Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Jmh649 restricted (Jmh649 is limited to one revert per page per week within the topic area (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page). [1]
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
[6] second revert (part a and b) by Doc James on Sept 18th/2009. I also don't believe he posted in talk that he made this revert.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
{{{Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)}}}
Additional comments by scuro (talk):
this would be his second violation
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
"new enforcement action requested for breaking two revertrestriction - you will find the request here" [7]
Diff [61] and [64] are the same rather than two separate reverts. The revert for Sept 18th is not listed. I was reverting an obvious case of vandalism by an anonymous IP if any one care to look at the scientific literature. I have not made any edits to the ADHD page since Sept 18th and am no longer actively editing Wikipedia due to reasons I am not yet free to disclose. Also I reverted my revert of the vandalism as another user thought that it was a good change on Sept 17th [8]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This revert was on an IP address which changed symptoms into signs. Doc James was correct in his revert. Signs are what are observed by a clinician when making a diagnosis. Symptoms are what are experienced by the sufferer. As wikipedia is not a diagnostic manual aimed at clinicians but is aimed at a general audience symptoms is the appropriate terminology and is the term used in almost all medical articles.
The policy arbcom ruling says "may be blocked", not "should be blocked". I think that the fact that an ip address was reverted has little to do with the drama on the article that the enforcement was meant to stop. I also think blocking for a revert of an ip address when the revert was correct would not be fair in this instance.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?18:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I've had what appears to be a bogus arbitration request amendment filed against me right after the second violation. I didn't have a chance to check the diffs till now. As was explained to me previously, there is no excuse for breaking rules.--scuro (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this while examining the background to a current arbitration request for amendment (the one scuro refers to above). Can I ask what is done with stale reports of violations of the arbitration case remedies? Is it possible to record them at the "logs" section of the case pages? This would give arbitrators and others reviewing the subsequent history of the case a better picture of what has been going on. More generally, has any thought ever been giving to logging AE requests in a section at the case pages? A set of links to the archived AE requests? I know people can search the AE archives, but it would be convenient to have the history and logs all in one place. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I very vaguely recall insisting that a violation be recorded in the case logs when this situation arose last year for some case, but not sure whether that system has changed. Should I continue responding here, or should we move the more general points to another venue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In filling out this request, I saw no mention of time limits in filling the request, nor did I see what that time limit is. Could someone point these criteria out to me?--scuro (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where one could interpret any part of "the blocking" policy to come to the conclusion that the violation is "stale" because it happened over a week ago. What we have here is an enforcement request for a long standing problem. This is the second clear violation of an arbitration remedy. Both qualifiers of the remedy were violated, in that Doc James edited twice within a week and he did so without communicating this on the talk page. Edit waring has been an issue for over a year now, and edit waring has been very disruptive to the ADHD article. Both a med cab and rfc were filled then to deal with this issue. Edit waring was the main focus of arbitration. There has been a number of times where Doc James has had the opportunity to reflect, to have "second chances". Many olive branches have extended to Doc James and he has rejected every offer made by others and myself for a meeting of the minds between us. This unwillingness to resolve differences happened as recently as this month when he rejected a med cab proposal by a third party who is sympathetic to him. One of the four stated goals of the blocking policy is to encourage, "a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated". No other solution presents itself to us. The violation demonstrates that he continues to work outside of the system. By no means is this violation "stale" to the issues at hand. --scuro (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation was rejected because you were actively sabotaging intervention by Wiki Medicine Project so it was wholly inappropriate and it was I who first rejected mediation as I felt reporting to arbcom was the appropriate venue which has been done. It was not an issue which needed to be "mediated" about. I do not know what you mean by resolving differences scuro, we are talking about reverting an IP editor who wrongly changed all instances of the word "symptoms" to "signs". The ip editor was wrong, he was reverted by Doc James. I don;t see how this is relevant to the arbcom findings or related to "olive branches" etc except on technical grounds. Consensus was obtained anyway on the talk page and I have since changed signs back to symptoms.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?22:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am bothered that what went on with regards to Wiki Med Collaboration project, is effectively going without any action taken on scuro but yet Doc James might be getting blocked for correctly reverting inaccurate edits by an ip editor.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?22:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly disruptive to continue to make baseless allegations. You've been asked to support these bogus charges at the arb com amendment request, and to date you haven't supported these statements. Let me recommend that you do so before action is taken against you. The focus here isn't my behaviour, it's Doc James's behaviour, so can we please focus on that?
The remedy states that the criteria to revert without restriction is, "undisputable vandalism". Simply because an IP address makes an edit doesn't mean that it vandalism. That edit was done in good faith even though one could make a good argument that symptom is a better word then sign. Finally Doc James didn't post on the talk page after the edit. This is a clear cut case of a violation.--scuro (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I provided to the arbcom ammendment diffs and link to med collaboration, so I have no idea what you are talking about and why you keep saying that I have made baseless accusations.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?12:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, this link you submited is not a revert by the way.[9] I put up a tag requesting that copy and pasted text was summarised, Doc James did this. It was not a revert, no text was reverted or deleted. Copying and pasting chunks from sources is unencylopedic. You are alledging that Doc James reverted me, he removed a tag after he summarised the copied and pasted text. The tag was not part of the article and it is common sense to remove it after it is no longer needed and issue is resolved. So there has been no violation in the evidence that you submitted. Doc James did NOT revert me, there was no revert.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?12:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it was Literaturegeek's edit that was reverted (which allegedly violated 1RR), and Literaturegeek has no issue with it (and most likely would have performed a self-revert as his concern in the tags was resolved), this already makes this report problematic. Also, given that the first revert involved reverting an anon whom unilaterally changed the usage of "symptoms" to "signs" throughout the article (which may not be vandalism per se, but would legitimately be considered for reversion if someone was on vandalism patrol), there really is no case here. If scuro still has an issue with no action being taken on this request, he should consult his mentor. I urge an administrator to close this accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The critera of the remedy are clear. Both ciritera have been violated. I assuming that Doc James had no idea who posted the the tags and the fact that he removed them once again is problematic. This has been a long standing issue. The case that the second revert was one of "undisputable" vandalism has not been made. Also, Ncmvocalist you were involved in my topic ban request. The designation of uninvolved party does not hold true.--scuro (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how it was a revert. It would be a revert if Doc James removed the tag and did not summarise the copy and pasted text. Seeing as he addressed the tags concern, all it was was "editing the article". For example, say someone added a tag saying citation needed, then an editor provides a citation and removes the citation needed tag, that is not reverting a tag but addressing the tag. My tag/banner removal by Doc James was just part of addressing the tag editing the article. I hope this clarifies this. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k?20:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeclinedThis is going nowhere, and appears to be pointless. Remedies are not games of gotcha, and the report is stale. Come back if there is a more recent violation. --Tznkai (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
[10] This edit is on murals relating to the Conflict in Northern Ireland, a topic that the user is topic banned from editing on and more so this particular edit changes the context of the the picture.
[11] Again an edit in an area (Irish republicanism and the conflict in Northern Ireland) that the user is banned from. While there is no content change, the user is pushing the limit of what may or may not be acceptable in the ban and is gaming the injunction.
[12] continues to push the bounds of what is or isn't acceptable here, even after this RfE being brought up.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Review if these actions fall under the scope of the remedy and whatever sanction deemed appropriate.
Additional comments by GainLine ♠♥:
Lapsed Pacifist is currently subject to a second RfAR arising from conduct relating to editing in another area.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
First edit listed was a definite problem, second one less so, but still not a great idea. I would be content with a very stern warning this time unless there was trouble caused. Am I missing any procedural history here?--Tznkai (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts. LP is restricted from this area. He also will have another topic ban in another area in the ongoing ArbCom case when it closes. I am fine with a warning.. a LAST warning. If the line is crossed again, in any way shape or form, drop the heavy end of the hammer. SirFozzie (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing the latest edit, where he knew he was under investigation, I have dropped the heavy end of the hammer. Seeing as this is his FOURTH violation of the ArbCom sanctions, I have blocked User:Lapsed Pacifist for two weeks, and I was considering making it a month or indef, and would not protest if the block was extended. I am leaving this open for any further discussion, but will close it in the next 24-48 hours if none is forthcoming. SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not required
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
The previous topic ban on this user should be enforced.
Additional comments by *** Crotalus ***:
Based on WP:DUCK, it seems clear that User:SSS108 has returned as User:Sbs108. The user names are only one letter apart, and both accounts focus almost exclusively on Sathya Sai Baba and closely related topics. Both also exhibit similar grammatical flaws. Since User:SSS108 was indefinitely banned from this article, I request enforcement of this remedy on that individual's current account, User:Sbs108.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [17]
I really don't know how to answer this other than I am not SSS108. This is a bold accusation which is not true. I've also edited two other articles, Desert Fathers and St. Anthony, so I am not just involved with Sathya Sai Baba although most of my edits have been on the Sai Baba article. I really don't know what else to say. SBS are the initials of my name and 108 is a holy number in Hinduism and Buddhism. That is the origin of my user name. Sbs108 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, Truth is the foundation of the universe. I would never use deceit to get my way. One who would decieve others wouldn't be worthy of the Grace of a Holy Soul. I would never stoop that low as to lie. In reality do I really care about the wikipedia article of Sathya Sai Baba...no...Will my editing affect or change the life of Sathya Sai Baba...no.....Yes I have in interest in the article but not to the extent where I would lie to get my way. If it weren't for me and a few others, this article would be taken over and used as an extension of someone's critical website as it has in the past.Sbs108 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA States."One can only form opinions of editors as a result of their actions. Over time, they may diversify their contributions. Users who continue to work within a narrow range of articles may find it difficult to build credibility in community discussions, although extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage an expert opinion. I have been on Wikipedia since May or April of this year, that's 6 months only. I don't see how mainly edited one article can get someone banned? It says nothing of this in WP:SPA. This case is claiming I am SSS108 which I am not. Please drop this case as there is no evidence of such. I have edited other articles and in fact am the main contributor to the article on the Desert Fathers. My edits in the Sai Baba article were mostly defensive and in trying to restore the article from many violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The article before I got involved was 90% criticism and took on a unrealistic dark tone.Sbs108 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but you are wrong. I am not the same person. I have nothing to do with this SSS108. Really if I were would I come back with almost the same name? Like I said the initials of my name are SBS, Scott my first name, Boyd my middle name and my last name begins with S which I won't reveal. The 108 number is a common holy number in Hinduism and Buddhism.Sbs108 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Croatulus claims that “Sbs108” is banned user SSS108 why?
Croatulus stated that “The user names are only one letter apart”?
This statement is Preposterous because if we start banning wikipedia users on the reasoning that their username sounds like an old banned user or the spelling is similar to a banned user if you replace the middle letter "B" with a “S” letter. Such arguments really sound very unreasonable and absurd for banning an user. I am sure there will be no users left in wikipedia if that’s the reason for blocking / banning wikipedia editors.
The proof Croatulus has given is from the recent edit war in the Sathya Sai Baba about a source “Daily Pioneer”. The Administrator Mfield put the article on Protection because there was an edit war on that source between Croatulus and Sbs108 and others. Again citing that edit-war history does not make Sbs108 same as the old banned user SSS108.
Editor cannot request another editor to be banned just because the other editor edit-warred with him on the article. There must be a real evidence or proof for such request.
[19],
[20] did not show any evidence proving Sbs108 made same grammatical errors as banned user SSS108.
Croatulus complaint has been about the username being one letter apart that cannot be a criteria for stating that somebody passed the WP:Duck test.
The duck test states that "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" - But in Sbs108 case so far there has been no evidence to prove the his characteristics matched with the banned user SSS108.
The WP:DUCK test has failed. There is no evidence either showing strong comparisons between Sbs108 and banned user SSS108 this case should be dropped.
Based on the evidence above and my own check of the contributions of this user, I concur with the conclusion that this is user SSS108 editing in defiance of his site ban for harassment and his topic ban from Sathya Sai Baba. I have blocked the account indefinitely. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Additional comments by MediaMangler (talk):
User of account claims to be the permanently banned Jeff Merkey.
Of course I don't actually know who is using the Jvmphoto account. Various things said in the talkpage history of that account seem designed to bring Merkey into disrepute and therefore suggest that the account is actually being used by one of his critics. Further, the personal details which the account has attempted to add to Jeff V. Merkey are the type of privacy violations which a stalker might be expected to make. The personal attack that Jvmphoto immediately directed at me certainly reads like one of Merkey's classic rants, but with so many examples available that is easy enough to mimic.
--MediaMangler (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of a biography is permitted to correct missing data and add a photo. This Merkey-Hating Troll and his friends have made it their lifes mission to deface any contribution by Merkey and have him banned. Whether banned or not, the subject of a biography is permitted to add a photo (which has been requested for over a year) and add simple demographic materials. Removal simply demonstrates this users personal hatred and vendetta against the subject of a biography -- with the sole intent to deface and vandalize the content of Wikipedia and this persons biography. It is MediaMangler and his associates who should be banned. In the present case, reliable content was removed and MediaManglers actions are nothing short of vandalism. If someone wants a photo and accurate information on personal family, birthdate, and other info, biographies of living persons allow the content to be added and/or corrected. It should also be noted that review of MediaManglers edit history clearly indicates he is a single purpose account who came to Wikipedia solely for the purpose of stalking and harassment of the subject of this biography. His edits are almost totaly geared towards a pattern of harassment and/or defamation of the subject of this bio. Jvmphoto (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no arbcom ban any longer, and BLP allows input from the subject of a biography. Please resist the temptation to cave to peer pressure and be your own man for a change (or woman if you are female). Thanks for your wonderful approach, however, I am disappointed you chose to bring this here. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you just repeat the same past behavior for which you've been blocked, and attack new editors trying to help, then you have nothing to be disappointed about. I, however, do, as the only pressure is from you. I hope you'll think twice before making this mistake again.
I was not using an automated script you can look at my monobook.js and see. I was not edit warring as you see in the edit summary I reverted has edit "per discussion at User talk:Powergate92#MOS:UNLINKDATES" That is not warning that him saying that I was making "automated edits that are not labeled as automated" when I was not. In that warning he said "There were two separate arbitration cases about it." but then did not show me links for the "two separate arbitration cases about it" when I asked him "Can you add the links for the "two separate arbitration cases about it"? Also if it's "extremely disputed over its usage" then why is it still part of WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)?"[34] but he said "I'm not sure what has come about of it or why it's not mentioned anywhere on that page."[35] and then I said "If your not going to add links for discussions about it being "extremely disputed over its usage" then I am going to revert your edits."[36] and then 14 hours after I said that I reverted has revert. Now that I see a link for the arbitration cases about it I am going to revert my edits. Powergate92Talk04:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
For cryin' out loud, I cannot think of a single topic that justifies edit warring less than this. It isn't even funny enough to be lame, its just ridiculous. Powergate, do not edit war. Edit warring includes what you were doing - "its not automated" doesn't make it not edit warring, - arguing with someone on your talk page doesn't make it not edit warring. I do not see a clear violation since mass delinking implies more volume, but that won't stop a simple block for edit warring if this stupidity continues.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General cautions are sadly rarely effective in disputes that turn up at arbitration enforcement. We should look at what sanctions need to be applied to the article or to the editors involved in the conflict. Comment on that note is welcomed. (That said, I do concur with Tznkai.) AGK00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'm involved now, Powergate92 baited Ryulong into 3RR and got him blocked, I unblocked him. I absolutely agree with Tznkai here, this is unbelievably lame and needs to stop about five minutes before it started. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'on (Undid revision 318718235 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Immanuel (town) (Undid revision 318716885 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Beit Horon (rv OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:02, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Alon Shvut (Undid revision 318718337 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:01, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Efrat (Undid revision 318718628 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:01, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Kiryat Arba (Undid revision 318718824 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Avnei Hefetz (Undid revision 318719858 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'ale Mikhmas (Undid revision 318719976 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Kokhav HaShahar (Undid revision 318720051 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Sha'arei Tikva (Undid revision 318720146 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
09:59, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Beit El (Undid revision 318720326 by Nableezy (talk)OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
09:59, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Alon, Mateh Binyamin (OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
09:58, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Barkan (Undid revision 318720575 by Nableezy (talk)OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
09:58, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'ale Adumim (Undid revision 318646193 by Dailycare (talk) unneeded edit, might construe all Palestinian settlements as holding same status)
09:57, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Adora, Har Hebron (Undid revision 318719523 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)
Editor notified [54] Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
whatever action admins deem appropriate; topic ban editing topic ban, narrowly construed and excluding talk pages so the editor can participate in discussion seems most likely to help since warnings and notifications haven't.
Additional comments
This editor is edit warring over calling israeli settlements "villages" or "kibbutzes" first instead of the most common name: Israeli settlements. After being warned and notified of sanctions, shuki has continued this behavior aggressively. I went ahead and returned most articles to their consensus based state, however I will not continue to revert. This issue needs admin attention. Due to shuki's concern's in [55] exchange, i have stricken and adjusted my suggested remedy. untwirl(talk) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that I am going to say on this here is that it is plain 'weenie' and bad faith pre-emptive effort to gang up and silence me after I was merely notified of the existence of the I-P sanctions (and you might all need to admit that I am one of the most prominent I-P area editors who has not received this official notice until now because of simply not needing to).
B) The Untwirl user did not even bother to open a section on WP:AN3, instead went for the kill on this page.
C) The user Untwirl abused WP:AGF by not even giving me a week to digest the 'notification'.
D) I already announced last week that I plan on opening a DR later this week (because of G below).
E) I already started a pre-DR discussion at WP Israel in order to avert a mass edit war by multiple editors that Untwirl, unfortunately, could not resist joining in.
F) The discussion is already dominated by non-WP Israel members because...
G) last week and this weekend is a religious Jewish holiday around the world and
H) I am certainly expecting opposing editors to respect that.
I) If anything, I suggest that it is Untwirl who is now the next candidate to receive notification of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_notifications for his controversial unilateral reverts on 10 October 2009 while a healthy discussion has already begun and for opening a false and misleading request on this page which has put an undeserved mark on my username, especially given my taking the lead in the attempt to resolve this conflict. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think this is necessary, Shuki said that a WP:DR process would be started shortly over this issue and I dont think it would be a problem to wait on that before doing anything here. IMO this should be closed without any action. nableezy - 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, i missed that statement by shuki. could you provide a link, please? this is the user's last contribution and i don't see any statement that an rfc or dr process is being started. plus, all of those edits are after the notification and warning by an uninvolved admin. untwirl(talk) 19:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to justify anything, I am saying that the best way forward would be an RfC on the topic which Shuki said would be forthcoming. That being the case I think it would be fair to wait on that RfC and see what happens. nableezy - 20:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
he was warned on the 7th. made many related edits on the 9th. said on the 9th he would seek DR. on the 10th continued on the same issue without seeking dr. you can't just say, "i'm going to seek dr next week" and then continue doing the same thing you have been warned about. i dont understand why you are defending this behaviour. untwirl(talk) 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—actually this is a content dispute, and the editor who most clearly violated policy is not Shuki, as explained here (in reference to Nableezy). The user was notified in the past of the case, therefore I request that the enforcement be extended to include him as well, if action is taken against Shuki. —Ynhockey(Talk)00:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have only now noticed that the user who filed this request did exactly the same thing that they are accusing Shuki of doing—a mass revert in the articles in question. This does not help matters, and the things I said in the linked-to post apply here as well. —Ynhockey(Talk)01:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ynhockey, I think your comment is rather unhelpful and misrepresents the situation. Nableezy's objectives and actions increase the compliance of article content with mandatory core policies. Shuki's actions decrease the compliance of article content with mandatory core policies. Nableezy argues by referring to core policies. Shuki and others argue using subjective emotional feelings about the meaning of words and people's intentions. Dispute resolution is the right course but it would certainly help if everyone could stick to just making policy based arguments and stop treating wikipedia as an ethnic battleground. If this AE request reduces the about of non-policy based actions/statements by editors then that is a good thing in ny view. Sean.hoyland - talk03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if requested by an uninvolved admin i will happily self-revert. i was simply undo-ing the actions which shuki had been warned not to continue. untwirl(talk) 01:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth pointing out that in addition to the more general I-P case, there was a subsequent one dealing with the “Judea and/or Samaria” vs “West Bank” naming dispute. The underlying issue there was fairly similar – does WP follow the terminology used by the vast majority of real world English-language sources, even within Israel, to describe something; or does it use a minority terminology? As with this issue, it also spread itself across multiple pages. It would seem to me that WP rules are pretty clear on this, eg in respect of place names at least, per WP:NCGN – “By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called.”
I was one of the editors who ended up being topic banned in that decision, when ArbCom decided to ban everyone they thought was involved in past edit wars over the issue, regardless of which “side” they were on, or what sins they may or may not have actually committed. In some cases, this was as few as 4-5 reverts over a two to three month period around the beginning of 2009, several months prior to the case even being heard (see this table). Anyway, I’m not commenting here in a bid to violate my topic ban, or in order to ask for User:Shuki to be clobbered, but because it seems relevant for the following reasons –
That decision does set a clear precedent that this kind of thing is, to say the least, frowned upon
Shuki should know this, because they were involved in edit warring on the West Bank issue along with everyone else at the beginning of 2009 (eg here, here, here, etc) and were lucky not to get caught by the decision (it was fairly arbitrary in terms of who it hit, and the grounds on which it hit people). That makes it doubly bad that they are continuing to do pretty much the same thing all over again, especially in terms of following an editor to multiple articles to make contentious changes
The West Bank decision also called for some sort of formal guidelines for the underlying West Bank vs J&S naming issue to be agreed. Oddly perhaps, this was not even included as part of the proposed decision at first, and even when it eventually was, it did not call for a wider I-P naming convention. Even though – ahem – some of us were calling for precisely that from the outset of the case, and had to repeat that point subsequently before even the limited provision was included in the final decision. It was fairly obvious all along that a related issue would just blow up somewhere else a couple of months down the line, as several people pointed out to ArbCom as their plans for dealing with the case became clear
Anyway, it seems the most obvious solution is to expand those guidelines to include the settlement point, as well as any other relevant disputed I-P naming issues, and for this to be done under ArbCom’s gaze, as before. As, perhaps, should have been done in the first place. --Nickhh (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked over the links in the above post (obviously did not read the total case) but see that a lot of established editors on WP were banned from editing in the area indefinitely. This seems to me to be handling an issue that should require scalpels with a butcher knife instead, and we see now that the underlying (larger) issues were not addressed. If the question of Judea&Samaria were the only issue it would be (mostly) fixed now. J&S is clearly only a symptom of a larger problem, one that will not be solved through the use of a butcher knife. Stellarkid (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support this proposed approach. I had a similar idea involving centrally agreed standardised content statements about these issues that could be deployed to the relevant articles to ensure global consistency and global consensus e.g. a statement about the occupation status of X would be a globally standard statement with a standard set of refs that has been agreed centrally. We can't keep having the same arguments over and over and over again. Sean.hoyland - talk09:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I agree. Guidelines perhaps, but "centrally agreed standardized content statements" "to ensure global consensus" only enforces a possibly probably false consensus and does not take into consideration that consensus can change with the facts. Further it is unlikely that a real consensus can be agreed upon when you have two groups so diametrically opposed. When Israel comes to an agreement with the Palestinians ("final status")- and vice versa - then an appropriate consensus can be made. Until then, it will be like the U.S. Republicans and the U.S. Democrats agreeing on a President, that is, either a false consensus or a forced consensus. Stellarkid (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that the statements would be static in nature. Consensus could change but the changes would be centralised as would be the discussions. It means you would have one ongoing discussion for one issue that evolves rather than many fragmented edit wars distributed over the project. Sean.hoyland - talk02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I’m not sure Wikipedia needs to wait until a final status agreement for the real world Israeli-Palestinian dispute before a group of (hopefully) rational, well-informed and reasonably objective people here can come to an agreement about what certain things are currently called, or how they are referred to, in most English language sources; and then apply that agreement across all related articles. Those articles have to say something, and hopefully say something accurate – the choice is between agreeing it centrally, or fighting over it again and again on every individual page; not between whether people have the debate or not. Of course, that agreement can then be updated if and when the terminology in the outside world changes (not something that's imminent, I suspect, in any event). And the status of MEPP, or what either “side” - let’s assume for the sake of argument that they each think as a homogenous whole - involved in the conflict happens to think at any one point in time, actually has very little to do with it (a mistake ArbCom made when they figured the West Bank vs Judea & Samaria issue as if it was partisans from each side slugging it out). Each of them can argue what they like – it’s what the majority of uninvolved, mainstream international sources use at the moment that’s what counts. Anyway, I've said my piece I guess, and have no wish to be involved substantively, even if I were allowed to be under the slightly bizarre and unevenly applied punishment regime in force in this area. Perhaps this is better raised anyway at the arbitration noticeboard or something? --Nickhh (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
As I mentioned in a different section, the entire topic area seems to be a breeding ground for bad behavior. I am leaning towards a revert and move restriction.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'on (Undid revision 318718235 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Immanuel (town) (Undid revision 318716885 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:03, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Beit Horon (rv OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:02, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Alon Shvut (Undid revision 318718337 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:01, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Efrat (Undid revision 318718628 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:01, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Kiryat Arba (Undid revision 318718824 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Avnei Hefetz (Undid revision 318719858 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'ale Mikhmas (Undid revision 318719976 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Kokhav HaShahar (Undid revision 318720051 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
10:00, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Sha'arei Tikva (Undid revision 318720146 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
09:59, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Beit El (Undid revision 318720326 by Nableezy (talk)OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
09:59, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Alon, Mateh Binyamin (OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
09:58, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Barkan (Undid revision 318720575 by Nableezy (talk)OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
09:58, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Ma'ale Adumim (Undid revision 318646193 by Dailycare (talk) unneeded edit, might construe all Palestinian settlements as holding same status)
09:57, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Adora, Har Hebron (Undid revision 318719523 by Nableezy (talk) OR, POV, emphasizing vague label over specific identity of the locality)
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)
Editor notified [70] Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
whatever action admins deem appropriate; topic ban editing topic ban, narrowly construed and excluding talk pages so the editor can participate in discussion seems most likely to help since warnings and notifications haven't.
Additional comments
This editor is edit warring over calling israeli settlements "villages" or "kibbutzes" first instead of the most common name: Israeli settlements. After being warned and notified of sanctions, shuki has continued this behavior aggressively. I went ahead and returned most articles to their consensus based state, however I will not continue to revert. This issue needs admin attention. Due to shuki's concern's in [71] exchange, i have stricken and adjusted my suggested remedy. untwirl(talk) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that I am going to say on this here is that it is plain 'weenie' and bad faith pre-emptive effort to gang up and silence me after I was merely notified of the existence of the I-P sanctions (and you might all need to admit that I am one of the most prominent I-P area editors who has not received this official notice until now because of simply not needing to).
B) The Untwirl user did not even bother to open a section on WP:AN3, instead went for the kill on this page.
C) The user Untwirl abused WP:AGF by not even giving me a week to digest the 'notification'.
D) I already announced last week that I plan on opening a DR later this week (because of G below).
E) I already started a pre-DR discussion at WP Israel in order to avert a mass edit war by multiple editors that Untwirl, unfortunately, could not resist joining in.
F) The discussion is already dominated by non-WP Israel members because...
G) last week and this weekend is a religious Jewish holiday around the world and
H) I am certainly expecting opposing editors to respect that.
I) If anything, I suggest that it is Untwirl who is now the next candidate to receive notification of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_notifications for his controversial unilateral reverts on 10 October 2009 while a healthy discussion has already begun and for opening a false and misleading request on this page which has put an undeserved mark on my username, especially given my taking the lead in the attempt to resolve this conflict. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think this is necessary, Shuki said that a WP:DR process would be started shortly over this issue and I dont think it would be a problem to wait on that before doing anything here. IMO this should be closed without any action. nableezy - 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, i missed that statement by shuki. could you provide a link, please? this is the user's last contribution and i don't see any statement that an rfc or dr process is being started. plus, all of those edits are after the notification and warning by an uninvolved admin. untwirl(talk) 19:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to justify anything, I am saying that the best way forward would be an RfC on the topic which Shuki said would be forthcoming. That being the case I think it would be fair to wait on that RfC and see what happens. nableezy - 20:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
he was warned on the 7th. made many related edits on the 9th. said on the 9th he would seek DR. on the 10th continued on the same issue without seeking dr. you can't just say, "i'm going to seek dr next week" and then continue doing the same thing you have been warned about. i dont understand why you are defending this behaviour. untwirl(talk) 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—actually this is a content dispute, and the editor who most clearly violated policy is not Shuki, as explained here (in reference to Nableezy). The user was notified in the past of the case, therefore I request that the enforcement be extended to include him as well, if action is taken against Shuki. —Ynhockey(Talk)00:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have only now noticed that the user who filed this request did exactly the same thing that they are accusing Shuki of doing—a mass revert in the articles in question. This does not help matters, and the things I said in the linked-to post apply here as well. —Ynhockey(Talk)01:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ynhockey, I think your comment is rather unhelpful and misrepresents the situation. Nableezy's objectives and actions increase the compliance of article content with mandatory core policies. Shuki's actions decrease the compliance of article content with mandatory core policies. Nableezy argues by referring to core policies. Shuki and others argue using subjective emotional feelings about the meaning of words and people's intentions. Dispute resolution is the right course but it would certainly help if everyone could stick to just making policy based arguments and stop treating wikipedia as an ethnic battleground. If this AE request reduces the about of non-policy based actions/statements by editors then that is a good thing in ny view. Sean.hoyland - talk03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if requested by an uninvolved admin i will happily self-revert. i was simply undo-ing the actions which shuki had been warned not to continue. untwirl(talk) 01:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth pointing out that in addition to the more general I-P case, there was a subsequent one dealing with the “Judea and/or Samaria” vs “West Bank” naming dispute. The underlying issue there was fairly similar – does WP follow the terminology used by the vast majority of real world English-language sources, even within Israel, to describe something; or does it use a minority terminology? As with this issue, it also spread itself across multiple pages. It would seem to me that WP rules are pretty clear on this, eg in respect of place names at least, per WP:NCGN – “By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called.”
I was one of the editors who ended up being topic banned in that decision, when ArbCom decided to ban everyone they thought was involved in past edit wars over the issue, regardless of which “side” they were on, or what sins they may or may not have actually committed. In some cases, this was as few as 4-5 reverts over a two to three month period around the beginning of 2009, several months prior to the case even being heard (see this table). Anyway, I’m not commenting here in a bid to violate my topic ban, or in order to ask for User:Shuki to be clobbered, but because it seems relevant for the following reasons –
That decision does set a clear precedent that this kind of thing is, to say the least, frowned upon
Shuki should know this, because they were involved in edit warring on the West Bank issue along with everyone else at the beginning of 2009 (eg here, here, here, etc) and were lucky not to get caught by the decision (it was fairly arbitrary in terms of who it hit, and the grounds on which it hit people). That makes it doubly bad that they are continuing to do pretty much the same thing all over again, especially in terms of following an editor to multiple articles to make contentious changes
The West Bank decision also called for some sort of formal guidelines for the underlying West Bank vs J&S naming issue to be agreed. Oddly perhaps, this was not even included as part of the proposed decision at first, and even when it eventually was, it did not call for a wider I-P naming convention. Even though – ahem – some of us were calling for precisely that from the outset of the case, and had to repeat that point subsequently before even the limited provision was included in the final decision. It was fairly obvious all along that a related issue would just blow up somewhere else a couple of months down the line, as several people pointed out to ArbCom as their plans for dealing with the case became clear
Anyway, it seems the most obvious solution is to expand those guidelines to include the settlement point, as well as any other relevant disputed I-P naming issues, and for this to be done under ArbCom’s gaze, as before. As, perhaps, should have been done in the first place. --Nickhh (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked over the links in the above post (obviously did not read the total case) but see that a lot of established editors on WP were banned from editing in the area indefinitely. This seems to me to be handling an issue that should require scalpels with a butcher knife instead, and we see now that the underlying (larger) issues were not addressed. If the question of Judea&Samaria were the only issue it would be (mostly) fixed now. J&S is clearly only a symptom of a larger problem, one that will not be solved through the use of a butcher knife. Stellarkid (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support this proposed approach. I had a similar idea involving centrally agreed standardised content statements about these issues that could be deployed to the relevant articles to ensure global consistency and global consensus e.g. a statement about the occupation status of X would be a globally standard statement with a standard set of refs that has been agreed centrally. We can't keep having the same arguments over and over and over again. Sean.hoyland - talk09:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I agree. Guidelines perhaps, but "centrally agreed standardized content statements" "to ensure global consensus" only enforces a possibly probably false consensus and does not take into consideration that consensus can change with the facts. Further it is unlikely that a real consensus can be agreed upon when you have two groups so diametrically opposed. When Israel comes to an agreement with the Palestinians ("final status")- and vice versa - then an appropriate consensus can be made. Until then, it will be like the U.S. Republicans and the U.S. Democrats agreeing on a President, that is, either a false consensus or a forced consensus. Stellarkid (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that the statements would be static in nature. Consensus could change but the changes would be centralised as would be the discussions. It means you would have one ongoing discussion for one issue that evolves rather than many fragmented edit wars distributed over the project. Sean.hoyland - talk02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I’m not sure Wikipedia needs to wait until a final status agreement for the real world Israeli-Palestinian dispute before a group of (hopefully) rational, well-informed and reasonably objective people here can come to an agreement about what certain things are currently called, or how they are referred to, in most English language sources; and then apply that agreement across all related articles. Those articles have to say something, and hopefully say something accurate – the choice is between agreeing it centrally, or fighting over it again and again on every individual page; not between whether people have the debate or not. Of course, that agreement can then be updated if and when the terminology in the outside world changes (not something that's imminent, I suspect, in any event). And the status of MEPP, or what either “side” - let’s assume for the sake of argument that they each think as a homogenous whole - involved in the conflict happens to think at any one point in time, actually has very little to do with it (a mistake ArbCom made when they figured the West Bank vs Judea & Samaria issue as if it was partisans from each side slugging it out). Each of them can argue what they like – it’s what the majority of uninvolved, mainstream international sources use at the moment that’s what counts. Anyway, I've said my piece I guess, and have no wish to be involved substantively, even if I were allowed to be under the slightly bizarre and unevenly applied punishment regime in force in this area. Perhaps this is better raised anyway at the arbitration noticeboard or something? --Nickhh (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
As I mentioned in a different section, the entire topic area seems to be a breeding ground for bad behavior. I am leaning towards a revert and move restriction.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Indefinite topic ban on Armenian-Turkey articles/year long block
Additional comments by Marshal Bagramyan (talk):
This user has had a long history of vandalism and disruption on articles relating to Armenia and Turkey, and particularly on the Armenian Genocide. He was blocked on two consecutive occasions for aggressively adding unsourced POV and revert warring on the Iğdır article. He recently just reverted me, sans discussion, on that article, removing the Armenian name for the town, even though I cited reliable sources on its relevance; he also re-inserted misleading information on Armenian Genocide on the same article. He was blocked for one week for incivility and as it clearly shows above, he clearly does not care about that rule.
He now has violated 1RR on the Armenia–Turkey relations article, and is once more adding POV and factually inaccurate information on the Armenian Genocide, without even showing an inclination to discuss or explain his edits. I believe more stringent action is needed, given his propensity to insult and revert war his way through articles.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [75]
Those users who blame me see wikipedia as a antiturkism propaganda tool.I should say that because of those editors wikipedia includes many antiturkish articles.I am just trying to be objective and make wikipedia objective.Also I never denied Armenian genocide.Just look at Igdir they remove citations that verify turkish massacres by armenians and they deny the massacres.I hope you will see their subjective and antiturkish thinking way.--Abbatai (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you don't seem to have responded to the merits of the accusation that has been made. Rather, you simply have tried to discredit the persons who have filed the request. The most useful comments from you would be ones that would counter the evidence cited in this complaint. AGK12:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abbatai reverted twice within a short period of time, and in both instances without any apparent attempts at discussion with the other party to the disagreement. In light of the fact that he has previously been issued a warning with a link to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 discretionary sanctions remedy, I am inclined to agree that Abbatai ought to be sanctioned. The severity of the sanction would, however, depend on the context of the disagreement and on how positive Abbatai's behavioural record has been (on the article and in the subject area in question). I would welcome comment on this note. Additionally, I would welcome a statement from Abbatai and also other useful input.
Having also reviewed the disagreement that forms the context of this complaint, I would like to register my disappointment that on both occasions where Abbatai has changed the title of the "Armenian revolutionary movement" section, he has been reverted without any discussion—in one case by Kansas Bear and in the other by MarshallBagramyan (who filed this complaint). A wider shift from reversion to discussion and co-operation seems to be necessary for all involved in this dispute, and so (as, admittedly, but a preliminary comment), I would suggest that it may be the case that article-wide sanctions are needed to discourage unproductive conflict. At the very least, however, I think that Kansas Bear and Marshall ought to be formally notified of the A-A2 discretionary sanctions remedy (if this has not previously been done).
Note: I intend to close (and act on) this complaint, in much the same vein as above, by Saturday evening (UTC)—absent any further developments. AGK12:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Abbatai(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is prohibited from making any revert to any article in the subject areas relating to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbitration case (including Armenian Genocide) except where the revert is supported by an editorial consensus established on an appropriate discussion page. This prohibition is in place for a period of 3 months. Where Abbatai is unsure that a consensus for his edit exists, he should pursue appropriate methods of discussion and dispute resolution. Likewise, where consensus on an issue seems to be divided, dispute resolution should be pursued.
This sanction is made under the provisions of the discretionary sanctions remedy of the A-A 2 case, and is logged accordingly. (My rationale for sanctioning Abbatai so is that it has been established (both in this complaint and on multiple other occasions that he is unable to resist the temptation to blankly revert his fellow editors when they make an edit to an A-A article with which he disagrees. Removing his right to revert without first establishing a consensus to do so seems to me to be a quite logical remedy.)
Short version:
Jiujitsuguy started with namecalling around 5 oct and insinuated I was a nazist
Revert to your heart's desire just don't call it the Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it.[79]
after removing somthing he considered important. I complained at his talk [80] checked his IP and googled his username. I brought it up at Wikiquett. [81] I was told it belong in arbitration and backed off. [82] I was during that time frustrated of being framed as a nazi and after finding Jiujitsuguys ISP in Brooklyn and his postings seemed to only support Israels side in IP-conflict. I also faced his reverts of my NPOV-ing in article Gaza War. I later googled him and found him writing to a sionist/neocon blog asking for help editing wikipedia in "Any assistance you can extend to reverse this bias/censorship would be appreciated" .
Then BOOM he went to counterattack using false accusations, a faulty and flawed list of editdiffs [83] and next excuse himself imediatly followed with
"The article was shaping up to be pretty good, though when it comes to Middle East, no one can be entirely satisfied. But comes along Mr Anon Unsigned and starts reverting like a mad man with out regard for any etiquette or decorum. It was very frustrating to see the long process of editing going down the toilet" [84].
The list is a very bad faithed attack in it self, compiled by Stellarkid (talk), whos involvement been increasing dueing this conflict. He still today stands for some of the faulty accusations in the list.
Conflict escalated again at oct 8 when Jiujitsuguy edit warred article Gaza War, asked for its protection a few minutes after his last revert, same time throw this accusation on the admins talkpage.
"The most vile of the bunch is Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) who was already warned that he would be blocked for persistent vandalism to this site. Please go to his talk page to see what I'm referring to" [85].
He refer to the warning, now removed by the uninvolved editor who wrote it, comming from the false list of claimed edit warring by me.
Again at oct 16 he make a false accusation [86]. This is absolutly false. In detail described at my complaint at ANI [87]
Then Jiujitsuguy with help of Stellarkid started a campain against me, using quotes out of context, trying to frame me as a nazi again I understand. Im still not sure of th scope of it. I filed a complaint of his last editwarring and now his banned for a week. I must point to his, blatant lying and like stellarkid, use of very manipulative languages. Also posting of quotes of me, even if some are totally harmless, bolded and hard cut out of context in a way that word cant describe. This is a first statement and I will follow it up (and copyedit for spellings etc). Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like to point to my 8 october response to Jiujitsuguys accusations and my 9 oct attempt [88] to get advice how to proceed at Enigmamsg talkpage after he protected article 'Gaza war' (on Jiujitsus request a few minutes after he did his last revert, violated 3RR in the article and pasted the usual accusation about me).Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to RomaC. Im not innocent of wrongdoings but some importent things should talk to my favour and not put me on same level of editwarrinng and aggressive editing in 'Gaza War' that should be punishable. I did stepp back a few days before the 8 oct editwar that led to articleprotection. I did step back in the last editwar with Jiujitsuguy even if I technically could have done a last revert without breaking 3RR leaving his version in article. I noted and informed him of his 3 reverts on his talkpage and even marked that editwarring dont need 3RR violation but he still continued editwarring and reverted another editors at another part of article. His 4:th revert. Therfor, respectfully RomaC, you cant compare my level of editwarrin with his. I let him 'win' in both cases (well there is more) even if I could have got my will thrugh without breaking 3RR. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Tyw7. I should have adressed you first, sorry for that. But, respectfully, I dont really understand whats my wrongdoing is. Wikiquett is what I understand the right way to go in cases like this. And I backed off[89]. The next action from Jiujitsuguy led to your mistake which you corrected (the warning of vandalizing on my talkpage). I had to clarify and put that mess of nonsence (the false list of editdiffs)in right perspective or being marked as a vandal. Am I to blame in any aspect of this? My case on ANI [90] is a response to Jiujitsuguys lies on Nableezys talkpage [[91]]. What am I to blame in that? Though I am thankfull for you to bring up this as I hope I can get a chans to respond jiujitsuguys shenanigan (with help of Stellarkid.) They unfortunatly quite effective turn uninvolved editor and admins against me. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Unsigned Anon has been here about a month, and has become involved in disputes (on Gaza War), often with Jiujitsuguy, who has been here about a month and a half. I see that Jiujitsuguy has now been blocked for a week. Perhaps if the same message were sent to Anon both could come back and work more less aggressively, more constructively? In my opinion a problem shared by these editors is that they understand that all content in Wikipedia should be supported by reliable sources, but don't appreciate that not all content supported by reliable sources necessarily belongs in a given article. It's the first time I've seen source-warring! Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot. I need more information from you, as to what you are talking about, what you are asking for, and you need to show you've notified whoever you're in conflict with of this discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J.—You had best flag a checkuser down directly. I don't think many of them watch this page routinely, as checks aren't frequently necessary. AGK21:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs cited by Mr. Unsigned Anon show incitement.[93] I am disinclined to sanction an editor who reacts badly under pressure or incitement. Mr. Unsigned Anon, if others are acting badly, that does not excuse you to respond in kind. Please rise above it. Whoever you may be, consider this a chance to do better. If I spot you causing trouble going forward, I will be much more inclined to run that checkuser. If you are a target of incitement, go find an administrator and ask for help, don't take the bait. I suggest closing this request. JehochmanTalk02:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Six-month prohibition on violating NPA (by commenting on contributors and not on content alone) issued. General caution issued. AGK00:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Official warning be issued regarding I-P arbcomm case that notes that commenting on editors rather than content is unacceptable. It just sidetracks discussion on the talk page, wastes time, and impedes progress in achieving consensus. Cptnono's edits do fall under the purview of this case, as is indicated by the template at the top of Talk:Gaza War, but he is not taking heed of the special restrictions. A specific warning referencing the Arb comm decision may help him to understand that commenting on editors rather than content is unacceptable (Perhaps a reminder that WP:AGF and WP:NPA do apply to him too?) Requests to stop from the editors he is commenting about have not seemed to help. Maybe hearing it from an admin will. Additional comments by Tiamuttalk:
Tznaki, regarding your comment below, I did not ask for a sanction to be placed Cptnono for the diffs cited above. I made a very simple request that he be notified of the Arbcomm case formally and perhaps reminded that commenting on editors rather than content does nothing to foster a collaborative environment that is essential for article improvement. The lack of administrative response to what are clearly inappropriate comments is disappointing. (Please replace "Palestinian" with "Jewish" or "Israeli" to get an idea of how these ethnic references can be offensive and alienating.) After seeing these double standards on how such commentary is treated time and again however, I can't say that I am surprised. Tiamuttalk14:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:[104]
Seeing as Cptnono says I stand behind my comments, it would be good to have an admin clarify if commenting on editors and their motivations is okay at I-P pages. If it is, I sure have a lot more to say. I've kept such thoughts (mostly) to myself, since my understanding is that by focusing on content and not contributors, we have a better chance of improving articles and a lower chance of pissing people off. Also, do admins agree with Ctpnono's statement that: If you have Palestinian stuff on your user page you shouldn't be editing here? Can I tell editors with Israeli symbols on their pages to take a hike from now on? Would I be immediately blocked for such a statement? Probably. Tiamuttalk09:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it came across harsh but certain editors have not been responsible. Saying all was to far and I am happy to clarify that to some. I also do not believe there are any editors with Stars of Davids on the page. As a reminder, part of the reason that came up was another editor's assertion that Wikipeida is pro-israel. Furthermore, I wouldn't take offence if you said that editors who were editing in a biased manner should not be editing. We have to be neutral. I did not present the crticism with the intent to be malicious. I did it since we were discussing how to get the lock caused by other editors' edit warring lifted. I hope you understand that it was for the betterment of the article and not to attack anyone. I thought I made that clear so please understand that now if you didn't then.Cptnono (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Cptnono, but twice now you have used article talk pages to accuse first me, and then Nableezy of POV editing. In my case, you didn't cite any article edits I made, but instead focused on my user page content. In Nableezy's case, you harped on his lack of POV for taking a position opposed to yours on the issue of "the Gaza massacre". In both cases, you discussed (at length) our so-called motivations on the talk page, even after being asked to stop mutliple times. This is poisonous to the editing atmosphere and does nothing to help in the forging on consensus. Instead of discussing article content, the discussion falls into mutual recriminations or useless repetition (You are POV editing - No I'm not, please stop saying so - Yes you are - No I'm not stop it, etc., etc.) If you have a valid reason to suspet editors are engaged in POV editing, you can amass diffs and open an WP:AE case. Using article talk pages to issue unsubstantiated accusations is distracting and disruptive. And defending your right to do so after people ask you to stop is tendentious. Tiamuttalk10:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I stand by the accusations. I was overly crass with you which I apologized for but that doesn't change the fact that certain editors are only editing the page for a sole purpose. Many times this has lead to the railroading of content, skewing consensus to present information with a POV, and unnecessary reverts. You obviously did not deserve such a hard time but Nableezy clearly does deserve negative feedback (or constructive criticism as I said) from his history in my opinion and this is verified by several others criticizing him on related pages. I also think that I showed an obvious attempt to not attack him as a person but his editing. I was not attacking him personally like I did to you. In that situation I took a Wikibreak to chill out and apologized a day or so later. If you want this arbitration to be based off of that then say so but Nableezy should be able to discuss criticism about his editing. I presented links to another discussion bringing up the same charge. In this situation, you can ask me to stop all you want but it was a discussion that editors needed to be involved in and aware of. In regards to being disruptive, I was also making comments on how to get the lock lifted. I opened a few discussions. In two of issues I agree with what could easily come across against Israel. I wrote a draft. No one else was even trying. It is the exact opposite of being disruptive.Cptnono (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion ended awhile ago. I said what I thought needed to be said and went to bed before your request was even made here. I am not going to apologize since I was bringing up something in an attempt to better the article. Nableezy was showing that he was not willing to consider other options even though a few of us tried accommodating using the word "massacre" in the lead. He has still failed to show that it was used enough to deserve prominence over other terms but MrUnsignedAnon's new proposal could take care of that. So what is the point? Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users so I assume that is out of the question. I have no problem with an admin saying not do it again if it is considered disruptive. I'll bring it up in a different venue (a notice board or case like this) if I feel it should be discussed. I did mention this but thought your request that I stop and Nableezy's comment warranted a response. I should also have my name added to the people made aware of the sanctions on the topic. If an admin is going to admonish me that is OK. I would request that several editors on that page who's edit warring led to the lock along with anyone campaigning gets the same treatment. This discussion is about stopping my disruptive editing (which stopped over 24 hours ago) though and no one else's so that other stuff shouldn't be discussed in detail here. If an admin wants to tell me if I was wrong or not then I am willing to accept their judgment. Cptnono (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to "Comments by other editors" seciton.
SK: Thank you, Stellarkid. I think that is a perfect summary besides the gender. I also think it should be clear that I was a jerk a few weeks ago and felt my apology was in order.
NAB: I have also clarified my statement to "some" editors. I see it as the same concern of when as editor accused Stellarkid of "advocacy" (Romac) on Oct 5 and you asserted that I (or other editors) were making "strawman' arguments and engaging in "strongarming" which didn't raise eyebrows. I told you after you made those comments that you were coming across poorly (I used "poopey") which was surprising to me since we typically have a good rapport. I didn't expect those allegations from you.
If we need to bring up a discussion for arbitration enforcement regarding our differences we should do it. I see you were just almost blocked again for edit warring today and I think it would be a shame for either of us to not be involved in the consensus finding for the lead but if you want to keep it going we should do it in the proper venue. This discussion, however, was Tiamut jumping into a discussion and assuming I was attacking you when I was clearly trying to give you needed criticism. I have clarified the single comment that was out of line and stopped discussing it on the page. This discussion is also not about what would happen if someone said it about Israeli's, leprechauns, or anything else so any concerns with Israeli bias on Wikipeida should be brought up somewhere else. And like I said, I don't care what blood flows through your veins since editing neutrally is my concern.Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NNMNG: Thanks NMMNG. I loled at "WP:be-passive-aggressive" and liked your phrasing in the first paragraph as a much better summary than mine. In Tiamut's defense, I flat-out called her a liar a few weeks ago. I have since apologized but that would be upsetting to anyone so if that is part of it that is understandable. Alternatively, I'm not going to speculate if other editors are gaming the system with this arbitration for enforcement since I can't be sure that is what is going on and if anything this is a reminder to not rock the boat so hard!Cptnono (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NAB: You just accused Stellarkid of advocacy a few days ago. If you believe edits have been done solely to promote Israel you should tell me. That is my bad
And don't change the subject (me!) since I haven't shown up randomly to edit other articles in the topic. I also even explained to you the problem. I laid out perfectly clear that it appeared you were trying to WP:WIN and were given proposal that should have met all of your requests but you needed to have it asserted as a title which is incorrect (At least in a couple of our opinions). In regards to other editors with the colors, one who had never edited the article came out of nowhere and supported you and that has happened before. I agree with something that came from this enforcement: I should not have asserted that all editors with Palestinian, Hezbollah, or other colors should not be editing. I should have stopped at my previous comment of suggesting that they take a step back and reassess if they can edit or worded it similar to SK or NNMNG. I gave you a valid reason and I made it clear that it was not to hurt your feelings. I also did not launch into a tirade until it appeared that you were not willing to use administrative oversight. Yes you clarified it but initially that looked pretty bad. I don't see why we should not let other editors know when they are being viewed as editing with bias or gaming the system especially when there have been several cases of edit warring and such behavior. The concern was not to do it on the talk page and I stopped. I thought everyone should know since it was the charges impacted the specific article. If there is a next time I will seek administrative oversight instead of giving what I view as constructive criticism.Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ah crap... RomaC said it a line below you. That is my bad. However your comments were about strawman arguments, strongarming, and questioning if I had a POV concern [105]. I don't mind if you feel that way. You can call me out at anytime and I should answer. As you suggest that can be continued on a user talk page if you want.Cptnono (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SK and Nab: I'm not offended and no striking out is needed. Nableezy can imply or make those charges if he wants. I deny it and will continue to say that people flying either flag need to watch out for bias. That isn't what this enforcement process is about so I'm find waiting and seeing how an admin feels and dropping it for now.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tiamut: I did not see your additional comment earlier. Just a quick follow-up: I did tell Nableezy why I thought he was being biased. Stellarkid also gave an excellent summary of why he feels your user page is not constructive to the project. These are not attacks to be mean. It is constructive criticism since editors feel you need to hear it. Per the whole principle of the arbitration concern: Do you want to discuss this in another more appropriate venue (particular user page, arbitraiton enforcement, whatever)? This is supposed to be my party.Cptnono (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand behind my comments. The three sections below are a proper summary of any statement I could make (bold emphisis on a few lines not in original text)
"I will not agree with BashBrannigan's suggestion since it asserts as a title and it is against the manual of style (Title's need to be bolded in the lead). My solution was dumbing down the lead to the point that there is no mention of Israel's operational name and to be frank it makes them look pretty bad (which they deserve to some extent of course). Even with this, I still including the term massacre since people did describe it as a massacre. Some people have even used it as a title but it was relativity rare when comparing it to the multiple other titles out there. If Nableezy requires it to be asserted as a title then there is a huge roadblock and we will have to add several others (which is like BashBrannigan suggestion only we will do it per MOS).''Also, regardless of the two of us agreeing or not (since it isn't required to not edit war and it isn't either of our's decision anyways), there was another series of edit warring that caused the page to get locked.It was over another editor's cleanup of someone else's cleanup of someone else's cleanup of a poorly laid out lead and a few other portions of the article. (please see the handful recently added discussions to this talk page and the reverts with several editor's names mentioned in the edit history).Cptnono (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)"
"Ok, this is out of proportions. Bring it to Arbritation and let them decide after we made our points heard. Then we lock part by part arbritated. For eternal time untuched my editors. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with any administrative action or oversight. Nableezy is fresh off of charges of gaming the system and winning by shear staying power with allegations of campaigning. ( here and here I like him but agree with the concern. Nableezy's priorities are Palestine and not Wikipedia. I know those look like horrible charges to make but he was presented with a perfectly fine option and disregarded any "compromise" (we shouldn't be compromising facts). I would like to think that he is an alright guy (I really do like him) but his edits show that there is a sole purpose and that is Palestine not Wikipedia.[106]Cptnono (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)"*[reply]
"You made it clear that the discussion of edit waring did not involve me. You edit war on more than one Gaza-Israeli based pages. I full-on expect a negative response from you. I am doing it for constructive criticism since no one else has (including admins) when you need it. We can move this to a talk page if you want but I'm not calling you out to be a dick. I'm doing it since other editors perceive you as gaming the system.Cptnono (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
*since inserting these comments from the talk page Nableezy has raised concerns that I was misrepresenting him. Nableezy clarified his "not how it works" comment with a comment about the process. This is an overview of my actions not his and the intent of using the statement was to show that I was happy to use other available methods to resolve the dispute.Cptnono (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to support Cptnono here. although I have only recently become involved in this article (and in WP) this accusation strikes me as terribly unfair. Cptnono has been trying to advance this article and maintain a NPOV. He has expressed his opinions on the talk page and never edit warred. I thought his opinions were carefully and deliberately spelled out and that they were dismissed, as were mine, and all others with a different viewpoint, out-of-hand. I noticed right away that editors who were in favor of removing "massacre" from the lede were reverted almost instantaneously by those who wished to include "massacre" in the lede. Warnings were put on the talk pages of the anti- folks. Requests to self-revert, ostensibly to achieve the same end as reverting, without the threat of 3RR noticeboard.
I see this action, and the one directly below it, against Shuki, as part of an attempt by certain editors to silence certain other editors. It begins when a small group of singleminded individuals come into an article and begin editwarring. They insist that consensus be achieved on the talk page, and then other like-minded individuals come in and refuse to cooperate on the article although they give a superficial appearance of doing so. Unwelcome, pov edits are made and insisted on, due to "lack of consensus" or other reasons. Then small things are blown up and an editor who was unhappy with a change is taken to some enforcement board or another, for lack of etiquette, too many reverts, or this board.
Can truth be a defense? In other words, is Cptnono correct when he claims bias? Take Tiamut for example. Tiamut has never been rude to me, though he has (in my opinion) a clear and demonstrated bias that effects his judgment.
These quotes prominently placed on his talk page, consider:
"I am a Palestinian. Hath not a Palestinian eyes? Hath not a Palestinian hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Jew is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that -- the villainy you teach me, I will execute; and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction." Tariq Ali's take on Shakespeare in the Khaleej Times
"It is not enough for the settler to delimit physically, that is to say with the help of the army and the police force, the place of the native. As if to show the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation the settler paints the native as a sort of quintessence of evil ... The native knows all this ... he knows that he is not an animal, and it is precisely at the moment he realizes his humanity that he begins to sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory. --From Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth
First paragraph is a Palestinian's "take" on Shylock. In Shakespeare, the Jew is the victim of the gentile. In Tiamut's world, the Palestinian is the victim of the Jew. He talks of being wronged, and of taking revenge. "The villany you teach me", he says he will execute, and do one better. The Jews have taught the Palestinian villainy and the Palestinians, according to this, will be even more villainous in return.
Taking a look at the second quote, we understand that the "settler" of which he speaks is a Jewish settler (an Israeli). Referring to the settler as demonstrating "the totalitarian character of colonial exploitation," he claims that (all) settlers paint the "natives" as evil, suggesting that they are animals. Palestinians, knowing that they are not animals, "begin to sharpen their weapons..."
This is the epitome of a battlefield mentality and I believe that editing I-P articles with such a mindset is not going to contribute to collaborative editing, but instead lead to editing warring and disruption such as this enforcement action and the similar one below. Stellarkid (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many things wrong with the above. To begin with the simple things, Tiamut is a she, Tariq Ali is not a Palestinian, and Franz Fanon was not writing about Israel, though some may feel his words apply to the situation. But the biggest problem with the above, and with Cptnono's comments about having Palestinian flags on userpages disqualifying somebody from editing, is that it is strictly an argument directed at the person and not the substance of that person's argument. People should not be making such comments, and any user making comments that any user with an Israeli flag on their user page should be disqualified from editing would be swiftly subject to at least a topic ban, and rightly so. nableezy - 04:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Cptnono was doing a bit of hyperbole about the flags. He did not limit himself to the flag of one side or the other. His argument was meant more abstractly as pointed out in the post below, by NoMoreMrNiceGuy. That Tiamut is a she, or that Tariq Ali is not a Palestinian ,or that Ferdinand's comments were not directed to Israel makes no difference. I was talking on a more abstract level. Tiamut expresses her bias very clearly on her user page, what she considers to be "settled" opinion, no pun intended. The trouble is in the area of I-P conflict, one has to be sensitive to the other side's view if there is to be collaboration. When one considers the other side "the enemy," there is little doubt that one will act upon it, whether in his editing, or in the manner in which he handles his "enemies," that is, by trying to get the "authorities" involved on his "side." Stellarkid (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He actually did limit himself to one "sides" flag. But we dont judge editors based on their political leanings or what they put on their user page, we judge them based on their article edits and their interactions with others. If you, or anybody else, has a problem with what is on Tiamut's user talk page dont look at it. Do you think it is easy for "the other side" to work with those who have boxes expressing support for Yisrael Beiteinu, a party that has called for forced expulsions of Arabs and has been called variously fascist, racist, and ultra-racist? Or users who have user boxes proclaiming that independence for Palestinians "has been achieved with the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"? What do you think the reaction would be if I were to say "X user has an Israeli flag on their user page, that user should not be allowed to edit in areas dealing with Israel"? But this misses the point. Do not focus your attention on the user, focus it on the argument. If there are behavioral issues, focus on the actual behavior. Not "she has some words on her user page I dont like". nableezy - 16:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He did say something to that effect, see [107]. He specifically referred to the Star of David being on a user's page. It was a metaphor for activism on either side. It is unfair to paint him as Arabphobic or supportive of far-right in Israel as you are implying. I would think you would strike the above comment as inappropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You, again, miss the point. And I did not imply that he "Arabphobic" or "supportive of far-right in Israel". But, again, that is besides the point. To repeat the missed point, you should not be making comments on what you think are other editors motivations but on the edits that user makes. As much as I dislike those who continuously repeat the following phrase, I will write it down once. Focus on content, not on editors. We get it this time or will there be another response that completely misses the point? nableezy - 06:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is you who misses the point. It appears that content has been discussed for some 57(?) archived pages in less than a year. As has been demonstrated, the "massacre" question has been discussed almost that long. There comes a time when it is appropriate to ask if there are some editors who are purposefully impeding collaboration due to bias and POV. Stellarkid (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Cptnono meant when talking about Palestinian flags on userpages is that there are unabashed activists for Palestinian nationalism (or other political agendas), who care more about their political leanings than improving Wikipedia, and that if your activism is so important to you that you cover your userpage with your politics, maybe it would be better if you involved yourself in other areas of this encyclopedia.
Cptnono's main mistake was that he forgot about WP:be-passive-aggressive and said what he thought in no uncertain terms, which resulted in Tiamut filing this request (not on her own behalf but for someone with similar political leanings, funnily enough).
There's little doubt in my mind that this request (and the one following it) weren't filed because someone said something not so nice on a couple of occasions (as if the requester herself doesn't do that on occasion - proof to be supplied on request), but to silence active editors of perceived opposing political views. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NMMNG, Your post is a series of personal attacks based on my user page content rather than the content of my edits. I understand that my pride in my identity is offensive to you, but like Nableezy said, you are not forced to look at my user or talk pages. For someone so irritated by my political leanings, you do seem to go out of your way to interact with me. Perhaps it is not I seeking a WP:BATTLE?
The reason I filed this complaint is simple: Cptnono was discussing contributors and not content at Talk:Gaza War. He has done it before too. He was asked by more than one editor to stop. He did not. He continued to defend his right to speculate about the motivations of his fellow editors, even here.
You have done that too. Providing no diffs of disruptive activity (even when requested to previously mutliple times), he (and you) feel free to cast aspersions upon me and Nableezy because we have flags on our pages? Should every editor who has a flag on his page be banned from editing in related topic areas? Or is it just Arab ones that are verboten? Please point to disruptive editing patterns (filing a case here with diffs and everything). Otherwise, I would ask that you stop distracting people with unsupported accusations. Tiamuttalk17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My post was about user pages in general, not specifically about yours. I don't understand why you think everything I do revolves around you and frankly I probably lack the professional expertise to find out. I do not care about your identity nor your political leanings other than when they negatively influence the edits you make in this encyclopedia. I wish you'd stop repeately accusing me of an interest in you I don't even remotely have. Seriously.
She said you were exploiting "people's latent racism against Arabs". And you, as well as Cptnono, specifically said "Palestinian flags" and you said "unabashed activists for Palestinian nationalism", though you did throw in "(or other political agendas)" though I have yet to see you raise an issue with users promoting extreme right-wing Israeli agendas or any other supposed political agenda. And it can be easily demonstrated that you have "an interest" in Tiamut's edits, randomly showing up in the most obscure articles shortly after she had edited a page. No matter though, the point here is that people should not be commenting on what they think an editor's motivations are. If there is something objectionable in her, or mine or anybody elses, edits then explain the problem with the edits. It is not that difficult to understand. Many of us have made personal attacks, though this unabashed and tireless defense of those attacks is worrisome. I think all sorts of things about many users, such as you or Stellarkid or a number of others, regarding their motivations or "professional" nature of their time here, but I keep it to myself. nableezy - 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cptnono, where did I accuse him of "advocacy". I made comments about his edits. And I really dont care that you said that to me. You should not have said it where you said it and you are wrong and so many other things could be said about your comments, but me caring is not one of them. The rest of my response to NMMNG was about his comments that were directed at Tiamut. If you want to have a reasoned conversation about my editing my talk page would be a good place to start (mind the banner at the top though). This has been much ado over nothing, though it was exacerbated by some of your comments. Could somebody please close this out? Nothing is going to be accomplished here. nableezy - 02:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that this case should end with no action taken? Personally, I'm inclined to agree= I vehemently disagree with Cptnono's commentary but I don't believe that administrative actions here would really contribute to making things better. The Squicks (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Notification of the ARBPIA case would be fine (that is all Tiamut requested) and I think any editor who is edits in the area should receive that notification (I actually asked an admin to notify me) but it would not be the end of the world if that did not happen. nableezy - 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is much too lengthy. I hope not one of you expect the administrator who reviews the complaint to read this discussion in its entirety. AGK00:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This board doesn't seem to be very effective at all. If an admin popped in five days ago to simply say "On article talk pages, comment on content not contributors please," proceeding to give Cptnono notification of the Arbcomm case (something even he agreed should happen above), there wouldn't be a magnum opus to read here. Instead, the thread was left to languish for five days, people were allowed to make all sorts of wild speculations, and then the first admin to comment says he hopes we don't expect other to read all this. I don't like reading it either. Much of the "discussion" is a series of unsubstantiated accusations. Commenting on editors at AE without providing diffs substantiating commentary is also strangely tolerated here. What is this place? A kangeroo court? Tiamuttalk01:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read this. And, in response to Tznkai below, you tried the "clean sweep" strategy before. All you did was remove any relatively objective European and American editors from the pages in question, and left them open to the next group of obsessive partisans from America and Israel itself. Who are now ganging up on the two apparently Arab editors who regularly dare to get involved in these articles (do the maths). This is all very unpleasant. --Nickhh (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried the clean sweep before to my memory, and one of the serious problems I'm having here is that reading one of these threads gives me only a lopsided tl;dr version of whats going on. It gives me zero useful information and its pretty hard to figure out the best solution. As you have pointed out, there are real dangers in sanctioning the misbehavior of some but not all.--Tznkai (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not you personally of course, but I refer to the Judea and Samaria decision, where everyone whose name came up was simply topic-banned regardless by ArbCom. Including English/British editors who'd made about four edits on the pages at issue (ie me), as well as a Swiss resident Uruguayan and a New Yorker among others, as if they were all crazed PFLP members bent on disrupting an otherwise serious encyclopedia. And if anyone on ArbCom can't be bothered to read stuff, and work out what matters content-wise - as opposed to what is partisan obfuscation - they shouldn't put themselves up for the post, frankly. --Nickhh (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps: and please don't misunderstand me - I'm all in favour of sanctioning some, but not all. As I say, do the maths in terms of who edits I-P articles. And work out where the real misbehaviour lies, and who is actually using this place as a political advocacy site. --Nickhh (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No-one expects behaviour to be perfect in a topic area as contentious as the I-P conflict, and most users are inclined to express their frustration with other editors from time to time. My concern here, as Tiamut suggests above, is that Cptnono simply doesn't appear to be getting the point that commenting on contributors is not an acceptable practice per WP:NPA. Had he said he realizes he made a mistake, and will try not to repeat it, I don't think there would be any need for action, but the fact that he still appears to be trying to justify his comments, or at least dismiss concerns about them, is itself a cause for concern. Perhaps in this circumstance a formal warning may indeed be helpful. If he continues in the same vein, I would suggest an initial response of short blocks to bring his attention to the problem rather than say, a topic ban per ARBPIA, because no evidence has been presented to suggest that he is misbehaving in other ways. Gatoclass (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
This entire area may require a clean sweep and the removal of many editors. This particular case does not have diffs that are t particularly illustrative of a behavioral problem that can be eliminated via sanction, and I do not have time to carefully read through the extended comments above. I do note that the diffs suggest that this is an interpersonal conflict between two editors apparently on different "sides" of a real world political dispute. As incredulous as it sounds we both expect better behavior here, and have become resigned to worse.--Tznkai (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs illustrate a persistent refusal by Cptnono to direct his comments at Talk:Gaza War only at the content of that article. Interjecting criticism of the conduct of other editors into consensus-building discussions is a wholly unhelpful practice. To ensure that it does not happen again, I am actioning as follows:
Cptnono is prohibited for a period of 6 months from making a comment on article talk pages that addresses the conduct of a contributor. If he does make such a comment, he will be blocked for disruption without further warning. In the event that he experiences a problem with the conduct of a contributor, he should take his grievances up with that editor, and thereafter pursue appropriate methods of dispute resolution (by filing an wikiettiquette alert, a ANI complaint, or similar). (One comment per grievance in a content discussion, noting that the grievance has been taken to dispute resolution, is permitted.)
All participants in discussions on the talk pages of articles that are within the scope of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case are reminded that user conduct is not an appropriate topic to be discussed in the article talk space; and that doing so is disruptive and is grounds for being blocked and for being topic banned.
As the incident in question took place more than two weeks ago, I do not think it would be helpful to apply retrospective blocks in response to this complaint; but note that the seriousness of the misconduct that took place here would ordinarily warrant a block of three or four days.
Talk page discussions are exclusively for discussion of the content of an article and for building an editorial consensus on disputed content matters. Any editors who do not abide by this ethos in their contributions to article talk pages are, in the first case, damaging genuine attempts to build consensus, and in the second, liable to be blocked or sanctioned.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Since Jacurek was blocked and restricted today because of another issue [108], this request has no merit anymore. As the filing party, I therefore withdraw the request. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions: "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process"
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Jacurek does not adhere to the purpose of wikipedia and normal editorial process:
At History of Pomerania (1945–present), he deletes sourced information or replaces sourced information leaving the ref in place, so as if his comments were attributed to this ref. He has neither presented a source of his own, nor has he engaged in discussion. It was several times pointed out to him that the information he deletes/alters is sourced.
For what it matters, the source he primarily deletes or replaces with his comments is a book cooperatively written by Polish and German historians, all experts on Pomeranian history, published in Polish and German in 1999.
Background
User:Jacurek is a member of the "EEML" currently subject to Arbcom investigation [109]
User:Jacurek has been edit warring repeatedly during the EEML case, and had avoided sanctions by agreeing to voluntary 1rr at least twice this month[110].
Prelude
08:31, 23 October: User:Xx236 rants on WP:Poland [111]. User:Xx236 is topic banned from issues concerning the expulsions of Germans after World War II, this at least partially includes the history of Pomerania in/after 1945. Xx236 has dropped Jacurek a note similar to the WP:Poland note on 22 October [112].
14:06, 23 October: User:Loosmark deletes the category "History of Pomerania" and the "Pomeranian history" navbox from the article, no edit summary [114]
Timeline
15:38 - 15:43, 23 October: User:Jacurek alters sourced content making a Communist propaganda term appear like a normal one, no edit summary [115]
16:23, 23 October: I restore the sourced phrase, the cat and the navbox [116]
18:58 - 18:59, 23 October: User:Jacurek introduces a strange attribution ("according to two sources") and fact tags to a sourced paragraph [117]
19:22 - 19:24, 23 October: I remove the attribution and replace the fact tags with the respective reference already given at the paragraph's end [118] and point out in the edit summary that the ref at the paragraph's end sources the whole paragraph [119]
20:43 - 21:07, 23 October: User:Jacurek deletes and alters several sourced paragraphs [120]. As in the previous cases, the sources were left in place giving the new version an appearance of reflecting these sources.
21:57, 23 October: I restore the sourced paragraphs [121] and left Jacurek a note on his talk [122]
22:24, 23 October: User:Jacurek reverts [123]. While Jacurek's edits generally lack an edit summary, he left one here accusing me of doing "mass reverts" and telling me to discuss my edits first. A similar message was left on my talk [124].
22:24, 23 October - 06:15, 24 October: Jacurek makes 71 edits, placing fact tags into sourced paragraphs, altering and deleting sourced information while leaving the ref in place, and Polonizing all placenames regardless of Gdanzig vote/naming conventions [125]. Not all of these edits are disruptive, but since he does not use edit summaries, it is hard to single out the actual disruptive revisions in the general diff above.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): [126]
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
topic ban or conditional block (except for ongoing arbcom case)
This is not a content dispute as it is sources vs no sources.
Since this is related to the ongoing EEML arbcom, I linked this thread on those pages [127]. However, the removal/rephrasing of sourced material is an issue requiring relatively prompt response, and can not await the outcome of arbcom (which atm tends to amnesty anyway).
Another user left a note on my talk page pointing to similar problems with Jacurek at another article [128] - probably, this needs to be investigated too.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [129]
Re:Loosmark
Please outline how repeatedly removing sourced content, replacing sourced content with own oppinions leaving the refs in place, not presenting any source themselves, leaving no edit summaries, and covering that up with 71 minor edits can be described as "valid", "content dispute" and "NPOV".
Regardian Varsovian: I welcome everyone with a redlinked talk page, with the exception of obvious SPAs. Varsovian is unknown to me, and your assessment may or may not be true, I can not comment on that.
Re:Jacurek
regarding "mass revert to his preferred version" - I even took the trouble to manually restore the sourced information you deleted and multiply the sources at the end of the respective paragraphs to show behind each of the paragraph's sentences, also I applied the Gdanzig rule to multiple placenames you replaced. Your slogan "mass revert" is only that - a slogan.
I did nothing else but editing the article in a total good faith. In my opinion user Skäpperöd unfortunately "claims ownerships" of this article since until my latest edits he was the main contributor of the article[[130]] and now he does not wish to see any changes that are not in line with his view on the subject.--Jacurek (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that user Skäpperöd was placed on sanctions himself[[131]] after filing similar unfounded complaints against other Polish editors in the past (note Mattheads comments supporting Skäpperöd) and he was warned week later after filing ONCE AGAIN unfounded complaint here[[132]] The warning was very clear not to do that in the future:
This looks like a misuse of WP:AE in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits cited in the request are not objectionable; rather, they reflect routine disagreements about content. In particular, it is not disruptive to state one's opinion that "Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive"". Unless other administrators disagree, I will close this thread with a warning to Skäpperöd that AE is not a substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that he may face sanctions if he files more unfounded enforcement requests. Sandstein 18:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC) I am in complete agreement with your reading of the situation Sandstein. Shell babelfish 11:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC) * No action. Skäpperöd is warned not to file more unfounded requests. Sandstein 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I also believe (but this is my personal opinion of course) that this new but very experienced user Varsovian(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) whom user Skäpperöd welcomed here[134] (Skäpperöd claims that Varsovian is unknown to him. See his statement.) is somehow connected to Skäpperöd. Yesterday user Varsovian left me this threatening note[135] ...Say hello to a complete ban ... and today Skäpperöd files this complaint while Varsovian keeps quiet not even requesting his account to be unblocked[[136]]. I don't want to suggest socking at this point but somebody who knows more about socking etc. should perhaps look closer at this. Both editors edit from the same time zone etc., etc. but again I'm not an expert and these are just my thoughts.--Jacurek (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE:
Here[[137]] as we speak user Skäpperöd just mass reverted most of my work back to his preferred version without any discussion whatsoever. He did not even wait for the resoults of this complaint. Is anybody still under illusion that all this is not about the content dispute? I don't. How log such behaviour can be tolerated?? --Jacurek (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a heads up: I will be looking into the evidence cited in this complaint at some point tomorrow. I will at that point indicate whether I think the conduct of any editor involved in the situation warrants sanctioning. Other administrators are welcome to duplicate my efforts and draw their own conclusions. AGK23:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AGK, please remember that this complaint is about Jacurek/Skäpperöd and not about user Varsovian and if he is a sock puppet of Matthead or not. I'm just afraid that reviewing administrators may focus now on Matthead/Varsovian which is a completely different issue dealt with here[[146]]. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the diffs Skapperod presents above, most of them are perfectly valid and represent a step towards improving the NPOV of article. The very few that can be seen as problematic, Skapperod could and should have discussed on the talk page. There are of course the usual steps for content disputes resolution such as third opinion and request for comment and mediation, none of which were tried by Skaperrod. IMO he should be adviced to stop using this board for winning content disputes, it's really growing old. Loosmark (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "another user" which left a note on Skapperod's talk page is non other than Varsovian, an account created with the sole purpose of provoking Polish editors. For now I will only note that the welcome message to Varsovian's entrace to wikipedia was given to Varsovian by Skapperod as can be seen on top of his talk page [147] and that Varsovian, the "new user" as he claims, was aware of the existance of Scurinae [148] who is long time buddy of Skapperod with whom they wrote complains against Polish editors in past. Loosmark (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Skapperod
If a sentence is sourced it doesn't neccesarily mean that it should be in the article as the article needs balance and plus have to give proper weight to things. The problem is you didn't even attempt to discuss things with Jacurek on the article's talk page before comming here. Loosmark (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the related discussion her [149]. This isn't "no sources" vs. "sources" as Skapperod tries to portray it. Rather the sources themselves are in question as non-RS.radek (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note - I inappropriately gave permission to Molobo to post here. I had assumed his enquiry was about whether or not duplicating material from the EEML case was acceptable, and at the time completely failed to remember that Molobo was operating under an editing restriction. (In hindsight his enquiry makes sense now). I have contacted Arbcom for their opinion and they may reinstate Molobo's material at their discretion. Molobo will not be penalised for this breach of his editing restriction as he acted in good faith. Manning (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The (main) problem here is not wether Jacurek's edits did improve the article or not. The main problem is that topic-banned User:xx236 made a rather cryptic statement at the WikiProject Poland and within 2 (!) minutes User:Loosmark started to edit an article he has never edited before[150]. User:Jacurek appeared after another 90 minutes and made dozens of changes like replacing a perfectly working link to the Oder river with a link to a disambiguation page Odra[151]. This might be a remarkable coincidence or the attempt to bypass a topic ban. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not exactly edited the article in the sense of content, I have only removed that abominably huge template "history of Pomerania" which Skaperod made and which he keeps sticking to articles. I did note the article after xx236 posted it on Project Poland however his statement is cryptic for me too, I don't understand what he meant and I don't care either. But since we talk about coincidences, amazingly after I removed the template within a couple of minutes an anon IP came to my talk page saying he reverted me. Since unregistered users don't have a watchlist, that was a bit interesting, but I don't really care about that. Loosmark (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not understand either what he meant[[152]] and I saw that post this morning actually, not yesterday, therefore this is totally unrelated. The reason he posted this[[153]] on my talk page was in response to the e-mail I have sent him reminding him of the topic ban. (Can you confirm that User:xx236 if you read this? Maybe you kept a copy of the warning e-mail I have sent you?) I thought that he is banned from all EE related topics not just German related and xx236 was commenting on the Jedwabne Pogrom I thought he not suppose to do.--Jacurek (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way HerkusMonte, these are not the main problems what have you pointed out. The main problem is that Skäpperöd have filed unfounded complaint once again after specific warning not to do that (..Skäpperöd is warned not to file more unfounded requests... Sandstein 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I understand that as a German editor you may defend him but please be honest about it and do not use attack as a defence tool. Thanks --Jacurek (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jacurek is not a problem free editor, having been blocked several times for several months for proven sockpuppeteering (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacurek). He has recently wikistalked me, reverting me several times, also at articles he had never edited before, for example an university, this biography of a German, or that biography of a Polish historian, who had stated in 1625 that the German astronomer Regiomontanus was a fellow countryman of Copernicus, thus proclaiming Copernicus a German astronomer, while more recent Poles try to portray him as Polish. As these words did not suit Jacurek's Polish POV, he removed them a second time. I don't even mention Jacurek's edit warring at the astronomer's bio and its talk, but have to point out that he followed me to the article West Germany, which he had never edited before reverting me, and reverting two more times [154][155] before the article got editprotected. When I asked two editors, who also participated in the edit war without having edited the article before, it was Jacurek who showed up at their talk pages [156][157], creating more battlegrounds. By two admins, Jacurek was warned [158][159], and stated he thinks he will stick to voluntary 1RR. While he had 3 reverts, compared to two of mine, with a misinformation about 1RR issued to at least two admins [160][161], Jacurek even managed to get me blocked based on a mistaken assumption by Rjanag (who is currently subject to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Rjanag), according to the statement of the admin who unblocked me. It was also stated that Jacurek would have had deserved a block more, and that he was evidently hounding Matthead and wanted to get him blocked. -- Matthead Discuß 01:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my statement Matthead, it was my response to you and I'm quite sure that you should not have just delete it. Well.. this is how you quite often behave unfortunately. P.S. I restored what you have deleted here[162].--Jacurek (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, Jacurek, can't you read what is written on the top of the edit window, marked in red? "Advice for editing Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration 1. Comment only in your own section please. If you wish to respond to a statement or remark by another editor, add to the bottom of your own section ...". Well, thank you for once again illustrating your ignorance even after you have been informed, your disrespect for advise and rules of Wikipedia, and your willingness to provoke others. -- Matthead Discuß 18:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support Jacurek's request for a socking expert to investigate my account. I have already said at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matthead "I hereby state my support for each and every checkuser request made any time anybody accuses me of being a sock puppet, a meatpuppet, a banned user avoiding a ban, whatever." I apologise for not requesting my block be removed but it expired before I wanted to post (yesterday was spent watching football and the boxing, and drinking Krolewski and Perla): I will be appealing the block even though it has expired.
I was planning to forgive and forget but as Jacurek seems to wish to repeatedly drag my name into a dispute he has with another poster, perhaps somebody would like to check this edit of his [163]? He cut a 684 word article down to 81 words, removed all of the 638 words which I had written and removed all sixteen of the 28 sources which do not agree with his version of history (all but one of those 16 were inserted by me). I have requested that he moderate his behaviour towards me [164] but he promptly followed me into No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron: he had edited that article just once before, on 13 Feb 2009, but within one hour of me posting there he had reverted my edit[165]. He had previously followed me into Anti-Polish sentiment and reverted my edit [166] I can provide numerous examples of his incivil behaviour, assuming bad faith and repeated accusations against me if this would be an appropriate place for such. Please advise.Varsovian (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jacurek: before you comment here about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matthead you may wish to note that both Matthead and I have agreed to the checkuser. You might also note that I have politely requested both there and on your talk page that you comment there about any other accounts which you think I might be a puppet of.
BTW: I believe from my reading of Matthead's comments he deleted you comment because it was in his section and not your own. I hope that clarifies the situation for you.Varsovian (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody reading this cares, even while this request is being discussed user Jacurek is behaving in precisely the way he thinks is "rude" and should not be tolerated (when others do it). Here [167] he cut all of the 638 words which I had written and removed all sixteen of the 28 sources which do not agree with his version of history (all but one of those 16 were inserted by me). Here [168] he does precisely the same thing again. It is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that such massive deletions of sources and text is good faith editing.
I would also like it to be noted that 8 of the 12 sources he leaves ([169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176]) do not support his statement that almost all Poles were excluded: they all state that all Poles were excluded. I have repeatedly pointed out on the discussion page [177][178][179][180] and in edit summaries [181][182][183][184][185] that Jacurek is attributing information to sources which simply do not state what he claims but Jacurek continues to claim that they support his version of history.Varsovian (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As anyone can check Skaperod doesn't write the truth when writes: "Xx236 has dropped Jacurek a note similar to the WP:Poland note on 22 October [56]". The two notes are different. Is it standard here to write unfounded accusations and still be a respected editor? Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
After Jacurek's feud with Varsovian spilled over into ANI and multiple talk pages yesterday, including a very ugly inquisitorial exchange in which Jacurek was aggressively trying to force Varsovian to disclose his real-life identity, which in my mind crossed the line into serious harassment, I have blocked Jacurek for a month and placed him under a 1R/d restriction on all Eastern Europe pages for another six months to follow. Fut.Perf.☼07:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Request actioned by Tznkai:
formal warning issued to David against breaching topic ban;
topic ban clarified: it now includes any comments relating to incidents that took place in the science subject area, no matter where they be posted.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editing_scientific_articles This thread is yet another attempt by David to play the victim at ANI, it is disruptive and appears to violate his topic ban as it was stated to be "broadly construed" and he clearly has not put enough distance between himself and "physics related articles and topics." Will list specific diffs below as case may be moved off ANI soon.
[186] The long winded post that started the thread
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
David be either blocked for disruption and violating his ban, or be topic banned from initiating ANI threads
Additional comments by Beeblebrox (talk):
I am reporting this as opposed to taking admin action myself as I have had previous involvement with David and have asked that he be blocked or banned in the past. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that David somehow knew about this remark despite the fact that he does not appear to have ever edited the talk page in question, and there are no notices on his talk page mentioning it. There are some rather long postings from an ip address, but nothing attributed to David. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [191]
There is no call here for a warning against making posts on physics articles. You are merely parroting the already existing topic ban which has not been breached. You have no basis whatsoever for extending ARBCOM's topic ban to other science articles in general. You have no right to tell an editor not to make a complaint against another editor. And you have no basis whatsoever for extending ARBCOM's sanctions to "discussion of proposed or actual essay, guideline, or policy concerning editing science articles" because until now, I have never involved myself in those discussions. Such a ban would only ever become warranted if I did get involved in such discussions and behaved improperly. And you have no call to make the warning "not to do any silly behavior at the margins of this warning". What is that supposed to mean anyway?
And this is made all the worse by the fact that the administrator Tznkai has been made fully aware of his initial misjudgement of the matter, and that in response to having been made aware, he merely repeats his warning. This administrative action is a deplorable act of opportunistic bullying on a recently sanctioned editor, and it has no justifiable basis whatsoever. David Tombe (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tzntai, You have made a big mistake and you are now trying to dig in and justify yourself. Reading out the terms of the probation is not going to make your actions correct. You need to show where the terms of the probabtion were breached. Nothing in the topic ban said anything regarding "a page you shouldn't even be looking at". You are now taking things a bit too far if you think that there are pages that I have been banned from looking at. Are you seriously trying to justify your actions on the grounds that I was reading a page that you think I wasn't allowed to be reading? David Tombe (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe anyone has been more critical of Tombe's behavior than I have, and my proposed remedy for him was a project ban. Nevertheless, I don't see how Tombe's post at AN/I violated his topic ban: "David Tombe (talk·contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months." AN/I isn't a physics-related page, and his post there isn't a discussion of physics. Tombe complained at AN/I about this remark by Michael C Price at Wikipedia talk:Editing scientific articles. "Look at the recent David Tombe/Speed of Light fiasco. When challenged to debate the physics, he resorted to Nazi insults and was banned." Tombe wasn't involved in the conversation, and Price's statement was out of the blue. It is also factually false: Tombe "resorted to Nazi insults" to describe the arbitration process and participants, and he was sanctioned for it twice when he kept doing it after specific warnings. Tombe never "resorted to Nazi insults" in, or to avoid, a physics debate. Price has also been goading Brews ohare since the arbitration decision on Brews' talk page. Tombe was justified in complaining. —Finell(Talk)21:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. Tombe did that during the arbitration. He was blocked for 48 hours, and then he was banned from further participation in the arbitration when he did it again. But that has nothing to do with this incident. —Finell(Talk)21:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, there has been so much drama around this guy, that it is inevitable that the case is going to be mentioned around Wikipedia. A user writes one sentence about it on a talk page, and David starts up yet another looooong posting at ANI, without any attempt to discuss the situation with the user first, and throws in some bashing of particular members of arbcom just for extra flavor. He goes on to detail why arbcom was wrong to ban him, and asserts as he has all along that the rest of us are too stupid to understand him and that is why he has all these problems. What I don't see in his initial posting is what specific policy he feels has been breached, and what he would like an administrator to do about it. I don't think he is getting the point that less drama is the desired outcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only charge is that Tombe violated his physics topic ban. He went to AN/I to complain of Price's gratuitous, and factually false, dig. Was that good judgment by Tombe? No. Was Price's remark good judgment? No. Was it baiting Tombe to violate his topic ban? It looks like it, but who knows? I don't see how any of this is a violation of Tombe's topic ban. Further, the arbitration decision does not prohibit Tombe from whining. It does prohibit disruptive editing, but this does not look like disruptive editing (and, in any event, that is not the violation charged). Beeblebrox: Please consider withdrawing this request for enforcement. It is not well grounded and is just adding to the "drama around this guy". Thank you. —Finell(Talk)23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in the section above marked "Sanction or remedy that this user violated" I linked both the topic ban and the general probation, which states that David may not engage in behavior which "fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". Seeing as this ruling was issued very recently and the same committee that made it is still sitting, I think they are in the best position to decide whether David violated either the letter or the spirit of that ruling. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) I am not saying that Price's conduct is sanctionable, and the question here is Tombe's conduct (I didn't not initiate or support Tombe's AN/I against Price). However, Price's remark about Tombe was unnecessarily provocative and was made in a context where Tombe's conduct was not in issue; that is, it was gratuitous. Further, while Tombe did make hateful Nazi slurs during the arbitration (and was sanctioned for it; his 1 year probation is based in part on that misconduct), Tombe did so in describing the conduct of others in the arbitration (specifically including me). Tombe did not do so in response to a challenge "to debate the physics", which is what Price accused Tombe of. (To the contrary, Tombe is only to happy to debate his fringe ideas about physics. That he has done so, disruptively and tendentiously, is what has gotten Tombe into most of his considerable trouble on Wikipedia.) So Price's statement was factually incorrect. Further, I cited above where Price taunted Brews ohare on Brews' talk page; Jehochman warned Price to stop. Regardless of Price's intentions, he does appear to be baiting the two editors who were sanctioned in this arbitration. But the subject here is whether Tombe violated his topic ban. I don't see that he did. —Finell(Talk)00:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finell, David Tombe does not always debate the physics; this was a complaint raised by more than just me. Had he stuck to debating the physics he wouldn't have had to resort to Nazi allusions -- that was what I meant by my comment, which was used to illustrate a point on the guidelines' talk page. The point was intended as a general point, not as I challanged David and he responded to me with Nazi insults, but rather he was challenged by the general community and responded to the general community with Nazi slurs. I'm sorry that you portray that as goading David. I DID goad Brews, although no more than other editors had, but that was to get him to respond a physics question that he found convenient to dismiss, NOT to get his ban extended, as everybody, including you, seems to think. --Michael C. Pricetalk12:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editing guideline on scientific articles is physics related, by no more than a single step of inference. Writing about what someone wrote bout on such a guideline is still related, although by easily two or more inferential steps, so I can see why this may seem an odd application of a topic ban. It is not however, as you noted a good idea, Tombe is on notice, having been both under a topic ban and a general probation, that he needs to give the entire area a wide berth.
If Tombe was baited, that is important and relevant, and needs to be dealt with. As a personal matter of style and as a general rule, sanctioning only one party when there are multiple acts of poor conduct is a bad idea.--Tznkai (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat confused here about the timings of the postings above and below, and how to interpret the results in relation to those timings. But I have to say that I am very grateful to Finell for having intervened on this occasion. Finell was my arch opponent at the arbitration hearing, and now he has come here and bombarded the arena with sheer truth. I must thank Finell for doing what he has just done, particularly since he didn't have to do so. It is a credit to Finell that he has chosen to take this action, bearing in mind the wider circumstances, and the fact that it would have been to his advantage to have remained silent. Instead, Finell, obviously sensing an imminent gross miscarriage of justice, even against his arch opponent, has decided to come forth and state the simple facts that no breach of the topic ban took place, and that there is no basis for this case. That demonstrates an inherently honourable streak in Finell's character.
Anyhow, nobody asked me what I was expecting to achieve from the AN/I thread. I was expecting that an administrator would request Michael C Price to withdraw his comment since it was factually incorrect and it amounted to a bait about the fact that I had been topic banned. I was trying to nip in the bud what could have been the seeds of future myths. I was not requesting any sanctions to be imposed on Michael Price, and it ill becomes Beeblebrox to suggest that in the circumstances I would have been suitably placed to have tackled Michael Price directly about this matter at the article in question. But the result of my perfectly legitimate complaint at AN/I has been a warning not to complain, and an upgrading of the topic ban to all science articles.
But having said that, am I now to assume that Tznkai has actually taken note of what Finell has said, and that the decision below is now under review? I'd be grateful if this matter could be clarified. David Tombe (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David, I wonder if I could ask you you to briefly explain (without the grandiose hyperbole of your above remarks please) what brought this remark to your attention, since you have never edited the page in question, and I was not able to find any evidence of another user notifying you of it. Also, if all you were looking for was a request that the comment be redacted, that does not require an administrator. Mild incivilty should be reported at WP:WQA. ANI is for matters that may require administrative tools to resolve. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David, at this point, I stand by my action below. I highly suggest unwatch listing everything related to physics or meta pages that involve physics. Baiting is not an excuse, but it is conduct that will be dealt if at all possible.--Tznkai (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tznkai, This is a total abuse of the administrative tool. You have imposed a sanction ostensibly for breach of topic ban where no breach of topic ban has taken place. Finell has told you the truth. You have been shown where you have misjudged the situation, but you have still nevertheless decided to dig in. You saw a perfectly legitimate complaint at AN/I. You now know that it was a legitimate complaint, but instead of acting on that complaint, you have chosen to punish the person making the complaint, and you are now attempting to justify your actions on the grounds that a breach of topic ban has occurred. Everybody knows that no breach of topic ban has occurred. Your actions are blatantly biased, they are in breach of wikipedia's rules, and they are reprehensible. David Tombe (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tznkai: The comments by D Tombe for which this action was brought are an attempt to correct a misstatement by Michael Price, and D Tombe has accurately described the issues. In no way does his defense border in any way upon the remedies against D Tombe, and the action brought by Beeblebrox has no basis whatsoever, and the links he brings as evidence do not establish his points at all. Brews ohare (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diff cited here by Tznkai has no relevance. A simple question was asked, to point out a logical distinction, and simply because the word Nazi appears in the question, the object of the diff is completely overlooked. That is very poor analysis. Brews ohare (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, the diff in question was in response to issues raised in the AN/I thread, whereas Tzntai has implied below that the diff in question was something in addition to the AN/I thread. And yes, Tzntai holds the diff up as if it is evidence of wrongdoing, when anybody can read it and see that it was merely a question designed to highlight a logical distinction. David Tombe (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Price's misstatements, if misstatements they are, were done on a page you shouldn't even be looking at. The diff I cited below is a none too clever variation on the "but its true" defense (Don't call people nazi's - but its true!). David Tombe is under a general restriction, and I quote "6.2) David Tombe (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. David Tombe may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter." The behavior expected is for David Tombe to steer clear of areas he is topic banned in, avoid the margins of his topic ban, not engage other editors in personal disputes (see WP:NOT)), avoid sloppy rhetoric, avoid stirring drama, among other things. Someone else making a misstatement or even baiting is not an excuse, nor is it an invitation for any sort of behavior.
If you've managed to get yourself placed on a general probation, you've been placed on notice that you need to show good behavior - better behavior than is tolerated else where.--Tznkai (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further: "Your actions are blatantly biased, they are in breach of wikipedia's rules, and they are reprehensible. David Tombe (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)" - where exactly did that get dragged up from? What exactly is my bias? What "rules" have I breached. Is it really so onesided that my actions are reprehensible? Is it possible that responding to an uninvolved administrator in this way is in and of itself indicative of a problematic behavioral pattern? --Tznkai (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to David Tombe's statement) I'll make this simpler, and as explicit as possible. 1. You are under general probation 2. You are misusing Wikipedia as a battleground. 3. The misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground falls under "seriously fail[ing] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia,". 4. You have raised no legitimate defenses for your behavior 5. I have given you repeated warning how to avoid this 6. You have been forewarned to shape up, and now explicitly warned by me 7. If you don't like it, find another admin or ArbCom itself to intercede.--Tznkai (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tznkai, If there is any good at all to have come out of this, it is the fact that I have learned something that I wouldn't have known otherwise. And that is that my arch opponent at the arbitration hearing has limits beyond which he will not step. He came here and he pointed out the truth, and you chose to ignore the truth. Finell knew that I didn't breach the topic ban, and Finell also knew that Michael Price's statement was wrong and provocative. If my arch opponent can state that in such clear terms, I hardly need any friends here to repeat it.
Finell got his topic ban, but Finell knew when to stop. But you know no limits. You don't know when to stop. You have willfully refused to see that Michael Price's statement was wrong, and you have turned a legitimate complaint around one hundred and eighty degrees into a wrongdoing. No honest person would ever attempt to claim that the ARBCOM probation order involved a denial of the right to complain. And you have the audacity to claim that I raised no legitimate defenses for my behaviour. What a monumental and reprehensible lie. Your seven points above are beneath contempt.
You have brought wikipedia to a new all time low. It seems now that you have given everybody a free licence to go and tell as many lies as they like about me. If I dare to complain, I will be blocked.
But it shouldn't have taken the intervention of Finell in order for the truth to have been exposed. Any administrator that was half a man should have been able to examine Beeblebrox's complaint and see that it was malicious. David Tombe (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are we just going to sit here and pretend that this warning has accomplished anything when David is still making statements like that? Now Tznkai is "half a man" and has "brought Wikipedia to a new low" and for some reason I am "malicious." Beeblebrox (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Tombe is a classic disruptive editor. He should be blocked indefinitely. Here's another example of his stirring the pot for no good reason, just a few minutes ago.[196] Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks are much too frequent with this account. JehochmanTalk07:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, Apart from the fact that this is not the right page, how was that edit in any way disruptive? The only basis for you thinking it was disruptive is because you sanctioned Likebox and you are annoyed that I stated my disapproval of your actions. David Tombe (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that you have tendentiously defended many editors who've been making trouble. Why do you feel the need to poke your nose into so many different matters and lay personal attacks on administrators who are trying to do their jobs in good faith? JehochmanTalk08:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, I saw Likebox's case when I went to AN/I about that other matter, and I looked into it. The allegations against him didn't tie up, because I know from first hand experience that if a group of editors want to keep a single editor off a particular article's mainspace, then it can be done easily and effectively. I was not however sympathetic to Likebox's stance on Tasmania, and so I thought that I would advise him on how to avoid trouble surrounding that topic. Sometimes people overlook the reality that wikipedia is a major propaganda machine which has repercussions in the real world. This is not entirely a virtual computer game. It is the first hit for many google searches. I also happen to be a British Empire historian and I got curious about what Likebox was saying about Tasmania. So I checked out the Encyclopaedia Britannica in the library. Based on what I found out, and based on what I read in wikipedia about the history wars, I could see that Likebox was getting himself involved in a hornet's nest. Sometimes people need to be told by an outside neutral observer why their views are causing trouble. I think that wikipedia administrators should make more of an effort to reason with editors who are pushing a particular point of view. If you had read my edit carefully, you would have seen that I was basically advising Likebox to abide by wikipedia's rules on sources, and even better still to simply avoid the topic altogether. It's better that a person can be persuaded to voluntarily leave a topic, having seen good sense and reasons for doing so, rather than to have to be forced off with a feeling that a gross injustice has been done. David Tombe (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since my name has been bandied about I thought I should set a few things straight. The statement I made about David Tombe in the proposed guideline
was entirely relevant to the ongoing discussion. I picked David as an example because most of other participants were familar with his case.
was made in the expectation that David would not read it, so it can't be considered goading.
was technically inaccurate and I have offered up a revised version (which still makes the same substantive point) to which there has been no response.
It seems to me that David's crime is merely one of time wasting. Why did he run to AN/I and not settle the matter on the article's talk page? That said, I don't believe he was in violation of his topic ban.--Michael C. Pricetalk11:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, Your statement was inaccurate because I don't generally refuse a challenge to debate physics, and your revised statement did not alter the situation. Having said all that, I appreciate your coming here to confirm that I didn't breach the topic ban. My objective was merely to get you to retract the statement, but the result of my complaint has turned out to be alot more educating. Irrespective of any arguments in physics, I'm sure that we are all agreed that it is fascinating to see how a complaint has been twisted around one hundred and eighty degrees and treated as a wrongdoing and then punished. The punishment is interesting in that it merely adds an extension to my existing topic ban that will never have any practical effect. I don't generally get involved in procedural discussions, but I was having a look at what was going. There seems to be a belief that I shouldn't have been looking at those pages, and Beeblebrox has remarked on how strange is that I was in fact looking at those pages. It seems that I have been punished for actually having noticed the very thing that I was complaining about. I now feel like somebody who has absolutely no interest in clay pigeon shooting, but who has been banned from clay pigeon shooting for reporting a noise nuisance to the police. Would such a person campaign for the right to engage in clay pigeon shooting as a matter of principle, even though they had no desire to ever exercise that right? Or would they forget about it? On this occasion, I don't think that I'll be losing too much sleep over it. David Tombe (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David, here is the point that you are not getting: You are under an indefinite probation barring you from any disruptive editing in addition to the topic ban. Editors who know how to take a hint usually realize that this means they should concentrate on actual article work and not stir up drama for no good purpose, whether they were specifically told that or not. And since you are so concerned that every word written here be 100% accurate, I did not dot say you shouldn't have been looking at the page, I asked you a question about how the remark came to your attention, a question you never did answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Partial action. Due to edits like this as well as making a thread on ANI complaining about another editor, an a science related proposed guideline, shortly after being placed on general probation I'm electing to warn David Tombe.
David Tombe is warned to cease making continued edits on the ANI thread, and making any post on any Wikipedia space, concerning Michael C. Price or physics articles, scientific articles in general. For example, any discussion of proposed or actual essay, guideline, or policy concerning editing science articles. Tombe is also warned not to do any silly behavior at the margins of this warning. Actions in conflict with this warning will be considered violations of general probation and/or the topic ban.
Enforcement action It is my interpretation (and within my discretion to interpret) that the topic ban which bans David Tombe from "all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed" (emphasis added) also includes all beginning or commenting on threads on all administrative boards which involve or derive from disputes stemming from physics-related content, or meta-discussion (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular. As always, there a specific exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning the party (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking sanction against the party. This does not include being talked about in general. Furthermore, barring objection from another uninvolved administrator, I am applying the above interpretation as an additional topic ban under the general probation provision due to the misuse of Wikipedia to pursue disagreements of a personal nature. --Tznkai (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Tznkai's interpretation of the Physics topic ban. A topic ban remedy is designed to divorce an editor from all involvement in a given subject area. It sadly seems to be the case that David is not able to contribute productively to the science (and especially the Physics) topic area. That he takes his complaints about matters relating to that topic area to a page (the incidents noticeboard) that is out with the article or talk namespace does not excuse the fact that he is demonstrably involving himself in the topic areas from which he has been banned.
In this case, the ANI complaint that David filed might arguably have had some merit. Michael C Price should not have referred to David's ban so flippantly; and, although I am not familiar with the arbitration case in question, I would venture to say that "Nazi insults" was unhelpful hyperbole. Such a reference was likely to, so to speak, open up healing wounds. But the basic idea of the topic ban is to keep David away in all respects from the science topic area, and that includes following its talk page discussions and springing on any mention of his name.
David: you need to stay well away from these topic areas. Find another place to contribute, and try and contribute productively and without conflict. I concur with Tznkai's actions here, and will presently be closing this thread as resolved. AGK13:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do agree that this was a violation of the 1RR rule allowed by the community's article probation. I will leave this open for further discussion, or further evidence, but I have decided on the following:
Enforcement action I gave a final warning, and if it continues, a block will be the next step, as well as being placed specifically on the terms of probation allowed by The Troubles ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At Dunc's request, I will not be the one closing this request, so another administrator can review my action and determine if stronger sanctions such as the article probation and/or block are necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is not a specific enforcement request, but a notification of an AE-related thread. At ANI, there is discussion about the community consensus from October 2008[197] that expanded the remedies from the October 2007 Troubles case. Specifically, how to define "1RR", and the level of warning required before an editor can be blocked under the expanded remedies. Interested editors are invited to participate at the ANI thread. --Elonka19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeclinedThis is going nowhere, and appears to be pointless. Remedies are not games of gotcha, and the report is stale. Come back if there is a more recent violation. --Tznkai (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Resolved