll never edit again. I do this only because I think that as an educated fella, I have a lot to offer. But again, if you feel I do more harm than good, I'll stop editing entirely with no hard feelings. Sorry for posting here. Just wanted you to see the response so that it does not get lost in wall-to-wall texts. Feel free to move the comment elsewhere. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein. You are wrong. This is the precise exchange that I had with Sean over this specific issue.

Sean Hoyand's remark: That's a different issue. RSN is there to deal with those issues. I don't have an opinion about it. My only concern was that information from the cited source was transformed to something inconsistent with the source. I don't know why you would do that but I don't think you would accept it if someone else did it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

My reponse: You're correct. I should not have done that.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

How much clearer can I get?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, the link to the diff that you provided clearly has the exchage between Sean and myself concerning the Finkelstein distortion. Just look at the bottom paragraph and the last sentence where I clearly acknowledge wrong-doing. Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by Jujutsuguy (moved from Results section)

@Slp1. As a general rule, I avoid making edits to articles in the topic area while an AE that involves me is pending. It is a self-imposed sanction that I undertake upon myself. When this is over, my first action will be to undue the edit in its entirety--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Slp1. One more thing. SD compiled these diffs while he was topic banned, stalking my every move for a month. Once that ban was lifted, he struck as though he were a coiled spring waiting to pounce. Of all the diffs that he noted, only one has some merit and I had already acknowledged wrong doing in connection with that affair long before he brought the action. The filing of this AE, just two hours after the lifting of his topic ban represents BATTLEGROUND mentality in the extreme. Moreover, this in combination with the troubling diffs SupremeD authored, (noted below in a separate AE filed against him) make it clear that if anyone should be sanctioned in the messy affair, it’s Supreme Deliciousness for turning Wikipedia into a battleground and bringing an unnecessary level of drama to a topic area that experienced an unusual level of calm in his absence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jijutsuguy

I think this request is too long. I won't read it before it is made concise. - BorisG (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is at an appropriate level of detail in my opinion. Because you are not an administrator, there is in my opinion little need for you to read complicated AE requests, in any event, given that you cannot act on them. Sandstein 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein you yourself stated that some diffs reflect normal content disputes. Why not ask SD to limit their claim to those diffs that specifically violate the sanction? Would makes life easier for community and admins alike. - BorisG (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but discretionary sanctions cover every possible misconduct, so a certain variance in interpretation is to be expected. Sandstein 08:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJG, could you please explain to me this edit. It seems to me that this edit was a deliberate attempt to inserting false/fringe information for the purpose of promoting a point of view. Passionless -Talk 16:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are you calling people antisemetic, that behaviour in never acceptable and can only weaken your defense here. Passionless -Talk 19:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't overtly call anyone antisemitic. SDs diffs speak for themselves and his singular obsession with Jews and Israel is very troubling and problematic. I also noted that there is a fine line between hatred of Israel and antisemitism. Please don't distort my words--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Sandstein using the word problematic in reference to SupremeD's edits, you said "Antisemitism is not merely "problematic.", meaning you think Supreme's edits and thus Supreme himself, is antisemitic. Can you please respond to my first comment about the Hexagon pools as you skipped over that edit in your main statement. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 20:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just skimming over this event and I noticed: "constant undertone [of] edits". I disagree with an assertion that the fine line between mentioning a serious concern and making a bold accusation was crossed in bad faith. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admins: SD's 2nd ARBPIA topic ban[147] just ended a few hours ago[148] - a month early for good behavior[149]. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 20:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]; How is this relevant with respect to this request, which does not concern the editing of Supreme Deliciousness? Sandstein 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All problems that give rise to a topic ban originate from one basic shortcoming -- the inability to edit collaboratively with fellow editors. AE report-filing is not something that collaborative editors typically undertake, so when editor files and AE report within a few edits of being released from a topic ban that editor has apparently learned little from being placed on the topic ban.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, making AE requests is only a problem if the requests are wholly or mostly meritless. We'll see whether that's the case here. Sandstein 08:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't analyzed the diffs or this entire report specifically, but what I am picking up from the chronological postings is that JG has previously acknowledged and self-reverted most of the problematic edits SD has pointed out. I'll leave it to you and others for a more specific analysis, but if that is the case, SD's request, which did not acknowledge the self-reverts, is not meritless, but far more egregious.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jijutsuguy

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

This request may be closed if it is not amended to cite the specific sanction or remedy believed to be violated. Sandstein 20:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm awaiting a statement by Jijutsuguy. At first glance, though, the request seems to have merit. With respect to some of the edits it is not clear how they reflect more than a content dispute, but several may reflect sanctionable conduct both individually and as a whole. I invite Jijutsuguy to address, in particular, the edits of 3 Feb (misleading edit summary); 7 and 15 Feb (WP:NPOV); 18 Feb (NPOV and possible source misrepresentation: does "squatters and trespassers" and "guerilla attacks and acts of sabotage" appear in the cited source?); and 20-23 Feb (WP:NPA).

I also invite Jijutsuguy to address what I perceive, based on the submitted evidence, as a lack of communication with respect to several of the edits cited (lack of talk page communication or informative edit summaries), and as tendentious editing (that is, an overall pattern of editing Wikipedia so as to systematically advance a particular partisan point of view rather than a neutral point of view). Sandstein 23:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll limit my comment to Sandstein's question about possible misrepresentations of the text in the Feb 18th edit[150] I've checked the source, Finkelstein's "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict". As a general comment, and as the title suggests, the book is an examination of the diverse narratives put forward by various parties, and thus great care needs to be used not to use what is being explicitly pointed out as a particular view of the events. There were some issues with inappropriate use of this sort, as well as some problems with NPOV in the text modified by Jiujitsuguy. However, as far as I can see, there was no "unsourced original research" in the material removed/changed by Jiujitsuguy as stated in his edit summary.

"guerilla attacks and acts of sabotage"; on the pages cited, and in his own voice, Finkelstein uses the terms "Palestinian guerrillas", "guerilla attacks" and "commando raids", and refers to Syrian support of them. So far so good. "Acts of sabotage", in contrast, is not mentioned, nor is there any implication that the Syrian government "claim[ed] that right in response to purported Israeli actions in the DMZ". In fact, a historian (Oren) is quoted as saying that the reasons for the Syrian support were "inscrutable"; a UN official, the head of Israeli military intelligence and apparently Finkelstein himself see a likely relationship between the Israeli actions (not purported actions), and the Syrian support of the guerillas. The view is not attributed to Syria.(p. 133, 187). I'll note that the original text "The Syrian government supported the Palestinian attacks because of Israel taking over more land in the DMZ" also suffers from lack of attribution, but it is closer to the source given.
The terms "squatters" or "trespassers" do not appear anywhere on the pages cited or indeed in the whole book. Neither is there any implication that there was illegal occupation by Arabs of any sort. Quite the opposite in fact, based on Finkelstein and the sources he quotes.
"and injured dozens more" This was added, and the citation (to Finklestein- where it does not appear) deleted. There appears to be no source for this. I've looked through Simon (2008)(the next citation given) and as far as I can see it does not appear there.

I'll leave other administrators to evaluate Jiujitsuguy's edit, but in my view, it is problematic as on several occasions unverifiable material was inserted, apparently to promote particular view.--Slp1 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jiujitsuguy; I realize that you recognized the problematic nature of "squatters and trespassers" portion of that edit once it was pointed out to you by User:Sean.hoyland with the phrase "information from the cited source was transformed to something inconsistent with the source".[151]. While "squatters and trespassers" was the most egregiously misleading and POV part of the edit, it is not the only portion of that edit cannot be substantiated by the source, as I have pointed out. Once one problem of edit-source inconsistency was pointed out to you, why did you not fix the others, which are still in the article as I write? Did you actually consult Finkelstein? --Slp1 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Slp1, for your detailed analysis. I will be away most of next week and will probably not be able to close this case. For the benefit of any admin who wants to do this, I am unconvinced by Jiujitsuguy's explanation about that issue. I see no diff in his explanation that shows that he did realize at the time (or even now) that he was misrepresenting the cited source. The exchange with another user that he refers to seems to concern a completely different matter - the caption of an image and not the changes to the body text concerning "squatters and trespassers", etc. We are still looking, therefore, at a severe misrepresentation of an offline source (Norman Finkelstein, who is also a living person). That is a very serious problem in my view, because such misrepresentations are hard to detect and lend a false authority to the edits made on their basis. Sandstein 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jiujitsuguy, yes, it seems to be the case that you did address the "Finkelstein" problem. I was confused because the exchange occurred in the "caption" section. Nonetheless, only one of several source misrepresentations was reverted by another user, and you did not fix the others, as Slp1 points out. Sandstein 00:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to precisely the same question asked by Slp1[152]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to this edit of Jiujitsuguy's, the problem I see is that, you haven't learned from your mistakes. This edit, made 6 days after your discussion with Sean, adds information about "Palestinian terrorists" and "Egyptian sponsorship" that is nowhere to be found on the cited page of Sachar. Added to which you've already been well warned about the standards of editing (V, NPOV etc) required via the topic ban which was just lifted. And I note that the problematic edits you made in the 6 day war article are still in the article. At what point are you going to remove them? Anyway, I'll leave others to determine whether you are doing more harm than good as you put it, but personally I take correct sourcing fairly seriously. It may indeed be better if you improve your skills in this area in part of the encyclopedia that is not so fraught.--Slp1 (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons explained above – misrepresentation of sources and persistent ideological POV-pushing across many articles, as also explained below, in application and enforcement of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) is topic-banned (per WP:TBAN) from the Arab-Israeli conflict for six months. Sandstein 13:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness

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

Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

User requesting ent: Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (expanded per request) Namely the principles of the final decision (see 4.1):

"Purpose of Wikipedia" "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for... advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts,... and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." That is exactly what SD has done.
"Decorum": "Unseemly conduct, such as ... gaming the system, is prohibited." I think SD has been treating Wikipedia like a game. Spending his time collecting diffs on JG during his ban shows that we should have little faith that the ban served its intended purpose. It is counter to what any one would consider appropriate decorum in such a contentious topic area.

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

Editor was topic banned for two months based on this AE request concerning gaming and reverting. It was lifted after only 1 month.[153]

Problematic behavior began immediately.

Within 3 hours, [154]: Placed the Arabic translation in an article before the Hebrew. Do we really want an editor who does that in the topic area? This has surprisingly been an issue and it seems petty.
Within 2 hours, [155]: Opened up an AE against an editor he has long had differences with. It is clear that instead of using the time topic banned to improve his editing, he waited until he was not topic banned to continue battlefield behavior.

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

"...In lieu of the remaining month on your topic ban consider this a caution to edit within the letter and the spirit of ARBPIA and all applicable policies and guidelines. Consider it a chance to prove that the topic ban was unnecessary." (HJ Mitchell)
Two topic bans and a 1/rr block based on actions in the topic area.[156]

Enforcement action requested

Resumption of topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[157]

Comments by Cptnono

I've made a section for Cptnono, to stop the top section getting unwieldy. AGK [•] 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caution all you want, Sandstein. If you do not see a problem with coming off a ban early just to start the same behavior that caused the ban in the first place then you are simply wrong. Sandstein usually stays pretty level headed so I don't want to be a jerk about it but I for one disagree with you completely. If it was only those two edits it would not be worthy of notice but months of this behavior is. But I guess we will see. I got a wikibet on it that he will be back here (deservedly) within 6 months and banned again. I would love it if he proved me wrong but so far he has only proved me right. I will try not to say "I told you so" if it happens.Cptnono (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But feel free to close this out. The unbanning admin has expressed the concerns perfectly and maybe that will be enough of a reminder. (User talk:HJ Mitchell‎#Supreme Deliciousness). Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: JG's diffs below show that SD has not been the best editor in the topic area. But to clarify, this request was not based on anything before his block. I do not know if this should invalidate JJG's comments or not on a procedural basis, but my concern was the coming off a ban and getting right back into a battlefield mentality. I would not have brought this up if he would have not quickly reverted over what language is translated first (akin to his previous reverting over what map or flag is used) and if he had not come straight here at his earliest convenience. Have lessons been learned or not? Did the ban do its job in preventing disruption and encouraging a better understanding of what is and what is not acceptable? He says he made a mistake. I don't know if he means it or if he thinks only a portion of what he did was incorrect but we will see. But again, feel free to close this out. It is going to get too heated. I still believe it should have been open and shut (not in SD's favor) but would prefer not to see another long debate that no one will read through since it will only serves to get people more upset.Cptnono (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clears throat obnoxiously and points*[158] Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify AGK. As it is, there are damning diffs for Supreme Deliciousness. Not seeing that is ridiculous. The last AE was closed for good reason but he deserved a talking too. This one should have been closed but it was kept alive by bickering. Is SUpreme Deliciousness the new Nableezy? Are the reports against him because everyone else is wrong and he is a good balance? What is this? He is obviously too biased to edit. He has been banned more than once. He focuses on what translation and map are used instead of content. Even the unblocking admin admitted to being made to looking like an idiot. So what is the deal? Why is he getting another pass? Show me one good edit that SD has made and I will show you 20 that are nationalistic POV pushing garbage. Lets do it. You wanted to keep this open even though I said lets close it so you show me one good edit and I will find you 20 diffs of him being a POV pusher. Of course, we don't need to do that since him filing an AE within 2 hours of coming off a topic ban shows what he is interested in. How about he gets a single article up to GA in the topic area. Just one. We got one up without his disruption so lets see him do it. Tag teaming allegations are absurd and your comment was an allegation so show some balls and start showing some diffs.Cptnono (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also would appreciate it if you asked yourself why you have been defending SD this entire AE. You are not known as an overly contrary admin or one with a POV. However, you asked for clarification on if how it was a revert (even though I did not say it was a revert) and then you asked for diffs (they were not needed with the edit summary but another editor did provide them) and you also asked for the sanction to be clarified. WTF? Do you enjoy the dancing and the jumping through hoops? Do you want SD to not be banned under any circumstances? There has to be some reason and even though those both are absurd they are the first two that came to my head. When have you ever made any editor go through that much effort when there was a simple proposal made based on what some see as problematic edits. Feel free to delete this and move it to your talk page since this is more of a procedural inquiry as to why you are acting this way instead of being based on the editor in question. I said nothing when you said that I said it was a revert when I didn't. I said nothing when you asked fr clarification on the decision (even though you should be fully aware of the decision if you are making judgments on it) but I really don;t feel OK sating nothing when you make accusations of tagteaming when you have been monkeywrenching this process. So why are you doing it? Do you truly believe I or JJG or any of the other multiple editors who point to SDs nationalism as a problem are the thing that is wrong in the topic area? Is that why you are going out of your way to make this AE more complicated? Aree you upset that I got a warning for civility but did not head it? Is that the issue? Did you notice how I said we should close this out since people were just going to get upset? You should not be an admin in this venue if you can not stay consistent. Cptnono (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SD YOU MEAN THE CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION I STARTED? THAT ONE THAT WAS STARTED TO STOP YOUR EDIT WARRING? THE ONE THAT NO ONE ELSE WOULD START? THE ONE THAT CAME TO AT LEAST SOME SORT OF CONSENSUS? THE ONE THAT CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT WAS FAVORABLE TO YOUR VIEWPOINT? Yeah, I said we should explore alternative wording instead of axing it completely when JJG requested a change. Note that I said multiple times that you were handling yourself well and showing the proper level of restraint during that process. Did you see the last AE you were involved in closed?(where I was in favor of a mentor instead of a ban when you abused multiple accounts) And the reason editors file enforcement requests against you is because you are treating the topic area like a game/nationalistic sopabox. I got news for you: Some people are perfectly happy calling locations Israel considers Israel even if others disagree. Tertiary sources don't even go as far as you do. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and not your soapbox. SO fine, not "everyone" but instead the multiple editors calling for your ban repeatedly since you refuse to abide by NPOV. And that other editor is clearly a malicious account so no comment is needed besides my own words: "There is not consensus for the map you chose (if anything it is slightly against you but that could be my POV) It is edit warring anyways since the next step was not to revert but seek another step i(sic) dispute resolution." Stop manipulating Wikipedia and stop manipulating AE. You are here for one reason and one reason only and it is clear. If the admins do not see it now they will see it eventually. I ask you to not paint others as the jerk when you are the one who is editing against our standards. Stop deflecting and fess up to your mistakes. Come on, just once. You cannot honestly say that you have not made mistakes in this topic area. I do not believe you can honestly say you are not a POV pusher so go ahead and prove me wrong. It is obvious you are not going to be banned (even though it is clear that you should be). Cptnono (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SDAnd you still continue to deflect. Enough said. Your topic ban was lifted early and you truly did make the admin look like an idiot. It is a shame since some (even me to a lesser extent but especially the admin who lifted your ban) have tried to accept you. You want nothing but to make a point and that is not why we are here as editors.Cptnono (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SD No, you are a POV pusher. JJG has a massive bias but his POV pushing (he has to admit there is some even if it is not malicious) is nothing compared to yours. You cannot even let Hebrew text go in front of Arabic text. You bicker over a map being used when no map or a map of the city would do just as well. You bicker for removing the Israeli flag when no flag is needed per the manual of style. You are why the war article should be demoted from GA and your absence is why falafel was raised to GA. You are here to say that Syrian territory is x and Israel is bad. You know why I am so adamant in this topic area? Because of editors like you and Nableezy. There needs to be a counter to editors like you and sockpuppets like Sol (potentially Asam). I do not want to say the Golan Heights are without any doubt part of Israel. I just want to say "it is the way it is, here are some sources to look into".Cptnono (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way AGK: After you address why you have been so adamantly against this request as asked above (seriously, you need explanation on the decision now? How often have you asked for that?) and answered if you are upset that I did not head your warning to be ore civil, I would be happy to provide you summaries of emails that have gone back and forth during this conversation with another editor and myself if he was to give approval (I won't give his name, a summary of his comments, or any quotes without it). It shows a lack of tag teaming if anything since it was basically two guys BSing after the AE came up. I'll even show you what I said: "LOL. AGF or contrary bullshit. All I know is I am going to wake up with a hangover tomorrow and regret pouting so much. Screw it, it is how I see it. Anyways, thanks for the email and I hope your day goes fantastic! :)" Is that tag teaming? The amount of coordination between me and other editors on the "pro-Israeli" side is pretty much nonexistent besides random venting. The specter of tag teaming vs the reality of POV pushing. Go ahead and worry about tag teaming but we have absolute proof that SD is a POV pusher (which this AE was not even about until he started pointing blame everywhere else) while any tag teaming is based on us showing up on the same pages. Do you blame us? We keep the same stuff watch listed and it is not possible to be in the topic area without wanting to comment on an AE about SDs nationalism. Edit in the topic area for a week and you will see it.Cptnono (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not at any point imply that you were part of a tag-team. But as those allegations have been made, I am looking into the article in greater detail. If the positions were reversed and you claimed that there was a team of editors who were working against you, I know without doubt that you would want me to undertake a genuine evaluation of your claim. AGK [•] 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. The allegation made me a little livid the other night and I became unhinged (obviously shown above). Go ahead and look into it of course. Not doing so would be inappropriate. I full-on deny any such charges (and Gatoclass's accusation of tit-for-tat is untrue even if he assumes it is) but maybe your input will shed some light on it that I am not seeing. Since I do like some editors in the topic area and agree with their POV more than others it probably does rub off and impact some of my decisions. I don not think it is in anyway malicious.
And thank you for commenting as an involved editor Gatoclass. We already discusses that a few months ago so I assume you know my reaction would have been pretty poor otherwise.
And I don't care what happens to JJG and Chesdovi since this AE is not about them. I like JJG so I hope that he escapes anything to harsh but he had nothing to do with me making this request so that is a whole other discussion. For SD, how hard is it to pull the trigger on him sitting out the rest of his ban? That was my original request and the two diffs (not one Gatoclass) support my assertion that it was simply lifted early since ended up not taking positive advantage of the chance given.Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And "speaking of enough is enough", I agree. That is why I opened up an AE against someone who is proven to be a problematic editor. IF you want to boomerang it because my talk page discussion is not as nice then so be it but the real issue is edit warring and pushing POV in the mainspace. Is falafel POV or is it GA? That is all I have to say about that until my appeal.Cptnono (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

I made a post at the Golan heights talkpage about my edit [159]. Two users had recently changed the position of the placement, putting the Hebrew translation before the Arabic in a place internationally recognized as in Syria, neither had explained this change.[160][161]. So I reverted this and explained the change, Syria's official language is Arabic.

The enforcement I filed above against user Jiujitsuguy is a 100% legitimate enforcement request against a user who is constantly violating npov and his other disruptive behavior. There is no "battlefield behavior" about opening a legitimate enforcement request. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to AGK: The position was changed before by Chesdovi, and I then also had opened up a discussion explaining why Arabic should be first: [162]. Chesdovi did not reply to me. Now Chesdovi just came back and reverted it again without saying anything.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted by Brewcrewer:[163]. I had explained it before: [164] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, this is seriously unbelievable that you can call those four edits that I made "against Israel" , and say that I am "non neutral" based on them. I explained every single one of those edits at the talkpage [165]. One of them is me adding a section for Quneitra, the second is me creating separate sections for Syrian and Israeli settlements. Third is me removing an unsourced map that had been unsoruced for a very long time and tagged for a very long time, fourth is me adding one sentence summary of a quote that was never agreed to be removed.

How exactly are they "against" anything? or "non neutral"? and when I explained them in detail, they were reverted without addressing any of the issues I brought up:[166]

The Golan heights is internationally recognized as part of Syria: Per npov undue weight, we should represent the worldview. "The international community maintains that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and without international legal effect" p 23 Or this GA vote about "occupied Syrian Golan", 161-1 [167] "the United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal" p. 8. EU: [168]. Arab League:[169] Amnesty International: [170]

I just brought up tons of evidence here]: about JJG going against the entire world view and his other disruptive behavior, and you didn't say one single word or bring up one single diff about his pov pushing.

He ads that its located in Israel: Ads a map of Israel showing the area as part of Israel: Rujm el Hiri: [171], Nimrod:[172], Katzrin:[173]

Mount Hermon is a mountain completely located in Syria and Lebanon, part of it in Syria is also in the Golan heights. There was a location map in the article showing the two countries the mountain is located in, Syria and Lebanon. Jijutsuguy removes this location map following the international view and also ads Israel to the infobox: [174], he is claiming that the Golan Heights is Israel. At the talkpage he claimed that the location map highlighting the two countries Mount Hermon is located in, Syria and Lebanon "violates NPOV and is extremely misleading.", and claims it is located in a "third" county. He has removed a location map from the article following the international view, based on his pov believes that Golan Heights "is Israel".

At the 2006 Lebanon War article, Jijutsuguy replaces the "Golan heights" with "northern Israel" [175]

At the Hexagon pools, article, about a place in the Golan heights, Jijutsuguy changes it to: "The Hexagon Pool in Israel" and "Golan Heights, in northern Israel." [176]

At the Golan Heights article there is a "Territorial claims" section, I previously explained at the talkpage why I had removed the claim that France got "primarily in exchange for French concessions in the oil rich areas of Iraq", and replaced it with that Palestine got lands in Syria and Lebanon including the entire sea of Galilee: [177], Jijutsuguy previously reverted me: [178] and said at the talkpage: [179]. I then explained in great detail why the source he wanted to use is unreliable about what happened [180],

Then, without saying anything, without addressing any of the points I brought up at the talkpage, he reverts it once again: [181]

At the Six Day War article there was this sentence in the article: "Israel also expelled Arabs from the DMZ and demolished their homes", the sources used in the article say: "Arab villagers residing in the DMZs were evicted and their dwellings demolished, 'as the status quo was all the time being altered by Israel in her favor.' The Security Council called on Israel to let the villagers return, but Israel..." p.131, "On the latter point, Bull's reflections are worth quoting in full: I imagine that a number of those Arabs evicted settled somewhere in the Golan Heights" p.132, "'the status quo was all the time being altered by Israel in her favor' as Arab villagers were evicted, their dwellings demolished, and 'all Arab villages disappeared' in wide swaths of the DZs." p.186

Jijutsuguy changes this sentence to: "Israel also expelled Arab squatters and trespassers from the DMZ and demolished their homes." [182]

Jijutsuguy repeatedly uses insults in his edit summary's when reverting other editors contributions, calling them "troll" at Jerusalem: [183][184], and at 2006 Lebanon War: [185][186]

At the Golan Heights talkpage there has previously been long discussions about the map in the infobox:[187]. Jijutsuguy and a few others wanted to use a modified CIA map where the placement of the name "Syria" is moved from a place internationally recognized as part of Syria, and "Israeli occupied" is removed underneath "Golan Heights". Jijutsuguy participated in the discussion and the arguments he used were replied to: ([188] Reply) * ([189] Reply) * ([190] Reply Reply), after his last argument he used, he had previously also changed the map in the middle of the discussion to the modified one:[191]. Overall in this discussion with many participants, no consensus was established to use the modified map.

Despite this, now after, Jijutsuguy has once again changed it to the same modified one:[192]

Please explain why you haven't said one single word about this and please show me one single edit I have made that I am not editing in a neutral manner.? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important note for reviewing admins: Both Cptnano and Nsaum75 edit Wikipedia articles according to the same pov as Jiujitsuguy. They usually show up to the same articles, same edits, show up to the same enforcements, either defending the same editors are wanting the same editors topic banned. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJGs copy pasting of old accusations: [193]. Okey now JJG has copy pasted old accusations that has already been brought up 3-4 times before and that I have replied to 3-4 times at previous enforcements:

I have been sanctioned for the same types of comments I made about Arab food, some of the comments are more then 1,5 years old before I received the ARBPIA notification, and I have not said those types of things again after the enforcement:[194]. And just to be clear, they were not about calling "members of the Jewish faith", "thieves", it was about appropriation of Arab cuisine.

JJG once again brought up those types of comments at PhilKnights talk, and he didn't consider them actionable, Phil not knowing that I was already sanctioned. I then told him that I was already sanctioned for those types of comments before: [195].

They were immature comments I made, but I have paid for what I said, and it was a long time ago and I have not said those types of things again. Yet some people keep on bringing them up over and over again.

Previously I have also repeatedly responded at several enforcements to these same things as JJG have once again brought up now: [196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204]

Its hard finding all these old diffs, if somethings missing, ask.

And I explained in great detail at the talkpage why I removed the views of two US presidents from the article. Please see here:[205]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have previously addressed all of them as shown the diffs above, whats missing? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also explained the comments I said to Ani medjool at an old enforcement where I was topic banned: [206] "Ani Medjool had very strong language" (about Israel and other things) "and what I meant about that was that he might get banned if he continues....... so I told him that if he feel the way he feels he should be quiet about it. For the sake of the encyclopedia, to avoid unnecessary drama.". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again twisting the things that I said, I didn't think it was contentious to note Bernard Lewis background so thats why I didn't mention it in the edit summary, and I added it on the reasons I stated above. I did this once. I haven't edited any article about a Hindu historian speaking about contentious and disputed origin of Hindus, or a Buddhist historian speaking about the contentious and disputed origin of Hindus. I myself didn't try to "prove" what Hitlers background was, there were several reliable sources including Haartez that had reported about his background being of the same one of the people he hated, so I believed this was notable information. I also didn't try to prove that "Jews were involved in the slave trade", I asked Jayjg why he had done some changes to the articles, and the reason for them, he did not bring any new source when he did the change. I opposed the removal of the conspiracy sections in the 9-11 twin tower attacks based on my comment there [207]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:JGG: :Yes all those diffs of me removing a country from places in East Jerusalem are in accordance with the entire international community view who object to Israels annexation of East Jerusalem. This has been discussed before where I participated: [208].

The same edit has been reverted several times by several editors. Look at the history of the articles: [209][210][211][212] etc. The edit is clearly pov, that the majority object to.

This edit as Western wall [213], I am removing a pov map violating the views of the entire international community, the map that I am replacing it with is supported at the talkpage [214] and not objected to by any side of the dispute at the talkpage and will now stop edit warring. And the long discussions there as I have participated in will also come to an end.

You have already brought up the Hebrew/Arabic issue before here, Sandstein already told you "The Arabic edit, on its own, does not demonstrate disruption.", why are you posting it again? I have explained this several times before, I made a post at the Golan heights talkpage about my edit [215]. Two users had recently changed the position of the placement, putting the Hebrew translation before the Arabic in a place internationally recognized as in Syria, neither had explained this change.[216][217]. So I reverted this and explained the change, Syria's official language is Arabic. Its interesting that you are bringing up me changing back the position of the translation while discussing it at the talkpage, while you have no problem with yourself changing it while not discussing it.

My comment to Ani Medjool is from 2009 and was brought up at an enforcement where I was topic banned:[218] and I have explained this before at the enforcement. I don't believe it is right that JJG keeps on posting this all over the place repeatedly and wanting me sanctioned for the same things over and over again, for example: JJG have previously said some very disturbing things about users at Wikipedia and other disturbing things and attacks that got him indefinitely blocked at one point, I can not link to it as that would be outing, but I don't believe he should be sanctioned several times for this same thing that he said.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:JJGYou published an entire article at a well known Israeli newspaper and several websites, signing with your name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJG you published it in several newspapers and websites, so it didn't seem as something you didn't want to be revealed. If you had said something I wouldn't have linked to it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Sandstein: Could you please explain what edits JJG has brought up that you refer to as "The other edits, while problematic" ? I believe I have previously repeatedly responded to these accusations as can be seen in the diffs above, JJG and the other users who repeatedly posted these same accusations have misrepresented what I said. Have you read my replys? If there is something you feel is problematic I want to know what exactly. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits cited by Jiujitsuguy insofar as they predate 2011. If you believe these have already been taken into consideration in previous proceedings, you should link here to the archives of these discussions. Sandstein 23:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was that these accusations have been brought up 3-4 times before and that I have already replied to them. JJG and the others who have repeatedly brought up these accusations have misrepresented me.

JJG claims: "Dismisses views of editors deemed “pro Israel”" but this was not what I did as I have explained before: [219]. I pointed out there political positions because there was an editor who was blocked who had the same political position as them. And these two editors with the same political position wanted him unblocked. I was making other people who might want to unblock the blocked editor aware of that they share the same political position.

"Unilaterally changes name of Jerusalem International Airport" explained: [220]. It was a mistake that I did.

"Labels noted historian as “Jew”" explained: [221][222] thats not really what I did: I said "Jewish historian". "Jewish Historian" gets 69,800 results on Google books.[223]. So the edit was in accordance with mainstream publications. And it was the context of the text why I added it, the text was about a historian talking about the origins of Jews. So to point out the background of the historian, I saw as relevant. I don't really care about this, it was one edit I did, no one said anything. If anyone felt it was a problem they could have said so, I wouldn't object to removing it.

"Removes all historical Jewish connections to the city of Gamla", Explained:[224][225]. This is not what I did. I removed in the first sentence that its a Jewish city because the first source in the article shows that Gamla did not start out as a Jewish city. It is therefor incorrect to refer to it as a "Jewish city" in the first line of the article when Jews later moved in there.

"Rejects the opinion of a closing admin because he’s considers Jews not neutral", this is not what I did and my comment from 1,5 years ago was brought up at a previous enforcement: [226], what I did was also explained at a second enforcement here: [227] "Yes I said Oren0 can not be considered neutral to the subject at the dispute at the Golan Heights article because of the things written at his userpage. The Golan Heights is occupied by Israel, the things written at his userpage shows him being supportive of Israel, so how could he be a neutral part or mediator if he supports one side? Would anyone ask User:Tiamut to mediate between a Palestinian and an Israeli?" This has nothing to do with "considers Jews not neutral", it has to do with any person having a Conflict of Interest. Whether it's a Greek mediating between a Turk and Greek or a Palestinian mediating between an Israeli and a Palestinian.

Is there something here above in these repeated old replys that is not sufficient? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cptnono Thats cherry picking part of the conversation, I told HJ I made a mistake by filing it right after. I shouldn't have done that. You said: "Are the reports against him because everyone else is wrong" Well who are these "everyone else"? How do they edit articles? Are they all editing articles according to a world view? or are they all editing articles according to the views of one country? Perfect example can recently be seen at Western Wall: Source was provided at talkpage showing the international view that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territories [228]. Wikipedia policy npov say we should follow the majority view, JJG changes the map[229] based on guide sources: [230] that obviously is not of the same standard or authoritative as the UN sources representing the international community. Cptnono does not say one single word to JJG about this clearly npov violation. User:Assad reverts back to consensus:[231]. Cptnono immediately objects to the worldview edit: [232] and posts at his talkpage: [233]. User Nsaum75 who also showed up to this enforcement who has filed two previous enforcements against me, he also has has described East Jerusalem as part of Israel:[234]. Chesdovi has also described places in East Jerusalem and West bank as part of Israel:[235][236]. Cptnono, Nsaum75 and JJG all supporting not highlighting in the location map the two countries that Mount Hermon is internationally recognized as being located in, for the sake of the believes of one country that its also located in a "third" country:[237][238]. Another example is Nsaum75 filing an entire enforcement based on me removing the "Islamic terrorism" category from Hezbollah [239], Nsaum75 has never edited that article or its talkpage, after JJGs topic ban was lifted, JJG shows up there and ads the same category,[240] and he also never touched that article or its talkpage before. Mbz1 and Cptnono both has supported JJG when he wanted to change the illegality settlement sentence:[241][242], a sentence that I and several other believe is inaccurate and not following the sources. This is only a few examples, I'm sure I can bring many more. So this is the "everyone else" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You started to stop my edit warring? I think I made one edit to the settlement articles, then I was notified about the discussion (that you had started before my edits) and I joined it. The "Settlements and International Law" section was started by JJG, but this doesn't matter, I only wanted to show that "everyone else", in this specific case, you and Mbz1 have a history of supporting JJG. And all of you have been involved in enforcement agaisnt me. So this is the "multiple editors" or "everyone else" wanting me banned. I have made mistakes, but I don't believe I'm a pov pusher. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with "Hebrew in front of Arabic", it has to do with the language of the country its internationally recognized as part of being first, and when I have repeatedly discussed this at the talkpage, it has been reverted by JJG and Chesdovi without explanation. No map would not be fine, it would be appeasing pov pushers and removal of something important from articles. Yesterday I contacted Dr.Blofled and got a map for Jerusalem, this will probably end all the problems at all the discussions at Western Wall and the other East Jerusalem articles. The flags I have wanted to remove does not belong there, at Gamla there was no need to have a flag for the Israeli parks authority, at Hermon there was an Israeli flag representing the Golan Heights, which of course is inaccurate and pov, Syria and Lebanon flags for Syria and Lebanon are not inaccurate, but I didn't object to the flags being removed from them.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Nsaum75, going by what you said you have about 20 times as much reason to go to all articles about places in Israel and remove that they are in Israel, because there are about 20 countries who say the area is Palestine, while there is only one country who say Golan Heights is Israel, you have been shown WP policy npov and that we should go by the international view. The majority of the mountain including the summit is located elsewhere in Syria and in Lebanon, so your suggestion doesn't make any sense. I brought this up at the talkpage and you did not reply. You want to exclude the majority of Syria and Lebanon where the majority of the mountain is located and only highlight a small part of the mountain that is occupied by Israel. That is non-factual only to appease pov pushing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NuclearWarfare: Can you please explain how "fault lies with both of them"? There is no justification for saying this. Collective punishment is not fair. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare, JJG has misrepresented the things I have said here and twisted them into something that I didn't say, I have replied to these things over and over like 4-5 times now, posted at several enforcements and admin talkpages, this is fishing. All these things also predate my latest topic ban, could you point out to those specific edits I have done that concerns you? I think you have maybe missed some of my replies. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NW, Please read my comments at my talkpage: [243], he had published an article about his own edits at Wikipedia at a BIG newspaper and websites and he signed it with his name, I did not sign it for him, he did, because of this I did not think it mattered for him. As soon as he told me he didn't want it linked because of this, I respected that.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Enigmaman: I did not return to make the battleground edits I made before. I was blocked for the many reverts I did at Hezbollah. I have acknowledged that me filing the enforcement right after the topic ban was wrong, but it was a legitimate enforcement as stated by Sandstein. There has not been any battleground edits at any articles after my return. Once again I'm sorry for filing the enforcement right after the topic ban ended, it was inappropriate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Re:No More Mr Nice Guy: I spent my topic ban doing many things, the admin said he was going to lift it in advance from the beginning, in the end I started to prepare the enforcement, I have acknowledged that it was wrong of me to do that and that it was inappropriate. I wanted it lifted so I can edit the articles I want to edit, not to file an enforcement. Bring the diffs that you refer to and I will reply. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Enigmaman: I have already acknowledged that it was wrong and inappropriate of me to open the enforcement right after, what more can I do now? I didn't "out" anyone, he himself published an article at a big newspaper and several websites where he talked about his edits at Wikipedia and signed his name. This gave me the impression that his name was no issue for him. I linked to the article to show what he previously had said, not to reveal his name. As soon as he told me that he didn't want it revealed, I didn't link to it again. I respect peoples privacy. And I haven't "outed" anyone before either, where are you getting that from? I haven't been "warned about this behaviour in the past". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Arthur Rubin, you said: "It's clear that whatever he's doing now is a continuation of what he was sanctioned for before", what is it that I am doing now that is a continuation of what I was sanctioned for before? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Georgewilliamherbert, this is a reply to this comment by JJG:[244] you can see what Jiujitsuguy did during my "calm" "one-month absence" here:[245] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

Q: "Plac[ing] the Arabic translation in an article before the Hebrew […] has surprisingly been an issue" - could we have some diffs as evidence of this, please? AGK [•] 21:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will see what I can pull up. For the Golan Heights, his edit summary was "Restore unexplained changes of translation" so restore means that he obviously reverted someone. Maybe he should have opened up the discussion and waited instead of reverting, no? SD has expressed concerns over translations in a manner that I feel shows that there is a battlefield and POV issue. For example, Falafel. Note that we got it to GA just the other day! I will find some more but it has been over multiple articles so my recollection is not perfect.Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hummus Again, is this the sort of thing we need or want in the topic area? A crusade against Hebrew translations is really nothing more than rocking the boat in a nationalistic effort.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously opened up discussion about the translation when Chesdovi changed it, and he did not reply then, and now he did the same thing again.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both Falafel and Hummus are Arabic words so they're translation are the only one that are relevant, there has been several discussions at the talkpage where I participated, see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q: I am assuming that this complaint is filed under the "Discretionary sanctions" remedy of the P/I arbitration case? At present, only the case page is linked to, but we need a specific remedy to proceed; Cptnono, could you please edit the complaint information and be more specific? AGK [•] 21:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

A number of articles mentioned above (including the Golan Heights article) have been battlefields with nationalist "nit-picking", "prodding" and claims of "pov pushing" over things like translation order or where photos were taken. If you look at the history of them during SD's topic ban, however, they have been stable and this AE enforcement board has been relatively quiet in regards to ARBPIA filings. During his ban the article on Falafel, which is under ARBPIA 1rr restrictions due in part to political editing that SD had a hand in, also reached GA status with the input of several editors and an admin, Malik Shabazz. I would ask that this be taken into consideration. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like me opening up discussions at the Golan Heights talkpage and explaining my edits with no reply, and then later the same editors come along and just revert everything without explaining they're reverts, is that "stable" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a battle ground. I'm not commenting on the "correctness" of their edits, but rather your continued battlefield behavior (as partly evident in your immediate ARBPIA AE filing against other editors almost immediately after your own ban was lifted for good behavior) and your continued failure to recognize your own battlefield behavior (as you mentioned above, when saying there is nothign battlefield about opening an AE proceeding). -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 22:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, filing a legitimate enforcement request against a user who is constantly violating npov and his other disruptive behavior is not battlefield behavior. Its filing a legitimate enforcement request.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...[246] -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that I shouldn't have filed an enforcement request after a topic ban ended. It came out wrong. It wont happen again. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you added this immediately before apologizing to Mitchell for battlefield behavior. The best approach to making changes to the articles would have been to ease back into editing, not a barrage of changes and AE filings. This is not the first time an admin has cited you for battlefield behavior, and eluding to the belief that certain editors should be disregarded because you believe they follow a certain POV or edit style, is not helpful or constructive. If I were in your shoes, I would sit back for a bit and chill out. Its not always necessary to have the last word. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 23:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe its important to know where the accusations are coming from, Cptnono wanting me topic banned because I followed WP guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and you saying Golan Heights was "stable" without me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[247], Sometimes you choose to diffs to draw your opposition in an interesting, however misleading light. Highlighting a controversial area on a map and excluding the countries around it was an attempt to try to diffuse the bickering between those who want it shown as part of Israel and those who want it shown as part of Syria; an attempt to work collaboratively and trying to find consensus by removing areas which was causing contention on both sides and focusing just on the area being discussed in the article (dispute resolution). In any case, I have only filed AE enforcements against editors twice. Both times they were against you, and both times they led to your sanctioning - therefore they had merit. I rarely edit[248] IP area articles anymore because of personal threats I've received on and off Wiki, and because most of the editors involved are so battlefield minded that any edit that might stray from their own POV instantly creates a massive conflict. I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way, and I'm sure I'm not the only editor (new or established) who has been run off (or dissuaded) from editing because of people who are unable to work collaboratively with others. Maybe I'm foolish for commenting here. Maybe I'm foolish for trying to find ways to create[249] and improve articles[250] instead of intense bickering over minor things such as where photos were taken, what order wikiprojects are listed or whether hebrew or arabic come first. The disruption must stop. Admins: You surely must realize that IP area is no longer a place where "anyone" can edit. Its become a place where you can only edit if you want to be thrown into a fire and roasted until you either "toe the line" of a particular side or decide to run away screaming. Sad indeed. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [251] Sigh...Once again I disagree with the way you have framed the enforcement. The successful enforcement was based on your gaming the system, not the viewpoint of your edits. If you note, I didn't take a stand on the issue, instead asking for Admin clarification/direction on how such a situation should be handled, as I thought this might help diffuse the situation. Also, It is possible to have many articles on your watchlist without editing them as well. WP is not a "game" to be won. Its a collaborative project where we are supposed to build articles not fight over every little word and go over everyone's every word with a fine-tooth-comb. I guess I am foolish for trying to help people find common ground or defuse tense situations; for that, I apologize. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 15:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

In addition to what Chesdovi noted below, I have some things to say on this for obvious reasons. First, I note that, as indicated by tool server, SD has made more edits to AE than nearly any other editor, over 400 posts and counting.[252]. This is an astonishing figure when compared to others in the topic area. I will not comment directly on the AE that SD filed against me but I will comment on some of the edits he’s made after receiving the Wikipedian equivalent of parole from his Topic Ban. Less than 2 hours later, he began making edits to the Golan Heights and subsequently made a series of edits in rapid succession including these two blanket reversions of the views of United States Presidents and US foreign policy. [253][254] Also these problematic edits by SD have yet to be addressed. Reversion of sourced material without the use of edit summaries [255][256] [257] He has also engaged in an editing pattern that is dismissive of Jewish or Israeli viewpoints and often attempts to downgrade the Jewish nexus with Israel.

Dismisses views of editors deemed “pro Israel”[258]
Unilaterally changes name of Jerusalem International Airport[259]
Labels noted historian as “Jew”[260]. This diff speaks a volume and demonstrates that the user's approach has never changed. Exactly as in the differences provided above and below, the user dismisses the views of someone he identifies as a Jewish administrator and Jewish editors in the same manner that he does in the instant example. The user adds "Jewish" to the name of historian to demonstrate that this fact alone makes him not trustworthy.
Removes all historical Jewish connections to the city of Gamla[261]
Rejects the opinion of a closing admin because he’s considers Jews not neutral[262]

Supreme Deliciousness has on at least three (3) occasions used pejoratives to refer to members of the Jewish faith, describing them as “thieves.”[263][264][265] The last three diffs are older and are used here for demonstrative purposes to show that SD displays an extreme bias and an obsessive animus toward Israel and members of the Jewish faith. He has yet to offer a retraction for making those obscene comments despite being challenged and given opportunity to do so. This is clearly someone who should not be editing in the topic area.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SD's retort above addresses only those three edits that I specifically cited for demonstrative purposes only. They do not address the other, more recent diffs that are noted above. These very problematic edits have yet to be discussed or addressed in any forum.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want all admins viewing this AE to take note on how SupremeD once again dismisses the views of editors he identifies as pro-Israel in the context of the instant action.[266]. Compare the previously noted edit with this gem authored by SD.[267] I don’t think there’s any better proof than this. This either represents an incredible lapse of judgment on his part or he feels that he is impervious to administrator action. In any event, it demonstrates that he will never learn from his past actions no matter how many topic bans or blocks are instituted against him.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanstein. You acknowledge that the diffs are problematic. You state that the diffs pre-date his most recent topic ban. While that is technically true, it is also true that his last topic ban did not even address these matters and focused exclusively on SD's GAMING of the system. Since the diffs and problematic edits were never addressed in any forum, I submit that it is proper to address them here and now.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there is one more thing I'd like to add, something that represents a constant undertone to SD's edits. Possible evidence of Antisemitism is not merely "problematic." There is a fine line between hatred of Israel, which is amply evident by SD's editing patterns, and antisemitism. The fact that several of his edits invoked the word "Jew" and his singular obsession with "Jewish Historians," "Jewish administrators," and "Jewish editors," (or his perception, either real or imagined, of them as being Jewish) is more than just "problematic." I would link you to an older version of his user page where the vitriolic venom is amply demonstrated but that has since been removed, replaced by a picture of an innocent, non threatening looking pelican. I urge you to please carefully scrutinize those diffs that have never been addressed before in any forum, and judge for yourself. But please don't dismiss such a serious issue with the wave of a hand.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Jiujitsuguy

Unfriggin believable! Supreme Deliciousness makes the most distasteful and offensive comments about Jews, some of which are outright antisemitic and you say they're not actionable?! His comments clearly demonstrate that he harbors deep-seeded animosity toward those of the Jewish faith, calling them "thieves." He has amply demonstrated that he considers the views of Jews tainted, as evidenced by his near obsession with labeling those he takes issue with, including noted historians as well as wikipedian editors and administrators, as "Jews" or "Jewish" or "Israeli." I am asking that another admin review this with a fresh eye, untainted by comments from others who clearly don't view this issue with the seriousness it deserves--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, stop making offensive comments about me and the other administrators who are commenting in this thread. If you make your point diplomatically, we will look at it in as much, if not more, detail than if you had not. Second, I haven't read much of the discussion here (being too engaged in my own evaluation of the article, as is my right as an uninvolved sysop), so I haven't seen your diffs of that. When I do, I'll respond appropriately. AGK [•] 10:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point something out for illustrative purposes only. Suppose I made the outrageous comment that Sandstein can not be impartial in this AE because as a person with German ancestry, he is incapable of handling matters in which Jews are involved. It would be offensive in the extreme and beyond the pale to make such a comment, and the person making such comment would be immediately be sanctioned. The situation with SupremeD is precisely the same, nay infinitely more egregious because it is of a repeated nature and the comments themselves demonstrate a discernable hate for a particular ethnicity. These edits are more than just “troubling” as Sandstein suggests, they are hurtful, spiteful and hateful and they foster an atmosphere of anger and distrust among editors. I am asking that these diffs presented in this AE be reviewed with a critical eye and that the matter be treated with the utmost seriousness that it deserves.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Chesdovi

[268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273]. Chesdovi (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment will not be taken into account unless you explain who made these edits, when they made them, and how these edits are relevant with respect to this request. Sandstein 16:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The other edits". Do you refer to the diffs I put here? Chesdovi (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, below I refer to the pre-2011 edits provided by Jiujitsuguy above. Sandstein 22:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, below you say that you agree with AGK, that the Arabic edit, on its own, does not demonstrate disruption, because AGK ouldn't find any record of the translation previously being changed. The diffs I provide show that there was indeed an issue with this and SD's latest edit was not made in a vaccum. SD was not content with the Hebrew and Arabic on the same line (Arabic first), but felt the need to demote the Hebrew to the bottom line. (10 Aug 2010). On 24 Aug this was changed back by an IP: "revert. let's not stoop to such low levels... changing the order of the language. are you joking?". It was changed back by SD on 4 Oct, and again straight after her topic ban: [274], in what was highlighted by Cptnono in her report. Chesdovi (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These diffs by Chesdovi are interesting, the first diff is from an IP who came along for one day and started making radical changes to the articles, with clearly inaccurate edit summary's like: "against admins decision" and "we talked with the admins and they told us that our version is acceptable.". He also received many warnings: [275]. The second diff is an editor saying: "Reinstating long held consensus about order of languages. If you really want to change this, then go through the same laborious process of reaching consensus on talk page as we did last time." which is appropriate. Third diff by chesdovi; he changes the position of the languages without explanation: [276]. Fourth diff I explained at the talkpage: [277][278] (Chesdovi does not reply). Fifth diff is Breein using his IP ([279]). He did not discuss his change at the talkpage. Sixth diff, restoring consensus as the position of them was changed without discussion by Breeins IP.

And now basically Chesdovi and JJG just continued to change the position without explanation: [280]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then we have Cptnono who wrote: "Within 3 hours, SD placed the Arabic translation in an article before the Hebrew. Do we really want an editor who does that in the topic area? This has surprisingly been an issue and it seems petty." (As for my own edits regarding this, it would seem only fair to present the infobox as I suggested, as we find similarly with al-Quds) SD continues her battlefied mentaitiy after topic ban. She removes mention of Israleite history from lead and replaces with "Aramean" history. Why not just remove reference to ancient Israel if it offends her? No, she removes and adds another ancient non-Israelite ancient tribe instead. Chesdovi (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I did not remove Israeli history from the lead, I removed biblical text as it is not history and as I explained at the talkpage: [281], I left the "Gamla served as the Jewish stronghold" in the lead as it is history and not biblical, and I also added Aramean history, so not to cherry pick from history in the lead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You left Gamla b/c it was balanced with ghanassids. We are talking about 1000 years earlier. You removed Israelite tribe and added Aramean tribe. Not a removal only. But an addition after removal to tip balance. Chesdovi (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SD. The diffs that are noted by me have never been adjudicated in any forum. The previous AE that was brought against you that raised the issue of these problematic edits, as you are well aware, was closed almost immediately on technical grounds, having nothing to do with the merits of the claim. The filer, Mbz1, was sanctioned on an unrelated matter[[282] and she was unable to proceed, thus resulting in the premature closure of the AE case. Thus the allegations she brought against you were never heard or adjudicated by any admin. You dodged the bullet on that one but now is as good a time as any to get this out in the open once and for all and see how Wikipedia deals with these types of edits.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, let me add one more thing. Anyone else who would have made the same or similar overtly racist and prejudicial comments about another ethnicity would have been permanently topic banned or indeff'd long ago.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and its integrity are important to me but it is of secondary importance when it comes to the issue of racism and anti-Semitism. What bothers me most is the lackadaisical attitude that some people here have toward anti-Semitic edits and comments by SupremeD. So he called Jews "thieves,"[283][284][285] who cares. So he encourages other users to hate Israel but to use "double speak" to attain their goals, so what. So he discounts the views of Jews and Israelis, qualifying their opinions by labeling them "Jewish," [286] [287] big deal. So he spends his time during his topic ban trying to push a fringe conspiracy theory that Hitler, (of cursed memory) was Jewish, a bit eccentric but not harmful. I didn’t want to say it before but I will say it now in a loud, clear voice. I believe that SupremeD harbors vitriolic hate for Israel and those of the Jewish faith and that his rancid vitriol poisons his editing. I believe that SupremeD shouldn’t be allowed to edit a comic book let alone Wikipedia.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best reason why you shouldn’t be editing in this or for that matter, any topic area, is this edit, where you attempt to downgrade the significance of the views of the historian Bernard Lewis by placing the word “Jew” before historian. You made this edit in a convoluted attempt to convey the impression to the reader that Lewis’ historical research is somewhat inferior because he is a Jew and can not possibly produce scholarly work. Your explanation for this edit highlights even further why you should not be editing in this topic area. This is how you explained the edit: I added it, the text was about a historian talking about the origins of Jews. So to point out the background of the historian, I saw as relevant. You fail to realize how grossly offensive that remark is. Background, in terms of academic qualifications is fine. However, by inserting “Jew” before historian, you’re suggesting to the reader that Lewis’ scholarly research is tainted by his ethnicity. That Jews are incapable of being objective because they are Jewish and that in turn, makes them inherently unreliable. You are so blinded by hate that you can not even come close to understanding why what you did was offensive.

You rejected the opinions of a closing admin because of the things he wrote on his userpage and you further state This user is a Jew Therefore Oren0 can not be considered neutral to this subject Tell me SupremeD, what about the things that you wrote on your user page? Where is that user page? I’ll tell you where it is. You had it permanently deleted because you knew that it placed you in the nest of vile hatred and destroyed your credibility as an editor. If that page can be restored, it will reflect how SupremeD truly feels.

If admins watching this feel that this type of behavior by an editor is appropriate and acceptable, I’ll quit the project entirely because I would have zero interest in participating with people who condone this type of editing pattern.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no admin, but I think this behavious is appropriate, it is very common to see sources such as NGOs labelled as being say American-if the issue is about America, or right wing when the issue is about right vs left wing ideologies. It helps the reader to know what potential bias the sources have. I too would feel unhappy about having a 3rd opinion come form someone who probably has an opinion on the matter before coming to the discussion, and can you please answer my previously posted question in your own AE. Passionless -Talk 21:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomo Sand devotes many passages in The Invention of the Jewish People to discussion of the fact that universities in Israel have separate departments and disciplines of History and of Jewish History, and that they have separated "Jewish Historians" from "Historians". RolandR (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is such a thing as Jewish history, that is, history of the Jewish people. Are you suggesting that a specialist in Jewish history should be called a Jewish historian? Even if he is, say, Chinese? - BorisG (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything here is about context. I challenge you to find one edit, of his many thousands, where SD describes or identifies any historian, other than the “Jewish” ones by their religion. In his thousands of edits, has he once described a historian as Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Baha’i or Zoroastrian? The answer is unequivocally, NO! Now for more context. During his topic ban, he spent his days trying to prove the fringe theory that Hitler was Jewish[288] and that Jews were involved in the slave trade[289]. He also opposed the removal of a section in the 9-11 twin tower attacks that discussed conspiracies including one that described Jews and Israelis as playing a key role in the attacks.[290] This is an editor who is using and abusing Wikipedia to subtly further a twisted agenda of maligning those of the Jewish faith and Israel. At first, he was overt about his twisted views as evidenced by his user page which, has since been permanently deleted. He previously edited under a different accounts and IPs and engaged in egregious conduct there as well. Now he claims “outing” when anyone broaches the subject. He cleverly learned how to manipulate Wikipedia’s rules to cover his own bad behavior. And of course there are the more recent diffs where he attempts to all but eviscerate the historical Jewish nexus to Israel. But back to Bernard Lewis and the matter at hand. SD’s sole purpose here was to influence the wikipedian reader that Bernard Lewis’ historical research and scholarship is tainted exclusively by one fact – that he was born of Jewish parents. Never mind is academic achievement and accolades. To SD, the only thing that he sees is “Jew,” and that speaks volumes about this editor.Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There’s are a few more things that I’d like to point out about the Bernard Lewis "Jew" edit that are very telling of SupremeD’s behavior and editing patterns. As I noted earlier, SupremeD has a habit of making substantial and contentious edits without edit summaries. [291][292][293] In the Lewis edit he notes the following edit summary, Bernard states while Sand claims? Nowhere does he state that he, somewhat underhandedly, inserted Lewis’ perceived religion or ethnicity. At the very least, that is misleading. His edit was immediately reverted by Greyshark09. Yet SupremeD somewhat dishonestly states in his defense noted above, no one said anything. If anyone felt it was a problem they could have said so, I wouldn't object to removing it. It is obvious that someone felt it was a problem because the edit was immediately reverted. SD also stated in his defense that he thought Lewis' ethnicity was relevant. If that's the case why did he not include an explanation in the edit summary?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment concerning SD edit per AGK analysis: AGK concerning this edit by SD. On more that one occasion, I tried to reason with him showing him that the issue of Quneitra and its destruction has been the subject of great dispute. I provided sources which he dismissed because the authors are “Israeli.” There’s that recurring theme again. In the world of SD, if the author of a scholarly work is “Israeli,” (or Jewish for that matter), it is inherently unreliable and must be discounted. Here’s the diff that I provide and includes four sources[294] and here’s SDs response [295] Note how he is completely dismissive of sources he claims are authored by Israelis: the second source is written by an Israeli soldier which disqualifies it right there. Third book is minority claims by an Israeli, no evidence that the author is a reliable researcher. I then reminded him that dismissive attitude toward scholarly work authored by Israelis or Jews had previously landed him in hot water. [296]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJG is only telling one side of the story: The issue is the believe that Israel destroyed Quenitra or if it was war ruined, the majority believe including the UN and U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants say Israel destroyed it. The sources he brought were minority believes including from involved people of the conflict including one solider. I showed him UN and other sources showing that its not a "Syrian believe" as he claimed [297], yet he continued to claim that it was a "Syrian believe":[298] JJg was warned at his takkpage for his POV pushing by an admin at commons: [299]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you brought that up SD and you were blocked for a week[300]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That had nothing to do with this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by JJG

Just a sample of some of the edits SD made barely coming off his topic ban

[301] with Edit summary, “not located in Israel.” No use of Talk page

[302] with edit summary, “not located in Israel.” No use of talk page.

[303] with edit summary, “not located in Israel.” No use of talk page

[304] with edit summary, “not located in Israel.” No use of talk page

[305] with edit summary, “not located in Israel.” No use of talk page

[306] with edit summary, “not located in Israel.” No use of talk page

[307] with edit summary, “not located in Israel.” No use of talk page

[308] wastes no time in removing map of Israel and adopts the position of his long-time ally and now community banned user Sol Goldstone [309]. The phrase “birds of feather flock together,” certainly seem apropos here.

Now SD knows how contentious these edits are and how other users have strong feeling that are contrary. Never mind the fact that the edits were made just after the lifting of his ban, at a minimum he could have used the talk pages to discuss the edits and seek compromise. But with SD, there’s no compromise on the issue of Israel. He made it quite clear that he wants the Jewish nation wiped off the map as indicated by the now deleted version of his old user page.

Coming off his topic ban, SD wasted no time in making numerous edits most of which consisted of removing the name of Israel, the map of Israel, or removing or repositioning Hebrew words so that they are beneath Arabic ones as he did here[310] One gets the impression that it literally causes SD pain when he sees Hebrew lettering or when he sees a map of Israel or just the mere word Israel. It sends him into convulsions. Let me also point out that he makes these edits while an AE is pending against him and his editing patterns are being scrutinized. Imagine what he would do if there was no pending AE. So if you hate Israel and want to see the Jewish state wiped off the map, a sentiment SD expressed on a previous older version of his now deleted user page, then let SD continue editing and let him continue to poison Wikipedia with vitriol and hate and ban me.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Georgewilliamherbert

George, I very much appreciate your input and have always respected your very sound judgment. I want you to take an honest look at the difference between me and SD. I have not made a single edit to any article whilst the AE is pending. I just don't feel that it's proper for me to make edits while a discussion about my behavior is underway. By contrast, my colleague, SD is on a tear making dozens of edits to the topic area, almost as if these were the last few minutes of his existence on Wikipedia. I think this speaks volumes about this editor. The topic area experienced an unusual level of calm during his one-month absence and not two hours after his reprieve, he threw everything into disarray. That's all I have to say.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very circumspect about my privacy. SD has now twice tried to reveal my real identity by attempting to link me to an off-Wikipedia forum. With SD, it’s no holds barred and he will do anything and everything to bring me down and save his own skin. I am truly shaken by this and anyone in my shoes would be just as irate. I am making a formal complaint. I hope that you take this as seriously as I do.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SD. I have a real name in REAL LIFE and a virtual name specifically for Wikipedia. You are attempting to link the two. You have no regard for the privacy concerns of others. You have taken this AE to an entirely new level because you have now blurred the line between the real and virtual worlds. I am requesting Admin action please. SD is doing precisely the same thing that his buddy Sol Goldstone was community banned for. I am asking for admin assistance please--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

Whatever way you look at it, filing an AE request based on extensive research and containing at least a number of borderline diffs (even if some have merit) hours after an early lifting of a topic ban demonstrates a SD's battleground approach par excellence. - BorisG (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting you mention that. When I was blocked for 1RR, annoyed, I compiled my own thorough AE request regarding Asad who was in violation of the same. I was intent on filing as soon as my block ended. That was on Jan 14, but I have since decided that it would be unhelpful to do and have let it remain at that, (although maybe to be used in future). Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gatoclass

Reply to AGK

AGK, what exactly is supposed to be the point of your comments below? AE is not a forum for determining who is "pro-Israel" or "pro-Syria". It's for assessing whether users are editing in accordance with policy or not. Nobody has yet produced a recent diff in this case, let alone a pattern of such, which clearly demonstrate a violation of core policies by SD; the other uninvolved admins have seen no breaches; and yet here you are after combing through a stack of diffs over several days still trying to decide whether or not he or another party has been "disruptive". I submit to you that if a breach of policy is that difficult to determine, it could not be actionable. I think the time has come for common sense to prevail and for someone to close this case. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious as to your thoughts about Cptnono's original reason for opening this AE: SD's long-term battlefield/gaming behavior? That issue seems to have gotten lost in the litany of "back and forth bickering", although perhaps the bickering in itself signifies the extent of the battle mentalities of not only the accused but other parties involved. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 15:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to NW

NW, I am truly mystified by your suggestion. This is an utterly frivolous case brought by Cptnono against SD in yet another example of tit-for-tat casing. Cptnono provided exactly one diff to support his case. Since then, Juijitsuguy has dredged up a bunch of mostly ancient diffs that are clearly not actionable now. Recommending on such grounds that both users be sanctioned is simply rewarding mudslinging and WP:GAMING. If users are to be judged on the signal-to-noise ratio achieved in their cases rather than on the evidence presented, then no-one editing in a contentious topic area will be safe from sanction. Gatoclass (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Also responding to SD, who asked the same question) I agree that the evidence posted by Cptnono is insufficient to merit a topic ban. But looking over SD's edits from the last few months, I feel that (s)he has been editing in a battleground fashion too often. Perhaps this is normally not enough to warrant a topic ban, but I for one am tired of seeing Arab-Israeli conflicts show up at AE so often. Enough is enough. NW (Talk) 18:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with NW. NW is spot-on here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re NPOV; response to AGK and Enigma

I think a distinction has to be made between having a POV and POV pushing. There is nothing inherently wrong with a user having a point of view and editing according to it; indeed, for anyone with an interest in a topic, it would be practically impossible for them not to do so. We cannot sanction users simply for having either a pro-Israel or pro-Arab bent and editing in accordance with their interpretation of the facts. If we did that, there would literally be no-one left to edit on the I-P pages at all.

What is sanctionable is when an editor shows a consistent pattern, not merely of editing according to a particular bias, but of doing so in such a way as to clearly and consistently breach core policies. This would include misrepresenting sources, adding demonstrable falsehoods to articles, adding unsourced or poorly sourced material, placing undue emphasis on certain facts at the expense of others, and so on. As long as we stick to sanctioning concrete breaches of policy, we are on solid ground. Once we start moving away from that into trying to decide whether or not a user has a bias, we are missing the point because every user has a bias of some sort.

In this particular case, I reiterate that I've yet to see any diffs which clearly demonstrate breaches of policy by SD. AGK's comments below support that view. That's why I've called this a frivolous case that doesn't warrant a sanction. When we sanction editors who are editing in accordance with policy merely because they have a demonstrable "bias", alongside those who clearly are not editing within policy, then we are ultimately only doing a disservice to the project. Gatoclass (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

This discussion is a bit hard to follow. Other than the obvious fact that SD spent his topic ban compiling a long list of perceived infractions by an editor he has a long history of disagreement with, then requested his topic ban be lifted early just so he can file an AE report, what else are admins looking at? I have seen SD repeatedly remove Hebrew names in articles, label people whose opinions are noted in articles as "Israeli/Jewish/Zionist", remove Israel related categories from articles, and other such battleground behavior. If an admin would like me to provide diffs for any of these, I could probably dig some up. Seems to me that the AE filing in itself shows that he just doesn't get it and his topic ban was lifted prematurely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it easy because I was involved in it at the very start, when this thread was not nearly so unwieldy. I have posted a list of conclusions and comments in the section for uninvolved administrators; it would be useful if you could comment on that. AGK [•] 21:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, do you know who No More Mr Nice Guy is? He is very involved in this topic area and edits articles according to the same point of view as JJG, so its very inappropriate that you are looking to him for comments about this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. I don't give much weight to peripherally-involved editors, but as a rule still invite input from everybody. You should focus on the content of my evaluation, rather than on what's going on elsewhere. AGK [•] 22:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I disclosed I am involved in the topic area (not that it's a big secret) before SD made his comment, as can be seen by the timestamp below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind I am involved in the topic area, your conclusions seem quite reasonable to me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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

It is claimed that Supreme Deliciousness' change to the translation was a revert. I can't find any record of the translation previously being changed. And, I see that he immediately opened talk page discussion of his change. I do not see a wider pattern of disruption here, nor any problems with general conduct on this article; if there is one, we will need evidencing diffs, Cptnono. AGK [•] 21:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC

I agree with AGK. The Arabic edit, on its own, does not demonstrate disruption. Nor does making an AE request that is, at the least, not evidently meritless (see my comment in that respect above). Without objection, I propose to close this request as not actionable. I would also caution Cptnono not to make unsubstantiated AE requests, and Supreme Deliciousness not to make wide-ranging (and unnecessary) accusations about others without proof, as he did in his statement. Sandstein 00:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comment by Jiujitsuguy does not cause me to reevaluate this request. The two recent edits removing material are not self-evidently problematic, as there may be good reasons to remove any content. The other edits, while problematic, predate Supreme Deliciousness's most recent topic ban and are therefore not actionable unless such conduct reoccurs. Sandstein 16:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"therefore not actionable unless such conduct reoccurs" - Agreed. I further think (as an obiter: not undertaking a final evaluation of anybody's edits at this point, per below) that, if diffs of Supreme Deliciousness' editing from before the topic ban are being presented, there is probably not much of a case here at all. AGK [•] 11:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the framework of this dispute may be more complicated than it first appears. Further to the suggestions by Supreme Deliciousness above that there is a tag team operating on these articles, I am looking into this and related articles in greater detail. In the interim, I ask that we hold off on closing this. AGK [•] 11:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody figure this out: on 26 Dec 2010, Supreme Deliciousness removes that sentence. On 28 Dec 2010, he removes the same sentence. Between those two edits, nobody seems to have re-added it, so how did Supreme come to have to remove it twice? I can't figure this out for the life of me. AGK [•] 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[311] T. Canens (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, T. Canens, and Supreme Deliciousness (who also posted an explanation). I missed it because the reverted text was underneath some others, more than one scroll-screen down; my bad. I've got quite a lot of notes on the past four months on the article, so I think I'm finished evaluating things. But I've not yet finished thinking over how to solve the problems with the article, and am disinclined to speedily close this thread in the interim. I hope we are okay with holding off for another couple of days. AGK [•] 23:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My preliminary findings, looking from about Christmas Day 2010, are that there are primarily two editors involved in this article: Supreme Deliciousness and Jiujitsuguy. I rescind my earlier remark that I see no wider pattern of disruption, but I remain confused as to who is the disruptive influence and how is not. It could be either editor. I am also unsure whose edits are in compliance with NPOV and whose are not: it could be that Supreme Deliciousness is a neutral editor and Jiujitsuguy is pro-Israel; or that Jiujitsuguy is neutral and Supreme Deliciousness is pro-Syria; or that neither of them are complying with NPOV. I'm still thinking, but thought I'd post this in the interim to let other uninvolved sysops and the parties to comment. AGK [•] 10:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the fault lies with both of them at this point. I think it would be appropriate to topic ban both of them, as well as Cptnono and maybe Chesdovi, per "enough is enough". NW (Talk) 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I noted at a previous AE, SD is a recurring problematic editor. He somehow gets his topic ban lifted, only to immediately return to making the battleground edits he was making before. It doesn't look like he's getting the message, but I'd suggest a longer topic ban this time. Enigma^msg 16:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I retract my comments about SD. The edits I was more concerned about happened in Dec/Jan, for which (s)he was appropriately sanctioned. The edits in February show almost a different individual. This still should be kept open to examine the conduct of all parties though. NW (Talk) 15:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gato: That is completely wrong. Arbitration Enforcement requires administrators to consider the wider impact of a user's editing of a given topic or article, which is what I am doing. The reason for me doing this, rather than examining with a narrow scope the request as framed, is, per NuclearWarfare, that this topic has proved a recurrent problem. My opinion is that we ought to do something now, and that is what I am trying to do. AGK [•] 20:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a list of conclusions I have formed in relation to this article. Based on them, I am convinced that there is some problem with this article, but I am unsure how to fairly or effectively remedy the matter. As well as evidenced contestations of my conclusions, I would welcome input on what kind of sanction is warranted here. My evaluation is based on the article history of Golan Heights from December 2010 until now.

SupremeDeliciousness' (hence SD) edits are consistently balanced against Israel.[312], [313], [314], [315]
Jiujitsuguy's (hence JGG) edits are consistently balanced pro-Israel.[316], from [317] to [318], [319]
A recurrent problem, especially for SD, is that his attempts to discuss his edits on the talk page seemingly go unanswered, but are still reverted: [320]&[321]
Whilst it can be observed that each editor leans either for or against Israel, I cannot determine whether they do so in violation of WP:NPOV. For instance, if the article as it stands is in violation of WP:NPOV in that it is too pro-Israel, then SD would not be anti-Israel but would simply be re-balancing the article. Likewise, if the article was anti-Israel, then JGG would not be pro-Israel but would be re-balancing the article. It could also be that neither are editing neutrally and that both are in violation of NPOV; this is historically a very difficult aspect of policy for an administrator to judge, because it requires a knowledge of the subject matter. I suspect that JGG is editing quite neutrally, though perhaps not entirely so, but that SD is editing somewhat problematically; but again, this is a preliminary impression as I do not yet know where the neutral position on this article is.
Having said that, the volume of SD's pro-Syria/anti-Israel edits leads me to conclude that he is not editing in a neutral manner.
Like with many other contentious topics, collaboration on this article could be greatly improved by the presence of more neutral, uninvolved editors. That would solve the problems of there being two camps of editors—each with markedly different viewpoints—and also of there being a limited volume of content discussion. Failing that, general discretionary sanctions or the use of discretionary sanctions to exclude one or more editors from the article is the only option.

AGK [•] 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question about an editor's impact on a specific article can be more easily answered when you take into account edits on other articles. With one article, it could be an innocent attempt to make it more "balanced". With a slew of articles, a pattern tends to emerge. Enigma^msg 23:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the general comments about the article, they apply to the Palestinian/Israel topic area as a whole. The trouble is that few who can be classified as neutral are interested in getting involved. Sometimes it's a lack of interest in the topic, sometimes it's the toxic nature of the discussions/edits. Enigma^msg 23:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the step back... Reviewing SD and Juijitsuguy's behavior together, I cannot help but think that a dual sanction of say a month's article ban of both of them is called for in the interests of the wiki in general. I don't know that either is particularly more at fault or particularly badly over the line; the combination of the two is creating a serious problem. ARBPIA doesn't require an individual editor's contributions independently be problematic; if we have a systematic problem we can approach it systematically. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm uninvolved, aside from being Jewish. However, I have made content edits in the area, but not on these specific articles, so I might not be considered an uninvolved admin. In any case, if fairness requires both parties being sanctioned (which I'm not entirely sure about), SD's prior sanction should be reinstated, in addition. It's clear that whatever he's doing now is a continuation of what he was sanctioned for before, so, if it's sanctionable, then the original sanction should be reinstated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Enigma^msg 21:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the situation seems to indicate that at the very least, SD's editing has improved since coming off the topic ban. What in particular makes you disagree? NW (Talk) 23:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from article evidence, the fact that the following occurred: 1)He gets an admin to lift his topic ban early. I'm not sure why this was deserved, but moving on... 2)He immediately opens an AE on another editor, which was one of the things he couldn't do under his topic ban. 3)Soon after, he outs another editor, after having been told and warned about this behaviour in the past. Enigma^msg 20:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AGK that changing the partisan balance of one article, on its own, is not indicative of non-neutrality, because the article may have been biased in the other direction. But if an editor is mainly dedicated to editing many articles so as to present one side of the conflict in a better light, and does not make any substantial changes in favor of the opposing point of view, then it is exceedingly unlikely that all the articles they edit are biased in favor of the opposite POV, and the only reasonable explanation for this pattern of editing is a desire to push a partisan point of view on Wikipedia as a whole, in violation of WP:NPOV. Accordingly, I intend to henceforth sanction editors whose editing history shows that they are mostly dedicated to favoring a particular point of view across many articles, in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, for violating the neutrality policy.

With respect to Jiujitsuguy, evidence for recent systematic POV-pushing (as well as misrepresentation of sources) has been provided in the request concerning them above. I am therefore sanctioning Jiujitsuguy with a six months topic ban, thereby doubling the duration of his most recent ban per my usual practice.

With respect to Supreme Deliciousness, I would support a similar ban if evidence were provided for it, but this request (as I have noted above) does not provide such evidence that postdates Supreme Deliciousness's most recent topic ban. I am therefore withholding action on this request, without prejudice to action by any other administrator. Sandstein 12:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Validuz

Blocked for 24 hours and warned.

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

Request concerning Validuz

User requesting enforcement: Noleander (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: 1RR rule for Israel/Palest articles: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: User Validuz made several reverts in one day to a single article: Allegations of Jewish control of the media. The history of that article shows the reversions: [322]. The history shows several reversions in one day: 26 Feb 2010
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): A couple warnings: [323]; and [324]. But no warnings are required for I/P articles. Also, Warning was presented via Edit Notice.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): As admins see fit.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: User Validuz notified here: [325]

Discussion concerning Validuz

Statement by Validuz

I corrected and continue to correct blatant POV errors in the opening statement of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Jewish_control_of_the_media where the term "antisemitic canard" was used as opinion, but stated as a fact.

It's a blatant disregard for the most basic neutrality of information. Neutrality is one the "five pillars" of Wikipedia, yes?

Besides that, I wasn't aware of the "one revert per day" rule until be notified on my talk page, but I don't know why/how that applies to someone intentionally inserting their opinion into an article and me correcting it.

Why is the default/standard for the opening statement contain a personal opinion in the first place? It's so obviously biased/skewed.

Validuz (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Validuz

Regarding Validuz's claim that he was not aware of the 1RR rule: the article has an Edit Notice, and when Validuz edited the article (5 or 6 times) each time there was a huge, colorful warning banner at the top reading "WARNING: In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks." Validuz saw that warning in the course of making each of the reversions. --Noleander (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see how gung-ho you are on everything except neutrality. Stating that a conspiracy theory is a "definite lie" in the beginning of an article somehow flies too low for your radar to pick up on. Validuz (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Validuz is blocked, can someone revert his edit - I'd do this myself, but have already reverted once, and don't want to complicate things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Validuz

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

This is a clear breach of 1RR. In fact there have been multiple reverts over the same text over the past 24 and 48 hours despite warnings and information about 1RR. Just so you know, Validuz, there is absolutely no dispensation in these rules for NPOV, however justified you feel about it. As a result, I will be blocking Validuz for 24 hours, and also giving you the formal warning about Israel-Palestine sanctions. I see that you are a new editor here. Please take this time to look very carefully our policies about dispute resolution, particularly in controversial areas such as this. --Slp1 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm closing this thread as there's nothing more to do here. Sandstein 08:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuelm

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

Request concerning Emmanuelm

User requesting enforcement: Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

[326] Exempts himself from MoS requirement that quotes should not be in italics, although it was properly explained.
[327] I posted on RSN and User: Fladrif in response commented there and also at the talk page. Emmanuelm called him “This Fladrif you evoke as an impartial expert” and rejected the advice that Fladrif gave. Emmanuelm was cross that I had gone to RSN without properly informing him – the only thing I should have been more careful about was that I assumed he knew what RSN was, when apparently he didn’t. Luckily, he did actually find his way there quite quickly, and it is unfortunate that he should then dismiss the role of an uninvolved commentator.
[328] Reinstated text sourced only to an op-ed, including the words-to-avoid “notes”, so that it read that WP was endorsing the commentator’s view. The edit summary said the text had been “deleted without explanations’. This is incorrect. I removed the original quote with the edit summary “rm nn commentary”. Moreover, I started a new thread on the talk page, with the comment: “Why are we interested in an op-ed from her? The article has to be based on fact, not interpretation.”. And I started a further thread on op-eds generally, asking for more views.
[329] Defends over-use of direct quotation in the article with “WP:QUOTE, which includes WP:QUOTEFARM is an essay, not policy. But WP:NPOV, which includes WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, is Wikipedia policy, one of the five pillars.”. He uses policy about attribution to defend over-use of direct quotation rather than summary and reported speech. English may not be his first language and I think he does not understand what reported speech is or how it can be used in neutral writing.
[330]

This edit removed cite-needed tags from uncited statements about Middle East history. The edit summary showed disregard of the basics of verification.

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

[331] Warning by Fladrif (talk · contribs)
[332] Warning by Itsmejudith (talk · contribs)
[333] Warning by Itsmejudith (talk · contribs)
[<Diff>] Warning by [[User:<Username>|<Username>]] ([[User talk:<Username>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Username>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<Username>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<Username>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<Username>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<Username>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<Username>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<Username>|RfA]])
...

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Definitely a warning from an admin, with clarification that sanctions may be applied if the warning is disregarded.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The above diffs should show the scope of the problem. The article and talk page show the whole story. I am willing to do more to resolve the problem myself but need advice.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emmanuelm&diff=prev&oldid=416231055

Discussion concerning Emmanuelm

Statement by Emmanuelm

The following covers only my interactions with User:Itsmejudith in only the article Israel, Palestine and the United Nations.

I am being accused of so many crimes that I do not know where to start. Some of these accusations deserve a lengthy discussion, and indeed were already discussed at length in Talk:Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. But I have to do it again here. Let's take them one by one:

Italics in quote : I accept Judith's accusation that, in the past, I wrote most of my quotes in italics. I pleaded guilty in a comment on Feb 24th. I thought this very minor issue was resolved then.

Nahr al Bared passage: Judith's argument is too complicated for me; I'll focus on one accusation, that I did not take Fladriff's advice, that I dismissed him. Briefly:
- My text prior to this particular dispute was (Feb 14)
  A three month-long assault by the Lebanese army on the Nahr al-Bared in 2007 camp caused 498 deaths, the destruction of 85% of the infrastructures and 30,000 refugees. The UNRWA report contains no accusation.[171]
- This text was entirely deleted by Judith without discussion. I reverted. Judith commented on Feb 15th "And EmmanuelM readded [sic] text that not only doesn't have a good source but also is in barely comprehensible English." I understand she referred to the Nahr al Bared passage.
- I agreed with Judith (in my mind) about the quality of sources and, on Feb 18th, I added a second source to support my text. This source was an op-ed, Silence on Nahr al-Bared By Khaled Abu Toameh, Commentary magazine 07.31.2007.
- On Feb 19th, Judith commented in the talk page "This is what it says on the packet [of Commentary Magazine]: a magazine of commentary, not news. It's unlikely that it will provide many reliable sources for this article, but I'm seeking further views on RSN." She did but did not provide a direct link to that thread in the talk page nor in my user page. I finally looked up what she meant by RSN and found a thread about my source (Toameh).
- In the RSN thread (Feb 19th), Fladriff wrote "There were in fact UN Security Council resolutions condemning the fighting at the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp in 2007 well prior to the article, and decrying civilian casualties caused by either side in the fighting. [2]" I had been judged guilty in absentia by Fladriff of "grossly misrepresent[ing] the facts", of being "grossly misleading", and of "grossly misus[ing]" that one source. I was fuming, especially because my accuser did not even know the difference between a UNSC Comment and a Resolution.
- To address the accusations of misrepresentation, on Feb 21 I replaced my text with a quote from Toameh :
  In 2007, a three month-long assault by the Lebanese army on the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp caused 498 deaths, the destruction of 85% of the infrastructures and 30,000 refugees. [179] Noting the absence of UN condemnation of Lebanon for this attack, Khaled Abu Toameh writes in 2007: For those who may wonder why there is no public outcry, the answer is simple. The army that is attacking the camp with heavy artillery and helicopter warships is not the IDF. It’s an Arab army—the Lebanese Army. [180]
- But Judith was still not satisfied and deleted this entire text. I reverted on Feb 21.
- On Feb 21-22, Fladriff and I went through a very constructive series of edits on this passage. In particular, Fladriff left the Toameh source there; it was good enough for him. I also added a second source (Jonathan Kay) to preempt further criticism. The current text of this collaboration between Fladriff and I is :
  Between May and September 2007, the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon became the center of fighting between the Lebanese Internal Security Force and Fatah al-Islam gunmen.[181] The Lebanese Army was supported in this action by Palestinian movements responsible for security in the camp. [182] Bombing by the Lebanese army left the camp in ruins and caused the mass displacement of 27,000 Palestinian refugees to other camps. [183] The UN Security Council issued two statements during the fighting, both condemning Fatah al-Islam and "fully support[ing] the efforts carried out by the Lebanese Government and army to ensure security and stability throughout Lebanon".[184][185][186][187] Khaled Abu Toameh[188] and Jonathan Kay [189] faulted the UN for not condemning the Lebanese Army, arguing that it had condemned Israeli Defense Forces in similar circumstances in the past, namely the Battle of Jenin.
- In brief, my interaction with Fladriff started very bad but we managed to overlook our emotions and work together. The final text contains about as many words and sources from him as from me. I therefore reject Judith's accusation that I dismissed Fladriff and rejected his advice.

Melanie Phillips on Goldstone: Again, a complex issue. Briefly,
- About Richard Goldstone's United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, the relevant text was, prior to this dispute, as such :
  On April 3, 2009, Richard Goldstone was named as the head of the mission. In a July 16 interview, he said "at first I was not prepared to accept the invitation to head the mission". "It was essential," he continued, to expand the mandate to include "the sustained rocket attack on civilians in southern Israel, as well as other facts." He set this expansion of the mandate as a condition for chairing the mission.[146] The next day, he wrote in the New York Times "I accepted because the mandate of the mission was to look at all parties: Israel; Hamas, which controls Gaza; and other armed Palestinian groups."[147] The UNHRC press release announcing his nomination documents the changed mandate of the mission.[148] Melanie Phillips notes that the resolution that created the mandate allows no such change and questions the validity of the new mandate. "It looks therefore as if he [Goldstone] and the UNHRC President unilaterally tore up both the Council’s mandate and UN regulations". She thinks the mandate was changed in order to allow a negligible criticism of Hamas "to provide Goldstone with the fig-leaf to disguise the moral bankruptcy of the entire process".[149] Israel also thought the change of the mandate didn't have much practical effect.[150]
- On Feb 24, Judith deleted the part about Melanie Phillips with the comment "rm nn commentary; op-eds no use for this article". I reverted on Feb 25 and took the opportunity to edit the text to improve readability. In particular, I emphasized that Phillips disagreed with Goldstone and I hid the quote in the footnote. The final text, for now, is :
  The UNHRC press release announcing his nomination documents the changed mandate of the mission.[140] But Melanie Phillips notes that the resolution that created the mandate allows no such change and questions the validity and political motivations of the new mandate. [141]
- On this subject, Judith and I discussed the worthiness of op-ed (for the hundredth times it seems) in the talk page. I made my case as such "WP:ATTRIBUTE does not say that interpretations should not be used, it says "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." That's what I did. WP:NPOV adds: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." Phillips is a reputable author on this topic and so is the HRC. Since Phillips contradicts the HRC decision, she must be quoted for balance as per WP policy. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)" I have not changed my mind about this.
- I have been a Wikipedian for more than five years but I simply did not and still do not understand what “rm nn commentary” means as a justification for deleting a passage and its source.
- Judith's main point here seems to be "The article has to be based on fact, not interpretation". I interpret this as contrary to WP:NOR that states "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources" and WP:VERIFY that states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I also cannot find support in Wikipedia policy for Judith's assertion that op-eds are not reliable sources, but I do find the opposite in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
- I therefore reject Judith's accusation. I indeed favour opinions over facts but to do so is Wikipedia policy; I should not be faulted for doing this.

Quotefarm: I find direct quotes to be an expedient tool to avoid accusations of bias and misinterpretation. Remember that this is a controversial political subject.
- When Judith brought up this criticism, I did embrace it. For example, in response to her criticism about quotes in italics, I wrote on Feb 24 "Judith, I agree with you and would go even further by replacing most (not all) quotes by text, with the direct quote hidden in the reference, for the sake of readability and the " encyclopedic" style." I myself did just that with Toameh's and Phillips' quotes discussed above.
- I therefore accept Judith's accusation that this article contains too many quotes as described in the essay WP:QUOTE which is not policy nor guideline. But I also believe that, in the context of an article on a controversial political subject, the policies of WP:Verifiability, WP:Attribution and WP:No Original Research override opinions on writing style.
- I have not contested the very large number of writing style edits made by Judith on this article. It's her thing, I accept her as she is and value her improvements of this dry and ugly article.
- But, for myself, I will continue to prioritize the contribution of new material and the enforcement of WP policy in this article. This leaves me precious little for improving the writing style. I explained this in the talk page on Feb 24 but Judith was offended by my comment. I personally feel that substance comes before style. That's who I am. I simply ask Judith to accept it.

Removal of "citation needed" flags: I indeed removed several, but not all, flags. I follow these guidelines :
- Several of these flags were in the lead paragraph. They referred to statements that are easily found in the ToC and main text where they are abundantly sourced. To source them also in the lead paragraph would require using the same sources twice. The essay WP:QUOTE states "Where the same quotation has been used elsewhere in the article, avoid duplicating it, which is regarded as in poor style." I therefore try to i) write the lead as a summary of the article, and ii) not source the statements in the lead to avoid using the same sources twice.
- One flag referred to a topic (regional groups) discussed at length in the text below. I replaced the flag with a statement to that effect.
- Some flags referred to plain facts : "From 1991, the UN General Assembly has adopted an annual resolution allowing the 1967 refugees within the UNRWA mandate." "In November 1967, Gunnar Jarring was appointed as the UN special envoy for the Middle East peace process. The Jarring Mission was unsuccessful." I guide myself by WP:Verifiability : "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source." Anyone can check for themselves that this is true; why would anyone challenge these?
- I left the following tag : "This resolution is one of the most discussed, both within and outside of the UN.^{[citation needed]}" I agree that this statement needs a source.
- I indeed deleted several "citation needed" flags but maintain that I acted according to WP policy; I should not be faulted for doing this.

Multiple warnings by others: no comment.

Counter-accusations by Emmanuelm

In the text above, I am responding to accusations as if Judith is innocent and I am guilty. Allow me to counter-accuse Judith.

In this article, Judith repeatedly questions the reliability of sources and has deleted several sources and their corresponding text. I describe two such deletions above (Toameh and Phillips). Others include four sources on the treatment of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon (Feb 13) and one source (Jeff Jacoby) about Antisemitism at the UN (Dec 18). In sum, she deleted far more sources than she contributed to this article.

To justify her deletions, she often brings up the need to rely on "scholarly" studies rather than op-eds. But she never defines what "scholarly" means. Should a report from the Refugee Studies Centre, Department of International Development, University of Oxford, be considered scholarly? I think so, but not Judith; she deleted that source.

In the past, I brought up WP:NPOV on Achieving neutrality :

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.

Many times, I summarized the above for her as "Add, do not delete". Far from accepting this policy, she argues back, displaying her misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. For example, in a discussion about UN Watch on Jean Ziegler :

What's the logic of getting balance by adding not deleting? This article isn't too short, so we could do both. (...) Actually, I think it is linked to the over-use of primary sources. People think the right way to build an article is to find primary material and copy it in. And then if someone points out it is biased, they invite editors from "the other side" to add more primary material. It's not conducive to readable and accessible articles, and of course not conducive to NPOV either. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In sum, despite my numerous explanations, Judith continues to delete sources she does not like, sometimes repeatedly. In my opinion, to delete an opinion amounts to inserting bias. It is a violation of WP policy and is unacceptable. I have so far seen no evidence that Judith has ceased this behaviour; I consider this to be a serious and ongoing problem.

It took me four hours to write all this. I only hope that something definitive will come out of this.

Comment by Nomoskedasticity

I am requesting immediate enforcement against Emannuelm for violation of 1RR: [334] and [335]. Since this editor has a previous block for exactly this type of violation, I assume no prior warning is necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuelm's comments about this enforcement request here and here. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@NW: I disagree that this is now resolved because of that ANI thread; Itsmejudith has raised a wide range of other issues that I think deserve attention -- not least because of the most recent pattern of editing by this editor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Emmanuelm

Result concerning Emmanuelm

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

The issue seems to have resolved itself; see [336]. I think this can be closed for now and reopened if necessary. NW (Talk) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the material presented above hard to follow, but there is a clear-cut 1RR violation by Emmanuelm now reported at Wikipedia:ANI#Emmanuelm and 1RR on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. Since the editor was previously blocked in January for 1RR on the same article, and unless he changes his approach he will make it difficult for others to achieve a neutral version, I recommend a topic ban from I/P of some duration, perhaps two months. Since the previous block was for a violation of the ARBPIA 1RR, I wonder if we can take that block notice to be the required notification. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B

No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning B

User requesting enforcement: Passionless -Talk 21:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles -1RR broken, along with a misleading edit summary

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

[337] 1st revert
[338] 2nd revert, this revert not only reverted the edits made by the banned user, but also the edits made by me before than, back to the last version accepted by B.

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

[339] Warning by Passionless (talk · contribs)
[340] Warning by Passionless (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Warning, or trout slapping.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Twice in 4 hours, user:B reverted back to the same version, with his second revert, reverting the edits of both me and a banned user under the pretence they were only reverting the banned editor. I warned B twice hoping I would not have to come here, but B did not listen.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [341]

Discussion concerning B

Statement by B

This is tiring. I don't get involved with or care about the Israel-related stuff. I saw this edit of apparent POV pushing on my watchlist. The user who made it had a whopping six edits and gave this edit summary, "Factually amended the opening to truthfully explain that East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory". When anyone factually amends an article to truthfully do something, they are usually doing the opposite. I reverted the edit with the edit summary "not appropriate". After it was revealed that Largeother was a banned user, I removed the tendentious content he had added [342]. Passionless's complaint is that I did not go even further and readd the POV pushing. To be clear, my removal of the banned user's additions did NOT remove the disputed content - I simply declined to readd it. Removing edits of banned users is not a suicide compact to put bad content back in articles. The fact that nobody else has seen fit to add it in the intervening day and a half says to me that my choice not to re-add the content was probably a good one. --B (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"1RR can not just be broken because an editor thinks something goes against NPOV". Except I didn't violate 1RR. Even if your contentions are otherwise correct in all other points, all I did was to do an incomplete revert of a banned user. --B (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if you did not completely revert the actions of a banned user, than that mean someone needs to go and finish reverting the edits made by the banned which would reinstate my edits and not count as a revert, right? Passionless -Talk 22:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not suggest tempting fate in that manner. You're a bounce of the ball away from a topic ban already. --B (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your logic only works in your favour than. Anyways, I think it is quite clear that the intentions of your second edit were not alone to remove the edits of the banend user but you also wanted to remove my edits as well, that is why I think you broke 1RR. Passionless -Talk 23:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except ... I didn't remove your edits. They were already gone. --B (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You only reverted the actions of the banned user which you did not like, when you should have revert all edits made by the banned user. By doing so you're saying that the banned user still has the right to edit wikipedia, as long as his edits agree with yours. Passionless -Talk 23:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning B

@B, if you had simply reverted the banned users edits, you would have gone back to the last version by Seb az86556, which did include the fact that east jerusalem is in Palestine.

@NW, how does including the fact that East Jerusalem is in occupied Palestine go against NPOV or common sense, even if it did, 1RR can not just be broken because an editor thinks something goes against NPOV. Passionless -Talk 21:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed Johnson, I saw/see no edit which would make Alaithiran's first edit a revert, though I guess it probably did match one of the thousands of edits to the page at one point, plus I was only trying to de-BITE the new editor with my comment on his talk page. "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." per WP:BAN, seems pretty straight forward, both reverts of the fact that EJ is in Palestine are B's responsibility, and he should not have reverted the same material twice within 4hours, the second revert should have only gone back to the last acceptable version. Passionless -Talk 04:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, B restored to the last consensus version of the article. Passionless restored material added by Alaithiran (who has all of 6 edits). The "last acceptable version" as Passionless calls it would not be the one with the contentious material in it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning B

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

Let's not enforce 1RR at the cost of completely ignoring common sense and WP:NPOV here. I'm inclined to dismiss this request. NW (Talk) 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this request can and should be dismissed without reaching the question whether the disputed content is an NPOV violation. The only revert of Passionless' edit was by the banned user. B's subsequent revert is a partial revert of the banned user's edit, but it is not and could not be a revert of Passionless' edit, since Passionless' edit had been reverted already. Since full and partial reverts of banned users are equally exempt, B's second revert is exempt from 1RR. I suppose one could argue that B also reverted Courcelles' protection tag, which is, well, not exempt as a technical matter, but I think that argument will say more about the person making it than B. T. Canens (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removal of the protection tag was unintentional - for some reason, it takes an ungodly long amount of time for diffs of that article to load for me (I don't know if it's Wikipedia's servers with the roll-out of the new version and features or if it is a sign that I need a new computer) and someone had added it back before I noticed it. --B (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If reverting the edits of a banned user is allowed, then a partial revert should also be allowed. The history is all chopped up with revdeletes, and it makes no sense to call out B as a violator. (The revdels seem to be due to the extreme bannedness of this particular user, not because the edits were very shocking). On the technical point, the diffs are also taking forever to load on my computer as well, so this must be a Wikipedia server issue. If the dust ever settles, someone might consider blocking Alaithiran for violating the 1RR. Passionless took the opportunity to congratulate Alaithiran for his edit that broke the 1RR ("don't worry your edits are appreciated and have been re-added"). P. is trying to tempt fate. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BenJonson

BenJonson is warned; the FAC has been semiprotected. Anyone can move off-topic comments to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning BenJonson

User requesting enforcement: Bishonen | talk 08:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: BenJonson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so

[343] The header itself is obviously a personal attack.
[344] "You are not a scholar [untrue] -- you are a demagogue." "Your manipulation of terminology and brazen incompetence, etc": a series of uncollegial attacks and aspersions, primarily aimed at Tom Reedy and Nishidani.

Diffs of prior warnings

[345] Warning by Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested: I leave to the uninvolved admins here to decide what kind of sanction, if any, is appropriate for making BenJonson see Wikipedia is serious about this. I have only warned him once.[346]

Additional comments: I've written on BenJonson's page that we're not doing that tone on the talkpage any more. As Newyorkbrad wrote in the Findings of Fact, the archives of this talkpage "reflect a miserable history of talkpage misuse and disruption, fully consistent with the troubled history of the article itself."[347] The chief disrupter of the talkpage was banned from Wikipedia for a year, mainly, I believe, because of that miserable history. We'd all like BenJonson to be prevented from picking up her mantle. Bishonen | talk 02:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [348]

Discussion concerning BenJonson

Statement by BenJonson
Comments by others about the request concerning BenJonson

Shakespeare authorship question is now at FAC (review page; comments later moved to its talk page) and the IP-editors and new accounts popping up there along with BenJonson are pretty blatant signs of off-wiki coordination. The new user account Sucamilc was registered mere hours after it was nominated for FAC, yet in the first edit finds their way to the FAC page and cites Wikipedia guidelines at me. The IP editor 72.234.212.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) exhibits remarkable familiarity with (a sadly biased interpretation, but still) the article's history over “4 years”, and their manner of writing is eerily familiar, which makes me suspect it is an instance of block-evasion or socking. I don't see any specific indication of who the sockmaster might be, if so, and WHOIS sheds no particular light either (so CU probably isn't much use). Note that 131.118.144.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be just BenJonson who's forgot to log in, and not a separate IP user or sock. Either way their goal appears to be to derail the FAC, and the result is disruptive. --Xover (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The real life identity of User:BenJonson can be easily deduced from what he reveals on his user page. (You just need to click on one of the links he provides). He should not be confused with Benjonson, who is unconnected to SAQ issues. The 131.* IP must be BenJonson, and the 72.* IP is from Hawaii, so not him. I suggest that we consider banning BenJonson, Sucamilc and the various IPs from the FAC discussion if these editors won't respond here and agree to follow Wikipedia policy. Semiprotecting the FAC might be considered if all else fails. BenJonson was previously notified of the discretionary sanctions and thus eligible for a ban if one is thought necessary, but the others were not. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above comment, I have notified Sucamilc. It appears that User:Laser brain, one of the FAC delegates, is keeping up with the problem by deleting the offending comments from the FAC. His edit summary was 'rm off-topic discussion and continuation of previous disputes.' I will see if Laser brain wants to comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain hasn't deleted anything. As both he and I have told BenJonson, and BJ has acknowledged, any material irrelevant to a FAC review has been moved to the talkpage. Here.[349] [350] Bishonen | talk 21:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Result concerning BenJonson

Since the diffs of misconduct provided above occurred prior to the notification of discretionary sanctions, I don't think that it is possible to impose a sanction on BenJonson at this time. Regardless, the diffs do constitute misconduct (ad hominem argument, battleground behaviour etc.) and, in the event that BenJonson is again at this noticeboard, should be re-considered. Had the notification been issued prior to the edits in question, I would have topic-banned BenJonson for 1-2 months.

Additionally I am going to semi-protect the FAC page, although not as an arbitration enforcement action (i.e. any admin with a better solution or who thinks it unnecessary is welcome to alter the protection). CIreland (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The matter seems to be under control so I'm planning to close this soon. Sucamilc has been indefinitely blocked, BenJonson has not edited the FAC or the Shakespeare Authorship Question since his last notification, and the FAC review page for the SAQ article has been semiprotected. Moving off-topic or disruptive posts from the FAC page to the related talk page is clearly justified. If further problems occur which the FAC regulars can't easily handle, reopen this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NickOrnstein

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

Request concerning NickOrnstein

User requesting enforcement: David in DC (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Enforcement of discretionary sanctions

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

[351] I delete citation to "source" which fails WP:RS and is explicitly prohibited by WOP WikiProject Notability and sourcing guidance.
[352] I'm reverted, with "Other must agree" edit summary
[353] The next day, given that this is info about a living person, I try again, with explanatory edit summary: "Reply to edit summary in reversion. Others do agree. It's explicit in WOP WikiProject Notability and Sourcing Guidance. If you wish to generate a new consensus, please start that process on the WikiProject talk page. Please don't ignore."
[354] I add reliable sources for Jan Goosenaerts, taken directly from subject's page. I leave the other two items on the list without sources. I resolve, to myself, to look for sources for them Not as easy to find, since they have no articles.
[355] I discover one Jan G. source is a dead link, and mark it so, indicating I'll do the same on the JG article after I review the other links.
[356] I mark deadlink on JG page
[357] Nick reverts me again. No edit summary.
[358] I request Nick stop edit-warring, on the article's talk page.
[359] I make the same request on Nick's talk page.
[360] I start this thread, at AN/I. RodhullandEmu tells me I'm in the wrong place. So does Resident Anthropologist, directing me here and marking the thread "deferred"
[361] Before I see advice from R&E and Deferral with direction here from RA, I notify Nick of AN/I thread.
[362] This series of edits reflect wiki-stalking in realtime. When I realized Nick was going behind me, nearly minute by minute, reverting what I was doing (deleting citations to the WOP Yahoo group and Louis Epstein's Oldest Human beings list, with the customary zero edit summaries) I stopped. But I'm now convinced a more serious sanction than first proposed is in order.
[363] Still more edit-warring.

[364] Similar pattern, slightly earlier, on another longevity page. I delete OHB list with edit summary: "Not a reliable source, per WOP WikiProject notability and sourcing guidance and, more importantly WP:RS. The page disclaims its own accuaracy and sells books before getting to its 1st entry."
[365] Nick reverts. Edit summary: "Others must agree." I leave it alone. Then, the pattern repeats as related above and I decide it's time to get Admins involved.

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

Warnings explicit in ArbCom case and implicit in my diffs above. Also

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): ~~Admonition, with promise of increasingly strict enforcement for subsequent edit-warring.~~ Two week block, followed by one month topic ban. Impositions of increasingly strict blocks and bans for repeated violations therafter. I'm not yet prepared to conclude Nick's incorrigible, but he's makin' it awful hard to maintain that stance.David in DC (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I think Nick's approach to collaboration and consensus building is best viewed by looking through his edit history. Most edits are made without summaries at all. Others give a topic-banned editor's name, after the ban, as authority for edits. Others are simply dismissive of others' views. In a contemporaneous MfD discussion about a project subpage I have proposed be deleted or userfied (a page CalvinTy and I have been improving despite my view that it's out-of-bounds,) Nick offered this contribution to the discussion.; [370] Explicit refusal to follow the rules and the ArbCom decision

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [371]

Discussion concerning NickOrnstein

Statement by NickOrnstein

Comments by others about the request concerning NickOrnstein

My only concern with NickOrnstein is his apparent inability to provide a rationale for his position other than a brief comment here and there as well as his inability to collaborate with other editors as he appears to have the view of "the other editor is wrong, therefore, I will be bold and revert without further comment or explanation". He has not justified why he reverted my attempts to add references to the WikiProject's World's Oldest People's Future supercentenarians subpage in the section I made to elicit a response from NickOrnstein. He has not made a response to date, and he is fully aware of David in DC and my efforts to add citations to the future supercentenarians subpage. So I feel that, at least, NickOrnstein should be warned to be more cooperative & collaborative, than to be bold all the time. Cheers, CalvinTy 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get clarification one one thing, if I may. Am I to understand that the RSN [[372]] page is concerned with the reliability of the GRG only and not the Louis Epstein pages, which I believe is what many of these edit disagreements are about? If so, should it be considered there as well? Epstein verifies cases in a very similar way to the GRG, although granted his work his barely ever cited in news reports etc. Maybe someone could give me a brief rationale as to why this is explicitly not a reliable source (ie not covered by the RSN page, where consensus seems to be leaning towards thinking the GRG is a reliable source)? In terms of NickOrnstein and his editing approach explicitly, from observation I would say he does need to try and be more collaborative. --Melissa.vp198 (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Itsmejudith

Since the Arbcom finished, Ryoung122 has continued to manipulate a number of editors as meatpuppets in this area. I cannot currently add the links because they are blocked by the spam filter, but they are found easily by Googling for "110 Club Wikipedia". The editors colluding include, but may not be limited to, User:Brendanology, User:Melissa.vp198, User:NickOrnstein, User:DerbyCountyinNZ, User:Cam46136, and User:CalvinTy. This is probably the most blatant case of off-wiki collusion ever. Please take the time to review the pages you will find, which contain numerous personal attacks on editors, and discussion of tactics to subvert the ArbCom decision and continue to push points of view on Wikipedia. Ryoung122's topic ban must be converted into a general indefinite ban, and the meatpuppets should also be banned. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmejudith, since you are accusing me as a meatpuppet, I should note that I am not a new user and have had a Wikipedia account since 2006. I am only more active in last few days to help assist with the WikiProject subpage and with the position that GRG is a reliable source on my own accord. The recommendation for us to be banned because we also talked about this discussion in a non-Wikipedia space is akin for me to recommend that you are banned for attacking me here. Regards, CalvinTy 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am quite cognizant of what I say in any space on the Internet, and I have not made any personal attack on any Wikipedia editor. We are not subverting any ArbCom decision at all. Rather, we are trying to make sure that we understand everyone's point of view and how to defend the case that GRG is a reliable source among other points to defend. Please cease and desist in quoting things out of context. To repeat, I have neither made any personal attacks anywhere on any Wikipedia editor nor I have attempted to "subvert the ArbCom decision". I pride myself in being neutral and trying to understand various point of views, including yours, David in DC, A Quest for Knowledge, and all others. What you are doing here is extremely upsetting. You should consider retracting your comment, please. Thank you, CalvinTy 18:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, as I'm an administrator on The 110 Club, I do not believe that DerbyCountyinNZ is a member of our forum so I'm not sure if this is a case of mistaken identity by Itsmejudith. I'll advise DerbyCountyinNZ on his talk page on this comment made by Itsmejudith. CalvinTy 18:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back to the discussions on your website, I see that DerbyCountyinNZ is regarded as a sympathetic outsider and is not a member of the group, so I do retract that one. I note also that NickOrnstein, who self-identifies as a teenager, was insulted on your website for apparently taking too soft a line in the ArbCom. There have been disparaging comments made about David in DC, and in my own case there was a suggestion that someone "lived near" me, i.e. they might attempt to out me or contact me directly (rather than through wiki-enabled email, which would be acceptable). There have been calls for particular kinds of editing to try and get round the ArbCom restrictions. In your case, perhaps you are one of the manipulators rather than the manipulated. Whatever the case, this kind of collusion is utterly unacceptable and I reiterate my request for bans of those involved. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, itsmejudith, "The 110 Club" forum is not my website. I am just a forum member who became an administrator last year by consensus over there. I'm not responsible for what other members have said in public. I can only advise them not to attack any person directly anywhere including Wikipedia, which I have just done so here: z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=1781&view=findpost&p=2785827. If someone else has insulted NickOrnstein for taking too soft a line in the ArbCom, I can only scold the person on the forum. (Please note that I was not active during the ArbCom as I'm extremely busy with a family of 4 girls, three of them under the age of 2 -- twin girls and newborn girl). I obviously shouldn't provide my opinion on your comment of the collusions since I'm a biased party but I am only concerned that you are taking off-wiki discussions as "collusions", and "therefore, those actions merit a Wikipedia ban".

Regarding myself, can you kindly support your case that I may be a manipulator rather than being manipulated? I feel that I am here on my own accord in my own beliefs, and that I have not recommended anyone to do something specific on Wikipedia other than updating the forum members of the ongoing discussions (and expressing my opinions). Whether RYoung122 have attempted to encourage editors to do something on Wikipedia, which may be considered by some as collusion such as yourself, I cannot answer that because RYoung122 is also an administrator at the website as well. So I cannot discipline RYoung122 for his actions on the forum, only the founder of the forum can do so. Hope this helps clarify some things. Thanks, CalvinTy 19:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Meatpuppet "When several like-minded editors hold a discussion outside of Wikipedia about an on-going dispute within Wikipedia, with the purpose of swaying the consensus". The 110 Club was doing exactly that before, during and after the ArbCom case. You were fully involved, so were the other editors I've mentioned above, except for DerbyCountyinNZ. It is not allowed, you knew it was not allowed, you just didn't know that your discussions could so easily be found. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is going off-tangent from the original request here, Itsmejudith. I have looked at WP:Meatpuppet, and I did not see that quote: "When several like-minded editors hold a discussion outside of Wikipedia about an on-going dispute within Wikipedia". Are you making up quotes, Itsmedjudith? In any case, to actually quote WP:Meatpuppet, "Meatpuppetry is the use of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is prohibited." None of the editors in question were new editors. Some editors simply took the initiative on The 110 Club to discuss and defend points to other EXISTING Wikipedia editors so that the other existing editors could chime in with their OWN opinion -- not to sway consensus -- because they still presented their own point of view just as I have done myself independently regardless of what point of views (and opinions) RYoung122 and other editors may have. Please do not make assumptions where none exists, itsmejudith. You still have not stated a guideline that says what The 110 Club is doing "is not allowed" so how can we presume to know that what we are doing before, during, and after the ArbCom case "is not allowed"? I believe none of us are of belief that our discussions "would not be so easily be found". RYoung122 fully knew that eyes from Wikipedia would be monitoring The 110 Club, and I do see that The 110 Club has been mentioned in several ArbCom cases over the years. So please stop making assumptions that "we just didn't know that our discussions could be easily be found". Are you here only to argue for the sake of arguing, itsmejudith? It appears that way, and this is my last comment here on this matter because this is WAY off-tangent. Cheers, CalvinTy 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I regard it as highly offensive to suggest that I have had any offline collusion with any members of the 110 club, whose very existence I was unaware of until being notified of this totally unfounded accusation. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, DerbyCountyinNZ, that was an error on my part, and there is no accusation of meatpuppetry against you. The rest of it is obviously completely against all our rules and action needs to be taken immediately. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since an uninvolved administrator, EdJohnston, has chimed in regarding the meatpuppetry discussion -- I am guessing that the tangent issue of meatpuppetry that itsmejudith have accused several people, including myself, as a valid subject to continue talking about here. In that case, I evidently will continue to defend my own position vigorously that I did not collude with any members of The 110 Club to sway them into consensus on any article disputes. Heck, in fact, if anyone would check my contribs, they can see that I was mostly a lurker on Wikipedia since 2006 with minor edits here and there starting in 2009 up to 21 Feb 2011. Then, on 25 Feb 2011, I began to learn more about how Wikipedia works with guidelines and policies and have been quite active since 25 Feb 2011 (60 contribs since then). I have not been part of any past article disputes or even on the most recent ArbCom decision that was handed out on 17 Feb 2011. The current ones where I have provided comments on are the one at RSN about GRG, and the MfD about the potential deletion of the subpage on one of the WikiProject WOP pages, as well as this AE case here. Again, I cannot defend or vouch for any other editors who are also members on The 110 Club forum as I would have to rescue myself since I'm a forum administrator on the forum & I'm not liable for what members say in a public forum.

EdJohnston, my frustration that is showing here is because some people has a habit of making generalizations, or taking things out of context, or simply state their opinion as facts. Here, itsmejudith, she says, "The rest of it is obviously completely against all our rules and action needs to be taken immediately." As you can see, I already have read about WP:Meatpuppetry and could not find something to justify itsmejudith's position that The 110 Club forum members have "completely broken all our rules" and that "the 110 Club was doing exactly that before, during and after the ArbCom case. You were fully involved, so were the other editors I've mentioned above, except for DerbyCountyinNZ. It is not allowed, you knew it was not allowed, you just didn't know that your discussions could so easily be found." She stated things as fact when that cannot be the case if we don't even know what we are in violation of (and I'm ignoring the part where she said I was fully involved in the ArbCom case when I was nowhere in the picture). Just having an off-site discussion about Wikipedia disputes does not in and of itself constitutes a sufficient level of collusion in regards to swaying the consensus in article disputes. Note that I'm using words similar to the ArbCom's Finding of Facts #3, which I quote here: "Membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics." In my honest opinion, I believe that every editor here (those who are also a member of The 110 Club forum) have made their point of views or opinions on their own accord and that nobody at The 110 Club explicitly told any particular editor "what to say" or "what to do" to influence decisions & disputes on Wikipedia. Sure, we expressed our own opinions, and I think that's where it may have upset itsmejudith where she saw some opinions by some members on the forum talking in a negative sense about some editors here (such as "what he said was silly and unnecessary"). I can be a motormouth just like I am in person, so I'll stop for now. :-) Sorry for the long comment, EdJohnston. I hope you are able to see the whole picture here. Thanks, CalvinTy 05:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by O Fenian

I was tangentially involved in a dispute or two leading up to the arbitration case, and I see little has changed. Over 20 hours after being notified of the thread here, and without having replied, he is making edits such as this which restores commented out information with no explanation. The information is sourced to messages in a Yahoo group, which is wholly unacceptable sourcing particularly if the people are still alive as some of them are.

I would suggest something needs to be done about this. O Fenian (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I believe the relevance is in relation to remedy #4. The general consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Oldest people, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of disputed supercentenarian claimants and Talk:List of disputed supercentenarian claimants#Notability is that the Worlds Oldest People Yahoo Group (the WOP referred to in the diff) is not a reliable source, in particular for claims that a living person is lying about their age. The new "rules" would be the implementation of remedy #4, since experienced uninvolved editors are not happy about WOP and similar sources being used on the articles in question. O Fenian (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, despite this detailed message about the use of WOP, and the edit summary clearly linking to the reliable sources noticeboard on the left of the following diff, this edit was made earlier today. Given that three days later he has not even bothered to reply here and has carried on the disputed behaviour despite warnings and discussions saying the source is not reliable, it would appear his intentions are clear and that stern measures are needeed. O Fenian (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning NickOrnstein

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

David in DC argues that NickOrnstein is engaged in 'explicit refusal to follow the rules and the ArbCom decision', offering this diff as evidence. Can anyone explain the significance?
Regarding meatpuppetry, even if we were to accept that certain editors have been coordinating off-site, can anyone give examples of some article disputes where this set of people acted in concert to sway the decision? EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, the admins at the 110 Club have removed all the threads from the forum they were in (either moving them to a read only/members only forum, or deleting them). One could say that this is them either realizing what they're doing is not allowed, or taking it private, and we won't be able to tell. I'd say it's pretty damming however. SirFozzie (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If NickOrnstein continues to link to World's Oldest People against the apparent consensus, won't explain his reverts and won't respond here, I think that may be held against him. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neilduffy112

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

Request concerning Neilduffy112

User requesting enforcement: O Fenian (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Neilduffy112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: 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

[373] Revert #1, to this version
[374] Revert #2, to this version, within 24 hours of the first revert thus breaching 1RR

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

[375] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): ~~Block~~ Probably not needed now he has agreed to stop edit warring. O Fenian (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Depending on the definition of revert, this edit made in between the two edits above can also be classed as a revert as it certainly fits the "More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors" definition. O Fenian (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [376]

Discussion concerning Neilduffy112

Statement by Neilduffy112

I must firstly say sorry for this, it is the first time I have tried to edit on Wikipedia, and on this topic i will not inter fear any further. All i was trying to do was highlight the facts that in the page "martin mcgartland", that the word informer should not be used as it is fact that the subject was working for MI5, Special Branch and the PSNI (RUC) two years prior to him infiltrating the IRA, on orders from the mentioned. I have also looked at the discussion page since, and noticed that I am not the only one whom has tried and failed to have the page represent the truth. If I am to be blocked for trying to correct a mistake then so be it, and it will just show that the "democracy" we live in is failing.
Thank you for giving me the chance to have my say. I do not find the severity of the offence deserves to be blocked, I find a fairer punishment would be a topic ban, but I will leave it to the powers that be. If you are to look at my history it is my first offence. Sorry O Fenian --Neilduffy112 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Neilduffy112

Perhaps a short block might be in order, but any extensive one will surely guarantee loss of a new editor on WP. Meanwhile, I would suggest a more polite introduction to WP would be well-advised. Giving a "Warning" at the same instant as a "Welcome" seems a tad overbearing at best. OF describes his position on the subject clearly in Also agent implies some sort of legitimacy, rather than a traitor who sold out for money. (O Fenian (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) Also NeilDuffy properly used the article talk page at [377] showing his willingness to follow WP procedures here. I note OF has made no reply to NeilDuffy's post. Slack is called for, and an admonishment to OF to be more "welcoming" than was evinced. I happen to feel, moreover, that calling the subject of the BLP a "traitor" may show an intrinsic POV on the part of an editor, while WP:BLP requires contentious claims to be exceedingly well sourced. Collect (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cough. And for your information Martin McGartland acknowledges he is seen as a traitor in his own book, he talks about money quite a lot too. O Fenian (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is "bad form" to try debating at AE, as others may see a POV confirmed. I would note your ownership of the article as a result. Now I suggest absolutely no block on NeilDuffy, as opposed to a short one. Collect (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also bad form to imply I have made no post to the talk page. O Fenian (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have tachyon memory - your reply to him was 21 minutes after my post at 12:06. My post was at 11:45. Collect (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your insinuation is incorrect. My first post to the talk page regarding his edits (linked above) was at 10:29, 3 March 2011, over 19 hours before his. O Fenian (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IOW, you managed to reply to him before his post and his 2nd revert? Somehow I do not count that as a "reply" to his post on the article talk page, nor as a reply to the 2nd revert. Which, as an aside, you likely ought to have given him a chance to self-revert before seeking enforcement here as a matter of form. Collect (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you tendentiously implied that he had posted to the talk page regarding the dispute and I had not. That you are not even prepared to admit this is quite revealing. O Fenian (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's wanted here in view of the change to the submission. If it doesn't merit a block it surely doesn't merit a topic ban. Neilduffy112 is self-evidently now aware of the restrictions which apply to editing Troubles-related articles so that a warning seems superfluous. What's left? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could probably be closed as no action required at present. O Fenian (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Neilduffy112

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

From his statement above, Neilduffy112 has strong views about Martin McGartland, and he may even know McGartland personally. He doesn't seem to respect our policy: "If I am to be blocked for trying to correct a mistake then so be it, and it will just show that the "democracy" we live in is failing." I do not see any promise from Neil to wait for consensus before editing the articles about Martin McGartland. I suggest that he be placed on Troubles probation for two months. This will limit him to one revert per week on each Troubles article. He will still be able to use the talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 1,120: / Line 1,120: @@
 ::FYI, I regard it as highly offensive to suggest that I have had any offline collusion with any members of the 110 club, whose very existence I was unaware of until being notified of this totally unfounded accusation. <span style="background-color:red;color:lime;">DerbyCountyinNZ</span> <sup> ([[User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/DerbyCountyinNZ|Contribs]])</sup> 20:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 :::Sorry, DerbyCountyinNZ, that was an error on my part, and there is no accusation of meatpuppetry against you. The rest of it is obviously completely against all our rules and action needs to be taken immediately. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
+::::Since an uninvolved administrator, EdJohnston, has chimed in regarding the meatpuppetry discussion -- I am guessing that the tangent issue of meatpuppetry that itsmejudith have accused several people, including myself, as a valid subject to continue talking about here.  In that case, I evidently will continue to defend my own position vigorously that I did not collude with any members of The 110 Club to sway them into consensus on any article disputes.  Heck, in fact, if anyone would check my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CalvinTy contribs], they can see that I was mostly a lurker on Wikipedia since 2006 with minor edits here and there starting in 2009 up to 21 Feb 2011.  Then, on 25 Feb 2011, I began to learn more about how Wikipedia works with guidelines and policies and have been quite active since 25 Feb 2011 (60 contribs since then).  I have not been part of any past article disputes or even on the most recent ArbCom decision that was handed out on 17 Feb 2011.  The current ones where I have provided comments on are the one at RSN about GRG, and the MfD about the potential deletion of the subpage on one of the WikiProject WOP pages, as well as this AE case here.  Again, I cannot defend or vouch for any other editors who are also members on The 110 Club forum as I would have to rescue myself since I'm a forum administrator on the forum & I'm not liable for what members say in a public forum.
+::::<b>EdJohnston</b>, my frustration that is showing here is because some people has a habit of making generalizations, or taking things out of context, or simply state their opinion as facts.  Here, itsmejudith, she says, ''"The rest of it is obviously completely against all our rules and action needs to be taken immediately."'' As you can see, I already have read about [[WP:Meatpuppetry]] and could not find something to justify itsmejudith's position that The 110 Club forum members have ''"completely broken all our rules"'' and that ''"the 110 Club was doing exactly that before, during and after the ArbCom case. You were fully involved, so were the other editors I've mentioned above, except for DerbyCountyinNZ. It is not allowed, you knew it was not allowed, you just didn't know that your discussions could so easily be found."''  She stated things as fact when that cannot be the case if we don't even know what we are in violation of (and I'm ignoring the part where she said I was fully involved in the ArbCom case when I was nowhere in the picture).  <u>Just having an off-site discussion about Wikipedia disputes does not in and of itself constitutes a sufficient level of collusion in regards to swaying the consensus in article disputes</u>.  Note that I'm using words similar to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Group_affiliations_and_conflicts_of_interest ArbCom's Finding of Facts #3], which I quote here: ''"Membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or <b>any other group</b> named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics."''  In my honest opinion, I believe that every editor here (those who are also a member of The 110 Club forum) have made their point of views or opinions on their own accord and that nobody at The 110 Club explicitly told any particular editor "what to say" or "what to do" to influence decisions & disputes on Wikipedia.  Sure, we expressed our own opinions, and I think that's where it may have upset itsmejudith where she saw some opinions by some members on the forum talking in a negative sense about some editors here (such as "what he said was silly and unnecessary").  I can be a motormouth just like I am in person, so I'll stop for now.  :-)  Sorry for the long comment, EdJohnston.  I hope you are able to see the whole picture here.  Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/CalvinTy|<font color="Sienna">'''Calvin'''</font>]][[User talk:CalvinTy|<font color="DarkGreen">Ty</font>]] 05:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 ====Comments by O Fenian====

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