Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:44, 13 August 2011

• WP:AE

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

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

NickCT

Frederico1234

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

Request concerning Frederico1234

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Broccolo (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Frederico1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Decorum/WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded

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

1. 18 July 2011 Voted on deletion request for Mein Kampf in the Arabic language assuming a bad faith and demonstrating a battleground mentality "Having that said, as deletion discussions are polls, the article will be kept due to "no consensus", as there are plenty of socks of banned users, POV-pushers etc out there." As it is seen from deletion request pratically all uninvolved editors including a few administrators voted to keep the article.
2. 04:14, 27 July 2011 First revert
3. 28 July 2011 second revert less than 24 hours later
4. 13:45, 26 July 2011 Misrepresents the source that clearly states "Copies of the translation are understood to have been distributed to London shops towards the end of last year and have been selling well."
5. 20:52, 26 July 2011 first revert
6. 04:14, 27 July 2011 second revert less than 24 hours later
7. 17:40, 4 August 2011 Removing sourced information with edit summary "Undid revision 443046855 by ברוקולי (talk) The WP:LEAD should summarize the article, not add new stuff"
8. 17:41, 4 August 2011 Removing sourced information with edit summary "Undid revision 443046855 by ברוקולי (talk) The WP:LEAD should summarize the article, not add new stuff"
9. 08:54, 19 July 2011 comment on the deletion request and states that his point "commenting on this AFD" " to prevent serious editors from wasting their time, as the article will be kept no matter the quality of their arguments. A secondary point was to protest how inherently flawed Misplaced Pages deletion "discussions" are when the subject article is in the domain of the I-P topic field, and thus subject to all its glory of sock-puppetry, off-wiki-canvassing, tendentious editors etc."

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Topic ban for a month.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Today the article was at the main page and a few IP users and users had some questions about the article. They posted their questions to the article's talk page here and here. I added required information that I believe should go to the lead. Even if this information should not be in the lead Frederico1234 should have discussed where is the proper place to add the information versus simply removing it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff link

Discussion concerning Frederico1234

Statement by Frederico1234

I'm aware of the 1RR rule and agree that the article in question is covered by it.

3. Broccolo is mistaken. The edit did not occur within 24h.

4. This was an error of mine. Sorry for that.

6. This is a 1RR violation. In this case I thougth it would be easier for everyone to just use the edit summaries to do the explaining. In hindsight, I should probably have taken that to Talk.

7. and 8. Should count as one revert as they were made directly after each other. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Frederico1234

Comment by asad

Besides the reverts dealing with the Palestinian Authority publishing the book, I can't see how anything else relates to ARBPIA. -asad (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek

While strictly speaking this may not be in the IP topic area it does appear to be some kind of a proxy war related to it. Having said that I don't see anything wrong with the comments in the first and last (#1 and #9) diffs provided. Being critical of Misplaced Pages or, in particular, of the atmosphere in a specific Misplaced Pages topic area is not objectionable. Neither does someone *have* a battleground mentality simply because they point out that a particular area *is* a battleground (more so if it happens to be true). Likewise, it is not forbidden to assume bad faith for editors who have substantial experience and interactions in a particular topic area - especially when the comment is not directed at anyone in particular.

Diffs #7 and #8 appear to be a content dispute (Frederico1234 is essentially right with regard to the letter of MOS but there could be exceptions).

Diff #4 is also a content dispute and, in case he's wrong, could be just an error on F's part - it would be more troublesome if this was a repeated edit, but as far as I can tell it's not.

This leaves diffs (3,4) and (5,6), which are potential violations of the IP 1RR restriction - assuming that this article does indeed fall under that topic's scope. Ok, then, just to make sure, is Frederico1234 aware of this restriction? I don't see the "Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) " section in the above report but given that F seems familiar with the topic area perhaps it wasn't required here. Still, in cases like this the usual practice is to give the user a "standard warning" from one of the AE admins before imposing any sanctions. Maybe that's all that's needed here.

Ok now to the diffs themselves. First problem is that diffs 2 and 6 are the exact same diff. This is a revert but it also appears to be a rephrasing and an answer to PlotSpoiler's question. Second is that these concern different material. Overall I'd call this a mild violation of 1RR. Additionally, if these edits are in breach of the 1RR sanction (if this article is indeed covered by the topic area), then so are those of PlotSpoiler from 20:20 July 26 and 2:13 July 27.

So at the end of the day what you got here is a possibility of a somewhat mild transgression, combined with a whole bunch of diff-padding to make it look much worse than it is.

I'd warn Frederico and PlotSpoiler and remind them of the 1RR restriction again, and warn Broccolo for perpetuating battleground in the topic area by filing somewhat spurious AE requests full of diffs that don't show much of anything. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Wikifan12345

Fred doesn't have a history at ARBPIA log and he has zero blocks. I know I/P has tighter rules than other areas of wikipedia but for a first offense a topic ban seems rather excessive even assuming he has done the things he is being accused of. I guess one could argue from a behavioral standard but I'm not the best judge. I think this should be closed with a mild warning to all parties involved. Anything beyond that would be unfair IMO. Wikifan 09:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass

In response to T. Canens' query as to how this article relates to the A-I conflict, to quote just one paragraph from the article in question:

The distribution of Mein Kampf has been pointed to by Israel as an example of the influence of Nazism for Arab nationalists in their war against the Jewish State. In a speech to the United Nations immediately following the Suez Crisis in 1956, Golda Meir stated that the Arabic translation of Mein Kampf was found in Egyptian soldiers' knapsacks. Historian David Dalin wrote that during the 1967 Six-Day War, many Egyptian soldiers were found carrying an Arabic edition produced by the Arab Information Center in Cairo.

I think that quote speaks for itself. Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence wasn't supported by the sources. I had added a citation request to it earlier, but it was removed at some point. In any event, I've refactored the sentence to something that the sources cited can support, and moved it to the appropriate section. Whether or not mentions of Egyptian soldiers carrying copies of the book in their bags makes this article a part of the A-I conflict, I'll leave up to admins to decide. ← George 09:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Golda Meir said in her speech to the United Nations, but it's hard to imagine the PM of Israel bringing up such a factoid for any other reason than to discredit her nation's adversaries. Apparently she had no doubts about its relevance to the conflict. Zionist propaganda has for decades sought to delegitimize Arab grievances by blaming Arab hostility to Israel on antisemitism. The alleged popularity of Mein Kampf in the Arab world is a regularly cited example of that. So yes, I think this topic falls squarely within the purview of ARBPIA. Whether Frederico's edits to the page in question fall within the topic area, I don't know since I haven't looked at them, so I might leave that to others to decide. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"it's hard to imagine the PM of Israel bringing up such a factoid for any other reason than to discredit her nation's adversaries". The article gives more sourced context now, and it's pretty much along the lines you suspected. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would group this with articles like Hummus - very loosely related to the A-I conflict in reality, but having their connections magnified by Misplaced Pages editors. After reading through the sources, Mein Kampf was most notable for its role in the Arab nationalist movement of the 1930s. Modelled on the Nazi movement, Arab nationalism had its own twinge of hatred of Jews and racial superiority (the irony of course being that the Arabic translations had to be modified to remove racist remarks directed at the Arabs themselves). I know that some use the terms "Jew" and "Israeli" interchangeably, but I'm not one of them, so I'm somewhat disinclined to consider something that largely pre-dates the state of Israel a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I don't have strong opinions on the subject, so I'm fine either way. ← George 19:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass, George. It's not appropriate to post this here, but reading the article I was reminded of something I read from a vol. I noted, and browsing, bought, in a secondhand bookshop while travelling in the antipodes this summer:

'The life of the villagers was dominated by their feud with a neighbouring Arab village. They seemed little concerned with the Jewish presence in Palestine and, although they had heard of both Hitler and Churchill, they did not know which of the two was the leader of the British war effort.' K. A. Lodewycks, The Funding of Wisdom: Revelations of a Library's Quarter Century, Spectrum Books, Melbnourne 1982 p.67. Apologies for the interruption, but that's just too good to be true. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by ZScarpia

From appearances, item 4 should be discounted. Firstly, the quote starts: "Copies of the translation are understood to have been distributed ... ." What the word 'understood' means is that the writer was unsure about the veracity of what followed or had been unable to verify it. That sentence, therefore, can't act as a source of validation for the statement of fact made in the Misplaced Pages article. Secondly, the quote is about a delivery to London bookshops. It specifically mentions London, it specifically mentions bookshops, it doesn't say who the books were sold to (Arabs aren't the only ones who can read Arabic), it doesn't even say that the bookshops were supplying the books to UK customers. The sentence that Frederico edited read: "... and sells well in Arab neighborhoods of Great Britain." Somehow, a previous author invented the concept of Arab neighbourhoods in the UK. Perhaps that editor thinks that the UK is like the West Bank, but with Arab settlements. Or maybe London was being confused with Paris. In any case, the source says only that the books were supplied to London bookshops. It says nothing about the locations of those bookshops or the ethnic composition in those areas. Frederico was certainly correct to say that the Telegraph article in question didn't support the statement in Misplaced Pages.     ←   ZScarpia   17:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This article had a bunch of other amusing inaccuracies, like the Arabic language Mein Kampf being a bestseller in Turkey. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Cptnono

Just to clarify, the article is certainly under ARPIA. The article could be used by editors supporting Israel to make Palestinians look bad (or at least that concern could be assumed by editors with a pro-Palestinian slant). There is actually a discussion over on the talk page and at the Palestine-Israel Collaboration project since the high sales in the Palestinian Territories with possible support from the PNA is a contentious topic. Maybe the article still isn't clear enough but it is part of the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That is true moral clarity, my friend. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Frederico1234

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

• Can someone explain how this article is related to the A-I conflict? T. Canens (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  It appears that this article was created just 3 weeks ago on July 16 and was tagged on the talk page just 2 hours later by the creator with {{ARBPIA}}. I'm not sure if this truly should be covered by ARBPIA or not; I do not have a long history of monitoring ARBPIA, but I haven't seen anything that defines exactly which articles are subject or lists them. Broadly construed, I think that someone could assert that Arab nationals and Palestinians might use Mein Kampf to support Anti-Jewish beliefs. --After Midnight 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Since Golda Meir claimed that Egyptian soldiers carried Mein Kampf in their knapsacks, I think it's enough of a connection to place this article under ARBPIA. With regard to the actual diffs above, there does not seem to be any serious transgression. As someone pointed out, Frederico1234 has never been blocked and so far his name is not mentioned in the WP:ARBPIA log. Frederico has admitted above that he broke 1RR at least once in this sequence of edits and he has apologized for that. I suggest closing this with a reminder to Frederico not to assume bad faith regarding groups of editors in the I-P articles and to be careful to stay within the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

RolandR

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

Request concerning RolandR

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

—Biosketch (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
— (edit conflict merge) Jaakobou 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

Requests by Jaakobou (merged case):

• Ban on twinkle privileges
• Temporary ban from Israel related topics (widely construed)

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

1. 30 July 2011 – POV-pushing: editor reverts reliably-sourced information added to an article and describes the reverted edit as vandalism
2. 4 August 2011 – POV-pushing: editor attributes to Misplaced Pages's voice a claim made or implied by a fringe website

Additional diffs merged from case request by Jaakobou:

1. 12:23, 30 July 2011 claims, "editor has repeatedly added an unsourced allegation of a conviction for a sexual offence to this BLP. S/he relies on an article in Hebrew, which s/he apparently does not understand, but I do. The article does not make this allegation, nor any similar claim."
   RolandR misrepresents 3 reliable sources as a single Hebrew source and claims the one Hebrew source (aka "an article") "does not make this allegation" of conviction of sexual offense.
2. 11:22, 30 July 2011 reverts with twinkle, removing 3 reliable sources, stating:
   1. Irish Times, "Ezra Yizhak Nawi, who was convicted of having sex with an underage Palestinian youth in 1992."
   2. Haaretz, Translation: "Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor" (Google auto-translate)
   3. Israeli court: State of Israel vs. Nawi Ezra, Translation: "He was convicted in the past in violations of sodomy of a minor and making threats..." (Google auto-translate) page 2, section 4
3. 11:51, 30 July 2011 reverts again, " does not make this claim"
4. 12:00, 30 July 2011 reverts "vandalism" with twinkle, removing the 3 sources yet again.
5. 12:24, 30 July 2011 reverts "vandalism" with twinkle again - self-reverts

p.s. I used Google only to show that my own translation (native Israeli) was correct.

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

1. Blocked on 7 April by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)
2. Blocked on 1 June by Courcelles (talk · contribs)

(Is it necessary to copy-paste the diffs to all the other blocks at his Block log?)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Firstly it should be noted that I tried to engage RolandR (talk · contribs) on his Talk page prior to coming here in the friendliest and most nonthreatening way possible. I was more than willing to assume good faith on his part and offer him the chance to explain his edits. But hardly did 15 minutes pass and he reverted my query, basically leaving me with no other alternative but coming to AE.

Now, I'm not a believer in drawing conclusions regarding an editor based on a superficial glance at his contribs; on the other hand, I'm also not about to spend hours going through User:RolandR's edits to cherry-pick the ones that support labeling him a Marxist anti-Zionist. I suspect, rather, that he himself will embrace that label as applying to him without considering it an affront to his identity. If not, though, I'm perfectly willing to strike out the suggestion and apologize to him if in the event that I've misjudged him.

To the matter of the diffs. In 1992 Ezra Nawi, an activist for various Palestinian causes, was convicted by an Israeli court of statutory rape of a Palestinian boy. It was in the news extensively then, and it's all over the news again now because of the presidential elections in Ireland. (See the New York Times, for example.) Yet there's no mention of Nawi's conviction anywhere in his article. No, it's not that no one ever tried to add that information to the article. On the contrary, many have. It's that RolandR has been repeatedly thwarting their attempts. In the diff that I've cited, RolandR reverts an exceedingly well-sourced addition to the article by another editor – and to make matters worse, he labels the other editor's contribution vandalism.

At anti-Zionism, RolandR reverted an edit by Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) such that he attributed to Misplaced Pages's neutral voice a claim made or implied by a fringe website. According to his edit, some Jews are anti-Zionist, from which it follows that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic. This is a problem because the website he references, jewsnotzionists.com, isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. What it is is an advocacy site for Jewish anti-Zionists.

Taken together, these diffs represent problematic behavior on RolandR's part, of projecting his personal values and beliefs onto the Project and disrupting sincerely constructive edits of other contributors. Again, I tried to seek clarification from RolandR regarding his behavior at his Talk page, but to no avail.—Biosketch (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional notes by Jaakobou
A self-professed anti-Zionist with a prominent history of enriching the project with anti-Israeli advocacy content and adornment of editors (and activists like Ezra Nawi) with a similar perspective (two samples: , , , , , , ), RolandR has managed to lose the ability to read Hebrew properly on Ezra Nawi, edit war and repeatedly remove 3 wiki-reliable sources, and led an admin, trusting an overdrawn claim of one a Hebrew related claim, into repeating the same action. I believe RolandR can contribute to the project properly if he keeps his political beliefs and idols out of his arguments (and stops removing well cited content, 3 wiki-reliable sources in this case, as "vandalism" using twinkle).

p.s. I apologize for the merger, but this is the best solution IMHO after seeing another case was put forth while I was finishing up mine. With respect, Jaakobou 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC) touch-ups 21:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

p.p.s. I've just noticed a few comments were made by an editor with whom I share an interaction ban. This would not have been an issue had I posted a case without merger, I am not sure on the best way of handling the issue (repost as a single case? ignoring each other on this post? other?). Let me know. Jaakobou 21:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC) - extra update/clarification+diffs 14:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@EdJohnston,

Can you please direct me to a diff where RolandR has stated, prior to your revert (i.e. 13:20, 30 July 2011), that the issue is a "poorly-sourced sex charges and possible overstatement of the gravity of the offences."? All I could find is a patently false claim, made on 12:23, 30 July 2011 (and prior to that as well), regarding the Hebrew text of the Haaretz article. i.e. referring it as the only source and that it, supposedly, "does not make allegation, nor any similar claim." when Haaretz, as well as the other 2 sources (3 reliable sources) say he was convicted of "sodomy of/having sex with a minor/Palestinian youth". The details of the conviction are important for balance, sure, but they are irrelevant to RolandR's argument for reverting and of nudging you to revert as well on his behalf. It wasn't the Ezra Nawi debate which raised the red flag, but a straightforward misrepresentation of sources.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 23:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. RolandR's claims and repeated reverts were certainly enough to discourage any new editor -- seeing that 3 reliable sources are so easily misrepresented and removed again and again -- from making further contributions. Also, RolandR had not admitted to any fault in regards to Ezra Nawi (As of now). Just imagine the long term impact of his behavior if it is allowed to become a norm in the Israeli-Arab content area. New editors discouraged from making contributions and the old POV warriors would make an abundance of patently false claims about Hebrew and Arabic sources. Arbcom enforcement would be faced with extraordinary levels of battleground mentality, mud slinging and drama. Jaakobou 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I really wish you had just answered my last message here. I was more than willing to listen and consider your perspective. But seeing as you aren't interested in dialog, I've referred your conduct to AE here.

Replies by Biosketch to editor comments

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), you mean to tell me that Hummus is I/P but trying to censor details pertaining to an Israeli who raped a Palestinian boy isn't? And I didn't mine through anyone's contribs. I used to closely monitor Anti-Zionism and it's still on my watchlist, and the incident involving Ezra Nawi is being featured prominently in the news now, and I naturally was interested in knowing what Misplaced Pages had to say about the guy. I found it peculiar that the editor who insisted on attributing to Misplaced Pages a claim made by jewsnotzionists.com was the same editor who insisted on whitewashing the biography of an Israeli activist for Palestinian causes convicted of statutory-raping a minor.—Biosketch (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@RolandR (talk · contribs), "vexatious abuse of this noticeboard"? Next time someone asks you for clarification on your Talk page, maybe you oughtn't ignore and delete their message after fifteen minutes. You made it clear to me you had no intention of discussing the diffs I called your attention to. What exactly did you expect me to do?—Biosketch (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), it's neither here nor there what my feelings are about Jewish anti-Zionists. The point is one cannot claim that there are Jewish anti-Zionists using Misplaced Pages's voice in reference to an advocacy website that is itself anti-Zionist. The claim must be sourced to a WP:RS or formulated in such a way as to attribute the claim to the organization itself. You have insisted on the same standard of scholarship in your debates with other editors, so you shouldn't be applying a different standard in this case. With regards to Hummus, if it's being edit-warred over because of editors' political affiliations, yes, it should be subject to the same discretionary sanctions as more obviously I/P articles.—Biosketch (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jaakobou (talk · contribs), I don't mind at all that you merged your Request into mine. I would advise you, however, to strike out forthwith any comments you made that may have been in violation of your interaction ban. Based on previous AEs, if you do so soon enough you'll preempt any sanctions against you.

@Everyone, apparently it needs to be stressed again: I didn't file this AE on a whim. It could be considered frivolous if I was sitting around my house reading Misplaced Pages articles, found a couple that weren't to my liking, and then came here to whine about it to the Admins. That seems to be the impression some users have formed below. But no. Ezra Nawi is being featured prominently in the news now for something that was being (per my argument deliberately) omitted from his BLP by RolandR. At the same time, RolandR was attributing a controversial claim to Misplaced Pages's voice that was sourced to a fringe anti-Zionist website. Upon observing his problematic edits on those two occasions, I tried to engage RolandR on his Talk page and solicit an explanation from him directly. He demonstrated that he had no intention at all of explaining his edits, and that was when I came here. If someone has an idea as to how I could have handled the matter differently than I did, do share it with me.

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), you're conveniently overlooking another aspect of RolandR's edit at Anti-Zionism. The way that sentence was formulated, beginning with the contrasting adverb yet, it conveyed to the reader that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic. This is a more subtle but also a more problematic aspect pertaining to that diff, which either you aren't picking up on or you're trying to sidestep now. So let me make it clearer: RolandR inserted the sentence, "Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists," immediately after the sentence, "Others contend that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence, it is inherently antisemitic." RolandR usurped Misplaced Pages's voice to make two claims: (a) there are Jewish anti-Zionists, and (b) the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists undermines the claim that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. I don't know about all the other editors here but I do think you're prehensile enough to understand how that's WP:OR and, in RolandR's case since he's a Marxist anti-Zionist, an instance of him pushing his POV onto Misplaced Pages's voice.—Biosketch (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), you're wrong for two reasons. 1. This incident transcends the scope of a content dispute and has clear implications regarding user conduct in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. It was the nature of the edits that triggered my alarm and the fact that, when considered together, they pointed to a bias on the editor's part in violation of NPOV. 2. You think I care that RolandR (talk · contribs) is a Marxist anti-Zionist? I don't – just as no one here should care what I did in my life between the ages of 18 and 21. But it also shouldn't be obvious to me from examining two of his edits that that's what he is. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." At Ezra Nawi User:RolandR did not represent proportionately all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. He repeatedly removed significant views that had been published by reliable sources under pretexts of vandalism. At Anti-Zionism RolandR again did not represent fairly all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. He used an unreliable source to represent his own view – that the purported existence of Jewish anti-Zionists is a counterargument to saying that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. Clearer now?—Biosketch (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@EdJohnston (talk · contribs), "Should this use be considered to violate WP:ARBPIA?" – see Discussion page, since this is more of a meta-level question and the discussion here's gotten bloated.—Biosketch (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), I'm aware of his comment, though I'm not sure I completely get his drift. At any rate, my response to you addresses his concerns as well.—Biosketch (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning RolandR

Statement by RolandR

This is ridiculous; an entirely spurious and worthless claim.

In the first place, it is not an offence to be a Marxist and an anti-Zionist; nor even to edit Misplaced Pages while being a Marxist and an anti-Zionist. That comment should be struck out. Not because I am "affronted", but because it is irrelevant, an apparent attempt to have me sanctioned because of my beliefs, not my edits.

Second, both blocks noted by Biosketch were swiftly reversed; in both cases, it was accepted that I had been attempting to protect biographies (one of a living person, one of a recently murdered person) against abusive edits by sockpuppets.

As to the specific edits adduced here: on the Ezra Nawi article, Biosketch claims that my edit on 30 July was invalid, and that I should have known this because of an article published in the New York Times on 3 August! It is not the case that the case itself was "in the news extensively" in 1992; part of the problem here is that there appears to be no contemporary account, in Hebrew or English, of the incident, and it has been extremely difficult to establish the facts. Certainly, at the time of my edit, the information was sketchy, and the source cited did not verify the serious charges made. My edit was perfectly legitimate.

On Anti-Zionism, I was reverting a removal of text, which had been justified with the edit summary "a) unreliable source b) infers jews cannot be antisemitic. that is a fallacy". I pointed out that any inference drawn from the text was the editor's own synthesis, and that the source was indeed reliable for the organisation's own views. Biosketch may strongly dispute these views, as is his right; but he cannot deny that many Jews do indeed hold them. Again, I do not see any way in which my edit was illegitimate or disruptive.

I think that this complaint is entirely without merit, and hope that it will be rejected out of hand, and Biosketch warned against such vexatious abuse of this noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why Wikifan thinks that I wasn't "involved in" Anti-Zionism. Toolserver shows that I am the fifth most frequent contributor, with 78 edits over the past five years. None of the first four has edited the article in the past year, making me in effect the most prolific currently active contributor.

Nor do I see the problem with my edit. Wikifan removed as poorly sourced material which, as others have noted here, barely needs a source. I replaced this, and he has since reverted me. I intend to replace this later, with other sources. But really, is this AE based on the claim that I have replaced a source removed by another editor as "fringe"?

Regarding the Ezra Nawi article, I repeat that the Haaretz article relied on does not confirm the facts it was adduced to prove. It does not mention a Palestinian youth, it does not state that Nawi has been sent to prison at all, let alone twice, and it does not mention any dates, including 1992, 1997 and 2006. I still maintain that, under the circumstances, using this article as evidence for alleged facts it did not confirm was a breach of BLP. The edits which I made reverting what I described as vandalism were accompanied by warnings to the editor involved for breach of the policies on edit-warring and biographies of living people. This was a legitimate use of Twinkle, in support of maintaining core Misplaced Pages policies. RolandR (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Both Haaretz and the Israeli court source only mention the conviction but do not mention the sodomized youth was a Palestinian. That politically incorrect detail is located in the Irish Times. IMHO, There is a limit to the BLP argument when the basis for that claim was that the Hebrew doesn't say he was convicted when it does. Btw, the court source edit-warred over says Nawi was in prison twice (page 7, section 16). Jaakobou 14:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan now writes "I never suggested you were not involved in Anti-Zionism. I said, specifically, you were not involved in the talk discussion". Just to jog his memory, what he actually wrote was "What is odd is that Roland wasn't even involved in the article at the time. It just feels weird to know he is following me around." That looks to me like specifically saying that I wasn't involved in the article. And I'm not "following him around"; as one of the main editors on the article, of course I have it on my Watchlist. RolandR (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh? That was a reference to this AE you filed against me pertaining to West Bank Barrier, an article you had no presence in. Nothing to do with Anti-Zionism-related edits. For the record, this was the source Roland inserted into the article. I'm pretty certain that is unreliable, though I haven't searched the RSN threads. Wikifan 07:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning RolandR

The first diff cited is not in the ARBPIA topic area, the second is using a primary source for the views of the source (namely that the group is Jewish and against Zionism). There is an unfortunate tendency on display here, one in which an editor mines though others contributions so that they may attempt to find any diff that they feel can be used as damning evidence of misconduct. Fortunately, those efforts largely fall flat on their face as any truly damning diffs would be noticed as they occurred. This is one such instance. Biosketch in his lengthy commentary above writes that the source Roland used in the second diff is an advocacy site for Jewish anti-Zionists. Now, that pretty obviously says that there are Jewish anti-Zionists. Which is the only thing that Roland used this website as a source for. To argue that this is "POV-pushing" is, well, POV-pusing (namely, the attempt to exclude a specific POV).

Now to the first diff. The first sentence is sourced (though the use of the word sodomy is not, the cited article says convicted of having sex without specifying the type of sex), though the rest is cited only to Hebrew language sources, one of which is the actual court case. The court case cannot be used in a BLP, as we are required to use reliable secondary sources for any contentious claims (and a claim of a criminal conviction is certainly contentious). As this is a BLP, I personally would prefer the source cited be in English so that it is more easily verifiable, but if it actually does support the material then I suppose it would be fine, but as I cannot read Hebrew I cannot say whether or not it does so. But either way, whether or not this person was convicted of drug possession or any other crime is not in the ARBPIA topic area and as such is irrelevant for this board. nableezy - 20:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, do you really, honestly, dispute that some Jews are anti-Zionist? That is the only thing that Roland sourced to this website. It is something that cannot possibly be under any dispute, to the point that it honestly should not even need a source. Hummus should not be in the topic area either, but because some of the editors here are, well Ill leave that word untyped, that there has been long-term edit warring over what categories belong, or what languages belong, or other such trivial nonsense. But no, whether or not this person was convicted of rape or drug possession or any other crime is not in the Arab-Israeli topic area. In short, I agree with the volunteer below. nableezy - 20:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, I cant disagree with the premise that sources should be of a certain quality, and further I say that in this topic area in particular sources should be held to a higher standard than we see in the rest of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps Roland would have been better off just citing any other higher quality source instead of the primary source he used. My point is that the line does not even need a source, it cannot be disputed by somebody acting in good faith, and to that point you yourself appear unwilling to dispute the statement above, choosing to instead side-step past the query. To use the restoration of that sentence as evidence of "POV-pushing" and disregarding the removal of a clearly relevant and undeniably true statement is itself evidence of "POV-pushing". And honestly, if you had a problem with the use of that source, the place to go would be the article talk page. Not here. nableezy - 06:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Im not overlooking anything, conveniently or otherwise. What I am seeing is that an editor is manufacturing a conduct issue out of a content dispute. That Roland used a source you dont like is not an issue for this noticeboard. You claim that his removal of your comment on his talk page left you no choice but to come here, but that is so obviously not true that I struggle to find a suitable way to describe the claim. You could have gone to the article talk page, the reliable sources noticeboard, or the OR noticeboard (as he was citing a primary source). In fact, you should have gone to each of those places before you went to his user talk page, much less before you came here. Roland is under no obligation to discuss anything with you on his user talk page. He is however required to address concerns on an article talk page, and respect consensus. If you were interested in anything other than getting somebody whose Marxist anti-Zionist views you apparently find so objectionable blocked you would have gone there instead of here. nableezy - 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, you are attributing arguments to Roland that he did not make, kindly dont do that. See ZScarpia's comments on why your view is more a product of your imagination than fact. nableezy - 14:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek

With regard to the first diff - there was actually several other reverts on this article as this was essentially an edit war between RolandR and User:Cckkab. However, this IS a BLP and the text being inserted by Cckkab was a potential BLP violation. In fact EdJohnston subsequently protected the article and removed the same text that RolandR was removing . This was also addressed at 3RR. This suggests that content-wise RolandR was NOT POV-pushing.

The second diff is a single revert, and while strictly speaking RolandR should have attributed the opinion to the source just to make sure, this is at bottom another content dispute. Nothing to see here.

This appears to be yet another essentially frivolous AE request related to the IP area. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure everyone's on the same page: reverting others, by itself, IS NOT against any kind of Misplaced Pages policy or ArbCom decision. In fact, in many cases reverts can be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Hence, putting up diffs of a revert here or there by a particular editor really serves no purpose, except as "diff-padding".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Wikifan12345

I guess I should weigh in cause my name is mentioned. The only complaint I have about RolandR is his occasional uncivilized demeanor. Like Bio mentioned above, Roland accuses me of inserting my own synthesis when I removed an unreliable source. I opened a discussion here which I know RolandR has seen but apparently hasn't responded to. Also, Roland recently opened up an AE against me over a 1RR violation demanding a topic ban. That generated a lot of drama and ended up with a warning.

What is odd is that Roland wasn't even involved in the article at the time. It just feels weird to know he is following me around. Also, I know editors have more rights over their talk page but I found this response totally unnecessary: Removing unwanted nonsense. A cordial reminder about how AE's are carried out in a notice he filed himself? Misplaced Pages is all about collaboration and honestly I'm kind of afraid to edit articles articles RolandR dominates - like anti-Zionism because he won't engage in talk discussion and will remove all my contributions.

However, I don't see how this violates ARBPIA. I have to go with Marek here. Editors rely too much on AE to resolve content disputes. Dismiss and warn Bio. Wikifan 23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Roland

I don't understand why Wikifan thinks that I wasn't "involved in" Anti-Zionism. Toolserver shows that I am the fifth most frequent contributor, with 78 edits over the past five years. None of the first four has edited the article in the past year, making me in effect the most prolific currently active contributor.

I never suggested you were not involved in Anti-Zionism. I said, specifically, you were not involved in the talk discussion. Your revert was IMO baseless and without merit. You re-inserted a very unreliable source, then accused me of SYNTH? Seriously? Look at my revert, look at the discussion. Collaborate, communicate, etc. Wikifan 14:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible 1 rr violation

I've come to understand how important 1rr is in I/P conflict. So is this a violation?

• Revision as of 09:54, 8 August 2011
• Latest revision as of 16:58, 8 August 2011

2 reverts in 7 hours. The first edit looks like Roland removed cited content. A few days ago Roland filed a 1rr violation against me calling for a topic ban just to be clear. Wikifan 23:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think this is a violation of 1RR. But, to prevent any possible breach, I have self-reverted my second edit, and restored the highly POV content, with which I personally agree but which is clearly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. RolandR (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And also, note that the restriction states: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty". The second edit was a reversion of an edit by an anonymous IP, so in any case exempt from the sanctions. RolandR (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass

Another frivolous case initiated by Jaakobou - and unfortunately by Biosketch, who is rapidly establishing a similar pattern. Whether or not one agrees with RolandR's reversions in this instance, they were clearly within the remit of WP:BLP, and EdJohnston, an uninvolved admin, effectively endorsed Roland's cautionary approach when he made the same revert "per BLP" before protecting the page. Moreover, the issue appears to be reaching a resolution on the article talk page, so there was absolutely no need to initiate a case here. Gatoclass (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass,

EdJohnston acted in good faith and trusted RolandR's claim that there is only one Hebrew source (per "an article") rather than 3 and that the Hebrew did not say "Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor" when it does say this. RolandR misled EdJohnston into making that revert.

With respect, Jaakobou 11:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s. please avoid making personal attacks (per "another frivolous"). See also poor form. 11:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack - nonsense. AE exists expressly to discuss the behaviour of editors, you have been warned about presenting meritless cases on many occasions previously as I recall, indeed only a few months ago you received a formal warning from Sandstein for the very same. Personally I think it's well past time you were sanctioned for this sort of conduct, but I haven't the time or inclination to compile the history, so I suppose you will get away with it yet again. Gatoclass (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Gatoclass,

Do you have any diff made by RolandR which explains why he would misrepresent Haaretz (aka "an article") and state "does not make this allegation" of conviction of sexual offense when it clearly says: "Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor"? Can you find an explanation by him during the time of his multiple reverts which explains why he claimed: "sources cited do not confirm this claim" when the 3 sources do, in fact, confirm the material in the paragraph?

With respect, Jaakobou 11:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Cptnono

Disregarding ARBPIA completely, a discussion might be appropriate regarding the suspension of Twinkle privileges. Not sure if that should be somewhere else but to make a few quick points: It should be more obvious vandalism and the edit summaries should have been clearer regarding feelings on BLP. The situation may not have have escalated if an editor was not being repeatedly called a vandal.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That was my first request. The latter one I've made can be rescinded if there were to be made an acknowledgement of error. Jaakobou 11:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear. I wasn't trying to comment on the merit of the request or anything like that. Just trying to get the ball rolling here or somewhere else (not sure what the perfect venue is) on not letting the editor use an anti-vandalism tool since he used it in a content dispute.Cptnono (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by ZScarpia

(Comment 1)

My Projectionometer™ is registering a strong signal in the vicinity of the Additional notes by Jaakobou section.     ←   ZScarpia   13:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(Comment 2)

Biosketch wrote:

So let me make it clearer: RolandR inserted the sentence, "Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists," immediately after the sentence, "Others contend that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence, it is inherently antisemitic." RolandR usurped Misplaced Pages's voice to make two claims: (a) there are Jewish anti-Zionists, and (b) the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists undermines the claim that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic.

Biosketch's logic is faulty. Roland made an existential statement about anti-Zionist Jews, but without indicating the implications of the statement or conclusions that should be drawn from it. There are many conflicting possibilties, but none of them positively implied by what was written. I think that Biosketch drew the inference he did because he saw what he wanted to see.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives many different meanings for the word yet, most of them having to do with time. In spite of appears to me to be the one closest to what Roland meant. Substituting the use of the word despite, then, the meaning of Roland's sentence is:

Despite the contention that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence it is inherently antisemitic, some Jews remain anti-Zionists.

Looking at that I can think of a different possible implications of that, but nothing definitely implied. For instance, it could be possible that: some Jews could be antisemitic themselves; some Jews could believe that Zionism is worse than antisemitism; some Jews may not believe that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. The reasoning which probably produced Biosketch's conviction that the inevitable implication of Roland's sentence is that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic is too deterministic for me. In fact, probably in common with a lot of editors here, the reading I've done has supplied reasons why there are anti-Zionist Jews, which include the following. Some Jews are anti-Zionist because it is an ideology which offends their political or ethical beliefs. Some are because it offends their religious beliefs (for instance, some believe that Jews should have waited for God to send someone to lead them back to the Promised Land). Some are because Zionism threatens their safety (in a past example, there was opposition to Zionism in its early days from Jews already living in the Palestine area because they believed that it would inevitably lead to inter-communal violence; Zionism was also opposed because it was thought that antisemites would use it as a propaganda weapon to claim that Jews' proper homes were somewhere else).

Biosketch called the statement that there are anti-Zionist Jews "a controversial claim" and one that "must be sourced to a WP:RS or formulated in such a way as to attribute the claim to the organization itself."

In its introduction, WP:RS says: "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything." The latter part of that sentence justifies the existence in Misplaced Pages articles of huge numbers of unsourced non-controversial statements. They are there because there truth is so obvious that nobody challenges them.

Looking, as an example, at the Zionism article, we hit the unsourced statement: At that time, the movement sought to encourage Jewish migration to the Ottoman Palestine. The statement is not there because editors are too lazy to challenge it, but because its truth is so obvious that nobody sane, who understood the rules, had a passing knowledge of Zionism and who wasn't trying to make trouble would challenge it. To me and, I'm fairly sure, a large number of other editors, Roland's sentence is obviously true too. I'm sure that many people involved in the IP area of Misplaced Pages could run off a list of bitterly fought over articles whose subjects are anti-Zionist Jews without having to give it much thought. Why would Biosketch challenge the sentence? One of the odd things about it for me is that one of his sentences here tends to indicate that he accepts the existence of anti-Zionist Jews. He wrote: "@Nableezy, it's neither here nor there what my feelings are about Jewish anti-Zionists." Another odd thing is that I'm sure that he must know that Roland, as well as being an anti-Zionist Marxist, is Jewish and therefore a living example of the thing whose existence he is challenging.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC) (correction made: 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

(Comment 3)

@Biosketch, 08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC): I'll try to explain myself more clearly. As far as the Anti-Zionism article is concerned, you've misrepresented what the sentence prior to the one added by Roland said. You've misrepresented the purport of Roland's sentence. And you've invented a motivation for Roland. In other words, you've constructed a rather nasty straw man. Having invented your straw man, you're using it to try and have Roland sanctioned and to stop the addition of Roland's simple statement of transparent truth to the article. If anyone is POV-pushing, it is you.     ←   ZScarpia   21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Nishidani

Roland's revert, the first above, was completely justified because what was involved was a piece of linguistic sleight-of-hand. The source says he was convicted of sodomy. This was phrased as a conviction for sodomizing a minor. Perhaps it is a sign of the decay of the times, or is it the drift into pornomorbid sleaze in public discourse and tabloid politics, that the obvious distinction here is lost on many. 'Sodomy' is generic, and refers to acts deemed characteristic of homosexual behaviour and in violation of the law forbidding the same in certain backward (sorry about the pun) countries (sorry about that too). 'Sodomize' is specific, and refers to anal intercourse. Do I need to refer readers to the extensive memoirs of the Bloomsbury and Homintern writers where this distinction was well-known, and where many homosexuals a court might have convicted of 'sodomy' in the legal sense (homosexual acts) disdained anal intercourse. I don't want to go into the details, but no one has a right to infer that a conviction of sodomy implies a type of act. Many of the lads in England thought intercrural rapports were the best, and that, while a case in legalese of 'sodomy', has nothing to do with sodomizing. Precisely this inference on the part of those editors who supported the text which Roland rightly reverted was an instance of WP:OR and WP:BLP violations. Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You certainly raised an interesting linguistic concern regarding the use of 'sodomising', but I don't see that this is what RolandR meant when he deleted the entire paragraph. If he clarified this somewhere, I would appreciate a diff.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning RolandR

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

• I prefer that this report be closed by a different admin, since I previously took action myself to fully protect the Ezra Nawi article per a complaint at WP:AN3, due to edit warring about poorly-sourced sex charges and possible overstatement of the gravity of the offences. I rolled back the article to an earlier version per WP:BLP, waiting for a proper summary of the sex charges to be arrived at by consensus on the talk page. Should Nawi be described as a pedophile or a rapist? Should his article be placed in the Category:Child sexual abuse? Some caution about this is required under WP:BLP.
• The history of admin action is explained at Talk:Ezra_Nawi#Unprotected. Edit requests were filed during the period of protection and some of them were acted on by other admins. Since protection was lifted, the referencing of the article has improved quite a bit. The New York Times made a good summary themselves on August 3 due to events that occurred in Ireland since the original article protection was imposed.
• On the question of whether anti-Zionist Jews exist, I hope that some other admins (or uninvolved editors) will look into whether there is anything of substance. So far I don't see anything, and I don't at this time see any good reason why the report can't be closed with no action. One of the two diffs included by Biosketch in his original report as (in his view) a violation of ARBPIA is this one, where RolandR links to jewsnotzionists.org as a source for their own beliefs. (Technically, to verify the statement 'Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists'). Should this use be considered to violate WP:ARBPIA? Of course it is up to the consensus of editors whether it is important enough to remain in the article, but that's normal editorial process. The fact that Roland believed that a link to http://www.jewsnotzionists.org could be used to verify a statement in the article is not an issue to be brought to Arbitration Enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Dighapet

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

Request concerning Dighapet

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vandorenfm (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:AA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement

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

1. Massive editwar attacks that removed dozens of edits of 4 editors, which expanded and improved the article since June 2011.
2. editwar revert without any explanation made while under sanctions. Unexplained accusations of POV.
3. editwar revert without any explanation made while under sanctions. Unexplained accusations of POV.
4. major emotional attack displaying ethnonationalist battleground attitude WP:BATTLEGROUND, with exclamation marks and threats.
5. , editwar revert. Unexplained accusations of POV.
6. major emotional attack displaying ethnonationalist battleground attitude WP:BATTLEGROUND, with shouting/exclamations.
7. major emotional attack displaying ethnonationalist battleground attitude WP:BATTLEGROUND and threats to editors. Frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry, harassment per Misplaced Pages:HARASSMENT, and incivility per Misplaced Pages:CIVILITY.

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

1. Warned on 22 March, 2011 by Dr.K. (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 13 April, 2011 by 2over0 (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on 30 April, 2011 by Kuru (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Dighapet is a serial and convicted disruptive account in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 conflict area. I would dare to say he never made any useful contribution to Misplaced Pages in terms putting out text on substance, references or new topics. Most of his edits are editwar reverts, oftentimes with unsubstantiated accusations of POV, and with highly emotional battleground attitude as per WP:BATTLEGROUND, which eventually brought about a long revert ban that expired on 29 July. His last “accomplishment” was a massive act of editwar where he unmade over 100 edits by 4 editors on the Nagorno Karabakh page. Nagorno Karabakh’s page had lately been seriously enhanced with dozens of new references, images and new topics. Disagreements were thoroughly and usefully discussed in detail on talk pages . User:Dighapet ruined all that good work less than a week after being released from a three-month-long revert ban .

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Comment by Volunteer Marek

Sigh. First, the fact that the filer of this report has gratuitously sprinkled terms like "editwar attack" and "editwar revert" and "major emotional attack" throughout the report immediately suggests that this is another case of ban-shopping via use of hyperbolic language. Reminder: disagreement and criticisms are not by themselves "attacks".

As to the specific diffs

1. 1 - Yes, these are substantial changes and they should be discussed on the talk page first. If he keeps doing it without discussion then we have a problem. As is, it is not the province of AE to decide content matters. "Massive editwar attack" is itself an example of emotionally charged battleground language.
2. 2 and #3 - what are these sanctions that are being referred to? I see no edit warring by the user on the article either, so again, this is just inflated language. A charge of "Unexplained accusations of POV" is spurious. For one thing he's not accusing any one editor of having a POV (and if he did, so what? All editors have POV), just saying that the article may be POV. This might or might not be a legitimate criticism, but again, this isn't the venue to decide that kind of thing.
3. 3, #6 and #7 - what is this charge of "major emotional attack"? There's no "attack" here. And even if the commentary was "emotional" in this case (which I don't see), this isn't sanctionable per se. Nothing wrong here.
4. 6 and #7 more specifically - "displaying ethnonationalist battleground" - there's some abuse of question marks here but this isn't sanctionable (not until Mr. Question Mark brings up a report). There's a sock puppeting accusation which may or may not have merit, and/or it may or may not be an example of a battleground attitude. The first sentence of the SP accusation appears to be true. The second one, at least at this point involves speculation. Ok, this is a little strong but again, nothing horribly wrong at this point. There are no "threats to editors" here and the reporter should be sanctioned for misrepresenting diffs.
5. 5 - again, there's no edit warring here, contra the reporter's claim.

Basically this looks like frivolous block-shopping by Vandorenfm with little substance. AE is not a means to inflame or continue battleground behavior. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Institute a month long topic ban on filing AE reports or at least a warning on Vandorenfm.

Comment by Gorzaim

User:Dighapet is combative drive-by POV pusher, remorseless and tactless edit warrior who should be put back into the straightjacket of revert bans. I am tempted to qualify his latest act in the Nagorno Karabakh not as "edit war attack" per Vandorenfm but as vandalism but am not sure if this meets the technical specification of the vandalism. In essence it is. He removed all of my edits by frivolously accusing me of sockpuppeting. Gorzaim (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Dighapet

Statement by Dighapet

I don't understand emotional report by Vandorenfm but I will answer him here to his charges.

1. This revert that I reverted is from the time when Bars77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began messing the article Nagorno-Karabakh. As we found out, Bars 77 (proof of Sockpuppet Investigation is here: ) is a sockpuppet of massive sockpuppet master Xebulon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). (his sockpuppet history which was discovered is here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Xebulon/Archive. Probably he has more sockpuppet user names which need to be discovered. When a sockpuppet is revealed, all his POV edits are reverted. So, look at history of Nagorno-Karabakh page and see how much POV he was inserting every day with assistance of other user names which make almost no edits other than on Nagorno-Karabakh page. So, please understand that these 3 (Bars77, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm) accounts have one master or they coordinate very wisely off Misplaced Pages. It's enough to see their POV edits to understand why they created those user names. They don't do other edits, just go to one page all together and change information to POV. Look at version that they have added since 28 June. It is like Azerbaijan never exited and that Karabakh was always Armenian. Very much POV inserted by certain users. And please take into consideration that I explained my revert here .

2. I don't understand what he wants from me by pointing out how I restored the page with POV tag from version that User:Hasanjalal, Xebulon's (aka Bars77) sockpuppet vandalized after administrator User:Ronz was reverting it many times saying the article is POV and tagging it with POV tag . This claim in point 2 shows how the user reporting me is protecting his sockpuppet friends, if it's not himself. When he says "Unexplained accusations of POV", it's not unexplained. It was explained that User:Hasanjalal is sockpuppet of User:Xebulon.

3. Yes, my this edit is revert from POV because the source was saying that Heydar Aliyev said he made those policies after 3 Azeris were killed. If you are not sure, go read the article again. It's clear POV, when you take out that fact and just insert what your point of opinion is, not allowing reader to read the rest of context.

4. About this my comment on the talk page . So? What wrong was done here? I reverted your POV and said you were inserting POV because you re-do the text to show your point of opinion while deleting references to Nagorno-Karabakh being Azerbaijan's territory which is recognized by all world. You play with words to present different view to reader under your POV. Your accusation is meaningless.

5. I don't understand why you even include this . You should probably explain your arguments now because you throw baseless accusations in my address without any base. It was a revert of VANDALISM of IP who made this edit by section-blanking. Understand?

6. What are you talking about? It was exchange of comments on my status with administrator. Baseless and meaningless information.

7. This edit baseless? Really? Have you read this? Read one more time before you accuse and post meaningless stuff.

At the end, please again look at their contributions in whole as editors and history of Nagorno-Karabakh article. It is very clear that they coordinate everything. Nagorno Karabakh contributions history Dighapet (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Dighapet

Result concerning Dighapet

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

Jaakobou

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

Request concerning Jaakobou

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

nableezy - 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

• Interaction ban

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

1. Date See below

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

1. Notified of interaction ban by by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)
2. Asked to be more careful in minding the ban following a prior infraction by 2over0 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In the above diff, Jaakobou refers to me as either an editor (or activist) with a "similar perspective" of a "self-professed anti-Zionist". He does by providing an "example" of said self-professed anti-Zionist "adorning" me with a barnstar, linking to this diff in his statement. I dont appreciate the sly coaching in of "activist" by a user for whom I have yet to actually give a critique of their worth in any public forum. As such, I request that the interaction ban be enforced. How it is I leave up to you, though I ask that you consider, taking in to account both the long term and short term activity of this editor, whether or not there would be any tangible loss if the user were banned from the topic area. Looking at his recent contributions, I cant imagine that there would be any loss at all.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Jaakobou

Statement by Jaakobou

It wasn't clear to me how to illustrate that RolandR gives awards to editors who agree with some of his perspectives but this was needed to be clarified as reasoning for RolandR's politically motivated loss of ability to read Hebrew or distinguish that there are 3 wiki-reliable sources saying the same thing (on Ezra Nawi). I used the first two clear examples I found (awards to someone denied use of anti-Israeli content on his user page, and another to someone banned a 3rd time in 2010 for adding 'occupation' to Israeli localities), though I am sure others exist -- though, perhaps not as clear. The second link is to an award handed to an editor with whom I share an interaction ban. This ban was imposed after a lot of drama -- we both called each other 'disingenuous' and similar -- on 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC) and I have followed it for the past year with diligence (one accident, which I immediately tried to correct has occurred in a time span of 10 months). This prompted a complaint, but I believe that the link, which is intended to discuss RolandR's political motivation, should be allowed to be posted on AE. It is of a similar level of IBAN gray territory to that of allowing someone to post a complaint about a fellow IBAN editor. I am, actually, quite pleased with the no-interaction imposition since it saves me a LOT of grief and mucking about politically motivated distractions, tag-team mentality and other nothings and I prefer that I do not share the same editing space where possible. If there is a consensus among admins that the link to RolandR's activity in an AE complaint about RolandR is not in the gray/allowed area and that posting it should not be allowed at all costs, I will quickly retract, but it seems to me pertinent to illustrate RolandR's state-of-mind when he misled EdJohnson into a good faith revert (of 3 reliable sources) and page protection.
p.s. apologies to everyone involved for this drama. I have no intention of causing any and will follow by removing the link -- and avoid anything similar in the future -- if there is a consensus that it is improper -- or "sly coaching". Jaakobou 10:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As a show of good faith, while the link poses a gray area which called up this distraction and drama, I'd rather not have it up and have removed it.
I'd rather avoid any IBAN issues even if it seems like a proper link. With respect, Jaakobou 10:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou

Comment by a Biosketch

Jaakobou (talk · contribs) should strike out the words he wrote in parentheses, and this AE should thereafter be closed per moot point.—Biosketch (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek

...Annnnndddddd this is about as perfect illustration as you're gonna get of the fact that AE doesn't put out fires in troublesome areas but instead serves as the can that holds the gasoline that is poured on these fires by various involved editors. I'll be frank and here and state my personal belief that we should simply get rid of AE since it causes way much trouble than it solves...

...but since we're here. At first I thought that this was just more bullshit whining and spurious reportin' by people in this topic area. However, it does seem that Jaakobou did indeed indirectly but purposefully, refer to Nableezy in the terms stated, by including this diff in his statement above. Strictly speaking he is not calling Nableezy himself all those things, he's just saying he has a "similar perspective" (to someone who is all these *bad* things), with a link to a bunch of comments by Nableezy. That looks like a pretty intentional violation of the interaction ban, edit conflict or not.

Short block (since this is a first time interaction ban violation), 24 hrs or so (12 if yer feeling nice), as a slap upside the head, to remind the user to observe the interaction ban and don't try and get sneaky with interaction ban violations would probably be in order. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Immensely amusing to read. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• LOL Yeah, ARBPIA3. Too many requests here based on the topic area. I blame the admins as much as the editors but I did say a bit ago that this was going to happen.(edit: btw, I made this comment before seeing all of the parties involved. It as in no way a violation of the interaction ban but meant to be a comment on the multiple threads I am watching based on other editors I check in on.)Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Jaakobou

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

Smatprt

Miradre

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

Request concerning Miradre

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mathsci (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Topic ban under WP:ARBR&I.

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

• (historic record of discussion on Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology)

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

A warning was given in the discussion above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Miradre has been editing the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology for a while now. The subject is not directly related to the topic ban, but there is nevertheless some proximity with topics covered in Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy. The article currently contains a section Reification fallacy (historic link) which in its first paragraph discusses in detail the reification of intelligence, a topic introduced by Stephen Jay Gould in the precise context of the debate on R&I in the two articles above (it is discussed in those articles). I have advised Miradre that even discussing that section, or proposing that he would move it and thus edit that content, is a clear violation of the topic ban imposed by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The responses of Miradre in the section linked to above were evasive and gave no recognition that this particular topic ("the reification of intelligence") lay well within the topic ban. The discussion took place on the talk page of the article because Miradre has previously blanked messages from me on their user talk page.

Another edit of this kind occurred in the section on "criticism" in Sociobiology, a week into the topic ban. The beginning of the section makes it clear that the criticisms were related to the debate on race and intelligenc: there is a wikilink to the article race and intelligence. This material, including its relation with sociobiology, is also covered in the article on the history of the race and intelligence controversy. Miradre edited the section here, two paragraphs after the paragraph where the debate on race and intelligence is discussed. Miradre has edited other parts of this article more recently.

Miradre added the section on IQ in psychopathy 2 days before the topic ban, which is fine. But correcting somebody else's edit to it after the ban does not seem quite right. Mathsci (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC) further edits. Mathsci (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Concluding comments The extended topic bans imposed here on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin should probably be revised to exclude compulsarily participation in WP:AE requests related to WP:ARBR&I in which they are not involved. As a result of Captain Occam's intervention, others, including me, have made general comments here on Miradre's editing patterns following his topic ban.

Taking into account the views of multiple experienced editors commenting here about Miradre's edits (presented as a consequence of Captain Occam's comments), it would appear that Miradre might be heading for a, regrettably unavoidable, indefinite community ban. That of course is not a concern of this noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Miradre

Statement by Miradre

• The topic ban is regarding the intersection of race and intelligence. There was no discussion regarding race. Neither was there a discussion regarding intelligence. I was simply pointing out that the given source does not mention evolutionary psychology at all. I was making no claim regarding and did not discus either race or intelligence and thus not their intersection. The Reification (fallacy) is of course not something limited to race and intelligence or for that matter invented by Gould but a general logical fallacy discussed in numerous other areas. Miradre (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Futhermore, the claim by Matschi that the terms intelligence and reification are somehow inseparable from the race and intelligence discussion and "has never been used in another context to my knowledge" is very strange considering that there is no mention of race in the "Reification fallacy" section. Furthermore, there are 18,600 Google Scholar hits for the terms "intelligence" and "reification". Most do not seem to mention race.
• Not sure why Mathsci brings up that quote from Gould's book. As noted above, I made no claims regarding and did not discuss either race or intelligence. Obviously therefore not their intersection. I stated that there is no mention of evolutionary psychology in the claimed sources. Neither does the "Reification fallacy" section discuss the race and intelligence controversy or mention race at all. The Reification (fallacy) is a common logical fallacy in numerous different fields. Miradre (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Mathsci has more recently also added a diff from the sociobiology article which he claims is related to an hidden, unsourced link several paragraphs away. The link is hidden under the name "controversies in the history of intelligence testing" and the article text itself does not mention race. Anyway, the is–ought problem is about statements of the type "if there is rape/infanticide/incest among some animal species, then humans ought to practice rape/infanticide/incest also". It is not about the race and intelligence controversy. None of the race and intelligence articles mention that problem.Miradre (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Note also this seems be part of a general harassment of me. Wherever I go Mathsci and sometimes Aprock appears to oppose me, even if they never had made any edits to the articles before. In particular Mathsci's almost only recent activity in Misplaced Pages is following me around as can be seen from his edit history. Often to articles he has never edited before I started editing them. As well as making numerous different complaints to various noticeboards or persons regarding me or the articles I edit. Something should be done about what seems to have become an almost scary obsession with me. Miradre (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Also, the earlier topic banned Mathsci has clearly broken his promise to the ArbCom to stay away from this area. See for example his edits here in a discussion regarding Lynn's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations: . Miradre (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Mathsci has now added a strange, misleading, and inaccurate misrepresentation of a dispute at the Democracy Now article. I did not mention that quote in the talk page in response to removing the information from the tax statement as Mathsci claims. I mentioned that biased quote as an ironic counter against the equally biased self-congratulatory, self-published quotes that are prominent in the article. As anyone can see on Talk:Democracy_Now!#NPOV_Dispute:_Quotes. As well as Mathsci's refusal to include anything negative. Also, this is unrelated to this AE case.Miradre (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Mathsci continues with his misrepresentations. First he implies that I had made a COI complaint while I only asked him to consider this on the talk page of the article. It was Mathsci who made a complaint regarding this on COI board which lead to no action since I had made no COI complaint. Regarding the copyright complaint Mathsci had uploaded a copyrighted paper to his webpage and gave a public link to this. This link was of course removed by the reviewing administrator. Also, again, this is completely unrelated to this AE case so I do not understand why he takes it up. Seems to be further harassment.Miradre (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Mathsci continues with completely unrelated issues. Yes, I accept the result of the discussion at the BLP board which I initiated but it has nothing to do with the topic ban. Miradre (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Continuing with yet more unrelated issues, Mathsci now starts talking of an "unavoidable, indefinite" community ban. Every one of the critical editors who have expressed opinions here are editors who have been involved in extensive content disputes with me. They are not uninvolved or representative of the community. I note that I edit constructively and add substantial new material to Misplaced Pages from academic sources while Mathsci's only activity these days seems to be to participate in disputes and WP:WIKIHOUND and revert those editors he dislikes. See also Captain Occam's comments regarding this below.Miradre (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Mathsci is now accusing an evolutionary psychologist objecting to his view of having a COI. This is just as incorrect as it would be to accuse the anthropologists supporting him of having a COI. Also, it likely violates the prohibition against using COI accusations in order to gain the upper hand in disputes.Miradre (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to Aprock: Aprock has already tried to get the ArbCom to ban me for editing such articles in the Request for Clarification but he was ignored. Again taking up exactly the same accusations (including the book Human Accomplishment and its rankings of the fame of individuals) that was ignored by the ArbCom is harassment. None of the articles are about either intelligence or race. Obviously therefore not about their intersection. See also my earlier reply to his identical, ignored accusations earlier before the ArbCom: Miradre (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Also, he includes an edit that I had self-reverted:

• Reply to ResidentAnthropologist (As well as Maunus, AndyTheGrump, and Itsmejudith who consistently turn up and argue with the same strong personal POV on these topics): This comment is somewhat weird. He seems to be arguing that all pages with a discussion of liberal and conservative views are related to race and intelligence. I can assure him that they are not. Also his claim that my view is that "the mainstream consensus is wrong on R&I" certainly does not describe my POV on that issue. My POV is that the majority view among academic IQ researchers as has been determined in surveys is correct. Currently one focus for me is improving Misplaced Pages's articles on evolutionary psychology subjects which also include the application in anthropology. That is a sensitive subject for some anthropologists who reject evolutionary psychology. Which may be behind ResidentAnthropologist's (as well as Maunus's) objections. However, there are many things in politics and psychology that are not about the race and intelligence controversy. I have avoided any edits concerning either race and intelligence and thus also their intersection. Some seem to be using the topic ban as an excuse to stop me from editing any topic they personally disagree on.Miradre (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Additional comment to AndyTheGrump: He claims without any evidence that "almost all anthropologists 'reject evolutionary psychology". Of course, I have already cited evidence to the contrary such as introductory anthropology textbooks on the Cultural Anthropology talk page. But I think his complaint illustrates quite nicely the attempt to use AE enforcement to win content disputes on issues unrelated to the topic ban.Miradre (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Additional comment to Itsmejudith: She argues that my "English is poor too so when s/he adds large amounts of content, other people have to clean up afterwards." I am not a native speaker. But I have almost all of what I add on my watchlist and "cleaning up" does not seem to occur to any significant degree. Also, this does not seem to be an AE issue.Miradre (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Reply to Slrubenstein: Since Slrubenstein is another anthropologist ideologically opposed to evolutionary psychology also look above. First, the representation of the debate at the cultural anthropology has numerous factual errors and misrepresentations but since Slrubenstein admits it did not concern R&I arbitration there is no reason to go into details. Second, evolutionary arguments are not an important or even at all part of the debate and evidence regarding whether racial differences in intelligence are genetic or not. That evidence concerns statistical analyzes of IQ tests, brain scanning, reactions time, genetic testing, and on. Now, there may be evolutionary explanations if it is proven that the differences are genetic but that is another issue. The race and IQ debate is not dependent on evolutionary psychology but it may be that certain views and ideologies in anthropology that some anthropologists here endorse do are dependent on evolutionary psychology views not being true. Again I have avoided any edits concerning either race and intelligence and thus also their intersection. Some seem to be using the topic ban as an excuse to stop me from editing any topic they personally disagree on for other reasons. Miradre (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Miradre

Comments by aprock

I'll start by noting that Miradre has been testing the boundaries of his topic ban from day one. His request for clarification for precise delineation of "broadly construed" was submitted within 24 hours of his topic ban. Since then he has gone on to make edits in a large number of articles testing the boundary. The topic area is "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed" as described in the case amendments. Miradre has pursued two topic areas related to the topic ban. Miradre's edits in these topic areas have generated significant dispute and disruption. Extensive walls of text have been produced on talk pages and notice boards involving a diverse group of editors. Links to such discussions are included.

The first topic area is that of evolutionary explanations for behavior and ability. This is a generalization of the point of view that Miradre was pushing in the topic area when he was banned. Specifically, Miradre was promoting content which supported the position that intelligence is genetically linked to race.

Editing of artilces to promote the views of evolutionary psychology and genetic determinism.

• A Darwinian Left: genetically determined behavior
• A Natural History of Rape: genetic evolution of rape
• Aggression: evolutionary explanations of aggression
• Antisocial personality disorder: 9 edits. genetic vs. social explanations
• Beard: evolutionary psychology explanations for beards
• Causes of sexual violence: evolutionary explanation of rape
• Cognitive bias: promotion of evolutionary psychology
• Criticism of evolutionary psychology: 106 edits. (see discussion above)

Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology: majority of talk page

• Criticisms of socialism: evolutionary criticism of socialism from A Darwinian Left
• Cultural anthropology: 5 edits. evolutionary/genetic explanations

Talk:Cultural_anthropology#NPOV_dispute: talk page discussion (quite the worthwhile read)

• Evolutionary ethics: 7 edits. removing eugenics information
• Evolutionary psychology: 10 edits. criticisms of environmental explanations

Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#Controversies_section_violates_NPOV: talk page discussion

Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard: notice board discussion

• Gender and crime: genetic explanations for gender differences in crime
• modularity of the mind: 9 edits. added evolutionary psychology content
• Nature vs nurture: 5 edits. moved evolutionary psychology material to the article
• Physical attractiveness: promotion of evolutionary psychology
• Psychopathy: 96 edits. evolutionary explanations

Talk:Psychopathy#Prenatal_precursor_section: talk page discussion

• Social anthropology: 6 edits. social vs. evolutionary explanations
• Sociobiological theories of rape: evolutionary explanations of rape
• Sperm competition: link article to Sociobiological theories of rape
• The Blank Slate: 35 edits. The article is about a popular book that argues for more consideration of genetic explanation of human behavior

Talk:The Blank Slate#Book reviews: talk page discussion

• Violence: evolutionary/genetic explanations of violence
• War: 10 edits. Inserting evolutionary psychology views from The Blank Slate

The second topic area is in the promotion of Charles Murray's book Human Accomplishment. As author of The Bell Curve Charles Murray is a key figure in the race and intelligence debate.

Editing of articles to promote Charles Murray's book:

• Discussion at NPOV/N: (archived version: )
• Aristotle
• Einstein's awards and honors
• Genius
• Historiometry
• Isaac Newton
• Leonhard Euler

Talk:Leonhard_Euler#Removing_Charles_Murray.27s_Human_Accomplishment: talk page discussion

• Shakespeare's reputation

Note that the diffs provided above are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all topical edits.

Comments by ResidentAnthropologist

I too like Captian Occam have been observing the MathSci/Miradre. MathSci is quite open about tracking Mirandre's edits to the encyclopedia. Miradre seems to spew their POV in any article they can think of. Examine the Scenarios Occam Pointed out, where Mirandre attempts this to continue their own POV pushing here:

• Academia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Implicitly by suggesting that "Liberals" are in control of Academia and that they all in a massive "group think." (Thus the mainstream consensus is wrong on R&I) and does the same thing to Academia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
• NPR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Template:Public broadcasting are other great examples of continuing "Liberal Vs Conservative" war consistent with far right thinking by attempting to suggest their harmful.
• Social anthropology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Cultural Anthropology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) pages are extension of promoting the heredterian POV. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Captain Occam

I should start off by mentioning that although I’m topic banned from R&I, my topic ban makes an exception for AE, based on this request for clarification in which ArbCom determined that topic bans are not intended to prevent editors from opening or posting in AE threads. In the AE thread where my topic ban was expanded, the suggestion that I not participate in AE threads related to the R&I topic area is listed as "not compulsory". This exception is based on the linked request for clarification: "The latest clarification request may have carved out AE requests as a special case, but I see no justification to expand that exception further."

I’ve been paying attention to this issue involving Mathsci and Miradre because of an e-mail Mathsci sent me on June 30th, threatening me with some of the behavior that he’s directing at Miradre if I attempt to appeal my topic ban. (On June 30th I’d had no contact with Mathsci in the past several months—the only context of him e-mailing me was that I was discussing the possibility of appealing my topic ban with Newyorkbrad.) The last time I had to endure the full extent of this from Mathsci was sometime in February, so I’ve been watching his interaction with Miradre to get an idea of how he currently acts towards people whom he regards as his adversaries. What I’ve seen isn’t encouraging.

I am aware of five examples of Mathsci following to Miradre to articles he had never edited before in order to revert Miradre’s edits. In all five examples, literally the first involvement Mathsci ever had in these articles was reverting edits by Miradre.

1. Academia
2. Groupthink
3. NPR
4. Public Broadcasting
5. Cultural Anthropology

That’s only the articles in which Mathsci’s absolute first edit to both the article and its talk page was reverting Miradre. If one also includes articles where his first involvement was opposing changes from Miradre without reverting him outright, there are three additional examples: The Blank Slate, in which the first edit Mathsci ever made was tagging content that Miradre added as being non-neutral, as well as Leonhard Euler and Democracy Now!, in which Mathsci’s first-ever participation was to oppose Miradre’s edits on the talk page. The edits that Mathsci opposes from Miradre are on topics as diverse as the possible over-representation of liberals in academia, a book by the psychologist Steven Pinker, and public radio broadcasting. The only common theme to these edits is that regardless of where Miradre goes on Misplaced Pages, or what sorts of articles he edits, he can always count on Mathsci following him there and opposing him.

There are a few other ways that I think Mathsci’s behavior towards Miradre could be considered harassment:

• Mathsci’s habit of restoring his posts in Miradre’s user talk when Miradre attempts to remove them. For example , , or . (Note the threatening edit summary in the last diff.)
• In addition to that edit summary, there have been a few other examples of Mathsci trying to intimidate Miradre by threatening him with a community ban, such as and .
• This isn't the only example of Mathsci being uncivil towards Miradre, but it might be the best one:
• As I understand it, this last exchange (“Please respect my privacy”, and Mathsci’s reaction) is referring to another type of harassment that Mathsci has directed at Miradre, which is publicly posting what he thinks is Miradre’s off-wiki identity and where he thinks Miradre lives. The DeviantArt account that Mathsci claims belongs to Miradre lists its owner’s real name on its main page, so this is an indirect way that Mathsci has revealed what he thinks is Miradre’s real name.
• Mathsci has also continued to bring up Miradre’s alleged location in subsequent content disputes, even though Miradre has never voluntarily disclosed this information.

Does it require any explanation what’s wrong with this? Anybody who’s been a Wikipedian for as long as Mathsci must be aware that it isn’t acceptable to try and intimidate another editor by posting private information about them, and that the request “please respect my privacy” from that editor should be responded to with something other than “Ha, ha, ha, ha.” More importantly, Mathsci has already been sanctioned for behavior that’s similar to this. I think in the past year I’ve improved on the behavior for which I was sanctioned in the R&I case (edit warring, etc.) but when I compare Mathsci’s behavior over the past month to the behavior described in his finding of fact, I don’t see any improvement.

---

I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about the quality of Miradre’s editing, so the purpose of this post isn’t to defend him. However, I think that Mathsci’s recent behavior is problematic enough that admins should consider the application of WP:BOOMERANG here. Perhaps the most appropriate response to this thread would be for Miradre and Mathsci to both be sanctioned.

I’m aware that in the past Mathsci has been a valuable editor because of his useful contributions to articles about math and classical music. However, according to his comment here, as of the beginning of this year Mathsci has lost interest in making contributions to articles. Looking at all of his recent contributions, his exclusive focus now is on pursuing the editors that he regards as his adversaries. This is after several arbitrators already told him here that he should cease his involvement in the R&I topic area. Quoting what Roger Davies said to Mathsci there: “I expressed the hope in the motion lifting the topic restriction that you'd walk away entirely from R&I-related issues. This is because I do not believe that participants in cases are the best people to push for enforcement as it only opens old wounds (as has happened here). If another editor's conduct is egregious enough, it will be noted by other - less involved - editors, who can initiate appropriate action. That advice still stands and I urge you to follow it.”

I should reiterate what my reason is for caring about this: even though Mathsci has mostly left me alone since his attempt to get me site-banned in February, his e-mail to me on June 30th makes it as clear as possible that this is only a temporary respite from him until I attempt to appeal my topic ban. Therefore, it is almost certain that in the future I’ll once again have to put up with the behavior he’s currently directing at Miradre, unless something is done to stop it. It would be beneficial to the community if Mathsci could somehow be encouraged to stop defying the instructions he was given by Roger Davies, and go back to making useful edits on math and music articles. I don’t have a strong opinion about how that should be accomplished, but I think admins should consider the suggestion that Ludwigs2 made in the amendment thread linked above: that Mathsci be placed under a restriction that disallows him from commenting on the behavior of other editors.

Response to EdJohnston

It was a request for clarification, not a formal motion, and it's here. In other words, an actual modification wasn’t necessary, because ArbCom decided that my topic ban hadn’t been intended to extend to AE in the first place. When Ferahgo’s and my topic bans were extended by you and Timothy Canens in this thread, the extension made a specific exception for AE because of this request for clarification. The instruction to not post about others’ behavior at AE was listed under the heading “The following is advice, and it is not compulsory”. The diff of where you included this exception is here. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

As I said above, I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about the quality of Miradre’s content editing, and it may be that there are some legitimate POV problems with it. However, it’s important to understand that this isn’t just an issue of Mathsci following Miradre from one article to another. What makes this a problem is that it’s being combined with other types of behavior that can also be considered harassment, such as restoring his deleted comments in Miradre’s user talk, trying to intimidate Miradre by posting as personal information about him, and responding with incivility when Miradre asks Mathsci to respect his privacy. These are the specific things that cause Mathsci’s behavior to rise to the level of what I consider harassment, although it certainly makes it worse that there doesn’t appear to be anywhere on Wikipeda that Miradre can go to escape from this.

I'm kind of amazed by how often I see the attitude that some other editors are displaying here, which I think is best summarized as “Incivility and attempted outing are okay when the editor doing them is right about content.” Is there a policy that says this that I don’t know about? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Slrubenstein

I won't comments specifically on the R&I arbitration. However, I have yet to see Mirardre make a well-researched NPOV contribution to an article. I do not think Mirardre fits the bill of "single-purpose editor" but she is one step away. At the Race and Intelligence article, it turned out that the most persistent arguments that blacks are inherently inferior to whites in intelligence came from people promoting evolutionary psychology, which took Mirardre to EP articles. Then it emerged that one of the established academic disciplines most critical of EP is anthropology, which took Mirardre to Anthropology articles. I just spent the past few days undoing Mirardre's tendentious edits to various anthropology articles (in short: Mirardre found one journal article that had a comment to it that encouraged dialogue between anthropology between EP and anthropology. On the basis of this comment alone, EP added a whole new section to each article on the importance of EP within anthropology. Do I have to tell you how many peer-review articles are published on anthropology each year? Imagine if, for each article, we created a new section in the encyclopedia article! And Mirardre was not even drawing on the article, but on a comment to an article. Note: academics do not list such comments on their CVs because they are not peer-reviewed (whether Mirardre doesn't know this fact or knows it but disregards it, either way it suggests she is not qualified to edit on academic topics. I deleted the addition because it gave undue weight to a fringe view, and from an inappropriate source.

The really troubling thing is this: the article itself was an interesting article on the nature-culture divide, and was accompanied by several comments. I pointed out to Miradre that there are a number of other articles on this theme, and that she could draw on these different articles and write a very informative and appropriate section on emerging new approaches to nature-culture in anthropology. I was trying to take Mirardre's edit, and make a good-faith effort to consider what kind of work would lead to a genuinely positive edit, and give Mirardre constructive feedback. Mirardre just changed topics.

Mirardre then went on to argu that a whole chapter of a current textbook on cultural anthropology is about EP. Again, my concern was, how to turn a source into an imporovement to our article, and I asked Mirardre to summarize the chapter. Mirardre became evasive, and refused to discuss the contents of the chapter, insisting that the important point is that there is a whole chapter.Well, it turns out that is just a lie. MathSci took the time to verify Mirardre's claim and discovered that there is no such chapter. Then Maunus found the textbook, read it, and discovered that the textbook "describes EP as a discipline that 'impinges on cultural anthropology.'"

From this, we can see the following:

• Mirardre does not have the reading comprehension level of a college student (the audeicne for the textbook)
• Mirardre misrepresents sources in order to promote Mirardre's views
• Mirardre gets upset when other editors actually know more than her

I admit that this discussion on the surface is not about race and intelligence, but if you go back to the attempted mediation at R&I by Ludwigs, and subsequent arguments there, anthropology was consistently deprecated by advocates of EP in scholarly debates over race and intelligence.

A final comment on MathSci, whose editing has been impugned. It is true that MathScie has written a great many articles for WP, all impeccably sourced and well-written. It is true that he does not write as many new articles any more. I do not either. That is because my job requires m to write articles for which I will get credit, and WP does not count. I cannot speak for MathSci but I think a minimum requirement for an editor of an encyclopedia is the ability to comprehend that volunteer editors have more pressing and time-consuming obligations that mean they contribute erratically. We must judge MathSci not by the frequency of his edits by by their quality. I just went into some detail about an exchange on a talk page because this is the kind of contribution Captain Occam deprecates. Yet here we see that MathSci's contribution was exemplary and in fact just the kind of talk page contribution WP depends if it is to exist: Matchsci provided the evidence that Mirardre lied about there being a whole chapter on EP; MathSci provided the evidence that Mirardre was violating WEIGHT; along with Maunus MathSci demonstrated that Mirardre misrepresented the source. Were Mirardre left to her own devices we would have articles with lots of sources - but the articles would be poorly written, misrepresent the sources, even lie about them, and misrepresent scholarly debates. I have tried to work collaboratively with Mirardre and Mirardre has shown no interest in real research. Until Mirardre is banned, someone will have to check every source she cites, and correct her mistakes. This is a takes MathSci has assumed. He (and Maunus) deserves our praise and thanks for this Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Itsmejudith

I don't have much time to edit right now, but would just like to say in reference to comments above that Maunus and SlRubenstein are real experts in social science topics, while Miradre, as far as I can see actually is working like an SPA. His/her level of English is poor too, so when s/he adds large amounts of content, other people have to clean up afterwards. There seems to be a lack of understanding of how to summarise from academic texts, as opposed to direct quoting. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Maunus

I would like to say that given Miradre's past and current behavior it is fully justified, indeed necessarry that editors who are aware of his history review his edits to almost any page that he might edit. He is clearly agenda driven in the large majority of his edits - wikipedia cannot afford to let that go unsupervised. There is a difference between hounding and actually watching out for potential content problems based on documented experience with certain editors editing patterns. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by AndyTheGrump

I'd like to second Maunus's comments. I'm not going to suggest that any of us can ever approach Misplaced Pages with a truly neutral POV (I don't believe that such a thing exists), but I think that Miradre not only edits in such a way at to push a particular POV beyond any acceptable limits, but that also, from the evidence offered, actually goes out of his/her way to find ways to do so, knowing that this will provoke a response. Frankly, I see no way that this attitude can be seen as compatible with Misplaced Pages's objectives. If Miradre wishes to change public opinion, and/or the opinions of academia regarding issues of race, heredity, and related issues, fine - that is his/her right - just not here, and not in the belligerent manner exhibited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that Miradre writes above: "Currently one focus for me is improving Misplaced Pages's articles on evolutionary psychology subjects which also include the application in anthropology. That is a sensitive subject for some anthropologists who reject evolutionary psychology". Given that almost all anthropologists 'reject evolutionary psychology' (or does Miradre have evidence to the contrary?), such 'improvements' are nothing of the kind - they are instead attempts to apply undue weight to theories of little relevance to the topic in question. This is further evidence of Miradre's endless POV pushing and general combative attitude. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And now Miradre responds by claiming to have 'cited evidence' in Talk:Cultural anthropology regarding the significance of evolutionary psychology to the subject. Fine. Except that the 'evidence' turned out to be almost entirely based on misrepresentation of the sources - again proving precisely the point I made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Slrubenstein is another anthropologist ideologically opposed to evolutionary psychology". And yet again, Miradre insinuates that any attempt to point out that the overwhelming consensus within cultural/social anthropology is that evolutionary psychology is of limited significance to the subject is based on 'ideology' - a highly dubious proposition, entirely lacking evidence. Anyone remotely familiar with the often-heated discourse within social/cultural anthropology will find the proposition that there is a common ideology laughable. Still, insinuations of bias are easy to make, and have the advantage that you don't have to offer evidence. Not directly related to this AR/E discussion, of course, except in that it may indicate why any topic ban is going to fail as long as Miradre persists with this battleground mentality and endless search for new articles to promote an ideologically motivated (yeah, I can do it too...) biological determinist perspective in subjects where such perspectives are fringe, if not entirely irrelevant.AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And a response to Memills (below): are you going to offer any evidence to back up your suggestions that those commenting here have 'another agenda', or are you just going to leave it hanging, like the vacuous insinuation it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Memills

The concept of a "construct" has a long history in science, long before Gould. Nor is it limited to studies of intelligence; the term "construct" is used in many, if not most, areas of science. See the relevant WP article: constructs. That several editors above think that it only applies to intelligence is rather shocking. Rather, given the very strong anti-biological POVs of these editors, I suspect another agenda.

The editors criticizing Miradre fail to note that there was previous discussion on the Talk page about moving this section, as well as other sections, which was initiated and discussed by several other editors (not Miradre), (see here and here). The rationale for the move was that many of the criticisms of evolutionary psychology are actually more germane to the nature vs. nurture page than to evolutionary psychology in particular. The editors above who label evolutionary psychology as "genetic determinism," and/or who suggest that editors who are trying to accurately describe evolutionary psychology are "promoting" it, betray a strong anti-biological POV.

The attempt to associate the suggested move with intelligence (to snag Miradre) is a red herring. It seems to me to be a POV-motivated attempt to harass an editor with whom they philosophically disagree. Memills (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Miradre

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

• I hope that User:Captain Occam can supply a diff to the place where Arbcom modified his ban to allow him to comment at Arbitration Enforcement in R&I requests where his own edits have not been mentioned. This Arbcom action would, I assume, have been a formal motion. Lacking such evidence, I urge him to cease commenting here. The only edits being reviewed in this AE are those of Miradre and possibly Mathsci. (Mathsci's own edits are subject to review since he is the submitter). EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, per the Captain's response, I agree that his previous topic ban allows him to comment at AE. Should the admins here decide that his posts are not helpful, they might comment on that or take action on that when this report closes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Jonchapple

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

Request concerning Jonchapple

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Domer48_'fenian' 12:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

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

1. 22:12, 9 August 2011 First revert not a violation.
2. 06:26, 10 August 2011 Second first revert. No violation.
3. 10:28, 10 August 2011 Second revert. This violates the above enforcement.

1. 21:58, 9 August 2011 First Revert.
2. 22:10, 9 August 2011 Second Revert. This violates the above enforcement.
3. 06:27, 10 August 2011 Third Revert. This violates the above enforcement.

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

1. Warned on 18:01, 1 June 2011
2. Warned on 12:28, 8 July 2011
3. Warned on 17:48, 2 August 2011

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor is well aware of the enforcement and sanctions, and has made it a habbit of arguing the point regardless. As the notices placed on their talk page illustrate, this disruption is spreed over a number of articles. As this edit summary and edit show, the editor is just not intrested. The editor is knowingly violating this enforcement. Should addition diff be required I'm more than happy to provid them.

• Having explained the nature of the sanctions as best I could the editors responce here supports my post above. My post here considered a "tantrum."
• Having explained the articles covered by the sanctions already, there responce to their next violation was they diden't know much like they are suggestion now.
• The editor suggests that they "forgot" that an article on a former Provisional IRA prisoner would be Troubles related?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Jonchapple

Statement by Jonchapple

Bugger. All I can say in my defence is that I honestly forgot that this article would be subject to 1RR in my eagerness to try and enforce WP:MOSBIO—i.e. that nationality, not ethnicity, should be referenced in the lead. This was unhelpfully reverted by Domer48 with no edit summary or explanation at all, so he's not entirely innocent in all this either.

I object to being told that I'm "just not interested" for removing Domer48's notice from my page—I'm entitled to keep my talk page at whichever revision I see fit; a right he exercised not two hours ago when I civilly tried to give an explanation backed up the MOS for my edit. However, it's true that I've been warned before and should have remembered 1RR, especially considering the subject of my edit was directly involved in The Troubles, so I'm at fault there. Go easy on me; I've kept my nose clean up until now. JonChapple 13:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The "I didn't know Eamon was directly involved in The Troubles" quip was clearly meant as a joke (he was 87 when it all started), much like my remark about the UDA underneath. Additionally, your removal of a discussion about the County Londonderry page from your talk page in which I was nothing by civil was removed with a summary stating "nonsense", so you're again also guilty of what could be considered inappropriate edit summaries. JonChapple 15:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It has now been 10 hours since Domer48 added the latest three edits that he says are proof of my violating the Troubles sanction, but he has yet to leave even a warning on the talk page of Nogger; the editor with which I had this editing disagreement. This, I believe, is poor form and clear evidence of an ulterior motive for this request for enforcement – namely that I feel often disagree with him with my edits and he clearly dislikes me. Nogger should have at least been warned, especially as Domer48 clearly feels very strongly about this particular sanction. JonChapple 06:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple

Jonchapple is new into the whole sphere of Northern Ireland related articles, so a sense of naivity and initial forgetfulness can be very plausible. Note that Jonchapple did notify another editor that they had violated the 1RR and should revert it - after being reported here so the message has got through i believe, especially after this.

In fact if you look at Jonchapple's first comment in that section of Ruairí Óg's talk page i've linked you too you can clearly see that he has now got it into his head to remember about the 1RR as he clear states that he can't revert the editor because of it.

Also it is very plausible that Jonchapple forgot as i've been involved in Northern Ireland articles for years and i regulary forget about the 1RR (even though i've yet to breach it as far as i'm aware as i usually stay out of Troubles articles). Thus a topic-ban for this i think would be an extreme punishment, and a probation does make the most sense as it allows for admins to see whether they are a trouble-maker as Domer48 is trying to make out or just actually a naive editor. Mabuska 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Jonchapple

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

• I find it somewhat implausible that one can forget such a restriction, having been warned no less than three times. I find it concerning that if we accept Jonchapple's word at face value, he allows his "eagerness" to lead him to forget restrictions, not indicative of a measured and calm approach to editing. I am even more concerned that he is using the "other people did it too" defense by bringing up Nogger, an approach which never helps, and often leads merely to increased sanctions for the one trying that as a "defense" and sometimes to sanctions for the other party - but mind you, "he did it too!" is not a plausible defense for one's own actions. I'm thinking a full topic ban probation period, given Jonchapple's "eagerness" and inability to remember the editing restrictions, for a period of 3 months; any violations to be dealt with by a series of increasing blocks. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC) - Note, I would also support a 1 week block, given that a topic ban is not listed among the choices for enforcement. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think we can do that. If I'm reading the case correctly, the only sanctions available under TROUBLES is either a block for the 1RR violation, or Troubles probation, which is basically a 1RR/week restriction plus civility parole. T. Canens (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Dang,you're right. For some bizarre reason, ArbCom limited the enforcement to probation (1RR/wk) or blocks. Ok, amending my preferred response to 3 months probation. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Tim and KC that three months Troubles Probation is appropriate. Jonchapple would be limited to one revert per article per week on all Troubles articles. All parties are advised that archiving of sanction warnings is preferable to deleting them from your talk page. If you want your good faith to be easy to observe. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Russavia

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

Request concerning Russavia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Martin Tammsalu (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Russavia_restricted

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

1. 22:05, 12 August 2011 Russavia's reverts my earlier edit.

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

Sanctioned previously twice before for violating interaction ban: blocked for 2 days and blocked for 4 days

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Reverting edits is a violation of an interaction ban per WP:IBAN, note the same policy allows asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party, see WP:IBAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans and as affirmed by a subsequent clarification request to Arbcom. I don't know why Russavia feels he has to inject himself into this particular article Karen Drambjan, but his arrival is disruptive to my further involvement in this article as we are under a mutual interaction ban. In this case I am requesting that an admin undo the violating edit so that my further involvement in this article is not compromised.

• Reply to Petri Krohn. Whether or not the article belongs in Category:Far-left politics is a content issue. You had ample opportunity to revert this edit yourself if you disagree and we could have discussed this on the article talk page. However with Russavia's revert I can not be involved in the subsequent discussion on talk due to the mutual interaction ban, and thus this disruptive. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Russavia

Statement by Russavia

It is plain to see that Tammsalu is attempting to use an interaction ban in such a way that he is able to assume ownership of articles. It has already been made clear to this particular EEMLer that merely editing the same article is not an interaction. Refer to Tammsalu's own request for clarification from the committee at this link.

Moreso, Tammsalu's attempt to fling enough shit in the hope that some of it will stick is disruptive and furtherment of the battleground for which he was banned from EE topics, and also furtherment of harrassment of myself by him. Refer to Misplaced Pages:EEML#Improper_coordination, in which the committee found that certain editors engage in vexatious reporting (of which this is), and have also engaged in harrassment of particular editors (of which this is), and also found that particular editors have displayed battleground mentality (which this very request is). One can also review Misplaced Pages:EEML#Martintg where the committee found that Martintg (now known as Tammsalu) has abused the dispute resolution process (which this report is) and also found that he harbours a battleground mentality (again, which this very report is).

Why have I edited on the article? Because it is clearly within my scope of interest, plus it has been in the news (albeit very briefly). I don't have to explain why I edit any article I may edit, but that is the reason. But have I interacted with Tammsalu? NO, I have not.

I am making it very clear here, that if WP:BOOMERANG does not come back to Tammsalu in this case, I will be taking this to Arbcom directly for their intervention, because it is clear that Tammsalu is being disruptive and engaging in battleground behaviour. I am asking that Tammsalu be sanctioned for his artificial battleground creation, with the warning that if there is another such case that I will ask for him to be topic banned for battleground behaviour.

This is also not the first violation of the mutual interaction ban by Tammsalu, so any block should take this into account. One would also have to ask Tammsalu why if they have grown tired of the battleground bullshit (as per their talk page), they have clearly created one here knowing his own history and history of clarification from Arbcom?

I will offer to Tammsalu the same offer that I have in past, drop this frivolous complaint with an apology for even bringing it here, otherwise I will ask that sanctions be placed on Tammsalu for both breaching his mutual interaction ban and for creating yet another EE battleground. --Russavia 08:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia

Comment by Petri Krohn

Tammsalu/Martin did not create this article, I did. As far as I am concerned, Russavia is welcome to contribute. However I am not at all happy to see Tammsalu editing the article. I try to keep a distance from him and avoid editing or even reading anything he is involved with. I only hope he would extend the same courtesy to me. This time I thought we would see the exception – agree on the content of an article and cooperate, albeit with minimal interaction. This enforcement request once again proves me wrong.

I see absolutely no way the article on Karen Drambjan should be included in the category Category:Far-left politics. I thank Russavia for removing the misplaced category. I cannot see anything in the article history or article talk pages that I would describe as interaction. If Tammsalu cannot agree, I ask him to first explain why he believes the article should be in this category. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Karen Drambjan is an article on a current event--an gunman attack with international media coverage. It seems a little weird to allow only your friends to edit "your" article. Drambjan is described by Sky News as "a member of the marginal left-wing United Left Party. The party is not in parliament and until recently claimed legal succession to Estonia's Soviet-era Communist Party." Misplaced Pages's article on Far-left politics says in the lead: "This generally includes anarchists, communists and revolutionary socialists."FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not about whether Karen Drambjan is in the general topic of left-wing politics, that we all agree on. The edit in question was about inclusion of the article in the category. If you bother to have a look you will well see that the category is a top level category, not a place to dump individual politicians. I have no objection to the article being in some subcategory.

As the the question of WP:OWN, I am not stating ownership. I am saying that to my understanding I and Tammsalu have been following a voluntary mutual interaction ban. When entering into my editing domain he should follow the utmost courtesy. If he cannot accept this arrangement, then an administrator or ArbCom enforced interaction ban becomes the only option. As for this WP:AE request: it is clear indication of a WP:BATTLEground mentality. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"I and Tammsalu have been following a voluntary mutual interaction ban" Ok, I didn't know that. The interpersonal politics in Misplaced Pages still largely elude me. Tammsalu seems to have a long term interest in (and knowledge of) Estonian topics, as do you. It's not very hard to discern you two don't agree on political issues though. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Collect

This shows a fundamental problem with interaction bans - I see no problem with Martin bringing this action here, moreover. WRT the claim that a person is not "far left" I consider the statement in the article that a person is "left-wing" and quotes him as saying : He calls Estonia a morally bankrupt neo-Fascist county is quite likely sufficient for the characterisation, and should be discussed with all interested parties. I suggest therefore that the 'interaction ban" has been shown to have an unintended consequence which should be examined carefully, with the possible resolution that Martin be allowed to engage in careful and civil discourse on the article talk page, and Russavia also be allowed the same careful and civil discourse on the article talk page, with any admin noting any lack of carefulness and civility and who has no prior involvement in the case be allowed to block either party as he or she sees fit. It is clear, however, that the revert is a technical violation of the interaction ban as written, and Russavia should be given a yellow card. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Russavia

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