Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive155

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

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wickey-nl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA :

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

1. 6 August 2014 Accusing other member of being sock-puppet clearly breach of WP:NPA
2. 1 August 2014 Referring to Israel as "Jewish Ethnocracy" and violation of WP:NOTFORUM
3. 24 July 2014 Violation of WP:NPA by saying that other user "don't understand" what he is writing about
4. 24 July 2014 Restoring WP:COPYVIO from BBC source
5. 18 July 2014‎ While describing his edit as " Copyedit (major)". He inserted a new information e.g he sourced this fact "The ruling also did not oblige the Government to register the settler’s rights." to advocacy organisation Peace Now without properly attributing it.
6. 16 July Another violation of WP:NPA.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18 June 2014 The user was blocked for violating 1RR per this report at WP:ANEW [1]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13 August 2013

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Its clear that user violations of WP:NPA, bad edits like restoration of WP:COPYVIO, false edit summaries and not properly attributing advocacy organisations clearly shows that user came here not to edit in neutral way.

Kingsindian It really doesn't matter who put it in the first place every one is responsible for their own edit and it doesn't matter if it revert or something else.There was more problems with this edit that its cherry-picking the source to present only one piece of information though it discuss the issue at large.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 03:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@Bbb23 and Sandstein: Even in this AE thread the user continue his violation of WP:NPA [2] by calling other users "hasbara activists" and their "mates". I must agree with Robert McClenon on this regard some admin action is need to stop the disruption.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

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.

1. I am blocked once by an corrupt admin with a bizar interpretation of the 1RR. He blocked me on dubious ground. Moreover, he blocked me for an excessive period of 48 hours. Exceptional for a first block, on questionable ground.
2. Both, User Shrike and User Brewcrewer abuse this page to make their points about the article Palestinian land laws, a quite complicated case.
3. Under argument 5, Shrike comes with a futile complaint about the use of a standard edit summary.
4. A typical example of impure discussing is in Brewcrewer's reaction below under argument 4, 2nd point, where he falsely accuses me of removing a source. Under the last point, he repeats the same trick.
   

--Wickey-nl (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will comment on the untouched issues.

• Apart from the fact that I think that it is absurd to regard the citation of a minor part of a source, an alinea, is copyright violation, it is plainly ridiculous to bring in this example, where the same alinea makes clear that is a citation from Al Mezan.
• Regarding WP:NPA it is not without reason that the IP-conflict has its own WP rules. There is much manipulation, and the environment is heated. This should be weighted.

There is more to say about the complaints regarding Brewcrewer.

• Is the edit “Try to jump over your shadow.” really a PA in this context?
• You are a master in pointless comments. Why do you insert that strange link here? was actually a reaction to the linking of my user name with an edit link. The wiki mouse-over applet showed only an anonymous undated section on the talk page, a misunderstanding.

• I may give my opinion about an admin here, not? On my talk page I explained why I think EdJohnston is a corrupt admin was very wrong. About the bizar interpretation: this admin regards the editing of old sections, not disputed ones, as reverts.
• While User Sandstein states that "The NPA and NOTFORUM concerns are, in my view, too slight, on their own, to warrant a sanction at this point", he pleads for a topic ban. I wonder what are its real motives.
• --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23

• I understand your position about sock complaints. On the other hand you should understand that it is frustrating when there is a foul smell around POV editing and everyone can feel it is not kosher, but nothing can be proved.
• That the block was very rightfully is your opinion, not a fact. And there was a very foul smell around it. Less than a handfull admins decide about the interpretation of the rules and I maintain that the current interpretation is questionable, and the rules are ineffective.
  

--Wickey-nl (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Wrong conclusion. While this is not the place to evaluate the system, I do not say that I will not take into account the reality of the existing dominant interpretations. I will do, I only say these interpretations are not obvious.

Some are trapped by the use of a single word, not even present in the request of the submitter. I do not have evidence, so I should not have used the c-word, and I striked it out.

Having said that, I view the threatening with a topic ban inconsistent with the conclusion that the very submission of this complaint is poorly substantiated. You cannot simply say: the arguments filed by the submitter do not justify a sanction, but Wickey-nl is a problem, or even Wickey-nl [have not] "the competence required to edit productively and collaboratively in this topic area".

Hasbara Pro-Israel activists invest much time in recruting their mates and expanding their network.[4][5] I really do not believe that clear activists are welcoming newcomers just out of passion for the WP project. In theory, one can even welcome its own sockpuppet. It is easy to be civil, knowing you are supported by a hasbara structure that dominates Wikipedia. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor involved in 2 of the 6 diffs above (number 3 and 4) directly, and one indirectly (number 1), perhaps I should say something. The good part: About diff 4, the copyvio was inserted by another editor, in the beginning, User:Shrike reverted it, and as a sort of compromise, I moved the essence of the edit to another section while keeping out the copyvio. User:Wickey-nl reverted me, I explained the edit and he did not revert it again., though he grumbled about it (diff 3). He explained that he thought I removed some reference to the BBC report, which I did not. The discussion afterwards was more or less civil. To be honest, I have a thick skin and did not mind the "you don't know what you're talking about" comment in diff 3. I understood the point he was making (though he was wrong in making the point, in my opinion). I did not find much disruptive editing.

The bad part: Seems that User:Wickey-nl has a habit of accusing others as sock-puppets and other personal attacks, and has a very strong bias in his edits in the I/P area. I do also have my own bias (and rather in his direction), but I try to keep it under control (I hope with some success). With the recent events in I/P, tempers are inflamed everywhere. I do not know what WP policy is regarding these things (this is my first post to Noticeboard), but perhaps these are things to keep in mind. Kingsindian (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a comment on the content part of the dispute. As I mentioned earlier, I do see a strong bias in the Wickey-nl's edits (which, it must be said, seems to be the norm rather than the exception in ARBPIA), many (not all) of Brewcrewer's criticisms at "Palestinian Land Laws" section are somewhat misdirected. There is a fundamental disagreement on the talk page about whether even the title "Palestinian Land Laws" make any sense, because there are few laws passed by Palestinian authority and many of the "land laws" are based on international law and old Jordanian law. This is the context of discussion where Wickey-nl removed some parts based on "not referring to land law" etc. I would not have made the edits he made, and nor left summaries like "replacing rubbish", but it was a content dispute, and not indicative of bad-faith. Kingsindian (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am frankly puzzled by Sandstein's comment. Perhaps this is my own inexperience and the Rashomon effect. The copyright issue is trivial (and as I noted, was not even inserted by Wickey-nl, but by another editor). Since he rejects the WP:NPA and content issues, we are left with a prickly response by Wickey-nl on this page as evidence. Is this grounds for a topic ban? Kingsindian (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle rages every day in ARBPIA; prickly comments and more importantly, Civil POV pushing are the norm. I do not agree that there is any evidence of lack of competence or inability to work collaboratively presented. I agree, though, that the comments by Wickey-nl impugning the integrity of admins, (based on flimsy evidence) should not have been made. Do the sentiments expressed on this page trump all the edits made on actual wikipedia projects? One has to edit in the area to know if some person is capable of editing well and fairly. I have only been editing intensively in this area in the past month (due to the recent events) and I saw the battle plainly within a week. Kingsindian (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review these additional diffs:

1. 1RR violation - 1 & 2 Warning is ignored.[6]
2. 1RR violation (removes sourced information because in his opinion “polls are manipulative”)1 & 2. Ignores warning. [7]
3. Violates WP:NPA: “Try to jump over your shadow.”
4. More recently Wickey-n1 exhibited problematic editing at Palestinian land laws, mostly by removing sources and sourced material on spurious grounds. The underlying motive appears to be POV pushing.

• Removes category “fatwa” without explanation [8] The article explicitly uses the term in the third paragraph of the Effect section [9] wherein it clearly mentions a fatwa with a source.
• In an edit marked as “minor” Wickey-nl removes a source supporting the name of the article [10] with the edit summary “Ref is not specifically about land laws”. This is of course is not a valid reason to remove sourced content.
• Removed the statement “The [Palestinian land] law carries a sentence of the death penalty" [11] with the edit summary “Neither source mentions a particular Palestinian land law.” The first source Wickey-nl deleted "<ref name="Weiner" />" refers to this source and on page 22 it explicilty states the following: “In clear violation of these provisions, the Palestinian Land Law prescribes the death penalty to anyone selling land to Jews".
• Wickey-nl unilaterally moves the article twice [12] [13] before finally settling on "Land ownership in the State of Palestine."[14] The article was eventually moved back to the prior name after a request for admin intervention.[15] At the talk page, Wickey-n1 stated that page must be moved because the source supporting the name was unsatisfactory.[16] It was twice requested of Wickey-nl for the sources supporting their preferred name (1 & 2) but Wickey-nl failed to respond. This is the problematic POV behavior we have discussed at AE. An edit is make ostensibly on policy grounds, but when the policy does not suit the same editor’s political leanings, this policy is ignored.
• [17] makes mass changes to article claiming that the “Replace rubbish about non-existing laws with real source.” The edit replaces multiple reliable secondary sources with one primary source.
• [18] removes reliably sourced content (source) with edit summary that includes attack on author in source “Tendentious journalist writing” (the journalist is Khaled Abu Toameh, a BLP) and arguing that the journalist did not provide evidence.

In summation, besides for the 1rr violations and personal attacks (mentioned in other reports), more importantly, Wickey-nl has exhibited a pattern of pov-pushing disguised as proper editing while not holding himself to the same standard he demands of others. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This report is unusually weak.

Sandstein identifies this edit as "problematic" and indeed it is. But it is just a commonplace mild copyvio that is easily fixed by some paraphrasing. This should have been done by Shrike instead of removing it wholesale, since it is obviously relevant and well sourced. Identifying this edit alone as sufficient cause for a topic ban seems extraordinary. (Problematic content suppressed instead of struck,  Sandstein  03:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)) Zero^talk 00:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: You wrote that I made "personal attacks" but in fact I made comments on editing behavior. Your words are a clear violation of WP:ASPERSIONS and I invite you to remove them. Zero^talk 04:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed into "Problematic content".  Sandstein  16:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon : As an administrator who sometimes blocks people, I expect that some of them will give me lip for it. But I think it is a right to be able to criticise an administrator's actions (within some generous limits) and administrators should be able to take it. Once we start blocking people for being angry when they are blocked, we will look like a bunch of power-freaks and community respect for administrators will plummet. Zero^talk 14:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what makes this a case for sanctions as it looks like to be normal disagreements, except for the copyright issue which easily could have been fixed - even by Shrike instead of making a case of it. Regarding Wickey-nl's response here, I think one word or so is unacceptable but he seems upset over the 48h block mentioned in the same sentence. That wording shouldn't be used but I certainly don't agree that he can't collaborate with others, as I think he has proven it, like being very active in talk pages, and doing many improvements on articles. A topic ban would be very hard to understand. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've disagreed with Wickey-nl in the past (I thought he could not spot an evident POV for example), but generally find that he is a very good wikipedian. Unlike most editors, he actually goes through pages diligently from top to bottom, expanding them significantly (see Beit HaShalom. Edit warriors can be identified easily. They don’t build pages (too much work) they tend to intervene to revert, or to add some succulent piece of information that tells against one side. They are morbidly interested in AE report: they appear to spend a lot of time watching selected editors’ contribs, and reporting people. I can't see anything, rather than the trivial BBC diff in Shrike's original report. This fits some profiles here: it does not strike me as appropriate to Wickey-nl. Brewcrewer's report is wrong from the outset (dragging up stale diffs, never reported at the time if they were believed to be serous, rather than content disputes):

• (diff 1) Wickey-nl’s edit summary does not ‘ignore a warning’: it challenges Brewcrewer’s interpretation of 1R
• (diff 2) This is the same diff as diff 1 (i.e. Brewcrewer is using the same diff twice, as if multiple examples of ignoring warnings were at stake).

Brewcrewer is much taken by content disputes with wickey-nl at Palestinian land laws, where he had edited however only once recently, and over the years never, except recently, used the talk page as against 27 edits by the editor he is reporting. His edit was an egregious piece of POV slanting of the lead, ignoring the historical background in order to prioritize an ethnic sense of those laws, which are mirrored in Israeli law, being offensive.

As a glance at the talk page will show, the whole article is a misnomer, the earlier drafts preferred by Brewcrewer showcased the article as evidence that Palestinian land laws are anti-Jewish/Israeli. I think that was one of the purposes of the article. The article gets great attention because of its I/P polemical value: compare the ignored, but parallel article Israeli land and property laws (Background . 93% of the land in Israel is state-owned land originally confiscated from Arabs and held in trust for the Jewish people: of the remaining 7% most is Arab-owned, but even there some is encumbered in a way that only allows the Arab vendor to sell it to Jews). Editors who jump at the Palestinian article to raise a spectre of offensive laws, quietly ignore the other article. NPOV requires we be serenely descriptive of the facts, and not focus on one article of a pair to push a POV. Third point. Yes, Wickey-nl is distressed at this report, you can see that by the unusual intensity of his grammar and spelling errors, which suggests to me he thought, the way things go in here, he's another goner. I don't think fishy reports should function to provoke upset language so that the evidence of being upset substitutes for the original evidence as grounds for conviction. Wickey-nl might well be told to exercise more care, but the original report was both frivolous and instrumental (attempting to remove an editor out of dislike, as is, sadly, often the case recently).Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wickey-nl. You should strike out both attacks on admins. Experienced users or readers of these pages will have memories of very strange judgements made even by admins that have near universal respect. I myself am deeply worried at the huge confusion over 1r and the way editwarriors are using this to hang editors, or rid wikipedia of otherwise excellent contributors (Sean hoyland's advice in your link shows how important his presence was in clarifying to editors like yourself where your judgement failed). In particular, in 8 years, hoping that this will not be read as brownnosing, I've never seen Ed Johnston do anything that could warrant doubts about his integrity or judgement for that matter. corrupt is a totally unacceptable misconstrual of what he does.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'unsuited to a collaborative project?' I have about a 1% agreement on edits with Brewcrewer and Shrike's edits, for example. Not for that do I think they, or myself are thereby 'unsuited' to a collaborative project. A large part of what defines an editor's suitability is related to her ability to actually introduce new material, rework articles, or build them, and usually this is rare, as opposed to the prevalence of kibitzing reverters and contribs daily checkers. Most constructive article building is, unfortunately, not 'collaborative'. It consists of lone editors developing articles by source research and control. The 'collaborative' bit comes when editors review or kibitz on bits and pieces of what you do. Both are needed, but one type of editor should not be unduly punished because his 'social' instincts are not up to his article construction powers.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honestly, I am completely unknown to the further activities of this admin. As pointed out below, the admin remained deafening silent on the subject. Unknown whether because of arrogance, tactic or for another reason. If he made an error, he apparently did not see so or did not want to admit. Until now, he also remained silent here. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant, and you have abused the use of the word to the detriment of a fellow wikipedian's reputation. That, apart from your poor grammar, not evidenced in your articles, is the most telling thing against you, and you are reluctant to withdraw it. I make the mental equivalent to a Christian's sign of the cross everyday I open up a page of wikipedia. I find the repression of one's natural feelings and thoughts extremely hard, (I dislike thin-skinned people) esp. when there is so much bad faith or sheer dumb ignorance around. Take your comment on 'corrupt'. You use it to define the character of an admin pledged to neutrality, (as we are), doing unpaid labour (like us) but without the compensatory benefits of reading and writing something actually intrinsically interesting, on the basis that he has not replied to you. It's one of a thousand inferences, but reflects on you, not on the admin. Silence is not a cypher of moral or intellectual corruption (were it so, politicians, contrary to practice, would never be as glib as they are. As Keynes said 'their stupidity is inhumane') And, when an admin is attacked, he is not obliged to respond. To the contrary, by asserting that he is corrupt you place him or her in an uninvidious, indeed impossible position, because, if he comments on this complaint, the existence of your accusation contaminates his independence and neutrality by putting his judgement under pressure. Listen son, it costs nothing to be decent and retract. It's not a matter of honour, but good form.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning an admin's decision is not an attack. Not responding is rather a show of weakness. With your concerns about "the use of the word" you commit a personal attack on me about my grammar. As soon as your use of Dutch is as good as my use of English you may criticise me for that. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wickey-nl was already advised to strike the reference to a "corrupt admin" and has not done so. Maybe Wickey-nl thinks that the Wikipedia admin system is inherently "corrupt" or otherwise abusive; that does not excuse a very strong personal attack on the integrity of an administrator. If there really is evidence of abuse of the admin privilege, let alone "corruption" in the use of the admin privilege, it should be taken to the ArbCom, rather than being used idly to poison discussion of disruptive editing in WP:ARBPIA. Recommend a block for the personal attack, without prejudice to whether a topic-ban is also in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I raised the question at the Board, the admin remained deafening silent, refraining from any comment. Yet, this is the ultimate test whether or not the system is inherently corrupt. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At 18:27 on 16 June I left a message for Wickey-nl, pointing out a 3RR complaint about editing at Civilian casualty ratio. He was one of the people who had edited, he had seemingly made two reverts, and it would be in his interest to respond: At that time I hoped that he would make a conciliatory response and there would be no need for any follow-up on my part.

Instead, at 11:24 on 17 June Wickey-nl added his own comment at the 3RR board, accusing User:Yarron and User:Brewcrewer of various things, but without mentioning the fact he'd been warned about 1RR himself. I considered this an inadequate response by someone who seemed to have made a 1RR violation.

After this exchange (or non-exchange with Wickey-nl, since he didn't really respond) a different editor noticed I had warned Wickey-nl and filed a new 3RR complaint naming him for a 1RR violation, and linking to my warning: WP:AN3#User:Wickey-nl reported by User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (Result: 48 hours).

I blocked Wickey-nl for the 1RR violation per this message on his talk page, at 01:30 on 18 June, i.e. giving him plenty of time for him to respond to the June 16 warning if he wanted to.

Wickey-nl made an unblock request, stating

"False allegation. Apparently, the hasbara campain on WP has become more active again. The fact that I, who never violated the rule before and never been blocked before, was blocked overnight, even depriving him from the possibility to defend himself on the noticeboard, shows the alarming condition of Wikipedia.--Wickey-nl (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)".[reply]

It was hard for me to reconcile this claim with my having notified him that he seemed to have broken 1RR at 18:27 on 16 June. Is it possible that he simply overlooked the warning? Certainly I didn't deprive him of 'the opportunity to defend himself.' Does his mention of 'hasbara' (a kind of propaganda effort by the Israeli government) intended to imply that admins are in league with that government?

His unblock request timed out without an admin deciding on it because nobody accepted or declined it within 48 hours.

After his block expired, Wickey-nl opened a a complaint about my actions at ANI on 20 June.

"He de facto obstructed my unblock request by responding on the request, which suggested it being reviewed on the administrative backlog (reviews may only be done by another administrator). Info and links provided on my talk page"

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It is not unheard of for the blocking admin to leave a comment if someone makes an unblock request. This helps any reviewing admins come to their own conclusion as to whether the block was sound. Anyone may comment on an open unblock request. Wickey-nl has claimed that 'the system is inherently corrupt', in part due to my failure to comment on the ANI. I was out of town when he filed the ANI and it was inconvenient for me to get to a proper computer to make a response. User:Bbb23 wound up closing the ANI with no action on 21 June. He stated "This was a baseless report from the get-go and has not improved since...".

In terms of the earlier background: Wickey-nl should be somewhat familiar with how the 3RR board works. A complaint was filed against him back in August 2013 by User:Number 57 for edit warring on Template:Palestinian elections. According to the submitter, he made four reverts. He was warring to keep some West Bank elections of 1972 and 1976 out of the list, asserting in his edit summary that they were 'fake elections.' At that time no block was issued; the article was protected instead by a different admin. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I had preferred a factual reply on my explanation in June, or at least at the noticeboard, I am happy to explain. according to my interpretation, I did not violate the 1RR, so I did not see the need for action. Moreover, I thought I could not get a sanction in a case against another person (User Sean.hoyland). As there was no complaint against me at the time, I did not bother. On the other hand, I gave my response in support for User Sean.hoyland.

A suspicious account, who indeed only made one sequence of edits on 17 June 2014, filed a case against me which I noticed only after the block. I did not have the possibility to defend myself. I don't see the relevance of "giving him plenty of time for him to respond to the June 16 warning" after the block.

Furthermore I think it is not appropriate to remember a year old case, in which I indeed violated the 3RR out of frustration.--Wickey-nl (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before making further comments, I see I have to correct a false attribution to me of the statement that 'the system is inherently corrupt'. Please keep the discussion honest. I did not say that. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The NPA and NOTFORUM concerns are, in my view, too slight, on their own, to warrant a sanction at this point. Diff no. 5 seems to be mainly a content issue. I have not evaluated Brewcrewer's diffs because they are undated and many seem to be relatively old. But the BBC copyright issue, Shrike's diff 4, is problematic. And Wickey-nl's response is so incoherent and confrontative that I doubt that they have the temperament and the competence required to edit productively and collaboratively in this topic area. I advise a topic ban.  Sandstein  18:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my view is based mainly on the generally combative attitude exhibited by Wickey-nl here and in their edits, rather than mainly on the copyvio issue, although that does show an unacceptable lack of concern and/or competence in a very important area. The "corrupt admin" nonsense is mainly another indication of the editor's apparent temperamental unsuitedness to a collaborative project; although it is also a personal attack, I tend to agree with Zero in this regard.  Sandstein  16:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the six points mde by Shrike, only two bother me much, #1 and #2. It's not that he violated NOTAFORUM with #2 so much as it evinces bias. As to #1, I'm very tired of editors accusing other editors of being socks in the PIA area, in all fairness, Wiki-nl is not alone in this failing. It's not that they are wrong all the time. But if they have the evidence to prove it, then they should take it to SPI; otherwise, they should not make the accusation. The NPA allegations are close to worthless, and the copyvio is not a big enough deal to merit any sanction. As for the edit-warring claim, he was blocked (and very rightfully) for that, but he should not have to double-pay for his error. At the same time, it does disturb me that many editors who edit in this area don't understand - or at least say they don't understand - policy. It also bothers me that apparently as of June 19, he finally realized that 1RR may be violated if there are two reverts of different material, yet he went ahead and filed a report at ANI on June 20. That's pretty over-the-top. As for no one responding to his unblock request, this was a block per ARBPIA and can only be accepted by the blocking admin or by an appeal by the user, so it's not surprising that no one responded.

The majority of the diffs by Brewcrewer are stale.

I can't say this editor isn't a problem. He is, and his attitude here doesn't help him, but I would favor a stern warning to be followed by a topic ban if this kind of behavior continues. That said, it's a close call, and I'm interested in what other admins have to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wickey-nl: Your statements about the interpretation of the rules and the ineffectiveness of the rules is very troubling because it indicates to me that you can't abide by them. Frankly, that makes me lean more toward Sandstein's recommendation.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is now apparent that Wickey-nl is temperamentally unsuited to editing this controversial topic area, and their expressed opinion that Wikipedia is "dominated by a hasbara [i.e., pro-Israeli propaganda] structure" indicates a problematic battleground attitude. Wickey-nl is indefinitely banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Sandstein  16:27, 15 August 2014 (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

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wickey-nl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA :

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

1. 18 August 2014 Breach of the topic ban i.e talking about "hasbara network within Wikipedia", "Zionist sinners state" and "Gazacaust"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 15 August 2014 Topic ban

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 15 August 2014 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It is fairly strange that a single admin can ban people from Wikipedia (one with an Ashkenazi name, by the way[5][6], you see the pattern?
— User:Wickey-nl

I would care less about his editing if he would not edit I/P conflict I really don't care about this user I have in past little interaction with him.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

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 whole discussion might be moot since Wickey-nl said that he is done with WP (though of course he could change his mind). However, it would be good to know if this kind of stuff on one's own user talk page, in response to another editor (in this case, me) constitutes a violation of topic ban. I don't plan on getting topic-banned anytime soon, but just in case. Kingsindian (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Indeed, I had read WP:TBAN myself as not including your user talk page. I did not mean to get Wickey-nl in any kind of trouble. I wish, though, that there would be some clarity on the matter. The WP:TBAN page 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, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. How can editing your own user talk page in response to another editor be disruptive? It seems we have a situation here which calls for some common sense. Kingsindian (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems extreme to me to say that a topic ban means more than not being able to edit on articles and talk pages within that topic area, that it also means you can't mention the topic on your own talk page. As for the proposer of further sanctions I find it a bit unsettling that they were monitoring Wickey-nl‎'s behaviour looking for infractions. AlanS (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a topic ban does apply to user talk pages (with some exceptions listed at WP:BANEX), though I wish the rules were clearer. At WP:TBAN it says "all pages" but then makes a fairly extensive list of page types without mentioning user pages at all. Casual readers could easily get the wrong impression. I don't see a very clear-cut consensus on the talk page of that policy about this issue either. It is reasonable to ask Wickey-nl if s/he knowingly broke the ban or thought s/he wasn't breaking it. Independently of that, WP:TBAN should have user pages either explicitly included or explicitly excluded so that nobody (least of all admins like me) will have any doubt about it. Zero^talk 14:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another unclear point is that WP:BANEX gives the exception "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." The word "appropriate" is a WEASEL word, and "forum" I don't think is a Wikipedia technical term (does it necessarily mean "administrative noticeboard?"). Since blocks and bans are usually argued on user talk pages, why isn't that an "appropriate forum" for arguing the correctness of the ban? (Probably this does not apply to everything Wickey-nl wrote there, though.) Zero^talk 14:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:TBAN says "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" including discussions and suggestions about the topic. On that basis, yes, Wickey-nl is technically breaching the topic ban in the diff provided. However with an indefinite topic ban already in place I see no justification for further formal sanctions based on such a minor infringement. Wickey-nl should, though, take this as a warning and a reminder that a topic ban does include discussion of the topic, including on user talk pages.

AlanS raises some valid concerns and I would advise User:Shrike to read and heed WP:HOUND and to refrain from wasting administrators' time with pedantic reports. While there is a technical infringement of the topic ban here a modicum of common sense is required; this is this is not a game and administrators will not look kindly on pettiness or pedantry.

I'll wait and see if any other administrators wish to comment rather than closing this right now. WaggersTALK 14:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While still a technical violation of the topic ban, I agree a block would be an overly harsh response to what is just a little venting on their own user talk page. However if it continues, my opinion is likely to change. Monty₈₄₅ 14:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that Gaijin42 just made this edit to WP:BANPOL to make explicit mention of User-space pages. I agree that the long-standing consensus is that topic bans include User-space pages such as one's User page and User Talk page. There is almost a formula: 1) An editor is topic-banned, 2) They make a comment about their topic ban in a User-space page, 3) They get reported for breaching their topic ban, 4) The editor says they didn't know User-space pages were included, 5) They get a clarifying warning that Yes, User-space pages are included. I don't even think Gaijin42's addition will really change this formula. With that, other than completing the formula with a warning, I don't see a reason for further action here. Zad68 15:55, 18 August 2014 (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

Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation

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

1. 15 August 2014 Creation of article, not moved by another editor from Norton's user space (which is allowed) but straight by Norton in the mainspace

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. His last block for the same violation can be seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Same restriction and same violation apply here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[20]

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 have created over 150 new articles without incident on my user page here: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and accidentally started one in Wikipedia space by clicking a red link, and for that I am sorry. You can treat it like Javert would in Les Misérables as a "gotcha" moment and block me from editing, but what good would that serve Wikipedia? Last time I was blocked I stopped creating new articles for over a year. Use this opportunity to look over my article creation list and remove the restrictions if you think the new additions are of Wikipedia quality. Look at the 150 + articles I have started on my user page and ask if Wikipedia is better without them. Ask what purpose the restriction serves other than stopping me from adding new content that improves Wikipedia. At some point we are punishing for the sake of punishment and lose sight of the "why". I love a good "gotcha" moment as much as anyone else, but in a time when we are losing editors, and the addition of new content has slowed, why are we still punishing someone that is adding quality biographies? Show mercy and we can work together on creating the most amazing reference work ever. Twice in 150 article creations, I hit a redlink instead of creating an article in my user space. I think in the next 75 to 100 article creations the same thing will happen. Why would I create 75 articles in user space and then create one in Wikipedia space just to try and slip one past everyone? I was blocked last year for making the very same typo, and was banned before I could even appeal. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To Fram: If you want to get consensus for a Wikipedia rule that determines how many sentences, or how many words, or even how many letters-of-a-word constitutes fair-use, please go ahead, and I will abide. Right now fair-use of snippets of text as fair-use has been upheld by Authors Guild v. Google. If Wikipedia wants to restrict it further, by all means discuss it. A snippet of two sentences is not too long for Wikipedia under current rules, especially for a reference used to source several facts. The exact wording of the source is important and the original source may not always be online to check. Information drifts with each editing. The source may say the person "died in 1966 while living in New York City". The next writer may change that to "he died in Manhattan" based on their interpretation. This can (and has) happened even though the subject of the article died at a hospital in New Jersey and may have lived in any borough in New York City. Information is subject to entropy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To Fram: If you feel "You can treat it like Javert would in Les Misérables as a 'gotcha' moment" is directed at you as a personal attack, I am sorry you feel persecuted by me. The situation, not you calls for a comparison to both Les Misérables where a man is punished for stealing bread, combined with the bureaucracy in the Terry Gilliam film Brazil. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To Per Guerillero and Zero0000: Of course Fram could have simply deleted it and left a polite message on my page.

Monsieur, a serious ... a grave violation of the public trust has been committed. An inferior has shown a complete lack of respect for the law. He must be exposed and punished. -Les Misérables (1998)

My final thoughts: Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy and you cannot legislate away errors by criminalizing them. This is no different than criminalizing misspellings, you can block someone for 2 months for misspelling to prevent them from doing it again ... but they will. You can also criminalize jaywalking but people will still cross the middle of the street from time to time. I think as the encyclopedia matures it becomes harder and harder to add new content and easier to make new bureaucratic rules and enforce them. If we are a legal system, then you have to take into consideration intent. Why would someone make 150 articles in Userspace and then months apart 2 in Wikipedia space? Do you really think it is some intentional thing so I can give everyone the finger, and try to get away with it? Or is this the error rate for new article creation? - 24601

Richard Norton is now, and always has been, a very productive content writer. A significant number (albeit a minor fraction) of his 2005 to 2007 era edits proved to be problematic in terms of 2014 Wikipedia copyright standards and practices, and a CCI case was started against him. CCI is backlogged, understaffed, and their investigative methodology does not scale and the ensuing case ended up being a massive clusterhug, if you will. Draconian and ill-conceived sanctions were imposed and the effectiveness of a highly productive contributor was severely attenuated. These sanctions don't need to be enforced, they need to be removed, but we are now in the realm of Franz Kafka. There have been ZERO problems with Richard Norton's created articles moved to mainspace by others, there is no reason to believe there will EVER be a problem with one of his current articles in terms of copyright... Yet instead of amending the ill-conceived restriction, here we are with another exercise which he must certainly feel is little more than bullying. Stop this nonsense! Carrite (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc - "Three to six months for this?!?!? That would be an absolutely insane overreaction. Pure, undiluted Kafka... Carrite (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, the creation of THIS article is the dreadful ban violation for which Callanecc is predisposed to banning Richard from WP for multiple months. At what point is someone going to admit that this is a highly irrational restriction on Richard Norton with a way, way, way over-the-top punishment being mooted? Carrite (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Verdict first, trial later." —Lewis Carroll. Carrite (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes happen. Richard is saying this was a mistake and I think it very well could have been one. If that is the case here I cannot see any good sense in blocking someone for a lengthy period for what may well have been basically a big typo. There is the possibility I suppose that this article could conceivably have been a good faith effort by Richard to fix a problem from earlier. If that were the case he should have nominated it for speedy deletion and moved the content to user space to go through standard review, and I would very strongly suggest that if it ever happen again he do exactly that. But I do think a lengthy block based on the evidence presented to date would be a dramatic overreaction to this development. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I am very inexperienced in these matters, so my statement should be treated with almost zero weight. But, perhaps an outside member can bring some perspective? 3-6 months block for a prolific content creator who by his own account made a simple mistake in 1 out of 150 cases? This seems way over the top. I should add that I consider the "sentences" handed out here in general really harsh, but perhaps that is just my temperament. Kingsindian (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I notice there is a rather striking "class division", though thankfully no "class warfare", between editors and admins here. Kingsindian (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: I do not see what motive there could be to slip in 2 out of 150 articles into the article space in a period of 4 months. WP:BMB says (first line) Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. What disruption has this caused, and what stress? Kingsindian (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanec: You are correct in that a rule was violated, which nobody denies. However, the "punishment" is in your hands. As I said, I have little experience in these matters. Is there some sort of "mandatory sentencing" rule in Wikipedia that blocks must escalate, no matter how much harm is done, and how small the infraction? Re: WP:BMB, ignore that part. Kingsindian (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanec: I will give the example of WP:1RR restrictions in WP:ARBPIA. It is almost impossible to not inadvertently break WP:1RR if one edits in this area. People (even on opposite sides of the "battle-lines") just drop a note on the user talk page, and the person (sometimes) self-reverts. This is a simple commonsense thing which can be done for 2 infractions in 4 months. Kingsindian (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any evidence that this was anything but a genuine mistake by Richard Arthur Norton, and nor can I see any evidence that the error caused any harm to Wikipedia. Accordingly I have to suggest that a block would seem undue - I think that it is safe to assume that having this dragged up here is sufficient in itself to ensure that RAN is more careful in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: WP:BMB begins by saying "Editors are only site-banned as a last resort..." in explanation. This editor was not site-banned at the time. Provided that he was in fact trying to improve the encyclopedia (and indeed, adding copyvios would not be improving it) WP:IAR applies. If this is not the policy ArbCom is going to enforce, you need to mark IAR historical and remove the confusing preamble from BMB. Wnt (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC) @Fram: I think that providing explanatory quotes of this length in the references is a pleasant style, and clearly not a copyright violation. Sites like PubMed routinely claim the right to quote 300 words from larger copyrighted texts. I don't think Wikipedia has a specific standard, and ArbCom could have imposed a restriction on quote length on this one editor, but I wouldn't think it would be useful to have special, super-restrictive standards of 'copyright violation' targeted to particular editors. Either these articles are now violations, and need to be changed, or they aren't; I would say the latter from your examples. Wnt (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Richard Arthur Norton claims that this was a mistake, a typo / slip. Let's not forget that before creating this page, he would have been greeted by a large pink box stating in bold "A page with this title has previously been deleted.", and then some additional lines of text in the box.
• Richard Arthur Norton has in the past repeatedly referred to me as "Javert". I asked him to stop doing this after it first happened, and I noted his continued use of it in a December 2013 "request for clarification", and Carcharoth replied then "Finally, on a point of order, RAN, Fram is quite right to ask you to stop using the name Javert, that is a personal attack and needs to stop. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)" (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )). To continue now with the superficially impersonal statement "You can treat it like Javert would in Les Misérables" like you did above is basically making it clear that he doesn't care about our NPA policy, no matter who tells him to stop it.
• The quality of his user space articles is not under scrutiny here. I do note that he still very often includes very lengthy quotes of copyrighted text when he adds a source to a mainspace article, like here (64 word quote from 1996 NYTimes) or here (81 word quote from 2013 Boston Globe article) or this 72 word quote. Fram (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• In a rather ironical twist, the offending article should probably never have been created anyway, as we have a much better article about the same subject at Westminster Castle. Fram (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RAN and I have overlapped on our edits for nearly a decade, editing and enhancing many of the same articles related to the New York City / New Jersey metropolitan area. His material is well-done and thoroughly researched. I had moved some of his content from his user area into mainspace earlier on in this process and he has been rather careful to create content under the terms of enforcement. The incident described here is someone using Wikipedia the way it's designed to work and a review of RAN's past few thousand edits makes this clear; The error was inadvertent. If anything needs to be done here, it's to end what comes across to me as a vengeful effort to get the goods on one of Wikipedia's most productive editors so that needless blocks can be imposed. Let's end this game and put an end to this enforcement process once and for all. The point was made and there is no evidence that it serves any further purpose. Alansohn (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has been subject to ongoing prosecution, some of it successful, even though based on shaky foundations.

In this case there is really nothing to get excited about. An article was created, in the "wrong" namespace. It can simply be moved back into his user-space, the work of a moment. Manifestly this error is unlikely to be repeated, and even if it were, two clicks of the mouse and a few keystrokes fix it.

To deprive the project of yet another productive contributor, even for a short time, would be unfortunate.

And I think a more fitting sanction would be to work RAN harder, rather than give him a holiday.

A block might cause a frisson of excitement (and let us hope that's all it is) to some, but it would be a shame, and would disappoint the vast majority of those who commented here.

I would remind anyone considering this to remember the virtues outlined in this years State of the Wiki address, as I remember, patience and forgiveness were in there somewhere. Though with such a minor slip as this, I would hardly think they need to be invoked.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

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

• Looks like a violation of the ban to me, but I'll wait for a statement from Richard Arthur Norton and further comments before taking action. I'd suggest we're looking at a block for 3-6 months if it looks like it actually is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carrite, my generally escalation of blocks for AE is two days, one week, one month, three months, 6 months, etc depending on how clear the violation is, though I would have strongly recommended the lower end and have no issues with 2 months. You can't get much clear a violation than this, especially considering that there would have been a pink box to scroll past which includes the name of the page again. Given that RAN was blocked (by me) for a violation this year I would expect that he'd be being careful about violating the restriction. Wnt, IAR has never been (in my experience) an acceptable excuse to violating a ban. Zero, the fact that there was a pink warning box and that they've been blocked this year is an indication to me that they've used up their warnings. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingsindian, it doesn't really matter what the motive is, except that there was another violation which included, in this case, an inbuilt warning that it might have been the 'wrong namespace'. As others have stated BMB applies to site-banned editors so I'm not sure what your comment regarding it refers to? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingsindian, nothing in particular except that generally if a block of x time didn't prevent then a longer block is usually needed. In this instance also follow the (special) enforcement provision passed with the case which is much more draconian than normal suggesting that the Committee when passing this case expected admins to take a harder line than normal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The troublesome part is that this was a repeated transgression following the March 2014 incident. The original AC decision from March 2013 says that in order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions. Do we have progress on that? The deleted contributions of the article Belleview College seem to show that this was one of those copied and pasted articles for which he was banned, and the re-created article now references that page from which the copy&paste was done earlier - so it seems the basic problem may be fixed, assuming someone impartial can verify it's not too closely paraphrased? If this is an accident part of a genuine cleanup effort, I'd say cut him some slack and delay enforcement while he appeals the ban. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone tell us if a ban appeal per WP:BASC was ever started in this case? User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the statement of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and the above, I agree that the ban was violated. In view of the recent previous block for a similar violation, any mistake does not excuse or mitigate the violation. The merits of the article are not relevant when considering ban violations (WP:BMB). This board cannot review Arbitration Committee decisions, so any opinion on our part about whether the ban was a good or a bad idea does not matter either. I'd escalate the block duration to double the previous duration, i.e., two months.  Sandstein  16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I compared the article to its main source and there is no copyvio there. Nobody has suggested a motive for an intentional ban violation and I don't see one, so I'm willing to believe it was a genuine accident. In view of that I don't see the point of issuing more than a stern warning to be more careful. Zero^talk 23:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A stern warning and a reminder not to do it again make the most sense here --Guerillero | My Talk 06:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Guerillero and Zero0000, nothing more than a stern warning, a reminder not to do it again, and the explicit instruction that if he does find he accidentally creates an article in mainspace, he immediately tag it for deletion, recreating it instead in his own userspace at the same time, as a way to demonstrate no intentional ban evasion. I'm sure there's some sort of JS script Richard could use to warn or stop himself from actually creating articles in the mainspace too, which might be helpful to him. Nick (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Being as this is an encyclopedia, it doesn't make sense to me to affirm that "the merits of the article are not relevant", Sandstein. WP:BNB doesn't really pertain, since what it says about "good editing" refers to site bans. The policy is about attempts to evade site bans by adding good material (presumably using a sock). A situation where a user credibly claims to have made a mistake isn't much like that at all, and if we assume good faith about the mistake, WP:BNB loses all relevance. RAN's statement is persuasive to me: "Why would I create 75 articles in user space and then create one in Wikipedia space just to try and slip one past everyone?" Yes, why would he? It doesn't make any sense. Pink box or no pink box, it's just not likely. Nick's practical suggestion about tagging future accidents for deletion and/or using a java script (is there one? anybody?) for self-reminders makes sense to me. I'm against a block, and I'm frankly not so keen on the stern warnings and reminders either. Editors have pride (please click, it's a highly relevant essay), and surely this discussion is memorable enough to serve in lieu of formal warnings. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Might be able to do it with .css (I'm thinking of the way the edit box of protected pages is pink for admins) but no idea is it's possible. Mr. Stradivarius any ideas? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Callanecc and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I'm pretty sure that you can't check for namespace or page existence with just CSS. I've created a user script that does the job, though - see User:Mr. Stradivarius/RANreminder.js. At the moment it just turns the edit box pink for pages in the article namespace that don't yet exist, but I can change it to do things like pop up annoying warnings as well if that's desired. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a consensus for closure without sanction, so I'm now going to do that. Richard Arthur Norton is advised to take greater care in the future and cannot assume leniency in the case of future mistakes. Since I'm not practiced in the art of AE closures, I'd appreciate it if someone who is would check that I do it correctly. Zero^talk 08:58, 22 August 2014 (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

Kingsindian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA :

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

1. 22 August DS Removing statement making 3 claims, edit summary "not in source"
2. 22 August I revert, pointing out the page where it is in the source
3. 23 August DS Reverts me, disputing the third claim only; edit summary: "execution style" not in source
4. 23 August After discussion on talk page, I amend the phrase "execution style" to a phrase used in source
5. 23 August 2014 DS leaves a message on my talk page saying I have broken 1RR. I am not sure, but I self-revert anyway.
6. 23 August Now disputes the second claim, saying people were not shot from the back. I had already quoted directly from the source.
7. 23 August After some pleading by me and another user, changes tack, saying they were not "deliberately shot in the back". All the while, the whole sentence has been removed, even after I requested him several times to put it back while we discuss.
8. 23 August (Unrelated to above) Removes "broken bones" and converts a factual statement into a claim. It is true that the source cited does not say "broken bones", but the UN report which we were arguing about in the first 7 diffs does.
9. 23 August (Unrelated to above) Adds a statement baldly stating that there was no humanitarian aid on the Mavi Marmara - technically true - but it was a flotilla of six ships with three ships carrying passengers and three carrying cargo, as is made clear in the section below.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I can see which is directly related and recent.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Mentioned by name here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I do not want any harsh sanctions. I simply want DS to be made aware of WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV policy, WP:LEAD and the "citation needed" template.

Per WP:LEAD - most people only read the lead. Not all statements in the lead require a citation, since they are summaries of the whole article. It is illegitimate to tamper with a stable lead like this, reading sources pedantically and one-sided addition and removal together with any refusal to compromise.

As an aside, while I did self-revert, can someone tell me whether I broke 1RR or not? As far as I can see I followed WP:BRD but it is a bit unclear to me.

(copying statements from below)

Most of Darkness Shines' statements deserve no response. However the last one is a perfect illustration of WP:ROPE. I quote from the source he himself cites (which is the UN report at issue in diffs 1-7). Page 34 "Events aboard the Eleftheri Mesogios" Quote is: "A number of passengers were injured, including one passenger whose leg was fractured". Kingsindian (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: As far as I understand it WP:AC/DS#Awareness_and_alerts states that if one has ever been mentioned by name in a decision (s)he is considered aware of the sanctions. If I interpreted this wrongly, I am open to correction. As to the other point, I am quite happy for there to be investigation about source falsification. I accept that WP:BOOMERANG applies. Kingsindian (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Can you tell me if my interpretation of WP:AC/DS#Awareness_and_alerts is wrong? An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed) Only after this, it says: An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:...

• As to your other point. This is not about content. I am fine with content disputes. How can one demonstrate a pattern of POV pushing without a bunch of diffs? Kingsindian (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Ah, I think I now I understand your point. I will withdraw the filing, if you believe that it does not apply here. Kingsindian (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the complaint unconditionally. After still more time and cooling down, whether or not DS was notified or not, I don't want to continue. Of course people are still welcome to examine my conduct per WP:BOOMERANG. Kingsindian (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of EdJohnston's comment, can someone a) clarify whether the warning applies or not? or b) issue an disc. sanctions alert to DS (or tell me that I can do it) to make sure?

Also I had asked as an aside whether I really broke 1RR or not, while I did self-revert anyway. Could someone comment on this? Kingsindian (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=622487882&oldid=621604526

Sweet jesus in heaven, on the first diff, I was correct, neither of the cited sources say "execution style", so the question here is why KI restored it saying, It is indeed in the source. Page 29 Furkan Dogan On the second were KI self reverts, no idea as to why that is mentioned here? On being shot in the back, what I actually said was The source does not state they were shot from behind deliberately, and we should not infer that they were. On broken bones, the source did not say bones had been broken, and so I amended the sentence to reflect the source, which also included the fact that the passengers on some vessels, not all, claimed they had been beaten. On the last, again why is that even here? There was no humanitarian aid on the Mavi Marmara, KI even says that in his enforcement request. I have been accused of POV pushing and adding "blatant lies" by GGranddad, perhaps KI ought to be commenting on those PA`s rather than dragging a dispute over wording here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, and what seems a second example of source falsification, KI claims here that this report states that passengers had bones broken, the only mention of a broken bone, a leg in fact was after the incident, when IDF forces are reported to have broken a guys leg, after they got back to land. Pages 41-42 Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re KI post at 17:40, 23 August 2014 Wow, my bad, I searched the document for "broken", tell me, how does one fracture translate to "some ending up with broken bones" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This case against Darkness Shines should be dismissed he was not warned about WP:AC/DS in the last 12 month.

But I suggest that admin will check if there was indeed a source falsification by KI as I couldn't find in the source ""execution style". Source falsification is very grave problem in the past people were sanctioned for it.--Shrike (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GG -- He was not blocked as part of WP:ARBPIA enforcment.--Shrike (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous filing, and a waste of ArbEnforcement time. ANYONE can warn anyone else about sanctions - this board is for issues required ENFORCEMENT action by admins. To top it off, the filer cannot even do it right - they now have multiple sections where they've commented. Beware the boomerang the panda ₯’ 19:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Darkness Shines is pushing a POV in his edit about there being no aid on the Mavi Marmara while ignoring it was a passenger ship and that there was aid on the other ships that were cargo ships. I think his editing is just trying to delete things that might put Israel in a bad light,like removing the shot in back statement and broken bones, these things did actually happen and are well documented.As to my claims of lies being posted, after further research those remarks have been removed.

@Shrike: Darness was banned and blocked for 2 months in May 2014 I believe.GGranddad (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is not actionable as submitted. Arbitration enforcement does not deal with content disputes. The request does not make clear how any of these edits are supposed to amount to misconduct. Additionally, the request does not establish that the awareness requirements for discretionary sanctions are met; the warning linked to in the request dates to 2012 and is therefore older than 12 months. An arbitration enforcement request is not an Arbitration Committee decision; only such decisions have no expiration date with regards to awareness.  Sandstein  20:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, the awareness requirement is met because of Wikipedia:AC/DS#Continuity. Old-style notices of DS become alerts under the new system which last for twelve months after the motion establishing it. So until 3 May 2015 all the the old-style notices remain in effect for purposes of AE enforcement. The prolongation of DS warnings due to the continuity rule was pointed out by User:Callanecc in a previous AE. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The submitter of this request, User:Kingsindian, now states (above) that he wants to withdraw the complaint. It sounds like this AE can be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So closed, given that a case for sanctions against the submitter is not apparent. @Kingsindian: Darkness Shines is alerted per EdJohnston above and by virtue of their participation in this discussion.  Sandstein  12:07, 24 August 2014 (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

Greyshark09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Syrian Civil War sanctions:

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

1. 03:39, 11 May 2014 an attempt to add Israel as belligerent on map
2. 18:05, 25 August 2014 changing main belligerents on the map in violation of WP:SCWGS and community consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel that Israel is not a belligerent in the war.
3. 18:07, 25 August 2014 (changing main belligerents on the map).
4. 18:11, 25 August 2014 (changing main belligerents on the map).
5. 18:12, 25 August 2014 (changing main belligerents on the map).
6. 18:12, 25 August 2014 (changing main belligerents on the map).
7. 18:12, 25 August 2014 (changing main belligerents on the map).
8. 18:13, 25 August 2014 (changing main belligerents on the map).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. May 2010 - 1 month topic ban under ARBPIA sanctions.
2. January 2011 blocked for 2 months under ARBPIA on Hezbollah article.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Supreme is warned on editing Syrian Civil War articles by user:FutureTrillionaire on 17 October 2012.
• Participating in major discussion on Syria's maps (among 8 users, closed by administrator) June 2013, which reached a consensus that Israeli-controlled part of Golan Heights should be shown as "striped" in regard to Syrian Civil War events (SCW topic under ARBPIA at the time).
• On April 2014, Supreme Deliciousness is attempting to change maps on Wikimedia commons, in order to add Israel as belligerent of the war [21], thus affecting the wikipedia articles. He is blocked by user:Magog the Ogre for disruptive editing on contested topic (see wikimedia block log).
• Supreme Deliciousness is notified on WP:SCWGS sanctions by user:EvergreenFir on 11 May 2014, following Supreme's edits (SCW topic already under SCWGS).
• Supreme participating in secondary discussion on Syria's maps without mentioning the first (participating among 5 users, no closure, "white Golan Heights" map changes shortly reverted [22]) 11 May 2014 (SCW topic under SCWGS).
• Supreme is trying to convince a map editor user:Joan301009 on wikicommons that "There is consensus to have the Israeli occupied Golan Heights in white, can you edit it?" 23 August 2014; despite being aware of the problem in such statement, and consequently deliberately adding "Israeli-occupied" key to relevant maps [23].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Supreme Deliciousness is a veteran editor at Syria-related articles. In the past, he was involved in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine related incidents and was sanctioned in May 2010 [24],December 2011 (by arbitration committee on ARBPIA) and finally 2 week block for disruptive editing in August 2011. It should be pointed out that since 2011 User:Supreme Deliciousness indeed turned more careful for the next couple of years, but his dedication to Syrian related topics, unfortunately brought him to engage on Syrian Civil War related topics. It is important to note that ARBPIA sanctions in regard to Syrian Civil War had initially been applied in March 2013, and were superceded by WP:SCWGS in August 2013, as a community sanction.
Over the past months of 2014, User:Supreme Deliciousness has engaged into a systematic campaign (similar to previously defined "tendentious behaviour") to picture Israel as a participant in the Syrian Civil War, despite the fact that WP:SCWGS is specifically drawing the borderline between generally preceding Arab-Israeli conflict and the current Syrian Civil War - and i quote "The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic." (amendment of WP:ARBPIA on June 2013).
User:Supreme Deliciousness is certainly aware that he is working on the Syrian War topic area, and that he violates the precise nature of the SCWGS sanctions and a long-standing consensus that Israel is not a belligerent in the Syrian War. Supreme Deliciousness' actions to misleadingly put Israel among major combatants in the Syrian Civil War maps is clearly deliberate and systematic.GreyShark (dibra) 22:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified [25].GreyShark (dibra) 22:55, 28 August 2014 (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.

I'm an "uninvolved admin" in Syrian matters, but since this case involves Israel I will be conservative and comment only in this section.

This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. In fact I think Greyshark does not provide any evidence of a behavioral problem. Greyshark claims that SD is trying to portray Israel as a combatant in the Syrian civil war, but none of the diffs indicate that. There is a map of Syria showing who is in control of different regions, and SD wants the map legend to indicate the state of the Golan region rather than leaving the map with a region of unique color whose nature is not given in the legend. One can argue for or against it; it is certainly not a behavior issue. At Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Military_map_issues you can see that some other editors have the same opinion as SD and that SD agreed to visually separate Israel from the Syrian War combatants using a dotted line. The question should be solved by consensus on a talk page or content noticeboard. Zero^talk 00:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm closing this because this is not an arbitration enforcement request. The enforcement of community sanctions should be discussed in whatever community forum may be appropriate for it.  Sandstein  03:33, 29 August 2014 (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

John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3#Ignocrates-John Carter interaction ban :

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

1. 18 June 2014 Interaction with an individual who was at the time being considered for site ban with whom Ignocrates had had no contact at all after I had been commenting on that page. A review of the preceding content of the page will reveal that I had been involved in the discussion of sanctions against Neuraxis and that Ignocrates came in after the fact to advise of his pet essay POV railroad.
2. 18 June 2014 further input with that individual
3. 29 July 2014 obvious really pointless derogation taking place after I had unfortunately reacted to his rather pompously self-righteous overreaction to reasonable criticism which led to the two week block to one of the few editors whom has recently shown any sympathy for Ignocrates
4. 19 August 2014 stalking at ANI in his first edit after two weeks of inactivity in a thread I had started about perhaps topic banning another editor in which he advises that other editor to take it to ArbCom specifically implicitly me to ArbCom. It is also worth noting that he as he said in the discussion with Neuraxis rarely if ever comments on the noticeboards or his edit history in general shows no particular interest in them except when evidently I have been involved in those discussions which I believe could reasonably be described as stalking. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. 19 August 2014 continuation of stalking above
6. 19 August 2014 further violation specifically written after his stalking above was questioned at ANI on the user page of the editor against whom complaints were made once again "Just in case" Ignocrates were to be sanctioned to take it to ArbCom.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have been tolerant in the past of Ignocrates' attempts to cast himself in a dubiously defensible light. At this point I believe it more reasonable to adopt a strictly zero tolerance attitude toward further such contact from him.John Carter (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see direct evidence to support the claims of the respondent regarding what others think and find it strange that anyone would submit their interpretations of the comments of others as evidence. I believe a review of the SPA question asked in the arbitration is relevant in helping assess how closely individual opinions relate to the opinions of the broader community. And the diff linked to below was discussed at Worm's talk page in the same short section with the response of "reasonable" from Worm. Reading that full thread and noting the use of names might be useful as well. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I have expanded the descriptions in the hope that the context clarifies the nature of the problematic behavior. Ignocrates has been rather careful to avoid naming me in particular in his edits but I believe the edits taken in context and with a review of the broader history of his own edits would clearly demonstrate that the only way he could have come to those discussions would be if as Worm had implied on his talk page or if he had actively been reviewing my edits for some reason. I regret to say that having had no prior experience trying to raise such cases and the roundabout nature of Ignocrates' use of language it can be less than apparent. @EdJohnston: and @Worm That Turned: may be able to provide some better indication as to how they came to their conclusions that the behavior of Ignocrates did constitute an interaction ban better than me given their greater degree of familiarity with them and I am pinging them for their input. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[26]

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.

The following additional links are relevant: User talk:Worm That Turned#Gentle reminder?, User talk:EdJohnston#Please advise. Most of the rest of this complaint is nonsense; or trolling. The issue comes down to deciding when it is ok or not ok to post at ANI. Dave raised the one legitimate issue (imo): Is it ok to post at ANI when John Carter is the subject of the ANI? Dave thinks it isn't; I think it's a judgement call, and I explained my reasoning on his talk page. And lest we forget, John Carter has a diff of his own to explain. It's curious that he failed to mention it. I believe a WP:Boomerang is in order, and should at least be considered. That's it. I'll respond to specific questions from AE. Ignocrates (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This recently deleted comment at ANI is also relevant: diff (referring back to diff). That's not good practice on a noticeboard; it should have been lined out. Ignocrates (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC) It might also be helpful to re-emphasize the importance of decorum during this review process. Ignocrates (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This block is obviously relevant. Again, curious that it wasn't included. Ignocrates (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Moved here by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose as long as we are here anyway, we might as well discuss John Carter's violation of his T-ban from the same arbitration case. Ignocrates (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston, I already explained the reason for the first diff. I returned to editing and decided to check ANI for the hell of it. This case was at the top so I read it. Unfortunately, the editor missed my point completely: don't feed the beast at ANI. Frankly, I felt a measure of pity for the guy; it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. How this has anything to do with John Carter is beyond me. JC wanted him sanctioned, and I agreed diff; a sanction was necessary to stay consistent with the precedent established by ArbCom. It's true that I don't edit in this topic area; so what. Comments from uninvolved editors should receive more weight than those who are invested in the outcome. Ignocrates (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:IBAN, "editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other". John Carter has not provided any evidence clearly indicating that Ignocrates has breached this limit. When two editors are under a mutual interaction ban, the first to comment on a particular issue cannot preclude the second from commenting on the same issue, especially regarding a general subject where both have actively edited. More needs to be shown than simply labeling an edit "stalking". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to establish that some of these threads are relevant. I would start with the link to ANI thread, it depicts Ignocrates following John Carter's edits. It is also obvious that he was pointing to his feud with John Carter. Per IBAN he was not allowed to refer to John Carter. Fearofreprisal has been a member for over 6 years and Ignocrates never posted on his talk page, he posted only when he got to know that this person has issues with John Carter. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is not clear from the request, and I can't readily imagine, how exactly these edits by Ignocrates are supposed to constitute an interaction with John Carter, who is not named in any of these edits. I would take no action except a warning to John Carter not to make any more meritless interaction ban complaints, because such complaints are contrary to the purpose of an interaction ban of separating the parties from each other.  Sandstein  18:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the analysis by User:Worm That Turned at User talk:Worm That Turned#Gentle reminder? I also find Carter's diffs (above) 1-6 persuasive, except for #3 (a note left for Smeat75 whose significance I don't understand). On this basis I'd favor a one-week block of User:Ignocrates for violating the interaction ban. I'd also warn John Carter that he is trying to avoid Ignocrates the questions he asked at ANI are not a good way of doing it. When Ignocrates shows up on User talk:Neuraxis to recommend one of his essays after complaints about Neuraxis's conduct were made by John Carter, and when the subject matter (chiropractic) has nothing to do with early Christianity (the area of common interest between Carter and Ignocrates that led to the past disputes) it's hard to explain unless Ignocrates was following the edits of John Carter. If you've been instructed to avoid somebody you should not be following their edits. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To prevent this from going nowhere, if EdJohnston is convinced based on his analysis of the edits at issue that a banned interaction has taken place, then I do not oppose the proposed sanction.  Sandstein  06:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein, thanks for your reply. In the absence of other admins commenting here who are firmly convinced of an actual violation of the interaction ban, I suggest that this be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So closed, then.  Sandstein  05:44, 1 September 2014 (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

NE Ent 23:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Baseball_Bugs :

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Baseball_Bugs_topic-banned

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

1. [27] thread on ANI discussion behavior on Chelsea Manning page, specifically appropriate use of gender pronouns

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[28] warning for previous violation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Corrected link to remedy. Regarding the diff: the submission template (in the hidden text) clearly states "You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs" NE Ent 10:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

On that same ANI page, I am asking for either my ban to be rescinded, or the user in question [Int21h - see below] to have the ban extended to him, as he has made the same statements that I allegedly made that got me banned a year ago. I ask for fairness and consistency. If it was BLP-violating hate speech a year ago, then it still is, and a random handful of users don't have the right to decide otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Sandstein: The original topic ban was based on a lie, a gross personal attack alleging bigotry on my part, which I stated at the time and no one cared. How likely are they to care a year later? And the current threat to block is based on a lie as well: My complaint at ANI and here is not about "transgender issues or persons", it's about double-standard treatment of me vs. the other user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To TParis: I am not sufficiently interested in either subject to ever want to work on them again. My topic ban can stay as-is. My complaint here and now is about unequal treatment, double standard, whatever the term would be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Tparis: I involved myself on this occasion because I was angry at the double standard, and am still angry from a year ago of being accused of being a bigot, which is a total lie, yet it's what they hung me on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that if BB is restricted from participating in discussions about transgender interpreted over-broadly, it seems he would not be able to appeal related decisions. I am sure WP policies don't allow an interpretation so broad that he can't ask for his ban to be rescinded or edit his own appeal! Yworo (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to this, although I think that ANI should not have been the place for Bugs to make that statement, as the community (currently) cannot unilaterally overturn an ArbCom sanction and as such his request is meaningless at ANI. I would suggest Bugs to make an amendment request at RFAR, because to appeal his own TBAN that's the only place he could go. (He's asking for 1 of two choices, and 1 of the choices cannot be done there, and thus the whole request was placed at the wrong spot.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I go through a love-hate relationship with Bugs. Sometimes I think he's spot on and at other times I think he's on a rampage. In this case, Bugs didn't make the simple "Bradley is a man" comment. The Arbcom evidence lists these diffs supporting the topic ban to include casting aspersions of advocacy ([29][30][31]), soapboxing against gender identity ([32][33][34][35]), and then calling all "supporters" abusers of Wikipedia ([36]). That's quite a bit more than what has been described here by Bugs. Bugs described Manning as "wanting to be female" only as a plea deal and that it would make Wikipedia look stupid. That's quite a claim. Not only that, but Bugs is also topic banned from any case of leaks of classified information. Would this appeal affect both topic bans?--v/r - TP 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: I just don't see the double standard. Your comments were not equal to Int21h's. Unless you can demonstrate other things that Int21h has said besides "Chelsea is a male, not a female." As demonstrated by the diffs above, your comments were quite more involved. As far as you having no interest in being involved in any more disputes of this topic, you did involve yourself in the Yworo/Int21h dispute.--v/r - TP 18:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs topic ban may very well have been unjustified, but regardless, they must abide by the terms of the ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Baseball Bugs' participation in the ANI thread was particularly constructive. However, I think we should be careful about limiting a topic-banned editor's ability to participate in policy/guideline-related discussions merely because an aspect of the discussion involves the application of the policy to that topic area. Bugs skated perilously close to the line here, at best, but did not display animus or an attempt to disrupt. I therefore would suggest that, if the consensus is that they breached their topic ban, the outcome in this case should be a strict warning. No one has yet cited a parallel case where sanctions were imposed; if we have an established practice on the general issue, I would take a different position. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am sympathetic to Baseball Bugs' argument and the Committee should consider it in the appropriate forum. ANI threads unrelated to Baseball Bugs are not the appropriate forum, and this argument should not be allowed to derail them. The language of the topic ban would seem to cover ANI, but I think a clarification and warning should be sufficient in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy linked to in the request is not a remedy, and the diff provided as evidence is not a diff. Could the submitter please fix this?  Sandstein  05:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is evident that Baseball Bugs violated their topic ban by participating in an ANI thread related to a transgender issue and/or person. The appeals exception does not apply because they did not edit the thread to appeal their ban. Because they received a previous warning, and have also violated their topic ban by commenting on the request below, I think that a two-week block is appropriate.  Sandstein  16:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the two-week block, but would be willing to hear if Baseball Bugs will agree to refrain from commenting on any transgender matters on any page of Wikipedia until his own topic ban is lifted. In that case a block may not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that Baseball Bugs has not provided these assurances, but instead continues to complain about the injustice of their sanction, it is apparent that a block is needed to enforce the sanction. Baseball Bugs is blocked for two weeks. As a note to Baseball Bugs, any complaints about the sanction should be addressed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA, as they are the only ones who can do anything about it.  Sandstein  22:01, 2 September 2014 (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

Yworo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Int21h (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Tarc_topic-banned :

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

1. 20:29, 1 September 2014

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Disruptive_participation_by_Tarc, ArbCom ruled that the statement "Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe" was "inflammatory and offensive" (added 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)) when applied to Chelsea Manning, a living transgender person (end addition). This ruling was also applied to insisting that Chelsea Manning is male: "Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so".

Int21h engaged in exactly parallel behavior, even to the extent of using animal analogies in an attack against a transgender subject, stating that "Painting a horse does not make a zebra" and further stating, "Chelsea is a male, not a female, therefore the proper pronoun is 'they' with accompanying cases. From wikt:she: 'A female person or animal.'".

I request that given the exact parallel, Int21h should be subject to the same remedy that Tarc was for such inflammatory and offensive attacks against a transgender subject: a topic ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not aware of any except Tarc's, but they may exist.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Was given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 1 September 2014 by Penwhale: 1 September 2014

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

ArbCom established a precedent that contradicting the gender-identification of a transgender person was "inflamatory and offensive" in the instance of Tarc's comments. Beside applying similar discretionary sanctions in the case of User:Int21h, I ask that ArbCom confirm that in general contradicting the gender-identification of a transgender person is "inflamatory and offensive", whether in an article, on a talk page, or anywhere else, and affirm that such comments may be removed from talk pages under the provisions of our Biographies of living persons, specifically under the sections titled Non-article space, which allows removal of personal attacks against a living subject from talk pages and also under the heading Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

• EdJohnson, I have to say that if BB is restricted from participating in discussions about transgender interpreted over-broadly, it seems he would not be able to appeal related decisions. I am sure WP policies don't allow an interpretation so broad that he couldn't edit his own appeal! Yworo (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff of notification

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 so-called English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) has never been "established by the community" per the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. As discussed on its talk page, ArbCom was established by Jimmy Wales. Neither has it been established by consensus. It has only retained its status by desysopping and threatening to desysop admins. Nor is it proper for a body that asserts and exercises authority as an arbitration committee, without first being established by the community, to purport to establish itself as an arbitration committee by submitting and adopting its own proposal in less than two weeks with a "simple yes or no vote". Only WP:ANI can be classified as one of the "dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions", so this discussion should be continued or merged with the current discussion there.

I should also note I resubmitted my proposal here, and although deficiencies in MediaWiki's diff logic could not discern much of it, I attempted to make as much clear in this edit. Given as much, and my intention to continue to say the same, forcing another discussion here on substantially similar facts would be overly burdensome and contravene WP:NOTBUREAU.

Any guideline or application thereof which contradicts WP:NPOV, including WP:MOS, are void ab initio, the proper procedure being modification of WP:NPOV. The application of MOS:IDENTITY to the article at hand contravenes WP:NPOV because instead of using gender-neutral terminology the article's tone assumes that Chelsea should be referred to as a "she", despite documentation of significant contradictory viewpoints, e.g., the Government of the United States. So the proposal in question and its forum are appropriate. I obviously disagree that my comments were in any way other than in support of, and supported by, WMF and Wikipedia policies. Int21h (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought up at ANI where a majority of editors agreed that it was not hate speech. Tarc made a total of three comments that were intended to be offensive, all that was seen here was one that was from an opposing point of view. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the user was aware of sanctions on the article as Penwhale gave the notice after the comment was placed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that Tarc has denied [37] that the reason given above is why he was topic banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yworo::The problem with that is who are the ones that are going to go through each comment to make sure it is ok to post? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yworo::There is also WP:CHERRYPICKING you are taking the "Bring it on" comment out of a larger discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I think a consensus has been established here, I mean I haven't seen any indication that AE can do anything in this case given the facts presented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, most of the issues brought up at ANI happened before the alert was given, and as such I do not think anything is currently enforceable. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this comment from Int21h, "Bring it on.", I suspect that Int21h will insist on his or her right to make such remarks about living transgender individuals. A clarification as to whether willful misgendering constitutes "a personal attack" against a living subject under the BLP, allowing such comments to be removed or redacted from article talk pages could easily prevent future disruption in the subject area. Yworo (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I believe that this is out of the line; but as DS alerts were not issued prior, there is nothing that AE can do at this time. (And to both Knowledgekid87 and Yworo: The standard procedure is to comment in your own section instead of pumping out threaded discussion.)- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Penwhale [above]: Whether actionable at this time or not, do you agree then, that the editor's words would have qualified for sanctions a year ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Valeron [below]: I was topic-banned for just such an "absurd" accusation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "...Baseball Bugs can't request to have his own ban lifted here at AE since it was issued directly by Arbcom as part of the Manning case. He would have to use WP:ARCA to appeal his ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Where they will continue to support the false pretenses under which I was topic-banned. A total waste of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where do you get the idea that I'm engaging in a "transgender dispute"? My complaint is about unfair and unequal treatment of those accused (falsely, at least in my case) of bigotry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ban was based on a falsehood. The lie against my personal integrity continues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sick of this place. Why don't you just make it indefinite? You know you want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that we've been creating a battleground out of a non-issue. The unnecessary zebra remark notwithstanding, Int's original comment, regardless of its correctness, makes it perfectly clear that he intended to start a meaningful discussion in an attempt to neutralize the article; not that he was deliberately attacking the subject - an allegation that Yworo was making in the ANI thread. This is at odds with Tarc's comments, which were vitriol-filled argument bait. Int has also not repeated this kind of discussion at all, so I fail to see the point or effectiveness of a topic ban. ProtossPylon 01:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Int21h's comments regarding Arbcom are out of line - he originally stated that he welcomed an Arbcom decision, but now seems to view this thread as an anti-Arbcom soapbox. I would advise him to stay on topic and watch his words carefully. In spite of this, I still stand by my initial belief that Int21h's original comments are not grounds for punishment, and that Yworo is aggressively POV-pushing. ProtossPylon 22:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion, which has spilled thousands of words on Wikipedia today, has nothing to do with proving that the accused is guilty. It's a case of the accuser trying to save face after lodging an absurd accusation. JohnValeron (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misgendering is bad. Casting aspersions is bad too. Saying "Chelsea is male" is an opinion and we do not punish thought-crimes. Comparing Chelsea to a pig is hate speech. Throwing around words like transphobia because people don't believe the same way you do is casting aspersions. I say topic ban both Int21h for disruptive editing and Yworo for casting aspersions and let's call it a day.--v/r - TP 02:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disruptive comment suppressed by an administrator,  Sandstein  16:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Int21h's comments above, I now strongly support an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT. If their argument is that Arbcom isn't an authority here, then they have no reason to be editing any controversial articles at all.--v/r - TP 03:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Two kinds of pork: I'm not sure I fully agree with you regarding Tarc. I agree that his comment is inappropriate, Int21h's comment isn't hate speech - it's only offensive and insensitive. However, I don't think that what Tarc did and what the Arbcom case was covering are the same. The Arbcom case covered casting wide nets in the transphobia accusations without any evidence. That's a real difference. It's poisoning the well ect ect. I suppose I see some similarities - we can't just make accusations based on flimsy evidence, but I don't think the Arbcom ruling was about individual accusations as much as it was about wide nets.--v/r - TP 06:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article has gone back and forth between extremes a few times, and the present version is unsatisfactory: "Manning became the target of bullying at the school because she was the only American and was viewed as effeminate (she was living as a boy at that time). Manning had identified to two friends in Oklahoma as gay..." We should recognize there is a genuine need for further discussion to nudge it back into line; specifically, I think that the gendered pronoun appropriate for the subject's stated gender at the time is appropriate for sentences about past events.

I think Int21h was a little off in raising the gender issue as a whole, in relying only on an original logical argument, and in looking at ArbCom authority as a whole; nonetheless, he was much more right than wrong, and his contribution here is (or should be) appreciated. ArbCom should not set up an environment where it is dangerous to begin good faith discussion of something you see in an article that looks off, nor one where people look to it to decide content issues -- and that is well established precedent. Wnt (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the proposed decision page for the original Manning decision, it is evident that ArbCom rejected the idea that use of "animal analogies" alone was insufficient to justify sanctions. The Committee considered, and rejected, the position that "offensively comparing the life choices of transgender people to pretending to be an animal" was enough to justify sanctions. At no point did it suggest that the mere use of time worn proverbs which are routinely applied to many varieties of human behavior (eg, "a leopard can't change its spots") was seriously disruptive. (Tarc was sanctioned after admitting he chose a particular animal metaphor in order to offend/disrupt). Int21h's comments here were of the timeworn proverb variety, and therefore do not justify sanctions under the ArbComm ruling. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. This should clearly be closed now, per comments below.
2. EdJohnston is right about BANEX, however this can lead to perverse results, and would benefit from a more nuanced approach.
3. Gamaliel assumes the INT21h has previously looked at the history of ArbCom. ArbCom is not generally a matter of interest to editors that are concentrating on content. Gamaliel should not ABF. While raising these issues here is unlikely to be effective, that does not speak to WP:COMPETENCE. Competence in dealing with (specifically incorrect) attempts to use the Wikipedia machinery is not required, the job of administrators and other editors in good standing is to ensure that these mechanisms work effectively even if the "defence" is poor or non-existent - per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY.
4. Sansdtein should have been satisfied with redacting TParis' comment, and leaving him a note. Verb sap. Attempting to act like a one-man ArbCom and impose a final warning is a mistake.

Yworo's complaint is about Int21h's using an animal analogy. Had Int21h used a "negative" animal analogy (lipstick/pig, snake/grass, vulture, mad dog, etc) then it would be easier to make the case that Int21h was being intentionally offensive. But he didn't. As Wolfowitz states, Int21h used an expression that has been used since time immemorial. Arbcom did not establish these analogies were actionable via sanctions, but encouraged the community to choose their words with care. Comparing women with livestock is inexcusable, for example. Arbcom did sanction editors whose comments they deemed was inflammatory, either by intent or willful ignorance. Int21h's chosen metaphor does not fall in either of these categories.

IMO, this request to block/ban Int21h is just a vehicle to have Arbcom establish stare decisis between gender and sex. Now as Tparis puts it above, misgendering someone isn't very nice, and doing so can cause offense. Some people think abortion isn't very nice, and calling it a choice is offensive to them. You don't have to agree with someone's opinion, but you should be respectful in your disagreement. IMO Arbcom ruling on gender vs sex is a very bad idea; it will stifle debate. Only once society firmly comes down on the side of gender would such an edict be palatable. But by then it would be (hopefully) useless.

A little off topic, because this is about Int21h, but Arbcom did establish that calling someone transphobic without clear evidence could be sanctionable. Maybe Tarc didn't use that exact word, but calling someone a bigot amounts to the same thing. As a participant in the Manning case, @Tarc: knew full well that accusations of transphobia was a major component of the case. Since he apparently chose to "call out" Int21h for his stance on gender vs sex with a personal attack, he should live by the consequences.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: perhaps you are correct. The case did deal with some accusing everyone who took a certain position as being transphobic, even if they were doing it out of ignorance. Tarc's accusation does not match those parameters. Regardless, Tarc's comment was out of line and I'm disappointed no one took him to task. Including myself. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I agree with User:Penwhale. Int21h can’t be sanctioned under the Manning case because he was not alerted of the Discretionary sanctions until *after* the diff that people claim to be inflammatory and offensive.

• User:Baseball Bugs should not be commenting on any transgender disputes, or discussing anyone else’s transgender topic bans, per the wording of his own ban: "...topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed." His ban applies to all pages of Wikipedia, including talk pages and noticeboards. See WP:BANEX for the only exceptions. Baseball Bugs can't request to have his own ban lifted here at AE since it was issued directly by Arbcom as part of the Manning case. He would have to use WP:ARCA to appeal his ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to his or her user page, Int21h has been an editor for 8 years and 3 months. This is ample time to bring before the community objections or concerns regarding the jurisdiction of the Committee. To raise this issue of the Committee's jurisdiction only now as a defense for his or her behavior is disingenuous; to expect it to be effective before the Committee itself is an issue of WP:COMPETENCE. While Int21h's behavior does not seem to fall within the scope of the Committee's decision as per Penwhale's comment, TParis' suggestion should be considered if Int21h's behavior continues. Gamaliel (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the above. This is not actionable for lack of prior notification. I express no opinion about whether it would have been sanctionable otherwise, but it's at least not obviously disruptive conduct. The arguments questioning ArbCom's authority are frivolous, but we need not address them here. I also agree that Baseball Bugs has violated their topic ban by commenting here, and recommend a two-week block.  Sandstein  06:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Above, TParis comments that "For the morons who can't read...". Using such language towards other Wikipedians is unacceptable conduct on an arbitration enforcement (or indeed any other) page. As an administrator, in particular, TParis should be aware of this. See, generally, WP:CIVIL and WP:AC/DS#Decorum. I am suppressing that comment and am issuing a logged warning to TParis that they will be blocked if such conduct reoccurs.  Sandstein  16:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer not to comment on the substantive issue, but, as someone who participated in the original Manning case, I just want to point out that the main problem with Tarc's edits was that he was posting what he knew were inflammatory statements just to make a point; as a matter of fact, before his confession, the relative finding of fact was failing and it was only as a result of his fessing up that another arbitrator proposed the new fof which ended up passing.

  Clearly, AE admins may still impose a sanction, if they deem it appropriate, but I'd just like to ask you not to rely entirely on a precedent which originally dealt with a different situation, please. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anything more for AE to do here? EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only action we can take re Int21h would be related to actions since the alert, or their comments here if we believe they are enough to warrant a sanction, other than that it's normal admin actions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• We appear to agree that the request as submitted is not actionable for lack of prior notification, so I'm closing this thread. Any subsequent problems can be reported separately.  Sandstein  11:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA :

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

1. 2 September 2014 Violates topic ban
2. 2 September 2014 Violates topic ban
3. 2 September 2014 Violates topic ban
4. 2 September 2014 Violates topic ban
5. 2 September 2014 Violates topic ban
6. 2 September 2014 Violates topic ban and 1RR

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 19 November 2013 Indefinitely topic-banned from everything related to the Arab–Israeli conflict
2. 22 November 2013 Blocked for violating topic ban

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I warned DXRD that she/he was violating the topic ban on 20 August 2014.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

How can addings of things that are really academic and American/British/palestinian Arab politcians' statements can be considered by you as a "violation of a topic"???--DXRD (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Topic bans are only effective for those who are willing to understand and follow them. Since User:DXRD seems to have no intention of complying with his ban, I think that a one-year block is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that blocks are the only technical means we have of enforcement where the user is unwilling to comply I agree that a block is necessary until they are willing to comply. Rather than as an AE action I'd suggest we impose an indefinite block for WP:IDHT (logged but as a normal admin action) so that it may be lifted when DXRD is willing to comply with the TBAN rather than needing to go through an AE appeal process. Likewise it'll also mean that after the year DXRD can't just go straight back to violating the TBAN. Before doing this though I'd like to at least give DXRD sometime to make a statement either stating that they will comply or that they won't (similar to this comment for example). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DXRD: It is a violation your topic ban from everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In simple terms, you cannot make any edit, comment or refer to anything which has anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. If you do so you will be blocked to enforce that ban. This comment suggests to me that you understand the ban but have no intention of complying with it, if you do understand and will comply with it then you need to tell us as soon as possible as clearly as possible. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It is clear that DXRD does not want to abide by the terms of their ban, or is not able to understand them. Either way, the one-year block suggested by EdJohnston is appropriate. It can be lifted if we receive credible assurances of future compliance.  Sandstein  11:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing. User:DXRD is blocked for one year as an arbitration enforcement for violating his topic ban. If he changes his mind and agrees to observe the ban, he may post to that effect on his talk page and we can set in motion the process of lifting the block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IRISZOOM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA:

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

1. 14:53, 30 August 2014 He changes it to being something according to "Hamas Ministry of Health" (which is not true, while it's run by Hamas, also UN and other NGO's back up the claim).
2. 22:08, 30 August 2014 He removes how many civilians died (including children and how many of the total were Palestinians) and changes it to being "most of them Palestinians".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 17:26, 21 July 2014

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. See this from 17:26, 21 July 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

WarKosign is trying to diminish the fatalities of the Palestinians civilians, while he keeps the one about Israeli ones. As a result of his actions, as I wrote on the talk page, we can only read now in the lead: "that the percentage of how many were civilians is disputed, though the health ministry, UN and NGO's back it up. We are not even given an estimate anymore in the lead but just the total of Palestinian dead and that the number of civilians is disputed. The Israeli side's fatalities is given as a fact." This is a serious NPOV problem. I wrote to him to warn him of his 1RR violation and said he should self-revert but he responded by saying: "Feel free to report, along with your own edit warring."

Besides getting blocked, he was also warned for edit warring in the same article on 22:32, 4 August 2014 by admin Ronhjones. There is also an Editnotice on the article which gives info about the rules. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As said, the number is backed up by UN and NGO's, and reported much in media, and you can therefore not say that the numbers only come from Hamas. As you know and mention, the numbers is visible in the infobox and a table in the rest of the article. Removing it from the lead is unacceptable. By making it "clearer" that it's not "unversally agreed", you first change it from being a fact to being something only according to Hamas. Then you say you wan't to remove "unbased information", when you in fact you removed the whole part of the numbers of civilians.

The number about the total of Palestinians killed is not disputed as everyone put nearly the same number but it's a serious POV violation diminishing the civilian casualties of Palestinians, which in the end meant removing it totally, and that while keeping the info in the same place about the Israeli casualties! --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it was and is wrong to force your view, which included violating 1RR, on the issue of Palestinian civilians deaths (perhaps the biggest issue in this Gaza conflict) but I agree with what Nishidani and Kingsindian wrote on this issue. So I reported it because forcing your view on an issue and breaking 1RR is unacceptable and keep in mind WarKosign didn't want to revert himself though I told him to do so or get reported, which he welcomed. I think it is totally wrong to edit like that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-sche, as you know, there was an active discussion on the talk page but WarKosign kept forcing his view on the article, which also lead to a a violation of the 1RR. If he had accepted to contribute on this issue in a better manner, by discussing more and self-reverting his violation, this vouldn't have escalated to here. It was after he ignored my advice to revert it, that I went here to protest against his 1RR. Keep also in mind that the problem with the first edit was not only the name of the ministry but also that he made the claim to look being something that was only according to Hamas, which actually was the worst part. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have pretty much reach a solution (a tag is there and should be removed) but it isn't saying that the claim is only according to Hamas. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Yes.

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.

Neither of the edits in question is a revert, so technically 1RR is not applicable.

Some background: Me and several other editors made a big effort to shorten and simplify the lead paragraph while keeping it NPOV. Here are two of the most recent talk page sections dedicated to the effort [38] [39].

An IP user noted that there is an arguably incorrect statement in the lead saying that "most of the casualties were Palestinian civilians". I argued in the talk page that while it is obvious that most of the casualties are Palestinians, it is far less obvious that most of them are civilians, and thus it is incorrect and POV pushing to make this blanket statement. The infobox and the casualties sections represent this claim far better with 5 different counts. User:GGranddad was making an argument for inclusion of the statement and even provided a single source that actually says that most of the casualties overall were Palestinian civilians. User:GGranddad was soon after blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of User:Dalai lama ding dong and his edit adding the statement was reverted, while User:AcidSnow restored his version and User:IRISZOOM suddenly began contributing to the talk page - something he/she never did before - and continued arguing the point from that very point where GGranddad stopped, making me suspect it is another sockpuppet.

To the edits in question: I did not remove the problematic statement since it had one source, and the sources that usually contradict it (ITIC and IDF) did not provide a new number of dead militants while the number of Palestinian casualties increased, technically making Palestinian civilians a majority among casualties. Other users gradually added more and more information into the lead. As Methodology section says, "there has been little discrepancy between Gaza Health Ministry count and the counts of human rights groups and the UN, which use the former figure as preliminary and conduct their own investigations." so saying that Hamas-controlled ministery of Health is the source is correct.

The first edit was to make clear in the lead that the information is not universally agreed upon in a short and clean manner. The alternative as I wrote repeatedly in the talk page was to copy the casualties table into the lead.

The second edit was to remove unbased information (where did these percent come from?). I even increased the number of Palestinian casualties - hardly POV pushing to diminish it.

WarKosign (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Penwhale: All the sources but ITIC give numbers above 2000, and ITIC's total number hasn't been updated in a while - the date in the casualties table refers to the civilians vs militant count, the total number is not given in the cited source at all. All the sources that are up to day are relatively close and 2100 was lowest estimate of palestinians, not including israeli casualties, so "at least 2100" is less of misrepresentations than "at least 2000".

After a long discussion there is an agreement on a version very similar to my edits. "Hamas Health Ministry" was supposed to be short for "Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry" which was in the article at some point. WarKosign (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Penwhale:This clearly content dispute there is no source misrepresentation all NGOs base their data on their Health Ministry also most of the sources say so.That the data coming from Palestinians. For example the first source[40] "The national" quite clearly says

The war killed more than 2,140 Palestinians and injured more than 11,000, Palestinian health officials said.

@Zero0000: What include and how to include this clear nature of content dispute.He correctly stated what was written in the source.--Shrike (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I and WarKosign often disagree, I have generally found him amenable to reasonable argument on the talk page (where he participates a lot). Sometimes the argument takes a while to get through, but I have not found him to edit war much. He does have a clear bias, but that is the norm rather than the exception in this area (I also have bias).

A couple of comments on the content part of the dispute. Regarding the methodology for counting civilian and militant deaths, it is complicated. In a nutshell, Gaza health ministry gives figures, UN and other human rights orgs take figures from there and conduct their own investigations, finally giving a preliminary figure. These sources give ~2100 killed (70-75% civilian). On the other side, Israel says about 50% are combatants, based on intelligence reports. There are various other issues involved.

As to what the Gaza Health Ministry should be called, it was decided that "Gaza Health Ministry" or "Palestinian Health Ministry" should be used. See here and here. Kingsindian (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: Sandstein's comments regarding the second edit are not correct. The France24 reference was already present in the lead, added by someone else. The statement for which it was added as support has since disappeared from the lead. The reference itself is obsolete and should be removed. The statement "mostly Palestinians" is simply WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR and a fact not disputed by anyone; it does not even require a source per WP:LEAD. About the "2100 killed" claim, it is a summary of the "Casualties" section, where almost all (except ITIC, which has incomplete figures) say >2100 killed. Whether or not there is misrepresentation or minimization elsewhere is a different matter. I would find it really funny absurd if WarKosign was banned for allegedly inflating Palestinian casualties, given that everyone agrees his bias is in the opposite direction. Kingsindian (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have made clear (I hope) the comments regarding the second edit are off the mark. The first edit is problematic, but it could be easily solved with some paraphrasing and discussion on the talk page, where WarKosign participates a lot. This should have never escalated to WP:AE. To have a topic ban based on one edit would be too harsh and nobody would be safe in this area. I am thinking of my own neck as much as WarKosign's, since unnamed parties have been dropping hints about my actions from the opposite POV. If there is long-term disruptive and tendentious editing, evidence should be presented. Kingsindian (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that making too many edits to the lead too quickly was sub-optimal, to put it mildly. It is always tricky to say if 1RR is broken (I have allegedly broken it twice now), so I always self-revert if someone asks, even if I think they're wrong. WarKosign should probably have done the same. Kingsindian (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit is clearly a misrepresentation of the source. Contra Shrike, although the article attributes one set of figures to "Palestinian health officials", it says "mostly Palestinian civilians" on its own judgement and "The United Nations says about three quarters of the Palestinians killed have been civilians". (The UN has a very large presence in Gaza and doesn't need the Palestinian authorities to roughly estimate the fraction of casualties that are civilian.) Omitting this key assertion of the source is an obvious misrepresentation. Zero^talk 06:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike:: NPOV requires more than just reporting something that a source supports. It also means conveying the context provided by the source. In this case the most notable issue about the casualties, as determined by hundreds of reliable sources, was elided. Zero^talk 07:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I think WarKoSign edits to ensure the priority of the official Israeli viewpoint on the page, his style of working is, generally, infinitely better than the numerous disruptive or blatant POV-pushers active on that and sister pages recently, few of whom share his readiness to discuss collegially. I agree with Kingsindian's summation. The evidence is too thin to warrant the kind of sanction proposed. Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although he has discernible sympathies for one side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, WarKosign is a reasonable editor and regularly participates in discussions on Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict in which consensus wordings of various sections of the article are hashed out. The same discussions (1, 2) which concluded that Gaza's health ministry should be called the Gazan Health Ministry showed that there were a number of other names people might plausibly find in references or think to use, for which reason diff 1 is something I would have simply amended, with links in my edit summary to the aforementioned discussions, no further action necessary. Diff 2 was a reasonable attempt at replacing disputed information (disputed in that different sources give different numbers, and in that editors disputed the numbers' inclusion), which was already present in detail in both the infobox and the article body, with just the facts that sources from all 'sides' agreed on; discussion on the talk page seems to show consensus for just such a 'just-the-agreed-upon-facts' approach. I agree with Kingsindian's analysis. This should not have escalated to AE, and the evidence is too weak to merit the sanction that is proposed. I echo HJ Mitchell's concern that this may be "tactical use of discretionary sanctions to eliminate an opponent". -sche (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• If 2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Palestinian has the correct number, then I think more than 2000 should be used (as not all sources agree with at least 2100). Regarding the 1st edit, that is blatant misrepresentation of the source. I'd support some form of TBAN in lieu of this. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I support a topic ban for three months or so. Misattributing statements to a source is, in my view, sanctionable misconduct if done repeatedly or with a disruptive purpose. In the first edit, WarKosign attributed the statement that mostly civilians died to the "Hamas Ministry of Health", an attribution the cited source does not make (although it later cites "Palestinian health officials", i.e., not necessarily Hamas officials, for casualty numbers). Likewise, with the second edit, WarKosign attributes the statement that most of the more than 2,100 dead were Palestinians to another source, which in fact talks about "more than 2,000 people" and says nothing about which side most of them belonged to. This creates the appearance that WarKosign just wrote whatever they considered correct or appropriate without bothering to look at the cited references or supply new references of their own. Such repeated sloppiness in the use of sources, whether intentional or not, is not acceptable when editing sensitive, contentious topics.  Sandstein  07:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The edits are cause for concern, but are they an isolated incident or part of a wider pattern? I'd like to hear more on that before lurching straight to a topic ban to assuage my concern that this is a tactical use of discretionary sanctions to eliminate an opponent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I am unsure whether 1RR was broken, though WarKosign does seem to be acting in the service of a POV. On the article talk page he has stated "I wish the government did pay somebody to correct the obvious pro-Palestinian bias in many pages..." His rapid edits on the lead of a hotly-disputed article were surely not intended as part of a calm strategy of problem solving. It is of interest that User:Nishidani (above) speaks in his favor, since we might not expect those two editors to be on the same side. The comments by User:Kingsindian are also of interest, since he gives a well-balanced view and disagrees that there was any source falsification. If the shortest reasonable topic ban of WarKosign is three months, we ought to hold back from issuing a topic ban until something more blatant shows up. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Can this report be closed as No Action? If WarKosign has a pattern of making such rapid edits he is likely to commit a 1RR even by accident. So Kingsindian's advice to self-revert whenever challenged for 1RR is sensible. If WarKosign comes back to AE again for a similar reason he shouldn't count on the same verdict. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think that No Action at this time is appropriate, I do not have a problem with it. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC) (struck, see below.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm of the view that this is sanctionable conduct because of the source misrepresentation; no opinion about the reverting aspects. If nobody else supports a sanction, a warning should at least be logged.  Sandstein  10:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Let me rephrase - I have no comment on the RR portion. The mis-attribution warrants some action, so I agree with Sandstein that at minimum a warning is required. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My inclination is to treat this as 'watch and wait'. I don't think there's anything that rises to the level where tangible sanctions are merited; I'm not convinced that WarKosign's edits were source misrepresentation (see -sche's comment above, for example), nor that it was done in bad faith. That said, I certainly wouldn't want WarKosign to think that it was a good idea to make a habit of questionable edits in contentious topic areas. I could live with a warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing this as 'watch and wait', per HJ Mitchell. At lease three admins believe WarKosign is close to the edge of acceptable behavior in the ARBPIA domain, or beyond it. If future violations are brought here, borderline or not, action is likely. Editor warned. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]