Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive118

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

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

For the record, and in response to the below., i also specifically mentioned here "im not sure if he needs a warning or a block" as this is my first time here and the other user above said its a 1RR violation.

Also he issue does directly relate to Shamir as it involved his statements (written as emanating from him alone and not a satement of fact in relations to the two countries (which is what the extension seeks to do)). He also had multiple edits as IP (per talk page) and then came back to re-add.

Just gave him welcome links to help him review guidelines, btwLihaas (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

To whom it may concern:

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

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

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

I also intend to forward this issue to the Polish news media since what has been published is libelous to the Polish people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Polish media was involved in this case already by the complaintant because he/she cited text in article as written by a Polish author in a Polish newspaper which that author did not write and that newspaper did not publish. Wikipedia has policies against this and copyright violations. I don't know the law exactly in Poland, but in some countries changing another author's work can be a violation of his/her copyright or other intellectual property rights. That's not a legal threat, but citation back to Wikipedia's policy. What that author did write in that article was about the defamation of the Poles, "To conclude from the 1941 pogroms that the Holocaust was the common work of Poles and Germans is a libel. All who feel themselves to be Polish have the responsibility to defend themselves against such slander." I agree with what the author actually wrote, and I am proud to have acted.

My point is that is one thing report that Shamir made allegations against the Poles in his father's death. It is another thing for Wikipedia to treat his unsupported opinions as fact, which is what the complaintant has been involved in promoting, using a distorted source. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to have a specific policy about allegations of ethnic violence?

Really, I am happy to have the topic locked. It needed to be done because these people turned the page into a completely one sided pro-Shamir puff piece. I didn't know that it was possible to have it locked or I would have requested that. I am sure that there is more which has been written about Shamir in Polish by respected Polish journalists and scholars. Their contributions should be welcome. Considering that Shamir lived in Poland, was educated there, and may have retained dual Polish citizenship until his death, it was more than appropriate to invite Polish participation on the topic of his life.

I stand by my decisions. I did try to discuss this in talk. It is the complaintant here who should be sanctioned for promoting a distorted source and not acting professionally, and being hostile to a new editor. I really don't know if I want to continue editing after this. I was just trying to fix something that was obviously very, very wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not involved here, but his last sentence needs clarification, via WP:DOLT. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Note: Quazi-legal sounding threat was removed afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights - umm, the external canvassing?Lihaas (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that Shamir's father was "stoned" to death is taken from a Haaretz blog, which, I'd guess, may not be subjected to the editorial controls which would allow it to be used as a reliable source.

I've searched online and in various printed books for details of how Shamir's family members died, but information is hard to find.

Two Times of Israel articles (the first of which is cited elsewhere in the Wikipedia article on Shamir) strongly suggest that Shamir himself was the source of information about the deaths:

Yitzhak Shamir, Israel’s modest, hardline ex-PM, dies at 96, 30 June 2012: "The family he left behind were mostly killed in the Holocaust. His father, he would reveal in the 1980s, was killed by childhood friends from his own village. Those experiences, many of his colleagues believed, were central in shaping Shamir’s intransigent political views and determined battling for Israel’s security."

When Shamir revealed how his parents and sisters were killed in the Holocaust, 30 June 2012, May 1989: ‘My father, Shlomo Ysernitzky, while seeking shelter among friends in the village where he grew up, they, his friends from childhood, killed him’:

"JERUSALEM, May 10, 1989 (JTA) – Yitzhak Shamir has always been known as a man who plays things close to his vest, whether it be of a political or personal nature. So his revelation last week about the death of his family in Nazi Europe was met with much surprise, as well as armchair debate on the psychological nature of the Israeli prime minister’s motivations and fears.

While reading out loud the names of his family members killed by the Nazis, Shamir disclosed that his father was killed by Polish childhood friends in his own village, after he succeeded in escaping from a German death train.

“My father, Shlomo Ysernitzky, who escaped before the train left for a death camp and while seeking shelter among friends in the village where he grew up, they, his friends from childhood, killed him,” Shamir said in a trembling voice.

Shamir revealed this on Holocaust Remembrance Day last week, while participating in a daylong public reading of names of Holocaust victims at the Knesset.

He also listed many other members of his family who died at the hands of the Nazis. His mother, Pearl, and a sister apparently died in death camps, while another sister was shot dead by the Nazis."

An aide said he was unsure what prompted Shamir to go public with the information."

Though personally I don't believe that Shamir would have invented or embroidered the story, since Shamir himself appears to be the its source, it would be better from the neutrality point of view to state in the article something to the effect that "Shamir, speaking in 1989, said that ..." rather than relating the account as a fact in the Wikipedia voice. Perhaps somebody could check Shamir's biography to see what is written there.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, youre discussing content, this thread is not about content its the manner in which he partook the awant to change.Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My statement addresses source reliability, weight and whether the statements made should be addressed as facts in the Wikipedia voice, which, given DoctorFranklin's objections, I think is relevant to the case. After all, the behaviour of the editors opposing his edits is also under examination.

As an aside, given the warning you left here, would you like to explain which of DoctorFranklin's edits amounted to vandalism?

    ←   ZScarpia   18:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas has mentioned the possibility of blocking Doctor_Franklin. For DF to be sanctioned under WP:ARBPIA, he would, of course need to have first been given a warning, either explicitly or constructively. As far as I can see, DF has not been warned previously about the WP:ARBPIA sanctions in place. Neither of the warnings listed above mention the WP:ARBPIA case or follow the pattern of the normal formal warning. In addition, the first warning listed accuses DF of vandalism, an accusation which is frowned on unless any edits are obviously vandalism. As far as I can see, none of DF's under either incarnation on the Shamir article actually were.     ←   ZScarpia   19:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see his talk page? What BrewCrewer said, what he responded as intending to go on and "deal with it", and then what i said above "i dont know if i should be adding this here" then saying what he responded was another reason he doesnt intend to cooperate (as does the external comment)Lihaas (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ZScarpia,

You will note that none of the direct quotes from Shamir which have been found to date mention that Shamir's father was killed by Poles. The mention of Poles appears only in the article and could be the attribution of the writer or editor. This is why historians prefer to use first hand sources and not rely upon what someone thought he said, or a footnote in a book which itself has no source or is taken out of context.

Yet, Lihaas insists, and insists and insists that Shamir said his father was killed by Poles, despite no direct quote from Shamir or other supporting evidence, and despite the unlikeness of Poles having been in Belarus before the Polish-Soviet War of 1920 or after the Soviet conquest of Western Belarus and deportation of Poles to Siberia in 1939-40. I really did try to reason and discuss, but there is no reasoning with someone who made comments that Shamir was entitled to some special treatment because he was an Israeli prime minister, or thinks that Poles and Belarusians are Arabs.

You will also note that the footnote that I deleted, and Lihaas continued to reinstate refers to Shamir as "Polish born" despite the fact that the main article states that Shamir was born in Belarus in Imperial Russia. Her "proof" is in conflict with the main page and community, while my entries where in harmony with it. I simply added information, and Lihaas is determined to delete any historical information which detracts from the premise of her "facts" that Shamir's father was killed by Poles, even when that information simply refers to other Wikipedia entries.

The larger problem here may be an Isreali/Jewish usage of the term "Poles" to include people who are not ethnic Poles, i.e., Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Ruthanians, etc. (I also mentioned this in the Talk section...) They would seem not to understand the ethnic complexity of the region, nor do they appear to want to learn about it. It is easier for them to simply call all of these groups which existed in the 1920-1939 Polish political state "Poles", even after that multi-ethnic state collapsed in September 1939 and has never returned as such. They apparently don't understand that their usage of "Poles" is ignorant and offensive to people who are truly ethnic Poles. What is more disturbing is that people like Lihaas are determined to prevent a reasoned discussion of that ignorance.

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

• I'm sorry guys but this is all very poorly explained. The reason it is being claimed this falls under WP:ARBPIA is that the subject of the article Yitzhak Shamir was the Prime Minister of Israel. WP:ARBPIA places all "Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted [...] under discretionary sanctions." In this context (a Polish-Israel dispute) that does not extend to Yitzhak Shamir, however it is covered by WP:ARBEE which places "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted [...] under discretionary sanctions". Inserting OR about nationality of Shamir (whether he became Polish or not) and/or edit-warring about it would technically be sanctionable. But in this case I have my doubts that the conduct here fits that category (but it's 3am here and I'll review tomorrow).
  I'm pretty shocked to see a user being taken to ArbCom Enforcement for their first edit to wikipedia as a named account and one edit as an IP. That's a very swift bite, even if their edits are original research and possibly violate WP:ARBEE. The only reason I can see for that is the off-site canvassing. Ordinarily in a case like this I'd be happy to leave the situation with the page being protected and everyone warned but with Doctor Franklin attempt to chill discussion by invoking the Polish Media and with the call for meatpuppets pointed out by User:No More Mr Nice Guy we have a problem here. Doctor Franklin, comments that attempt chill discussions by making legal threats, or attempting to recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia are prohibited. I will ask you to stop using legalistic language ("libellous", "slander" etc). We understand that you're new here and that wikiepdia has a lot of rules and might be difficult to understand at first, but we have rules here and we have to enforce them.
  I'm holding off making a call on whether to take action or not until other sysops review this, but right now I'd suggest WP:TROUTs all round here, and that the article remain protected--Cailil ^talk 02:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  After reading all this over, I think Cailil has the right idea here, and if no one objects in the next several hours I'll close this up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lihaas - the page is protected we can do no more about the canvassing than that--Cailil ^talk 01:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Cailil/Blade at this point, with the warning that there are likely to be more than trouts given out if we see this issue return here. Seraphimbladepublic (talk) 21:22, 11 July 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

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dailycare (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. Source Distortion:[2] Changes source and notes that source states that "some states" regarded the Straits of Tiran as an international waterway when in fact the source contains no such qualifier and states unequivocally that it was an international waterway.
2. Source Distortion:[3] Does it again and changes the source to note that only "some countries" regarded it as an international waterway when the source contains no such qualification.
3. Source Distortion:[4] In this edit he removes content attributed to the subject source, but does not remove the source. Instead, he moves the source to the end of the sentence, thus attributing statements to the author, that the author does not subscribe to and that is not contained in the subject source.
4. Source Distortion:[5] In this edit he adds the following "killing 16 and wounding 54." He attributes this statement to Tom Segev at pages 149-152 (or at the very least made it appear as though Segev's book contained this information by adding the casualty figures just before the Segev reference). I looked at those pages and could not verify the veracity of those casualty figures [6] The only specific casualty figures provided by Segev in connection with the raid is on page 151 where he notes that 14 Jordanian officers and soldiers were killed in the battle (including a Jordanian pilot) and 37 more were injured. I don't know where Dailycare got his figures from, but it certainly wasn't from Segev as he suggests.

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

The Six Day War article contains conspicuous ARBPIA warnings [7] [8] and Dailycare edits near exclusively in the topic area. In addition, Dailycare has previously commented on these boards [9] and has also been the subject of a prior AE in which he escaped sanction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

@TC you state the following; "A single comment and a case closed as inactionable, both from 2009, are in my view insufficient to justify finding that Dailycare has been constructively warned." First of all, according to Toolserver, Dailycare has made 7 edits to AE, not a "single edit." (I am of course excluding the two he's made in the instant AE) Second, you did not address the fact that Arbitration remedies and warnings are conspicuously posted on the article. You also did not address the fact that this particular editor edits exclusively in the Israel-Arab topic area. If these arguments are not persuasive enough, please explain how this case would differ from the MichaelNetzer case where you noted the following I'm of the view that MichaelNetzer has been, at a minimum, constructively warned of ARBPIA sanctions prior to this report and may consequently be sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions. There is no requirement in ARBPIA that the warning be particularly directed to the editor, or given by an administrator, or logged (or even loggable); all that is required is "a prior warning". My view is that MN's history of participation at AE, especially when considered in conjunction with the ARBPIA banner on Talk:Jerusalem ("WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"), compels the conclusion that he has been constructively warned and no additional warning is necessary. The same conspicuous warnings are posted on the instant article.

Also, I must take issue with your claim that his edits were a product of carelessness. Please note that most of the casualties in the Samu operation were Jordanian soldiers who were beaten back when they attempted to thwart the Israeli military operation. Note please where Daily placed the casualty count [[10]]. He didn’t place it by the part that discusses the repulse of the Jordanian intervention but by the attack on the village itself. Please also note that Daily makes no distinction between civilian and military deaths thus making it appear as though all those killed were civilians. This, in combination with the Segev reference error make it more likely than not that the edit was deliberate. In light of the foregoing, I ask you to reconsider your initial evaluation.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept TC's analysis. I'm okay with his recommendation for the issuance of an ARBPIA warning.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm editing this comment a bit to add, that in apparent response to my statement above Jiujitsuguy has modified his complaint concerning the last point. --Dailycare (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I must say this report strikes me as frivolous. Even in the fourth edit, which does not adequately support the information, the material added is hardly consequential. The death toll is only slightly higher and the figures for wounded tend to widely vary in these situations and this variance is not terribly meaningful. While not clearly indicating what citation is backing material and copying information from another article without checking for sourcing is generally poor editing practice, it is not even remotely a sanction-worthy action with such minimal changes. I also find the comment about Dailycare being warned to be suggestive as the comment "escaped sanction" makes it seem like there was some danger of sanction when that prior report was clearly a frivolous one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Finding constructive warning is a matter of discretion sparingly exercised. A single comment and a case closed as inactionable, both from 2009, are in my view insufficient to justify finding that Dailycare has been constructively warned. (In the lead case from early this year where we found constructive warning, the user at issue participated in numerous AE threads in the two months immediately preceding the AE request.)

  Regardless, the only diff I find to be questionable is the fourth one, and it strikes me as more carelessness than deliberate misrepresentation. I think we can close this with a warning. T. Canens (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 edits, the latest of which is about two years ago. I know what I wrote in that case. The purpose of a warning is to ensure that the user knows that (1) the area is subject to sanctions and (2) their conduct has been considered problematic. An individual warning fulfills both purposes. A general warning such as {{ARBPIA}} or the 1RR edit notice accomplishes (1) but not (2). When someone has an extensive history of participation at AE, especially if such participation is recent, they may reasonably be presumed to be familiar with the standard of conduct expected of editors and therefore to have knowledge that their own conduct may be considered problematic. But merely editing an A-I article, regardless of whether {{ARBPIA}} is present on the talk page, is usually not enough to allow for sanctions to be imposed. Actual, individual warning is the rule. Constructive warning is the rare exception.

I just re-read the paragraph as edited by Dailycare, and I really can't see any implication that those killed and wounded are civilians. The evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that Dailycare simply copied the figure from the infobox, which is obviously suboptimal but not to the point of requiring immediate sanctions for an isolated incident. T. Canens (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, especially on the point that I find the first set of edits, regarding the Straits of Tiran issue, unobjectionable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed; I see no reason for sanction. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:04, 11 July 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

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[11]

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

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

There s therefore no misrepresentation here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

I was going to file against DLDD myself but on another matter entirely. In this edit he disregarded four sources and actually removed three with the following explanation "as per talk". DLDD has not made a comment at Talk since June 10 and it had nothing to do with the instant edit. DLDD however retained Michael Oren as a source which is fine but then he placed Lebanon in the "volunteer and irregulars" column. The problem is that Oren classified Lebanon as a combatant nation, not merely "volunteers and irregulars." [12] Thus, not only has DLDD engaged in tendentious editing by disregarding four reliable sources and inexplicably removing three, he actually misrepresented Michael Oren’s view and since Oren is a living person, he has not only engaged in source distortion but has misrepresented the views of a living person.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZScarpia

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

Comment by Tom Harrison

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

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

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

Comment by Zero0000

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

Comment by Paul B

The Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict is an utter disgrace. The whole section entitled "False tweet by UN employee" is little short of an obscene misrepresentation of facts, including the very title. It does not even make clear the fact that the tweet was based on a Reuters news report which the author accurately repeated. This whole repulsive hatchet-job does not deserve to be there, since this important article-topic should not be covered by a series of one-sided anecdotes about trival incidents. Whether of not DLDD was correct in this case, it is clear that this article is a serious problem. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lihaas

The warnings here have nothing to do with the editing and it is barely 1RR. Hardly need an indef ban. A requisite shortern block with warning/warning alone sould suffice. The complaint was violated by him or his sock.Lihaas (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This request appears to have been open for some time without any administrative response, so I'll take a crack at it. I am strongly leaning toward an indefinite topic-ban for DLDD. I see 4 previous blocks for problematic editing in this topic area; a tendency to play fast and loose with sources and generate busywork for other editors with misguided "challenges"; and a previous warning about properly representing sources which has apparently been disregarded.

  I'll leave this open for comment from other admins, but personally would recommend an indefinite topic-ban for DLDD. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. T. Canens (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Go for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would prefer a one year ban, but will not object to indef. There are pros and cons to both approaches. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:58, 11 July 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

Nableezy 03:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Activism1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

• 6 July 2012

1. "Quran Day"

Blog:

Here is a photo essay for one school that had a Quran Day, where they were encouraged to memorize the Quran. A similar ceremony from this past May can be seen here.

Article:

Many schools commemorate Quran Day, where they are encouraged to memorize the Quran.^[1][2]

Neither link says anything about any "Quran Day". Each link is to a set of photos with a brief story prior, with each story briefly talking about ceremonies honoring those who had memorized the most Quran. The words "Quran Day" do not appear anywhere on either page, and in fact the word "day" only appears once on the page covering a girls school and zero times in the page covering the boys school. This is completely fabricated, and put in to the article because A1234 copied a blog entry into an encyclopedia article as though it were fact.

2. "Quranic agenda"

Blog:

The Maghazi Prep School for Girls makes everyone know it has an explicitly Quranic agenda. It also mentions that its vision is to help the girls raise a generation of people who will "defend their country."

Article:

The Maghazi Prep School for Girls states that they have a Quranic agenda^[1], and its vision is to help the girls raise a generation of people who will "defend their country."^[2]

The cited source to this supposed "Quranic agenda" is this page. That is an online Quran. Nowhere does it say anything about any agenda, much less a "Quranic agenda". That statement, made in Wikipedia's voice and cribbed from a right wing blog, is like saying USC states that they have a Quranic agenda and referencing this.

In both instances, an Arabic primary source is cited, something that most readers, and editors, will be unable to verify for themselves. The actual source, a partisan blog, is never referenced, despite being used to copy, in some instances word-for-word, made up garbage to bash a UN agency.

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

1. None, which is why I am here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The only thing I am asking for here is that A1234 be formally notified of the ARBPIA case and that this notification be logged on the case page. Who knows if the user's past account was ever notified, but I'd like to get this one notified. I'm not asking for any other sanction. I requested this at User talk:EdJohnston, but that regrettably got too unwieldy to follow. Ed said I could ask another admin to review this to see if such a notification is called for. There are other issues and other diffs, but in the hope that this is detailed enough to understand but short enough not to ignore, I'll leave it at that.

In response to the below, the reason I bring this here now is that similar actions have continued at other articles. Including that would make the report far too unwieldy, so I chose the most straight forward example of cribbing material from a blog and citing an Arabic source, that was obviously not read, for something that source does not come close to supporting. Had this ended at this article I wouldn't have brought it up. But it has not ended. See the bottom of the linked sandbox above. nableezy - 04:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re KC, yes, in this instance that is correct. It is not what happened in other edit-conflicts with the user (see for example the histories of the articles Mahmoud Abbas or Hamas). The reason I brought this up is a. the user inserted material lifted straight from a blog without saying he took it from that blog, and b. the material that he inserted, sourced to primary Arabic sources, was, in at least two instances, completely made up. Because the issue of not abiding by WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT continued at Hamas, I thought it prudent to request that the user be formally notified of the case, so that future episodes of making things up out of thin air and claiming that some Arabic source supports it may be appropriately dealt with here. nableezy - 14:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

I already engaged in such a discussion with Nableezy concerning UNRWA. It is unclear why an action in the past that was not committed with intention to violate Wikipedia's policies should be brought up again. The issue in question was reverted and let alone. I did not know that it has become fashionable to tell people they've made a mistake, ask them to change it, engage in a discussion (albeit rather rude and condescending and not cooperative at all, as opposed to for example the discussion on the WIPO page with another editor who asked me to clarify something and then understood it and we worked together, or on the Yasser Arafat page in the last section in which another user, with different views, worked with me to add information to the article), revert, leave it alone for a week, and then file a complaint about said action.

[On a side note... Nableezy also claims readers were referenced a source in Arabic which many would not be able to read. This is rather harsh. Is this to imply that Wikipedia readers lack the capability to use a tool such as Google Translate? Or was it a direct attack on me, that I lack such capability? Nableezy did not point out whether there was any such error in mistranslation where a specific quote was taken, and that is fine as there is no need, but then there is no need to issue such a harsh and disturbing attack. Nableezy also misconstrued a number of things. In saying that an online Quran does not prove a "Quranic agenda," Nableezy forgot UNRWA stresses religious tolerance in its educational vision, seemingly placing it at odds with the teaching of a religious subject. Now I'm not looking for an argument here about this, as I've been through this discussion and the words anyway were reverted. And yes, "Quranic agenda" is terrible wording and obviously such an error wouldn't happen again in the future.]

But whereas many in the community are fine with asking others for clarification and then working cooperatively with them (see above examples), Nableezy tragically goes down the road of condescending tone and assumption, generalization, and then filing a complaint even though the words were reverted and have not been revisited and Nableezy stated he/she does not like to report people and was first warning me. It's odd to warn someone, revert, that person doesn't edit it again and makes sure not to do it in the future, and then decide to report.

It's a silly report, aimed at wasting some of my valuable time. --Activism1234 04:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above strongly implies that you "lack the capability" to translate from Arabic. Does this therefore mean that you did not read and understand the sources which you added to the article? Did you acquire the facts that you added from the original Arabic source, or from a secondary source? RolandR (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above strongly implied that Nableezy may believe I lack such capability. I thought it was clear that I am fortunate enough to possess such capability either to understand the Arabic, use the powerful and mighty tool of Google Translate, and/or ask for other people who are fluent in Arabic to help (unless there are reliable media outlets that provided a translation as well, in which case I would just use them as a reference). It clearly wasn't as clear, but this should clear it up clearly. If I am ever unsure of a translation, I would paraphrase what the article or statement is about rather than quoting it. --Activism1234 13:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to KC (moved from Result section):What you stated is correct. I appreciate your help and result. Hopefully in the future everyone will be able to cooperate and colloborate to make Wikipedia an even better source of info. Thank you. --Activism1234 15:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This editor wrote "Personally, I've been part of the Wiki community for years, and then took a break for about a year, before creating a new account (forgot my info on my old one and wanted to start editing fresh and new)." It is impossible to forget an old active account name (just look in the history of any edited article). Given the disruptive nature of this editor's behavior, the chance that it was disruptive last time too is rather great. I suggest that it be required to identify the previous account before being allowed to continue editing. Zero^talk 09:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no logic to this. Besides the fact it has zero relevance to the AE request here, Nableezy already asked me about this, and I appropriately responded. If your account name was a string of numbers and letters without relevance to your life, and an account that you barely used either, would you remember it? Don't go making assumptions and personal attacks. That assumption is harsh and immensely disturbing.

In your statement, you made many assumptions that have no basis in the truth, such as: "It is impossible to forget an old active account name," in which 2 assumptions were made (it's impossible, and the account was active), and also "the chance it was disruptive last time too is rather great." And lastly, there's nothing disruptive about my account, other than Nableezy likes to start fights, harass, and take an issue with every edit even when I give him an explanation and he seems to not be able to understand it. I seek to enrich the Wikipedia community by adding important information. Nableezy has attempted on multiple occasions to censor information that doesn't agree with his personal views, which is immensely regrettable. I am happy to work with Wikipedia users to help benefit the community, even those whose views I disagree with (for example, see Arafat talk page, last section, conversation with Al Ameer Son, or WIPO talk page, in which an editor who originally misunderstood an edit seemed clarification from me which was provided and led to the two of us adding even more info to the edit). Nableezy does not allow for such work with him, instead going on and reverting, condescendingly asking for explanation which I have provided and was often right, and when I'm wrong and I let it be reverted and acknowledge it won't happen again he decides to file an AE report a week later...

I hope that in the future such gross assumptions won't be made, as they only create donkeys. Enjoy. --Activism1234 13:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be "part of the Wiki community for years" without being active? The rest of your reply is of similar quality. Let's stop mucking around. What was your previous account? We are entitled to know if it was subject to sanctions. If there is a weighty personal reason you can't make this information public, you can disclose it in private to an uninvolved administrator who can certify here that there's no problem. Zero^talk 01:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple... You create an account, you have that account for a certain amount of time (years may be an exaggeration), but you don't use it often... Stop making these ridiculous assumptions... Have you considered that maybe I also have a bad memory, a health issue, or a memory problem?? Of course not. Stop this ridiculous hounding and harrassment of the same question. Your assumption last time was "The chance it was disruptive last time too..." Yet the administrator here has appropriately ruled there was nothing disruptive of this account, despite your assumption, which was vulgar and disgusting, especially in light of the ruling. Innocent before proven guilty. I didn't receive sanctions on my previous account either, I can assure you of that, and my previous account did not touch controversial topics such as this one where people are riled up easily.

Like your previous assumption, your assumption this time too is false, and just as disgusting that you persist with it. My reply has not changed - I don't remember it. That is all. Nothing further. --Activism1234 01:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is remember one page that you edited. Your memory is that bad? Zero^talk 01:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, why are you continuing? I understand it's difficult for certain people to comprehend these types of things immediately, as a heavy and active editor like you would find the notion ridiculous. But if you edited for the purpose of "wow that's so cool! I'm adding information to the world!" (which would subsequently result in not caring that much about editing and doing it rarely), on random articles (but appropriate information), you may not remember either. And that's really it. How much longer should this back-and-forth nonsense continue? [I do remember one page I "edited." I typed up an article with a biography of me (didn't publish), but after realizing I didn't want my personal information divulged like that I decided not to publish. Classic case of hype over "wow that's so cool!"]

My answer is the same. You are stretching the question too far. --Activism1234 01:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy topic ban was over only recently and he already active in the WP:AE , he was already warned about his battleground edits by three different admins [13],[14] [15]and yet he continues with same edit pattern.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has already been exhaustively discussed on EdJohnston's talk page who commented "This started out as a complaint about Activism's editing at Hamas. It's funny there is no discussion about any of this on Talk:Hamas." The idea that this edit by an ostensible newcomer should end up at AE is ridiculous. Instead of haranguing newbies, a collaborative discussion on the talk pages is advised. Ankh.Morpork 14:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua deleted this comment of mine, supplying as reasons that it was argumentative, not helpful and inappropriate. The reason I left the comment was because Activism1234 sidestepped the point that Zero was making: unless he or she really can't remember any of the pages he/she edited, if he/she wanted to, he/she should be able to figure out what his/her previous account was. Usually, for comments to be deleted, they have to be grossly insulting, so, not thinking that was true about mine, I'm a bit nonplussed about why KillerChihuahua deleted it instead of, for instance, just leaving a counter-comment. As far as being argumentative is concerned, I think that KC must be projecting an image of me as some kind of cantankerous ranter. As far as being not helpful and inappropriate is concerned, well, I've explained the reason why I left the comment.     ←   ZScarpia   16:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it before, wasn't a heavy or active user at all, I edited only a few pages and only a few random times, nothing like the pages I'm editing now. And no, I don't remember what they were exactly, and I really couldn't care less as it was just an account that I created but not to use daily, even weekly, sometimes monthly, unlike this account which is the only one I use and use it heavily. Another example, I have a Yahoo mail account, but I haven't used it in months, and I used it only once in my life to send an email when my regular email account, which is the one I use all the time, wasn't working. If you asked me for the name and password, I wouldn't have a clue. As stated before though, and as KillerChihuahua explained, assumptions about me on this topic aren't relevant to what Nableezy was filing a complaint about. --Activism1234 17:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation.     ←   ZScarpia   18:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment: I have not yet read through all the evidence and have no opinion on result as yet; however, regarding the account, it may be impossible to forget an account name but very easy to forget the password; further, unless you suspect concurrent editing (in which case go to SPI not AE) this has precisely zero bearing on the complaint. I advise editors to resist the desire to badmouth and attack fellow editors; attempts to Poison the well will not help your case and may indeed (if taken far enough) lead to sanctions for yourself. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: A1234 made additions which were found objectionable, the were reverted and he did not restore the content, is that correct? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline any action at this time, and advise Nableezy to be more circumspect about what cases he brings here. The edit in question was removed, and not restored; there was no edit war nor other issue. We do not sanction people for making good faith edits and then abiding by the decision they did not improve the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

How far does TrevelyanL85A2 think he can go? [16] He and his DeviantArt friends are making a mockery of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

TrevelyanL85A2 has made the following set of edits on User talk:The Devil's Advocate.[17][18][19] In the second diff he has encouraged others to start an RfC/U on me. He is presumably aware that such a suggestion is yet another serious violation of his extended topic ban. Given the recent information provided on-wiki about off-wiki contacts amongst the DeviantArt group, there seems to be little doubt that TrevelyanL85A2 has been in contact with the two site-banned editors, Occam and Ferahgo, and is now continuing their own campaign as a proxy. Indeed, as Courcelles has pointed out on another arbcom page,[20] that seems to be all he is doing at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Update The RfAr of TrevelyanL85A2 has now been declined as numerically impossible.[21] Shortly after that posting of Roger Davies, TrevelyanL85A2 asserted that he was withdrawing the request.[22] In that diff, he still does not seem to be heeding the warnings that have been given to him and/or his friend SightWatcher. They apply equally well to both. As MastCell has carefully explained,[23] his failed RfAr relied on an extremely bad faith assumption which was demonstrably false. It involved casting aspersions on both MastCell and me; he repeatedly made those claims during his unsuccessful appeal and continued to do so after his one month block ended with this RfAr. The name "Mathsci" appeared multiple times throughout the request, despite TrevelyanL85A2's claim that it primarily concerned MastCell. (There is an unsurprising similarity with the aspersions cast by Occam back in December 2010 concerning Roger Davies and me.)

Following his unblock, TrevelyanL85A2 has given every appearance of continuing the dispute/campaign of Occam and Ferahgo as a proxy. SightWatcher has disclosed on-wiki that the DeviantArt group has been conferring off-wiki during TrevelyanL85A2's block. TrevelyanL85A2's most recent diffs still show that he has not yet relinquished the idea of encouraging wikipedia processes that will affect me and my editing directly and adversely. That is completely at odds with his extended topic ban and the advice and warnings he has received from multiple editors, administrators and arbitrators. In the last diff, instead of heeding those warnings, he has preferred to listen to The Devil's Advocate, who has stated several times now that the arbcom sanctions were not appropriate. The Devil's Advocate has no authority to misguide TrevelyanL85A2 in this way. In the diff above, TrevelyanL85A2 writes about "mixed messages" when everybody except The Devil's Advocate is telling him exactly the same thing. Mathsci (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz, EdJohnston and others commented on the problematic posts of SightWatcher (easy enough to find) and both gave warnings to him. One of the posts was even redacted by AGK. Presumably TrevelyanL85A2 read all those posts since they related directly to him. Despite that, he apparently took no notice of them. Mathsci (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Silver seren This editor has already received a logged warning under WP:ARBR&I. [24] Otherwise what he has written below seems unrelated in any way to wikipedia policy. If Echigo mole, a serial long term wikistalker, serial puppetmaster and community banned user, adds trolling and disruptive content anywhere on wikipedia it can be removed immediately per WP:DENY. Johnuniq has already described the incident involving the abusive RfAr made by the sock troll Keystone Crow, all of whose trolling notifications were removed by me.

TrevelyanL85A2 has been warned by arbitrators about his recent edits following the arbcom review. They include (a) giving the appearance of editing on behalf of site-banned users to continue their disputes (e.g. the meritless RfAr) (b) relying on the disruption of sock trolls of Echigo mole to "get at me" and (c) "getting at me" by repeatedly casting false aspersions concerning MastCell and me. TrevelyanL85A2 is under a clearly worded topic ban. He is not allowed to mention me or seek litigation against me on wikipedia in the ways that he has now done repeatedly. He was blocked in June for one month for mentioning me in connection with the removal of edits of Echigo mole elsewhere on wikipedia. Over a month ago he unsuccessfullly appealed that block here at AE. Is there a particular reason that Silver seren is coming here one month late to produce WP:LAME arguments concerning that appeal? Mathsci (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The last time Collect started using the words "battleground behaviour" on this page, he got a logged warning at WP:ARBR&I. The same thing might very well happen to The Devil's Advocate. He should also probably bear in mind that the purpose of this page is for reports about those sanctioned under WP:ARBR&I (there are three topic banned editors) or those who have contravened the editing restrictions on articles or their talk pages covered by WP:ARBR&I. I do not fall into either of those categories, so taking cheap pot shots at me is undoubtedly counter-productive. Mathsci (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Salvio giuliano has made the extraordinary statement that "my hands are not clean" without any justification. I don't believe in fact that he can justify that extraordinary claim in any reasonable way.

In this case, when an RfAr was opened in bad faith (based on innuendos about secret subterfuge involving MastCell and me and the trolling edits of my own creepy wikistalker), that must surely have rung alarm bells with all administrators, including Salvio giuliano. Several warnings were issued by arbitrators and administrators to SightWatcher that applied equally well to TrevelyanL85A2. Despite that advice, as soon as he was unblocked TrevelyanL85A2, presumably guided by Occam and Ferahgo, went out of his way at the first possible opportunity to propose a bizarre and meritless RfAr. Contrary to his explicit and unambiguous topic ban, my username appeared in a significant number of lines in TrevelyanL85A2's request. No matter how he represents himself, this is a repetition of the conduct patterns that were described in my evidence for the arbcom review and subsequently appeared in the final decision. TrevelyanL85A2 did not accidentally slip up: he deliberately misconstrued the advice he was privately offered by arbitrators and attempted, as Occam and Ferahgo have done in the past, to exploit loop-holes in topic bans to continue a long term campaign of harassment. The RfAr was turned down very rapidly. During TrevelyanL85A2's AE block, SightWatcher repeated exactly the same innuendos and showed some eagerness to start an RfAr similar to that of TrevelyanL85A2. Neither SightWatcher nor TrevelyanL85A2 are permitted to start or encourage proceedings on wikipedia which centre round me. The RfAr, with my username omnipresent, was exactly such a process. Perhaps it might be useful for Salvio guiliano to reread the advice and warnings offered to both SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 before making further comments with gratuitous insults. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Salvio giuliano I am not upset by TrevelyanL85A2 or SightWatcher mentioning my name. These users are simply not allowed to mention my name because that is the explicit nature of their arbcom sanctions. That is why TrevelyanL85A2 was reported here. That does not seem to be particularly hard to understand.

In December 2010 Captain Occam disrupted wikipedia on several project pages by making the suggestion that Roger Davies and I had been involved in cronyism. Now both users, both "best friends" of Ferhago, have made similar suggestions concerning MastCell and me. They are known to be in contact by instant messenger, etc. That this conduct repeats itself with such predictability is just tiresome disruption. As Shell Kinney wrote privately to me in 2011, this DeviantArt crowd showed their true colours a long time ago. They are not entitled to get endless second, third, fourth or fifth chances when an administrator comes along who has not acquainted himself with the well-documented history. By now there is an established long term record of proxy-editing/gaming the system. That was their conscious choice. They have also chosen to spend disproportionate amounts of their time in project space trying to "write me out of the equation", as Roger Davies puts it. When false accusations (in this case innunedos about MastCell and me) are presented on wikipedia, all I can do is respond. I am surprised that Salvio giuliano has chosen to take the side of the user making those accusations, which were not accepted by arbitrators nor during the appeal at WP:AE, where the innuendos were first made. Otherwise on wikipedia I am steadily trying to improve the quality of articles on modern and classical analysis. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as WP:ARBR&I is concerned, the only purposes of this page are (a) problematic edits to articles and their talk page in the subject area broadly construed and (b) editors under topic bans and extended topic bans. Neither applies to me, but TrevelyanL85A2 has been discussing both me and SightWatcher. He is not allowed to do either. The misuse of this page by The Devil's Advocate over the last week merits a formal logged warning at WP:ARBR&I together with instructions not to intervene here again when editors related to the DeviantArt group are being discussed. Mathsci (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here is the diff for the record. [25]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cailil, as I have been trying to point out repeatedly, this is not a matter of Trev following the topic area and inserting himself into this situation for no apparent reason. The timeline leading up to the recent incidents goes like this:

• 17:41, 6 January 2012 Trev is formally notified of the discretionary sanctions. Trev makes no further R&I-related edits in articlespace after this talk-page discussion.
• 21:31, 8 January 2012 Ferahgo requested an amendment to ARBR&I and mentions Trev. At no point does Trev appear to be notified that the case has been initiated and makes no comments on the request.
• 22:35, 17 January 2012 EdJohnston leaves a comment notifying Trev of an AE discussion. He does not comment there either and Ed notes that he was not proposing sanctions because had stopped editing the topic area. Furthermore he suggests Trev refrain from getting involved in the topic area further.
• 23:39, 5 May 2012 The first notification Trev receives about the amendment case that ultimately leads to the ban we are discussing, but again he appears to make no comment and the case is closed about a week later with the topic ban issued.
• 06:07, 26 May 2012 Trev is notified of an amendment to the case. All of that constitutes the background. By this point no edits had been made by Trev to the topic area in close to five months.
• 10:58, 27 May 2012 An IP sock, apparently of Echigo, commented at Trev's topic page the day after the review was amended. This sets off the period of edit-warring. Up to that point all indications are that Trev was staying out of anything involving the topic area, including an apparent lack of interest in commenting in his own defense. However, the situation in his userspace forces the matter.

Did he have any need to "track" the topic area or the editors in question to find out the information listed on the case request? No. Anyone taking a cursory glance at Mathsci's contributions surrounding his edit-warring over the banned editor's comments would become immediately familiar with all the shenanigans Trev noted.

So, I fail to see the legitimacy of your accusation that Trev was somehow not constructively staying out of the topic area. Trev was not editing Wikipedia at all until that nonsense started happening on his user page and that's gotten all this started, which I sincerely doubt was his intent. It's like if a bunch of guys show up at your house and pee on your rug. All you want is to replace your rug cause it really tied the room together and, next thing you know, you're getting involved in faked kidnappings and everyone's trying to kill you when you really just wanted to get your rug back so you can go back to bowling in peace.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sight has not said anywhere on-wiki that the DeviantArt group was discussing this situation. Sight only specifically mentions discussing the issue with Trev and that Trev was e-mailing other people about his desire for arbitration after a week of not getting a response from ArbCom. By "mixed messages" he is talking about the suggestions that he raise these issues publicly to ArbCom only to be told he is violating the ban by doing just that. It is not about what I have said. As to him mentioning your name in the request, there is no ban on mentioning your name. The ban was that he could not participate in discussions about your conduct and he was told by an Arb that he could not comment on your conduct. Seems to me that he clearly tried to respect that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear if AGK redacted those comments on the basis that the mere mention of you was a problem, or if it was more reasonably due to the possibility that the comment could provoke a response. When Ed and MBisanz warned Sight it is clear they were talking about the possibility of Sight filing an arbitration request on Trev's behalf, in partial response to a direct query on that point by Sight. Your suggestion that Trev was somehow not heeding those warnings, presuming he did read them, is not meaningful as the warnings did not directly address him or the question of whether so much as uttering your name was prohibited. I should note the restriction against Trev is not worded as a normal interaction ban one-way or otherwise, where mentioning an editor would be prohibited unless the other editor violated or is perceived to have violated the ban. The restriction seemingly allows interaction with you so long as it is not to discuss your conduct. It is a thin line to tread, but a situation where he is disputing the involvement of an admin regarding administrative actions supporting your position that includes a block against Trev and removal of his user talk privleges that resulted from interactions between you and a banned editor on Trev's talk page seems to be an obvious situation where mentioning you is unavoidable. Really it is an example of the problem with these one-way restrictions since it seems punitive to the extreme to bar Trev from complaining about conduct in his userspace.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On that point Seren raised, it should be noted that an Arb cited that exact kind of activity from Mathsci as problematic battleground behavior. Obviously, Math did not give much regard to that comment. I also would add that Trev has removed the material in the case request and said he made the wrong choice so I think taking action at this stage would be inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Math, my use of the term "battleground behavior" above is noting a description of your behavior given by one of the Arbs in the recent update of this case. Anyone who looks at the diff can see that this is true. In that case you were also admonished for battleground behavior. AE is not just for reporting people who have violated a sanction. That you were admonished for battleground behavior in a recent update of the case, with one Arb pointing to the very behavior that sparked off this recent dispute, and the fact you filed this report against one of the other parties of this dispute makes your conduct perfectly valid to raise as the notice at the top of the page clearly states.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil, whether ArbCom takes on an arbitration case seems to be a separate issue from whether there are legitimate conduct issues in need of addressing. Mathsci's conduct is probably not worthy of a new arbitration case, but that does not mean it is not relevant to this AE case. Earlier you said "it's clear that rather than finding other things to do on wiki Trevelyan is following the area he is topic banned from and the editors he is banned from interacting with" when the fact is that a banned editor obsessed with Mathsci and Mathsci himself sucked Trev into something related to that area and those editors. He did not choose involvement in this of his own volition. Mathsci's conduct towards that editor is largely responsible for there being any cause for Math to push for sanction, because that editor objected to Math's conduct towards him. Can you really expect an editor to be completely silent over another editor's conduct when it involves the editor's own userspace? The answer to that question points to where there is a "clean hands" issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TrevelyanL85A2 is banned from commenting about Mathsci. Echigo Mole is the sock that is harassing Mathsci. Commenting about Echigo is just begging for further tests of limits of his ban. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trev's request to Arbcom was declined[26]. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci has no right whatsoever to be editing TrevelyanL85A2's talk page beyond general notifications. Anything else can be seen as provoking an incident in order to force TrevelyanL85A2 to break the ban. Such instigation by Mathsci can be seen here where he removes a comment by an IP address that has absolutely nothing to do with Mathsci. Trevelyan reverts him and states, "I would rather you not edit my user page. Thank you." Mathsci then reverted again here, saying, "rv edit per WP:BAN - please consult a member of arbcom in case of doubt - thanks)". Regardless of whether there is any truth in this statement, Mathsci should absolutely not be the one to be enforcing the ban. Trevelyan then reverted him back again, responding, "I have asked you to stay off my page. Please respect that, and do not edit my user OR talk pages again. Thank you."

Mathsci then on the 10th removed the Arbitration notification. Yes, banned user, whatever. However, not all comments by banned users everywhere are reverted, nor should they be. It is quite clear that all of this is meant to just be harassment of Trevelyan and it also appears that Johnuniq was involved in both cases of harassment as well, so take that for what you will. User talk pages may "belong to Wikipedia", yes, but no one has the right to remove comments from them that the user who the page is for wants to be there. Silverseren^C 03:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Salvio, I don't think it is reasonable to invoke clean hands when the issue is a clear cut sanction violation. Enforcing arbcom sanctions is not optional that way, but should depend only on whether the conditions of the sanction have been breached. If you believe that Mathsci has done wrong too then that should be considered as a separate issue. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil, uh, Trev did list MathSci as a Party. Check this diff. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Answered below by Cailil - thank you. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Also, Trev's ban isn't an interaction ban, so as long as the dialogue isn't regarding R&I or MathSci's (and other involved parties') conduct, he could communicate with them if he so chooses, if he so chooses. He could wish MathSci a happy birthday, for example, and it wouldn't violate the remedy (granted I'm using an unlikely example here...) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More addendum: I can't remember where it was brought up, but you could revert a banned user if you decide to be personally responsible for the content. (And it is on Trev's user talk page, which we generally give more leeway to people as they see fit.) Also, it might just be my personal point of view, but let's say that MathSci and MastCell communicated with each other privately (I do not have evidence of this, mind you) - if MastCell didn't act on MathSci's behalf (or have the actions seem that way), then yes, I agree that Trev wouldn't have been able to bring up MathSci's name. If, however, MastCell did act on MathSci's behalf, then the question is more meddled. The details of this case is very unclear to me (I do not currently have information that a lot of editors here seem to have), so forgive me if I say that all I can offer is a view that is as impartial as I can have. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Cailil: Thank you for making yourself clear. I have struck out my comment above as it no longer applies. However, I still think that Trev filed the case as to prove that someone was editing on MathSci's behalf - for him to show that, he had to show private communication did happen between MathSci and MastCell. In this case, I feel, it is unfortunately unavoidable if that was the point being proven. As far as I could tell, the only places MathSci's names were being brought up in the initial request was to show that MastCell was editing or acting on MathSci's behalf. It was (only) in his reply to Jclemens that he directly addressed an action by MathSci (but the action in question involved Trev's name - see this, which was SightWatcher's post to SilkTork's talk page). I am still unsure where MathSci's conduct was brought up in the original request - and, as such, I'm not sure the topic ban was violated. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This request was filed as a result of a arbitration request made by TrevelyanL85A2. Based on what I've been reading so far, TrevelyanL85A2's request seems like a good faith error based on a misunderstanding regarding instructions given to TrevelyanL85A2 by ArbCom. Plainly stated, I don't think editors should be penalized for making good faith mistakes. Given that case has since been declined by ArbCom, this enforcement request is now stale, and any sactions imposed against TrevelyanL85A2 would be punative, not preventative.

However, I am concerned by the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality exhibited by MathSci. Prior to TrevelyanL85A2's arbitration request, MathSci edit-warred with TrevelyanL85A2 despite TrevelyanL85A2's request that MathSci not edit his use page. MathSci could have simply notified an uninvolved admin and ask that the posts be removed. Since then, MathSci has made insulting comments "Even in itty-bitty words of less than one syllable", threatened other editors ("TDA will probably receive a an official logged warning if they continue making unhelpful remarks here" and accused Salvio giuliano of "gratuitous insults", etc.. Mathsci has been previously admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct and apparently at one point agreed to binding topic ban. Perhaps another break from this topic-space might do them good. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Agree with Tim & Ed - we should either place this on hold or wait for the Arbs call on it (but at this point with 5 declines it is unlikely to be accepted). However I also agree with MBisanz. If the Arbs don't deal with this in their decision then it'd be fair to say we see this is a direct breach of the topic ban (mention of Mathsci and as Ed points out the mention of Echigo Mole). In my view 3 months would be an appropriate sanction, as it's clear that rather than finding other things to do on wiki Trevelyan is following the area he is topic banned from and the editors he is banned from interacting with, in so doing he's both breached the spirit & the letter of the ban--Cailil ^talk 01:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose sanctioning Trev in any way because I firmly believe that he who seeks a remedy must have clean hands; in this case, Mathsci's hands do not appear clean and, therefore, I don't think his request should be satisfied. Furthermore, it is also doubtful that Trev actually intended to violate his restriction, considering that the reply he got from ArbCom could be, in good faith, misunderstood. By the way, one-way interaction bans never work and are basically drama waiting to happen; that is why I personally encourage any interested parties to ask ArbCom to amend their decision. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Salvio can you evidence your position re clean hands?--Cailil ^talk 01:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if Mathsci is so upset by Trev mentioning his username, then I'd say that he should not be editing Trev's userspace... All this started because Mathsci reverted another user on Trev's talk page, despite being repeatedly asked not to and being informed that such actions were signs of a battleground mentality — for diffs, cf. The Devil's Advocate and Silver seren's submissions —; now, you may call it poking the bear, having unclean hands or even trying to game his opponent's restriction, but the bottom line is that if he had just refrained from editing said opponent's userspace, as asked, this would never have happened. Mathsci conduct should be discouraged and, that is why, this thread should be closed without action. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The way I look at this Salvio is that if the ArbCom had seen it that way they would have taken the case. Furthermore MBisanz has addressed this above: TrevelyanL85A2 could have filed an RFAR that neither listed Mathsci as a party, or that did not take pot-shots. He didn't do either, and has breached his restriction.
  I take your point that Mathsci should have stayed away from TrevelyanL85A2's user space that is a piece of advice we can give, but as a point of fact he was reverting a banned user.
  We can both discourage Mathsci from interacting with TrevelyanL85A2 and address the substantive issue of enforcement for TrevelyanL85A2. But there is no clean hands issue here (that would be tantamount to calling this thread vexatious or frivolous) -TrevelyanL85A2's restrictions, as Courcelles has explained, are quite clear--Cailil ^talk 15:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think unclean hands is limited to frivolous or vexatious filings, and I think it should cover cases where the reporter's misconduct is a proximate cause of the respondent's misconduct. But, unlike real courts, we have the option of sanctioning both sides rather than sanctioning neither. The question of whether Mathsci's hands are clean, and, if not, what should be done about it, is sufficiently difficult that I'd rather not answer it when, in my view, we should not be acting on this request in any event, for the reasons expressed below. T. Canens (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wholeheartedly agree. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Penwhale - I should have said Neither. Also ArbCom made their ruling on the rejecting TrevelyanL85A2's case - we're not here to go through that again--Cailil ^talk 18:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view, a critical issue is whether TrevelyanL85A2 could believe in good faith that his arbitration case filing, including the mentions of Mathsci, is allowed by the Committee. If they could have so believed, then I don't think sanctions are appropriate, even if arbcom did not intend to allow such mentions in the filings. But to determine that question, we will have to examine the emails exchanged between TrevelyanL85A2 and the Committee, which, to put it charitably, is quite unlikely to happen. The single sentence quote Courcelles provided is not nearly enough to answer the question, and only the Committee itself is in possession of all the information necessary to make an intelligent determination in this case. Since I do not believe we can act on the basis of the information before us, I think this should be closed without action, and without prejudice to Mathsci seeking any relief directly from the Committee. T. Canens (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, in my opinion, this would be the best solution to the busillis. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree re clean hands Tim in this paricular instance (unless there are diffs I haven't seen I think that that is quite a claim); I do however think Mathsci should stay away from TrevelyanL85A2's user space no matter what is there from here on in. That said I do see where you're coming from re: the overall level of information, so I wont argue with a close without prejudice--Cailil ^talk 15:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So closed. T. Canens (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 21:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Might appear as a comment on editors instead of content. A vague reference to "some", while expressing his personal opinion on their intentions: "seek to deny them that title".

First, isn't it wonderful to know that AGF is alive and well here? ;). This change popped up in my watch list. I believed that content point was clear without "some seek" part. My intention is cleaner editing environment. I wanted AE administrators to evaluate if such a rhetoric is acceptable. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get your point, this is a waste of everybody's time, so let's close this. I don't worry about being sanctioned, I do not use WP:AE that much. In my defense, I was not sure about this request, the comment appeared as toxic to me but I myself mentioned "vagueness", thus I'm not sure the request stands as absurd a priori. The fact that a claim is lost does not imply that it was frivolous. Despite our long history I do not have any standing content or personal conflict with Nableezy and appreciate his non-confrontational comment here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is safe to assume that a sufficient warning was issued.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The account has just returned to active editing. Despite his history it appears that the lesson was not learned.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

What? In the comment I responded to, brewcrewer wrote: The descendents of refugees may be considered by some to be "refugees" in the legal sense (emphasis added). I was responding to that. Using the same word used by brewcrewer. I can't say "some" now? This really has to be one of the more frivolous things to have been brought to any admin board anywhere. nableezy - 03:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before yall go overboard here, Agada hasn't been editing in the topic area for some time, so far as I know, and the motivation for this, if I were to hazard a guess, is more personal than ideological. An interaction ban would be enough to prevent any further issues, at least as far as I am concerned. nableezy - 21:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Maybe I'm just missing something, but I'm really not seeing it. I don't see anything that's commenting on anyone in that conversation, so I'm a bit confused. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Me either; I just see Nableezy commenting on content. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Thirded. This is frivolous. Some sanction on the filer may be in order. T. Canens (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not knowing the history here well enough, I'll defer to you and others on your last point. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• AgadaUrbanit has a significant history of misconduct in this area, with several blocks for edit warring/1RR violations and a 5-month topic ban from I/P altogether imposed in June 2011: [27], reduced on appeal essentially to "time served" in August 2011. I don't see this as a possible good-faith mistake, but as an attempt to use AE as a bludgeon against one who disagrees in a content dispute. I would be in favor of, at minimum, reimposing upon AgadaUrbanit the suspended 2011 5-month ban from the entire I/P topic area. I would also not be averse if others think a longer sanction is needed. Nableezy's comment is not remotely actionable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would go with T. Canens' idea of an indefinite ban from commenting on or filing AE topics, with the exception that AgadaUrbanit can comment in a thread if he is the subject of a report, and then only to the extent of defending himself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to agree with Seraphimblade on his final point here. There is no reasonable basis for an actionable complaint here. There is some reason to believe that the motivations of the editor bringing the complaint are, basically, strategic, given his own history regarding this content. As such, this request could be seen as an attempt to game the system on the part of the filer. No objections to reimposing the suspended ban limit, which seems to be of somewhere between 2 or 3 months. I'm not entirely sure of any precedents in that area, so I don't know whether there is any rounding involved or anything like that. Alternately, no objections to just imposing a completely new sanction of some greater length than the suspended ban, to avoid any questions about the mathematics involved. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• After thinking about this, I'm not sure that a topic ban is a good fit for this, since AU does not seem to be involved in the underlying dispute. This is either a personal campaign against Nableezy, or, in my view more likely, simply pure cluelessness. Whether or not in good faith, frivolous AE filings waste everyone's time for absolutely no benefit whatsoever, and are by definition disruptive and sanctionable. I think a restriction from filing or commenting in AE cases is warranted. T. Canens (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I regret not having checked the editor's recent history earlier. Yeah, there have been a lot of edits lately, but not so many dealing with the topic. That being the case, as per Nableezy's second comment above, there is a decent reason to think that it might be more personally motivated than content related. However, as indicated, that itself is sanctionable. The AE restriction suggested by T. Canena above seems reasonable. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So closed. AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from filing new AE reports, or making comments in existing ones, except that they are permitted to comment in threads in which they are the subject of a report, but only to the extent necessary to defend themselves, and that they are permitted to appeal this ban at AE. T. Canens (talk) 13:43, 15 July 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

2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

1. 17:39, 13 July 2012 Revert #1
2. 13:42, 14 July 2012 Revert #2, within 24 hours of the first

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

1. Warned on 20:44, 13 July 2012 by One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The same inflammatory edit summaries and inflammatory talk page posts to go with the edit warring that can be seen at this recent 3RR report involving the same editor. I won't even try to hazard a guess at what this addition is doing in the article itself. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[28]

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

• This ingenious edit, along with the obvious 1RR violation and their lengthy block log, has earned Varlaam a three month break. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Given said previous blocks, I'd also be for an indefinite ban from the Troubles, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I just placed the formal Troubles warning at the same time I made the block, I'm not sure that we technically can place the topic ban right now. T. Canens (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did this count as notification, or would we consider that article-specific? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That just mentioned the 1RR (which is what I based my block on), and not the discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. I'll close this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:19, 15 July 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

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. July 9th talknic puts the word "Nakba" in bold in the lead despite the fact that in an RfC he started [29] before his TBAN specifically about this issue, it was concluded the word should not be bolded in the lead.
2. July 14th Calls part of an article (that has been there for well over a year with no objection) "insidious appropriation[s] of Palestinian wikispace". This is obvious BATTLEGROUND mentality.
3. July 14th Accuses me of attempting to "coerce an editor into contravening Policy". I consider this a very serious accusation indeed. I gave him an opportunity to retract his accusation but he declined.

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

1. Notified of case here.
2. Received a 3 month topic ban [30] for his talk page conduct, which unfortunately still hasn't improved.
3. Recieved a 6 month topic ban [31] for, among other things, being "persistent and oblivious".

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Talknic has recently returned from a 6 month topic ban. During those 6 months he edited exactly one article outside the topic area (on a subject he previously raised in an IP related article [32]) but he did find time to collect various diffs on his talk page "for future reference" [33]. As soon at the topic ban was over, he immediately returned to exactly the same arguments from before his ban. See for example the talk page of 1948 Arab–Israeli War, an article over which he was blocked twice for 1RR violations. Compare the talk page now to archive 12 and onwards.

Talknic shows obvious WP:TE and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I can provide additional diffs of problematic behavior, if necessary. In the diffs above I provided only the most straightforward and easy to follow examples. There are plenty more.

@Nish: You and I agreed, on the basis of the sources you provided, that neither "Nakba" nor "War of Independence" are synonymous with the title of the article in question and therefore the Hebrew should be removed from the first sentence of the lead and both should be bolded in another article. I edited accordingly. How does that amount to it being ok for talknic to make an edit that was specifically rejected in an RfC? How is it improper for me to bring it up? He edited against an explicit consensus based on WP:LEAD ("Nakba" not being synonymous with "1948 Arab-Israeli War" (as you yourself argued) and therefore should not be bolded in that article). He added "Nakba" after I removed the Hebrew, so there was no NPOV violation at the time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[34]

I can only hope this time administrators allow me time to prepare a reply before passing judgement. Won't be long. Thanks talknic (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not attempted at length to contest the prior bans place on me. For the most part justifiable, though the last was quite bizarre [35] The administrators could not even agree[36] on WP:1RR. Instead they default to my past bans without taking into account No More Mr Nice Guy's own [37], obvious belligerence and determination to maintain a contravention of NPOV.

For the duration of the last ban period, No More Mr Nice Guy's contribution to the articles I've attempted to edit and/or rectify was virtually nothing. His presence virtually non-existant. He's shown:
No interest in: the numerous already existing Primary Sources in those articles even though he claims Primary Sources cannot be used, which is contrary to actual "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them"
No interest in: "clunky", confusing wording. You'll note No More Mr Nice Guys is now collaborating with other editors who agree there is an issue after I identified and attempted to rectify that issue.
No interest in: unsourced statements Note the unsourced statement by Chaim Weizmann was never and has still not been addressed.
No interest in: the deliberate and blatant contravention of NPOV, by consensus and predominantly maintained by himself
Virtually no interest in maintaining the quality of articles until I make an edit. [38] [39] [40]

The moment I have attempted to rectify in good faith some of the issues I've identified (and often have agreement from other editors that there are issues), No More Mr Nice Guy is back. This has been an ongoing pattern by No More Mr Nice Guy since I first started editing Wikipedia. Generating huge and mostly un-necessary discussions, instead of attempting to collaborate. Never once offering a suggestion, never once collaborating. Presenting instead a sea of changing goal posts. Misrepresenting WP:Primary. Misrepresenting WP:BRD. A few examples:

Early Period:

1. [41] Where No More Mr Nice Guy immediately attempted to coerce me into contravening editorial policy "Although wikipedia tends to avoid labeling people and organizations as "terrorist", I wouldn't object to you doing it here if you'll join me in doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2011. Note his hasty retraction. Yet in the continuing discussion at numerous points, he still falsely accuses me of trying to label people as terrorists. No More Mr Nice Guy eventually had to concede. The edit was made almost identical to my first suggestion. The length of the discussion was generated, not by myself, but by No More Mr Nice guy's obfuscations, refusal to collaborate, numerous moving goal posts, deliberate provocations and threats.

1. [42] No More Mr Nice Guy desperately attempts to keep faulty maths, against the consensus of numerous editors. No More Mr Nice Guy makes no attempt to collaborate or solve the issue of faulty maths. It was myself who sought outside help and my determination to collaborate that eventually saw No More Mr Nice Guy having to concede. The edit was made almost identical to my first suggestion, it stands today [43]. The length of the discussion was generated, not by myself, but by No More Mr Nice guy's obfuscations, refusal to collaborate, numerous moving goal posts, deliberate attempts to go against consensus and WP:BRD which he has falsely claimed is binding policy.

Recent:

1. [44] and Deliberately preventing the rectification of a blatant contravention of NPOV which existed for some 16 months, until Nishidani appeared, using much the same argument and evidence as myself .. see an analysis of the discussion below). The length of the discussion was generated, not by myself, but by No More Mr Nice guy's obfuscations, refusal to collaborate, numerous moving goal posts, deliberate provocations and threats.
   
2. Talk Reverting everything where a partial revert could have been performed. His reason "If you make smaller edits I won't need to revert the whole thing to correct your made up stuff" Yet he fails to show I've "made anything up" and seems to be claiming Hebrew is not a Jewish language. This is battleground mentality.

No More Mr Nice Guy's On Going Belligerence:

Since 18 March 2011 (UTC) over a period of some 16 months or 477 days or 686,880 minutes, I had attempted by various means to address the blatant contravention of NPOV - [45] - [46] - [47] - [48] - [49] - [50] in the Lede of an Article.
I don't believe it is against any policy to address a contravention of policy, even if it takes a thousand attempts.
Opposition to correcting this obvious breach of NPOV was led predominantly by No More Mr Nice Guy. On each, the length of the discussions was generated by No More Mr Nice guy's obfuscations, refusal to collaborate, numerous moving goal posts, deliberate provocations and threats.

On my last attempt to address the long standing contravention of NPOV and several other issues in the Lede of the article, No More Mr Nice Guy entered the discussion @ 05:10, 1 July 2012, lodging an immediate objection to everything "I disagree with all the suggestions above, most of which were discussed at length before talknic got topic banned, and failed to gain consensus. Coming back over and over with the same stuff is just tendentious. "

Attempting to retain a breach of NPOV is tendentious. Attempting to address that concern is not. Furthermore his objection was to all the suggestions, several points were never discussed before. No More Mr Nice Guy has made this "coming back over and over with the same stuff " accusation numerous times, when in fact different points have been raised in this and in previous attempts. I pointed this out, as I have in the past at the same tired accusation [51]. No More Mr Nice Guy has always chosen to ignore this detail

After 477 days of No More Mr Nice Guy attempting to maintain a contravention of NPOV, Nishidani entered the debate 9@ 22:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guys suggests Nishidani read the archives. He does read them and comes to the conclusion that "Talknic's point is not that nakba is not in the lead. It is that a balancing set of Arabic terms for their definition of the war does not follow the Hebrew terms. This is a clear violation of standard article leads in the I/P area, where all places, events and peoples with names in both languages are mentioned in sequence. It is an elementary point, and if the consensus ignored it, the consensus ignored the problem." Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC). This consensus to contravene NPOV policy has been led by none other than No More Mr Nice Guy![reply]

Nishidani goes on to offer very much the same arguments and evidence as I had for over a year and through numerous bans. Lo and behold and after some 16 months of my being brow beaten, accused, hounded, fed misrepresentations of editorial policy, being reported and banned, without the administrators ever noting No More Mr Nice Guy's own errant behaviour, the issue of NPOV was finally addressed

Looking at No More Mr Nice Guy's complaints:

1. July 9th talknic puts the word "Nakba" in bold in the lead despite the fact that in an RfC he started [52] before his TBAN specifically about this issue, it was concluded the word should not be bolded in the lead. "

Inadvertent as explained here. Neither I or No More Mr Nice Guy were aware there were two re-directs, the one I used still led to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, leading me to believe the edit was still warranted. The errant redirect was changed by No More Mr Nice Guy, only after I'd made an inadvertent edit based on that redirect and after I'd pointed out the fact that there was an errant re-direct.

Furthermore, the previous consensus he mentions had already been superseded by his agreement with Nishidani. In the discussion No More Mr Nice Guy agreed that the word/s should be bolded, reversing the previous consensus he now sees fit to mention and; in it's new position at 1948 Palestine War he has bolded both
The eventual addressing of the NPOV issue and the bolding issue is surely vindication of my attempts over the past 16 months to address the matter of a contravention of NPOV. A contravention led by No More Mr Nice Guy wherein he coerced others into concensus contravening NPOV.

It was only after Nishidani's argument @ 11:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC) No More Mr Nice Guy agrees to a solution @ 12:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC) a matter of only 49 minutes. This sudden 49 minute about face, sudden show of cooperation, despite my having previously presented in numerous discussions almost identical reason and evidence over a period of some 16 months, would seem to indicate a history of belligerence on No More Mr Nice Guy's part, stretching back to 18 March 2011 (UTC)

1. July 14th Calls part of an article (that has been there for well over a year with no objection) "insidious appropriation[s] of Palestinian wikispace". This is obvious BATTLEGROUND mentality.

A tongue in cheek comment is not BATTLEGROUND mentality. Purposefully preventing the addressing of NPOV is BATTLEGROUND mentality. Doing a total revert for one word is BATTLEGROUND mentality. Moving goal posts is is BATTLEGROUND mentality. Misrepresenting WP:PRIMARY and WP:BRD is BATTLEGROUND mentality. Hounding is BATTLEGROUND mentality.

1. July 14th Accuses me of attempting to "coerce an editor into contravening Policy". I consider this a very serious accusation indeed. I gave him an opportunity to retract his accusation but he declined.

No More Mr Nice Guy challenged me to "Go ahead and revert". Which would have been a contravention of WP:1RR and of WP:BRD, an essay, which No More Mr Nice Guy demands as policy. ... attempt to coerce "Although wikipedia tends to avoid labeling people and organizations as "terrorist", I wouldn't object to you doing it here if you'll join me in doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2011 ... and finally, convincing editors to maintain a Lede in contravention of NPOV is coercing editor/s into contravening Policy.

No More Mr Nice Guy's Additional comments: "During those 6 months he edited exactly one article outside the topic area (on a subject he previously raised in an IP related article [53])"
What relevance does this have? Or this?
"..but he did find time to collect various diffs on his talk page "for future reference" [54]"
"As soon at the topic ban was over, he immediately returned to exactly the same arguments from before his ban. See for example the talk page of 1948 Arab–Israeli War, an article over which he was blocked twice for 1RR violations."
Question: Is re-addressing an obvious and blatant breech of NPOV (led by No More Mr Nice Guy) a breech of policy? I think not.

However I suggest a long standing and consistent effort on the part of No More Mr Nice Guy to maintain a breech of NPOV most definitely is! I am only attempting to inform readers improve articles and address breeches of policy. No More Mr Nice Guy has resumed his belligerence on my return in order to prevent information he doesn't like from being included.

Folk might also note: no other editor has attempted to have me banned!

No More Mr Nice Guy 20:38, 16 July 2012 -- "How does that amount to it being ok for talknic to make an edit that was specifically rejected in an RfC?"

You had already agreed at 12:30, 7 July 2012 to supersede the RfC and; at the time the late bold edit was made 13:11, 9 July 2012 two days later, neither of us were aware there were two redirects. One lower cased Israeli war of independence (now changed to 1948 Palestine war, thx) which, since we'd been discussing redirects, I'd used. The other, Upper Cased Israeli War of Independence which obviously you had used.

For two days I was still being redirected to 1948 Arab-Israeli war, so your prior discussion on changing the redirect was making no sense to me until after the edit and revert and on your complaints I looked at the difference between lower casing and Upper Casing, revealing two different redirects. At that point I informed you and immediately conceded, explaining how it came about ... Inadvertently. At 17:46, 9 July 2012 after I'd pointed to the lower case/upper case you changed it, appropriately. Problem solved ... for everyone!!! Why are you still making accusations? talknic (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators ought surely be looking at the ongoing behaviour of the person bringing this complaint, some of which I have addressed above. None of which was taken into consideration on my last banning [55]
More to the point, note my response to EdJohnson Where I am accused of "hurling acronyms at random". As can be seen by the eventual addressing of the blatant contravention of NPOV my comments were completely justified.

Coren 04:03, 16 July 2012 -- Talknic, from here this looks clearly like an immediate return to the same battleground mentality and tendentious editing you were sanctioned for as soon as the ban ended. Editing Wikipedia is about collaboration, not battles to control article contents; and you seem entirely unable to engage in the former.

I suggest reading this 18 March 2011 (UTC). Then tell us who refuses point blank to collaborate, has a battleground mentality, has a field of constantly moving goal posts attempting to control article content.

Then read this [56] where, on being presented with the same debate, almost identical evidence by another editor, No More Mr Nice Guy suddenly drops his belligerence & collaborates. Within 49 minutes the issue is resolved after 16 months of point blank refusal to collaborate when debating the issue with myself.

As for my immediate return to the same battleground mentality and tendentious editing. In the period of my banning, No More Mr Nice Guy showed virtually no interest what so ever in maintaining the quality of articles. Did not address the contravention of PNOV. Did not attempt to remove Primary Sources or find sources for unsourced statements.

All I have done is attempt to address those issues. It has been No More Mr Nice Guy who has resumed his hounding, full reverts when a partially revert is all that is necessary and resumed his attempt to retain a blatant breach of NPOV. He has never once attempted to collaborate with me. Meanwhile I have offered hundreds of suggestions in numerous attempts to satisfy his criteria, only to be met with another moving goal post.

Coren 21:35, 16 July 2012 -- "perhaps you wish to point me at a particular point in it?"

Sorry, there is no Archived History @ [57] I can't extract specific diffs.

"All I see there is you insisting on some phrasing in the lede "

I beg to differ. I was attempting to address the breech of NPOV, regardless of the final wording. By default there are only suggestions from one party, myself. It's rather difficult and incredibly frustrating to collaborate when one party stubbornly refuses.

This is No More Mr Nice Guy's first response, only voiced when I proposed actually making the change:

"I think the current version works better. First of all not only the Palestinians refer to it as the Catastrophe. Second I think that "the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" is not clear. Neighboring to whom? Syria? Lebanon? Also it's incorrect to say that the Palestinians were left under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's what he 'thinks'. No asking for sources. The original was completely unsourced BTW.

"...and responding poorly when supporting sources are requested of you (which is as policy demands)."

I beg to differ again. In all I offered in that discussion alone, five suggestions, each with different sources. When 1st asked for sources, I gave them:

@ 05:33, 25 March 2011: "I suggest the following change be made in order to reconcile the closing line with the opening line :" "The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Israel (1) , Jordan(2) and Egypt(3)." talknic (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ 18:25, 25 March 2011: I re-shaped the suggestion & provided different sources, by which time attempting to fulfill no More Mr Nice Guy's ever changing criteria and growing demands, resulted in a ridiculously bloated sentence to which he naturally objected.

At every point and every suggestion No More Mr Nice Guy moved the goal posts, offering no suggestions whatsoever, no collaboration. He has repeated the same pattern in every discussion we have had on this matter. talknic (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights -- "I agree with Coren ..."

By 22:42, 17 July 2012, there's no final decision by Coren to agree with. Coren's last words were "The discussion is rather long; perhaps you wish to point me at a particular point in it?" I did so. There has yet to be a response.

Re - "number of words" comment. I have attempted to explain fully a long, on going and clear case of blatant breech of NPOV maintained by the complainant, the actual cause of the going dispute. The guidelines for making requests do say complainants should have clean hands. Please read Comment by Nishidani's. I have been shown to be correct. talknic (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T. Canens -- "Agree with Coren and Blade."

Same. by 23:49, 17 July 2012 there's no final decision by Coren to agree with. Please read Comment by Nishidani re No More Mr Nice Guy's 16 months maintaining a breech of NPOV talknic (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T. Canens/The Blade of the Northern Lights -- Coren had the decency to ask for more specifics, which I gave. You could at least have had the decency to await Coren's response before agreeing with what was a non existent final response. Furthermore, my past behaviour, based on past judgements is not the issue here. No More Mr Nice Guy's current complaints are. Please address them. Repeated and refuted here for your convenience:

1. July 9th talknic puts the word "Nakba" in bold in the lead despite the fact that in an RfC he started [58] before his TBAN specifically about this issue, it was concluded the word should not be bolded in the lead.

A) I explained at 17:15, 9 July 2012 -- "Interesting - to make the edit I got to the page from Israeli war of independence try it. Too many redirects for WoI might confuse readers....." ... B) No More Mr Nice Guy had already agreed at 12:30, 7 July 2012 that the 'alleged' consensus on the RFC was obsolete. ... C) The discussion had encompassed redirects. I'd noted a redirect and when I made the late bold edit 13:11, 9 July 2012, a full two days later, the redirect I'd been using Israeli war of independence still pointed to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Look at the redirect history, changed by No More Mr Nice Guy at 17:46, 9 July 2012, after I'd made the edit, after No More Mr Nice Guy had reverted, after I discovered the confusion over there being two different and confusing redirects, after I'd told No More Mr Nice Guy about it, after I'd already conceded, thereby solving the confusing two redirect issue for everyone, including future readers. Issue marked done! He is complaining about a resolved issue, that came about through and was resolved by, an inadvertent edit via an errant redirect!

1. July 14th Calls part of an article (that has been there for well over a year with no objection) "insidious appropriation[s] of Palestinian wikispace". This is obvious BATTLEGROUND mentality.

A tongue in cheek comment, is not battleground mentality. Purposefully maintaining a blatant breech of NPOV for over 16 months, over numerous attempts to have it addressed [59] - [60] - [61] - [62] - [63] - [64] - [65] - [66] is battleground mentality. Making no attempt to cooperate in addressing the NPOV issue, is battleground mentality. Doing everything he can to have me banned (no one else has), is battleground mentality.

1. July 14th Accuses me of attempting to "coerce an editor into contravening Policy". I consider this a very serious accusation indeed. I gave him an opportunity to retract his accusation but he declined.

No More Mr Nice Guy challenged me to "Go ahead and revert". Which would have been a contravention of WP:1RR and of WP:BRD

He has for 16 months mounted a consistent campaign to persuade numerous editors to maintain a blatant breach of NPOV at every attempt I have made to address the matter

"Although wikipedia tends to avoid labeling people and organizations as "terrorist", I wouldn't object to you doing it here if you'll join me in doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2011

Are these not attempts to coerce editors into breaching policy?

No More Mr Nice Guy's Additional comments: "During those 6 months he edited exactly one article outside the topic area (on a subject he previously raised in an IP related article [67])"

What relevance does editing an article outside the topic area have?

"..but he did find time to collect various diffs on his talk page "for future reference" [68]"

Notes on my own page? Is this against some policy?

"As soon at the topic ban was over, he immediately returned to exactly the same arguments from before his ban. See for example the talk page of 1948 Arab–Israeli War, an article over which he was blocked twice for 1RR violations."

Of course I did. The breach of NPOV POLICY was still there!!! It didn't go away during the period I was banned. No More Mr Nice Guy didn't attempt to resolve it!! In fact, on my return No More Mr Nice Guy resumed his attempts to maintain a breach of policy!

Question: Is it actually against any editorial policy to re-address an obvious, ongoing and blatant breach of NPOV?

Only after 16 months of my trying and the intervention by Nishidani, has it been resolved, with No More Mr Nice Guy having to concede!

No More Mr Nice Guy also makes this false claim "in an RfC he started [69] before his TBAN specifically about this issue" ... My Last post there was on the 17:00, 7 October 2011 (bottom of the page). The TBAN was 16:59, 26 December 2011. The TBAN was the result of attempting to resolve the issue since 18:31, 18 March 2011 and administrators failing to look at the hands of the complainant..

As the breach of NPOV has now been resolved through my determination to address it, I've surely been vindicated in respect to all those attempts, isn't it time to look at the behaviour of the person bringing the complaint for once? Can you find any instance where he has actually attempted to collaborate with me? Ever offered a suggestion for wording? Meanwhile I've offered scores of suggestions attempting to meet every changing demand No More Mr Nice Guy has put forward talknic (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to Received a 3 month topic ban [15] for his talk page conduct, which unfortunately still hasn't improved

The blatant and purposeful breach of NPOV Policy issue hadn't gone away! No 'improvement', no attempt to rectify it. No More Mr Nice Guy maintained it for 16 months, while coercing other editors to maintain concensus to breach Policy.

Recieved a 6 month topic ban [16] for, among other things, being "persistent and oblivious".

The blatant and purposeful breach of NPOV Policy issue hadn't gone away! No More Mr Nice Guy 'persistently' maintained it, 'oblivious' to NPOV Policy until Nishidani stepped in presenting much the same argument as my own, only then did No More Mr Nice Guy make any attempt to collaborate.

Administrators failed to also take into account the dirt on No More Mr Nice Guy's hands. It is not the role of editors to continually and purposefully prevent information they do not like by obfuscation, misrepresenting policy, moving goal posts, coercing editors to break the rules, frustrating & goading other editors OR continually attempting to have other editors banned! talknic (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil - Agree with what? Coren has yet to give a final determination after I provided the requested information. Allowing a person who has for 16 months maintained a blatant breach of NPOV and coersed other editors into consensus to breach NPOV and; on my re-addressing the un-addressed breach of NPOV, resumed his determination to keep breaching NPOV and in doing so generated countless pages of useless dialogue in order to keep that breach of policy in EVERY discussion on the issue! Please read Nishidani's comment, because were it not for Nishidani's intervention No More Mr Nice Guy would still be doing it talknic (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nishidani Since he returned, Talnic's very detailed arguments have been only, as far as I recalled, responded to by NMMGG. NMMGG mainly (apologies if I err, but this is all very much a TLDR altercation) said the prior consensus had addressed his concerns, and he was just more or less kicking a dead horse. What little I examined suggested to me that the prior discussions were not resolutive, nor adequate. It is highly improper of NMMGG in his first diff above, to take that as some violation. Talknic turned out to be correct, and NMMGG's dismissal of his arguments as 'resolved' in a prior consensus superficial. NMMGG denied at length that the hebrew and arabic terms were synonymous. I stepped in, and showed they were synonymous. Given their synonymity, nakba had to be bolded exactly as the hebrew term. Prior to this, as talknic insisted, WP:NPOV was violated by having only the Hebrew term. NMMGG's solution is to avoid parity by removing the Hebrew term for the war, so nakba disappears. Talnic's solution is to emend the earlier stable text by adding the equivalent arabic. They disagree over this. I haven't had time to help out with the other points, but the imbalance in NPOV talknic speaks of does exist, and is very difficult to resolve. Talknic tends to undermine his case by TLDR posting, as per above, but serious issues exist, and he's fingered some. There are essentially only 2 people arguing here, and I do not think the differences can be resolved by eliminating one of the two editors at the request of the other. Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @NMMGG. I had no objection to your edit removing both, nor an objection to talknic's restoration of both. I've got a good deal of respect for you - without scandalizing you or others - but I think on this issue (the several articles re the 1947-8 war/exodus etc) there are conceptual and NPOV issues that are unresolved, and that you were, perhaps from understandable fatigue, not willing to reexamine. Though I understand how exhausting wiki disagreements on substantive issues can be, I see no alternative but to use due process, however extenuating. I don't think anything's gained by AE resolutions here since a good deal of thinking, and substantial work is required, if those issues are to be ironed out to mutual satisfaction. The RfCs you refer to were inadequate, and precedent is not eternal policy. The refs I adduced showed that in one significant point, Talknic was right, and the RfC wrong. Nakba is used of 1947-1948, and it is used of 1948, and it is used of just the May 1948 onwards vast exodus, and this, together with the ambiguity of the Hebrew term corresponding to it, has caused great confusion over several articles. There's no simple solution. I think a gentleman's agreement to work quietly on a collaborative sandbox alternative page may help, as we did with the SAQ page, which had an equally vexed history.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Talknic, from here this looks clearly like an immediate return to the same battleground mentality and tendentious editing you were sanctioned for as soon as the ban ended. Editing Wikipedia is about collaboration, not battles to control article contents; and you seem entirely unable to engage in the former.

  This is a difficult area of editing, rife with disputes and long-standing acrimony. The last thing it needs is yet another participant fanning the flames. Unless you present a convincing statement, I think the only solution left is to ban you from the topic indefinitely. — Coren ^(talk) 04:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, Talknic, but the links you offered to the March 2011 dispute do not seem to support your assertions unless there is some subtlety that I am missing. All I see there is you insisting on some phrasing in the lede and responding poorly when supporting sources are requested of you (which is as policy demands). The discussion is rather long; perhaps you wish to point me at a particular point in it? — Coren ^(talk) 21:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, I'd like to remind people that we aren't going to make decisions based on who has the highest word count. That being said, I agree with Coren that an indefinite ban from this topic seems like the best move here, and I'll close this in the next 24 hours unless someone objects. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Coren and Blade. T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with all above - indef topic ban is thoroughly appropriate--Cailil ^talk 12:54, 18 July 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

Skinwalker (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. July 16, 2012 Edit warring POV tags into the lede of Astrology.
2. July 15-16, 2012 Numerous unsupported accusations of defamation.
3. July 15, 2012 Assumes bad faith when an article he created was nominated for deletion.
4. July 6, 2012 Warned for making legal threats.
5. July 2, 2012 Warned about edit warring.
6. July 2, 2012 Edit warring at History of Astrology.
7. July 1, 2012 Argues for the inclusion of unreliable sources at AFD.
8. July 1, 2012 Edit warring at History of Astrology.
9. July 1, 2012 IDHT, advocates unreliable sources.
10. June 28, 2012 Blocked for edit warring at Astrology, characterizes his opponents as liars.
11. June 8, 2012 Warned for 3RR.
12. May 18, 2012 Uses rollback in an edit war, gets warned by an admin.
13. May 13, 2012 IDHT and assumptions of bad faith.

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

1. Formally notified of discretionary sanctions on November 6, 2011 by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Zachariel has a history of battleground behavior revolving around astrology articles. He routinely edit wars against consensus, insists that unreliable sources such as the Journal of Scientific Exploration be given equal weight with papers from Nature (magazine), and assumes bad faith of editors who disagree with him. Though consensus at the reliable source noticeboard has not agreed with his views on sourcing,[70] he persists in trying to add them to the article. The above diffs show he is not able to edit neutrally and collegially on astrology articles. I propose a topic ban of fixed duration from astrology articles, broadly construed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[71]

As stated on the talk page I have little time right now, but I will come back and add diffs to support my view that Skinwalker is an editor who has consistently shown an attitude of hostility and bias against the topic of astrology, as have a number of editors whose collaborative efforts have not been geared towards furthering the aims of Wikipedia, by developing and improving content on this topic, but ensuring that the content is as bad as it can be, and effectively 'bullying off' editors who show willingness to ensure the policies are correctly applied, not tainted by obvious bias, and that the content gives good, intelligent report of what the reliable sources say. In the sense that I have been the main contributor to a number of astrology pages that were in a shambolic state, and that the result of my good understanding of this subject from both sides of the arguments has improved many astrology pages significantly, and that I am one of ... (well let's just say "hardly any") editors left contributing to this topic that does not belief that we are here to push the view that astrology is garbage, but simply report what the reliable sources say, I have no doubt that my edits and talk page contributions will be seen as disruptive to the 'norm' here. Fact is, my edits are not liked - what we have to look at is why, and whether I am creating 'battlegroung behaviour' here, or being confronted by it in every obvious and helpful contribution that I try to make.

An example can be seen here where I was accused of edit-warring (again) by Dominus Vobisdu, who does this regularly (as do others), in order to revert everything I do, whether it is corrections on content, or grammatical, spelling and consistency errors. In the main my contributions are to supply reliable references to content that lacks them. Please check the history of that page to see what good content he was reverting, and the shambolic state of the content he was wanting to revert it to. In order to get him to desist, and the editor who backed his action up at his request, I had to waste a lot of good time on talk pages requests, as I always do. Another example is seen here where I attempted to fix the problem of a redirect that goes to a page that has no information on the subject of the redirect. Also check the history of the main astrology page, long term and short term. I have been one of the most significant contributors to that article over a long persiod of time, and have contributed more towards verifying its content than any other. I am 'the last man standing' from long running edit-wars, and my commitment to that article has been sincere and long term. I am now frustrated by the fact that I am not allowed to make any kind of edit, but must seek permission first from the other editors, no matter whether my edit is controversial or not. Meanwhile other editors do not discuss or explain their edits on the talk page even when making dramatic changes. It will be seen that the article is quickly losing its coverage of content except the the scientific criticisms section which continues to build without limit. My argument - which is not liked - is not that we should avoid coverage of the criticisms, but we shouold strengthen the robustness of our reports on the criticims by focussing on the issues that are deemed authoritative by the notable authoritites, including historians of science and philosophers of science - not just keep building the content up from silly points made in debunkers manuals. That only smacks of desperation and prejudice.

My response to the accusations that are specified are:

• I do not create a battlegound mentality, but I am confronted by one that does exist, because the editing of this unpopular topic is (I have come to conclude) marred by agendas and bias.
• I do not routinely edit-war but I am routinely accused of doing so when I try to prevent other editors from deleting well referenced content without explanation.
• I have never insisted that unreliable sources such as the Journal of Scientific Exploration be given equal weight with papers from Nature (magazine). This is an issue that was raised last year over a matter that concerned many other editors. I know full well that such a thing would be ridiculous. I have never tried to give undue weight to fringe theories over mainstream, nor have I ever sought to put such a reference into any page. My use of references has always been appropriate.
• Skinwalker says I persist in trying to add such references to the article. I have not - he can prove otherwise by showing an example where I have.
• I always approach every new situation and new editor with good faith. I am, however, guilty of losing my assumption of good faith. Sorry, but my experience and intelligence cannot be set aside when I am confronted by too much evidence for me to believe that many of the editorial activites that concern this topic are not driven by agendas to keep this 'nonsense' topic looking like what the other editors say they want it to look like. Look at this search for the word 'Bullshit' from the talk-page archives, to see how many editors have expressed a wish that there was some way to just simply say that the whole thing is Bullshit, and leave it at that.
• My edits show that all my interest has been geared towards neutrality and adherence to policy. Sometimes my frustration seeps, but the editors with conflictinr views are not delicate little souls. They engage in behaviour that I find shocking, and I would find it preferable to be banned from contributing further to WP, than to continue in being 'effectively' banned, in a situation where I believe the involvement of more uninvolved editors is now essential.

I believe Skinwalker's last interaction with me, or involvement with the page was a few weeks ago when he advised me to go edit the page at Citizendium instead, and accused me of being a SPA. I didn't repond to the accusation although he raises regularly (suggest you check my edit count). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If possible I would like to respond to the comments, because some are true (but have another side to them), some have twisted the facts very disingenuously, and some are completely false. Some are also fair comment.

With regard to Skinwalker, I hope his editorial behaviour will be considered. He says: “Though consensus at the reliable source noticeboard has not agreed with his views on sourcing,[42] he persists in trying to add them to the article.”

His link points to a discussion held in September last year. Please look over it to see that I acted entirely appropriately. Since that time I have never attempted to introduce references against the consensus of RSN, or persisted in adding sources that go against consensus. And I have added hundreds of references to pages in need of verification. So I repeat my request that he gives an example where I am supposed to have done that. It is not true.

With regard to the astrology content that Skinwalker would like me to be banned from editing, I have edited in an all-round fashion, making copy edits, adding references, improving layout, ensuring consistency – I have done this on many astrology pages (as well as many non-astrology pages), not because I have a belief in the subject but because I have a good understanding of its history and philosophical issues. Many of the pages I work on are of no interest to me personally, but I see a subject area badly in need of improvement. The scientific coverage is of least interest to me – quite simply I don’t consider astrology is a science. End of story. But it is the only thing that most other editors want to focus on, and most would admit to having no knowledge of the subject outside of that.

Skinwalker has very little knowledge of my edits and editing pattern. He doesn’t gets involved in the astrology content. Check the history of the main astrology page and you’ll see that his only contribution is to revert edits made by other editors, without talk-page explanation. He also added some tags when he wasn’t happy with the content.

His only contributions to the talk page lately have been these:

Zac, have you considered contributing to Citizendium? Their astrology article is woefully inadequate. Skinwalker (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you like some cheese with that whine? If you don't like our policies on fringe topics you're free to contribute elsewhere. I really feel you would be a good fit at Citizendium - their astrology article needs attention, and they welcome agenda-driven SPAs with open arms. Skinwalker (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to come back to reply to the points in his diffs later.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 05:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before dealing with the diffs I want to clear one point up. Unless we go back to a year ago, when I held a different view, I categorically deny that I have broken any Pseudoscience sanctions. My argument has been strong and consistent that there must be good coverage of this point, which makes it clear that astrology is not a science; that makes it clear that it is a pseudoscience, and which also explains clearly, by use of reliable sources why that is. I argue for good quality coverage in order that the long-running contention on this point will come to an end, so that time and attention can be given to the other elements of the page. There are many editors fixated about the pseudoscience issue; I am not one of them. This diff demonstrates my attititude clearly - where I encourage IRWolfie in his attempts to improve and strengthen the report of the scienctific criticisms of the subject, to put an end to the edit-warring and controversies that have been going on for years. IRWolfie has given a very unfair representation of my argument regarding his subsequent choice of sources and his editorial text which, because the astrological technicalities are incorrect, has ended up confusing the issues rather than clarifying them. I would like to be able to respond to that later but will go through the diffs first, a few at a time, because I am short of time. I'll respond to them all and explain them in reverse date order, to bring them up to date:

13) Says - May 13, 2012 IDHT and assumptions of bad faith.

I don't see any case to answer here. The "assumption of bad faith" appears to hinge on my remark:

the proposer of the alteration reveals a worrying motivation in the comment he made when he started proposing changes – “It would be nice if we should just succinctly state that astrology is bullshit (in a more encyclopedic way obviously) rather than the clunky wording we have now.” (SÆdon 23:20, 8 May 2012).

I stand by that remark, believe it was appropriate and would make it again in similar circumstances.

I did not refuse to listen or pretend not to hear the argument, but I pointed out that to make a definitive lede comment - that no part of the academic community takes astrology seriously (when quite clearly some do) - is a comment that cannot be attributed to a reliable source; nor is it covered by the text of the article which the lede should be summarising. I demonstrated by reference to one of America's most respectable and notable historians of science, arguing that the study of astrology should be taken most seriously by academics and giving his reasons why (impact on culture and history). I have also offered similar accounts from other notable, leading academics making the same point, but the editors will not tolerate acknowldgement of such material because it contradicts the comment they want to make, which is pushing a POV, is not verifiable by any reliable source, and which has since been put into the lede as a definitive statement (disregarding the interests of many academics who are engaged in a scholarly exploration of this subject).

12) Says - May 18, 2012 Uses rollback in an edit war, gets warned by an admin.

The link given in diff 13 above gives my reason and my apology for doing that - "This was a mistake based on catching up again with WP procedures and not intentional (and doing two things at once)" - as does my response to the admin. It was a mistake, not deliberate, which happened twice close together and has not happened since. I apologised for it, and explained it at the time. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 11 - and the real reasons I have problems with The Cosmic Perspective

11) Says -June 8, 2012 Warned for 3RR.

I was NOT warned for 3RR, and did not commit 3RR – I was supposedly “warned” about edit-warring on 8 June – by the editor who actually was edit-warring. The accusation was completely spurious as my response demonstrates. I would very much like the edits involved to be looked at to see exactly the kind of situation I get confronted with regularly, by that editor in particular. Please check the history of the astrology page contributions and my edits which started at 1:15 that day and ended at 2:50.

I made a series of 10 contributions to the main astrology page, the culminative effect of which was some movement towards a more neutral and focused account of relevant critisms, the correction of astrological orders, technical details, and historical mistakes; along with content clarifications, copy edits and the addition of two references and two necessary source text-details. Every edit was justified and fully explained in my edit summaries. Afterwwards, without any discussion or talk page explanation, User:Dominus Vobisdu came along and undid every change I had made with the edit summary “Rv. useless changes. POV, blatant appeals to authority, unnecessary detail, whitewashing, etc. etc.”

I reverted with an edit summary pointing out that Dominus Vobisdu does this regularly without reason or justification.

He then reverted the whole collection of edits again with the instruction “Don't edit war. It is YOUR responsibility to get consensus for your changes on the talk page first, per policy"

Since I had spent nearly 2 hours on this collection of contributions, and it was clear he wasn't even willing to discuss any of it or be specific about why he had problems with any of it, I returned the content again with the explanation, as I have pointed out to him many times, that I am not edit-warring by contributing improvements and adding refs and such without first obtaining his permission, and that if he sees fault in any edit he should amend or revert that troublesome comment selectively, not just wipe away every contribution I make without even looking at it. It is my right to act like an editor. It is his responsibility to explain if there is a problem, so the problem can be identified (if it exists).

But once again, without any willingness to identify any specific issue, he reverted all the material again and then he placed the "warning" on my talk page about my “edit-warring”. It is situations like this that make me see the whole editorial approach around that page as having descended into a farce that is marred by bias and unwillingness to entertain anything but content that is critical of the subject, regardless of how reliable the criticisms are.

With regard to my problems with The Cosmic Perspective - Please note that the only edit that was retained at that same time - from User:Saedon - was the comment he placed to suggest that Kepler didn't really believe in astrology and was "just doing it for the money". This is Not a reliable summary of the situation and it is not what the academics and scholars report about Kepler's attitude to astrology. A new work has recently been published exploring his approach to astrology at great length. It details his own perosnl charts that he drew for himself and his family - including one he wrote about in a letter to a friend, concerning the death of his own son and how this was reflected in his nativity. Kepler attacked certain elements of astrology but wrote about the subject with great sincerity. One of his published comments was "Philosophy, and therefore genuine astrology, is a testimony of God's works, and is therefore holy. It is by no means a frivolous thing. And I, for my part, do not wish to dishonor it.". But even though this is of direct relevance to the astrology page and published in pristine, reliable sources, references like this are not allowed on the grounds that they represent "an appeal to authority". I have not tried to introduce content like this, as I know there wouldbe no tolerance for it. But it is a comparison to use against the fact that editors refer to the Cosmic Perspective as their "reliable source" for content such as this.

This impacts on a number of criticisms against me that those two editors raise in their posts. They say I will not accept that book as a reliable source. That is not true - I have said it is a reliable source for its topic - but not for points such as this. It simply is not an appropriate source for building content which should be based on the reliable accounts of suitably qualified and trusted historians. Cherry picking extreme remarks from skeptical accounts doesnot serve anyone's imterests. Cosmic Perspective has over 800 pages of content, only two of which discuss astrology, plus a couple of odd comments elsewhere. It does not give its focus to these kinds of points or qualify them by suitable references. But the other editors seem to only really have exposure to this kind of text and they are not interested in looking beyond it, so long as it pushes the POV that they want on the page. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qu to admins. I would like to be able to respond to all the points made against me, but it sounds like admins want to close before I'm allowed to do that. Am I going to be given the time I need to respond to the allegations? I have hospital appointments and cannot do it instantly because it takes time to find the relevant diffs. I would be willing to submit to a self-ban on the main astrology page and talk page in the meantime. In fact, I would suggest that page is the only one afflicted by the battle ground mentality, and that as the only editor who has invested in the related pages, my time is better spent on them. It might help admins to know my feelings, that I don't actually want to remain a contributor to the main astrology page and its talk-page - its problems are too significant, and I would prefer not to have a sense of responsibility towards the way its coverage of points that fall outside the scientific criticisms are being eliminated in order to focus attention purely on its standing in modern science. I have clearly done nothing but good work for Wikipedia on other pages, and seem to be the only editor with a demonstrated history of reliable commitment to them.

Or I would be happy to accept a temporary ban on my editing, as it is obvious that my points are now being seen as nothing more than thorns in the sides of most other editors of that page. I don't accept that WP's report on a 4000year old subject which almost half the populace of the western world believes in or takes a non-hostile interest in (let alone the majority interest in Eastern nations) should be based on what those who have not studied the subject find in books that have no focus on it. I am unlikely to change that view; just as I am not likely to change my opinion that the subject is failing to get an informative and objective account of the relevant issues, in a neutral manner, based on reliable verifyable sources, as WP policies (including WEIGHT FRINGE and NPOV) demand.

One point before I am silenced. I want to thank Robert Curry for commenting, even though his arguments haven't really helped in the case I was making that I have not tried to introduce criticisms of the Carlson experiment onto the page - it is other editors who make a big deal out of this and try to suggest that my points must be driven by a personal involvement and belief. To clarify, I had noticed Robert's absense and so was very surprised to see that he was aware of this complaint and took the trouble to comment. I realised it wouldn't take long before someone left implications about that to try to devalue his contribution. I also find it strange that my complaint is supposed to be about contravension of the pseudoscience policy, but the nom has not been able to provide a single example of what he accuses me of doing on a regular basis. It's pretty inevitable that anyone who tries to continue an involvement in that particular battlegound, with good knowledge and understanding of the subject from all angles, will need to don full-body battle armour; so I am not suggesting that some of my remarks were not made in the expectation that I was likely to get banned anyway, being guilty of having lost my assumption of good faith behind much of the activity that goes on there, as I have already admitted. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zac has also consistently used words with legal implications such as "potentially libellous", "defamatory" etc aimed at some of the comments of other editors despite being asked not to [72][73]. See this recent example: [74] (edit summary: "What's a better word for defamatory (which still means defamatory)?") of an accusation that a previous comment by another editor is defamatory.

I would agree with what Saedon has said. It is difficult when the serous academic sources are near universally disparaging of Astrology. Since I've started editing this article, in may, I've seen that Zac believes he is acting in the best interests of the wikipedia, but this leads to disruptive behaviour as he argues over the reliability of standard academic sources, misuses unreliable sources etc and incivility. IRWolfie- (talk). 08:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Astrology#The_Hartmann.2C_Reuter_and_Nyborg_paper_-_ref_59 for the latest example. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the astrology topic-space off and on for sometime (more off than on lately). From what I can gather, the astrology articles used to be a bit of a walled-garden. Recently (within the last year), the astrology articles have attracted more attention from outside editors and this has led to many conflicts at these articles. Skinwalker is correct that Zachariel has exhibited battleground behavior, but he's not the only one and probably not the worst offender. I think that Zachariel means well, but their personal beliefs are in conflict with Wikipedia's content policies including WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this summary. Very well put. Itsmejudith (talk)

As a past editor of the astrology page, I can say there is and has been much bullying, personal insult and intimidation on the astrology page by a focused group of editors who are pushing their extreme sceptical point of view. They have managed to get most neutral editors banned through trumped up charges or frustrated them by a total unwillingness to compromise and cooperate.

Skinwalker has long been policing this page to revert any edits that disagree with his POV often without discussion or consensus. Knowing that Zac's behaviour is no worse than other editors, Skinwalker makes much of raising the Journal of Scientific Exploration as an unreliable source. Like every debate there are two sides. What Skinwalker omits to say is that the paper in question was written by a statistician, Professor Ertel, from Goetingen University and covers his research into sampling errors in the Carlson Experiment (1985). The conclusions from Carlson's experiment have now been criticized independently by three Professors including Hans Eysenck and it no longer has support from the scientific community. Yet, editors on the astrology page are actively white-washing it lest any stains show through.

These editors have successfully suppressed these criticisms by claiming that the publications - even when peer reviewed - are unreliable sources or that the Professors are biased - even though Carlson himself was backed by CSICOP and originally planned to publish his experiment in the Skeptical Inquirer. Yet, WP:PARITY states that "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." Some "rational sceptical" editors claim that this only applies if the source suits their POV! The way this experiment has been artificially propped up by wiki-lawyering and now the attempt to penalise editors such as Zac for raising this contentious issue because it challenges their personal views is scandalous. Through the handiwork of a few editors the astrology page is now more dedicated to debunking the subject than anything encyclopedic and informative and lets the whole Wikipedia Project down.

Skinwalker is no paragon and has no right to criticise Zac. He trawled through my published material on the web outside Wikipedia to claim on several occasions that I had recruited editors. It was a false claim designed to undermine me as an editor. Robert Currey talk 23:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

From my own experience, Skinwalker has, since 2007, never made any constructive edits to the Astrology page i.e. every edit has been anti-astrology. It is his behaviour that should be under scrutiny here rather than the merits of the arguments from an authoritative editor like Zac. Robert Currey talk 07:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Saedon - The problem here is that editors (myself included) are extending a debate that should happen on the Astrology Talk page. However, it seems to have become the main issue.

I agree that Carlson is notable, but this is my opinion. Other editors are entitled to disagree but this is no reason to attempt to seek to restrict their access to editing.

The fallibility of Nature thirty years ago has been seriously questioned on the Talk page already and should not be hushed up by selective use of WP rules. The Carlson experiment was sponsored by the pseudoscientific organisation CSICOP and at the time it was published in Nature, the editor was John Maddox who was also a fellow of CSICOP. Maddox was well-known for being unable to separate his personal bias from scientific objectivity. For example, in 1983, his editorial in Nature "No need for panic about AIDS" suggested that male homosexuals should change their ways of "pathetic promiscuity" and described AIDS as "perhaps a non-existent condition". Such prejudice would be totally unacceptable for an editor of Nature today.

This quote by Jimbo Wales has been invoked many times in this debate. He has never been involved in the details of this debate. I doubt that he wanted his general opinion in the context of his Talk page to become the justification for the Carlson cover-up and the astrology page being used as debunking ground. However, this is what has happened and always in the name of Jimbo. He has never suggested that we should enforce some WP rules to the letter and overrule other WP rules to suppress criticism and hide independent evidence from three professors including Hans Eysenck and many other expert sources.

The problem with any cover-up especially when the facts come down to basic mathematics and obvious sampling errors is that when it comes out as it always does, there will be backlash. You can now read an online copy of a paper I wrote on the Carlson Experiment published in Correlation. [80] Robert Currey talk 09:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with the comment by A Quest for Knowledge -- Zac isn't the only one, and probably not the worst offender. With that said, on the astrology page Zac has often been hot-headed and unwilling to bend to the vocal majority which often passes for a consensus.

Skinwalker's accusation that Zac took part in edit warring on the History of Astrology page on July 1 and 2 is simply not true, in my opinion. The history of the relevant diffs on this page is here Zac gave the long-ignored History of Astrology article a much-needed overhaul. Anti-astrology editors followed Zac from the Astrology article onto this page, in what appears to be a clear case of WP:HOUNDING. One of these editors accused Zac of edit warring after Zac convincingly addressed an issue raised by another editor and restored deleted content. This accusation of edit warring went together with a wholesale deletion of content that Zac had added, which led Zac to reply here

The way things developed on this article, there was some modification of Zac's work on July 2, but most of Zac's improvements to the article were upheld by the consensus (which was dominated by editors who are often opposed to Zac at the Astrology article), and Zac continued to substantially revise and enlarge the History of Astrology article over the following days without opposition. In this case, I think Zac did a good job, and his improvements still stand in the current version.--Other Choices (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to preface, a couple days ago I had emailed admin User:Moreschi about whether Zach's behavior was disruptive enough that AE would be an appropriate venue. He hasn't responded yet. Specifically, I mentioned a couple recent comments Zach has made that convince me that Zach lacks understanding of WP policies regarding WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE subjects, and indeed a lack of understanding of the scientific publishing process.

Firstly, in [81] Zach makes the claim that Nature (Journal) didn't have the criteria checking reputation 30 years ago that they do now and therefore a famous astology-debunking article is not notable. In fact, Nature has been a respected publisher for decades before the Carlson study was published. In the post to which Zach was responding I had also pointed out that the Carlson study was cited 51 times (according to GScholar), which is a lot for an article on such a fringe topic.

To be clear on my view. Based on this conversation, it seems abundantly clear that SciEx is completely and utterly useless as a source for anything serious at all. People who publish such things, and participate in such things, should be ashamed of themselves. The Journal may have some value as a source, if it is influential amongst crackpots, to document the sort of nonsense that they are willing to publish while pretending to academic standards.

So Zach is well aware based on conversations on talk:astrology and ut:Jimbo that the consensus is against inclusion and yet he still continues to argue the points.

Lastly, recently Zach has [82] argued that The Cosmic Perspective, an undergrad astronomy textbook used in major universities across the country, is not a reliable source. It is very difficult to work with someone who thinks that a fringe journal like SciEx is a reliable source but an astronomy textbook is not.

I think Saedon and A Quest for Knowledge summarize the problem well. Additionally, if Zac intends to continue here productively, we must find some way to address his consistent edit warring. Despite many explanations, he still routinely denies any disruption while actively and combatively reverting. I assume this is a misreading of WP:EW, and consequently he is under the impression that if his edit is correct, then reverting to reintroduce it is ok. It is not. See the brief discussion here, for example. His comments on this page, I believe, illustrate the problem. "I do not routinely edit-war but I am routinely accused of doing so", and particularly "Since I had spent nearly 2 hours on this collection of contributions, and it was clear he wasn't even willing to discuss any of it..., I returned the content again with the explanation, as I have pointed out to him many times, that I am not edit-warring by contributing improvements". He's already been blocked once, templated regularly, and the issue patiently explained. I don't know how else to go about it, but it is an absolute bar to collaborative editing on such a controversial subject with which he is intimately connected.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having edited on the astrology article in the past, I would like to add that Zac's propensity to edit warring is not the only or the biggest problem. It is his endless baggering on Talk pages, as we can even see in his reply here and in the mentioned discussion on the ut of Jimbo Wales, that causes the most stress for editors who try to work on astrology related pages. I can also not help to observe that @Robertcurrey, who has not done an edit for months, was here right away to write in favor of Zac: [83]. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Related to what I said in the thread above this one, could everyone please consider that brevity, not verbosity, is the soul of wit? I'll try to sift through this, but to the people who've commented here; if there's anything you think that's not essential in your statement that could be collapsed, please do so. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I've read through what I can, and I pretty much have to agree with Mann Jess on this. I don't think Zachariel needs to be editing in this topic area, so I'd be for an indefinite ban from all astrology topics, broadly construed, with a further warning that he'll be blocked for an extended period of time if he doesn't quickly figure out both the letter and the spirit of edit warring. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems reasonable enough to me. Do you want to just go ahead and implement the ban? AE threads are generally kept up for too long as it is. NW (Talk) 12:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]