Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:19, 10 July 2012

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

PANONIAN

Ottomanist

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

Request concerning Ottomanist

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Athenean (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ottomanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC

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

1. Tendentious editing and edit-warring
2. Complete lack of talkpage decorum
3. Assumptions of bad faith
4. Disruptive canvassing

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

1. Warned on Date by WhiteWriter (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Ottomanist, formerly known as Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a returning user that has been particularly disruptive of late. In his previous incarnation, he had racked up 3 blocks in less than two months as well as a topic ban on Kosovo for aggressive behavior and edit-warring . His talkpage was a graveyard of blocks, warnings, conflict, and aggressive incivility on his part . It's been pretty much the same since his return. He was recently blocked after a particularly nasty bout of disruptive behavior on Republic of Kosovo and making comments such as these . Since then, nothing's changed. In Albania, he has been slow-revert warring incessantly since June 23rd , either removing this map or adding this one , and shows no sign of stopping. In the talkpage,he keeps admonishing other users that they are disruptive . In a discussion in Talk:Serbia, after what seemed like a promising start, things take a very nasty turn after I criticize one of the sources he used , and all of a sudden it's all about the "so-called Greek nation" and how "some editors" have "issues" . It is clear that "some editors" means me, and that this is nothing more an attempt to get under my skin. Greece and the Greek people have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. He makes no attempt to rebut my criticism of Stanford J. Shaw, he just makes things personal. Several days later, he makes a particularly tendentious edit at Greeks , and proceeds to edit-war over it, getting more and more agitated with each revert . This in spite of the fact that he has been reverted by several different users and has been told by them on the talkpage that his edits are problematic . Instead of changing tack, he assumes a conspiracy against him , while at the same time admonishing other to assume good faith . He just repeats over and over that his edits are sourced, but I actually meticulously checked the sources (and I invite everyone else to do likewise, they are available online) and they say nothing of the kind. Similarly in Serbia he makes a tendentious edit and then reverts back to it while admonishing others to reach a talkpage consensus first . Lastly, he has a real annoying habit of canvassing user he thinks share his POV (the last one minutes after his latest revert on Greeks). To summarize, based on past and current behavior, it is my distinct impression that this user is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia, rather he is here to push a particular POV, as his username implies, right great wrongs and fight great battles. Given the persistence and severity of the disruption he causes, I am firmly convinced that nothing short of an indef topic ban from ARBMAC topics, broadly construed, will put a halt to it.

Ι am disappointed, if not altogether surprised that Ottomanist's first action upon being notified of this report is yet more canvassing to users he considers "friendly". That, and combative accusations about my "sordid" past, consisting of a single diff he dug up from 2007.

Update - continuing disruption

Despite Ottomanist's protestations that he is being civil, the truth is quite the opposite . In Albania, it was the other user, Antidiskriminator, that requested a Third Opinion, not Ottomanist. In Talk:Greeks he is misusing and misinterpreting sources (as I explain in discussion) , either deliberately or out of incompetence. Either way, not good.

In Mount Tomorr, after an IP editor makes the following disruptive change , which contradicts the sources used, I revert back within a few minutes to the article's original version, in accordance with the sources. Ottomanist, obviously following my contribs, blind-reverts back just to spite me, having the gall to tell me in the edit summary that the IP editor's version was "stable" and lecturing me to seek a "consensus" . I don't think I can overstate how disruptive this is. He is lying in the edit-summary, falsifying sourced content, blind-reverting, wikistalking, you name it. It's quite apparent his only intent was to annoy me.

In Republic of Kosovo he reverts to a previous version that involves massive changes , and then tries to mislead both in the edit summaries and the talkpage. While the two versions are radically different (Ottomanist's version contains two long sentences about Islam, which the previous version did not include), he keeps blandly repeating in the talkpage that all he did was "de-clutter" and made it "simpler" etc . When WhiteWriter protests, he taunts him that he has been "barred 15 times" and tells him to "calm down", then insults him some more. He apparently enjoys taunting WhiteWriter about his block log, something which he does in this very thread , which by the way is a false statement, WhiteWriter hasn't been blocked anywhere near 15 times (i'm counting only 7-8, 4 of which resulted in an unblock, and none in the last 2 years or so). It seems like Ottomanist's idea of defending himself includes taunting others, lying, and slinging mud at those that oppose him (what is the purpose of bringing up my and WhiteWriter's block log?)

Ottomanist's claims that he is here to debunk nationalist myths are malarkey. As his contribs show, he is only interested in "debunking" Serbian and Greek "nationalist myths" (i.e. antagonizing Greek and Serbian editors), while having no interest in debunking Albanian "nationalist myths". I don't think this fools anyone: This fellow clearly has an axe to grind with certain countries. Even with a topic ban looming over his head, he hasn't changed his behavior one bit, rather he seems to have gone even more on the offensive. I have been editing the Balkans for a long time, almost 5 years to the day, and I have seen many users come and go. I can safely say that Ottomanist is in the top 5% in terms of the disruption he causes in these articles, and that he is perhaps a textbook example of the kind of disruptive user this topic area neither wants nor needs.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Ottomanist

Statement by Ottomanist

Regarding the actual criticism: I requested arbitration for the Albania page before, right here, following procedures. I also tried to contact the user in a friendly manner my self to try and resolve the issues. As for the Serbia page, we had a good discussion which didn't go Athenean's way. I am not on here to perpetuate nationalist myths, and if this means debunking nationalist claims, then so be it.

Moreover: User: Athenean needs to consider his own past when bringing up others' :

see here for only a taste of the many instances of him being banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final_decision for disrupting Albanian and Balkan-related articles.

Athenean (talk · contribs) placed on 1RR revert parole. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Banned from editing articles related to the Balkans, broadly construed, for a period of six months. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cautioned that future disruption may result in a topic ban, per AE thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

He has also very publicly made calls for Greek users to come together and 'defend (Greek) heritage' here Athenean is a specialist in reporting people that contribute using proper sources, and he'll make sure to revert them because of wp:idontlikeit.

This encyclopaedia must be kept up-to-date with scholarly pursuits: it is not a place to give nationalists a place to present their credentials.

Ottomanist (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Ottomanist

• Comment by Evlekis

No doubt disruptive but not beyond help. He has introduced sources onto the articles and these can sit harmlessly as external links or even in the main space but the problems we have encountered have been the edited statements for which the sources have been provided, often they simply do not support each other. I believe the solution is more tactful editing: for example, when denying that modern Greeks are descended from ancient Greeks, it is blatantly controversial. Instead, the source could have been used with a supporting statement such as how over the years people have assimilated and others have gone the other way, or something to that effect. He believes in discussion but could earn far more respect if he were to state his proposals first rather than attack the article with his first move and then create conflict. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, your first suggestion is best. No need to be hard so a three-month break from the ARBMAC-infected articles would probably be best. The user can be polite when he wants, he just needs time to "de-radicalise". Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by WhiteWriter

Well, i would agree with this. As ARBMAC tell us, one "man on mission" can create a lot of problems. I noticed very one-sided edits, and i also remember Interestedinfairness, his edit warrings, POVs and his block log. Clear start? Not, if you ask me... --WhiteWriter 13:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

@interestedinfairness/ottomanist writte only in your sections, nowhere else. I dont try to hide my history like you did. and not to mention your edits on several highly controversial pages where you Pov push, BEFORE gaining any consensus for your controversial edits and source removal. --WhiteWriter 00:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@WhiteWriter Exposing your bias very clearly - what does another account over three years ago have to do with it, I already declared I'm back after three-years..?

• how about yours, which is massive - sock puppetry, edit warring -- you've been blocked 15 times!
• See Atheanean's block log

- Ottomanist (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Second statement by Ottomanist

As per Albania: I requested arbitration for the Albania page before, right here, following procedures. I also tried to contact the user in a friendly manner my self to try and resolve the issues. The issue is being resolved in the talk page, though admittedly mistakes were made by both me and the other user with edit warring.

As for the Serbia page: there was a good discussion which didn't go a certain users' way. Regarding the source of Stanford J. Shaw, I asked the user to show me one historian who hasn't been criticised, contrary to the claim that I didn't answer the issue about sources. Regarding his other claims about this page, I think it's very clear that after a discussion here, with other users that the idea that it was a "tendentious edit" is rather unfounded.

The issue of the Greeks page: This is a content dispute, but all my responses have been civil, as the talk page attests. Claims that I got "more and more agitated" in the discussion is simply not true. Editors are free to check the whole discussion right here.

- Ottomanist (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Ottomanist

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

• Ottomanist doesn't look like someone who really needs to be editing in this topic area. I'd be for an indefinite ban from anything related to the Balkans, broadly construed, with a chance to appeal after 3 months; ordinarily I'd tailor something much narrower, as I've found that carefully drawn sanctions tend to push editors into places where they're actually productive, but I don't see that happening with anything under ARBMAC. I could be persuaded to make it 6 months, though, if other people feel that way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dalai lama ding dong

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

Request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ankh.Morpork 19:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA

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

1. 17:44, 30 June 2012‎ Replaces "a huge volume of" with "a number of" stating, "Removed POV wording." This is despite later claims of not having seen the source. Source states " Hyams’s call was echoed by a huge volume of Twitter users"
2. 19:45, 3 July 2012 Again replaces "a huge volume of" with "a number of" stating, "I can not find any source here that refers to huge volume" Source states " Hyams’s call was echoed by a huge volume of Twitter users"
3. 18:46, 4 July 2012 Again edits this sentence and falsely attributes the "a huge volume of..." claim to Hyams misrepresenting the source which states nothing of the kind
4. Additional example of source distortion: Re-classifies Lebanon as "Foreign Volunteers and irregulars" using Michael Oren as a source when in fact Oren stated that Lebanon was a combatant nation and not merely a nation from which volunteers participated.

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

1. Warned on 16 September 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 18 February 2012‎ by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on 18 June 2012‎ by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Dalai Lama Ding Dong has been repeatedly warned and banned for a 1rr violation and for violating a topic ban three times. What exacerbates the issue is that these edits constitute further source misrepresentation which is all too familiar. His edit summary of "Removed POV wording" followed by a later acknowledgment of not having seen the relevant source indicates his tendentious approach. DLDD was explicitly warned by The Blade of the Northern Lights after similar misconduct, "he is advised to be cautious editing in the topic area and to be especially conscious of properly representing sources. He is further advised that infractions in the future will most likely lead to stiffer sanctions." Please view here for background.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Dalai lama ding dong

Statement by Dalai lama ding dong

Note that I requested that the source be identified for the phrase 'huge volume' here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict&diff=500539763&oldid=500227371 I also directed attention to the talk page here whttp://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict#Tweet_about_IDF_airstrike where i stated that

I can not find any reference to a huge volume of twitter users in the present sources, despite a claim that it is there, so please produce the RS here that states that before restoring those words. Also note my re wording, only the JP says that the tweeter falsely claimed that the girl was killed in an IDF airstrike the night before. The rest do not say that she falsely made that claim, only that the claim was made. Ie only one source states the word falsely in relation to the date. The reference to the claim about the date appears to relate to the caption to the photo. There is NO reference to a date in the tweet. Unless someone can provide an RS that states that she captioned the photo, and did not use an incorrect Reuters caption, then this claim can not be allowed to stand due to BLP.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There s therefore no misrepresentation here.

I then went to attribute the words huge volume, and mistakenly attributed them to the individual, and not to the Jerusalem Post. I acknowledged that here. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jiujitsuguy#Media_coverage_IP_conflict_tweet_section.

see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War

For the Lebanon issue, where I am only one of many who has reverted the staus of Lebanon as a combatant nation. Have these others also been included in the mis representation claim? See eg this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1948_Arab–Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=500516932

Here is the page where i reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1948_Arab–Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=500661873

It can be seen that one of the sources Oren is still there. Since i reverted, i returned the page to what had been There before, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1948_Arab–Israeli_War&diff=prev&oldid=500516932 Therefore the Oren source was already there, snd if it is misrepresentation, then it wa not me who put the Oren source against it.

Most of my work consists of correcting and challenging incorrect claims which do not match the sources, as can be seen from my work. It took me a long time to understand ho wikipedia works, and i now attempt to follow the rules in all cases.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Much of my work would be a lot easier if quotes such as 'huge volume' were attributed. Why was it not stated that it was from the JP? Why was it not in quote marks. This makes searching for the source so much easier.

Comments by others about the request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

I was going to file against DLDD myself but on another matter entirely. In this edit he disregarded four sources and actually removed three with the following explanation "as per talk". DLDD has not made a comment at Talk since June 10 and it had nothing to do with the instant edit. DLDD however retained Michael Oren as a source which is fine but then he placed Lebanon in the "volunteer and irregulars" column. The problem is that Oren classified Lebanon as a combatant nation, not merely "volunteers and irregulars." Thus, not only has DLDD engaged in tendentious editing by disregarding four reliable sources and inexplicably removing three, he actually misrepresented Michael Oren’s view and since Oren is a living person, he has not only engaged in source distortion but has misrepresented the views of a living person.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by ZScarpia

Besides using the phrase, "a huge volume of Twitter users," as though Twitter traffic is measured in gallons or litres of Tweeters, there are a number of shortcomings in the Jerusalem Post article which make it a bit non-ideal as a source. It fails to mention that the image, as originally released by Reuters, carried a caption saying that the girl had been killed in an Israeli airstrike. Reuters corrected the error a day later. Though unexplained, that is what the article means by "outdated". Also, the article fails to mention that Honest Reporting mounted a campaign to have Badawi sacked, collecting signatures and encouraging readers to tweet and post links to their article, which is probably the source of the "huge volume of Twitter users" referred to.     ←   ZScarpia   21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Tom Harrison

Here DLDD replaces a dead link with "citation needed," saying "Removed dead link, i can not find ut anywhere, cite required." Maybe he looked in the kitchen; It took me less than five seconds to search for the article title; the link to the Jerusalem Post was the first result.

In this edit ("See talk page, this is what the sources say. I can not find any source here that refers to huge volume.") he reverts "huge volume" to "number," denying the source supports it. Of course, "huge volume" is a direct quote from the source. After this is pointed out, he changes it again,("Proper attribution given to statement."), but it isn't proper attribution, it's mis-attribution, unsupported by the source that he must have just read.

Unfortunately a good part of DLDD's work here consists of challenging correct claims which do match the source, then changing them so they no longer match the source. It's become impossible to take DLDD's word for anything. Every edit he makes must be carefully checked. Tom Harrison 11:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000

Please look at what is being fought over. The article subject "Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" is an important one about which a large amount of serious writing has been done. Yet some editors think that a tweet made by a UN employee in her spare time is worthy of a large section. Of course it is completely trivial and only gained news attention because of deliberate campaigns by activist organizations. A lot of the article consists of such rubbish and there seems no point in trying to improve it when there are editors around who are opposed to turning it into a proper encyclopedia article. Zero 01:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Dalai lama ding dong

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheShadowCrow

Shrike

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

Request concerning Shrike

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

asad (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 4 July 2012 Shrike blindy reverts 6.5 kB of sourced material under the false justification of WP:NPOV and WP:ONUS

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

1. Topic-banned on Feb 19 2011 by AGK (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

What we have here is a clear cut case of someone wanting to have their cake and eat it the same time. In the first diff, Shrike makes a massive revert of sourced material, by claiming "All the recent edits turned article to POV nightmare and piece of propaganda." This is a blatant misrepresentation of reality as Nishdani clearly used sources per WP:RS. The sources included were:

• Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine and the adjacent regions: a journal of Travels in the years 1838 and 1852 ,'
• David Dean Shulman, Dark Hope, University of Chicago Press,
• Belén Vicéns,L'Orient Mitjà en el punt de mira,Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2005
• Robert Blecher, 'Living on the Edge: The Threat of "Transfer" in Israel and Palestine,' in Joel Beinin, Rebecca L. Stein, (eds.)The Struggle for Sovereignty: Palestine And Israel, 1993-2005, Stanford University Press, 2006

Three of these sources are from university presses and the final is a notable scholar. Furthermore, Shrike demanded that Nishdani go through source and explain why it conforms with WP:RS policy.

Shrike seems to have a relapse of their principle on Governance of the Gaza Strip article. In this edit, Shrike adds a source to claim that the Gaza Strip is run by a dictatorship. When a reasonable objection is brought up to the source Shrike provided, (as it is just a blanket mention of Hamas in Gaza being a dictatorship without any supporting evidence in a highly partisan essay) s/he responds by saying that they don't have to explain there source, and such challenges should be brought up to the WP:RS/N. When a relevant objection is brought up to blatant hypocrisy, Shrike dismisses it by responding, "The rest of you comment have nothing to do with improving this article please so such comment is not appropriate in this talk page."

What is also evident in all of this is Shrike's attempt to WP:HOUND Nishidani. Anyone who looks at Nishidani's edit history can see that he is a well-read/researched editor who obviously spends a lot of time going through sources and making major improvements and additions to articles. On multiple occasions, Shrike has followed Nishidani to articles that 1) s/he have never edited in the past and 2) have extremely low page views. This was the case with his revert on the Yanun article. It is also evident on the Azzam Pasha quotation article. A editor shouldn't be allowed to revert large swaths of sourced material at their whim, and claim WP:BRD (which is rather more of an essay than an actual policy).

Editors also shouldn't be allowed to make up rules to push a certain POV, and then break their own made up rules when it suits the same POV. Furthermore, Shrike's persistant hounding of Nishidani is evidence of his/her lack of desire to be a productive, well-balanced, editor on the ARBPIA topic area.

@Anon - No where did I bring up the 1RR. This report is clearly about an editor's tendentious editing and hounding. Please try again. -asad (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@Shrike - If Nishidani is bringing in "activist" sources, what does that make Efraim Inbar -- the author of the source you linked with the government of Gaza as being a "dictatorship"? I think the bio on his Web site speaks for itself:

"Prof. Inbar served in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as a paratrooper. He was a member of the Political Strategic Committee of the National Planning Council and the Chair of the Committee for the National Security Curriculum at the Ministry of Education. He serves on the Academic Committee of the History Department of the IDF and as the President of the Israel Association of International Studies. Prof. Inbar is widely quoted in the Israeli and international press."

You ought to find your the utter hypocrisy here quite damning. -asad (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There. Fixed. Respond to the utter hypocrisy please. -asad (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Shrike

Statement by Shrike

The are two points that I want to made

1. This request is frivolous for one revert because the language of sanctions is quite clear from WP:AC/DS " despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The filer filed to prove this on this grounds the request should be dismissed.
2. This a content dispute the sources that Nishidani presented don't constitue WP:RS on the topic and thats the reason I have reveted him

Moreover this already discussed on the relevant page but lets see the sources that Nishidani presented

• David Dean Shulman, Dark Hope, - As it evident from his Wiki page he is not expert on the middle east and should not be used to make such claims.He wrote his book as an activist so inclusion of him is violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV
• Belén Vicéns, L'Orient Mitjà en el punt de mira, -book in foreign language though probably OK additional verification was needed
• Tanya Reinhart, The Road Map to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003, - She is a linguist not an expert on the topic but rather an activist
• Anna Baltzer, 'Outposts, Settler Violence, & the Village of Yanoun,' - Again known activist the use of her in the article it very questianble
• Settlers Force Desertion of Yanun Village,, Settlement Report | Vol. 12 No. 6 | November-December 2002], Foundation for Middle East Peace-Anti Settler activist organisation.

I don't say that all sources are bad but because he mixed bad and good it was very hard to separate between them and thus the reason I have reverted his edit.

Now about the Gaza article I never claimed that anyone except me should take the source to the RSN,I suggested that if the source is problematic it could be taken that's all anyhow I have provided justification why this source should be used. if it wasn't enough I would take it to WP:RSN.--Shrike (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The usage of bad source is disastrous to the area also calling good faith edits as vandalism only add fuel to very hot situation and its violation of WP:NPA thus I ask to warn Nishidani about WP:NPA and usage of bad sources and warn Asad about filing frivolous AE requests.--Shrike (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@asad I have no intention to respond to your personal attack and violation of WP:NPA --Shrike (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Shrike

Maybe I don't understand what 1RR means properly (but I think I do). This complaint is about someone making 1 revert. I'm puzzled by the motivation of the filing editor to file a report against someone who hasn't violated anything. This is clearly a content dispute and it should be taken to the talk page. Oh, and is anybody ever going to do something about these never-ending baseless reports? Aren't you admins tired of dealing with this nonsense yet? Or is that fun for you maybe... who knows. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this anon is itself under investigation above. Zero 03:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the IP under investigation above is not me, and that if you continue to make these baseless accusations in an attempt to tarnish my reputation, I will seek administrative action against you for violating WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. If you have an issue, feel free to try WP:SPI. Otherwise, knock it off. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani. Despite Shrike's interest in me, I decided not to make a complaint of his behaviour. I add this comment only to clarify that Asad thought the behaviour I was troubled by serious enough to make an independent judgement, and write a complaint here. If I do not comment, it would look like this was coordinated by me, which would be unfair to Asad. Everyone has a right to make a call according to his own right without prior clearance from anyone else.

I documented what was going on:

• (a) the blanketing of extensive edits based on sources by area specialists with academic or major publishing house imprints
• (b) turning up on rare pages I began to edit to revert me, without examining my edits and their sources
• (c) the use in edit summaries of indications of wiki policy putatively violated that, on examination, prove to be irrelevant or specious, in short, an excuse to exercise as a right, arbitrarily, the 1R option rather than discuss on the talk page.
• (d)He often reverts me on rare articles (WP:HOUND) while another editor and I are discussing precisely my edits, and rarely if ever actually engages in those discussions.

I think that this is a behavioural problem. I'd not prefer a punitive sanction at this point. I would appreciate it if, those three reverts and their edit summaries are looked at. I think a fair assessment is that Shrike is not following best policy, using improper policy citations out of context, and obsessed with me. A strong warning not to persist in this erratic behaviour is, in my view, all that is needed at this point. Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Apropos the several RS. I think they are self-evidently RS (Shrike: please read beyond the WP:lead of any article before making a judgement like that: To cite just one. I wrote the David Dean Shulman article, and it specifies below the lead that his first degree was in Arabic, and he is has advanced graduate work in in Islamic civilizations) but told Shrike to go to RSN if he doubted that. He didn't go there. Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Ankhmorpork. If I introduced 'loads of crap sources', an hour at the WP:RSN with a just request would have had the experts there kicking me, justifiably. Please do not use hyperbole, mischaracterization is enough.

As a matter of editorial coherence, would I also remind you that at Yanun, you challenged me on only one of the several sources by eliding it here. Shrike then arrived after I'd restored it, and wiped all of my sources off. You now support this blanketing in defending him, saying they are a bunch of 'crap sources'. Had you believed that at the time, you should have edited as Shrike did, and not just query one source of several. Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely not a content dispute. Wiping out 3 hours editorial work on a dead page, edits that introduced several new sources under major or academic imprint by scholars, in a blanket revert, cannot be a content dispute, in any other sense than I don't like the content you introduced, even if the sources are of high quality. None of the characterisations of the sources you now bring here reflects their quality. The appropriate forum is WP:RSN, which I have insisted both of you go to, and then notify me. You haven't. Just as you haven't noted that Khalidi is no longer on the page. Shrike removed it. I didn't revert him but added a better source. Neither you nor Shrike have added one jot or tittle to the page, which has grown thanks to several editors from 6 to 15.8kb in a few days. We are here, I repeat, to constructively assist in writing articles, not to be obstructive or litigious.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You cannot add content based on tendentious insignificant activist sources and partisan NGO's, demand that the content remains, and insist that those that take a different view file an RSN report before excising the disputed content. See WP:BRD Ankh.Morpork 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Indeed I never add that sort of content. As any glance at the pages I contribute to will show, I enter most articles only when I have read books by specialists, historians, anthropologists, or writers with a recognised competence to write about a subject they have direct experience of, whose works touch on the article's topic. In lieu of this quality of source for contemporary events, I restrict myself, in this area, to the mainstream Israeli press. Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Aen.1.323 cf Inferno.1.42. Requiring an apology would be far too punitive. All I'm asking for is some sign Shrike admits his use of policy tags over these three cases has been misleading, his elision of RS material improper, and a willingness to read WP:RS and stop doing this regularly on following me to pages he hasn't edited.Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by AnkhMorpork

This is a standard content dispute being selectively reported at AE.

• Shrike's edit was proceeded by talk page discussion in which the poor standards of some of the sources was pointed out.
• The response to these reservations was "go to WP:RSN if you wish to challenge this source." There was no consensus that the sources were reliable and this duty was incumbent upon the person wishing to use them.
• The sources that Shrike then removed in his edit included:

1. Unattributed contentious claims by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a partisan self-published NGO,
2. Unattributed historical claims and non-expert views of Hussein Khalidi, an International Solidarity Movement activist cited in the book, Peace Under Fire: Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement written by Josie Sandercock, another ISM activist with no academic background in the Middle East.
3. Unattributed non-expert views of peace activist, David Shulman
4. Unattributed non-expert views of Palestinian human rights activist, Anna Baltzer, "known for taking positions counter to the Israeli government regarding the Palestinian territories"
5. Unattributed non-expert views of political activist "considered extreme in her political views even by many left-wing activists", Tanya Reinhart

• Shrike's edit was immediately followed by a talk page explanation.

The recent additions were replete with unreliable sources that should never have been used. Overtures to improve the sourcing were ignored and Shrike made a necessary edit to ensure a semblance of NPOV and reliable sourcing remained in the article. Yes it was a large removal, yes there were loads of crap sources. Instead of then resorting to high-handed AE action, disputants should have sought dispute resolution and improved the sources.

Asad states "If Nishidani is bringing in "activist" sources, what does that make Efraim Inbar" to claim supposed hypocrisy. This is an absurd comparison. Inbar is a professor in Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University, the director of its Center for Strategic Studies, was a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University and Georgetown University, a visiting fellow of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and has lectured at Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Oxford, and Yale. He has written over 60 articles in professional journals. To equate him with a nescient insignificant activist demonstrates shocking judgment and an inability to determine what constitutes a RS. Ankh.Morpork 11:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The University of Chicago Press is not an activist publishing group, nor is Stanford University Press, or the Autonomous University of Barcelona, or Routledge. Edward Robinson is not an activist, nor is the BBC, nor is Haaretz. Yet sources published by University of Chicago Press, Stanford University Press, the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Routledge, the BBC, and Haaretz were all removed under the guise that all of the edits were "propaganda". That is, to put it lightly, unacceptable. That is an editor hounding a user to simply block any progress in building an article. Standing in the way and saying "NO NO NO" is not constructive, it is rather disruptive. The edit by Shrike was supremely tendentious. It removed several obviously reliable sources. Combined with the edit to Azzam Pasha quotation in which Shrike removes several sources despite not having even read them under a bogus claim that they "might" be "OR or SYNTH", you have a pattern of a user seeking to disrupt others work here. That is tendentious editing, pure and simple, and that can and should be dealt with by this board. nableezy - 13:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Time to kiss and make up

Yes, unacceptable; no, not inappropriate to raise a complaint; but, despite the confrontational stance elicited by this venue, hopefully the timely warning will have now been heeded and there's nothing an apology for the time-wasting or an open/tacit agreement to be more circumspect in the future can't mend; perhaps, if certain topic areas bring out the worst in an editor, he/she might find it soothing to try their hand for a while at molluscs or something equivalent, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Shrike

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

TrevelyanL85A2

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

Request concerning TrevelyanL85A2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mathsci (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBR&I. The only appropriate remedy here appears to be an indefinite site-ban. That could happen here or could be enforced, even without a motion, by any member of arbcom.

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

Not applicable. This user is banned in absolutely crystal clear terms from making arbcom requests of the kind he has is attempting to make, particularly even the slightest thing which mentions my name. He has no idea what he's doing and his "activities" have no place whatsover on wikipedia.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

TrevelyanL85A2 is topic-banned from starting any kind of arbcom case involving me. He is doing so now on behalf of his friends, two site-banned users Captain Occam and Ferahgo-the-Assassin. This editor is hot off a one month AE block and has now apparently set his sights on creating maximal disruption on wikipedia. From statements on the arbitration committee talk page, he has been chatting with his DeviantArt friends (two of whom are arbcom site-banned users, both highly disruptive and neither of them particularly honest). TrevelyanL85A2 seems to be out to make mischief on their behalf. TrevelyanL85A2 has shown no interest whatsover in being involved in even the tiniest weeniest way in building a high quality encyclopedia to promote human knowledge, which is the main purpose of wikipedia. He should be site-banned from wikipedia. (That should apply equally well to any editors that arbcom have deemed to be associated with him and who choose to support his frivolous request there.) An administrator unconnected with arbcom should simply block the account indefinitely without allowing this to proceed further. Mathsci (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

TrevelaynL85A2 cannot mention me anywhere on wikipedia. What is it that he doesn't understand about that? Mathsci (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How far does TrevelyanL85A2 think he can go? He and his DeviantArt friends are making a mockery of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As MastCell can confirm, I did not communicate with him about TrevelyanL85A2 in this context, and I have stated this explicitly on wikipedia. If TrevelyanL85A2 wishes to continue presenting his own very particular take on this on wikipedia, that is his own responsibility. If he does not retract his claims and make a public apology, why should he be allowed to continue editing here? As far as I am concerned, this is clearly a disrutption-only account at the beck and call of two highly disruptive site-banned editors. The proof of that is not the gratuitous attack on me but on MastCell. Mathsci (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

TrevelyanL85A2 has made the following set of edits on User talk:The Devil's Advocate. In the second diff he has encouraged others to start an RfC/U on me. He is presumably aware that such a suggestion is yet another serious violation of his extended topic ban. Given the recent information provided on-wiki about off-wiki contacts amongst the DeviantArt group, there seems to be little doubt that TrevelyanL85A2 has been in contact with the two site-banned editors, Occam and Ferahgo, and is now continuing their own campaign as a proxy. Indeed, as Courcelles has pointed out on another arbcom page, that seems to be all he is doing at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

TDA appears to be trolling here. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If TDA disagrees with the results of the WP:ARBR&I review, he had the opportunity in May to express his objections. He did not do so. If he now feels that there should be an amendment or clarification of that review, this is not the correct venue. TDA will probably receive a an official logged warning if they continue making unhelpful remarks here. A sock troll of Echigo mole set up an abusive RfAr which was instantly removed by Courcelles and the sock CU-blocked. The trolling notifications were removed from all the user talk pages. Describing that as disruption is singularly unhelpful and clueless. Mathsci (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to enforce arbcom sanctions, not to question the validity of those sanctions. The response of wikipedians to the edits of Keystone Crow are not remotely relevant here (or anywhere on wikipedia). He was blocked by a checkuser as an obvious disruptive troll sock of a community banned wikistalker. Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here is the diff for the record.

Discussion concerning TrevelyanL85A2

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2

I'm following the advice I was given by ArbCom as well as I know how to do. I was told at AE to request arbitration on the mailing list, and when I did so, I was told by ArbCom to make a public arbitration request after my block expired. I'm simply following the instructions I was given by ArbCom. They knew what knew what my request was about when they told me to make it in public, and I don't believe they would have told me to do this if they meant to disallow it.

Re to Courcelles: I don't think my request is commenting on Mathsci's conduct. I'm not criticising Mathsci's behaviour, I'm only referring to him in order to criticise MastCell's behaviour. My understanding was that there's a difference between "referring to editor X" and "commenting on editor X's conduct", and this is why it wasn't a contradiction for ArbCom to tell me I should make my request in public even though I couldn't comment on Mathsci's conduct. Did I misunderstand that?--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Re to MBisanz: Before I withdraw my request, I would like to clarify with ArbCom (via e-mail) what they wanted me to do when they advised me to make the request in public. I thought I was following their instructions, but I must have misunderstood them. Please give me time to discuss it with them and understand their instructions to me before I withdraw it.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Re to EdJohnston: I was told by Jclemens here that I'm allowed to restore Echigo Mole's comments in my user talk, and other editors like Collect and Nyttend have also been allowed to do this.  I'm defending my own ability to restore his comments, not his socking itself.  I'm also defending my right to allow people to post on my talk page without others editing parts out of it without my consent.  However, why would I be prohibited from talking about Echigo Mole?  As far as I know he's never edited R&I articles.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

From my reading, Trev is allowed to comment when his conduct is raised as an issue and to engage in dispute resolution. The arbitration request to me seems evident of the editor's lack of experience with the practice, but points to obvious issues with the restrictions. Mathsci has repeatedly edited Trev's user talk page against Trev's explicit request that he cease. His request for arbitration deals directly with that issue of Mathsci's conduct towards him and, as such, would seem completely valid under the wording of the topic ban. I think an arbitration request was the wrong way to go, but the restriction was terribly worded and seems too much like a one-way interaction ban with a vaguely-defined group of users, which is destined to fail.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Math, I am simply concerned at what appears to be a poorly-worded and poorly-considered restriction on an editor and your frequent use of it to push for this editor to get site-banned, something you were flat-out demanding before the restriction was enacted. While I have only a little knowledge of this dispute and the situation in the R&I topic area, it is not difficult to figure out that there would be considerably less drama if you would just stop provoking Trev. Edit-warring with him on his talk page over those comments even after his repeated requests that you stop, something you only did with Trev, is obviously going to create friction and you clearly have not made any effort to defuse the resulting tension. Rather, you have only heightened it by repeatedly demanding a site-ban over his complaints about your actions on his talk page. For heaven's sake man, Trev is topic-banned. Should he edit the R&I topic area repeatedly despite the ban, you will get the site-ban you desire anyway and should he stay away from the topic area and you then why the hell does it matter if he keeps editing articles about video games and Indian warships? Demanding a site-ban every single time he utters your name reeks of a vendetta, especially when you are making a point of maneuvering yourself into disputes with him in the first place.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I assure you Math, had I known such a bizarre restriction was being imposed I would have objected. The disruption does not come from removing the comments the first time, but from how you responded to Trev restoring them. When he asked you not to continue editing his talk page, you should have stopped. Instead you repeated the act several more times. Did you expect Trev to just be quiet about your conduct as you repeatedly jumped into his userspace to do something there he expressly asked you to stop doing? Obviously, Trev's RFAR is prompted by all that since it is what led to Mast blocking him and removing his talk page privileges so I fail to see how it is not relevant that you are the one who started all that and are now demanding he be site-banned for mentioning your unavoidable connection with the situation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The response is relevant if your response in particular is provoking the actions you are using to push for a site-ban. If you are actively picking a fight with Trev because you want him site-banned, I don't see why an admin should indulge your demand that he be site-banned for responding to your provocations.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, MBisanz, if that is the case then the restriction is even less clear than I thought. The wording is as follows:

TrevelyanL85A2 is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Misplaced Pages, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.

The wording technically restricts him from participating in said discussions if his conduct is not mentioned. No explicit prohibition on commenting about any specific editor is mentioned. My understanding of bans is that the exemption for dispute resolution and noticeboard discussion does free them up to comment about editors and subjects they are otherwise restricted from mentioning so long as it is relevant. In other words, the comments at the Arb case request are normal as part of an attempt at resolving a conduct dispute over administrative actions taken against Trev by an admin regarding Mathsci. Should Math be in private communication with Mast and the two of them have a close friendly relationship, it does raise questions about his use of admin tools against editors such as Trev in support of Math, including where he has used them at Math's apparent behest. Were Trev to say, "MastCell deleted the pages at the request of another user" and did not provide the diff that would show it was Math or make any mention of who that user was, then there would be immediate demands that he name the user in question and provide evidence to establish the relevance.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your example points to the problem. If someone is defacing your property by proxy you should not be restricted from noting this fact. That is the problem with one-way interaction bans. Suggesting that Mathsci can repeatedly engage Trev in a disruptive manner with Trev having no ability to complain about this behavior leads to obvious problems. It only creates a recipe for further disruption to the project, not the opposite. We can't really know what would have happened had Mathsci let the comment from a sock on Trev's page slide, or if he had been consistent with his behavior towards other editors by not edit-warring with Trev over the issue, but that is not what happened. All I can say is that Trev was not editing Misplaced Pages at all for months before this happened, and after Math edit wars with Trev over the user talk comments this stuff happens. Cause and effect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning TrevelyanL85A2

Result concerning TrevelyanL85A2

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

I don't think we can treat this as an infraction, if the arbitrary committee encouraged him to do this. Maybe one of them could clarify if they actually meant a request like the one that was filed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, now while that strange new arb request over at the "Case" page is ongoing, I probably ought not to be participating in decision-making here anyway, so ignore me for the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree. It might not be an infraction to discuss Mastcell, who blocked him. It is a violation to mention Mathsci in his discussion of Mastcell's conduct. While it might be hard to do from a grammatical perspective, I believe Trevelyan's hands are tied by the Arbcom restriction to only discussing Mastcell if he can do so in a manner that does not reference Mathsci. I'm leaning towards a block of three months unless an Arb tells me they specifically said he could mention Mathsci's editing on-wiki. MBisanz 20:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• TrevelyanL85A2 was told via e-mail: "Yes, you are restricted from making comments on Mathsci's conduct". Courcelles 21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Courcelles for clarifying. Specifically, I find that TrevelyanL85A2's statement "This is concerning because MastCell's involvement in the dispute was privately requested by Mathsci:" (emphasis added) includes at least one reference to Mathsci's conduct. If TrevelyanL85A2 withdraws his Arbcom request and agrees that if he ever references Mathsci again on-wiki he will be indefinitely blocked, I am willing to forgo a block at this time. If he cannot agree to that, then I will implement a three-month block for violation of his topic ban. MBisanz 21:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• @TDA: As I read the topic ban, TrevelyanL85A2 may only comment in discussions concerning their own conduct; not the conduct of others towards them. That may result in the appearance that their hands have been unfairly tied and Mathsci may or may not be taking advantage of TrevelyanL85A2's restriction, but Arbcom has reviewed the situation previously and decided the way disruption would be resolved in this area is by preventing TrevelyanL85A2 from making any comments about Mathsci, even those regarding Mathsci's conduct towards TrevelyanL85A2. As I understand it, the primary goal is the cessation of disruption, not fairness or equality. Also, it is worth noting that TrevelyanL85A2 has not been entirely silenced with regard to Mathsci, as he is free to email requests concerning Mathsci to Arbcom. MBisanz 23:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• @TDA: That interpretation might be more plausible if he had not named Mathsci as a party to the dispute. If he is a filing a case where Mathsci is a party, then he is not simply referencing Mathsci's name in passing as a bystander. Also, there is no evidence that Arbcom intended to leave TrevelyanL85A2 the right to report bad acts if Mathsci was somehow involved in. Sort of like "even if you see person X paying person Y to pee on your lawn, you cannot report it to the police if it involves discussing person X." MBisanz 01:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would take no action on this complaint, but only because I believe that we should leave it to the arbs and clerks to deal with any alleged topic ban violations on arbcom case pages. T. Canens (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point. I asked at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Question_on_protocol, because Courcelles is an arb and he commented here without saying we should leave it to them. MBisanz 01:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• It might be reasonable to put this AE complaint against Trevelyan on hold until the committee has reached a conclusion on the Arb request opened by Trevelyan, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets. I read Trevelyan's RFAR as a complaint about restraints that admins have put on the editing of Echigo Mole. Defending Echigo Mole is surely a prohibited activity for Trevelyan, leaving aside the fact that he names Mathsci in his complaint which is also prohibited. By the time the committee reaches their conclusion on his request for arbitration, we should know if they saw any good-faith purpose to Trevelyan's request. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Franklin

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

Request concerning Doctor Franklin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Lihaas (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Doctor Franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 08:09, 8 July 2012
2. 16:59, 8 July 2012

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

1. Warned on User talk:76.117.57.30 by Lihaas (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on User talk:Doctor Franklin by Brewcrewer (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

He had been warned against his edits and called to discuss. He made comments there but per BRD he did not wait for consensus and then adds this NPA accusations. The said user's newly registered account is shown in the reverts per before. The 1RR template on the talk page was only just added (by me), so im not sure if he needs a warning or a block.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

- and that shows he has no idea of editing pracices and intends to go on.

Discussion concerning Doctor Franklin

Statement by Doctor Franklin

To whom it may concern:

The complaintant is attempting to invoke a rule pertaining to Arab-Isreali conflicts to suppress dissenting views on the issue of Yitzhak Shamir's family history in Poland and Belarus during the Nazi occupation of Soviet Belarus. Neither Poles nor Belarusians are Arabs, so this rule cannot apply. However some Israelis are dual nationals of other countries such as Poland. The dispute here is not disputing the Holocaust or how horrible it was. The dispute here is what happened to one man in one place in modern Belarus. The complaintant is asking you in employ a tortured construction of this rule to suppress legitimate dissent.

I have never attempted to edit a Wiki text previously, but this particular text was so one sided that I felt obligated to fix it. I have a degree in History and I have traveled through out Poland and Eastern Europe. The complaintant has persisted in violating the WP policy on Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:REDFLAG#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources The exceptional claim here is that Yitzhak Shamir's father was killed by a specific ethnic group without a shred of evidence from anyone who was there as to what happened. The complaintant cites two sources to support his exceptional claim: 1) a published statement Yitzhak Shamir himself who was not present at the location at the time, and 2)an alleged footnote from Jan Nowak-Jeziorański, A NEED FOR COMPENSATION which was published in the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, January 26, 2001: http://wiez.free.ngo.pl/jedwabne/article/21.html I have read the original work and it is now available online and it does not read as quoted in the citation by the complaintant: http://en.wikipedia.org/Yitzhak_Shamir#cite_ref-4

I believe that the complaintant has repeatedly distorted a source and then invoked this complaint to obstruct the process. Furthermore, statements of politicians which are intended to build a certain image with voters require more scrutiny than what has been provided, particularly when they make accusations of ethnic violence, etc.

I also intend to forward this issue to the Polish news media since what has been published is libelous to the Polish people.

Comments by others about the request concerning Doctor Franklin

This off-wiki canvassing might be of interest here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This user has a talent he disrupting two areas of discretionary sanctions simultaneously WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBEE--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not involved here, but his last sentence needs clarification, via WP:DOLT. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Doctor Franklin

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

Dailycare

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

Request concerning Dailycare

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dailycare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA

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

1. Source Distortion: Changes source and notes that source states that "some states" regarded the Straits of Tiran as an international waterway when in fact the source contains no such qualifier and states unequivocally that it was an international waterway.
2. Source Distortion: Does it again and changes the source to note that only "some countries" regarded it as an international waterway when the source contains no such qualification.
3. Source Distortion: In this edit he removes content attributed to the subject source, but does not remove the source. Instead, he moves the source to the end of the sentence, thus attributing statements to the author, that the author does not subscribe to and that is not contained in the subject source.
4. Source Distortion: In this edit he adds the following "killing 16 and wounding 54." He attributes this statement to Tom Segev at pages 149-152 (or at the very least made it appear as though Segev's book contained this information by adding the casualty figures just before the Segev reference). I looked at those pages and could not verify the veracity of those casualty figures The only specific casualty figures provided by Segev in connection with the raid is on page 151 where he notes that 14 Jordanian officers and soldiers were killed in the battle (including a Jordanian pilot) and 37 more were injured. I don't know where Dailycare got his figures from, but it certainly wasn't from Segev as he suggests.

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

The Six Day War article contains conspicuous ARBPIA warnings and Dailycare edits extensively in the topic area. In addition, Dailycare has previously commented on these boards and has also been the subject of a prior AE in which he escaped sanction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The above-noted edits demonstrate that Dailycare has engaged in gross source misrepresentations on multiple occasions. Repeated and egregious distortions of this nature should not be tolerated in any topic area. This is not just a one-time affair, chalked up to carelessness or sloppiness. It represents a deliberate and repeated mendacious attempt to distort and misrepresent sources. This type of conduct undermines the fundamentals of Misplaced Pages and should not be tolerated in any topic area, least of all a contentious topic area such as the Arab-Israeli topic area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Discussion concerning Dailycare

Statement by Dailycare

This request seems to be a waste of time, but let's go through the points nonetheless:

Concerning the first three points the source states, inter alia, "The juridical status of the Gulf of Aqaba (the Gulf) and the Strait of Tiran (the Strait) has been a subject of heated controversy between the Arab nations and Israel since the establishment of Israel as a state in 1948." This is the first sentence in the "Introduction" part of the document.

The source also says, in the same "Introduction" section: "Ships proceeding to or from Israel's port of Elath must cross into Egypt's territorial waters when passing through the Strait of Tiran, and into the territorial waters of either Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia when navigating through the Gulf. Israel relies on unrestricted access to the waterways for trade as well as for protection of its own security interests. Israel, therefore, has argued consistently for the most lenient characterization, under international law, of both waterways, in order to ensure the freedom of navigation necessary to protect its economic and political interests. Conversely, the Arab nations bordering the Gulf of Aqaba and Strait of Tiran have historically resisted Israel's characterization of these waters as international, asserting Arab sovereignty over the Gulf of Aqaba."

Therefore, saying either that there is controversy on the legal status of Tiran, or that "some states" consider it an international waterway, is more in-line with the source than simply saying outright that it was considered an international waterway. Saying just that it was considered an international waterway amounts to a rather selective and creative use of the source. Trying to enforce this selective use in this AE request could be considered when deciding which user to sanction due to this AE request.

Concerning the last point, Jiujitsuguy alleges that I'd have attributed the casualty figures to the Segev reference. This isn't the case, since the Segev reference was in the text already prior to the edit. If I recall correctly I got the figures from the infobox on the Samu Incident article as Nableezy correctly guesses below. A correct reaction to this (indeed there was no inline citation for the casualty figures in my edit) would have been to either insert a template, or simply look up a source. On the other hand, the sentence already has a wikilink to the Samu Incident article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for posting here, since I don't want to comment broadly. Other than to say that one should never use wiki articles as sources let alone infoboxes. Tom Segev, 1967, Abacus, 2007 gives the figures for Jordan's Samua casualties on p.181. The source is correct (JJG didn't check or have the book apparently). The pages are wrongly cited. The casualties Segev gives are 14 officers and soldiers killed, 37 injured.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Dailycare

I can't possibly be the only person shaking their head at the request. JJG's distortion above far exceeds any "distortion" in DC's edits.

1. The first diff cited, this, was from 7/7. In it, DC adds by some states to The Straits of Tiran was regarded as an international waterway to The Straits of Tiran was regarded by some states as an international waterway. This edit was preceded by the 3rd diff cited, here, which took place on 7/5. In that diff, DC added an article titled Legal Status of the Gulf of Aqaba and the Strait of Tiran: From Customary International Law to the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty, published in the Boston College International and Comparative Law Review. In that added source, on page 126, the article says Israel, therefore, has argued consistently for the most lenient characterization, under international law, of both waterways, in order to ensure the freedom of navigation necessary to protect its economic and political interests. Conversely, the Arab nations bordering the Gulf of Aqaba and Strait of Tiran have historically resisted Israel's characterization of these waters as international,s asserting Arab sovereignty over the Gulf of Aqaba. The source very clearly says that some states do not regard the Strait of Tiran as an international waterway, and DC changed what was now a disputed POV to a sentence that appropriately included both relevant POVs. To claim that this is "source distortion" is bad-faith gamesmanship. JJG knows full well that a cited source, at the end of the next sentence, disputes the text that he has been attempting to keep in the text as though it were indisputable fact.
2. The second diff is more of the same. Dailycare brought a source that specifically says that several states do not regard the Strait an international waterway. To claim that to then update the article so that it does not make inaccurate POV statement as though it were a fact is not "source distortion".
3. More of the same. Perhaps he should have just removed that tertiary source and stuck with the scholarly secondary one, but that he did not do so is, to me, more of a sign of attempting to accommodate other editors by not just removing a source.
4. For where DC got killing 16 and wounding 54, this infobox may be of use.

This is one of the more blatant displays of attempting to use this board in an underhanded manner. None of these edits merits any punitive action, not one of them. To call any of them "gross source distortion" after things like this is just obscene. nableezy - 18:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Dailycare

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