Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136

Appealing user

Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Cptnono (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Cptnono is banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict on both articles and talk pages for six months [1]

Administrator imposing the sanction

EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

The original request for enforcement was unnecessary for the most part. I could have weaseled out of it by not waiving one admin's reasoning for declining that was based on not being formerly notified. The requester could be seen as using AE to encourage a battlefield mentality. I took some time off from the topic area anyways.

The above reasoning is not the basis of my appeal. I admitted to misusing the system when I waited a few hours to make a single edit. I assumed, incorrectly, that could state my intention and game the system single time without getting nailed. That was obviously incorrect and I am pretty adamant about protocol. I actually enjoy decorum even though I swear towards Nableezy and others too much. So the point has been made and I understand the repercussions.

The reason I am making this appeal is that I wanted to double check that I was not banned from making an edit to an article related to the topic (grossly outdated Zion Square beating article) even though my IP had cycled. I don't want to game the system.

One admin assumed I was some sort of snake and said that I was playing word games. No, Black Kite, tiny little changes in how things are written mean a great deal in the topic area. Even the UN realizes that. Trying to find neutral wording is a good thing which is why I opened an RfC (that I could not participate in). What might appear to be trivial can have grander implications. Note article titles throughout the Napoleonic Wars topic area. Also note that the speculation by Black Kite was not related to the reasons given in the request for enforcement. I also don't think it is appropriate for me to be severely punished partially based on admins seeing Nableezy and I on AE too much. I don't like him dragging me or others here either. I took a substantial break from anything close to AE well before this sanction. I believe that admins should be more vigilant of users overusing this venue or coming to it too hastily.

Good on you for not taking on all the mean work, Sandstein. I would not have thought more or less of you either way.

Please note that lack of activity under this user name is based on me not logging in to make edits in less than contentious articles.Cptnono (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the original AE discussion here which led to Cptnono getting a six-month ban from the I/P topic area. The reason for the action was tendentious editing at Rujm el-Hiri, which I saw as a proxy for a dispute over Israeli ownership of the Golan Heights. Cptnono and Biosketch wanted the Rujm el-Hiri archaeological site to be tagged with Category:Archaeology of Israel. Since the Rujm el-Hiri site is in the Golan (and predates the I/P conflict by thousands of years: think Stonehenge), usage of this category would tend to affirm Israeli ownership of the Golan. If Cptnono thinks that the AE admins came to the wrong result, it would help for him to supply details. One of his edits on 10 April 2013, was to remove 'Israeli-occupied' from the reference to the Golan Heights in this article. If he was sincerely trying to improve our coverage of Middle Eastern archaeological sites he was going about it in a funny way. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a very unclear appeal. Cptnono has not appealed on the basis that the sanction was incorrect in fact he a) admits to inappropriate activity, and b) seems to be saying he could have gamed it. I'd suggest closing as declined as there is no basis for over-turnng here.
As a point of information, as far as I can see Cptnono you are banned from Zion Square assault, and furthermore you could have just asked Ed rather than making this appeal if that question was in fact your substantive reason for openning this thread--Cailil ^talk 14:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The appeal does not make any argument why the ban should be undone, or at least none that I understand.  Sandstein  14:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless there are any more comments from uninvolved sysops I will close this as declined in 24 hours--Cailil ^talk 22:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as declined--Cailil ^talk 12:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Oda Mari (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands#Final decision discretionary sanctions

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

1. [2] The first edit by Lvhis, restoring SummerRat's original edit.
2. [3] The second edit by Lvhis.
3. [4] After I removed SummerRat's POV, Shrigley restored the topic banned user's edit.

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

1. Warned Lvhis on June 6 by Oda Mari (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A newbie User:SummerRat has been topic banned. See User talk:SummerRat#Topic ban because of [5], [6]. Two regular editors have done the similar edits. They should be topic banned too. Especially user Lvhis, as he was an involved party of the Arbitration case. Looking at his contributions after the Arbitration, he's been a SPA. Shrigley was not an involved party, but he is familiar with Senkaku-related matter. [7] Oda Mari (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

• Lvhis [8]
• Shrigley [9]

This issue began when SummerRat came to en:WP. When I first noticed SummerRat's tendentious edits was on May 15 by his these edits. [10]and [11] and I undid them. I checked his contributions and found his 8 tendentious edits on Vassal state. See the revision history and Talk:Vassal state. I was not the only one who thought his edits were POV. I saw this edit and that brought me to the China Marine Surveillance after I checked the image file. My first edit was this and I noticed Lvhis's edit. I checked the history of the page. This is SummerRat's first edit on China Marine Surveillance. Any islands names was not in the article. This is the first time he added the name Diaoyu Islands. User Widefox undid SummerRat's edits twice. [12] and [13]. Then came Lvhis's edit I noticed.

What Lvhis and Shrigley did was POV pushing by supporting/abusing indef. blocked SummerRat's tendentious edits. They say "using Chinese name in this Chinese Marine Surveillance article" and "Chinese name is appropriate for article about China". There is no such MOS. Nor the consensus of the usage. I want them to provide examples of other articles using different names in different countries. Sea of Japan, Liancourt rocks, and Falkland Islands, they are the names used at en:WP even if they are are Korean articles or Argentine articles like Argentine ground forces in the Falklands War. At first it was only a problem of SummerRat's tendentious edits to me, but when I saw Shrigley joined, I refrained from editing on the name use edits and brought the matter here. Now the China Marine Surveillance and its ship articles created by SummerRat use Diaoyu Islands as if it's the name used in en:WP. Using Senkaku Islands is not a POV pushing as SI is the current article title, but not Diaoyu Islands.

@Lvhis and @Shrigley, if there are any names usage like xx for AA country article and yy for BB country articles, please provide it. Oda Mari (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil. What makes you think a MOS for the Sea of Japan has nothing to do with this? Lvhis and Shrigley are not different from Korean editors/IPs who once insisted "This is Korean article! We use East Sea!" to me. What do you think of "consistency" of the article name? Do you know why the current name is "Senkaku"? See [14]. Oda Mari (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

• User Oda Mari is the one who has violated "Neutral point of view and undue weight", "Disruptive and tendentious editing" and "Edit wars are harmful" stated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands#Final decision. She started editing wars with user SummerRat and other users by her blatant POV and Original Research in using Japanese name for Chinese stance, organization, etc (see [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28],and more). User SummerRat is newbie but Oda Mari particularly was an involved party of the Arbitration case. As I said here [29], to apply same standard and to be fair and equal, user Oda Mari should be topic banned as she has violated what WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands has banned more than what user SummerRat did. User Oda Mari started this WP:AE just like "the thief cries thief" or "the guilty party files the suit". She acted in this topic area as an extreme POV pusher. User Shrigley and I just corrected only one of her disruptive edits. She created a new definition for "SPA" and used it to accuse me, that is totally ridiculous and nonsense. --Lvhis (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin Cailil's comment in this section is quite objective and fair. I need to clarify the "block" applied on my account on 20:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC), that happened 20 days before that Arbitration was requested. That "block" was applied by Magog based on "BRD" he thought but not "3RR". Afterward per admin Elen of the Roads's clear opinion in a detail discussion[30], that "block" was a wrong one as I did not violate that "BRD" (see [31][32][33]). As refactoring block logs is very difficult, Elen told me particularly that "I (=Elen) never delete anything from my talkpage archive (except drive by vandalism) so if you want you can keep a permanent link to this discussion in case anyone asks."[34]. I made a note in a section [35] of my talk page having that permanent link[36]"that the block or sanction enforced on my user account here on 20:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC) was a mistake, i.e. I should not have been blocked". This wrong block issue was raised and discussed during that Arbitration, the end is no arbitrator from Arbitration committee, neither in the the proposed decision nor in the final decision, nor anywhere during that arbitration, ever mentioned this "block" or counted it in for my behavior. As this happened quite long ago and the issue was quite complicated, I hope I have made it clarified if any admin checked/is checking my block log. I do not agree I should be topic banned but again, I appreciate admin Cailil's comment where the principle and main part were objective and fair. --Lvhis (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (ec)--Lvhis (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Few more words: I am not as guilty as Oda Mary is because:

1. Oda Mary made mass changes based on her own opinion, neither on sources nor on policy; but I did not do so.
2. Oda Mary is gaming the system by starting and bring this case to WP:ARCA and then this AE, but I am not gaming the system.

If I will be treated same as Oda Mary will be, I will have been wronged at certain extent. Please consider the above differences when corresponding admin close this case. Thank you. --Lvhis (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This SummerRat business is a red herring. User:Oda Mari first disrupted longstanding text in China Marine Surveillance to engage in an aggressive, weeklong campaign to change a Chinese-origin name to a Japanese-origin name,[37][38] on grounds of "POV". This pattern has been repeated all over Wikipedia, where Oda Mari has been systematically removing one of the two widely used English-language names for the islands.[39][40][41][42][43][44] These links are all to China-related articles, where the removed name is especially relevant to direct quotes and the names of organizations. Oda Mari's intolerance about including the alternate name is matched by his intolerance for discussion and compromise. AE is not a substitute for normal dispute resolution.

Addendum: I made a statement at ARCA opposing the creation of an NC-SoJ equivalent. The CliffsNotes version of my argument is:

• Reliable sources on SoJ are near-unanimous on SoJ, but
  • Reliable sources on Diaoyu/Senkaku use both names, or are divided;
• We had a big meatpuppet problem of anti-SoJ, pro-fringe editors, but
  • The only person making mass, Wikipedia-wide changes at this point is Oda Mari, a regular.
    • ∴ "Da Rulez" only stop drive-by IP or meatpuppet editors. You need case-by-case discussion with tendentious long-term users.

Shrigley (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

EdJohnston asked for my input on this matter. This is a tricky point, and one that I think is probably better solves as a content matter, rather than an AE matter. Edit warring, by anyone, is bad, and is grounds for sanctions. The problem is that here I think that both sides honestly believe that they are the ones making the articles neutral, and there is currently no guidance or established community consensus about how to name these islands. There were, as we know, multiple RfCs held, each of which upheld the current title of the article Senkaku Islands and it's closely related articles. However, per general policy, just because an certain article title has been chosen by community consensus does not mean that said name has to be used throughout Wikipedia in running text (if that were true, we could never use piped links). I think that, in general, it's best to match the article title, but there may be sound reasons for exceptions, including in a case like this. I can honestly see the arguments in favor of standardizing the name "Senkaku Islands" across Wikipedia, but I can also see the arguments in favor of keeping "Diaoyu Islands" on articles specifically related to the Chinese POV.

Personally, I think that what we need is the equivalent of WP:NC-SoJ for the Senkaku Islands. I have an idea for what I think those rules should be (in short, similar to but more lenient to the CPOV than NC-SoJ), but deciding on said rules is a content discussion, probably best held at WT:NCGN (with notifications to related articles and Wikiprojects). I think the reason for the recent kerfuffle is because of some attempts to push around the edges of the ArbCom decision without coming directly at the meat of the matter; in the absence of a ruleset, it's easy for well-meaning but ultimately biased participants to end up edit warring to support their own POV, each believing the other side is "obviously" violating the sanctions and NPOV. Rules (discussed, then agree upon via RfC) should essentially remove the need for established editors to "fight" for the naming they feel is appropriate.

In the meantime, however, I think that established editors should stop making any changes to the use of the terms anywhere in Wikipedia, except to revert changes by IPs (i.e., the above-mentioned SummerRat, who has vowed to keep socking to support his POV) or other new users. That is, lets have a moratorium on changes, and then work out the rules together. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to EdJohnston's request below, the most recent formal discussion is currently archived at Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 9#Request for comment: Article naming. There is currently some discussion at Talk:Senkaku Islands about starting a new RfC at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Name change suggestion. However (somehow I'd missed the recent updates), I see that Lvhis is again proposing to use a completely non-standard and inherently non-neutral RfC; I'll add a comment there about the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the intent of the uninvolved administrators here, note that this does basically mean that we can't work towards an actual solution for three months. I don't think we can reasonably pursue a site-wide naming policy without the input of both of these editors, especially Lvhis, who is generally the "spokesperson" for the side advocating a name change. Would it be possible to carve an exception for a discussion about establishing a naming guideline? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I asked Qwyrxian if he would give his opinion here since he is an admin who seems to have some background knowledge of the dispute. He had previously commented in the amendment request at WP:ARCA, which User:Oda Mari withdrew in favor of this AE discussion. I will come back later to leave my own comment on this AE complaint. It would assist us in closing this if anyone who knows where the past discussions are about the naming of the Senkaku Islands if they can provide links. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Qwyrxian that Lvhis's attempt to set up a new RfC at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Name change suggestion is contrary to the usual structure for RfCs. Lvhis should not go further with this unless they can get general agreement that the wording of the RfC is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: China Marine Surveillance was stable until the relatively recent disruption by SummerRat (now blocked / topic banned / socking) which started on 15 May 2013 [45] and [46] .

A naming convention would help. I can see the argument for standardising on "Senkaku Islands", and the argument for proper nouns using other alternatives in context, with the proviso that articles should be NPOV even if the topic is about one party, to prevent POV forks.

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

• Ok, I'm afriad the content matters are beyond the scope of AE and honestly probably also beyond RfAr. All we can consider is the behaviour. If any one is bringing a real world dispute to a previously unaffected article they are using WikiPedia to make a point. Anyone engaging in tag team reverting to maintain that point is both equally guilty of breaching WP:POINT and WP:EW.
  In terms of the case in hand Lvhis was a named party to the original RFAR and was blocked, in 2011, for breaking 3RR on that topic (usually that would be a long time ago but given that Lvhis has made very few edits, prior to this editwar, since the 2011 RFAR closed, I consider it relevant). This user seems to be motivated by this topic above all else on WP. That kind of editing is single-purpose and it is not constructive.
  WRT Shrigley I don't see that they've had prior notification of WP:AC/DS so in the very least I believe that they should be given that this time round.
  Oda Mari's hands are not clean. And of all 3 users here, they give us the most to talk about. Oda was a named party to the RFAR and thus like Lvhis can be sanctioned. I belive the request for ammendment and this AE are being used to win a content dispute, I believe they are gaming the system: if not malicously, then naively. The changes to the the names of the islands link to a MOS for the Sea of Japan, which has nothing to do with this case. This was done in this edits this month[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]. In my view these are all violations of the RFAR, none of them are based on sources, all are based on teh personal preference of the editor. While I think the reverting is equally disruptive, these changes are neither consensus nor source based and the decision to ask ArbCom to exclude the use of alternative names looks very pointy to me.
  I'd welcome input from other sysops here but I'm leaning towards bans for both Oda and Lvhis, with an AC/DS warning for Shrigley (unless they've already had warning and I've missed it)--Cailil ^talk 15:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the magnitude of the past dispute, I had expected that more editors would have chosen to comment by now. It now looks as though we should close this in a day or two. I am OK with the two bans and the warning that User:Cailil has recommended. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [EdJohnston asked me to comment here.] Having seen earlier instances of these naming conflicts, and the persistent role played in them by these editors, I wouldn't object to Cailil's solution either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that this is their first ban I'd suggest 3 month bans for Oda Mari and Lvhis, but I'm open to considering something else (less or more) if there's something I've missed--Cailil ^talk 18:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Oda Mari, I am not going to debate content with you Oda. That's not the purpose of this board. The WP:NC-SoJ has nothing to do with this issue. WP:NC-SoJ is not mandated by the Senaku Islands RfAr or anything else to allow change the names of these islands from one form to another. WP:NC-SoJ is not a precedent. You made mass changes based on your opinion. Not on sources. Not on policy. You then engaged in reverting to maintain your preferred wording. You then asked ArbCom to rule in your favour. You then came here to remove your opponents who although are guilty of disruption, are no more guilty than yourself. There is a warning in the big red box above about the consequences of coming here with "unclean hands"--Cailil ^talk 22:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Cailil on 3 month bans for Oda Mari and Lvhis. Shrigley ought to be formally warned of AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Qwyrxian: It is possible that some editors will want to work on a naming guideline for the Senkaku Islands which is analogous to WP:NC-SoJ. However I don't see any simple way to word an exception that allows Lvhis and Oda Mari to participate, so I propose not making the exception. A three-month delay on the guideline (if that is the effect) doesn't appear serious when the problem has been going on for years. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The formal wording for Oda Mari and Lvhis will read:

  [editor's name] is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for a period of 3 months.

  Unless there is strong disagreement here from other uninvolved sysops I'll close this within the next 24 hours. Shrigley will get the standard WP:AC/DS warning relating to this RfAr--Cailil ^talk 15:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed. Unfortunately Qwyrxian that doesn't work. There is nothing stopping the rest of the wikiepdia community from establishing a guideline. Oda & Lvhis don't have a veto over community consensus--Cailil ^talk 12:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Mr T^(Talk?) 07:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Six Months topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

diff

Caveat Lector: AFAIK, I have never taken part in any ban discussion before. I was told to leave this appeal here by an ArbCom member.

Please read the whole story,
I mostly edit India-Pakistan related articles and I recently happened to be involved in multiple POV-disputes on articles Talk:Narendra Modi, Talk:2002 Gujarat violence, Talk:Godhra train burning, Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan [55], AFD of Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, DRV also.. you get the idea. I severely encourage you to compare my comments with other editors who are active on these pages, see if you find me to be worthy of a ban for my editing. Kindly view them from a right context. Needless to say, one may see me as a passionate editor and/or a nationalist editor I can't comment on the validity of those assumptions but I can tell you this that I am not dogmatic insofar as I rectify my flaws once they are pointed out clearly. Oh, I'm digressing..sorry!

About the main issue, I think admin Fut.Perf (aka User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) has imposed a SIX months topic ban (India-Pakistan politics) that seems unhelpful to me. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Discretionary_sanctions says:

"4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;"

Anything close to a timely warning I received was this. I was in the process of expanding Minorities of Pakistan. But I left that article after a big threat of block/ban and content dispute (bordering on bullish treatment) I had with the banning admin[56],[57] and he did not care to explain what was the issue (even when I approached him on his talk specifically seeking an explanation, see this). Where was the advise? Where was the keenness to explain the issue?

I am 1,000% amenable to any logical advise or suggestion or open discussion, but when you're met with absolute silence you cannot but here nothing. As it seems that administrator is confusing allegations with explanations. There were allegations, yes, but nowhere was an effort made to substantiate those allegations or to guide me. Simply being of the opinion that I am not neutral is not a sufficient reason to justify the imposition of an arbitrary ban on a broad range of topics.

Then after a few weeks I was banned without a methodical discussion or a WP:RFC/U or WP:AE case, I was told on my talk that I was banned for SIX months after citing one edit on another article. The justification for my ban was what I can only describe as a hollow, allegorical opacity. So far only that edit has been cited as a justification of my ban. (see this to know my views about the edit) Did I indisputably or irrefutably violate anything there? I didn't think so, I felt victimized because the ban was placed unilaterally sans a fair chance to address the issues. I became very, very, very upset and agitated. Please note the following:

1. WP:BURDEN: I didn't misrepresent anything, the source clearly says "Pak flag was hoisted after Godhra carnage: witness" and also mentions the remarks by Bharatiya Janata Party member and municipal corporator, Ashok patel, a witness deposing before the investigative commission inquiring about the dreadful riots of 2002. (If you want more sources I can deposit them but isn't one reliable source enough for a claim?) We should not sit on judgement on whether an witness is telling the truth or not. That's not our job. If the reliable sources mentioned it and it is relevant then it ought to be included. Whatever else that source claimed was already inside the article with other citations so I was behooved to insert the claim inside the article.
2. WP:DUE: Only one issue about that good-faith edit might be that I, perhaps, miscalculated the weight of that statement. It was not intentional. I was directly banned. (Although Yogesh Khandke argued that it was not UNDUE per this)
3. WP:BALANCE: That edit was aimed to balance an article that is still rife with one-sided POV claims.

The amazing thing is the banning admin didn't even care to remove that edit which was enough to get one banned for SIX months and, that too, from a wide-range of subjects. It was two days after I was banned and when in the ANI thread somebody pointed this inconsistency out, that it was taken down with a vague rationale, WP:UNDUE. Kindly bear in mind that in that article, for which I am banned, every edit was being heavily scrutinized. Nobody took any issue with that very edit. Kindly take a note of the fact that when it was finally removed the reason cited was WP:UNDUE which I think is at best a subject to editorial discretion and opinion. There was a conversation to be had on how the so-called "tendentious edit" is causing disruption. But was there any discussion after that? Nope. Did the banning admin give me a chance to explain? Nope.

I am not saying I have not been wrong about anything, I am a human I have been wrong on many things both on and off wiki, but I don't push any POV per se, I really don't do that. Using Scott Adams's words, "people are so conditioned to take sides that a balanced analysis looks to them like hatred". Since when is an attempt to balance a POV claim regarded as disruption itself? I try to balance articles that have certain types of biases. Why is that a bad thing? You may answer them now but the point is these queries should have been answered before banning. Had these queries been answered and explained properly and thoroughly, like an Admin is supposed to do, I am fairly sure that it won't have come to this.

Who knows? I, perhaps like most of us, might have biased views deep down but it ought not to be a reason to seek revenge or retaliation against me especially when I am more than willing to try to rectify any undesirable thing one may point out in my editing. But this ban without a constructive discussion is more than unhelpful and straining my confidence on Wikipedia's banning process.

Now WP:TBAN says, "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive." Like I said, I never knowingly misrepresented any source and I always try to find sources for anything I add. Yes, I admit, sometimes well-meaning editors like me "are misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation. Such people may reasonably defend their positions for a short time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence or impartial feedback."(cf. WP:DISRUPTIVE) But I don't wish to cause disruption anywhere.

With that said, you cannot fix something that you can't even locate. Explain the issues, give me a chance and I will change. That's all I ask for, a chance and explanation of my misconduct. I will change it if something needs drastic changes.

I don't know how much germane this is to my current situation but user:The Devil's Advocate wrote about the banning admin:

This is not the first time it has happened with regards to the India-Af-Pak topic area either: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive124#Future Perfect at Sunrise. It is also not the only topic area where he has had this issue. Given that Future was previously subject to a temporary desysopping by ArbCom in the WP:ARBMAC2 case, I think one recourse to consider is simply taking this all up to Arbitration for a general review of Future's administrative actions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

One must understand while talking about DUE and UNDUE weight we are essentially treading on the domain of personal opinions and the subjects I volunteer to edit are already very emotive and controversial hence garnering "support" or "oppose" !votes may have very little to do with the validity of any request, its compatibility with Wiki-Policies. Now if I may be so bold, only a handful of editors dare to edit those articles and talks containing vitriol and POV galore. Amidst all this, singling one scapegoat (in this case: me) out and banning him is IMHO not constructive. Hence, I think consistency in treating a bunch of so called "POV-editors" is indispensable to the neutrality of the articles they edit. Because the "sides" cancel out the POVs of each-other. That is how the articles on Wikipedia progress towards neutrality. Common sense would say, when a fellow editor himself is sensitive to an emotive subject he/she can perceive any editor's editing as tendentious (same might be applicable for and against me too).

Although my comments are at risk of being cited out of context and/or misconstrued as are my edits, once you actually put them in proper context you may see a completely different image. Mr T^(Talk?) 07:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This appeal was already tried at WP:ANI where I suggested that the appeal might potentially be conducted in a more orderly fashion here. The statements about Future Perfect at Sunrise, cited in the appeal above, were unjustified when made at ANI. It was unhelpful to reproduce them here. I support the topic ban. On the basis of various comments at ANI, similar topic bans for other editors active in articles covered by WP:ARBIPA might be considered in future. However, given what happened during the prior appeal at WP:ANI, it is probably best to avoid any such discussion in this appeal, which hopefully will stay on-topic. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. Mrt3366 has subsequently been blocked for 3 days for violating his topic ban by participating in a discussion at WP:ANI. His talk page access was then revoked. The block was later extended to indefinite after a problematic email message was received by several administrators. Mathsci (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Action on Wikipedia is preventive and not punitive, in what way is the ban necessary regarding Mrt3366, what is the evidence of the damage he has done to the project, and what is the evidence that he would continue to damage it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's shot himself in the foot. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• At present User:Mrt3366 is under an indefinite block. I suggest that his appeal be archived, with no objection to its being reopened whenever he is once again able to participate. Since he is blocked also from his talk page, there is no way for him to participate even indirectly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Second, per WP:SENSE. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

—Zujine|talk 12:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bobby fletcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBFLG#Principles

Articles under the falungong topic area are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which state that the space is not to be used as a "soapbox for propaganda or activist editing" or for ideological struggle. But that is precisely what this user does. Few is any of his edits are genuinely constructive, and he has a checkered history of violating content and behavioral policies.

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

Conflict of interest and activist editing

Bobby fletcher is a prolific online activist whose two main preoccupations include propagandising against falungong (which is suppressed by the Chinese government) and defending the Chinese government's actions in the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. He also seeks to discredit human rights activists, including those who have attached themselves to the falungong cause on the issue of the Chinese government's alleged organ harvesting from political prisoners.

• He has several personal blogs[58][59] through which he carries out this activism. To quote a news profile from the Western Standard magazine, “he posts his messages everywhere under several different names on Internet blogs and discussion groups. He writes letters to the editor anywhere and sends e-mails to anyone…[his] actions mirror disinformation campaigns waged by the Chinese government”.

• His edits to these topics on Wikipedia are an extension of his activism, and he does not edit from any other point of view: [60][61][ [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69]

• News articles have been written on Bobby fletcher's online activism. This one is illuminating[70] (it notes that Bobby fletcher is an alternate handle of Charles Liu). One of the most troubling parts of this article is at the end. Canadian human rights lawyer David Matas (who works on the Falungong issue) says that Bobby fletcher/Charles Liu would email the offices of political staffers just before Matas was scheduled to meet with them. Matas notes "The only people who would have that information [on the meetings] would potentially be the Chinese government. I can't imagine how Liu would know we were meeting with those people."

• Bobby spends more time on talk pages than on article space. His contributions to talk appear to be tendentious attempts to soapbox and promote non-mainstream views, which I don’t think is the purpose of the COI guideline (eg. Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989)

BLP violation

• [71] – User suggests that the article on falungong’s founder Li Hongzhi should describe him as a “wanted fellon” (sic). This is a BLP violation, since Li has never been convicted of any crime, let alone any felony. This sort of casual misrepresentation of sources is common(another example[72])

NPA / Outing violations

• [73][74][75][76] – regularly makes out-of-context accusations that other editors are pov-pushing falungong members. I'm not sure if NPA violations need to have a specific target, but it’s not constructive either way.

• [77][78] Sometimes he names the editors he doesn’t like by real names. This looks to be a WP:OUTING violation, and not for the first time (see below). [Diff should be oversighted]

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

User was previously blocked for edit warring[79] and received numerous warnings for making personal attacks[80], for reposting private or oversighted personal information about other editors[81][82][83], copyright violations[84], and ongoing edit warring[85][86][87]. He was also warned about COI guidelines and advised not to edit in article space[88], but he didn’t seem to improve.

I first took this case to the COI noticeboard, but it didn't get admin attention there. Bobby’s mocking and indecipherable response to that filing[89] indicates he doesn’t understand the problem.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If a lengthy debate ensures here, I suggest admins be on the lookout for red herrings.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[90]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Admins, here are three most recent artices I tried to add, please tell me if they belong on Wikipedia, and/or how best to edit to avoid objection:

- An article from London Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html

- An article from San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Falun-Gong-Derided-as-Authoritarian-Sect-by-2783949.php

- An annoncement form the Chinese embassy: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t36563.htm

If you have time please, please look at the other articles I've tried to add as well, and let me know the level of objection I've received/currently receiving is warranted.

Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the embassy document (press release) is a "primary source" under Wikipedia policy (WP:PRIMARY) and is not usable as a result. The article saying there was no massacre in the square is interesting as the defense is that most of the killings were in Beijing but outside the square - which is a matter of "precise location" rather than of whether bloodshed occurred that day. I suggest many would find it a trivial cavil. The third source proffered is one about am anti-cult convention where one expects all the groups named to be defined as "cults" by the convention organizers. With regard to any comments about a person being a "felon", Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP) is very strong and appears not to be on Bf's side here. Collect (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zujine's request is a case study in diff bombing. Consider which diffs are both recent and relevant, and properly presented by Zujine? Few.

1. When Bobby was most active during 2008, he was hounded by now-banned, self-identified FLG practitioners. I don't think it's wise for him to talk about those battles today (e.g.[91]), but he does.
2. Bobby's "BLP" talk error[92] is mere misunderstanding of legal terminology.
3. Bobby's editing is one-way, but so is Zujine's, except in the opposite direction of pro-Falungong [93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100] and anti-Chinese government in general [101][102][103][104][105][106].

Why is Zujine incensed by Bobby's mainstream newspaper links? He has accused[107] Reuters of having a "cooperative relationship with [China's] propaganda department". He also seems to have a COI in that he "used the PRC's anti-Falungong discourse as an example in [his] Master's Thesis on symbolic violence"[108]. Zujine tried to introduce his concept onto Wikipedia [109], citing a source[110] which only mentions "symbolic violence" in the context of Falungong's own use against China! How about that for source misrepresentation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrigley (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 June 2013

On the BLP issue, a similar (but POV-reversed and more egregious) violation happened in an AE request for the same RfAr in 2011. A pro-Falungong editor wrote that a Chinese official was "found guilty" rather than "indicted", as Li Hongzhi is. But the difference was, they actually placed that BLP violation in an article, rather than just proposing it on a talk page. The AE administrator simply gave[111] the user a WP:BLPSE warning and formal AC/DS warning. Anything more for Bobby, who did less, would be grossly unfair. Shrigley (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Zujine: regarding your most recent response, please don't presume to know my views. It is true that I am involved in a wide range of China-related topics, but I write to represent a range of political opinions and adhere to a circumspect code of conduct.

Following through on your threat against me would be yet another demonstration of battlefield conduct. As Bobby fisher points out, Zujine originally brought and escalated threats[112][113] against him (culminating to here) in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.

To be clear, I am not defending Bobby fletcher's methods; I even said "I don't think it's wise for him to talk [so belligerently]". Both Bf and Zujine have a disproportionate focus and bias on this topic. The difference is that Zujine is extremely adept at using WP rules to his advantage, while Bf is being punished for a lack of WP:CLUE. Shrigley (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins may like to know that Shrigley is not a neutral party here. He has an extensive history of involvement in this area, including in previous arbitration cases related to falungong. On several occasions he has also come to the defense of highly disruptive editors when their views align his own. There may be grounds for a separate AE case against Shrigley (who was just warned for his conduct on another China-related ArbCom case), but I won’t initiate that at the moment since I do feel it is distinct from the issue at hand here. With that said, I will respond to a few points he brought up:

• The diffs I have presented on Bobby fletcher are both recent and relevant, especially considering the user is active only sporadically. I could produce more, but there’s a 20 diff limit. If anyone is interested in investigating further they should refer to Bobby’s contribution history.
• If Bobby’s “wanted felon” mistake was a one-off, good faith misunderstanding of legal terminology, and if he was otherwise a productive and thoughtful editor, then I agree that anything more than a warning would be excessive. Unfortunately, his BLP mistake is compounded by many other violations, and he does not have a record of excellent contributions to offset it.
• I don’t think there’s much need to respond to Shrigley’s comments against me, but if the admins do have any questions about my editing history I’m happy to field them.—Zujine|talk 12:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider on this, I don't think there's any conflict of interest unless Zujine can prove that Bobby fletcher is working for the Chinese government. So what if he's an activist of any kind, he can still be a valued contributor by injecting new information into some of the unbalanced articles. STSC (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's okay to follow up here. I find it interesting the same unfounded McCarthyist accusation against me was levied by another editor, Dilip rajeev

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive466#Antilived_.28moved_from_AIV.29

Dillip rajeev seems to have been topic banned Falun Gong topic appearantly for circling the wagon.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+%22Dilip+rajeev%22+ban

And Zujine threatened me with unfoundedd COI as soon as I touched the page he's watching (I was previously driven away from editing by the same type of harrasement):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Proposal_to_add_news_report

It's clear there's a history of Falun Gong disciples circling the wagon on Falun Gong related page and efforts to prevent some facts to be added, such as the fact Falun Gong's leader is wanted in China (propsal in talk regarding "wanted felon" was changed to "wanted" after BLP reminder). Wikipedia pages on Falun Gong is not meant to be Falun Gong promotional material full of citations from Falun Gong-run media like Epoch Times only. Neither should the Tiananmen protest page be an anti-communist shrine. It currently has little to no mentioning of US embassy cables leaked by Wikipedia, an important development for the topic.

I hope I'm not wrong to say this. Frankly, stuff like this makes Wikipedia a joke. My agenda is clear, to add facts that has been prevented from being added by bad faith editors.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is clear evidence of a sustained programme of tendentious editing on the part of Bobby fletcher. I would propose a one-year topic ban from everything Falun-gong-related. To the extent that the Tiananmen issue is considered not directly covered by the discretionary sanctions rule, I'd be willing to additionally impose a "normal admin action" block for disruptive editing for some shorter period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Future Perfect that a one-year ban of User:Bobby fletcher from the topic of Falun Gong on both articles and talk pages is justified. There seems to be no risk that anyone will mistake this user for a neutral editor. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so let's go ahead then. Bobby fletcher is topic-banned from all edits and discussions relating to Falun Gong for one year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions #7

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

1. 26 June 2013 Adding physics related content
2. 26 June 2013 Re-adding it after it was removed (for reasons unrelated to the above ban)
3. 26 June 2013 Discussing said physics related content on the talk page

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

1. previous AE visit, 14 Deb 2013 resulting in 1 week ban
2. AE visit before that, 18 Dec 2012 resulting in final warning

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[114]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Blackburne has been policing my activities diligently for years, as evidenced by the history of this ban. His present cause is based upon the idea that mentioning some things like 'length' on the page Philosophy of science is a violation of a physics ban. The mere mention of the words 'length', 'surveying' 'intergalactic distances' and 'quantum measurement' were part of an observation on science in general, namely, that there is a connection between empirical observation and measurement in science, an everyday observation, not a physics statement. This mention is not by any stretch of imagining a discussion of physics as such. As pointed out by Collect, to interpret these words, by themselves and without adornment, in an everyday observation within a philosophy discussion, as an engagement in 'physics broadly construed' is a stretch.

Besides echoing Blackburne's issue, Snowded claims that because Hawking is a physicist, my attempts to gain mention of his philosophy in philosophy articles like meta-ontology and internal-external distinction is physics. Snowded has diligently removed these references, possibly because he genuinely believes no scientist can really do philosophy. Whatever Snowded thinks, the subject of Philosophical realism, Antirealism and so forth have been topics in philosophy for millennia, and Hawking's views on realism (discussed extensively in Model-dependent realism) are philosophical ruminations, not physics.

@EdJohnston: What is the purpose of making such a very wide interpretation of "physics, broadly construed"? Is it to curtail my activities as originally intended by the ban, or is it to curtail all my activities on WP to the greatest extent possible under the ban by interpreting its language as widely as it can be stretched even if that goes well beyond ordinary usage? Brews ohare (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to EdJohnston: An improvement on the present wording would be a variation upon the restriction you suggest: namely, to state I should avoid all articles listed in specific categories like [[Category:Physics]] and maybe some others, and be permitted anything else anywhere else. That would at least be specific, and would exclude Philosophy of science, History of science. It would avoid silly complaints and let me know what exactly is expected of me. Brews ohare (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Heimstern Läufer: A real clarification would involve some analysis of what the goal is here - if it is to limit my participation in particular subject areas, nothing would be clearer than specification of specific pages. The present 'guideline' is vague enough that it can be interpreted in ways hard to anticipate that serve no purpose for WP. Brews ohare (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: You say edits about Hawking are obviously physics-related, but it is hard for me to see that as obvious. What is obvious to me is that Hawking spoke about model-dependent realism which falls under the philosophical subjects of Philosophical realism and Antirealism. It would appear that in your view the subject of 'reality' is a physics topic, which covers a large swath of WP. I think that is an extreme position. The purpose of this ban is not to make it impossible for me to contribute to WP, but to limit any disruption of WP. I fail to see that this action of mine caused any harm, and so your proposal is purely punitive. Of course, I try to avoid such encounters, but I'm not always sufficiently alert. It is hard to know what will trigger such an alarm when nothing tendentious is intended. That is why I suggest a follow-up along the lines suggested by EdJohnston. Brews ohare (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder of this statement, exceeding the 500 word limit indicated above, has been removed by this administrator.  Sandstein  18:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other cases. In particular material from Hawkins has been introduced into several philosophy articles, and Brews has been happy to edit war to restore the material. There are several of these but here are three, maybe four, I was able to find quickly.

• Insertion into Metaontology
• Insertion into Model Dependent Realism
• Diff of edit warring to reinstate Hawkins - its right at the bottom
• A recent border line case, edit warring again with personal attacks. Reverted by two editors

There have now been 3/4 RfCs called by Brews each time other editors have rejected his material but he just keeps telling them they are wrong. Its late at night, but I can find the diffs if needed.

To Brews: Please stop misrepresenting other editors. You, despite requests, provided no references other than your own opinion to establish any connection between the Hawkins material and the articles concerned. As has been pointed out to you by several editors on repeated RfCs you constantly engage in synthesis/OR then simply don't listen if people disagree with you. I know perfectly well that scientists can be philosophers, some are even notable in both fields. So far no philosopher is taking the Hawkins stuff seriously. When they do it might belong in the articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A PS: It is worth noting that the behaviour on Philosophy articles is almost identical to the 'previous' on Physics articles. Highly combative, refusing to work with other editors. This can be illustrated by a quick look at his responses to the RfC on Philosophy, especially his refusal to let Andrew Lancaster (one of the most experienced Philosophy editors) simply disagree with him. Even when another editor did his best to mediate he was not allowed to escape even on his talk page. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brews definitely edited about Physics "broadly construed" if one uses "broadly" broadly enough. Using such links as "length" is Physics-related, as would be "height", "elevation" "size", "mass" and "weight" In short, the ban seems to indicate a huge area, and I suggest it now be given a more reasonable and sharply defined ambit. Collect (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of these diffs presented by JohnBlackburne can be construed as anything other than violations of Brews ohare's topic ban. I don't know the full history of the case but clearly warning this user didn't work last time so I doubt it will work if tried again. I recommend a block of a week to a month, whatever others feel is most appropriate to prevent further violations of this topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure, I was a minor participant of the original case - however, I rarely have commented on Brews with regards to the case. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any admin who thinks that the topic ban of "physics, broadly construed" would include general discussion of "height" and "length". Contrary to what a few others seem to be saying, I don't think that's what John Blackburne is suggesting. However, when the editing in question includes "...atomic and sub-atomic distances..." and "For example, see quantum measurement", then I think it's passed from a general science discussion into something that pretty clearly falls within the physics-related topic ban. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a technical aside, is the 500 word limit per statement still in force (Brews' is up to about ~1k by my count)? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This boils down to an interesting question: What is Physics? As far as I know, only something that can be actually measured and expressed by mathematical equations belong to Physics. In this regard, edits by Brews above look to me like Philosophy, not Physics. This is talk about "measurement" as a philosophical idea, not about certain physical objects whose parameters were actually measured. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This whole ontology/philosophy thing (the question if something was "real") has little to do with Physics because, exactly as Stephen Hawking said, in Physics "it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation" [115]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, thinking logically here, the quote of Hawking was about Physics, and therefore the edit was a topic-ban violation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In conclusion, the initial suggestion by EdJohnston below looks to me as the most sensible approach. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I wasn't sure whether to add this above with my first contribution or below. If it is out of place please move it). Further to Snowded's comments and looking at Model-dependent realism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); it is in Category:Philosophy of physics and so Category:Physics and clearly comes under the scope of the ban. Brews ohare has made numerous edits to this, so much that he is the leading contributor to it, with his first contribution adding a link to the physics book The Grand Design.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing that is not physics related in this universe, so the restrictions imposed on Brews are nonsensical. I suggest we lift the physics topic ban; the problems with Brews are due to escalation after escalation starting from the speed of light case. We should look at Brews general behavior and impose restrictions to deal with his general editing pattern. There are some issues here that should be looked at, it isn't physics or math that is the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to Brews to completely ignore all his ArbCom restrictions, because they are mostly nonsensical from the point of view of actually editing articles here. It would be justified for him to do so according to WP:IAR, any objection to applying IAR cannot be based on the imposed restrictions or any other rules, it must address the actual editing of articles. Of course, he would likely be banned if he does this, but then he could always edit as an IP perhaps using a proxy server to avoid detection. I think this is better than this ridiculous circus that has been going on all these years now. The ban would be wrong, and eventually this would be recognized. But because Brews is sticking to these ridiculous restrictions that discussion cannot even begin. Count Iblis (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Brews was justly topic-banned, however going proxy and not complying with his editing restrictions is a terrible idea because it means showing utmost disrespect to others. I know that Brews made excellent work, especially during the initial period of his editing here. If he is really dedicated to the project, he should either switch to editing different subjects or leave, especially since he is obviously not having an enjoyable Wikipedia experience any longer.My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Brews ohare's statement made here, exceeding the 500 word limit indicated above, has been removed by this administrator.  Sandstein  18:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonable to take 'broadly construed' as making Brews stay away from articles and talk pages that concern the physics-related aspects of philosophy of science. Everything that's included in Category:Philosophy of physics should be covered, and the physics-related sections of the Philosophy of science article should be covered. I recommend that this complaint be closed with a clarification of his ban to that effect. Note that last December, Brews was warned to check with an admin "prior to beginning editing any material where its relation to the topic ban may be in question", but I don't think he did so here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this pretty much exactly what happened back in December? Brews edited about physics, insisted it wasn't covered by his ban, then got told clearly "nuh-uh, it is" by ArbCom themselves? If indeed these edits are about physics (and it looks to me like they are, though it's hard to tell because of my limited science background), I really don't think another clarification is the way to go. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Heimstern here. Edits about Hawking obviously fall within the ambit of "all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". If after December's clarification Brews ohare still hasn't got the message then frankly that's his problem not wikipedia's. I'd support sanction of a stronger nature here. It's not the role of AE to alter or "improve" ArbCom's wordings, as requested by Brews above. It's our job to enforce the existing ruling both in spirit and to the letter. This edit is about Hawking's theoretical physics as much as it is about philosophy[116]. That is a breach of the ban. One in a long long list of breaches of sanctions by this user since 2008. Recidivism is a factor here--Cailil ^talk 00:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cailil. There is a pattern of recidivism here, and the clarification quoted above is about as unambiguous as I can imagine under the circumstances. A stronger sanction is definitely called for here. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree. Edits concerning concepts such as measurement, length, "atomic and sub-atomic distances" as well as edits about the noted physicist Stephen Hawking are within the scope of the topic ban concerning "physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed". In enforcement of the topic ban, I am blocking Brews ohare for a month, in escalation of the most recent enforcement block of one week in February 2013.  Sandstein  18:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Lecen (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#MarshalN20 topic banned

MarshalN20 was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces". The ArbCom case locus of dispute was that it "primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors [MarshalN20 and another one] editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles". The final decision was given on 23 June 2013.

On 24 June (the day after) MarshalN20 complained on Arbitrator NuclearWarfare talk page that I had added a picture to Juan Manuel de Rosas article which he didn't like.[117] He said that the picture portrayed Rosas "with unnatural eyes and a strange facial formation" and that he preferred another one in black and white.[118]

Three days after (27 June), Langus-TxT (a friend of MarshalN20) replaced the picture MarshalN20 disliked with the one MarshalN20 liked the most. Langus-TxT even gave the very same reason that MarshalN20 had given: "that image looks weird, his eyes appear to glow..."[119] Important: Langus-TxT had never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas article before.[120]

I complained to NuclearWarfare about it and MarshalN20 suddenly appeared there.[121] On 23 June he had been warned by NuclearWarfare that, although not official, there was a de facto interaction ban between him and I ("While a formal interaction ban may not have been considered by the Arbitrators, try to treat your approach to Wikipedia as if it does exist").[122]

MarshalN20 did not bother with any of that and kept discussing Juan Manuel de Rosas article on NuclearWarfare with the clear intention of turning it in a replacement for that article talk page.[123][124]

Thus:

1. MarshalN20 has violated the ArbCom sanction against him which banned him from Juan Manuel de Rosas article by using another editor (with no previous links to the article) to edit it on his place. He has also tried to use an Arbitrator talk page as replacement for Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page.
2. MarshalN20 has violated the ArbCom de facto sanction of no interaction between him and I.

I can provide further evidences of meatpuppetry and violation of interaction ban if needed.

P.S.: MarshalN20 said below that "Lecen continues to cast aspersions despite being clearly told by the arbitrators to stop". The Arbitrators never said that to me. That's part of the "Proposed principles" in the ArbCom case. In fact, according to them, MarshalN20 had "engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct".

One of the arbitrators considered MarshalN20 a "civil POV-pusher",[125][126] which means someone who is "superficially polite" but who "may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets", "repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing" and "hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors".

Further comments by Lecen

Fut.Perf., I haven't been edit warring in that article over an image. If I had, I would have been blocked. The only moment in which I did revert anything was this: [127] I simply removed all content which I had written to that article because of the dispute with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 (both who were eventually banned from the article).

My attempts to add anything, not just that or any other picture, were all reverted by MarshalN20 and Cambalachero. Thus, they are hardy "pretty much everybody else editing the article". --Lecen (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. said that "this portrait does look weird and that it does have disconcertingly glowing eyes" and that "push this or some other decidedly ugly portrait into the article for several months, apparently against the consensus of pretty much everybody else editing the article", and also that "he fails to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion of others in that thread is clearly against him".

The other decently-argued prevalent opinion belong to MarshalN20 and Cambalachero, who were both banned from editing the article. MarshalN20 and Langus argued:

1) MarshalN20 said : "I'll keep searching until I find an even better one. I'll add (to the discussion) that Rosas' hair is obviously brown"[128] and "Obviously, here Rosas dyed his hair dark and used contacts to hide his enchanting iceberg-blue eyes. How? He is friends with Keanu Reeves, owner of the most excellent time machine."

2) Langus-TxT said: "Your rejection of images based on your own interpretation of how Rosas really looked like is, a priori, contrary to WP's policies to me (see WP:OR). I recognize that I'm not an expert on the matter..."[129]

"...decently-argued prevalent opinion"? Both have no sources. One talked about Keanu Reeves time machine and the other accused me of OR and admitted that he was no expert on the matter. Now this is what I brought:

1) Nicolas Shumway's The Invention of Argentina: "A handsome man with piercing blue eyes, not only did Rosas mesmerize Buenos Aires..."[130]

2) John Lynch's Argentine Dictator (regarded the best biography in English about Rosas): "Rosas was... fair with blue eyes".[131]

3) John Armstrong Crow's The Epic of Latin America: "Rosas was a blond with blue eyes and clear-cut Spanish features."[132]

4) Donald S. Castro's The Afro-Argentine in Argentine Culture: "Rosas... was fair skinned and blond."[133]

5) Michael E. Geisler's National Symbols, Fractured Identities: Contesting The National Narrative: "....generally attractive (blond, blue-eyed) figure of Rosas,"[134]

6) Or you may simply go to Argentina's official website to see a good quality painting of Rosas.

My argument can be found at Juan Manuel de Rosas#Governor of Buenos Aires. Somehow this is regarded a failure "to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion f others in that thread is clearly against him". Keanu Reeves-arguments are better than reliable sources now? Since when?

Also, what Fut.Perf. call my "longterm edit-warring on that article" when it was actually a long struggle I had with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 that eventually led them to be topic banned (specially from Rosas article) due to "tendentious editing and battleground conduct" by the Arbitrators. In fact, Fut.Perf asked me to "be warned against battleground and ownership conduct". Why? Because I don't accept Keanu Reeves-time machine explanation as a viable substitute for reliable sources in English?

Lastly, Fut.Perf. said that he doesn't "find the charge of 'meatpuppeting' convincing at all". Here I ask:

1) On 24 June MarshalN20 complained about the picture, arguing that it had weird eyes and that Rosas had dark eyes and brown eyes and that he preferred this picture.

2) Three days later Langus TxT, a friend of MarshalN20 (both hang out together on Falklands Islands-related articles) change the picture arguing that it has weird eyes and replace it with this picture. The same one MarshalN20 liked the most. Of all available pictures of Rosas on Commons, he chose the one MarshalN20 preferred.

3) Langus TxT has never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas. He never edited its talk page. He never took part in any discussion even remotely connected to it. It's all a coincidence that a friend of MarshalN20 appeared three days later, with the same arguments as him, and replaced the picture with the one MarshalN20 liked?

4) Did anyone here really expect to see Langus TxT say "Yes, indeed I was canvassed by Marshal"?

And I am accused of "battleground and ownership conduct" when I seek the legitimate channel to resolve problems on Wikipedia? I, who use reliable sources to back my claims, against one user who was banned from editing the article and a friend of his who admitted that he had no experience, both whom based their claims on ridiculous arguments? --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here.

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

To summarize...

1. I have not canvassed anyone, ever (although I remember once complaining to Jimbo, in a galaxy far away).
2. The accusations made by Lecen are unfounded & hurtful.
3. Lecen thinks the ArbComm ruling is above him (for example); in fact, the ruling has bolstered his bad behavior (mainly ownership problems, but also lack of etiquette).
4. I recommend improved remedies are placed on Lecen, because the "reminder" at ArbComm is plainly being ignored.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate Statement

I haven't done anything wrong, and I hope that WP:BOOMERANG finally applies here to correct the mistakes done at the ArbComm case of Argentine History. My edit history demonstrates that I have been diligently working on the Peru national football team since the topic ban was placed. I even discussed with User:NuclearWarfare (NW) about how to clean my honor as a user and demonstrate (through actions) the error of the topic ban. My only interaction with User:Langus-TxT has been through the Falkland Islands article. I have never communicated with him anywhere else. There is no interaction ban between me and Lecen, and I am only replying to his horrible accusations against me. At NW's talk page, I am simply discussing pictures (portraits, specifically), not history. On the other hand, since the topic ban, Lecen has blatantly refused to adopt the proposed remedies (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#Lecen reminded) given to him by the arbitrators: This whole situation is evidence of Lecen's genuine disregard for WP:AGF. He hasn't even bothered to talk with Langus or wait for his response (as suggested by NuclearWarfare). Lecen continues to cast aspersions ([135]) despite being clearly told by the arbitrators to stop ([136]). Lecen continues to exhibit ownership problems... He refuses community consensus to place a featured image on the article Pedro II of Brazil, his only excuse being that he doesn't agree (see older, recent, and most recent) He keeps taking ownership over my comments, as well as ownership of other users' talk page spaces (NW's talk page, Tim's talk page) The only fact from this case is that Langus edited Juan Manuel de Rosas and, in response, Lecen has gone on a rampage because Langus "had never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas article before" (The absurdity of that statement, "never edited before", is itself a clear indication of ownership issues. Should editors who "have never edited before" articles be barred from participating in them? I mean, luckily Lecen is not part of the welcoming committee) Lecen keeps writing "stay away" ([137], [138]), which is absolutely rude. Although these actions taken by Lecen are post-ArbComm ruling, they are part of a longer history of abusive behavior that demeans other Wikipedians (see [139]). User:SandyGeorgia also made a recent statement at NW's page concerning Lecen's behavior (see [140] and [141]). All I can conclude from this situation is that Lecen has an obvious personal grudge against me. The "reminder" given to him by the arbitrators is an inappropriate remedy for his misbehavior, and he will continue to misbehave unless anything is done to finally put an end to his bullying. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about replying to Lecen's emotional outburst above ([157]), but a friend has recommended me to ignore and ignore again. All I'll add is that Lecen continues to accuse me of meatpuppeting (among other ugly things), which at this point is a blatant personal attack. Enough is enough, and this editor has gone way over the limit. I request administrators to please find a way to stop this.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copy-pasting my comment on NuclearWarfare's talk page:

Sorry for the late reply, I've been really busy IRL. Let me set some facts straight:

1. I'm not a friend of MarshallN20, although I do have a high respect for him because in more than one occasion he took a step forward and successfully mediated at the Falkland Islands-related articles, which is not a minor task. We've had no more interaction other than that, especially not outside of Wikipedia. As such, I wasn't instructed to do that edit, nor he asked me anything at all. I've had that article in my watchlist since more than a year ago. I reckon I heard of the discussion about Rosas' picture (remember: watchlist), but I didn't pay too much attention to it, certainly not enough to know that this image was "Marshall's favorite". I just made a search and took the one that I thought would fit best for the infobox.
2. I left your numerous[158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183] edits to the article in place. So I have to ask, am I allowed to disagree with you? Does a disagree over article content (I repeat: article content) warrant for an ArbCom request?
3. (content) Your rejection of images based on your own interpretation of how Rosas really looked like is, a priori, contrary to WP's policies to me (see WP:OR). I recognize that I'm not an expert on the matter, but at any case we should be discussing this at the article talk page, not here.

I don't know if there's anything more to respond to. --Langus (t) 18:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please close this thread. Unless Lecen provides evidence to accuse Langus of being a puppet of Marshal (something stronger than editing or talking in an article that dozens of other users edit and talk about anyway), everything else is severely going off-topic. Topic ban or not, this page is not the venue to discuss which image should be used in the article: as already said, that should be done in the article talk page. And of course, it is not the task of the arbitration comitee to settle the discussion itself and decide which image is to be used. If Lecen wants to include a certain image, and Langus does not agree with him, he must do what he has already been told to do: discuss the issue in the article talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, MarshalN20 told me here that he has now understood what does a topic ban means, and that he won't repeat the discussions on content he made here, which were caused by his limited understanding on this particular aspect of wikipedia (as in which things he can or can't do, or how can he properly react to accusations like this one). I think that this aspect of the discussion can be considered settled and shouldn't need any further action. Cambalachero (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• First, the "de facto interaction ban" Lecen refers to: As far as I can see, that was an advisory opinion by an arb, and I don't think it would be enforceable at this time. The charge of meatpuppeting is more serious, and it seems NuclearWarfare is trying to get a response from Langus on his talk page. It might be good to see what result comes of that before we proceed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, I don't find the charge of "meatpuppeting" convincing at all. It doesn't take being a meatpuppet to stumble across something like these image reverts going on in a wiki-friend's contribs list, and it certainly doesn't take being a meatpuppet for an editor to agree that File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi oval.png looks weird and should not be used. The simple fact is that this portrait does look weird and that it does have disconcertingly glowing eyes. Why would any editor who chances to come across that article not want to replace it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely into it, it appears that Lecen has been longterm edit-warring on that article to push this or some other decidedly ugly portrait into the article for several months, apparently against the consensus of pretty much everybody else editing the article, and I can't find any substantial and coherent engagement by him about it on the talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I don't find anything immediately actionable in all of this, but would propose closing this with warnings/reminders to both sides: MarshalN20 is reminded to adhere to the topic ban and not to try to skirt it by using procedural discussions (like this here and the one on NW's talk page) for continuing the content disagreement. However, since the instance complained about was on an active arbitrator's talk page, and arbitrators are usually expected to use their own discretion in handling such cases and telling people when they overstep a mark, I don't see why we would want to hand out sanctions for that here now. The complaint about a "de-facto-interaction-ban" violation is baseless, because first of all there apparently is no such interaction ban, and secondly the most recent actions of MarshalN20 were all in procedural response to complaints by Lecen (i.e. a situation where even an editor who is interaction-banned would usually be allowed to respond). The complaint about "meatpuppetry" is baseless. On the other side, Lecen should be warned against battleground and ownership conduct. He has slowly edit-warred about this image for a long time (June 2012, Dec 2012, Jan 2013, Feb 2012, June 2012), and has so far failed to do the obvious thing and make the case for his preference on the talkpage (the only talk contribution of his relating to the image issue I can find is this unconstructive piece of polemic – and note that here too he fails to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion of others in that thread is clearly against him.) When Langus-TxT reverted his edit, Lecen clearly ought to have treated that as a legitimate content disagreement and should have finally made his case on the talkpage, rather than running to the admins to complain immediately. This is pretty poor behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this doesn't look actionable. The questions MarshalN20 asked of arbitrators were violations of his topic ban, in my view, but if the arbitrators had been of that view they could have blocked him directly. The allegations by the reporter that MarshalN20 used another editor as a meatpuppet appear to be unfounded conjecture.  Sandstein  22:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at what FutPerf has said, it seems that he and Sandstein are right. I'd favour closing this with no action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So closed.  Sandstein  18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Drg55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Single purpose accounts with agendas, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors instructed

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

1. 08:37, 13 June 2013, 02:24, 18 June 2013 – Repeated addition of unsourced POV content to Bare-faced Messiah, a Good Article
2. 01:19, 30 June 2013, 05:31, 2 July 2013 – Repeated addition of unreliably sourced content (personal blogs and a Church of Scientology attack website) to the same
3. 05:56, 2 July 2013 Attacks on other editors
4. 16:40, 9 April 2013 Attack on source (a living individual), contrary to WP:BLP

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

1. [184] Warned on 18 June 2013 by Prioryman (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although several editors have tried to engage with Drg55 on various talk pages, he has persisted in very aggressive pro-Scientology advocacy over the past few months. He has edited disruptively, particularly on Bare-faced Messiah, which attained Good Article status earlier this year, and has attacked other editors as "unreconstructed neo fascist[s]". This is quite obviously contrary to the admonition at the top of every page in this topic area to "edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding." Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. 08:21, 2 July 2013

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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

I don't think I need to read much further than the "unreconstructed neo fascist" bit or the "our critics are generally insane" bit here [185]. Topic-banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Decorum

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

The following diffs show behavior that can only be described as Jew-baiting, trolling and soapboxing.

• [186] Using the term "Chosen People" for Jews is part of an age old anti-Semitic canard. It's an obvious slur. You can start here if you're not aware of that.
• [187] Says the Jewish holiday of Purim is a celebration of genocide.
• [188] Links to an opinion piece on well known hate site aljazeerah.info (not to be confused with aljazeera.com)
• [189] In a discussion about what to call the Judean Hills, he jumps in with this completely off topic "offensive to Jewish eyes" trolling.
• [190] When called on the above, he doubles down with a Nazi comparison.
• [191] And here we have a little bit of everything. Making fun of Jewish holidays, dehumanizing Israelis, Nazi comparisons and general soapboxing.

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

1. Nishidani was topic banned as part of the original ARBPIA case and is one of the first 10 editors logged on the ARBPIA notification page, which should be warning enough. But if it isn't, note what Arb xeno said when his topic ban was lifed [192]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Keeping it short, I chose a just few examples from the last few months to show that this is ongoing behavior. If more examples are needed, let me know.

Here's a short quote from the source I supplied above: Anti-Semitic writings of the twentieth century have drawn continuously upon this notorious source and repeated endlessly "the chosen people" canard. The "notorious source" being the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Here's some more information on the subject. That someone could even try to argue that he was just using it as a neutral substitute for "Jews" is amazing to me. Sounds a lot like White people justifying their use of the N-word by saying they heard Black people using it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Purim is a celebration of genocide is like saying that a couple of days ago Egyptians were celebrating sexual assault. It's a malicious attempt to paint a whole group of people as depraved.

Gratuitously posting some ugly thing a Jew said in a completely unrelated discussion is at best trolling. Gratuitously comparing Israelis to Nazis in a completely unrelated discussion is at best trolling. That's what Nishidani did with the "Jewish eyes" quote in a discussion about what the Judean Hills should be called. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand and the only reason he posted it is because he thought his interlocutor is Jewish and he wanted to offend. I'd be quite shocked to see the admins say this kind of behavior is OK, but if they do I'll certainly take it to heart.

@Sandstein: I supplied more than one source (and can supply more) that shows how using Chosen People this way is a slur. As for the rest, imagine someone was repeatedly making such statements against Muslims and their holidays and comparing the Palestinians to Nazis every time he thought he's talking to a Palestinian. I seriously doubt people would be so dismissive. This report is not vexatious, it comes from exasperation. I truly and honestly can't believe you're going to tell him it's ok to say Jews celebrate genocide on what is supposedly a collaborative project. Seriously? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[193]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

I don't know whether to take this report seriously, esp. after reading the first complaint:

Using the term "Chosen People" for Jews is part of an age old anti-Semitic cannard

I suppose mispelling 'canard' is not part of NMMGG's chronic gaming of language and personal hostility to me (per this recent, and silly comment).

• (1)Seriously, where on earth did the rest of this nonsense about the English translation of am segula/am bechira being an anti-semitic canard come from? (see Kevin Avruch's essay in Ian S. Lustick's edited book, SUNY press 1991 p.136) or S. Leyla Gürkan's The Jews as a Chosen People: Tradition and transformation, Routledge 2009 p.176, or Esther Reisel, Rudi Reisel Modern Jewish Identity: A Rationalistic Motivation for Remaining Jewish, ‎Gefen Publishing House 2000, p.97 But surely one doesn't have to fossick in obscure scholarly works to realize the obvious stupidity of that accusation?

• (2) I could respond to each edit with dozens of books sources (e.g.on Purim and genocide, commenting on Esther (9:5-16), see Lustick's remarks here, regarding Baruch Goldstein and this incident and subsequent behaviour(and Center of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District (p.82); or Zev Garber's essay ‘Deconstructing Theodicy and Amalekut: A Personal apologia,’ in James F. Moore (ed.) Post Shoah Dialogues: Re-Thinking Our Texts Together, University Press of America, 2004 pp.231-249 p.241 or James F. Moore's essay ‘The Genocidal Mind at the Heart of Our Religions’, in the same book 'Post Shoah Dialogues: Re-Thinking Our Texts Together,' University Press of America, 2004 pp.221-230, pp.223,225.

What NMMGG deplores is the fact I read books and allude to their contents, and indeed edit in the substance of critical Israeli (or Jewish) scholarship onto articles in the I/P area. I've often said that any comment, in response to some other editor's general remarks, which I may make on an I/P page, if queried, will be documented by the book or books I had in mind when making it. It's not me he dislikes (I can provide dozens of diffs of his antipathy): he dislikes books, or the scholarship, if he is aware of it, which is one of the great ornaments of Israeli academia. Do I really have to deal with the rest of this nonsense? I will, but it risks being WP:TLDR and I have a teaching engagement this afternoon.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (3)Antisemitic website? Al-Jazeerah =Aljazeera Publishing=www.aljazeerah.info = antisemitic? Good grief. This really is mind-bending suspiciousness of my twisted deviously sneaking antisemitism. I recall the incident clearly, because someone corrected me on it back then. I read Jonathan Cook 'The Four Guilty Parties Behind Israel's War Criminal Attacks on Gaza,' at Counterpunch 19 Nov 2012. Anyone who cares to check my edits knows I read that daily, and have defended some of the work there on RSN. But, using Counterpunch means someone will challenge that source as RS. So I googled around. He had it on his website, as I found, but that could be dismissed on a personal blog. I saw it reproduced here (Al-Jazeerah, November 19, 2012) and, without opening it, used that link, taking it to refer to Al-Jazeera which passes any test for RS. I was wrong.

Of course NMMGG will say I just made this up. He often repeats I am irreducibly dishonest, ('not for your personal thoughts which not only clearly influence your editing here to the point you put all intellectual honesty aside'.)Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iselilja Please read the scholarship, and avoid the absurd spinning to 'poison the wells' of analytical discourse in the popular polemical and highly politicized modern press. The idea that referring to 'Chosen People' is anti-semitic will leave large constituencies non-semitic Christians bewildered, as you would have seen had you checked elsewhere in the book NMMGG cited for this. I.e. John Carey and Henry F Carey ‘Hostility in the United Nations Bodies to Judaism, ‘ in Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory (eds.) Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1987 pp.31ff. p.39, which argues that it is part of Christian doctrine, and that many Christians, the Pope himself (il popolo di Dio =Catholics) defend that notion as proper to themselves. It is a biblical idiom, with a huge hermeneutic literature on it, divagated on lovingly in centuries of pious literature, borrowed by many Christian nations and religious groups ('God's Own People'). This is an encyclopedia optimally based on the best scholarship not a clearing-house for the kind of shallow, loose thinking exemplified by partisan spin-meisters who can never see beyond the rhetorical advantages of engineering points of view. It is the curse of the I/P area esp. that we just don't hew closely to the calmer waters of scholarship, which has to persuade handfuls of experts, rather than win over a constituency by the mendacious manipulation of hackneyed memes. Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'A very simplistic view that Jews in Israel treat Palestians unfairly because they see themselves as "the chosen" will often be controversial.'

Could I prevail on you to check Ian Lustick's book which I have often used. There is no allusion, in Lustick, or in my remarks, to 'the Jews in Israel' treating Palestinians unfairly because they see themselves as "the chosen". People in Tel Aviv, and probably even the IDF, would laugh at that. Lustick and several other scholars have surveyed the settler-nationalist-religious interpretations which justifies expropriating land from Palestinians in terms of halakha or revered sources like the Torah. Most Israelis or Jews never read that settler-religious literature, and would be surprised to encounter a statement such as :‘Insofar as they try, violently or otherwise, to resist the extension of Jewish sovereignty over the whole land, Palestinians will indeed be uprooted or destroyed.' (Lustick 1988: pp.78-9). I was alluding to many statements associated with a settler theology, well known by specialists.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein Rather than bar NMMGG from AE, could he be asked to drop the almost obsessive habit of challenging me over many pages in personal terms, either as a danger to wikipedia, an antisemite, or intellectually dishonest in everything I do? If he thinks an edit I make, or an explanation of it on a talk page is wrong, there's a simple way of stating this in neutral terms, without bitching. I'm not distressed by this nonsense. It's just that it wastes time, and I don't have much of it. If I fuck up egregiously, I think he, or anyone else, should retain a right to bring me to book here. It's the snarkiness on talk pages that's the problem.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy. Look, in the face of several sources I brought to bear, you keep this antisemite baiting up, apparently refusing to consider them. I'll withdraw my moderate request and asked you to be sanctioned for persistent innuendo, insistent WP:AGF infractions and harassment (with numerous diffs) if you persist. So drop it.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your sources. None of them justify the kind of language you've been using or the gratuitous references to Jews behaving badly you bring up when you don't like what someone says. Your sources refer to small groups of fundamentalists, and you tar every Jew with the same brush. A non-Jew calling Jews "Chosen People" with malice is a slur. It's in the Protocols. It appears tens of thousands of times on stormfront. I find it extremely hard to believe someone as well read as you doesn't know this. The only uninvolved editor here agreed with this point.

Same goes for Purim. The fact a small group of extremists is, well, extreme, doesn't give you the right to tar all Jews as celebrating genocide. I would think this is obvious to any right thinking person.

Anyway, go ahead and withdraw your request. I'd like to see what the admins do with all this. I don't think I can in good conscious volunteer my time in a place where people like you are free to abuse other people based on their supposed religion, and will be, again with all honesty, extremely shocked and disappointed if they allow it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You often mock what strikes you as my exaggerated sensitivity over word nuance and syntax, about being precise in drafting articles in neutral language. Karl Kraus thought attention to minutiae even like commas might have avoided things like the bombing of Shanghai (the wiki version needs correction. That story is rather complex and has several versions). What you are doing is lazily repeating that I am abusing Jews, or smearing them, or making antisemitic ethnic slurs, (now inventing a new one:'abus(ing) other people based on their supposed religion') by refusing to read properly,ignoring what independent eyes say reviewing the evidence and appearing to do so in order to get rid of me on trumped-up charges. I guess, since you are totally insensitive to language, I'll have to show how you've concocted these rubbishy interpretations. So, damn it, Saturday afternoon will be wasted dealing with the details of this obnoxious smear. I'll now attend to each of the other charges, and finesse the earlier ones.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two sets of independent eyes here so far, Sandstein and Iselilja. Those who have commented and agree with you are your longtime allies (and Sepsis, who seems like an old ally with a new username). I wish there were more uninvolved people here, but that's all we have so far. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Longtime allies' 'old ally'. Usually you say 'friends'. This is not a campaign with allies and enemies. On your recent complaint that I was inconsistent, I examined your diffs, agreed I had been, and reverted to a text User:Dvl999, and User:Nableezy, to name a few, insisted must be removed since a notorious sock edited it in. As to Sepsis, when he suggested sanctions against User:GHcool for a careless dismissal of Palestinians, he found no support from myself, nor Nableezy for that matter. Good NPOV editors find community support, bad editors sock or tagteam.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the term "Chosen People" often used by anti-Semites as a slur against Jews? This is a simple yes/no question. Please answer honestly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse this late reply. I had a Porlock person afternoon. I hope to have some time tomorrow morning. Briefly, you are saying George W. Bush smeared the elected representatives in the Knesset when he addressed them as follows:

We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David -- a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.'( May, 2008)

Of course the most disturbing thing about this remark was the lack of a connective preposition between 'chosen people' and 'Eretz Yisrael', and as it stands it should be classified as a Bushism, since it confuses am Yisrael, the people, with eretz yisrael, the earth or land. Despite one of the etymologies for Adam, it's making people out to be dirt. A bit like the apocryphal story or spin of the facts, that Kennedy in telling Berliners he was one of them, ballsed up the German and made out he was a pancake.

I hope Todd Gitlin never edits Wiki or NMMGG will haul him before AE for antisemitism.

Todd Gitlin and Liel Leibowitz, The Chosen Peoples: America, Israel, and the Ordeals of Divine Election, Simon & Schuster, 2010. That's a book. Sorry, so read at least his interview with Akiva Eldar. By what Gitlin says there, most of which I agree with, he is an antisemite, since everything you cite as defamation in the links is more or less what he, and untold tens of thousands of sensible people in Israel and the diaspora, think or write. Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I see one editor below, as this window stayed open for some hours, popped in the same cite from Bush. Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an honest answer. See Zero's post below for an example of what an honest answer looks like. Amazingly he's the only one of your allies to acknowledge the point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Allies'? What is this, a rerun of the Atlantic Alliance and WW2? Since your fundamental premise is that I 'put all intellectual honesty aside', just put it down to my usual modus operandi.Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna simple answer? I've never heard the words 'chosen people' used as an ethnic slur of Jews. My wife who is Italian and a devout Catholic has never heard the word 'popolo eletto' used in a derogative sense.

Zero. My Bible on English usage is the O.E.D.(20 vols.1989). See vol. 111, p.173 col.2 chosen. Could you check the on-line, updated O.E.D. and see if it registers the term in the sense of an 'an anti-semitic canard' used by antisemites to smear Jews? And if so, when did this odd assumption of a pejorative meaning slip into usage? Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked online. The entry for "chosen" has not been updated since the 1989 edition, and there is no specific entry for "chosen people". There is, however, a link to Oxford Dictionaries pro, where I find the entry:

"chosen people: the Jewish people considered (in Jewish and Christian tradition) as having been selected by God for a special relationship with him.. Originally a secular movement, Zionism has its foundation in the Millenarian belief that the Jews, the chosen people of God, will be reunited from diaspora (dispersion or exile) in their rightful homeland.

- We need to stand together and remain the chosen people.

- He is preaching to Israel, God's chosen people, those who worshiped at the temple and synagogue and believed in the God of Abraham.

- For God's chosen people, with their hard-earned identity of high-mindedness, by definition cannot sink into racist violence.

- This was a wonderful summary of the faith of the chosen people, and I will certainly recommend this article to my friends.

- They saw themselves as God's chosen people, a nation in exile from its land.

- It describes how God chose the Jews to be an example to the world, and how God and his chosen people worked out their relationship.We should all realize that we are the chosen people of Hashem, and we should use the Mitzvot as our clothing to separate us from the rest of the world.

- When the Jews accepted the Torah at Mt. Sinai, they became the chosen people whose role and responsibility was to bring a God-given code of morality to the world.

- We realize that Jews are God's chosen people but we believe we can share in God's care and love."

I hope this helps. RolandR (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, thank you Roland. I began to suspect that, not hearing much English for three decades, and living basically in a library, I'd missed something. Perhaps I have. I don't follow Stormfront, or outpourings paranoid racial drivel from the usual fringe lunatic mob, though apparently Internet has caught the infection. I do resent the way polemicists try to connect up the trash generated by maniacs with what serious scholars or even critics write. Many decent and accomplished people in academia have been hounded for this polemical obliteration of the tonal and discursive registers. Nuance is dead.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. So when we say before a Torah reading, "...who chose us from among the peoples", we participate in an "anti-Semitic canard"? Who knew?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. So when one Black person calls another Black person the N-word he's being racist? Who knew?? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that NMMNG has fixed link #2, I'd like to suggest that instead of wasting everyone's time with gratuitous complaints he should thank Nishidani for posts like #2, which offers a real opportunity for gaining insight into a complex issue. It was an erudite and incisive contribution; it can offend only someone who needs not to encounter a perspective at variance with one's own. Needless to say, Wikipedia is not a good place for people who want not to encounter perspectives at variance with one's own. Perhaps the outcome of this AE request will help reinforce that message. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, re "vexatious": the fact that NMMNG didn't anticipate the inevitable outcome of an AE request of this sort surely means that any future requests would be similarly otiose. So, yes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. That link doesnt support the claim that any use of the term Chosen People is antisemitic, it supports that Soviet doctrine attacked the belief of chosenness.
2. Dont see that in the linknow fixed It does celebrate a double story of attempted and successful genocide, see the article: They decree that Jews may preemptively kill those thought to pose a lethal risk. As a result, on 13 Adar, five hundred attackers and Haman's ten sons are killed in Shushan. Throughout the empire 75,000 of the Jews' enemies are killed (Esther 9:16). On the 14th, another 300 are killed in Shushan. nableezy - 13:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Well-known hate site? Huh? That's actually a link to an article by Jonathan Cook, a writer published in academic works on Israel. You not liking something doesnt make it a arbitration decision violation
4. That was a quote from the chief rabbi of Upper Nazareth, in direct response to your comment.
5. So what? Somebody cant think that Israeli policies remind them of Nazi policies? Oh thats "new Antisemitism", I must have forgot that we now enforce controversial definitions of thought crime here.
6. So what? And that was on his talk page.

Regarding the latest "explanation", thats nonsense. Nishidani wasnt drawing on the Protocols, and he wasnt using it as a substitute for Jews. Reading the actual comment, and what it was in response to, makes that clear. As far as the laughable, truly, comparison between the n-word and chosen people, please, get off it. It wouldnt take me any effort to find sources that say as a matter of fact that any use of that term by non-African Americans is at least on its face racist. That you seriously think that is a comparison to be made only enforces my view that this is nothing but a pile of shit youve thrown against the wall in the hopes of removing somebody you clearly disdain. Come to think of it, besides attempting to annoy Nishidani, what exactly have you done on wiki the last several months? Oh, that and defend serial sockpuppeteers. nableezy - 14:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt what happened. You claimed that others were attempting to make a word verboten, and Nishidani, with is encyclopedic memory, remarked on your use of that word. There wasnt anything gratuitous about that comment, except your attempt to play it up into something it isnt for the sole purpose of removing somebody you have done nothing by antagonize over months now. nableezy - 16:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's your position that when someone uses the word "verboten" (like you did here for example) it is a legitimate response to find something racist a coreligionist of theirs said, and post it on the talk page regardless of what the discussion is about? Like I said above, I'd honestly be very surprised indeed to find that admins support this idea, but will definitely take it to heart if they do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, please dont put words in my mouth. I said Nishidani was remarking on your use of a term, and he may have done so colorfully, but it was in no way racist and further it was in no way a violation of the arbitration decision. Youve been doing nothing but antagonizing Nishidani for months now, and I dont find his comment at all objectionable in that context. And, as Sepsis helpfully pointed out, that edit is 7 months old. If you found it that objectionable why have you been sitting on it for this long? nableezy - 20:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It had nothing to do with the issue being discussed or the article in general, and brought up something nasty some Jew said only because he thinks I'm Jewish. That's textbook trolling. Imagine me going "colorfully you say? That reminds me of the colorful picture I saw of a Muslim girl murdered by her father for going out of the house without permission". Would that be acceptable? Be honest. What if I did it over and over? You wouldn't be here lodging a complaint? We both know you would.

The reason I waited was because I thought one such incident on its own might not seem like a big deal, but several over a period of time + the slur would make the abuse obvious. Apparently abusing Jews in this topic area is allowed and showing the abuse has being going on for a while makes the older incidents stale. Live and learn. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats BS, and repeating it doesnt make it true. Nishidani has not abus[ed] Jews, there was no slur, and repeatedly calling somebody an antisemite when your evidence doesnt support that should result in sanctions. nableezy - 15:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, you are dead wrong about Purim. It does not celebrate successful genocide. In the same way as the killing of over 75,000 Syrians in the past two years is not called genocide, and the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (one of which killed 75,000 Japanese in Nagasaki in a single day) genocide, neither was the killing of a few hundred potential Einsatzgruppen in each of the various provinces of the vast Persian empire a genocide. For anyone to suggest that Jews today "celebrate" genocide is disgraceful and offensive. I am surprised Nishidani could even state the same, bearing in mind it was the Jews themselves who were victims of such a brutal genocide a mere few decades ago. It is like saying Jews believe it is permitted to wipe out any nation as long as it's not themselves! Shocking. Chesdovi (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youre free to believe whatever you wish on what is disgraceful or offensive. Ill just say that there are a host of things that any number of people have written across a number of pages that I find disgraceful and offensive. That does not however mean that those stated views violate any part of the arbitration decision, and I wouldnt be bringing that person to AE because they said something I dislike. Your views are only that, yours, and nobody else is under any obligation to ascribe to those views. And again, look at the context of Nishidani's comments. They werent randomly thrown in, it was in direct response to a comment by somebody else. Finally, there certainly are Jews that believe exactly that. nableezy - 16:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi. You gave me a barnstar for completely overhauling the article on Joseph's Tomb, and now I am offending Jews? 'Purim (i.e. the megillah recitation) celebrates' does not mean 'the Jews celebrate'. As Lustick says, most ignore the last part in the megillah I alluded to re the second genocide The atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are arguably instances of genocide.(See John Dower's work for the vicious stereotypes which reduced the Japanese to a race of monkeys in the American mind, and thereby allowed the extermination of whole cities of civilians to test a new weapon of mass destruction, to 'send a message to Tokyo' and as revenge to the same done to Chinese and POWs by the Japanese army). In religious terms, the irony of that was tha they 'took out' the two Japanese cities with the strongest Christian connections and communities, while saving archly conservative Kyoto, simply becauseStimson vetoed its destruction due to the fond memories he had of the place (he spent his honeymoon there in 1915, or thereabouts). Einsatzgruppen is an anachronism, but most seriously, the events related in Purim never took place. It is a post-exilic novelette brilliantly crafted for theological ends. It has no ascertainable historical basis, as you assume, and appear to assume I believe.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, firstly 5 of 6 edits are over half a year old. Second there is no problem with the edits, we don't silence people just because they don't share your POV. Unless the Chosen People comment is actually antisemetic (I have no clue on this) there is nothing here but one editor trying to take out an editor for not sharing their POV. Sepsis II (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While Jews as the “chosen people” has some foundation is Jewish religion and thinking, it is also a concept that has been terribly misused in anti-Semitic propaganda and is still a beloved sarcasm for Jews among modern anti-Semites. It is normally not considered good form to use it as a general nickname for Jews and I think it’s inappropriate to refer to Jews that way on Wikipedia. Even for religious and ethnic groups with a less traumatic history, it will normally be wise to avoid referring to them in the form of sarcastic nicknames in Wikipedia discussions. These kind of sarcasm do nothing to improve Wikipedia, and have the potential of hurting people and causing disruption. – Taking a quick glance of the diffs provided, several of them are pretty polemic and debate forum like, so I think a more encyclopedic is to be recommended also on talk pages , but as I understand several of the diffs are dated, this may already have happened. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too value the comment by Zero which seemed nuanced and insightful. This is a fairly complex and sensitive area. A very simplistic view that Jews in Israel treat Palestians unfairly because they see themselves as "the chosen" will often be controversial; a statement with more qualifications and nuances less so. I never thought that Nishidani should be punished for his choice of words, to make that clear. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein. With regards to your proposed restriction of NMMNG, I had a quick look at his contributions and in the last 500 hundred edits all but three (one to Vancouver and two to an article on an Israeli children's author) seemed to be the IP area. I get the impression that that individual is here to fight a propaganda war rather than to build an encyclopedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am only going to address the "Chosen People" item. Iselilja says that the concept has "some foundation [in] Jewish religion and thinking" but of course that is a serious understatement. Actually it originates in the Torah (Deut. 14.2, Ex. 19.5–6, etc) and is "a central theological axiom in Jewish tradition from the Bible through contemporary Jewish thought" (The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, 2nd edn., p. 168). Outside Judaism it has a checkered history, ranging from its approving use by generations of Christian philosemites through to its use as a weapon by the worst of antisemites. It is preposterous to damn someone merely on account of its use, as NMMNG does, without making an effort to properly understand what is meant, as NMMNG does not do. Far be from me to read Nishidani's mind, but my impression is that he was not using the phrase as a sarcastic nickname for Jews, but was referencing the use of the concept by those who invoke it as a religious basis for disinheriting Palestinians. This is a widespread phenomenon amongst non-Jews as well as Jews, like it or not. Nishidani could have been more careful in his choice of words, but there is nothing actionable here. Finally, Nishidani and Ykantor, to whom he was replying, should try harder to not discuss the topic but only the article. Zero^talk 16:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zero's comment above is a very good one (Deut. 14.2 KJV: "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.") Use of the phrase serves many purposes, and it has a long and noble and positive connotation among both Gentiles and Jews as Zero correctly points out. But NMMNG's sole purpose is to brand an editor he disagrees with as an antisemite to hopefully get him banninated!

He has been continually allowed to insinuate antisemitism against others with false "evidence." He did so again in his most recent comment: "Is the term "Chosen People" often used by anti-Semites as a slur against Jews? This is a simple yes/no question. Please answer honestly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)" He's constructing a false binary with only one "correct" answer as a way to yet again call someone antisemitic without evidence. This is pretty vile stuff and you should bring a stop to it.

Consider: George W. Bush, a noted American friend of Israel, delivered a speech in the Knesset on the country's 60th independence day in 2008. He said: "We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David -- a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael." His words were met with rapturous applause by his overwhelmingly Jewish audience (at about 2:50 in that video). Imagine a press conference afterwards. "Mr. President - the phrase "chosen people" is antisemitic, is it not? Answer the question!"

This vile behavior has been allowed to continue for far, far too long.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The request is not actionable. Only the first edit is reasonably recent. I don't see how referring to the "Chosen People", in context a sardonic allusion to one of the ethno-religious-nationalist positions espoused by some participants to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, amounts to a slur. The article Jews as the chosen people makes no mention of such a meaning. The other, undated, diffs are from 2012 and clearly not actionable at this point, even if they were disruptive, which at first glance doesn't seem to be the case. But Nishidani (and others) should remember that Wikipedia is not the place for conducting discussions about one's personal views about real-life conflicts. Because these views must not affect the encyclopedia, discussing them here is simply a waste of time and bytes.
The request is also vexatious. I am considering to ban the submitter from AE. Opinions?  Sandstein  20:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we don't seem to be getting any further. Nothing in this discussion convinces me that the term "chosen people" or the Purim comment could reasonably be interpreted as antisemitic. As such, the request is disruptive in that it accuses an editor of serious and ethically tainting misconduct, namely antisemitism, on specious grounds. As contemplated above, No More Mr Nice Guy is indefinitely prohibited from contributing to arbitration enforcement requests or appeals thereof that concern the case WP:ARBPIA, except to defend themselves where any enforcement actions against them are discussed.
In their response, Nishidani also linked to confrontative and incivil comments by No More Mr Nice Guy that needlessly personalized talk page discussions (July 13), but in the same context Nishidani also resorted to a personal attack ("As any twit can see"). This is a cause for concern, but any sanctions against No More Mr Nice Guy (and possibly Nishidani) for their talk page interactions would need to be examined in the course of a dedicated request with sufficient recent diffs as evidence.  Sandstein  22:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]