Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:08, 18 July 2012

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

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.

TrevelyanL85A2

Nableezy

Varlaam

talknic

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

Request concerning talknic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning talknic

Statement by talknic

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

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

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

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

Early Period:

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

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

Recent:

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

No More Mr Nice Guy's On Going Belligerence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at No More Mr Nice Guy's complaints:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addressing the Complainant

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

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

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

Addressing Administrators:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are these not attempts to coerce editors into breaching policy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning talknic

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

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

Result concerning talknic

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

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

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

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

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

Zachariel

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

Request concerning Zachariel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Zachariel

Statement by Zachariel

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

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

My response to the accusations that are specified are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by IRWolfie-

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

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

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

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

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

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

Comment by Robert Currey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Other Choices

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

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

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

Statement by Saedon

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

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

Point number two is that Zach contends that a source published in SciEx should be used to contrast the Nature study (or that neither should be used). Zach brought this up on Jimbo's talk page (I highly recommend reading this conversation as it's telling) in Septermber 2011 where after a long conversation Jimbo said

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

— Jimbo Wales

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

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

Statement by Jess

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

Statement by MakeSense64

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Zachariel

Result concerning Zachariel

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

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

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

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

Dailycare

Request concerning Dailycare

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jiujitsuguy (talk)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA

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

1. In this edit Dailycare writes the following According to Avi Shlaim, Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence and he references the 2007 edition of Shlaim's book, Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace at page 238. I thoroughly checked that page and found that Shlaim makes no reference to Nasser disregarding the views or counsel of his intelligence service. Indeed, there is no mention of Egyptian intelligence at all, on that page. I then scoured the entire book and read it cover to cover. Perhaps, I thought, Dailycare had just mistakenly referenced the wrong page. In fact, I could not find any reference in Shlaim's book to Nasser disregarding the counsel of his intelligence. I then thought that perhaps Dailycare meant to cite a different book written by Shlaim and that that information could be found there. So I checked the only other book written by Shlaim that is referenced in the article (The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, 2000, 2001) and that book too is devoid of any such reference or information regarding Nasser's disregarding the counsel of his intelligence. See page 238 I was unable to retrieve the cited page reference for the other book on Google Books but I scanned the relevant page into my computer. I will be more than willing to email the page (and any other pages in the book) to any Syop wishing to see the referenced page.

   The relevant page can also be accessed here at TinyPic

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

Warned here and here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is black and white. I could have added additional information concerning other matters but did not want to cloud this clear-cut case. He states that Avi Shlaim said something that Avi Shlaim clearly did not say. If that is not source misrepresentation, I don't know what is. In a previous AE, T. Canens noted that Dailycare was careless in the manner in which he employed a particular reference and Daily was issued a warning. Well, this case represents outright misrepresentation in the extreme and something more that just a warning is clearly warranted. Moreover, even if the insatnt case can somehow, under the most liberal interpretation be construed as "careless," how many instances of carelessness are we willing to tolerate?

@nableezy, Uh no...Other historians including Michael Oren and Leslie Stein have stated that Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence. But Dailycare added the following, "According to Avi Shlaim" and Avi Shlaim made no such representation. Dailycare didn't even bother reading Shlaim because had he done so, he would have seen that Shlaim never said that. By adding the words "According to Avi Shlaim" Dailycare made an affirmative representation that Shlaim said something that he clearly didn't say. That is source misrepresentation.

@Nableezy you view me as your enemy of sorts and since your return from your t-ban, have been the first to comment on AE's which I initiated which says a lot about you. My edit was sourced by Stein and Oren both of whom clearly state that Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own staff I even quoted Stein in the reference. You can't be more explicit than that. But Dailycare then twists it by attributing views held by Stein and Oren (who were explicitly referenced by me just prior) to Shlaim. He stated "According to Avi Shlaim" and Avi Shlaim never held this view.

@Nableezy. Did you even bother taking note of this edit where I clearly and unambiguously attributed Nasser's disregard of his military staff to Leslie Stein? Stein, "Fawzi reported to Nasser that: 'There is nothing there. No massing of forces. Nothing.'" p. 266 these were views held by Stein and Oren, not Shlaim. But Dailycare then writes "According to Avi Shlaim" attributing views to Shlaim that Shlaim clearly never said. That is source distortion. Whether it was purposeful or not, it shows that Dailycare didn't bother reading Shlaim. Otherwise he would have realized that Shlaim never said those things.

@Nableezy That sentence "Nonetheless, Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence" is attributed to Stein and Michael Oren both of whom I referenced immediately prior. The statement is 100% accurate and verifiable. I don't have a problem with the statement that I myself introduced. I have a problem with Dailycare stating "According to Avi Shlaim" which is an outright distortion and misrepresentation of Shlaim. Had he taken just a brief moment to read the sources, he would have realized that his affirmative attribution was an absolute falsity. Anyone reading the article and checks the sources that I noted knows that the sources state that Nasser disregarded the intelligence assessment of his military staff. See for example oren. yet the Egyptian president preferred to overlook these repudiations and to proceed as if the Israelis were about to attack the problem with Dailycare's edit is that by specifically stating "According to Avi Shlaim" he attributes this not to Oren and not to Stein but specifically to Shlaim, which is patent falsehood.

@Dailcare. The first AE I brought was not dismissed as "frivolous" as you falsely state. At least one of your edits was deemed "careless" and as you may recall, you were issued an ARBPIA warning. Second, my goal is to see the accurate use of sources. When you affirmatively attributed a statement to Shlaim that Shlaim did not say, that was a source of concern for me and it should be for all others as well. This AE has turned into the usual partisan bullshit. It is a clear cut case of source misrepresentation by Dailycare. What his intention was in manipulating my edit is immaterial. He performed it in a reckless, careless manner and in his previous AE, he was cited there for being careless as well and that is why a warning was issued.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now corrected Dailycare's inaccuracy and have properly attributed the edit to Michael Oren with inline citation.

@T. Canens. I absolutely take credit for that edit as well as this and according to Michael Oren and Leslie Stein, Nasser disregarded the advice of his own staff and continued the buildup. What I didn't do is attribute that statement to Avi Shlaim. I noted the sources and if you want me to email you the relevant pages I will absolutely do that. What I did not do is state "according to Avi Shlaim" because Avi Shlaim absolutely never said that. Moreover, even if Dailycare's edit predates the warning, continued retention of it constitutes continued distortion and, I felt strongly that this type of affirmative false attribution is something that had to be dealt with. Bottom line Dailycare affirmatively and falsely attributed a comment to Avi Shlaim that Avi Shlaim did not say.

Comment and notification to other Syops

About six weeks ago, at the request of a member of Oversight, I filed a detailed complaint against Tim Canens alleging bias in the extreme and abuse of his Syop authority. The complaint was long and exhaustive and Canens was required to respond to each and every charge. This likely took some time and no doubt he was annoyed for having to "waste" time answering my charges and clarifications from Oversight. Ultimately, Oversight determined that no sanction was warranted. I obviously disagreed but voiced no objection to the substance of their determination. My only request however was that given the antagonistic relationship between myself and Canens and the fact that he was aware the it was I who filed the complaint, that he recuse himself from all AEs in which I am either the filer or respondent. I predicted that if I was T-banned, it would be T. Canens who would be the main antagonist and the one advocating the ban. Oversight considered the request but noted that there were mechanisms in place to ensure that there would be transparency and fairness. It is interesting to note that in both of the recent AEs that I filed, it was T. Canens who responded as the first syop and almost immediately, this despite the fact that other AEs (like Dali lama ding dong's) were languishing and some were being archived for lack of commentary. I hope that other Syops who view this case will not be influenced by TC's metaphoric poisoning of the well, which he is quite adept at doing. My interest was to ensure that sources remained accurate. The only thing I can be faulted for is not providing an inline cite, which in hindsight would have been more helpful. But my edits were well sourced with reliable and verifiable sources. Dailycare however falsely attributed a comment to Avi Shlaim that Avi Shlaim did not say.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

user notified

Discussion concerning Dailycare

Statement by Dailycare

Here we go again?

Concerning the content, I added "According to Shlaim" in front of the sentence since the sentence was attributed, by Jiujitsuguy, to Shlaim (and Mutawi, but Shlaim is mentioned first). I decided to mention the author since Jiujitsuguy had removed the Shemesh source, and content sourced from it, from the article. By writing "According to Shlaim, ..." and "According to Shemesh, ..." I was able to present both narratives of why Nasser moved his forces. Pure and simple. Alternatively we could write "According to some sources, ..." and "According to other sources, ..." if there are multiple sources for both viewpoints.

Concerning Jiujitsuguy's behaviour, this is the second frivolous AE against me within a short space of time. Jiujitsuguy is under a recent, personal and stringent warning that any further disturbance will result in an indefinite topic ban. My suggestion is, that this topic ban would now be activated either as indefinite or fixed term. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm of course moved by the way you're checking my edits with such loving care, in fact I feel like I should be paying you. However, these AE requests need to stop as you're wasting people's time.--Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Dailycare

This is as spurrious as the last report, and something should be done about this repeated bad-faith use of AE to attempt to remove one of the better editors from the topic area. the sentence Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence and began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran. was already in the article. It was cited to Shlaim (2007) p. 238 and Mutawi (2007) p. 93. It was added by, and this is where this gets comical, Jiujitsuguy (search for Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence in that diff). The material that JJG is objecting to having cited to Shlaim was added by JJG to a sentence that cited Shlaim. If anybody is to be sanctioned for poor sourcing, it needs to be JJG.

All Dailycare added was According to Avi Shlaim. He did not add the reference, he did not add the rest of the sentence. Dailycare attributed what was cited, in part, to Shlaim to Shlaim. The claim that Dailycare wrote that sentence is false, and seemingly made to intentionally mislead admins. That the material was actually added by JJG only makes this an even more egregious case of an underhanded use of AE. nableezy - 16:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@ JJG, uhh no. Your edit didn't cite Stein or Oren for the sentence. The only two sources cited in the sentence that you added the material were, and still are, Shlaim (2007) p. 238 and Mutawi (2007) p. 93. That is, you added material to a sentence that had sources without adding any sources for that sentence. Any reader looking at that sentence and seeing what is cited would assume that Shlaim (2007) p. 238 and Mutawi (2007) p. 93 are what backs up the material you added. It is you, not Dailycare, that inserted that material in a sentence that cited Shlaim. All Dailycare did was make explicit what your edit did implicitly. Again, if anybody should be sanctioned for poor sourcing, and yet another bad-faith use of AE, it is you. nableezy - 17:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont view you as enemy, and its ironic that in a request about a user attributing to somebody something they did not say you do exactly that with me. I comment in AEs where a user, in bad-faith, distorts what has happened so that he can attempt to remove somebody he views as his enemy of sorts. And no, you emphatically did not cite Stein or Oren for the phrase Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence. Anybody can look at the diff and see that the sources that appear following the sentence that you added that phrase to are Shlaim (2007) p. 238 and Mutawi (2007) p. 93. Trying to play fast and loose with the record isnt the wisest choice here as we can all see the diffs. You did not cite Oren or Stein, and the only thing that DC did was explicitly attribute to Shlaim what was sourced to Shlaim, and it was sourced to Shlaim because you were, once again, careless with your sourcing. nableezy - 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, do you really not understand the simple concept that the citations appear after the sentence they support? That you used Oren and Stein for the sentence Egyptian intelligence later confirmed that the Soviet reports were in fact groundless. but not for the phrase Nonetheless, Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence? That the only sources for the entire sentence Nonetheless, Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence and began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran were, and still are, Shlaim and Mutawi? If you dont understand that concept then we have a bigger problem, though it is a problem that can be solved without you being banned. If you do understand that concept, and you are simply feigning ignorance, then we have a different problem, one that has a straight-forward solution. nableezy - 18:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How is the phrase you added "attributed to Stein"? Are you seriously disputing that the only sources that appear at the end of the sentence that you added that phrase to are not Shlaim and Mutawi? Yes or no for that last question please. nableezy - 19:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont know how many ways I can write this, but the sentence was cited to Shlaim, and you made it so that Shlaim was the cited source for something that you say Shlaim never said. Again, DC made explicit what you edit did implicitly. There is no rational reason for you to continue to dispute this, and your steadfast refusal to actually acknowledge that the sentence was, and is, cited to Shlaim and Mutawi is inexplicable. Your edit made it so that Shlaim was cited for the material. DC's edit made that implicit attribution explicit. Which of those is "source distortion"? The one that actually adds material unsupported by the cited source? Or the one that explicitly notes what the cited source is? nableezy - 19:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - JJG, which of the following do you regard as a more serious violation, what you say Dailycare did or what you did by writing Talk:Operation_Sharp_and_Smooth#Results, a piece of unsourced original research based on your personal opinion, followed by a policy violating addition of OR to an infobox ? I don't understand how it is possible to violate policy in a very obvious way like that on one day and complain about an editor violating policy in a convoluted and obscure way on another day. Dailycare has a clean block record. You don't. Which of the editors presents a greater risk to content based their editing history and the nature of these contrasting edits ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by AnkhMorpork

1. JJG added the content that "Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence"
2. This content is not in dispute and is confirmed by several sources (Oren, Stein). JJG then adds a source immediately before this sentence to support his recent additions. This could have been done is a clearer manner by inserting it after the next sentence, even though the material's accuracy is not in question.
3. Dailycare mis-attributes this statement to Shlaim. This is a poor edit which demonstrates that he did not inspect the sources and that he has a tendentious agenda.

While JJG could have provided better clarity by providing a precise inline citation to support his unchallenged additions, I fail to see how this has any bearing on DC's attempt to trivialize the material by falsely attributing it to a single source that he manifestly had not read. Ankh.Morpork 19:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Activism1234

The case is not a difficult one - although there may have been some confusion over wording initally, at the end, Dailycare still unproperly referenced a source where the source did not say anything remotely close. I'm sure mistakes like these happen all the time - after all, we are only human - but this is part of the Misplaced Pages process - an edit is made, improved, a mistake is cited, users are notified of the mistake, and the mistake is corrected. Unfortunately, it was not corrected, and based on previous warnings that JJG brought up, and previous source manipulation, the behavior represents a poor agenda, and possibly done on purpose. "According to Shlaim..." but it's not according to Shlaim, and before including those words - regardless of whether he was referenced - it should've been checked, and when it was pointed out that it wasn't true or reverted, it should've been left or discussed further. It was Dailycare's fault for making a statement and not properly checking out to see if it was true. Content was attributed to Shlaim that Shlaim never said - that is a major deal.

After that, there are users here who are arguing against JJG and attacking him in cases that are similar to ad hominem attacks, rather than focus on the case at hand. The AE is being screwed up over that, and it shouldn't be. These should have no bearing on the procedures, as we don't need to take as a fact whatever JJG says - the admins can check up on everything for themselves, and JJG brings Misplaced Pages links and diffs as well. There is no reason for this to turn into a battleground and silly attacks. That goes for everyone - those attacking and those being attacked. It's childish. State your case, and don't try to divert attention and make this something it shouldn't be. If people can support JJG, or can support Dailycare, then they should go ahead and do so without diverting attention from the main cause. Otherwise, nothing will get done, and this will all turn into a silly chaotic mess without any cohesion or cooperation.

T. Canens, perhaps you saw it, and perhaps you missed it, which is fine. Reading your comment below, I think it's the latter case, but just to help out, JJG did answer what you wrote previously above. He bolded it as "@T.Canens." Hope it helps. I do not see any reason to ignore Dailycare's unproper source manipulation and instead punish JJG when he answered the allegations above, taking credit and explaining according to whom this was true etc, so I just wanted to point this out in order to help with the AE. I do hope it helps.

I would also like if some other admins can take a look at this case and make a judgement call. Thanks. --Activism1234 21:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Shrike I see a pretty clear case of source misrepresentation by Dailycare. He specifically attributes a view to Avi Shlaim that Avi Shlaim did not say. The edits made by JJG were accurate, verifiable and well-sourced. Dailycare however didn't bother reading the source and thereby caused a misleading edit. I don't know whether Dailycare did it on purpose but it certainly was very sloppy and careless.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Dailycare

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

• Putting aside for the moment the fact that this diff pre-dates Dailycare's ARBPIA warning, I'm particularly interested in JJG's response to this very interesting diff in which the phrase "Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence" was first introduced to the article. T. Canens (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This request is doubly meritless. First, the diff provided predated Dailycare's ARBPIA warning - in fact, it predated the closure of the last Dailycare thread, also brought by JJG. It therefore cannot be actioned at AE. Second, even were the edit to have occurred after the ARBPIA warning, this request must still be dismissed. This is a straightforward case of unclean hands. JJG's edit here introduced the phrase "Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence" in a sentence cited to Shlaim and Mutawi. By his own logic in his previous report concerning Dailycare ("at the very least made it appear as though 's book contained this information by adding the just before the reference"), that constitutes source misrepresentation. Having misrepresented the source himself, he will not now be allowed to complain that another editor erred in relying in good faith on his misrepresentation.

    It is remarkable indeed that someone who raised allegations of source falsification in multiple AE threads, engaged in essentially the same misconduct that he has accused others. That suggests a tendentious attempt to game the AE process, rather than a good faith attempt to deal with actual misconduct. The previous AE thread on Dailycare, brought by JJG as well, containing three totally spurious allegations of source distortion, is a good example.

    JJG was subject to an indefinite topic ban in January this year; that topic ban was lifted on appeal in April. I think it beyond clear that the lifting of the ban had been improvident, and that an indefinite topic ban for this kind of continued battleground conduct is appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have to concur with the comment directly above, although I'd also generally advise Dailycare to be a bit more careful about sourcing. Mistakes happen, it's not A Big Deal, but especially in this topic area it's good to double-check. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)