Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive114

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Soosim (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

Disruptive behaviour on the NGO Monitor article.

1. 11:46 22 April 2012 Reverted edit on grounds not consistent with the talk page discussion.
2. 07:13, 29 April 2012 Moved material after having repeatedly failed to give grounds for doing so on the talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On the 20th of April I started a discussion on the talk page [1] in order to explore the issues surrounding a possible insertion of a piece of information about NGOM's funding. I suggested the insertion of a sentence and, on the 22nd, after discussing some objections, Soosim told me to go ahead with the edit 'with the qualifiers' [2]. I added in the sentence in the first diff above, including some additional contextual material thinking this was what Soosim wanted with his reference to 'qualifiers'. This edit was rapidly reverted on the grounds that 'jafi funding is already dealt with in this section'. This was somewhat frustrating given that this issue had not been raised as an objection on the talk page and was not really substantive with regard to the information I was trying to include.

In the ensuing discussion over the next five days Soosim made a number of suggestions that the information be included but at a different point in the article. However, he did not raise any actual arguments against my suggested placing. There is, as far as I can see, only one place in the article where the question of the relation of NGOM's funding to government arises and that is the point at which NGOM's own statement, denying that they receive funding from any government, is reported. This seems to me to be the correct place to deal with any other related claims about funding and government from other sources and moving the information I wanted to insert to anywhere else in the article removes the significance of that information. now, that is a content dispute and who is right or wrong on that is not really the issue here. The point is that, having been repeatedly invited to provide some policy or source grounds for me not making the edit, Soosim failed to do so. The closest he came was to say that the edit would be 'NPOV or UNDUE or whatever' [3]. I replied that he would need to be more precise than that and if he was unable to explain how my edit would be problematic I would have to assume that there was no real problem [4]. I waited two days for a response and when none came despite Soosim continuing to edit other pages, I made the change I had suggested. Two days later, without raising the issue on the talk page, Soosim moved my insertion to another paragraph where it is now essentially meaningless as it is separated from its context.

Having edited this page collaboratively with Soosim in the past, I'm happy to assume good faith but I would like to ask that he be warned that this behaviour is disruptive of the editing process. I would also note that it is more than a little frustrating when an editor seeks to prevent an edit but then doesn't keep an eye on the talk page and leaves the discussion hanging for days at a time; this makes editing feel like one is swimming through treacle (the discussion on this issue has already spanned 10 days now). After my last edit on the 22nd I waited for Soosim's response for three days (during which he continued to edit other pages) and eventually had to go to his talk page to remind him that there was a discussion going on. I then waited two days for a response to my comments on the 25th before actually making the edit. I have had similar difficulties in the past (see the activities and reception section at the top of the talk page) where live issues are just abandoned in the middle of a discussion and it is very difficult to move forward with the actual business of editing in such a context.

@Shrike

+972 wasn't really used for a statement of fact so much as a connection. JAFI is described as 'quasi-governmental' by just about all reliable sources I can find (BBC, Guardian, NYT, JPOST, Forward etc). What the +972 article does is use that widely accepted language in relation to NGOM's funding. Regardless of +972, it would be true to say that one of NGOM's major donors is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body but to make this point in the context of NGOM's funding would be OR or synthesis if no source puts the two points together. +972 does bring the two points together but none of the facts of the matter are contentious. The quasi-governmental tag is widely accepted and the fact that JAFI is a major donor is stated by NGOM. So it's not quite right to say +972 is being relied on to establish a fact and nor is it correct to say that the fact in question is being stated in Wikipedia's voice. It is explicitly attributed to the writer at +972 (who is a professional journalist writing as a journalist). In any case, this is a discussion I would certainly be happy to have and was one that I flagged up in my initial post. But it's not really relevant to the case at hand (as far as I can see). BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Soosim

I think that if you are going to stand in the way of edits then you have an obligation to keep up with the discussions you have chosen to engage in. How long do you think it is reasonable for me to wait for your response each time? 3 days? 4? A week? You still haven't replied to some of my questions I asked on the NGOM talk page in January. I actively want to take your view into account but if you won't give it in a timely manner it makes collaboration very difficult. On the substantive issue, you still haven't explained why you object to the placement of the material where I have suggested. POV? If so, how? UNDUE? If so, why? You can't just say 'POV, UNDUE or whatever'; you have to have an actual, specific reason. In establishing consensus it is arguments that count and not numbers. As far as I can see you have provided no arguments on this point. In addition, you chose to make your edit without even rejoining the discussion on the talkpage and addressing the issues I had raised. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik

I did wonder whether it might come under that category but the issue for me is not the actual content dispute we are having. That can be resolved on the talk page. The problem is an editor ignoring the talk page discussions when making his edits, which I thought would fall under the rubric of actions disruptive of the editing process. I know it's not a particularly dramatic issue like a lot of those that end up here and nor is it based on rancor or hostility. However, I don't think that the lack of drama makes it any less relevant. Talk pages are for discussion. Repeatedly making contentious edits whilst there is a discussion going on and making the edits in such a way as to ignore the issues under discussion really gets in the way of editing. I'm now in a position where the temptation is just to revert Soosim but I would rather find another way round the problem than engaging in edit warring. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil

I think part of the problem may be that I have chosen to assume good faith in my presentation of the problem, so it doesn't come across as a big deal. A presentation of the same issues on the assumption of bad faith (the assumption that underlies almost all cases that come here) would look rather different and would, perhaps, be taken more seriously. Let me be clear: this is not a content dispute. I am not asking anyone to come down on any side of the content issue. Rather, the point is that an editor is making changes for which there is no consensus whilst ignoring discussions ongoing on the talk page; providing as his reasons for objecting to an edit that it would be 'POV or UNDUE or whatever' (!), and holding up the editing process by objecting to changes but then failing to properly engage with the process for discussing his objections. Is it really ok to prevent an edit simply by stating that it would be 'POV or UNDUE or whatever', which amounts to saying 'there is something wrong with it' but not saying what? Is it really ok to make changes that do not have consensus and that ignore the talk page discussions? Now, I could dress all this up in a more controversialised way and suggest that these are various obstructionist tactics being used to make editing very difficult in cases that clash with Soosim's POV. I could note that Soosim himself introduced the statement that NGOM receives no government funding and suggest that the motivation for this inclusion is so as to emphasise their independence and neutrality. I could suggest that he doesn't want the facts about their quasi-governmental source of funding placed next to that claim because that would ruin its effect. And I could point out that Soosim's attempts to keep the two pieces of data separate have not been consistent but have grasped at straws and that he has ended up enforcing his own position by simply making edits that bear little or no relation to the talk page discussion and that are certainly not based on consensus. Now, whether presented from the perspective of an assumption of good faith or bad faith, the underlying behaviour seems problematic, even if the first presentation looks less dramatic. It certainly seems to be in significant breach of the 'normal editing process' that is protected by the arbcom ruling (at least according to the remedies here [5]; I have been unable to find the new version of the text). The point is that whether these actions are done in good faith or bad faith they have the same deleterious effect on editing in that such 'tactics', if allowed, provide a powerful obstacle to collaborative and consensual editing because they completely undermine collaboration and ignore consensus.

@Ed - Fair enough. The consensus seems to be that this is actually a content dispute and I apologise for wasting everyone's time by coming to the wrong forum. I still have a problem in that I can't see what the dispute actually is, though. Having looked through the talk page would you be able to identify for me the grounds on which my edits were changed? This isn't meant to be a gotcha question - I just didn't think that it was acceptable to revert in this way, twice, against the objections of an editor, without the reason being based on policy or reliability concerns (my problem may stem from simply being wrong on this issue? is it actually ok to do this?) and I can't see any such justification being offered for the change. If you can see what it is, please let me know as I would like to avoid spending yet more days struggling with shadows when I try to get the content side of things resolved with an RfC. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

BHB - sorry if i didn't look at the exact page you wanted me to during the 3-4 days i was editing other articles. i have over 400 articles on my watchlist and i really don't keep up with them all. now, specifically about what you write about. the key is in your sentence saying that you think there is only one place for that info to go in the article. and, obviously, i think there is another place (4 sentences ahead, in the same section). i gave reasons as to why it fits better there. you, obviously, disagree. so, why not ask other editors for opinions? i am sure that the active topic area editors like malik and sean and others will have a comment to make if you ask them. and, as usual, in my five years of editing wikipedia, i go along with the masses. sure, i like to stand up for what i believe in, but i do agree with consensus (as you very well know). therefore, not sure what more to say here on this type of 'enforcement' page. Soosim (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I find that using low quality sources like 972mag.com that BHB is introduced in to the article[7] is troublesome .Except that it define itself as a "+972 is a blog-based web magazine" so it WP:SPS this source have clear agenda --Shrike (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Granted, I'm not familiar with the article, but I don't see the violation of any ARBPIA sanction or remedy here. It looks like a content dispute. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This looks like an over-escalation of a content issue, which needs ordinary dispute resolution rather than Arbcom Enforcement. I have to say I take a dim view of requests like this, however I'm willing to AGF in this instance that this particular request is a mistake and thus I recommend closing with no action--Cailil ^talk 10:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see any need for enforcement here. The discussion at Talk:NGO Monitor is hard to follow; it is not easy to get clear on what the respective positions are. If a dispute is important enough to be brought to AE then surely a WP:Request for comment is worth doing. The usage of the +972 article as a source might be submitted to WP:RSN for an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sean.hoyland - talk 21:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

1. 20:51, 7 May 2012 Added "White Americans: The predominantly Christian and English-speaking people inhabiting the United States" to the List of indigenous peoples
2. 20:54, 7 May 2012 Explanation for the edit "added white americans for same logic on including "Palestinians""

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

1. User_talk:DionysosElysees#Palestinian_people by Malik Shabazz but the page contains multiple warnings i.e. the editor is well aware of the sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is partly a test case to see whether AE can handle it.

• An editor makes a seemingly disruptive edit by adding white Americans to the list of indigenous peoples apparently to make a WP:POINT.
• The WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES header makes it quite clear that "After being warned, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process may be blocked up to one year, topic-banned, further revert-restricted, or otherwise restricted from editing."
• I have no personal interest in either the article or whether or not white people in the Americas or Palestinians are indigenous peoples but I am interested in whether this kind of behavior is within scope of this board.
• I should add that although it would be a trivial exercise to compile a series of diffs to illustrate other behavior that I think violates the sanctions, I've deliberately limited this report to this particular edit so that discussion can focus on it alone.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Obvious WP:POINT disruption. Needs to stop. There is ongoing discussion on the list of indigenous people about whether palestinians fit the inclusion criteria (recognition as indigenous per international legislation) - the inclusion of white people is irrelevant to the question of palestinan indigeneity, obviously doesn't fall under the definition, and the source given doesn't even support the claim anyway.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

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

1. 25 March 2012 Prior to a single discussion formerly taking place on the talkpage of the article, PANONIAN, notices an exchange between Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) and DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) talking about the poor state of "his" article and immediately attempts to have Peacemaker67 blocked as a sockpuppet of DIREKTOR. There he posts many wild accusations including one claiming that DIREKTOR made a "arranged discussion" between him and Peacemaker67. I also note that he had previously also attempted to block an IP user as a sockpuppet of DIREKTOR [9]. It is clear that he views anyone who opposes him or "his" article as a sockpuppet.
2. 25 March 2012 After it was evident the SPI was going nowhere he tried to circumvent it and convince an admin directly to block Peacemaker67.
3. 26 March 2012 When that fails he's contacts another admin.
4. 29 March 2012 Having had his SPI and attempts to convince admins fail, he posts a thread on WP:ANI, again throwing around accusations of sockpuppeteering ("I know DIREKTOR, and due to that, I can be 100% sure that User:Peacemaker67 is his sockpuppet (it would be impossible that he is not)"). Subsequently, for about two weeks, he repeatedly treats Peacemaker67 as a sockpuppet of DIREKTOR despite requests to stop.
5. 2 April 2012 Peacemaker grows tired of these unfounded accusations and reports PANONIAN on ANI. An admin recommends that the matter be taken to AE, but Peacemaker67, apparently, does not do so either because he is lenient, unaware how to, or simply unwilling to put in the time. I give my opinion on the matter and PANONIAN continues this behavior and refers to me as a "Croatian account". [10]
6. 2 April 2012 PANONIAN attempts to get another admin involved in the matter.
7. 26 April 2012 PANONIAN accuses Peacemaker67 of posting this edit with his "IP sockpuppet" on the Reichskommissariat Ostland article in 2008. Just to be clear. Here PANONIAN is insinuating that Peacemaker67, who joined in November 2011 from Australia, made a contribution in June 2008 with this Australian IP (his "sockpuppet") so that he can win an argument against PANONIAN in the future four years later.
8. 28 April 2012 A more recent attempt to block a discussion participant on WP:ANI by PANONIAN

1. 29 March 2012 A series of month-long, circular, repetitive debates begin and are repeated ad nauseam. Having gone over all of them, it's evident Peacemaker67 (and to a lesser extent DIREKTOR) repeatedly present their sources and research over and over again, only to have PANONIAN reject them. Then a lengthy discussion follows where PANONIAN tries justify his rejection through WP:OR (which he insists on simply repeating over and over again), through Googled out-of-context one-liners, or through various methods of that sort. He might post statements from sources that he's completely misunderstood, and then refuse to concede that he got it wrong (I agree with Peacemaker67's and DIREKTOR's statements about his poor grasp of the English language when it comes to interpreting sources and Wikipedia's policies), or he might simply reject the sources without a proper reply and create another section on the same matter.
2. 9 April 2012 Increasingly out of options, PANONIAN creates a new thread for a WP:VOTE
3. 10 April 2012 Peacemaker67 posts numerous sources, complete with quotes, at PANONIAN's request.
4. 10 April 2012 PANONIAN simply dismisses them all in brief and moves on to another thread.
5. 26 April 2012 DIREKTOR takes the time to quote each relevant statement from every source on PANONIAN's request
6. 27 April 2012 PANONIAN briefly decides the sources don't say anything, and starts a new thread for a WP:VOTE.
7. 2 May 2012 Peacemaker addresses PANONIAN's collection of maps one by one
8. 2 May 2012 PANONIAN briefly dismisses the analysis and moves on to another thread, etc. I could go on and on like this, but I recommend seeing talkpage for yourselves. I was astounded to see the numerous number of times that PANONIAN repeatedly and blatantly engaged in WP:OR (with coins and stamps he found). April 5 2012
9. 3 May 2012 The disruption continues and PANONIAN is either unable or unwilling to abide by Wikipedia's policies.

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

1. Warned on 27 April 2012 by Tiptoety (talk · contribs), concerning edit-warring on the article
2. Warned on 2 May 2012 by DIREKTOR (talk · contribs). After the warning was deleted he replied to the posting user to "cut the crap".

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Aside from WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and failure of WP:AGF being blatantly evident, it is clear from these diffs that this is a general behavioral pattern and not an isolated incident. Users to him are not individuals to be persuaded rather obstacles that must be coerced or intimidated to reach his end, likewise he views admins as simply tools or pawns to be used to facilitate his process. It would be an immense effort to try and relay the discussion in full, but the whole matter is available for those who have the time and effort. The user simply rejects presented sources and relentlessly promotes his own ideas and his own version of history that he has conjured up and that no sources back up. It is not only Wikipedia's users who have suffered at the hands of PANONIAN's behavior and actions, but also this article which continues to incorporate biased information and historically inaccurate nonsense.

PANONIAN, in his own words, is a self-proclaimed "patriot" [11], with apparent WP:OWN issues and a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality ("I am not Croat who desperately trying to implement POV-ization of article about Serbia" [12]). It's clear that he views himself as a guardian of sorts that stops non-Serbs from sullying Serbia-related articles. He has caused immense WP:DISRUPTION and has rendered any discussion entirely pointless. The article is in quite a sorry state as a result and at this point, all edits must be "approved" by PANONIAN, who doesn't mind a few contributions here and there as long as they do not interfere with his POV.

Again, this all appears to be part of a more general "strategy" employed by PANONIAN, who, after exhausting his opposition, requests that a "compromise" [13] between the quoted reliable sources and his own personal views be reached - which has rendered the article a self-contradicting mess. The user take advantage of the complexity and obscurity of the subject matter to continue to avoid sources, create new sections and circular "discussions" on the same matter, pressure other users into a "mediation" carried out by himself, intimidate and coerce them through SPI and ANI reports, and avoid Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This is all done with the intent of promoting his own personal version of history, one which is marred by nationalism and one which no other user or source subscribes to. Users who have taken the time and effort to do some research on the subject matter are effectively blockaded and unable to get to the article.

I initially wanted to keep myself distanced from the matter since I know that the more editors get involved the more things can get dragged out and complicated; however, I feel that it is important and necessary to bring this to the attention of admins.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

OK, I will post short answer:

• 1. User:PRODUCER, User:DIREKTOR and User:Peacemaker67 are having a history of cooperating in "work" against various users in Wikipedia. Notable example is article about Chetniks and Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. While I was not interested in these articles by myself, here are some diffs that showing cooperation of these users there: [15], [16], [17], [18]. So, this cooperation is the reason for this post - User:PRODUCER wants to help to his "buddies" in their dispute with me.
• 2. Regarding my accusations that User:Peacemaker67 is a sockpuppet of User:DIREKTOR, this issue was solved and I am not accusing him for that any more.
• 3. Regarding dispute about article Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander), the consensus about problems with this article is almost reached with the help of an administrator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia
• 4. Regarding other accusations, if admins think that any of them is valid, I am ready to provide evidences in support of my defence. Please notify me what kind of evidences I should provide. Thank you. PANONIAN 10:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in reality we're all sockpuppets of Peacemaker67. Or perhaps its that 2008 Australian IP that's "behind it all"? I'm sorry PANONIAN, but these conspiracy theories are getting really old. I did ask Peacemaker months ago to have a look at the article, but I fear that, if anything, you started discussing with Peacemaker and I rather than vice versa. Peacemaker didn't even manage to write a single post on the article before you started having it out with him. -- Director (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I cannot agree with claim that "I had a single-minded determination that Serbia existed as a country during the German occupation and that I would reject any sources to the contrary found by others". I based my position on citations from these sources that I collected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Google_quotations (Please see "Google quotations" section in the end of page). As for sources that were provided by DIREKTOR, these sources did not supported his position that "Serbia was not country". DIREKTOR's tactics in the discussion was practically based on constant repetition of this rhetorical mantra: "Serbia was not country, there was no Serbia, I have behind me best sources that confirming that, while all sources that you presented are false and wrong" (of course, such sources that he recalled did not stood behind him). If this is not true, somebody should present a diff which show that DIREKTOR actually presented a quotation from some source and that I rejected such quotation. It was him who rejected all quotations from sources that I provided. PANONIAN 16:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to "Result" (moved from there)

EdJohnston, I cannot agree with claim that "I had a single-minded determination that Serbia existed as a country during the German occupation and that I would reject any sources to the contrary found by others". I based my position on citations from these sources that I collected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Google_quotations (Please see "Google quotations" section in the end of page). As for sources that were provided by DIREKTOR, these sources did not supported his position that "Serbia was not country". DIREKTOR's tactics in the discussion was practically based on constant repetition of this rhetorical mantra: "Serbia was not country, there was no Serbia, I have behind me best sources that confirming that, while all sources that you presented are false and wrong" (of course, such sources that he recalled did not stood behind him). If this is not true, somebody should present a diff which show that DIREKTOR actually presented a quotation from some source and that I rejected such quotation. It was him who rejected all quotations from sources that I provided. PANONIAN 16:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here is evidence for my claim: this is the diff which shows that I introduced quotations from several sources and here is how DIREKTOR responded to my post (full answer quoted): "Oh for heaven's sake... We went over this a million times, remember?? Please don't try to confuse the issue again. Some sources call the Nedic government a "puppet state", but the vast majority do not, and most of the decided minority of sources who do use such a term to describe the situation in brief do not claim anything of the sort when they enter into a more detailed elaboration. Doesn't the article already state this quite explicitly? In the lead? What's the problem? (does one of those sources state Nedic was a Croat?)" So, practically, he attacking my sources by pure rhetorics claiming that they all are wrong and that they contradict to "majority of other sources" which "do not using term puppet state". Firstly, he did not provided proof what "majority of sources" are claiming. Second, if other sources do not mention term "puppet state" that does not mean that they automatically contradict to those sources that mention this term. Third, I never had a "single minded position" about anything here - all I wanted to do is to make balanced article where these sources that saying that Serbia was country or puppet state will be respected as well. Contrary to this, DIREKTOR aimed to edit this article only in accordance with his own POV and to completely ignore and delete any info that claims the opposite. There is notable number of google hits that using term "puppet state of serbia" and I only asked for balanced article which would present info from these sources as well. DIREKTOR wanted to ignore these sources and aimed to edit this article in a way to present Serbia as a "province of Germany". PANONIAN 17:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to say that my behavior was similar in other articles related to Serbia as well? At least 90% of my edits are related to Serbia and if you want to ban me from "all articles and discussions related to Serbia" then it is better to ban me for good from en Wikipedia since this is practically same thing. PANONIAN 18:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to say this: I practically wrote or largely contributed to very large number of articles related to Serbia. Without me, there would not be many articles about Serbia, so the Blade of the Northern Lights, thank you very much for your proposal. PANONIAN 18:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for editing this section, but I simply have to say this (and seems that you decided to block my anyway): basically you want to block me from "Serbia-related articles" so that I do not edit this article, while in the same time you will allow me to edit other articles. In that way, I would be still able to edit World War II articles in which I had dispute with DIREKTOR (for example these ones: [19], [20], [21]), while I will not be able to edit articles about Serbia that I practically wrote and where I did not had any dispute with anybody (for example these ones: [22], [23], [24]). Are you sure that you understood well what this dispute is about? PANONIAN 19:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The failure of "strong counselling" is why this case has been taken up here. Stricter sanctions are needed. Also, I am not convinced that his editing in the Ottoman area is unrelated to his editing in the Serbia area. The two are related even from a historical perspective, and FocalPoint's comment leads me to think that "Ottoman Serbia" is the most salient point of the "Ottoman X" dispute. Perhaps a general Balkan topic ban would be a more comprehensive solution. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants my opinion, I believe that the real problem is (what I perceive as) PANONIAN's "agenda" with regard to Serbian history specifically. What I would suggest is a tb on Yugoslav history articles (Serbian history included). I believe PANONIAN can do good work on Serbian articles, but his (imo unique and strange) personal perceptions with regard to Serbian history render him almost incapable of neutral participation in articles on that topic. Also, as the histories of the Yugoslav nations are pretty much intertwined, "Yugoslav history" covers the bases more completely (PANONIAN, e.g., might resurface on the Kingdom of Montenegro article and be technically "in the clear" with regard to "Serbia").

As regards PANONIAN's conflict on the History of Ottoman Hungary article, which I think may be behind Antidiskriminator's concerns above, it is not directly related to Serbia or Yugoslavia - but its something of an exception in that. And, in addition, I have no doubt the conflict there is nothing more than an extension of the conflict at History of Ottoman Serbia (PANONIAN is there simply moving other articles to make his POV on a Serbian history dispute make sense, as is his wont [25]). -- Director (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I was focused in my comment to a topic ban, regardless of the main sanction. Whatever disruption he made it could be traced to Serbia or Balkans simply because almost all of his edits are made in that area. It is easy to conclude this area is subject of his deep personal passion and interest. Almost all of his edits were very useful for wikipedia. The only aspect of his editing identified as disruptive was the "renaming issue" (and not only related to Balkans or Serbia (i.e. Ottoman Hungary) renaming. I think that there is no point to restrict him from editing in all Balkans or Serbia related areas just because he was proven disruptive only with "renaming issues".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, the renaming is just a part of it. Its everything (every change and every edit) concerning (quote) "Serbian statehood" and the "threats" it faces. Again I cannot claim I understand PANONIAN, and I am still deeply confused as to what exactly he's trying to achieve, but in my personal opinion the main problem is the user's deep-seated POV and agenda to preserve the continuity of "Serbian statehood". This can mean map labels, lead structure, images, the choice of infoboxes etc. For example, the user opposed the usage of the {{Infobox former subdivision}} template on grounds that its name implies that "Serbia was a subdivision". There he actually proposed (as one of his "compromises") the creation of a practically identical, duplicate infobox - just with a different name. -- Director (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His renaming agenda is related to continuity of any modern state, not only Serbia (i.e. Ottoman Kosovo). Whatever PANONIAN's motives are, the examples you presented confirm that his disruptive actions are predominantly connected with "re-naming agenda" (not only articles and categories but even infoboxes). There is no point to ban him from editing the content (history of his regular useful content editing is impressive) because of his "re-naming agenda". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but infoboxes, the lead, section names, flag use, images, the usage of various terms throughout Wikipedia, and all the other numerous aspects of the dispute(s) with PANONIAN cannot possibly be categorized as "re-naming". I do not see how one can draw a parallel between renaming articles and duplicating infoboxes, categorizing them as such. It is evident from the diffs provided, and indeed from the talkpages themselves, that the user's agenda is certainly not simply to rename articles, but the naming disputes themselves are only one part of a larger POV agenda that, in my opinion also, renders the user practically incapable of participating on the subject of Serbian history in anything like an objective, neutral manner. I pleaded, warned, reasoned - to no avail. The user's suspicious perspective and pronounced WP:BATTLEGROUND disposition make him impervious to any attempts at real discussion, and lead me to believe there is no way he will ever adopt an open-minded, objective disposition on this subject. I'm sure that, even at this point, in his mind he's a poor victim of an "anti-Serbian conspiracy".

And I think there is no question that the user has focused his activity on Serbian history articles, almost without exception, and that his goal is not some huge project to fabricate the appearance of state continuity for all countries, or anything like that. He considers himself a "Serbian patriot", and I need only point to his quid pro quo "proposals", where he offers to leave other countries alone if people let him do what he wants on Serbian history articles. But that's it from me, this report is long enough as it is. -- Director (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I say with rants Producer chooses to say with diffs. There's not much to add, except perhaps PANONIAN's simultaneous exploits on other articles.

• PANONIAN is currently engaged in two simultaneous WP:MOVE WARS. Similarly to what is going on with the Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) article, PANONIAN is attempting to push titles that imply the existence of "Serbia" in various historical time periods. Hence PANONIAN is constantly renaming History of Ottoman Serbia to "Ottoman period in the history of Serbia" [26]. In order for that to make sense, he's also renaming the History of Ottoman Hungary article to "Ottoman period in the history of Hungary" [27][28]. All against opposition, in spite of warnings, and without a WP:RM. He's managed to get the article protected [29], and has accused FocalPoint (talk · contribs) of WP:STALKING [30].
• In a dispute (on the Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) article) about infobox usage, I posted links to about a half-dozen articles to demonstrate my point [31]. Undaunted, PANONIAN simply went over there and changed them so that they support his POV [32][33][34][35][36]. It took me a while to notice, but when I did (following my own original links), I reverted him. Upon which I was accused of stalking and "personal harassment" on WT:MILHIST [37].
• Similarly, in order to support his argument on the Serbia article, he renamed the Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France article to "Belgium and Northern France" without a word of discussion. When an RM was posted, the move was unanimously opposed [38].

It seems the whole mess on the Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) article is just a part of a larger agenda to somehow imply continuity of state or something of the sort. I do not claim to understand what in the world User:PANONIAN is thinking with all this, I just know I've tried my absolute best to talk to the user. Nothing anyone could say or do has prevailed to change PANONIAN's opinion or position one iota. Facing a wall of opposition on the article talkpage, he's now attempting to restart the same tired and chewed-out discussion on WT:MILHIST. For the twentieth time.

P.s. I'll add that, on two occasions, when PANONIAN wrote a report against somebody on WP:ANI, it was recommended that his conduct be brought up for review on WP:AE with regard to WP:ARBMAC (by Lothar, if I recall). I honestly couldn't bring myself to ask someone to read through that mess over there, and, in either case, just didn't have the time to write up a comprehensive report the likes of PRODUCER's. -- Director (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me see:

• User:DIREKTOR have a long block list. I do not remember that I had any notable dispute with User:PRODUCER anywhere, so "cooperation" with DIREKTOR could be the only logical reason why User:PRODUCER opened this thread against me. History of Chetniks article show a long POV revert warring that includes User:DIREKTOR, User:PRODUCER and User:Peacemaker67: [39]. User:PRODUCER also have a notable history of blocking, while User:Peacemaker67 is also not innocent when blocking history is in question. I am not denying my own blocking history, but recently, I am usually practicing only two reverts in the article before I stop with reverts and fully commit to solve the issue on talk page (here are some examples of my two reverts: [40], [41] - and I am not practicing "two reverts per day", but "two reverts per article"). In another words, I am accused here because of my two reverts by users who are engaged in constant reverts in the Chetniks article.
• Now, let me elaborate issue of "existence of Serbia" since DIREKTOR wrongly interpreted my statements and pulled my comments and behavior out of proper context. I have in fact very different position about subjects of two mentioned articles - in Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) article, my position is that this territory was known as Serbia (and I collected these sources in support of that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 ). In article History of Ottoman Serbia I have quite opposite position that there was no such thing as "Ottoman Serbia". So, claim of User:DIREKTOR that I want "to push titles that imply the existence of Serbia in various historical time periods" is simply incorrect. This shows that User:DIREKTOR reverted my edit here without even knowing my position there. In fact, this is example of a blind revert performed by User:DIREKTOR, who recently tracked my edits and reverted my edits in several articles that he never edited before: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] - this is obvious example of Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding.
• Now, let me elaborate the whole history of issue with History of Ottoman Serbia: 1. I renamed that article to "History of Serbia during Ottoman administration" in March 17, 2. User:Zoupan and User:Antidiskriminator agreed with that and User:Antidiskriminator said that I should also rename categories of other countries, which I subsequently done. 3. After I renamed article and category about Greece, an Greek user reverted my edits in Greek-related articles and also reverted my edit in Serbia-related article. This user have full right to edit which article he wants, and I admit that it was not nice from me to say that he stalks me, but I spent lot of my free time to rename all these country categories and I was a bit annoyed by the fact that somebody is reverting my edits like this. But if accusing someone for Wiki stalking is so bad thing, then I am guilty. Also note that article History of Ottoman Serbia was protected after DIREKTOR's revert (not after my own). I repeat that I had only two reverts there, supported by my comments on the talk page, while DIREKTOR reverted me blindly after he tracked my edits thinking that I want to "push title that imply the existence of Serbia", while I claimed quite opposite thing on the talk page. Also note that DIREKTOR never before edited that article and did not posted a single comment on its talk page.
• Regarding the dispute in Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) article, which is the main reason why this thread against me was opened, please note that this thread was opened just after I agreed with solution for the dispute proposed by an admin and after this admin personally removed disputed flag of Nazi Germany from the article (and the usage of that flag there was the main thing to which I objected). PANONIAN 13:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My relationship with PANONIAN has consisted of:

• Accusations from his side of wiki stalking 1 May 2012, 1 May again, 2 May, which he refused to remove from my discussion page
• Quid pro quo offers "you can have what ever name you want in Greek article (I will not touch any more either that one or other ones about non-Central European countries)", May 1st, "I will not touch either Greek-related articles/categories either articles/categories about Mediterranean countries.", "I repeat: I will not touch any Greek-related category, so you can stop to track and revert my edits." May 2nd
• Accusations of moving Wikipedia to heavy POV, disruption of categorization, propensity to aggressive revert-warring
• Refusal to accept consensus making [48], making User:Macrakis to warn him that continuing this way risks having him considered a disruptive editor
• Even here in this present discussion, he is attempting to characterize me using a nationality, choosing to ignore my edits for the categories of Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Tripolitania something which I find completely unacceptable.

I have the following corrections and clarifications to the statements above (as well as to the replies by PANONIAN which if I remember well is not an acceptable practice, as statements by other users should stand on their own - ACTION IS REQUIRED BY ADMINISTRATOR):

• PANONIAN is not engaged only in two simultaneous MOVE WARS. He has decided (without discussing with interested parties) that all categories in Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by country shall be changed from their name "Ottoman AREA" to "History of COUNTRY during Ottoman administration" and he performed a significant number of movements on the 18th-19th March 2012
• Having realized that this was a movement without any discussion I started reverting his moves, from "Category:History of Greece, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Libya, Hungary during Ottoman administration" to the previous, established "categories:Ottoman Greece, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Libya, Hungary" and I asked him to discuss the issue in public, not in our discussion pages (March 30). He has reverted everything back, with the exception of Greece (the Quid for Quo offer which I discussed above), despite a discussion on 1st of April, coming back on the 1st of May, moving the article again. Again, asking him to discuss the issue in Category talk:History of the Ottoman Empire by country (1st May)
• PANONIAN claims that User:Zoupan and User:Antidiskriminator agreed with him that he should also rename categories of other countries. This is a very clear indication of how he chooses to interpret it as an agreement: He was kindly asked by both user to discuss the issue ("you can start a discussion to move them all, or just revert to Category:Ottoman Serbia" and "either all categories should be moved after discussion, or none."). After all this discussion, he still believes that he has had an agreement.
• Later on, he has decided to move all these categories to a new name: "Category:Ottoman period in the history of COUNTRY", a move which he performed on May 2 (again no discussion, just a massive move of a big number of articles and categories.

Overall, I find that User:PANONIAN either chooses to ignore discussions or cannot understand whether there is agreement or cannot accept agreement opposite to his views. This, together with his choice for unilateral action without discussion and his capacity for a very big number of edits, creates significant problems in Wikipedia. I believe that some kind of restraint has to be considered. --FocalPoint (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, FocalPoint, this and this means that Zoupan and Antidiskriminator agreed with title "History of X during Ottoman administration" and my reply to Antidiskriminator shows that I renamed country categories in agreement with him and after he proposed that I should do that. I renamed these categories in very good faith and I did not expected that somebody will object to my actions. Furthermore, I spent lot of time to rename these articles and categories and, due that, I was very annoyed by the fact that you started to revert my edits, while users Zoupan and Antidiskriminator subsequently changed their own position about the subject (and I acted exactly in accordance with proposal of Antidiskriminator). In another words, I was very annoyed and I told you what I told you because of that. How would you fell to spend several hours in good faith category renaming just to find out that somebody will subsequently revert your edits? Furthermore, I discussed the issue on talk page and I had only one or two reverts in disputed articles, so how exactly is this the example of some "major disruption"? I certainly had no intention to be involved in long-term revert warring about this - evidence for this is fact that I did not touched any more Greek-related articles - I thought that FocalPoint is only concerned about these articles. But, nevertheless, I think that there should be evidence that I had more than two reverts in some of the articles if one want to claim that I had intention of long-term revert warring in any of these articles. I was simply annoyed by the fact that I lost several hours of my time for nothing, that is all. PANONIAN 20:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is exactly my point. Since:

• you cannot make a clear distinction whether someone says "yes" or whether they say "let us discuss" with statements such as "you can start a discussion to move them all, or just revert to Category:Ottoman Serbia" and "either all categories should be moved after discussion, or none."
• you are spending several hours of your time for nothing based on such erroneous and single sided decisions, without resorting to consultation
• you have difficulty in accepting that several hours of your time were lost for nothing and keep insisting for a very long time on these positions

well, it may be a good idea to protect yourself and the wikipedia by following some restrictions (if this process decides to such restrictions). Think about it. It might not be such a bad thing after all. --FocalPoint (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But after these users agreed with name that I proposed I did not thought that I have to discuss this with somebody else. I did not had idea that anybody would object my actions. PANONIAN 22:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PANONIAN, what you claim is incorrect. I never supported your one-sided decision and actions to rename "Ottoman Serbia" article, or any other "Ottoman X" article or category. I wrote (on your talkpage, not on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion) that I agree with Zoupan that either all categories should be moved after discussion, or none when Zoupan pointed to: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and explained you that you can:

1. either "start discussion" in order to rename all articles and categories,
2. or revert to "Ottoman X" title

because "there should be a norm" (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Zoupan said that "History of X during Ottoman administration" as it is better than "Ottoman X". Obviously, I misunderstood with which part of his post you agree. PANONIAN 07:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I became "involved" in this dispute one day while stalking WP:SPI. I noticed that DIREKTOR, whom I had seen around in various places and had some passing incidental interactions with, was the subject of one of the investigations and decided to check it out—it's always interesting when an established editor gets mixed up in such funny business. But when I looked at the SPI, something immediately felt not quite "kosher" about it. Peacemaker67 and D seemed to me to be clearly not the same person—similar views on a topic do not make two people the same. Using the wikichecker tool, my suspicions were confirmed. The editing patterns of these two users checked out for the places of the world they said they were from; D would have to be up 24/7 to operate the PM67 account in such a way. Based on this, checkuser was declined and the SPI thrown unceremoniously into the closing heap. The "sockpuppetry" accusations should have ended right there and then. Imagine my surprise and consternation when I see that PANONIAN is tossing around the same nonsense claims at AN/I a few days later. The fact that he eventually was forced to retreat from this position means little when you consider that he held that line for weeks in the face of damning evidence and repeated requests that he stop. The fact that he attempted to canvass two "friendly" editors to support him (1, 2) should also be noted.

As for the underlying content dispute, I don't have much to say; I have not been involved much with it. However, it should be noted that P made an attempt to change the title of a different article pertaining to a WWII German military administration (see Talk:Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France#Requested move) in order to influence the debate at the "Serbia" article in his favour. This cannot be viewed as anything but more forumshopping on his part. In my view, PANONIAN displays a gross WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in this topic area. Sanctions are long overdue.

Note: As I am going to be very busy IRL this week, I won't be able to participate much here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar von Richthofen, these diffs where I accused Peacemaker67 to be sockpuppet of DIREKTOR are more than a month old - I said in ANI board that I will not repeat such accusations publicly ever again, and I never did (after ANI thread about these accusations, I mean - not after my initial request for checkuser investigation). Why one should impose sanctions on me when I clearly changed my behavior regarding this issue? I am very reasonable person, so if administrators think that I should change anything else in my behavior, it would be enough that they tell me what I should change and I will never repeat that behavior (and if I do repeat anything that administrators would tell me not to repeat, they are free to block me for good). PANONIAN 20:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this thread is about a long-term behaviour pattern; as such, I feel justified in presenting the situation in full. I don't regard these diffs to be critical, just more bits of evidence in the case. A "very reasonable" person would have dropped the matter after a Checkuser summarily rejected the case. You, on the other hand, needed to be near-shouted down in multiple venues to finally get the message. And even after it was finally driven into your head that they could not possibly be the same person, you continued to accuse the two of meatpuppetry. Though this request is not about that drama specifically, it is about your conduct in the topic area in general; this incident, though a bit old, is recent enough to demonstrate a pattern of problematic behaviour on your part. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Lothar, I said that I will not spoke publicly about this any more and I do not want to broke my word. If you want, I can send you email where I will explain myself and this case in private conversation? PANONIAN 21:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding article about "Administration in Belgium and Northern France", don't you think that I renamed that article simply because I thought that other name is better? Note that my interest include various parts of the World, including this: [49]. So, I am not editing articles about other countries with "only goal of influencing the debate at the Serbia articles in my favour". PANONIAN 20:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your mentioning of global interest is a red herring. The two articles deal with highly similar subjects and should be viewed as related. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that two articles are related. I only thought that I am doing right thing after I saw these sources: [50]. After DIREKTOR reverted my article renaming I did not reverted him, but I opened discussion on the talk page where I asked other users for opinion. After most users rejected my proposal, I did not edited that article again or spoke again about name of this article. I think that this is nice example of my disruptive behavior. :) PANONIAN 21:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment here by User:EdJohnston; I was the admin that steered the above-mentioned discussion on Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. Yes, I believe that particular dispute is now settled, though I'm waiting for any further comments that interested parties may wish to make, before putting into place what has been agreed upon. However, what I saw in the course of steering that discussion, yes, I do believe that User:PANONIAN is showing a lack of Good Faith, a lack of WP:NPOV, is not always assuming other editors have legitimate points of view, and is certainly treating WP as a battleground. I would personally believe that at the very least he needs to be strongly counselled as to the fundamental purposes of wikipedia, and, given his long editing history here, should that not have effect, strong penalties ought to be under consideration. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One correction. I'm afraid that, if we consider PANONIAN a participant, the dispute is very far from settled. In fact, as I pointed out at WT:MILHIST, in that case it hasn't progressed an inch in several months. This is simply because, no matter what sources or arguments are presented, PANONIAN will in essence simply ignore them and re-start the discussion over and over and over again. At best he might offer some "quid pro quo compromise" half-way between sources and fantasy. You may have gotten the wrong impression due to the fact that I (and apparently Peacemaker67 as well) am at this point refusing to make a fool of myself and repeat the same "discussion" fort the fifteenth time. -- Director (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Re "fundamental purposes": I should think that an editor active since 2004 with over 50,000 edits [51] should have become well-acquainted by now with how this show is run—especially given the Arbitration-heavy topic area he edits in. The more lenient "strong counselling" option is generally extended to more inexperienced individuals; there really is no excuse for such behaviour from a veteran battleground editor. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let me post my final word at this "trial":

• I will not say that I am example of perfect editor. As User Lothar von Richthofen pointed, I am here for long time, I have many edits, I wrote several hundred articles, created many images and maps for Wikipedia (check my uploads in Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/PANONIAN ), etc, etc. So, I am certainly not fully disruptive editor. Yes, I have bad temper and I do not always assume good faith about other users (partly because in these 8 years I saw a lot of them that indeed are not having good faith), but I am trying to be as polite as I can. Yes, when I am too much annoyed by behavior of others I do send them some maybe "inappropriate comments" from time to time, but even these comments are in the limits of civility.
• However, this talk page is an evidence that I was much more a target of inappropriate behavior of User:DIREKTOR towards me (this user used almost every his post there to discuss my personality instead article content and I mostly tried not to "retaliate" in same way in my posts). Here are the examples of such behavior of DIREKTOR addressed towards me and other users:
  • "Panonian is here for personal reasons, doing nothing more than POV-pushing."
  • "Resorting to organized WP:EDIT-WARRING will not help you, PANONIAN. People are not so stupid as to block only myself in the event of excessive revert-warring. I was very much surprised you stopped edit-warring. I said to myself, "what could PANONIAN be cooking up"? I figured you'd recruit WhiteWriter to try and WP:GAME THE SYSTEM by making sure only I exceed 3RR. A very old trick. I will not allow you to take possession of this article by such means. "
  • "I am not convinced, WhiteWriter. Your behavior smacks strongly of WP:MEATPUPPETRY. In the past year you've made three edits on this article, all three of which have been reverts in a conflict between PANONIAN and myself, in PANONIAN's favor. Your very limited talkpage involvement is also exclusively in PANONIAN's support (often apparently even without an understanding of what exactly PANONIAN is arguing for)."
  • "But I think its important to note that PANONIAN at this point basically does not really care about sources, or what the two of us have to say. He can summarily dismiss them both because he knows he (or WihiteWriter) will always revert the edit that introduces improvements he doesn't like, and anyone who restores it - will get blocked. And its very hard to really have an unambiguous "consensus" with three users participating, so he can always claim there isn't one. Worst case scenario, he calls-up WhiteWriter and tells him to "vote" in one of his nonsense "polls"."
  • "Panonian will never ever agree to certain changes he is against for personal reasons"
  • "I just reverted the absurd WP:OVERTAGGING and your nationalist-POV subsection switch"
• So, DIREKTOR clearly used his posts for inappropriate personal comments about me and other users that do not share his position - he raised direct accusation that user WhiteWriter is my meatpuppet and that two of us are involved in "organized revert warring", while I was constantly accused for POV-pushing, nationalism, personal reasons, etc.
• While my involvement in "Ottoman history of countries" was just an episode and fully isolated incident, there is indeed long term dispute between me and DIREKTOR in various pages related to World War II in Yugoslavia (Peacemaker67 and PRODUCER are only "cooperating" with DIREKTOR there). Please see examples of this Woorld War II dispute in various articles: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]
• Also see involvement of DIREKTOR, PRODUCER and Peacemaker in other WWII articles which I did not edited - there, these 3 users had disputes with others: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. this link and this link are showing long-term revert warring that involved these 3 users for almost 2 years - just check their names and reverts in these two lists.
• Finally, let me admit my guilt and propose my punishment: I admit involvement in long-term dispute with User:DIREKTOR in article that is currently named Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) (and this dispute lasts for more than a year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbia_(Territory_of_the_German_Military_Commander)/Archive_2 ). So, I am proposing that both of us are topic baned for 6 months from editing of articles related to World War II in Yugoslavia (I need a rest from that, anyway). Similar sanctions against PRODUCER and Peacemaker67 should be considered, due to their involvement in this long-term revert warring with multiple users. PANONIAN 07:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please address your own conduct, rather than constantly criticizing mine for some reason? Cherry-picking comments our of context is what you attempted in your several ANI reports, and the only thing that came out of that was a recommendation to bring your own behavior up for review here. That said, if you believe you really have a legitimate grievance this time, file another report. Here though, my sincerest advice is that you please focus on your conduct, rather than that of others. -- Director (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Near as I can tell, PANONIAN has realised that his ship is fast a-sinkin' here and has decided to try and take his opposition down with him. In any nasty dispute, there will be reprehensible conduct on both sides; it is important, however, to recognise the primary instigator of the problems and move accordingly in any enforcement. In this case, I think it has become clear that PANONIAN is that instigator. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am only proposing small "punishment" for all of us. I personally was not active in Wikipedia for about 2 years by my own choice, so I do not see that "6 months topic ban" is an example of a big "take down". It would be reasonable period for everybody involved in this to cool their heads. I was already thinking to take a Wiki break from this subject for few months, so I did not proposed anything that I did not already planned. Why you think that I am "main instigator" here? PANONIAN 09:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points of clarification before I address the AE. I wanted to come here with the SPI/meatpuppet nonsense, but just didn't have the skills or time that PRODUCER has committed here, and I thank PRODUCER for the diffs and comprehensive way this has been approached. I've also only been on here for six months, and am still learning the ropes about what is appropriate or not. The above accusation that I've been conspiring with PRODUCER and DIREKTOR for almost 2 years is clearly nonsense (I've only been on here for six months, for starters). Some of the reverting on the articles he is referring to was reverting of an editor who was subsequently topic banned after a lot of disruption similar to that PANONIAN has engaged in.

However, to keep to the point, PANONIAN has been extremely difficult to discuss matters with due to a bad case of chronic WP:OWN and failure to WP:AGF on Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. I have found this extremely frustrating. When I was really at the end of my rope, in desperation I brought the matter to WT:MILHIST, where Buckshot06 was kind enough to get involved and bring the key issues to a resolution, despite (I might say, rather than due to) PANONIAN's continuation of his application of the sustained rate of repetition and his ignoring of sources in favour of raw Google search hits on the word 'Serbia' and maps from the Bronx community college website. His lack of engagement with WP policy can be seen from his complete lack of engagement with it at Talk:Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia#WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well,let just examine these diffs that I collected from few articles.

Chetniks article:

• [63] - 11:25, 24 February 2012, Peacemaker67 reverted Jingiby
• [64] - 11:35, 24 February 2012, Peacemaker67 reverted Jingiby
• [65] - 11:41, 24 February 2012, DIREKTOR reverted BoDu
• [66] - 12:18, 24 February 2012, Peacemaker67 reverted BoDu
• [67] - 16:01, 24 February 2012, DIREKTOR reverted BoDu
• [68] - 17:16, 24 February 2012, PRODUCER reverted BoDu
• [69] - 22:44, 24 February 2012, Peacemaker67 reverted BoDu
• [70] - 10:45, 26 February 2012, PRODUCER reverted BoDu
• [71] - 23:44, 26 February 2012, DIREKTOR reverted BoDu

similar examples could be seen in other pages, for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Yugoslav_Axis_collaborationism

• [72] - 11:41, 24 February 2012‎, DIREKTOR reverted BoDu
• [73] - 12:28, 24 February 2012, DIREKTOR reverted BoDu
• [74] - 12:50, 24 February 2012‎, DIREKTOR reverted BoDu
• [75] - 13:27, 24 February 2012, Peacemaker67 reverted BoDu
• [76] - 17:21, 24 February, PRODUCER reverted BoDu
• [77] - 22:40, 24 February, Peacemaker67 reverted BoDu
• [78] - 10:44, 26 February, PRODUCER reverted BoDu

Similar problem in Draža Mihajlović article:

• [79]
• [80]

These are obvious examples of coordinated revert warring of 3 users about controversial subject of Chetnik collaboration in WW2, where these users aimed to propagate one-sided POV about the subject. PANONIAN 10:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Coordinated revert warring of 3 users"? Or maybe there was just one user—BoDu—who didn't get the message and continued pushing his own views in the face of consensus, as the later AE case would indicate? Hmm, that sounds remarkably like...... you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's two months, not two years? User:BoDu was topic-banned for 90 days [[81]]. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was not banned in the time of your revert-warring, was he? I am not saying that his behavior was good, but how exactly is your behavior better? PANONIAN 11:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in February 24, you had revert war against two users in one same article - these are 4 reverts in one article in a single day. PANONIAN 11:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "2 years", DIREKTOR and PRODUCER are present here so long. Your account joined them latter, of course. PANONIAN 11:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:FORUMSHOPPING war was conducted by User:BoDu in order to prevail by "alternative" means in a content dispute on Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism. After being blocked and forced to stop edit-warring against everyone, the user posted a thread on WP:DRN, tried to delete the whole template on WP:TFD, reported User:Director on WP:ANI, canvassed various admins to sanction him, and so on. Then WP:AE against User:Director, which WP:BOOMERANGed. That's it in a nutshell. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker, it's unnecessary to play into PANONIAN's little "diversion". He's here to answer for his actions and his actions only. These attempts at shifting attention to something else only further illustrate his failure to do so. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PRODUCER, I stand corrected. Interesting that he's reverted to referring to me as 'your account'... You're not back to sockpuppet accusations, are you PANONIAN? Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that user Director POV pushed large amount of data and articles, without anyone's agreement or consensus, now when PANONIAN is under enforcement. Also, i find unacceptable that only one side takes punishment while other was equally problematic, if not even more. And i want to say that this report seams fabricated, as only one side was presented, without other aspects. User PANONIAN edit wikipedia for years, and he created numerous fantastic articles and contributions, so it looks interesting that only this traveling circus finds him disruptive. PANONIAN is only editor in this dispute that tryed all ways to resolve the problems, while user DIREKTOR mostly ignored all others that are not in his POV. Endless repetition of your POV is not enough for constructive solution. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that the administrator who had to mediate the dispute at WT:MILHIST is now part of this "travelling circus"? Pfft. Get real. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the majority of PANONIAN's problems stem from attempts to rewrite Serbian history to fit into his specific POV. As far as I can tell, there have been no major objections to his edits that deal with current Serbian politics or geography. Perhaps an indefinite topic ban specifically pertaining to Serbian history that took place over 20 or so years ago would be more appropriate, with a clear understanding that if he should try to circumvent the spirit of the topic ban or wikilawyer to find ways around it that it would then turn into an indefinite topic ban for all articles related to Serbia with a 6 month appeal. AniMate 01:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AniMate that sanction should prevent disruption in area that is identified as problematic. Majority of PANONIAN's problems stem from "the renaming issue". Even 2007 ANI complaint presented by EdJohnston says " Particularly for his edits at Ahtum and Sermon (ruler) he is replacing the proper article name "Samuil of Bulgaria" with "Samuil" as to justify his POV agenda." There have been no major objections to his other edits unrelated to his renaming agenda. Perhaps an indefinite ban to rename or discuss renaming articles or categories would be more appropriate, with same other conditions mentioned above and limited duration block (a week, month...) after strong councelling.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I notified User:Buckshot06 and User:Tiptoety of this AE request since they are admins who have taken some actions related to this topic. Sanctions should be considered for User:PANONIAN. I've been following the discussion about Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia since the article has been mentioned at ANI (for instance here on 28 April). The question is what is the best title to use. It seems there is no perfect title, and we would expect editors to consult the sources and come up with a compromise that would cause the least astonishment. In the discussion at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia it seemed to me that PANONIAN had a single-minded determination that Serbia existed as a country during the German occupation and he would reject any sources to the contrary found by others. The evidence suggests that PANONIAN is unable to participate neutrally in talk-page discussions concerning Serbia. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The display at the above-linked talkpages isn't pretty, and I'm inclined to agree with EdJohnston's assessment. I'd like to see PANONIAN banned from all articles and discussions related to Serbia, broadly construed; whether that should be a time-fixed ban or an indefinite one I'd like other opinions on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles related to Serbia represent ~.001% of the articles we have on Wikipedia; surely you can find something else to edit. If you do good work elsewhere, that'll be something we take into consideration. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blade of the Northern Lights, EdJohnston, two points. Firstly, is Panonian allowed to edit in this section ? It is marked for uninvolved admins only. Surely this has to be enforced. Secondly, Blade of the Northern Lights, if you wish to consider my view, I would completely agree with your proposal re Panonian. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's supposed to edit one of the sections above, but I'm not going to try moving comments on an iPhone, so it'd be greatly appreciated if someone else could handle that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless there are any objections, I'm going to suggest an indefinite ban from all articles and discussion related to Serbia, broadly construed, with the opportunity to appeal after 90 days. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK to me and I will accept your judgment on the review interval, though I would prefer an option for appeal in six months. PANONIAN has been on Wikipedia for six years. His block log shows sanctions for POV pushing going back to 2007, so a rapid reform is unlikely. See the 2007 ANI complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at that, I'd agree six months would be better. If there are no objections in the next few hours I'll shut this down. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

1. 08:26, 2 May 2012 Removed "Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area, and Hamas was known to conduct operations..." along with other sourced material
2. 11:11, 2 May 2012 Removed "Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area, and Hamas was known to conduct operations..."

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

He was party in original case and he was banned as the result of it.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to violating 1rr, whether deliberate or unintentional, Nishidani was advised to revert his last edit by myself, ZScarpia, AnkhMorpork, and Ed Johnston who advised "unless you see a BLP violation against a named person or an obvious falsification of sources it seems like you should revert your own edit pending discussion." Nishidani has declined these requests, despite acknowledging his violation several times:12 He is an experienced editor that has previous blocks for edit-warring on I-P topics.His indefinite I-P ban was lifted by Arbitration committee in July 2011[82]

@Tim : I don't understand what "ludicrous" about asking harsh sanctions for person that refused to self revert and have returned from indefinite ban.Its not like someone reverted him again he was given full possibility to fix his mistake but refused too.--Shrike (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean:I don't think his presence is a good to the area.Here is few one example of violation of WP:NPA:

• [83] accuse other editors here of "hasbara", of "toeing" an "Israeli political line"
• [84] Accusing other editors having "ethnic WP:COI"and "acking the serenity to look at the question encyclopedically,"

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[85]

Shrike is quite correct. It's no excuse that I didn't realize at the time that my two edits constituted an IR infraction. On a point of honour, I have refused the proferred option to revert the second edit because I don't want to spoil my record: I've never consciously introduced false or misleading material into wikipedia articles. No one who has discussed this on Ed Johnson or my page has challenged my view that the second edit removed a patent piece of fabricated material, but all suggest that I should restore it pro forma to show that I will abide by the rules. In the impasse between personal honour and obedience to a martinet reading of wikipedia culture, I prefer the first, and I respect the right of a plaintiff to get me suspended or banned. All you need determine is the severity of my violation, and the length of the sentence, then. I would ask that all editors, now that Shrike has had his day in court, leave it to the appropriate arbitrators to determine the sanction that is due, without wasting their time in a boring thread of defence or attack to mitigate or exaggerate the natural penalty. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morpork. Really? (We shouldn't be arguing this here, btw. I've admitted the IR infraction. Your construal of Luke's edit, like my analysis, is available at the relevant pages.)

:"Samouni family members did not deny that Hamas militants operated in the area. A family member said there was no active Hamas resistance in the immediate vicinity, although militants were firing rockets at Israel a little more than a mile away." The New York Times source.

:"Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area," and Hamas was known to conduct operations in the vicinity.Luke's reduction.

What the Samounis did not deny does not translate into 'they affirmed'. Tzipi Livni defined all members of Hamas, officials, pen-pushers, police, army, teachers as terrorists, and therefore the POV Hamas militants does not distinguish between combatants and nondescript members of the organization. Because of this source failure, you cannot use 'Hamas militants' to imply the reference is to active members of the Hamas militias. Esp. because the source says they were over a mile away from the Zeitoun residence. The Israeli government and one researcher have maintained at times that they were not shooting at Hamas members at Zeitoun, but members of Islamic Jihad, another organization.

What Luke did was collapse distinct elements of the NYTs, elide the geographical difference by collapsing a mile into the immediate vicinity of the Samouni houses, and push the innuendo that Hamas was firing from near the Samouni's compound. Really, this is elementary English construal. It's obvious.

The NYTs distinction between the Samouni testimony (backed by the Goldstone report) that Hamas was not active in their immediate vicinity and the apparent editorial clause, 'militants were firing rockets at Israel' over a mile away were conflated and muddled to make out that in the area where the Samouni were killed, Hamas were 'firing rockets' into Israel. It stands out like dogs' balls, probably those of Blind Freddy and his mutt. Both Shrike and yourself admit Luke's edit was poor. The gravamen of your charge is that this is irrelevant. Fine, but don't now try to justify the poor edit I fixed according to sources. It was a lead sentence, and couldn't conserve the source's complete remarks. I've argued this exhaustively twice. If you follow my remarks to Luke's edits as he stalked me, you will find many examples showing that he makes wildly skewed inferences from what I write and has a poor command of English. He's not on trial here, so defending his edit is not appropriate, esp. since his WP:SYNTH was and remains, construed against the source, indefensible. All that need be done here is pass sentence on my infraction of a rule, okay? The article would have been written by now were it not for this endless pettifogging by editors who don't trust one to do an honest job of thorough recension of all relevant sources. The game appears to be to turn up as soon as someone like myself touches these articles, and make life difficult with bad edits, poor sourcing or sheer blague.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean. For me to hope that I might wriggle out of the consequences of my error by expecting that admin close an eye to the mechanical application of a rule, would be to avail myself of what Giorgio Agamben has analysed as a "state of exception". Since all my work in the I/P area is premised on the contrary, that state actors must be judged by universal rules, (this corresponds to WP:NPOV by neither scape-goating, say Israel or the US, nor holding to the idea that whenever their actions are described we must always allow for their exceptional status, beyond customary or international law), it follows that, if I infringe what is a fundamental rule, I should pay the consequences and not expect some special consideration.

In lieu of a gentlemanly agreement to close an eye - one cannot hold others to a norm one otherwise subscribes to in their regard - a sanction is clearly due.

Shrike wants a permaban. Frankly that is silly. It is wildly incommensurate with the, in retrospect, innocuous slip (pas trop de zèle, Talleyrand's witty wisdom, is what I momentarily forgot) I made to correct a bad edit. My original permaban was for 8 reverts over 45 days, mainly against someone later identified as a sockpuppet operating contemporaneously 2 accounts in order to form a tagteam duo and push for a devastatingly innovative POV policy over Judea & Samaria. I was permabanned, but the point I and a few others, with a 100 academic sources against zilch to back our interpretation, had argued for became policy. So the permaban was, retrospectively, fine by me because it had achieved something to the good of the encyclopedia, a sacrifice worth the penalty. I didn't complain, sat out the ban, and admin, as I trusted they would, eventually reconsidered without my whingeing for a restoration of my editing rights. Shrike's solution is a tad 'ballistic' or 'viral', a bit like being consigned to the 9th cerchio of Dante's inferno because you'd dropped a whimpy puff (innocuous fart) at a papal audience.

I've slipped up, I think twice, on 1R, an excellent rule, because I'm pretty poor on the interpretation of policy: I freely admit I'm not a policy wonk, and have never read any one page of the guidelines. I rely on impressions of gossip, and commonsense. Before I suspended myself for a month. On my page I was about to do the same here, but Kafka got in the way.

Luke, who I have frequently remonstrated with for stalking me, and not familiarizing himself with the niceties of the English language nor all the relevant material bearing on articles, suggests 2 weeks. A decent compromise would be a month from all articles. This costs me, since I've promised Truthkeeper to fix the Charles Dickens article, and I'm enjoying that. I'll apply this provisory sanction myself.

If that's not sufficient, per consensus, then it can be automatically extended by an admin. Okay?Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, No More Mr Nice Guy, but I can't resist the pun at your confusion of honour (τιμή) and ὕβρις, which no pagan like myself would conflate. The former was the basis for civilization, the latter a seed of its destruction. So, ἄτηboy!Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'looks like a sympathetic admin is going to delay your downfall.' Well, well. Proverbs, 16:18 לפני־שבר גאון ולפני כשלון גבה רוח׃ How enchanting an allusion! We were supposed to be thinking in Greek terms, hybris etc. but of course Daniel Boyarin does argue that 'Judaism is from the very beginning a Hellenistic form of culture' (Border lines: the partition of Judaeo-Christianity, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004 p.82). Your remark suggests that my 'downfall' is inevitable, that it is "in the works". Well, after 6 years in the I/P area, I've had the odd inkling that getting me nableesied is a priority for some folks. You could be right. Luck (not Luke), what the Greeks calls Τύχη, is not on my side: as another proverb says: 'If it wuz rainen c**ts, I'd cop an arsehole.' I do think you chaps overdramatize a bit, and if it happens, I'll go off with an appropriate song, though no doubt "geschmückt wie ein Pfingstochse" (Walter Burkert, Homo Necans, p.8, from memory) But your Teiresian prognostication could be just wishful thinking. Good luck. A lot of effort has been put into this, most recently with the euphuistic good cop/illiterate bad cop gamesmanship playing at my heels as I'm sleuthed and sweetened up for the kill. Whatever, just as I won't on principle blame the admins if I'm cast into eternal silence, I don't think you guys should blame them if they happen, on this or any other occasion, to read things differently.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR wrap-up. So, please decide(and put an end to these pathetic agony columns. It is acutely embarrasing to have to always descend to defend one's behaviour here, like some dum con at the bar before his death sentence is pronounced. My behaviour on wikipedia is on the articles I have written, which in this area, (unlike all those who complain of my obnoxiousness and 'frightful' presence), have covered empathetically the cultures of both peoples in the I/P area, and not in this piddling bickering over commas).

The two self-bans of August 7 and December I registered in high visibility on my talk page are now added to the list, (I could have just notified my talk page quietly of my intention if I wished to be devious) so that an attempt to sanction or punish myself for unwitting errors no one fussed about become further damning evidence for some congenital behavioural problem that trumps the evidence of many articles actually completed to a close approximination to WP:NPOV. It's rather peculiar that an attempt to be fastidiously ethical at one's own expense is now cogent evidence for a lack of proper respect for wikipedia requiring severe administrative oversight.

I’ll deal only with one, the first, Ezra Nawi. This is how it looked. It stood at 6k, and intense talkpage discussionfocused on his conviction some decades ago for statutory rape. One editor there was even so prepossessed by the sexual issue he provided extensive ‘evidence’ in the Gaelic Wikipedia. It was shoddily written, mired in innuendo, and crudely conflicted, with a lot of negative IP vandalism and had stagnated for 2 years in that sorry state. Editors on both sides fought over whether this incident should be showcased (the ‘pro-Israeli editors tendency’), or hidden (‘the pro-Palestinian tendency’) as a WP:BLP violation. It was, worst of all, full of errors which even a rapid glance at readily available articles showed. People battling there seemed not to be reading for anything more than the sex angle. I disagreed with both. I thought the statutory rape issue needed to be addressed. I also thought that the failure to document the major part of his life, his activism, meant that editing in the former, while ignoring the latter, would violate WP:Undue. I built it to 52 k . It took 352 edits , most of them in just two short sessions, amounting to about a week’s work, interrupted by my ban, to do that.

When I stepped in I noticed and removed one of two CATs introduced by Off2riorob here and here, for the simple reason that the CAT (Category:Israeli sex offenders|Israeli sex offenders) seemed invented uniquely for Nawi, and only to exacerbate the problematic atmosphere on that page, since it has no one else in it (and still doesn’t), and there were many existing CATs for sex offenders where several Israelis were listed. The issue was resolved amicably. It was an IR revert. No trouble was raised over this, no threat given, as you can see here (where the 'offended' editor told me, after I decided to suspend myself, to 'stop beating (myself) up' (a nice double entendre!) and here (where User:Hertz1888, perhaps the most level-headed editor on 'the other side' even gently remonstrated with me over what he thought was an excessive, perhaps wholly unnecessary self-suspension).

It’s somewhat odd that an endeavour to set an example (for my 'side', btw) by punishing oneself for what were oversights in an intense period of editing, should be taken as proof that I am, to the contrary, someone who should be permabanned. Or that somehow I suffer from some moral flaw, called hybris, that will spell my doom as a contributor to Wikipedia.

I will never quite get a handle on the martinet tendency in Wikipedia’s I/P culture, and its Pecksniffishness at certain moments, its inability to determine whether the overriding criterion for judging the utility of editors should focus on their capacity for article creation and development, or their ability be ever present without doing anything of substance, while showing an impeccable knowledge of the laws, or engaging in a relentless war, full of tripwires, entrapments, and sleuthing, where most articles in the I/P area are kept in virtual stagnation because every edit there is obsessively watched, and any error lends itself to opportunistic attempts to eliminate an adversary (and this has not been restricted to one side)

Most who complain of other editors do not appear to think that the disgracefully undeveloped nature of most of these articles should require committed wikipedians to renounce the pleasure of just challenging every other edit by an adversary, and actually read comprehensively up on each article’s content, and move the article significantly ahead. It mostly cannot be done, because, as with Justin Martyr, or Pogrom, as soon as you touch the article, it is swarmed from the outset, and nothing, neither policy on RS or dozens of academic books, will change the intransigence that holds articles hostage to a skewed and POV-maimed minimalism. Like it or not, there are three POVs to be represented. The academic consensus of reliable sources, Israeli POV(s) and Palestinian POV(s). I prefer the first, though I have no trouble in admitting that I tend to see most contemporary events in terms of how an informed Palestinian would see them.

I said 'Nableezied' because the game here is to get that log record incrementally stacked with infractions, even if trivial, so that at a certain point, the impression for adminstrators’ eyes unfamiliar with how stacked, stalked and gamed this area tends to be, and the way it operates can't be judged from diffs, cannot but be that this or that person is damaging the place. The impression is gradually created by these endless appeals to A/E, that those targeted are making it hard for the decent, absolutely NPOV- committed majority to keep active here, and are obstructing people whose clean records as often as not testify to the fact that they don’t do much except control, monitor, revert or add a petty POV line to this or that article. 'There's no smoke without fire,' as the cadger said, after botting a half-pack and asking for a light.

This said, as I remarked at the outset, I made a IR error correcting a gravely distorted POV edit when I should have waited 24 hours, and since rules and rules, I deserve a sanction, perhaps one that will be long enough for the particular hounder of the piece to tire of his attempts to track me to every page and raise ridiculous inferences at every move I make, or of his endeavours for ‘conversation’ on my talk page. If he’s fallen for a schadenfreundlich love-hate relationship, and I'm the object of her orectic yearning, he should cathect that emotional afflatus elsewhere on the web. I’m quite ugly, and happily married, and am bored by his cheeky flirtations.

I can see that all this fuss and counter fuss embarrasses admins, who above all are obliged to make a call that stays above the fray, and reads as neither pending to one side or another. I have no problem with whatever sanction is deemed appropriate, and apologize for the inconvenience. But, this kind of situation is, in the real world, farcical, and only exists because wikipedia's I/P culture and its games are not, mostly, what they appear to be. Nishidani (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A final word for Jiujitsuguy. You appeal for 'equality of treatment'. Of course. But. The ARBPIA 2009 decision took out 5 editors from one side, and 2 from the other, and immediately in the aftermath, the position adopted by the 5 was recognized to be the one consonant with one of the 5 pillars, WP:NPOV. It is now policy. Even if the administrators had no way of knowing what we peons on the ground knew (but informal knowledge cannot influence judgements at their level, quite correctly), that User:NoCal100 and User:Canadian Monkey were either a strategically coordinated tagteam or the same person, the formal 3 to 5 verdict, was not, in terms of the numerical imbalance in editors here, quite 'impartial' in a mathematical sense. A few others who actively intervened against us in that deliberation also turned out to be (well, a few of us were pretty sure before and during deliberations) chronic sockpuppets (User:Tundrabuggy). There were no sockpuppets on the side that had the highest casualties in that decision. The systemic bias here you allude to is what any statistical analysis of participation rates will show, and not otherwise. That's not your side's fault, nor the arbitrators fault. The blame lies with a people who allow themselves to be represented here either by people deeply attached to the state that occupies their country or by lunatics like myself, who allow their time to be tithed in what is otherwise an absolutely futile attempt to achieve some balance in the way their realities are depicted on a major encyclopedia, in a world where the major journalistic, as opposed to academic, sources are as Mearsheimer and Walt (2007:168-196) describe them. It's technically impossible to alter this bias (and people like myself accept it as just a fact of wikilife) which favours your side, but you really shouldn't pass your realities off as hard-done by.Nishidani (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NSH001 For the record I did mention this to Shrike as we discussed my edit, here, expecting that he would not accept it as a justification. Now that you mention it, though, he may have a technical point. If I had had that in mind as I did the edit, I would be justified in adducing it, because you should only ignore all rules, a sensible thing but only in exceptional cases, by saying that is your motive in the immediate edit summary, not afterwards. The simple fact is that on the three occasions since 2007 when I've tripped on the 1RR wire, I did so out of dumb ignorance of the niceties of wikilaw regarding that. I'm empirical, not a lawyer, and reflexly think of Rv edits as reverting the whole of an edit. Even my age is no excuse to be dumb. And I should pull my finger out. I didn't, and perhaps it's fair that someone assists, and uses it to poke my eye over this. I think I'll see better in the future if they do. Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Flo, one last point. You write:

I propose a one month I/P topic ban, including talk pages, instead of the self-imposed 1 month article ban.

I meant by my recent self-notification 'all articles on wikipedia', my practice being to ban myself from wikipedia for a month, if I slip up, as I did after the Ezra Nawi instance in Aug 2011, and this is how I interpreted my self-ban immediately, as you may verify if you check my contribs from May 3 four days ago, -I haven't touched the encyclopedia since, except for hanging round here and on my page like a bad smell to respond until a decision is made. (The December selfban was looser in practice, and I actually violated it, because unless a ban is total, one tends to forget and slip from talk pages to the odd article). I'll stick to the first kind of comprehensive self-ban anyway since it covers areas one edits with joy rather than out of a masochistic sense of duty, whatever the outcome, and if the official community ban re the 1/P area turns out to be longer, I'll come back to non-I/P articles like Dickens and Murasaki Shikibu after the month I've set myself has expired. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Boris. I am certainly 'the main source of the drama' for inadvertently making an error. I am not the main source of the AE drama, simply because I offered 'blood', reported myself, declared we should not waste admins time, and that I would sanction myself by a total abstention from wikipedia for a month almost immediately, which wasn't, apparently, enough. (It's forgotten that Shrike, the reporter, reverted back to what he then admitted was a bad edit, and then reported me). People have forgotten commonsense in the I/P area. At Jacob Israel de Haan, very late in the day, I had User:SwaRajSwaDesh reported for repeatedly reverting against all remonstration, the only time I have used this device of reporting someone to AE (Nableezy did it because I don't know how to). On my talk page, the gentleman talked this over with me and we clarified matters. I had the report here immediately quashed, before it could even be discussed. I don't believe AE should ever be used unless there is a very serious danger to articles. If, however, someone, on the most piffling of excuses, esp. jumps at a quibble to deprive me of a right to collaborate on this encyclopedia, I'll bloody well defend myself, even if I have to talk the leg off a chair, and the brain over its boredom threshold, till the chooks come home. Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who made the changes Nishidani reverted, I don't find his actions disruptive. I would say that AGF allows for the 1RR violation to slide. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by AnkhMorpork: The revert was not a simple removal of a "patent piece of fabricated material". The statement "Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area, and Hamas was known to conduct operations in the vicinity" was sourced to this NYT article which states:

"Samouni family members did not deny that Hamas militants operated in the area. A family member said there was no active Hamas resistance in the immediate vicinity, although militants were firing rockets at Israel a little more than a mile away."

Your revert reduced the source to "A Samouni family member said there was no active Hamas resistance in the immediate vicinity." You selectively presented content and you removed the Samouni family's acknowledgment that, "Hamas militants operated in the area" and the reference to "militants were firing rockets at Israel a little more than a mile away".

The previous edit may have been lacking, but not with the flagrant conspicuity with which you have characterised it. I am not assesing the relative merits of the two edits; instead I am stating that your did not remove an "obvious falsification of sources" which Ed Johnston allowed for, nor what you state was a "patent piece of fabricated material". Additionally your edit did not simply remove the previous material; it asserted a distinct POV amidst a content dispute that you were requested to revert but chose not to.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually saying you approve of that smelly bit of weasel-worded POV? "A Samouni family member said there was no active Hamas resistance in the immediate vicinity" DOES NOT mean "the Samouni family's acknowledgment that Hamas militants operated in the area". It means the exact opposite, which is why it is worded to appear otherwise. That sort of weasel-worded text is characteristic of the worst sort of journalism and if Nisjidani removed it, he/she isto be praised, not sanctioned. Also, "immediate vicinity" is not "over a mile away", "immediate vicinity" is ones own back yard. Meowy 20:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please point to where I "approve of" the previous edit.
2. You state that "A Samouni family member said there was no active Hamas resistance..." is not an acknowledgment that militants operated in the area, and that the "immediate vicinity" is not "over a mile away". This is correct, and I believe those edits were based on parts of the source that you chose not to quote: "Samouni family members did not deny that Hamas militants operated in the area."Ankh.Morpork 21:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classic journalist weasel-wording and slights of hand: "Samouni family members did not deny that Hamas militants operated in the area". Samouni family members also did not deny that they took regular trips to the moon where they ate their fill of cheese. The wording "Samouni family members did not deny that Hamas militants operated in the area" actually means that either "Samouni family members were not asked about whether Hamas militants operated in the area" or "Samouni family members did not reply when asked about whether Hamas militants operated in the area". If these Samouni family members were actually asked about whether Hamas militants operated in the area" the quote would have either said "Samouni family members said that Hamas militants operated in the area" or "Samouni family members said that Hamas militants had not operated in the area". Meowy 01:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this AE request is closed with a sanction, can anyone suggest what it ought to be? EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think because of the history this should indefinite ban.Also his refusal to revert is troublesome people were sanctioned even after they reverted--Shrike (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite ban seems like a very odd thing to ask for. Nish hasn't done anything wrong apart from break a 1RR rule. That wouldn't have happened if Luke had stayed out of the topic area and you had opened a discussion instead of reverting. I struggle to see how Nish is the bad guy who needs to be removed from the topic area or how that would that benefit the topic area given his knowledge of the topic and policy. He is honest, he isn't a sockpuppet, he doesn't harass people, he is able to distinguish between right and wrong, he doesn't advocate on behalf of sockpuppets and do things like ask admins to reveal the confidential evidence used to identify them, he doesn't confuse the good guys, admins and editors doing their job to protect Wikipedia, with the bad guys, advocates, sockpuppets etc, he admitted the violation but wouldn't revert as a matter of principal. It's his choice to be constrained by principals and take the consequences but those consequences should at least be reasonable and designed to maximize the benefit to the project rather than harm the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I resent and deny the above suggestion of sockpuppetry (I've even been called a Jew, not that that's a bad thing), I agree that Nishidani's behavior isn't overly disruptive. Honestly, I love his sassy mouf. Two week I-P topic ban, not including talk pages. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but from my perspective your actions caused this (although I'm sure triggering a 1RR violation was not your intent) and it would have been better if they hadn't. I think it would be wrong for an editor to be sanctioned because of a sequence of events triggered by, how shall I phrase this, the actions of another editor when there is a significant difference in the degree to which the presence of each editor in the topic area complies with policy, a difference that directly impacts on the validity of any edits they make, hypothetically speaking. It would be wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you warned recently about instigating on AE boards that don't involve you? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you may be thinking of this User_talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive_7#Discretionary_sanctions_notification where I volunteered "not comment at AE reports anymore unless I file them or they are filed against me", a self-imposed restriction I lift when certain specific criteria I use to decide whether to involve myself in an issue are met, and I think, or at least hope, that I might be able to add some signal rather than noise to the discussion. This is a little off topic though because this section should be for presenting information that will help admins decide on the appropriate sanction for Nish's 1RR violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was refering to when Admin HJ Mitchell said, It's equally concerning that a group of editors, and Sean.hoyland in particular, would see an AE request against a third party as an appropriate venue to thrash out their personal differences. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and AE certainly isn't ...I've given Sean.hoyland a formal notification of the discretionary sanctions. Other editors should be aware that hijacking AE threads (especially those on third parties) for interpersonal disputes will lead to sanctions should it recur... and here you are turning a conversation about Nishidani into a finger-pointing party. Don't suck me into your no-fun parties. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every 1RR violation is "caused" by someone making an edit the violator didn't like.

Also, a reasonable sanction for an editor with a long history of blocks who violates 1RR and refuses to undo his edit as a "point of honour" (read: hubris), would be what exactly in your book? Pretend we're not talking about one of your buddies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a reasonable sanction would be for this case. I have an opinion about what an unreasonable sanction would be and why. That is what I've tried to explain here. Reasonable and unreasonable things happen everyday though. Life goes on. The garden still grows. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The garden still grows

The dough flows to Stanley Ho

Block for sas-mouf?, No!

Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nish, your downfall is inevitable not because it's "in the works" but because of your behavior. I'm sure you consider editors making edits you don't like "entrapment" in the same way you think it's your job to pedantically correct the grammar mistakes of your interlocutors. Neither is true. The only thing "nableezied" here is an admin trying to let you off the hook for something other editors with your history would get a lengthy ban in a heartbeat. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

I am requesting that another administrator review this AE and render an opinion independent from the one noted by T. Canes. I realize that T. Canes, as the first admin to comment wants to set the tenor and direction of this case. There was a brightline violation of 1R. The subject editor acknowledged the violation but still refused to revert, making the violation that much more egregious. Moreover, the subject editor had been previously indefinitely topic banned. One would assume that he would be more circumspect in his actions rather than showing blatant disregard for the rules. Do the rules only apply to one side?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For thy Gods of Administration are perfect beings, but wrathful, and will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger if thou continueth to doubt that perfection, JJG ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@floquenbeam: I would have no problem with that sanction (one-month topic ban) but for the fact that as noted above, editors associated with a particular POV have been indef'd for a lot less. Moreover, does the fact that an editor stands on "principle" warrant leniency. All I want is for the rules to be applied consistently to both sides.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @floquenbeam: You are correct. Generally speaking, a one-month topic ban is not a lenient sanction. However, given the level of mischief and passion in the I-P topic area, admins who adjudicate these boards generally display intolerance for shenanigans and issue rather harsh sanctions for even minor infractions, ranging from a three-month topic ban at the low end, to an indef. This is especially true if the editor who is the subject of the AE has a recidivist history, which is the case here.
  I’d like to point out one more issue concerning a past AE involving Wikifan12345. In that AE Wikifan12345 was charged with violating 1R for removing a tag. Wikifan acknowledged wrong-doing and self-reverted about an hour after committing the offense. Not surprisingly, T. Canens who is drawn to I-P enforcement actions like moth to flame and almost always imposes or advocates the imposition of very harsh sanctions against those he identifies with the “Israel camp,” advocated an indefinite topic ban for Wikifan. Whether wikifan deserved to be topic banned for a 1R violation is a separate issue. I highlight the case due to its similarities and differences with the instant case. Both cases involve violations of 1R. There are two major differences however. Wikifan acknowledged wrong-doing and self-reverted. Nishidani refused to self-revert, even though he acknowledged the offense. Wikifan had NEVER been indefinitely topic banned, Nishidani has. Why then is Wikifan issued an indefinite topic ban while Nishidani is given a comparative slap on the wrist?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZScarpia

@Jiujitsuguy - Which cases are you referring to when you claim that "editors associated with a particular POV have been indef'd for a lot less?" If one of them was Shuki's, would you like me to list all the reasons why your claim is ridiculous in relation to it?     ←   ZScarpia   22:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jiujitsuguy's raising of a previous AE case involving Wikifan (I'll try to be as brief as I can), some facts for the record:

• Here are the results returned by doing a search in the AE archives for the text Wikifan12345.
• The case referred to by Jiujitsuguy is this one. It was brought by JimSukwutput on 6 September 2011.
• That case followed a month after another brought against Wikifan for a 1RR violation, that violation occurring the day after the end of an eight-month topic ban. That case ended with a warning being issued to Wikifan by Tim: This falls rather neatly into the grey area of xRR rules. I'm of the view that we do have a 1RR violation here (i.e., the first edit is a revert), but that the situation is sufficiently ambiguous that only a warning is required.
• In the case referred to by Jiujitsuy, Tim's verdict followed Ed's. Ed recommended a new topic ban, to last a year: The subject of today's dispute is Gaza flotilla raid, an obvious hot-button article. (Wikifan seems to have no instinct for self-preservation if he's actually trying to stay out of trouble). Wikifan12345 has been blocked seven times before and banned from ARBPIA twice, once for six months and once for eight months. The last ban ran out on 2 August, and this is his second appearance at AE since then. in the August 6 AE one editor suggested that his topic ban be extended, but that AE was closed with only a warning for the 1RR violation. Since we are back here again another 1RR violation a month later, I recommend that a new topic ban be imposed for one year. Consider perusing the discussions on the editor's talk page since August 6. Try to count all the I/P articles where he's been in a dispute.
• In full, Tim's verdict was: I let the last AE thread off with a warning, but I was quite clear there that there was an 1RR violation in that thread too. Apparently the message failed to sink in. I favor a WP:ARBRB-style indefinite topic ban myself, as I've explained above in another thread, and this seems to be particularly appropriate for editors who have been topic banned several times and still can't stay out of trouble. In the alternative, I concur with EdJohnston's proposed topic ban.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zero0000

It is so unpleasant to see N's editing opponents circling around throwing mud in the hope of being rid of someone who stands in the way of their POV-pushing. There are barely any of them whose editing behavior is not 10 times worse than N's, even if they are more adroit at staying technically within the rules like 1RR. The fact of this case is that N is a good editor who broke 1RR. He should get a short block like anyone should expect when they break 1RR. The rest is hot air. Zero^talk 05:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by NSH001

WP:IAR --NSH001 (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

This enormous thread about a trivial 1RR infringement highlights how a project aimed at building an encyclopedia mutates into a mudtrhrowing contest. I am sure wikipedians who created the AE process had the best intentions (stop disriuption, follow due process etc) in mind but the result is anything but. Everyone who wastes bandwidth here needs to take a sober look at themselves. Including our esteme demigods, who could have avoided drama by swiftly imposing a short term sanction without much fuss. And sadly our main protagonist is the main source of the drama with his principled position and, worse still, his tldr comments. I know tldr is not sanctionable, but I don't think it helps build an encyclopedia - regardless of the eloquence of the comments. - BorisG (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• If we are sanctioning this 1RR violation, then to me an 24 hour block is the only reasonable sanction. The suggestion of indefinite topic ban is beyond ludicrous. The last non-overturned block in the supposedly "long history of blocks" of Nishidani was a 24-hour block from four and a half years ago, and since the topic ban was lifted almost a year ago, Nishidani has not been sanctioned under ARBPIA as far as I can tell.
  Moreover, after looking at the edit and the cited NYT source, it is not clear to me that a sanction is appropriate at all. It's rather late here, though, so I'll leave that aspect of the matter for tomorrow. T. Canens (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • JJG, way to quote stuff out of context. Your first quote is from a September 2011 AE thread of someone who had been topic banned for eight months on 2 December 2010. That was, in other words, two months one month after the topic ban expired. Moreover there was an earlier AE thread on another 1RR violation after the topic ban, which was closed with only a warning. Nishidani was topic banned in 2009, and his topic ban was lifted in July 2011, ten months ago. The two situation are hardly similar.
    The second quote concerns someone who was already under an article ban; in response to an AE thread a ban from a different article is suggested. I wrote that if a second article ban is warranted then it's better to do a full topic ban instead, a view that I still hold today. How that is relevant to the case at hand is beyond me, since Nishidani is not article-banned at all, as far as I know.
    Bright-line rules are fine and all, but they need to be tempered by discretion or they are prone to gaming, and each incident needs to be evaluated on their own, taking into account the totality of circumstances. Unwarranted similarities are equally as bad as unwarranted disparities. T. Canens (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Mostly agree with T. Canens. This may be a minor infraction, but not a reason for a lot of drama or long-term sanctions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think most of this is either stipulated to by the parties or in my opinion really crystal clear:
  • Definitely a 1RR violation.
  • Being right is not a defense for 1RR (not saying he necessarily is, just that even if he thinks he is, it isn't a defense).
  • I can respect Nishidani's refusal to revert if he believes it would actively introduce a falsehood into the article; however, it means that someone else who disagrees about whether it's a falsehood and is following the rules is taken advantage of. Because of this, I don't think turning a blind eye is warranted.
  • An occasional misstep is not grounds for over-reaction.
  • It appears that he did something similar in August 2011 and December 2011, after the topic ban repeal, and self-imposed, respectively, a 1 month "block" and a 1 month article ban (which didn't actually seem to be followed completely). So, while he may not have been recently sanctioned under ARBPIA, this isn't the first time since the topic ban repeal that this has happened.
  • It would be a shame, for all of us, if Nishidani didn't help Truthkeeper with Charles Dickens, where there is no reason to believe any problems will occur.

Thus, I propose a one month I/P topic ban, including talk pages, instead of the self-imposed 1 month article ban. I was tempted to make it a one month IP article-only topic ban, allowing talk page participation, but at the risk of sounding like a self-important jerk, I think this ought to sting a little bit. As a reminder that this is a habit which he should make a serious effort not to return to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jujitsuguy: I don't consider a 1-month topic ban leniency; if you read what I wrote, I consider refusing to self-revert on principle a reason not to turn a blind eye to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed the August and December episodes. Hmm...while being right is not a defense to xRR, it is something we can consider in mitigation. Looking at the edits and source again, I think N. has a fairly decent argument that L.'s edit did not accurately represent the source, but I think the whole thing is fuzzy enough that reasonable editors can disagree, and I'm not really sure that N.'s version is an appropriate summary either. Taking into account the history of 1RR violations since the topic ban was lifted, I agree that some sort of sanction is in order. Since this would be the third 1RR violation, if we are blocking then a week is probably appropriate, considering the usual escalating blocks sequence. Alternatively, I can also go with your one-month topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to give your suggestion a try here; let's see if that doesn't work. If not, then a week-long block would be the next step. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users against whom enforcement is requested

• Iloveandrea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA Topic Ban Given his history and this sanction for a user who fabricated, I am requesting an indefinite block

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

• Misrepresenting source. Iloveandrea stated that the source states that most of the fatalities in the Jenin battle were civilians. In fact, the source makes no such representation. It is a blatant lie.

• The account also has a tendency of marking his edits as "minor" when in fact he's making substantive additions or deletions, such as what he did here[88] where he deleted an IDF viewpoint and marked it as a minor edit.

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

ARBPIA Warning

Notification

User notified [89]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has been problematic for some time making lurid comments such as this about Queen Rania "Mmm, and imagine dicking Queen Rania. I feel hard like making a vandalism to that effect on her article. BLP or no BLP, readers deserve to be told that Iloveandrea is desperate to ravenously fuck Rania's fanny", engaging in personal attacks and disruptive behavior that drew blocks [90] and now resorts to blatantly misrepresenting sources to push a POV.

Alleged removal of IDF statement
It was a minor edit, as the edit caption explained. I was deleting duplicated (and unsourced) material; the bit about the IDF claiming 5 civilians (and 48 militant) was already mentioned, as can clearly be seen.

Misrepresenting source
This was a simple mistake which was picked up before I had a chance to do so myself. The source presented does intimate (I can give explicit quotes and reasoning if you like; just ask) that a majority were civilian deaths, though it is not explicit either way. The way the accusation is phrased, it makes it sound like the source states that the majority of deaths were militants. It does not say majority militant, nor majority civilian, but implies majority civilian. So that was my initial correction to the article: not a lie, but a statement that was incorrect, and I conceded it. I then found an HRW source that said it was majority militant. I mentioned all this to Jiujitsuguy on his talk page, though he's not mentioned that fact here. I never misrepresent sources; find me another example. Getting on for four-thousand edits now, so plenty of opportunity to do so. I think that exhausts Jiujitsuguy's accusations. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my edit description: "m (→‎Jenin: Got rid of duplicate info)". Here was the duplicate (sourced) info: "while the IDF said that 48 militants and 5 civilians had been killed.(source cited: Harel and Isacharoff (2004), pp. 257–258) ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that I've contributed to:
Mau Mau Uprising—Still needs work, but I basically wrote the entire thing (Sh33pl0re was my old account, bear in mind). 235 footnotes from a bibliography (all of them used in the article) of fifty books and journal papers.
Greek debt crisis—wrote the criticism of German role section.
Nuclear program of Iran
Sanctions against Iran
Donkey work on Operation Bagration (see my edits on 18 March 2012; thankless work, making cites pretty) and Great Purge (see my edits on 13 January 2012; thankless work, making cites pretty) and First Intifada‎ (28–30 June 2011, though subsequently some pro-Israel wiped my better sourcing and replaced it with 'pro'-Israel stuff)
Heinrich Himmler—The Early Life section: easy to tell it was done by me: everything has a citation.
Major contributions to Hydraulic fracturing and Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom
Eric Hobsbawm
Peter Beinart
George Osborne and Mervyn King, though I had complaints there, so I agreed to stay away and have kept to it.
Ilan Pappé
I've been given a very one-sided press here. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put back my barnstar on my talk now, too! My talk page gives an overwhelmingly negative impression. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO United Kingdom Conservative-Liberal coalition government austerity programme—I started this article and also basically wrote the entire thing. Check the user contribs stats in history. It's not without its critics, but you can't fault it for lack of effort. 179 cites and climbing. Ratings for it aren't too shabby either. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also! It will be noted that I did not vandalise Queen Rania's article. What is this, Minority Report? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Shrike. I even highlighted the lead in to the relevant text... Hmm, ah, OK, it should have said PA95, not PA94. On page 95 (just scroll down to see my highlighted text) you can read: "For reasons that may combine the personal and the political, he found the path difficult in Israel" and eventually moved to Cornell. On the basis of what else I had read about the guy, I took "the personal" to mean the author was alluding to the fact that he was a thoroughly disagreeable person, which I chose to describe as "personal defects". Biased editing, it is; mangling the source, it is not.

As for the unity government: how on earth you can say it is not controversial is beyond me. You're Israeli, so I presume you read the Israeli press? Of course you do, so it doesn't take me to tell you that Mofaz and Netanyahu were slated left, right, and centre for their shabby little stitch-up. "Controversial" was actually my attempt at an NPOV description of the unity government (yeah, I can be NPOV when I feel like it), given the secret clauses their agreement had that MKs were not even aware of when they were voting. If there were any doubt about why I felt OK to describe it as a controversial manoeuvre, just look at the article's text: (the headline and summary "In surprise move... dramatic" should already alert people to what is in the article)

Yair Lapid responded to the move on Tuesday morning on his Facebook page. He described the formation of the unity government as "the old kind of politics" and "corrupt and ugly."

"It is time to remove it from our lives," he wrote, adding, "This is politics of chairs instead of principles… of the interests of the group instead of the whole nation. They think that now they will continue for some time, and that we will forget, but they are mistaken. This disgusting political alliance will bury all those involved."

Shelly Yacimovich criticized the move, and calling it an alliance of cowards, and the most ridiculous zig-zag in Israel's political history. She also said that the move represented an opportunity for the Israel Labor Party to lead the opposition.

Meretz head Zahava Gal-On expressed outrage over the surprise move, calling it a "mega-stinking maneuver by a prime minister who wants to avoid elections and a desperate opposition chairman facing a crash."

"This is a disgrace to the Israeli parliament and a terrible message to the public, which is losing faith in the leadership of the state," she added.

"corrupt and ugly . . . disgusting . . . mega-stinking . . . a disgrace"—I think you'll agree I was trying to be NPOV when I chose to use the word "controversial". Talk about scraping the barrel, Shrike. Anyone who knows anything about that deal would know it was "controversial", and you most certainly do. This is most disingenuous of you. Still, I hope it counts in my favour that this is the sort of efforts people are having to make to get at me. This is desperate and disingenuous.

When have I ever said something was black instead of white? That is the accusation I was faced with at the outset, an accusation I refuted before opening up the opportunity to anyone else to show when I have ever mangled a source. What am I met with? At worst a misinterpretation of an author's allusion based on what I had previously read of Benzion Netanyahu, and a straight fabrication regarding my NPOV term "controversial". This is getting pretty tedious now.

I've actually even tried to engage with you, Shrike, despite my personal opinion of your unsavoury edits about Pakistanis, on the Netanyahu article. I said I was planning to rewrite the entire section, and asked if you wanted to check it over before I made the final replacement actually to the article. You simply greeted me with sullenness, so I ended up asking Luke 19 Verse 27 to perform the task instead (he said he would, but then he got permabanned). I also tried to engage you on Benzion Netanyahu, so if you felt my understanding of what the book said was wrong, why didn't you bring it up before now? It's not like your attention hasn't been on that article since I made those particular additions. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By the looks of these edits to Ohio Standard's talk page, it was an honest mistake, that he became aware of when he rechecked the source, by which time his edit had already been reverted. [91] He also explained the same on Jiujitsuguy's talk page at the first opportunity, admitting his error and noting that it had already been reverted.[92]. Seems like the issue had already been resolved prior to the filing of the AE case, so I'm not sure what the need was to file the case at all. Dlv999 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His so-called admission came only after I confronted him with the fabrication.[93] He didn't volunteer the misrepresentation of his own volition. He was caught red handed and tried to backtrack.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jiujitsuguy: I have already explained that the source does intimate that it is majority civilian deaths. The admission was not to the fact that that was not what the source implies, but that what the source implies was wrong. I did not misrepresent the source, I'm not sure how else I can explain this. I've also asked you provide me with another instance, nearly 4,000 edits to choose from, where I have misrepresented a source. Of the complaints about me before, misrepresenting sources has never been among them. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also note the accusation about my sabotage of the article by deleting material appears to have been implicitly withdrawn. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are also avoiding another question: before I changed the article from "mostly militants" to "mostly civilians", someone had obviously lied about that, because the article sure as hell doesn't suggest a majority of people were militants. Why have you not pulled up the person who made that original edit? Forgive me if I am wrong, but it comes across that mangling sources is OK so long as it is done to support your views on I/P. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And finally absolute proof, let me quote: the source says, quite clearly (page 5 of the pdf; right at the top, clear as day): "Scores of civilians, many of them minors, were killed in Operation Defensive Shield." "SCORES" PLURAL, i.e. 40 or more people, score being 20 people. That is at least 40 out of the documented 52–56 deaths upon which there is unanimous agreement. I was absolutely correct to describe the source as suggesting that a majority of those fifty or so deaths were civilians. Am I now permitted to accuse Jiujitsuguy of misrepresenting what the source clearly suggest to be the case? or at least of making a mistake? Is he going to be indefinitely banned? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights. The reason Iloveandrea's Talk page conveyed an "overwhelmingly negative impression" is because there's little positive to say about Iloveandrea's contributions, but in particular his interaction with other editors. Almost immediately upon returning for a block because of his previous bad behavior, he called other editors "racist" at WP:DRN here, and that's not even one of his more colorful examples. He has a habit of involving himself in controversial articles and then creating additional controversy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 is not a neutral observer, though he neglects to mention the fact. Civility complaints is rich coming from him, for we have crossed swords before. As I said to an admin, "If you talk nicely to me, I'll talk nicely to you. Nice and simple." The difference between us is that, while I have left him and the articles he cares about alone, he apparently can't control himself and has decided to show up here. As for accusing someone of racism: yes, I did, because I felt very strongly that what was said was racist, and the sourcing for it was a disgrace. I also made the point that it reflected badly on other editors who did not seem to care about the fact. I was then asked to stay out of it, and I did.
"there's little positive to say about Iloveandrea's contributions"—You have chosen to ignore my compilation of articles in my statement, and instead took the opportunity to be negative and antagonistic. As I have already mentioned, this is not atypical behaviour from you in your dealings with me. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairer to say that I'm not uninvolved in the sense that I'm familiar with some of your history. I thought that was reasonably clear given my comments. This is not like an admin improperly using their tools when they are involved. I am simply pointing out that, on balance, I see very little justifying your continuing to have editing privileges here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Negative and antagonistic". I like that coming from the guy who told another editor to keep off his talk page but then returned repeatedly to said editor's talk just to taunt him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All my 'pro'-Israel friends are here! How lovely to see you again, No More Mr Nice Guy! I remember you from Welcome to Palestine, yah? I believe we got a compromise (neutrality tag is still there though, I presume?) on that article with little more than muted testiness.
Well, in your mention of AnkhMorpork, I would say that you have partially distorted the nature of what's happened. I was not denying here, or anywhere else, that I have spoken in an unconstructive manner with others (that really would be silly); I was simply pointing out the richness of someone accusing me of it when they are guilty of it themselves. To even accuse someone of richness surely requires an implicit acknowledgement that what was first said was at least partially accurate.
Contrary to your statement, I don't recall telling AnkhMorpork to stay off my wall, but rather to KEEP THIS HASBARA CRAP OFF MY WALL!! in a comment description when I removed one of his unsolicited little hasbara bombs off my talk page. Actually, I don't recall AnkhMorpork as being someone with whom I've ever had cross words. We just had a mess around on each other's talk pages, I don't recall meeting him on an article. Again, feel free to check edit histories, but I'm sure enough on this not to bother to check for myself. You didn't emphasise that it was not I who started our little talk-page hasbara battle. He and Luke 19 Verse 27 showed up out of the blue and tag-teamed my talk page with some hasbara in response to the stuff I have on my user page. I have simply posted two bombs back. Why hasn't AnkhMorpork been pulled up for tag-teaming my talk page? Well, for the simple reason that I never complained about him and his hasbara. Truth be told, I've never initiated a formal complaint about anyone, even when they've annoyed me insanely, like a user called Collect—indeed, I don't actually know how to initiate a formal complaint about people. I guess what I'm saying is that, in my opinion, you perhaps need to be less sensitive and lighten up. I've not checked to see if AnkhMorpork has asked me to stop after that second bomb, but if he has then I'll comply. To my previous bomb, he was happy to fire of some hasbara in response and that's where it was left, if memory serves. Anyone can verify what I'm saying by going to her/his talk page. Yes, and so the talk-page stuff with AnkhMorpork was just some fun and games between her/him, me and Luke 19 Verse 27. None of us ever made any complaint about it to anyone else, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to. Also the word "taunt" in isolation gives an overly negative spin on what the three of us were up to (without complaint up till now): a bit of banter. Really, in my view, you perhaps need to chill out a bit. AnkhMorpork's never asked me to stop posting on his talk page, or else I would have. Feel free to provide proof to the contrary. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just checked the diff provided; seems I did say that to AnkhMorpork. It doesn't change what I wrote, however, because he has not made the same request back. If he asks me to stay off his wall, I'll do so. You can't complain about a non-existent violation of a non-existent request to say off his wall. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You "remember [me] from Welcome to Palestine, yah?" not from you bringing up my name in, among other places, a discussion at DR/N about an article I was completely uninvolved in, where you accused me of "Muslim baiting" and being a racist?

Anyway, the fact you asked someone not to post on your talk page but you continued to post on his is not the issue here. That's just a bit of hypocrisy I felt like pointing out. The issue is the content you posted there, which if I were in a magnanimous mood I'd call SOAPBOXING, but since you pick editors you feel are pro-Israel and post this kind of stuff on their talk pages, I think harassment is a better term. On how many talk pages did you post that bit about holocaust survivors? Three that I know of. Were there any more? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. I didn't accuse you of being racist, but Shrike and the other person who made that addition about British Pakistanis. Just read what I wrote, the post is clear enough:

For balance, let me point out that Shrike, AnkhMorpork, No More Mr Nice Guy, Luke 19 Verse 27 ‎and a couple of others are blatently 'pro'-Israel. It's no secret that 'pro'-Israel and Muslim-baiting are now two sides of the same coin. The more nauseating aspect here is the introduction of an ethnic element. I actually found it pretty shocking: I come across plenty of 'pro'-Israeli posters, but they're not usually racist. These two seem to have no limits.

So, actually, I imply pretty clearly that I do not think you are a racist; I certainly make no accusation that you are. The reason for mentioning you and Luke 19 Verse 27 were that you had not owned up to the fact that your kind words for the other two stemmed purely from defending a fellow 'pro'-Israel editor, not that you were fellow racists. If you want to engage in sheer fraud and say suggest something contrary to what I clearly said, that's your choice. I'm not apologising for an accusation against you that I never made. "The fact that the posts by Shrike and the other user..." Again: I did not accuse you of being a racist, thank you very much, but Shrike and AnkhMorpork, the two editors I understood to have had made the additions. Deceitful allegations do you no credit, No More Mr Nice Guy. I know you're eager to have an active pro-Palestinian editor struck out, but I'd ask for a bit of self-control. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The issue is the content you posted there, which if I were in a magnanimous mood I'd call SOAPBOXING, but since you pick editors you feel are pro-Israel and post this kind of stuff on their talk pages, I think harassment is a better term."
Harassment is just a OTT term to use. I've already explained the back story: he did it to me for first because I am pro-Palestinian, yet you've not complained about his "harassment". Really, I say again that you need to relax and stop policing other people's talk pages. If AnkhMorpork is unhappy, he is quite within his rights to ask me to stop; if I fail, he can complain formally. This has nothing to do with you, and you are creating a problem where there has been none. I've not sought to make a big deal out of AnkhMorpork's hasbara targeted on my talk page because of my user page, I'd appreciate if you could settle down and relax. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a pattern of misrepresenting sources:

• [94] Nothing in source says that he have personal defects.
• [95] Noting in the source says its controversial.--Shrike (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the source don't use words(or synonyms) you don't include it just because you think its true in wiki article.--Shrike (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm rather surprised this user hasn't been indeffed yet, and it's going to take some convincing that I shouldn't do exactly that. I'm not seeing any reason to keep Iloveandrea around here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• At the very least, I'd support an indefinite topic ban; but it certainly would take very little convincing to persuade me that an indefinite block is a better solution, considering Iloveandrea's edits... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, go ahead, indef is fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]