Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 16:27, 16 March 2011 (→Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AE

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

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

NickOrnstein

Miradre

Doktorbuk

Jacurek

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

Request concerning Jacurek

User requesting enforcement

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions

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

Jacurek, who has a long history of disruption and sanctions relating to eastern European topics, after coming back from a ban, has focussed his editing almost entirely on lame edit-warring over the inclusion of Polish, German or Lithuanian geographical terms in the leads of various articles.

• On Vilnius University:
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius:
• On Bernardine Cemetery: (in the usual old tag-teams, with Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) (aka Radeksz) against Dr. Dan (talk · contribs), M.K (talk · contribs) and Lokyz (talk · contribs)). Also possible IP sock: (Notice: Checkuser says that this IP is not any of the editors discussed here.  Sandstein  23:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC))
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius:
• On Suvalkija:

He also made the obvious WP:POINT move of removing the German name from Gdansk , explicitly in retaliation, and in blatant breach of the long-standing Gdansk rules.

More edit-warring just under 3RR elsewhere: on Ukrainische_Hilfspolizei,

One thing that's troubling is that the same old cliques and tag-teams known from the WP:EEML days are still showing up together on the same articles regularly in many of these cases.

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

not applicable, has long history of Digwuren and EEML sanctions

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

renewed revert restriction at the least, preferably full topic ban from geographical naming issues, or full ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would take action myself here, as I have done before, if not for the fact that in one of the contentious naming issues cited above I gave my own editorial opinion earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Re. to Piotrus' comment below: asking "who gave me the diffs" is a pretty serious assumption of bad faith all by itself. I'm perfectly able to collect diffs myself. I saw something light up on Jacurek's talkpage (which happened to be still on my watchlist from time immemorial), and out of curiousity took a look at what he had been up to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Jacurek

Statement by Jacurek

Recently, I focused my work on adding missing alternative names to the articles related to shared Lithuanian, Polish, Jewish, Belorussian or Ukrainian history and heritage following general naming policy . I have beed editing without violating any standards of behaviour and in line with normal editorial process. All my edits/reverts presented here are spread out over time, discussed by me , , , , or in line with discussion I followed and ALL are supported by the WP:NCGN. I stated in my edit summaries why I'm doing such edits and the polices I followed

I was adding alternative names in various languages:

• German names to Polish places:

• Polish names to Belorussian places:

• Yiddish, Belorussian, Ethnic Kashubian and Ukrainian names to Polish places:

• Polish, Yiddish and Russian names to Ukrainian places:

• Lithuanian names to Polish places:

• Latvian, Belorussian, Russian to Lithianian palces:

• ...and finally Polish names to the Lithuanian places:

Here however, all my edits were immediately reverted by Dr. Dan (talk · contribs), M.K (talk · contribs) and Lokyz (talk · contribs)) I was called Dyslexic , amusing, a troll , a nationalistic troll chauvinist playing games etc. Disrespect, taunting and incivility was also directed at other people by mentioned editors: ex-admin RPG player is trying to make a project of Misplaced Pages a playground of his own Please note that one was warned by administrator because of these incivil remarks and another complained about .

Here are just few diff's as an examples of the name removals by mentioned editors:

• As far as removing a German name from the lead of the Gdansk article I reverted my own edits ] ] from December in line with this discussion and linked this talk page in my edit summary . This edit was NOT to make any point.

• As far as Ukrainische_Hilfspolizei, each two edit are different and this one is not even mine

• As far as IP sock: - this is not me and I wonder why FP can so easily and without any proof accuse people of using socks?

Why was I singled out and accused of violating the polices by Future Perfect at Sunrise? EXACTLY the same report could have been filed by him on user Dr. Dan (talk · contribs), M.K (talk · contribs) or Lokyz (talk · contribs):

• On Vilnius University: ,, ,, ,
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: , , , ,
• On Bernardine Cemetery: , , , , , , , , , , ,
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: , , ,
• On Suvalkija: , , , ,

The bottom line is that I was following normal editorial process, watching revert count limitations and all my edits were supported by the WP:NCGN. We really have an opportunity now to resolve ongoing problem of removal by some Lithuanian editors all Polish names from the articles related to the Polish-Lithuanian heritage and reach the agreement thanks to discussion here . I echo this comment %100. Please Sandstain, look outside the AE box this only time and the problem will gone.--Jacurek (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

MISSED FROM MY GDANSK SECTION-PLEASE ADD - please do not classify me together with editors who remove one language names for nationalistic reasons. I was editing names in various languages (German, Polish, Russian, Lithuanian, Yiddish, Latvian, Latvian and Byelorussian) - Refer to my edit history. - (adding German) then correcting to follow standards --Jacurek (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting--Jacurek (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jacurek

Comment by Volunteer Marek

There's an ongoing discussion about the proper way of handling alternative names here . The underlying problem is complete disregard for naming policy on the part of Dr. Dan/Lokyz/MK. This is compounded by the fact that there is some confusion over what the actual policy is. Hence the discussion.

Jacurek's edits at Gdansk where a response - and in line with - to the discussion as it was occurring at Naming conventions (the diff above), with comments provided by a third opinion (which I requested) at Vilnius university , and are in agreement with views expressed by such individuals like User:Novickas and User:Deacon of Pndapetzim who are about as far as humanely and even super-humanely possible from being "same old cliques and tag-teams known from the WP:EEML days." As such Jacurek's edits are part of the standard BRD cycle, are not edit warring, and none of them are in any way a breach of policy.

Throughout Jacurek has remained calm and civil despite several provocations. In particular, Dr. Dan has made several personal attacks against various users:

• Dr. Dan calling editors "nationalist trolls"
• Dr. Dan calling editors "nationalist trolls"
• Dr. Dan taunting Piotrus, shortly after coming off an interaction ban with him: ("It's nice to have you back editing after your sabbatical. It must have been an unpleasant experience. ")
• Dr. Dan implies that editors are "nationalistic, chauvinistic"

At the naming conventions discussion Deacon of Pndapetzim, who I think can fairly be characterized as an "opponent" of people who used to be on the Eastern European mailing list has stated: Without wishing to offend anyone, my experience of other language names in leads is that they function in practice as nationalist scent markings. Jacurek's edits were completely in line with this sentiment.

Additionally Deacon stated, in reference to inclusion of German names in ledes of articles on Polish places: Can't say I approve of most of those edits. - again, in line with Jacurek's above edits.

Likewise, Deacon said: in those cases this should be in the main text with citations not just in brackets at the lead, where it looks like simple nationalist scent-marking and is thus provocative.

At Vilnius University, user Novickas, who can also be seen as usually on the other side of the issue stated: Yes, I think all articles ought to follow WP:Lead, which emphasizes concision and readability, but leaves room for an entity's multiple names by way of a dedicated name section. - again in reference to the inclusion of German names in Polish places.

As such Jacurek's edits are not in any way a way of making a POINT but rather a response to what people are saying the policy is.

Did I mention that none of Jacurek's edits in any way violated any kind of policy what so ever?

Finally, let me point out that a discussion on the subject is actually ongoing and amazingly, for like the first time in a long while it is actually civil, calm and is even starting to look productive, people who previously have very strongly disagreed with each other in the past might actually be able to work something out and about the last freakin thing that is going to help here is a completely pointless and baseless AE report such as this one which good money says will do nothing but attract the usual infighting, bickering and sniping.

What is the point of this AE report? How is it not counter productive? Why do you find it necessary to sabotage a potentially productive discussion?Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein's suggestion and Ed Johnston

You can't judge/sanction editors based on whether they're "engaged in a campaign of mass removal or mass addition" if the editor involved is following established naming guidelines. For comparison look at User:HerkusMonte's edits (and I wish to be 100% clear that this is no way a criticism of Herkus), particularly all the edits with the edit summary "lang-de" which in the recent past have comprised the majority of Herkus' editing on Misplaced Pages. Jacurek's edits are no different than Herkus' and neither editor did anything wrong. The only difference is that when Herkus "engages in his campaign of mass addition" he IS NOT immediately reverted by tag teams of Polish editors who also refuse to discuss the issue meaningfully and some of whom engage in personal attacks - but this does happen with addition of Polish names to places with shared Polish and Lithuanian history. Unlike Jacurek, Herkus is left alone, because he is more or less following current naming policy (again, if that is the appropriate policy is another question) - just like Jacurek was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not examining mass additions or removals per se, but edit wars. Whether the reverts conform with any naming policy or guideline is irrelevant for the purpose of this request, because the edit-warring policy does not exempt such reverts.  Sandstein  18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well that AE is not about judging compliance of edits with the naming policy. However it is also the case that in one instance you get edit wars because a group of editors does not wish to comply with naming policy, whereas in the other case - which involves exactly the same kinds of edits - you don't get edit wars because, well, because the editors on both sides are more reasonable and have no problem with following policy. As such, punishing Jacurek in this case, even if he reverted others is tantamount to rewarding the battleground behavior of those who purposefully ignore this naming policy. If the purpose of this board is to prevent conflicts from continuing in this area then encouraging this kind of behavior is obviously not the way to further that goal. A bit of common sense is needed here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to this "list" business Uhh, not sure what this list is supposed to be or what it is supposed to accomplish (in fact, it's a bad idea to begin with) but for what it's worth:

1. I've never edited St. Anne's Church, Vilnius or Cathedral Square, Vilnius.
2. I made one edit to Suvalkija back in August (so 5+ months ago) after Lokyz removed the name with an edit summary that made no sense, but I didn't make any further edits even after he blind reverted me literally within minutes (, , ) (btw, please note that "Suvalkų kraštas", the Lithuanian term, has been in the article on the Suwałki Region for something like 3 years straight and no Polish editor ever tried to remove it - which is quite telling when you compare it to the situation at Suvalkija).
3. On Vilnius University, after observing the blind reverts by Lokyz , , I started a discussion on talk on March 5th without making any edits myself. Please note that Lokyz's edit summary justification for his revert was: PLease use talk page before starting edit war. (on an edit war he started) - however, once I started a discussion on talk he didn't even bother to reply or actually discuss. Hence, four days later on March 9th, I made the change to the article - this was my single edit to the article. Of course it got reverted within minutes (again - well, actually this time it took him two hours) . At that point I requested a third opinion , still not making any edits to the article myself. Novickas at this time edited the article by expanding the names section which is fine with me. Note the pattern here: Lokyz, Dr. Dan and MK blind revert, while at the same time admonishing users to "discuss on talk" or claiming that there is "no consensus" yet, they then don't even bother discussing things when a discussion is initiated. If they do discuss the discussion is very quickly derailed by irrelevant strawmen (like discussion of whether the article on cat should have the Polish "kot" in it , even though no one has ever proposed that - you can also ask Kotniski about how productive these "discussions" tend to be and why that is).
4. On Bernardine Cemetery I was also the one who initiated the discussion on talk in the first place, way back in October (though note previous personal attacks by Lokyz, who calls Jacurek dyslexic and says "Dyslexic people are amusing" which is extremely offensive in its own right, no matter who it is directed at). Jacurek likewise tried to engage in good faithed discussion (note also Dr. Dan's mocking of Kotniski in response to with the "Er,..." parody of Kotniski's statement - seriously how is meaningful discussion possible in such circumstances?). Since the talk page consensus appeared to be for the inclusion of the name, and since Lokyz and Dr.Dan ceased participating in the discussion, I made one edit to the article restoring the name (my edits in November where just a standard expansion of the article) on March 7th, or three months after I initiated discussion). The edit was again reverted within minutes by Lokyz with an edit summary in which he purposefully used my previous name (in what I took to be a form of harassment), despite the fact that I had previously asked him specifically not to do that and to which he agreed. I made no further edits to the article after that but instead brought the matter to talk again. Here's the sad/ironic thing - recently through a joint Polish-Lithuanian effort the cemetery was restored as a symbol of Polish-Lithuanian friendship and joint history, and the Lithuanian government funded a sign with the Polish name at the entrance to the cemetery - since generally public signs written in Polish are banned in Lithuania this was a "big deal". But apparantly, some editors are more nationalistic than the Lithuanian government.
5. On Gdansk I made a single edit because the article already has a section which discusses the name in much detail and I was just being told by Novickas and Deacon that policy says that in such cases there's no need for a separate inclusion of the name in the lede. I did not edit war here and don't even try to freakin' pretend that I did. This is total nonsense.

Bottom line: I made one edit at Suvalkija long time ago which was reverted within minutes and I made no subsequent edits. I made one edit at Vilnius University and when it was reverted, within less than three hours, asked for third opinion. At Bernardine Cemetery I initiated discussion on talk and only after it seemed like an agreement was reached for inclusion, and having given it enough time (3 months) did I make one edit and add the name. This too was reverted within minutes and I didn't edit the article any further. I think the picture that emerges here is crystal clear.

I also got to ask why you are limiting this to just these articles? MK regularly edit wars with Belorussians editors over similar matters . Herkus adds German names to Polish places all the time - but never gets reverted because Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy. Why isn't that relevant?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The list is currently limited to the articles named in the request and the editors who have been making language-related reverts on them. If there are similar problems with other articles or other editors, I recommend that you make a separate AE request about them. If the same editors have also made similar reverts in other articles, or other editors have made similar reverts in the same articles, you can mention them here so that we may consider including them in the list. I should note that I think that your comment above, "Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy", is extremely problematic, as it indicates nationalist prejudice on your part, and I will take it into account in the decision.  Sandstein  21:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh for Christ sake! My comment that "Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy" obviously is in reference to the editors involved in this request - Lokyz, MK and Dr.Dan and then Jacurek and myself. There's no prejudice in it and it is factually verifiable as noted above. The whole request is about the fact that Lokyz, MK and DD have been purposefully ignoring naming policy. Why am I getting the sense that you are purposefully looking for any kind of excuse to railroad me into a sanction? First you put me in that little list of yours for no reason, and now you come up with this nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see that the choice of words wasn't the best one and what I should have said was that "because I follow naming policy, unlike Dr. Dan, MK and Lokyz". Apologies. However, my temper at the moment is running extremely high because of the ridiculous insinuations that you (Sandstein) are making against me and the waste of my time that you are forcing me into - I just wasted an hour and a half of my life writing a response, instead of doing real life work, spending time with my kid, or even working on some Misplaced Pages article. As a result I wrote quickly and unclearly. I'm striking it above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification, which I accept on a good faith basis. You must be extremely careful what you write, because statements that vilipend whole groups of editors on the basis of their nationality are completely unacceptable, especially in a WP:DIGWUREN context, and if you repeat such statements you may be sanctioned for them without further warning. I normally assume that people mean exactly what they write.  Sandstein  23:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And if you want to see a previous discussion which is relevant here which says the same thing look here and here . Why not go after Kotniski here too? Why not include him in the "list"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

These diffs do not show that Kotniski added or removed languages to the articles at issue here. They cannot therefore be included in the list.  Sandstein  22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The diffs are not presented to show that Kotniski added or removed languages, but rather as a response to your threat to "take it (my hastily written statement) into account in the decision." Please address the relevant point, not a completely different point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is completly wrong: Edit-warring to add or remove a language from any one article does not necessarily reflect bias, as there may be policy-based grounds for such reverts (even if these do not excuse edit-warring). But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds, since the guideline makes reference to the use of names in English-language literature, which differs from topic to topic. Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias ahead of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. This makes such a pattern incompatible with WP:NPOV and, consequently, grounds for sanctions.

Specifically: But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds - no, but it can be explained by the fact that editors will add the language which they are familiar with to a topic which they are familiar with. I'd happily add relevant names to articles on Fiji but I have no idea what these may be. Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias - no, it can be explained by the fact that editors edit topics they are familiar with. This makes such a pattern incompatible with WP:NPOV - since when is AE in the business of adjudicating content disputes, which is what WP:NPOV involves? To quote Sandstein himself: compliance with this guideline is a content issue, because it requires editorial judgment, and cannot therefore be reviewed in an arbitration context.

The above statement appears to be nothing but an attempt to find a flimsy excuse to sanction people who did nothing wrong. It is railroading plain and simple.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Add in light of Sandstein's insinuation of "nationalist editing I should also add that in the past I have

1. defended User:HerkusMonte's addition of German names to Polish articles (within reason) (placeholder for diff here - gimme time to find it, wasting more of my time), and have done so recently at the naming conventions discussion and elsewhere. I've generally have had an amicable relationship with Herkus (at least I think so) so why not ask HIM if he regards my revert of him as good faithed or as sanction-worthy? He's certainly not the person who brought this whole mess to AE. If he's not complaining why are YOU including it here?
2. Added Yiddish names to Poland and Lithuania related articles
3. Added Lithuanian names to Polish related articles.

Thus, Sandstein's charge/insinuation of "nationalist bias" is highly inflammatory, insulting, and essentially a personal attack. None of the provided diffs substantiate it and it is exactly the kind of statement that he himself regularly tries to sanction other editors for. Since the same rules apply to Sandstein in this respect as they do to other editors, I ask him to strike that portion of his statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Declined. Whether your edits (like those of the other editors) reflect nationalist bias is a matter under investigation in this request. My concern in this respect, above, was accompanied by a relevant diff. If you disagree with the eventual outcome of the request you can appeal against it. Assumptions of bad faith are unlikely to help your case.  Sandstein  22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been no evidence provided of "nationalist bias" so far and you should not make such charges against editors without substantiating them FIRST. Not a "they might or might not be substantiated later". You do sanction others exactly for such behavior hence you should not engage in it yourself. I am not assuming bad faith. I do question your judgment however.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Deacon

Your comments at the naming conventions discussion did indeed imply that. But the point here is that after they were made Jacurek STOPPED adding names to the articles since it became clear that the policy itself was under dispute. His subsequent edits which are being dredged up here as "evidence" are completely in line with your view of the matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Ed Johnston's comments (copied from his talk) This ban would be applied to all editors listed below who have previously been sanctioned under any Eastern European cases - Ed, can you please explain to me why you are including me in this group? It appears you are doing so only because Sandstein included me there. But if you actually look at the list and read the comments, then you will notice that out of the six articles listed by Sandstein, two I've never edited in my life, and on the other four I made a single edit, sometimes long time ago (I have over 20k edits, I've even forgotten some of these) and when I was reverted, I ceased making any further edits.

There's no way that making a single edit on an article can be in any way construed as "edit warring" or anything else. I have also supported the inclusion of German names in Polish articles (within reason), and have added Lithuanian names to Polish articles as well as Yiddish and Hebrew names to Polish articles (like I said, I got over 20k edits and I'm not going to waste my time going back and looking for the odd diff or so, but they're there). I've consistently applied WP:NCGN policy, regardless of the places involved. Of course I've mostly edited Poland related articles - I don't speak Portuguese, Yoruba or Nahuatl! At no point have I edit warred and in fact I asked for third opinion and discussed things on talk, and am currently in process of working on naming conventions guideline in order to sort out this mess. Can you explain at all what would justify your proposal to sanction me?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Piotrus

I am rather disappointed by FPS here.

First, I'd like to ask: who gave you those diffs and requested that you post to AE on their behalf? It's not like you have edited any of the articles in question, nor have you been a participant to any talk page discussions, as far as I am aware.

Second, I really hoped that the established editors with no axes to grind, in particular, respected admins (and I do respect FPS), would not use the "specter of EEML" poisoning the well argument. Instead of concentrating on editors who are creating the battleground through baiting and incivility (see VM post above), let's just go for the good, old EEML members, because, well, they are EEML, hence evil, hence the source of all problems, right? Somebody is being incivil to them? They surely deserved it. There is an edit war? Surely, they are the only guilty party.

Third, Jacurek has not violated any policy. Has 3RR been violated, even once? No. Has CIV been violated, even once? No. Regarding , this edit is in line with WP:NCGN, and the implication of this for Gdansk rule need to be discussed; I recently raised this on talk there. As things stand, however, NCGN explicitly suggests moving of alt. names from lead to a dedicated section and states they should not be restored, and Jacurek was acting within NCGN to the letter (now, I started a discussion on talk to discuss whether this letter is correct and benefits Misplaced Pages, but this is hardly an AE issue). Lastly, yes, there has been a slow edit war at some articles, but in most if not all cases, Jacurek is enforcing NCGN, where other editors, propagating battleground and disruption, are attempting to go against policies on those articles. NCGN supports foreign name in articles as long as they are significant (and NCGN has nice, simple check for significance - 10% of English google sources). On Cathedral Square, Vilnius (talk) I've shown NCGN applies, yet Jacurek's opponents have not bothered to discuss it - they just revert him. Ditto for Bernardine Cemetery. Nobody has done an analysis for St. Anne's Church, Vilnius, but I expect NCGN applies as well. On two other articles, in Vilnius University the nameing section was just expanded enough to warrant an end to inclusion of the name in lead. I'd have to look at Suvalkija more closely. Ukrainische Hilfspolizei seems totally unrelated to that and I'll have to review it more closely again.

Bottom line, Jacurek seems not to have violated any policies, most of his reverts are policy-supported (whereas most of those by his opponents are not), so how about the admins here focus on incivil, baiting editors and give the rest of us some breathing ground?

All that said, 1RR for everyone would be a good voluntary rule to declare. I hereby do so for my self, for the next month on all naming-affected articles, and I would strongly suggest everyone else follows suit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Responce to FSP: Thank you for clarifying my question, and I apologize if the tone was too aggressive. I would still appreciate an explanation why you singled Jacurek for the report.

Comments for Sandstein and EdJohnston: I appreciate that you are willing to look further than just one side of the conflict. I would appreciate if you could tell me why did you decide to include Volunteer Marek in your analysis, with his 4 reverts total, each on a separate article, compared to Jacurek (19 reverts), MK (12 reverts), Dr Dan (14 reverts) and Lokyz (16 reverts). The last time I check, adhering to 1RR and BRD was the right thing to do... Misplaced Pages:Edit warring explicitly notes the need for repetetive reverts, so I am having trouble seeing why a user adhering to 1RR (or, even more clearly, making a single revert to an article in the space of many weeks or months) can be included in a discussion of edit warring. I also note that two of his reverts you cite specifically mention no responses for days or longer to discussion on talk. I would also appreciate clarification whether an editor reverting following a policy like NCGN and another reverting against it are to be treated as "equal"? Lastly, I would like to ask if you will be looking at incivility (which I think is at least as problematic as reverts), or just reverts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Kotniski

Echoing most of what Piotrus says, I note that this issue will never be sorted out by applying unilateral sanctions against a randomly chosen editor or two on one side of the debate. It's been going on for years; somehow those who consistently remove non-Lithuanian names from Lithuania-related articles seem to be exempted from any kind of rebuke or sanction (which of course in no way justifies the pointy removal of non-Polish names from Poland-related articles) - but in any case, it's necessary to resolve the underlying issues, through some kind of mediation or preferably involvement from the community at large, to work out the best ways to present this kind of important information to readers without being dictated to by those on various sides who are clearly driven mainly by irrational nationalist sentiment. --Kotniski (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

AE is not really equipped procedurally for broad reviews covering many editors and their whole editing history. That would need a request for an arbitration case. But I suspect that after WP:DIGWUREN and WP:EEML the Committee is so fed up with this whole ensemble of editors and their obscure historical grievances that it would just indef topic-ban them all and throw away the key. And I suspect that we are coming to a point at AE where we'll come to the same conclusion eventually, one editor at a time.  Sandstein  16:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is that we need to stop focusing on editors and their "editing history" (whether one, two or many) and address the substantial issues of disagreement. You're right that AE (and indeed ArbCom generally) is not equipped procedurally for anything except the same old types of editor-focused action which are already known not to work; which is why we need to start thinking outside the AE box here.--Kotniski (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if people are trying to reach some new agreement at the geographical names guideline, that's great and I'm all for it. But Jacurek's editing was not directed towards creating such an agreement. He was just edit-warring. His talk page contributions are few, and all seem to be focussed merely on asserting his own position, which is rather overtly of the type "treat geographical names as symbolic badges of recognition of historical national claims of possesion". And it is precisely this mentality that is the problem here. Whatever eventual solution there may be for these questions, Jacurek's editing has been persistently part not of the solution but of the problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not true. I was just discussing the issue trying to reach agreement here ] for example and on countess other talk pages. I was adding alternative names in various languages, your accusation of me trying to claim a "national possession" is ABSOLUTELY not true. FP - Can you please wait for my statement before posting more accusations? I should find some time this weekend to respond.--Jacurek (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

FP, as I said earlier, I do respect you, and I think you are partially right here. Jacurek was doing quite a few reverts. However, as I, VM and he himself pointed out, 1) he was not alone and 2) most if not all of his edits were in line with the policies (unlike those of his opponents). I wish he had used the talk more and reverted less, but he is less guilty than many others, and unlike some, he has been civil, and he has been following the NCGN policy more often then not. I don't understand why you have singled him out in this report? Saying this, I'd also strongly urge Jacurek to follow my advice and declare that he will voluntarily restrict himself to 1RR on articles with disputed naming (and I urge others to follow mine and hopefully, his suit in this). I'd also suggest that the admins here try to be more creative than blocks and topic bans (lot of good have they done in the past, as we can see) and instead impose a bunch of 1RR restriction on a number of editors who focus on reverting (1RR restriction is the correct scalpel-level solution for revert warring, although I know that some people prefer to nuke anything nail shaped instead...I hope this mentality will not be seen in this discussion). For those who promise to voluntarily restrain themselves but are later shown they didn't keep the word, I'd of course suggest harsher penalties in the future (community patience is not unlimited). I will end by saying that if the outcome of this AE will be punishing only one of the edit warring editors, and at that one who was mostly in line with NCGN and who was, unlike some of the others, civil, it will send a pretty bad message out. It would also be nice if people would stop dredging the "EEML specter", poisoning the well with "if an involved editor was a party to the EEML case, 100% of the problem lies with him" argument (intentionally or not, this is the effect I am seeing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with voluntarily restricting myself to 1RR on articles with disputed naming, please consider this comment as my commitment. However my commitment alone will not eliminate the problem of removal by few Lithuanian editors all Polish names from the articles that share common Polish-Lithuanian heritage. There is hope that this amazingly constructive discussion that is going on here will result in new rules being drafted and the issue will be resolved. --Jacurek (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually most of bigger Lithuanian cities have Polish names in the name section be it Vilnius, Kaunas or Biržai, as does Vilnius University, and it is according to the WP:NCGN section that suggests the names not to be returend to lead after such section is created. It was an agreement that was reached, and that was and still is violated by an editor who has opinion of his own. So there is no conspiracy to remove one nation names from other nations cities articles, as one is trying to persuade others.--Lokyz (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lokyz, you kept removing Polish names from the articles given by you as examples and all others summarizing your reverts with "what's the Polish etymology of the name?"which shows that the problem for you was not the place where alternative names should be included but existence of the Polish name itself. The name section has been created later because of the pressure applied by several editors. --Jacurek (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

and it is according to the WP:NCGN section that suggests the names not to be returend to lead after such section is createdObviously this is not a view shared by all editors as seen here where a German editor returns the Germanized name of a Polish city to the lead, this needs to be clarified. Personally I support the view, to remove names from lead, but if this is not accepted than there should be no double standards.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I just want to remind Jacurek, taht on Talk:Biržai there was a discusssion, which finaly led to solution and compromise suitable for many users and many towns. I do also see a difference between a "Name" and translation of the object's description like it was noted on Talk:Bernardine Cemetery, and after this discussion the article remained stable for a long time, so I was thinking the compromise was reached.--Lokyz (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Hodja Nasreddin

I followed several AE cases to understand what must be done by someone who wants to edit conflict-free, especially in the area of discretionary sanctions. Surprisingly, this boils down to a very simple rule: do not edit war under any circumstances. Even if you revert once a week, someone will bring you to AE. It goes like that: no reverts -> no conflicts -> no sanctions. This apply to all sides and almost all AE cases.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Don't understand why my comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) were mentioned. In the comments Volunteer Marek/Radek was referring to, I expressed my opinion that we ought to be weighted against having alternate culture names in leads (in order to avoid nationalist wars). As it appears this AE request was brought against Jakurek for going around inserting such names into leads, I'm very confused as to why my comments are claimed to support his case? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Punishing uisers for following BRD ... good idea?

Add: As I and others have argued at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) , we should be predisposed to be sceptical towards the addition of these names, which in practice is usually nothing more than nationalist scent-marking; inserting them in knowledge of their controversy is the behaviour that is disruptive and violates our conduct policies; removing such inclusions follows our conduct policies. I'm concerned about the level of actions being taken against certain users merely because, over a few years, they've reverted inclusion of alternate language versions of place-names. As placing these names (and indeed removing stable ones) is inherently controversial in these area, why does WP:BRD not apply? Why should anyone be punished for following it? I also find the idea that you can get sanction for some reverts of various warring IPs over a couple of years quite ghastly. This is simply punishing users for having an account: not a good idea. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD involves stopping after a single revert. The names at issue have been added and removed more than once. Also, edit-warring is forbidden no matter whether one reverts IPs or users with an account.  Sandstein  16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Mymolobaccount

Proposing topic bans to all editors who are actively working on solving the naming dispute so they won't be able to achieve solution to the issue? That's wikipedia at its finest. Sandstein's behaviour here and proposals are one of the most counterproductive to Misplaced Pages and cooperation between editors from opposed POV's that I have seen. Two opposite sites are sitting down to talk and solve the issue, Sandstein comes in and proposes to ban active participants instead of letting them work out a solution on which they are working in good faith and in civil manner. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba

For the most part I have pretty good relations with editor on both sides of the fence, generally being "pro-" both sides. I would be happy to assist in mediating, anything is better than more draconian measures which breed nothing but bad blood. Unless someone proposing any solution is intimately aware of the historical conflicts underlying naming disputes, any action they take (hello admins!) will make things worse, not better. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe these are excessive sanctions. If they edit warred over naming conventions, they should be either placed on 1RR per week restriction or banned from editing names. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by M.K.

• Diffs which supposedly should show my “nationalistic” revert warring with IP from 2008-2009 time frame lacks background. That IP is full time abusive revert warrior, I complained about abusive nature of that IP and his various IPs farm one, two, three times. Community offered little interest in those cases during that time, but surprise surprise Radeksz aka Volunteer Marek was the first who attacked me back then . The same IP range reappearing in those articles again now of course supporting EEML group as usual. Of cause none of current admins looking into these IP again.
• From relevant time frame I made two reverts with 10 hour time gap on the listed article. I'm surprised that it could cause offense and I am sorry for that and whatever damage you think this might caused. I was frustrated that community is not willing to help nor do they care about, as I saw the case with disruptive IP case or the EEML case itself, when one of the most notorious groups are enabled to operate in old habits again as if EEML revelation never happened. For instance:

user: Volunteer Marek constantly stalking editors again:

• the first ever edit on the mains pace and revert of his old opponent
• the first ever edit on the article main space and of course a revert of his old opponent
• his first edit ever on the main space article and of course a revert of my edit
• repapering from the 5 hour break and the first job is to revert me and so on… And again for some reason no action on this individual regarding these continues stalking. Question Why?
• Additionally those edits supply growing conclusion that Volunteer Marek mislead arbcom with topic ban lifting. Volunteer Marek claimed "was unable to assess and improve articles which tangentially might have to do with Eastern Europe and Poland - for example article on the famous Polish economist Michal Kalecki", "if any disputes arise in the future, I will be careful to observe high standards of conduct", "Somebody's got to make a show of good faith however", "it shouldn't be controversial", so Arbcom lifted saying "With the understanding that any relapse is likely to be poorly received.". Volunteer Marek just went back to EEML agenda threating Misplaced Pages as battleground again.
• On sanctions:
  • Conventional sanctions would yield little result as those individuals may recruit sockpuptes or proxies as they did in the past, as we have grim examples (yet main Jacurek account is still free).
  • Volunteer Marek, jacurek promised countless times to behave and they failed to keep up their promises.
  • Imposing name ban - as advocated here too - on remaining Lithuanian editors alongside with those individuals will be in line with their long desired result because they outnumber everyone. When last revert sanctions were proposed Piotrus recommended on EEML too that single-purpose socks should take care of reverting.M.K. (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• P.S. please allow additional 24 h for finalizing my report as I am terribly busy. M.K. (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG

I would recomment to admins to err on the side of caution. If there are clear and persistent patterns of disruption (e.g. edit warring), sanctions may be called for. However without a persistent pattern, a warning is enough. Also if disruption is caused in a very niche area like this naming saga, sanctions should only apply to this activity. Topic banning editors for niche violations is throwing productive editors with the bathwater.

I would also suggest that admins give a strong warning to all involved editors NOT to use the AE page as a battleground. - BorisG (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that uninvolved perspective. The sooner AE is closed down as a forum for content control—specifically, not entertaining charges of disruption unless there are clear and repeated violations of 3RR, sockpuppetry, et al.—the sooner editors will be forced to deal with each other. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

One area where I would sanction draconian measures is perma-banning anyone who sockpuppets in an area of conflict. There's no excuse for that. Unfortunately, in the Wikiworld, that would only result in immediate charges of sockpuppetry, for example, where multiple editors might attend the same university. The moral is, the more draconian the enforcement, the larger the carrot being held out to those seeking to control content. For now, those editors control content the most effectively who have mastered the art of the unintended consequences of enforcement. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Jacurek

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

I encourage editors to make only comments directly pertinent to the request, because "the usual infighting, bickering and sniping", as Volunteer Marek puts it, is likely to WP:BOOMERANG in the form of sanctions. Fut. Perf., I agree that the request looks actionable at first glance, but without a WP:DIGWUREN notification diff, we are forbidden to act on it.  Sandstein  14:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Jacurek has been sanctioned (and, through each sanction, obviously, also warned) under DIGWUREN half a dozen times. Just look at the log. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

But we still need a diff of a valid warning for the record. This should do, and I recommend that you complete the request with it.  Sandstein  16:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this will do, and, with all due respect, demanding that I also paste it somewhere up there now that you've already seen it is taking bureaucratic process-wonkery to an unprecedented extreme. No, I won't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, as a preliminary opinion, I think that there is actionable evidence that several editors have engaged in edit-warring to remove or add names from the leads of the articles named by Fut.Perf. and Jacurek, as can be seen in the history of e.g. Bernardine Cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I suggest that we compile a consolidated list of reverts by editor and decide on that basis whether to sanction anybody, after requesting the involved editors to comment. If not other admin disagrees, I'm going to start compiling such a list.  Sandstein  06:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that any campaigns of mass removal or mass addition of alternate-language names should be looked into. Sandstein's idea of making a consolidated list of reverts sounds good. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've started the list below; all admins are welcome to help complement it. We should try to cover all previously EE-warned editors and recent edit wars.  Sandstein  19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Before we start discussing sanctions against individuals, I submit the following principles for administrator discussion:

• Whether the reverts complied with the applicable naming guidelines is irrelevant, as such edits are not exempt from WP:EW. Also, compliance with this guideline is a content issue, because it requires editorial judgment, and cannot therefore be reviewed in an arbitration context.
• Reverts from earlier years are relevant insofar as they are part of a continued edit war involving the same editors, or as part of a pattern of adding or removing the same language (see below).
• Edit-warring to add or remove a language from any one article does not necessarily reflect bias, as there may be policy-based grounds for such reverts (even if these do not excuse edit-warring). But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds, since the guideline makes reference to the use of names in English-language literature, which differs from topic to topic. Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias ahead of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. This makes such a pattern incompatible with WP:NPOV and, consequently, grounds for sanctions.  Sandstein  21:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Further admin comments about the Result concerning Jacurek

• I've made a new sub-heading to clarify that this is where admin comments can continue. Move this section below if you prefer. I'm glad Sandstein has collected the evidence on these articles because it helps narrow the issue. I see that other participants have also been notified, and we await their responses. Among the possible actions we might take, we could consider a ban on adding or removing any alternate names for articles. This ban would be applied to all editors listed below who have previously been sanctioned under any Eastern European cases. This would mean renaming bans for all the editors below except M.K., who could be notified of the discretionary sanctions and warned. Banned editors could still argue on the talk pages for changing the alternate names.

• This assumes that the discussion here reaches a conclusion on which of these changes in alternate names exceed the limits of good-faith editing. Sandstein's argument is that consistent changes to promote the same ethnicity are usually in bad faith. I see the logic of that, especially for people who were previously sanctioned. (These aren't newcomers who are unfamiliar with our customs). EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• A renaming ban is a good idea for (at least some of) the editors discussed here. But I'm not convinced it that it is sensible to extend it to all editors under EE sanctions. We have no evidence that this is a widespread problem in this topic area (although I wouldn't be surprised if it were) or with most previously sanctioned editors.  Sandstein  21:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• My proposal is to consider a renaming ban only for the editors named in your table below who are also under EE sanctions. Perusal of the dates of these reverts of the alternate names shows that a good number of the reverts have occurred since 1 March. If there is a recent upsurge, and if the editors below are the main ones doing the reverting, that is a reason why they should come to our attention. It distinguishes them from the other sanctioned EE editors. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, I agree; I misread you. I'm proposing an editor-by-editor analysis and sanctions below, based on the principles submitted above and the evidence collected below.

• Jacurek has engaged in nationalist edit-warring about names, violating WP:EW and WP:NPOV. He has a very long history of EE sanctions, up to a 6 months topic ban, so his "last chance" moment has already passed. Proposed sanction: indefinite EE topic ban.
• Volunteer Marek has made individual reverts in support of and in conjunction with Jacurek's nationalist edit-warring about names. He has a moderate history of EE sanctions, and notably a past sanction for covert coordination of edits with Jacurek (WP:EEML#Radeksz). Proposed sanction: six months renaming ban as described below; warning for expressing what sounds like nationalist prejudice on this page ("Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy").
• M.K has participated in nationalist edit-warring about names. They have not previously been warned about arbitration sanctions, so none can be imposed here. Proposed consequence: warning.
• Dr. Dan has participated in nationalist edit-warring about names. He has also made mild personal attacks ("trolling", "trolling"). He has a moderate history of EE sanctions. Proposed sanctions: indefinite renaming ban, three months topic ban.
• Lokyz has participated in nationalist edit-warring about names. He has also made slightly more serious personal attacks ("ex-admin RPG player", "Dyslexic"). He has a limited history of EE sanctions. Proposed sanctions: indefinite renaming ban, three months topic ban.

A renaming ban mans that the editor is banned from changing, removing or adding names (including translations) in a Eastern European language with respect to a subject that the same article already designates with a name in another Eastern European language. This notably also covers anything that appears as part of the article (such as categories, images or templates), and moving pages. For the purpose of this ban, "Eastern European language" includes German.  Sandstein  23:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I support all the bans you've recommended above. I suggest keeping this open for at least another 24 hours to see if more admins will comment. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Name-changing reverts in the EE topic area

Jacurek

Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (warning), partially copied from the request

• On Vilnius University: 11-03-0511-03-0511-03-0911-03-09 (adding Polish)
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: 11-03-0511-03-0511-03-08 (adding Polish)
• On Bernardine Cemetery: 11-03-0411-03-0711-03-08 11-03-08 (adding Polish)
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: 11-03-0611-03-0711-03-08 (adding Polish)
• On Suvalkija: 11-03-0503-0511-03-06 (adding Polish)
• On Gdańsk: 09-10-13 (adding German), 11-03-12 (removing German)

Previous sanctions: many blocks up to 3 months for topic-related misconduct; WP:DIGWUREN 1RR restriction (2009) and interaction ban (2010); WP:EEML#Jacurek and WP:EEML#Jacurek topic banned (6 months in Dec 2009)

Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously editing as Radeksz (warning)

• On Vilnius University: 11-03-09 (adding Polish)
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: none
• On Bernardine Cemetery: 11-03-07 (adding Polish)
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: none
• On Suvalkija: 10-08-16 (adding Polish)
• On Gdańsk: 11-03-11 (removing German)

Previous sanctions: Three non-overturned topic-related blocks; WP:EEML#Radeksz and WP:EEML#Radeksz topic banned (rescinded in June 2010)

M.K

M.K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified) (no warning found)

• On Vilnius University: none
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: 10-02-28, 10-03-04 (removing Belarusian, Polish)
• On Bernardine Cemetery: 08-04-21, 08-04-22, 08-07-19, 08-08-12, 08-08-18, 08-08-22, 08-11-05, 10-10-21, 11-03-08, 11-03-08 (removing Polish)
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: none
• On Suvalkija: none
• On Gdańsk: none

Previous sanctions: none

Dr. Dan

Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified) (warning)

• On Vilnius University: 06-11-06, 06-11-09, 10-08-11, 11-03-09 (removing Belorusian, Polish)
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: 11-03-09 (removing Polish)
• On Bernardine Cemetery: 10-09-1010-10-06, 10-10-08, 10-10-09, 10-10-21, 10-10-21, 11-03-08, 11-03-10 (removing Polish)
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: 11-03-09 (removing Polish)
• On Suvalkija: none
• On Gdańsk: none

Previous sanctions: 2 incivility blocks, WP:DIGWUREN interaction ban for 3 months in 2010

Lokyz

Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified) (warning)

• On Vilnius University: 07-06-01, 11-03-05, 11-03-05, 11-03-09, 11-03-09 (removing Polish and English)
• On St. Anne's Church, Vilnius: 11-03-05, 11-03-05 (removing Polish)
• On Bernardine Cemetery: 08-09-13, 11-03-07, 11-03-07 (removing Polish)
• On Cathedral Square, Vilnius: 11-03-07, 11-03-08 (removing Polish)
• On Suvalkija: 10-08-06, 10-08-16, 11-03-05, 11-03-06 (removing Polish)
• On Gdańsk: none

Previous sanctions: One non-overturned AE block; Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes#Lokyz admonished and restricted for edit-warring (2008)

Lapsed Pacifist

Jalapenos do exist

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

Request concerning Jalapenos do exist

User requesting enforcement

Gatoclass (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jalapenos do exist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

• Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions
• Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive78#Jalapenos_do_exist

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

1. . Reversion of this edit. With diff #2 below: Violation of global 1RR restriction on I-P articles. Violation of Jalapenos' 1RR per day ban on I-P articles.
2. . Reversion of this edit. With diff #1 above: Violation of global 1RR restriction on I-P articles. Violation of Jalapenos' 1RR per day ban on I-P articles.
3. Gross violation of WP:NPOV through the creation of another heavily biased article from this user. See further explanation below.

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

1. Warning by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs)

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

Topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On December 20 last year, Jalapenos do exist was banned from making more than one global revert per day on I-P related articles, for a period of three months. This came on top of the 1RR restriction that was imposed on all editors in the I-P topic area. The first two diffs in the evidence section above demonstrate that Jalapenos has violated both restrictions by making two clear reverts on the same article only 8 hours apart.

The third diff above, represents the state of the article as Jalapenos created it before others started to make substantial edits to it. I submit that the article he created represents a gross violation of NPOV, for several reasons:

• As with other I-P articles Jalapenos has created, this article completely omitted any statements from Palestinian moderates, presenting only extreme or hardline points of view. Thus, we learn in the intro that Palestinians in Rafah celebrated in the streets, but nowhere in the article was it mentioned that Palestinian residents of Awarta condemned the attack. We learned that Al-Aqsa called the attack "heroic" and Hamas justified it, but not that the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority condemned it. Nor did the article mention that the attack may have been carried out in retaliation for the killing of two Palestinian teenagers from Awarta last year. I was able to find all this information in five minutes from the sources that Jalapenos himself provided: Jalapenos must have read them, but he has chosen to simply omit any information that might detract from his one-sided presentation of Palestinians as bloodthirsty and vengeful.

• Jalapenos included not one, but three horrific images of bodies of the victims. All three images were quickly deleted from Commons by an admin, but not before J. had reverted the removal of only one of them by another user (see diff #1 above). Note that J. gave no reason for his revert.

• Jalapenos restored the information about Palestinians in Rafah celebrating the killings after I had removed it as wp:undue in the lead (see diff #2 above). He gave no explanation for his revert, in common with his usual practice. Nor did he leave any explanation on the talk page. At the moment he reverted it, he must have been aware that the residents of Awarta had had an opposite response, calling the killings bestial, but for Jalapenos only the response of the Rafahns merits inclusion in the intro.

Jalapenos has a long history of creating heavily biased content on this encyclopedia, as a look at his editing history will demonstrate. I'd like to think the user is capable of reform but I'm afraid I see no evidence of it with this latest series of edits. I am therefore requesting a topic ban for this user. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Jalapenos

J. states that he was merely responding to a request to move the picture, but Biosketch's comment on the talk page included the comment: please consider that plastering photos of the victims all over the article is nonconstructive editing. Clearly, he felt that the addition of three pictures was excessive. Jalapenos ignored this concern in restoring the image.

Regardless, the condition of the article before others made substantial changes was demonstrably one-sided, to a degree that I think ought to be considered unacceptable. Excluding all but the most extreme Palestinian viewpoints and plastering the article with graphic images of "dead babies", to quote User:Y, should surely be evidence enough of that. Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the violation of 1RR charge. I missed the fact that Jalapenos had restored the image to a different section, and that he might have believed that by doing so he was responding to Biosketch's main concern. He still could, I think, have asked for clarification, but I think this can no longer be described as a clearcut revert. My apologies to Jalapenos and the adjudicating admins for the error.

In regards to the other part of the case, I will probably have more to say tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Request downgrade

On reflection, though I believe the article created by Jalapenos was blatantly POV, I probably would not have brought this request on that evidence alone, it was that in combination with the 1RR violation, since withdrawn, that persuaded me to file it. Though Jalapenos has in my experience made some highly questionable edits at times, and in my opinion added some marginal content, I'm not entirely sure a sanction is warranted at this point. In the absence of further evidence from other users, therefore, and in the interests of collegiality, I am downgrading my enforcement request from a topic ban to a warning. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Jalapenos do exist

Statement by Jalapenos do exist

I create a pretty good article almost single handedly, and instead of getting thanked, first I get hit with a frivolous AfD (snow kept), and now this bullshit.

In edit #1, a user had removed an image of a victim from the Reactions section with the statement "inappropriately situated, no connection to Reactions"; I agreed, so I restored the image to the Victims section, explaining what I did and why. A very mundane edit in the course of upkeep on an article I created, and by no means a revert. So much for the 1RR allegation.

The NPOV allegation is nonsense. I really don't feel like going through all the falsehoods and carefully constructed half-truths, but if you just look at this article and my other articles, you can see that they are not biased, and many editors have said as much. I'm proud of the fact that I've received compliments from editors with declared sympathies on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Please take a good, long look at Gatoclass' editing and complaint history. What's going on here is that Gatoclass has a strong partisan POV regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, he seeks to imprint his POV on any he article he can (typically articles where someone else did the real work), he relentlessly bullies anyone who gets in his way, and he attempts to manipulate the AE process for this purpose. Of course, people who share his partisan POV will support these attempts, and people who oppose it will oppose them. You guys can either find a way to put a stop to this behavior, or you can let your time get wasted with drama and watch as sensible editors continue to disappear from this area out of frustration. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Gatoclass

Having apparently abandoned the 2RR allegation, Gatoclass is now clutching at the idea that I ignored Biosketch's concerns when restoring a photo to the Victims section. Not exactly an issue for AE, but in any case Biosketch has explicitly stated "I support displaying one photo in the Victims section, as a relevant document illustrating the event with which the article is concerned". My position is similar, and we editors who are actually writing the article are, at this very moment, having a civil and rather nuanced discussion on what to do with the photos. Cptnono, NortyNort and Biosketch essentially agree with me, and Robofish essentially agrees with Y, who unilaterally deleted all the photos by invoking WP:IAR. I agree with Biosketch that meanwhile the deletion "should be reverted pending a more articulate explanation", and you might say that our concern is being ignored, but I am bound by 1RR. Meanwhile, Gatoclass, who has contributed nothing to the article except a short series of POV-serving edits, has simply not participated in the discussion. And why should he, when he can circumvent the normal consensus-building procedures and just force his partisan position on the article by gaming AE? I guess that he will soon receive assistance from Mkativerata, who has not sullied himself with actual discussion on the talk page either. That's how it goes. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein regarding Fatah and sources

I originally wrote in the lead: Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the military wing of Palestinian Fatah, claimed responsibility for the attack, calling it a "heroic operation" This was based on the cited Guardian article, which wrote: The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the armed wing of Fatah, the dominant political faction in the West Bank, said it had carried out the "heroic operation … ". Word for word.

I also wrote in the body: Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the "heroic" operation was a "natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank." This was based on the cited Jerusalem Post source, which wrote: "PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a statement released by Fatah’s militia, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the “heroic” operation was a “natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.” Again, word for word. (See also ElComandantChe's briefer statement on this.)

Both cited sources state that Fatah's militia/the armed wing of Fatah, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack. As do my statements. Neither source attributes any responsibility to the PA, nor do either of my statements. The Guardian source notes the commonly known fact that Fatah dominates the PA, as does my second statement. Everything in both statements is in one or both of the sources, though the second statement has a short explanatory clause that's only stated explicitly in the first source.

Mkateriva deleted the second statement entirely with the edit summary rm statement that falsifies and exaggerates source and throws in a copyright violation for good measure. I've already shown that the edit summary is at least partially false. I'm not sure what he meant by "throws in a copyright violation". He then proceeded to remove the first statement entirely, with the edit summary rm claim contradicted by http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=211909 This edit summary is also false (though it might have been an innocent mistake), because Mkateriva's second Jpost article does not contradict my Guardian and first Jpost articles; it merely notes that Al Hayat published a contradictory report, and it neither endorses nor challenges this report. Al Hayat is owned by a prince of Saudi Arabia, a regime not known for allowing a robust independent press. While it would nevertheless be perfectly fine to include both statements side by side, there is no justification for simply deleting a statement agreed on by both The Guardian and The Jerusalem Post because it is contradicted by Al Hayat, an inferior source in both quantity and quality.

In short, my statements did not misrepresent the sources in any way, and Mkateriva selectively removed them under flimsy and partially false pretexts. It is entirely obvious that he was uncomfortable with the claim of responsibility by Fatah's armed wing, reported by two mainstream reliable sources, and chose to deal with this discomfort by simply deleting them. What this episode illustrates is that with a strong enough commitment to deception and sophistry, any edit - any edit whatsoever - can be portrayed as sinister, and any selective removal of material, no matter how biased and egregious, can be gotten away with by using AE as a distractive. The logical conclusion of this type of behavior is Unomi's long missive which basically boils down to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" How true, and how tragic, since I would be going back to use the sources more thoroughly, thereby improving the article and Misplaced Pages, if only I weren't stuck here responding to spurious accusations. The question is whether people who act like this have to pay any price for it, or if they can just go on freely slinging their mud hoping that some of it will stick while they continue with their bad editing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein regarding Hamas and sources

The main issue here is that the source has been changed since I used it. The cached original version is titled Palestinian takes revenge, kills 5 settlers. This is where I got but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis. That the whole thing is a statement by Hamas is simple: the source is a Hamas website. The Hamas statement acknowledges that the attack occurred but, notably, does not claim responsibility. That Hamas denied responsibility has been stated explicitly in that same primary source and in mainstream secondary sources, e.g. , but I was using the first source anyway and its indication by silence was sufficient to source the point. My summary of Hamas's position was accurate and representative of the source in every element. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mkativerata

In addition to the substantial evidence filed above, a few other issues demonstrate the relentless POV-pushing of JdE on this article:

• Falsified linking of the attack to Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. This was the article before anyone else really touched it. It said Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. Plainly, this statement is designed to push a POV that Fatah, and thus the PA, is linked to the attacks. The statement falsifies the source cited. The source says nothing of Fatah releasing a statement. Absolutely nothing. The source actually says that the PA (controlled by Fatah) was "sceptical" of a statement supposedly released by the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. Of course, the main content of the source is to show that Fatah and the PA condemened the attacks. But JdE's article makes no mention of the PA's condemnation, instead choosing to falsify the source to implicate Fatah. The fact that JdE's content also violated the copyright of the source cited demonstrates the extreme rush in which this hatchet job of an article was prepared.
• Of course, we later found out that in fact the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades denied having anything to do with the attack. In these two edits I added a more up-to-date source saying that al-Aqsa denied involvement, and that the "statement" claiming responsibility was issued by a random splinter group that uses al-Aqsa's name. But despite the evidence to the contrary, JdE had to persist in restoring the perjorative links to Fatah despite the source used being obviously out of date and overtaken by more accurate sources (I'd edit the article again... but 1RR).
• As per Gatoclass, the article took great pains to mention anything that could reflect badly on the Palestinian administration. But JdE conspicuously ignored information from the same sources that could provide a more balanced view, such as the condemnations by PA, the reaction of residents of Awarta.

Breaches of 1RR are forgivable, and it seems there weren't any here. But POV-pushing by source falsification and selective inclusion of perjorative material cannot be tolerated. This is exactly what topic bans were designed for. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

On the first point. The source says "PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a statement released by Fatah’s militia, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings", i.e. JDE representation of the source is quite accurate. No comments on credibility of both JPost articles mentioned above. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

On what basis does "Fatah's militia" = "Fatah"? That link is plainly a falsification, especially when (a) the same sentence says that the PNA (controlled by Fatah) expressed scepticism about the statement; and (b) it is well established that the description of AAMB as "Fatah's militia" is dubious and controversial. JdE has deliberately set out to mispresent the source to tie the attacks not only to AAMB but to Fatah. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Just a couple of points: (1) Unomi has presented more evidence of source falsification below (see the Hamas "revenge" issue). (2) A dispute about POV on a particular article is a content issue; an accusation that a user is pushing POV in his or her article work is a conduct issue. Pushing POV falls within the scope of ARBPIA sanctions as conduct that "seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". AE admins here aren't being asked to adjudicate on a content dispute (the content dispute at the article has pretty much settled down); they're being asked to sanction an editor for pushing POV. Accordingly, I think the POV accusations against JdE are actionable as an AE request. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, POV-pushing is sanctionable, but normally not on the basis of writing a single (even if possibly deficient) article. We'd need evidence for a pattern of non-neutral conduct. The previous AE request cited below may be relevant, though.  Sandstein  23:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on further review and in fairness to JdE, the Hamas/revenge/attribution issue may be due to an earlier version of the source that was linked. It seems an earlier version of the Al Qassam article said in its headline, "Palestinian takes revenge, kills 5 settlers". Al Qassam is linked to Hamas, so perhaps the attribution of the "revenge" quote to Hamas can be explained on that basis. An earlier version of the source is copy/pasted at this forum. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As another example of the POV-pushing in Itamar killings, JdE included 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign as a "See also" link. That article is a controversial article essentially claiming a concerted effort by Palestinian factions to use violence to derail the peace process in 2010. Including a see also link in Itamar killings was none other than a brazen attempt, unsupported by any reliable sources, to suggest that these murders were a cynical part of that so-called militancy campaign. It should come as no surprise that JdE is one of the principal authors of 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@JdE's recent lengthy post, as it questions my own edits:

The phrase "It added that the perpetrator managed to return safely to his base." is a word-for-word copyright violation of .

The suggestion that Al-Hayat is an unreliable source in these matters is completely spurious. A read of our own WP article on the newspaper will show that. The fact that the Jerusalem Post reported Al-Hayat's reports verbatim indicates that it is accepted for its reliability across the spectrum of reasonable I/P views. This New York Times article is a good read. It was abundantly clear by the time of my edit (and remains clear now) that early news reports attributing the attack to the AAMB were completely wrong, and I make no apology for correcting it. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by unomi

Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort, neither its selection of articles nor individual articles will ever be 'finished', we work together, sometimes competitively and at best cooperatively to continually improve presentation of the material available - in light of this we shouldn't hold any one editor responsible for 'perfecting' an article. I believe that this holds true when looking at the broad selection of sources available for any given subject, however, when an editor chooses to selectively include material from a source - and indeed materially misrepresent the content of the sources - then we have a problem.

JDE was fairly recently sanctioned at AE, see here, where uninvolved admins stated: "I do, however, see other problematic editing, including apparent single-purpose, POV-driven editing affecting multiple articles, including article creation, ..." and "... we caution him that future misconduct on these articles can result in him being excluded from the topic area, blocked from editing, or otherwise restricted.".

Did JDE fail to represent the sources he used adequately? Looking at the version indicated by Mkativerata above, starting from the bottom up.

1. Hamas, the group that governs the Gaza Strip, did not claim responsibility, but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis and argued that Palestinian factions "have the full right... to use all tools and means of resistance" against Israel.

• The only thing regarding the perpetrator and motivation stated there is: "Israeli media claimed that angry Palestinian attacked a home in the illegal settlement of Itamar near Nablus and killed Five settlers from one family before he escapes." I would also note that the passage regarding armed resistance is edited to remove any mention of international law, the occupation and changes 'Israeli occupation forces and the armed Israeli settlers' to simply 'Israel'.

• Also note that the page shows related stories, one bearing the headline: "Hamas denies responsibility for Itamar incident" and contains: "Al-Rashak confirmed that harming children is not part of Hamas' policy, nor is it the policy of the resistance factions."

2. Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the "heroic" operation was a "natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank." It added that the perpetrator managed to return safely to his base.

• The source article as a whole is somewhat confusing to be honest, personally I would probably look for a more authoritative source regarding just who claimed responsibility for what. A quick google search quickly brings into to question the quality of the assertion: A previously unknown group, the Imad Mughniyah Cell of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack Saturday, but an unnamed Israeli officer told Haaretz daily that this was "nonsense."
• The source does however repeatedly state that the PNA condemned “any act that targets civilians, regardless of their identity.” the entire first 1/3 of the source article is dedicated to the PNA condemning the killings, yet none, not one bit of that is mentioned under Palestinian reactions, not just a little. That the PNA condemned the killings is repeated in just about every source that was in use at that time.

3. This LA Times article is used 3 times, mostly for details that in some cases are contradicted by sources closer to the event, such as the 2 unharmed children were hiding rather than sleeping. But much information in the source is ignored such as:

• Israeli authorities suspect that the killings, the deadliest attack inside a settlement in several years, were either a strike by Palestinian militants or a revenge attack by residents of the West Bank village of Awarta, where two Palestinian teenagers were shot to death a year ago as they collected garbage near Itamar.

• Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad also criticized the killings. "As we have always rejected violence against our people, we reject it against others and we condemn it."
• Tensions between settlers and Palestinian villagers have been escalating for weeks. Founded in 1984, the Itamar settlement sits on land that was once controlled by the village of Awarta, said Awarta Mayor Qais Awwad.

• In recent weeks, Palestinians have accused settlers in the area of chopping down hundreds of olive trees, burning Palestinians' cars and shooting at villagers. Last week, Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler.

• Itamar's settlers are considered among the most fervent, believing Israel has a historic and religious right to absorb the West Bank, which Israel seized during the 1967 Middle East War. Most of the international community, however, views Israel's settlements as illegal and has called for Israel to end the occupation by allowing Palestinians to build their own state on the land.

• Israeli soldiers appeared to be focusing their efforts on family members of the two Palestinians killed last March. At the time, Palestinians had complained that the unarmed youths were killed by settlers from Itamar, although Israeli soldiers said they shot the teens. A military investigation was opened into the incident. Several male relatives in the family were arrested Saturday and their home remained surrounded by Israeli soldiers.

I can reach no other conclusion than JDE deliberately excluded information which would be of value to an encyclopedic article but might run counter to his intentions with wikipedia.

We aren't talking about just not doing diligent research in finding appropriate sources, we are talking about intentional and consistent omissions from numerous sources that he had read. It is this kind of editing which is most problematic in terms of editor friction and is an impediment to a collaborative editing atmosphere, not to mention being just plain manipulative of wikipedia readers. un☯mi 21:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment to Sandstein

Regarding: "Whether the article as a whole conformed to WP:NPOV when it was created, or whether relevant information was omitted, is probably a content dispute that cannot be decided in an arbitration context"

I have to echo the sentiment of Mkativerata above. The I/P discretionary sanctions state that this type of behavior is falls under the purview of AE: that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. it also explicitly mentions WP:NPOV: Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing. WP:NPOV has as its first line: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. - it may be that this should be followed in theory but that in practice it rarely happens (especially in contentious areas), but that is more than anything the fault of those who should be enforcing the policy. One could argue that omitting material that speaks to possible motives, such as carried by the LA Times, might potentially be a content issue, but surely not that the PNA had condemned the attacks when half of the article is about 'reactions' and when the sources are brimming with the PNA reactions. It strikes me that intentionally omitting that the PNA had condemned the attacks, and even going so far as intimating that it was linked to them is such a gross violation when you consider that just about every single source JDE used carried the information that the PNA had condemned them. un☯mi 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to JDE's comment

Regarding: "The logical conclusion of this type of behavior is Unomi's long missive which basically boils down to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" How true, and how tragic, since I would be going back to use the sources more thoroughly, thereby improving the article and Misplaced Pages, if only I weren't stuck here responding to spurious accusations."

Let me be Frank, Shirley you must be joking. In light of your previous AE where you also forwarded this very same mix of mild outrage, denial of any wrong-doing and deflection of core issues I find myself yet again amazed at the credulity that you attribute to your fellow editors. I do however welcome your tacit acknowledgement that you did not reflect the weight of contents in the sources that you used. That you would have, if only.. rings mightily hollow however; you managed to add the responses of the UN, France, Germany, US, 'quartet on the Middle East', Perez and Netanyahu - replete with flags in most cases, yet the Palestinian reactions are 1. giving out candy, 2. military wing of fatah claiming responsibility calling it 'heroic', 3. Hamas calling it an act of revenge - yet failed to mention what is stated in just about each source that you use - The Palestinian National Authority condemning the attacks. Sorry, but the contention that you somehow didn't have the time to mention that is laughable. The conscious and willful omission of what is given weight in the sources is a blatant WP:NPOV violation, and attempting to reduce that to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" is brazen, but brings us back to the same situation as in the previous AE - assume bad faith or assume no clue.

Regarding: "The question is whether people who act like this have to pay any price for it, or if they can just go on freely slinging their mud hoping that some of it will stick while they continue with their bad editing."

Indeed.

un☯mi 02:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment regarding the downgrade request by Gatoclass

I never expected more to come of this than a warning and would find that a satisfactory conclusion to this request as well. un☯mi 14:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jalapenos do exist

I was heavily involved in the Itamar article yesterday and also, albeit to a much lesser extent, with the Itamar attack article that split off of it. My immediately following comments may therefore be considered, and may indeed be, biased. On the matter of Revert #1, in all fairness it ought not to be classified as a Revert. I removed a photo placed in the Reactions sections, feeling that that was not an appropriate place for it; whereupon User:Jalapenos do exist proceeded to restore the photo in the Victims section – which, at least in relative terms, was a more appropriate place for it (or less inappropriate, depending on how you want to construe it).

I can sympathize with User:Gatoclass' remark about the article taking on what could be considered, and indeed may have been, a biased character. I commented to that effect on the Discussion page with regard to the omission of Prime Minister Fayyad's formal condemnation and with regard to the (spurious, in my view) attribution of responsibility to the Fatah party. The Jerusalem Post article that was the source for the first paragraph of the Palestinian reaction did include information to the effect that Fayyad condemned the massacre, but the editor(s) elected not to include it in the article. It also explained that Fatah did not directly claim responsibility for the massacre but rather that a faction of Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade did – but this comment too went unaddressed.

However, I would not be as hasty as User:Gatoclass in concluding that User:Jalapenos do exist's edits deliberately left out information. One must keep in mind the fact that this was a clear case of aggressor and victim. Oftentimes that relationship is not so sharply defined in the ongoing cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians but, given the circumstances, in this case it is only natural to frame it in those terms. Furthermore, specifically with regard to the Fatah point, User:Jalapenos do exist may simply not have been informed enough as an editor on the dynamics of the Palestinian's quasi-political/quasi-paramilitary leadership structures. That is to say, he may candidly have been unaware of the distinction between Fatah and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

I'm not one to draw clear conclusions one way or the other, but these observations are what I have to contribute to the discussion for the benefit of those that will ultimately need to draw them.—Biosketch (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Cptnono

Since the concern over edit warring has been withdrawn this is only a case of POV pushing. I agree that JDE created a article that was overly emotional. It is an overtly emotional subject. We cannot punish an editor for writing about a dead baby. If he was not edit warring then he did nothing many editors would not do. So if he was not edit warring he was simply adding a POV that any rationale editor should understand. He did not edit war over it and instead let other editors counter the expected POV. When babies do not die then editors will not have to mirror the sources. Next time he should try harder but if an admin can honestly say they see a problem with an editor writing an article about an emotional subject then they need to go check out the new page patrol page. Gatoclass should accept that he made a request for enforcement on partially false pretenses and drop it. JDE should try harder to write less emotionally even when it deals with dead babies. Dead babies die in Gaza City so this statement could be reversed to apply to POV pushers on the other side. No edit warring? What is the problem Gatoclass? Cptnono (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cooment by BorisG

I agree with Biosketch. If an article appears one-sided (as this one arguably did), the right thing to do is to correct or remove the bias and include missing info, not to file an AE request. Since there was no attempt by JDE to dispute or disrupt such changes, there is no justfification for any sanction (perhaps a warning). And both sides will do well by assuming good faith and avoiding gross incivility expressed in some comments above.

On a more general point, I think admins should consider discouraging any future AE requests by editors involved in disputes. Why? Because this page itself has become a battleground. I think this should apply to both sides. Don't know how practical this is, just an idea. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) - BorisG (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Jalapenos do exist

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

• After a brief review, the only potentially actionable problem I see is the accusation that Jalapenos do exist may have misrepresented the source when he wrote that "Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia", whereas the source reads: "PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a statement released by Fatah’s militia ..." This does appear to attribute responsibility to the PA and Fatah in a way that the source does not. I'd appreciate a comment by Jalapenos do exist on this matter.

  The other accusations have been withdrawn (1RR) or do not seem actionable to me: Whether the article as a whole conformed to WP:NPOV when it was created, or whether relevant information was omitted, is probably a content dispute that cannot be decided in an arbitration context.  Sandstein  22:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• The first point raised by Unomi is also potentially problematic. Jalapenos do exist wrote in the article that "Hamas, the group that governs the Gaza Strip, did not claim responsibility, but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis", citation marks in the original. This text is sourced to . Nowhere does this source contain the words "Hamas" or "revenge", or the assertion that Hamas did not claim responsibility, or even the assertion that Palestinians did it. That claim is attributed to "Israeli media" in the source: "Israeli media claimed that angry Palestinian attacked ...". This looks like another potential source misrepresentation.  Sandstein  23:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Apparently the source has changed in the interim.  Sandstein  20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am unconvinced by Jalapenos do exist's explanation concerning the PA/Fatah source misrepresentation issue. I've taken note that the requesting editor now only asks for a warning. Given that non ultra petita does not apply to AE requests, we are not bound by that request to "downgrade" the sanction. Nonetheless, under these circumstances, closing the request with a warning may be prudent so as not to unnecessarily inflame tempers, and if no admin disagrees, I will do so.  Sandstein  21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)