Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shrike (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 11 July 2012 (→Comment by Shrike: better). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AE
• WP:ARE

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

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

Shrike

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

Request concerning Shrike

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

asad (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 4 July 2012 Shrike blindy reverts 6.5 kB of sourced material under the false justification of WP:NPOV and WP:ONUS

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

1. Topic-banned on Feb 19 2011 by AGK (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

What we have here is a clear cut case of someone wanting to have their cake and eat it the same time. In the first diff, Shrike makes a massive revert of sourced material, by claiming "All the recent edits turned article to POV nightmare and piece of propaganda." This is a blatant misrepresentation of reality as Nishdani clearly used sources per WP:RS. The sources included were:

• Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine and the adjacent regions: a journal of Travels in the years 1838 and 1852 ,'
• David Dean Shulman, Dark Hope, University of Chicago Press,
• Belén Vicéns,L'Orient Mitjà en el punt de mira,Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2005
• Robert Blecher, 'Living on the Edge: The Threat of "Transfer" in Israel and Palestine,' in Joel Beinin, Rebecca L. Stein, (eds.)The Struggle for Sovereignty: Palestine And Israel, 1993-2005, Stanford University Press, 2006

Three of these sources are from university presses and the final is a notable scholar. Furthermore, Shrike demanded that Nishdani go through source and explain why it conforms with WP:RS policy.

Shrike seems to have a relapse of their principle on Governance of the Gaza Strip article. In this edit, Shrike adds a source to claim that the Gaza Strip is run by a dictatorship. When a reasonable objection is brought up to the source Shrike provided, (as it is just a blanket mention of Hamas in Gaza being a dictatorship without any supporting evidence in a highly partisan essay) s/he responds by saying that they don't have to explain there source, and such challenges should be brought up to the WP:RS/N. When a relevant objection is brought up to blatant hypocrisy, Shrike dismisses it by responding, "The rest of you comment have nothing to do with improving this article please so such comment is not appropriate in this talk page."

What is also evident in all of this is Shrike's attempt to WP:HOUND Nishidani. Anyone who looks at Nishidani's edit history can see that he is a well-read/researched editor who obviously spends a lot of time going through sources and making major improvements and additions to articles. On multiple occasions, Shrike has followed Nishidani to articles that 1) s/he have never edited in the past and 2) have extremely low page views. This was the case with his revert on the Yanun article. It is also evident on the Azzam Pasha quotation article. A editor shouldn't be allowed to revert large swaths of sourced material at their whim, and claim WP:BRD (which is rather more of an essay than an actual policy).

Editors also shouldn't be allowed to make up rules to push a certain POV, and then break their own made up rules when it suits the same POV. Furthermore, Shrike's persistant hounding of Nishidani is evidence of his/her lack of desire to be a productive, well-balanced, editor on the ARBPIA topic area.

@Anon - No where did I bring up the 1RR. This report is clearly about an editor's tendentious editing and hounding. Please try again. -asad (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@Shrike - If Nishidani is bringing in "activist" sources, what does that make Efraim Inbar -- the author of the source you linked with the government of Gaza as being a "dictatorship"? I think the bio on his Web site speaks for itself:

"Prof. Inbar served in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as a paratrooper. He was a member of the Political Strategic Committee of the National Planning Council and the Chair of the Committee for the National Security Curriculum at the Ministry of Education. He serves on the Academic Committee of the History Department of the IDF and as the President of the Israel Association of International Studies. Prof. Inbar is widely quoted in the Israeli and international press."

You ought to find your the utter hypocrisy here quite damning. -asad (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There. Fixed. Respond to the utter hypocrisy please. -asad (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Shrike

Statement by Shrike

The are two points that I want to made

1. This request is frivolous for one revert because the language of sanctions is quite clear from WP:AC/DS " despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The filer filed to prove this on this grounds the request should be dismissed.
2. This a content dispute the sources that Nishidani presented don't constitue WP:RS on the topic and thats the reason I have reveted him

Moreover this already discussed on the relevant page but lets see the sources that Nishidani presented

• David Dean Shulman, Dark Hope, - As it evident from his Wiki page he is not expert on the middle east and should not be used to make such claims.He wrote his book as an activist so inclusion of him is violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV
• Belén Vicéns, L'Orient Mitjà en el punt de mira, -book in foreign language though probably OK additional verification was needed
• Tanya Reinhart, The Road Map to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003, - She is a linguist not an expert on the topic but rather an activist
• Anna Baltzer, 'Outposts, Settler Violence, & the Village of Yanoun,' - Again known activist the use of her in the article it very questianble
• Settlers Force Desertion of Yanun Village,, Settlement Report | Vol. 12 No. 6 | November-December 2002], Foundation for Middle East Peace-Anti Settler activist organisation.

I don't say that all sources are bad but because he mixed bad and good it was very hard to separate between them and thus the reason I have reverted his edit.

Now about the Gaza article I never claimed that anyone except me should take the source to the RSN,I suggested that if the source is problematic it could be taken that's all anyhow I have provided justification why this source should be used. if it wasn't enough I would take it to WP:RSN.--Shrike (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The usage of bad source is disastrous to the area also calling good faith edits as vandalism only add fuel to very hot situation and its violation of WP:NPA thus I ask to warn Nishidani about WP:NPA and usage of bad sources and warn Asad about filing frivolous AE requests.--Shrike (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@asad I have no intention to respond to your personal attack and violation of WP:NPA --Shrike (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Shrike

Maybe I don't understand what 1RR means properly (but I think I do). This complaint is about someone making 1 revert. I'm puzzled by the motivation of the filing editor to file a report against someone who hasn't violated anything. This is clearly a content dispute and it should be taken to the talk page. Oh, and is anybody ever going to do something about these never-ending baseless reports? Aren't you admins tired of dealing with this nonsense yet? Or is that fun for you maybe... who knows. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this anon is itself under investigation above. Zero 03:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the IP under investigation above is not me, and that if you continue to make these baseless accusations in an attempt to tarnish my reputation, I will seek administrative action against you for violating WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. If you have an issue, feel free to try WP:SPI. Otherwise, knock it off. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani. Despite Shrike's interest in me, I decided not to make a complaint of his behaviour. I add this comment only to clarify that Asad thought the behaviour I was troubled by serious enough to make an independent judgement, and write a complaint here. If I do not comment, it would look like this was coordinated by me, which would be unfair to Asad. Everyone has a right to make a call according to his own right without prior clearance from anyone else.

I documented what was going on:

• (a) the blanketing of extensive edits based on sources by area specialists with academic or major publishing house imprints
• (b) turning up on rare pages I began to edit to revert me, without examining my edits and their sources
• (c) the use in edit summaries of indications of wiki policy putatively violated that, on examination, prove to be irrelevant or specious, in short, an excuse to exercise as a right, arbitrarily, the 1R option rather than discuss on the talk page.
• (d)He often reverts me on rare articles (WP:HOUND) while another editor and I are discussing precisely my edits, and rarely if ever actually engages in those discussions.

I think that this is a behavioural problem. I'd not prefer a punitive sanction at this point. I would appreciate it if, those three reverts and their edit summaries are looked at. I think a fair assessment is that Shrike is not following best policy, using improper policy citations out of context, and obsessed with me. A strong warning not to persist in this erratic behaviour is, in my view, all that is needed at this point. Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Apropos the several RS. I think they are self-evidently RS (Shrike: please read beyond the WP:lead of any article before making a judgement like that: To cite just one. I wrote the David Dean Shulman article, and it specifies below the lead that his first degree was in Arabic, and he is has advanced graduate work in in Islamic civilizations) but told Shrike to go to RSN if he doubted that. He didn't go there. Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Ankhmorpork. If I introduced 'loads of crap sources', an hour at the WP:RSN with a just request would have had the experts there kicking me, justifiably. Please do not use hyperbole, mischaracterization is enough.

As a matter of editorial coherence, would I also remind you that at Yanun, you challenged me on only one of the several sources by eliding it here. Shrike then arrived after I'd restored it, and wiped all of my sources off. You now support this blanketing in defending him, saying they are a bunch of 'crap sources'. Had you believed that at the time, you should have edited as Shrike did, and not just query one source of several. Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Blade. Shrike's an experienced editor, as are most of those who, over the last month, just blanket revert edits that are based on very good sources. Secondly, the policies cited by these mechanical reverters in their edit summaries invariably apply only by special pleading. I can understand this behaviour with newbies. When editors with great familiarity do it, then they should be told to do their homework, and, politely, to pull their fingers out/their socks up, do a refresher course in optimal editing practices in wikipedia. It's hard enough coping with the daily appearance of socks in the I/P area without having experienced editors behaving as though one can do 1 revert a day of anything they dislike, however good the sources used may be. Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely not a content dispute. Wiping out 3 hours editorial work on a dead page, edits that introduced several new sources under major or academic imprint by scholars, in a blanket revert, cannot be a content dispute, in any other sense than I don't like the content you introduced, even if the sources are of high quality. None of the characterisations of the sources you now bring here reflects their quality. The appropriate forum is WP:RSN, which I have insisted both of you go to, and then notify me. You haven't. Just as you haven't noted that Khalidi is no longer on the page. Shrike removed it. I didn't revert him but added a better source. Neither you nor Shrike have added one jot or tittle to the page, which has grown thanks to several editors from 6 to 15.8kb in a few days. We are here, I repeat, to constructively assist in writing articles, not to be obstructive or litigious.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You cannot add content based on tendentious insignificant activist sources and partisan NGO's, demand that the content remains, and insist that those that take a different view file an RSN report before excising the disputed content. See WP:BRD Ankh.Morpork 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Indeed I never add that sort of content. As any glance at the pages I contribute to will show, I enter most articles only when I have read books by specialists, historians, anthropologists, or writers with a recognised competence to write about a subject they have direct experience of, whose works touch on the article's topic. In lieu of this quality of source for contemporary events, I restrict myself, in this area, to the mainstream Israeli press. Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Aen.1.323 cf Inferno.1.42. Requiring an apology would be far too punitive. All I'm asking for is some sign Shrike admits his use of policy tags over these three cases has been misleading, his elision of RS material improper, and a willingness to read WP:RS and stop doing this regularly on following me to pages he hasn't edited.Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by AnkhMorpork

This is a standard content dispute being selectively reported at AE.

• Shrike's edit was proceeded by talk page discussion in which the poor standards of some of the sources was pointed out.
• The response to these reservations was "go to WP:RSN if you wish to challenge this source." There was no consensus that the sources were reliable and this duty was incumbent upon the person wishing to use them.
• The sources that Shrike then removed in his edit included:

1. Unattributed contentious claims by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a partisan self-published NGO,
2. Unattributed historical claims and non-expert views of Hussein Khalidi, an International Solidarity Movement activist cited in the book, Peace Under Fire: Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement written by Josie Sandercock, another ISM activist with no academic background in the Middle East.
3. Unattributed non-expert views of peace activist, David Shulman
4. Unattributed non-expert views of Palestinian human rights activist, Anna Baltzer, "known for taking positions counter to the Israeli government regarding the Palestinian territories"
5. Unattributed non-expert views of political activist "considered extreme in her political views even by many left-wing activists", Tanya Reinhart

• Shrike's edit was immediately followed by a talk page explanation.

The recent additions were replete with unreliable sources that should never have been used. Overtures to improve the sourcing were ignored and Shrike made a necessary edit to ensure a semblance of NPOV and reliable sourcing remained in the article. Yes it was a large removal, yes there were loads of crap sources. Instead of then resorting to high-handed AE action, disputants should have sought dispute resolution and improved the sources.

Asad states "If Nishidani is bringing in "activist" sources, what does that make Efraim Inbar" to claim supposed hypocrisy. This is an absurd comparison. Inbar is a professor in Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University, the director of its Center for Strategic Studies, was a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University and Georgetown University, a visiting fellow of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and has lectured at Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Oxford, and Yale. He has written over 60 articles in professional journals. To equate him with a nescient insignificant activist demonstrates shocking judgment and an inability to determine what constitutes a RS. Ankh.Morpork 11:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The University of Chicago Press is not an activist publishing group, nor is Stanford University Press, or the Autonomous University of Barcelona, or Routledge. Edward Robinson is not an activist, nor is the BBC, nor is Haaretz. Yet sources published by University of Chicago Press, Stanford University Press, the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Routledge, the BBC, and Haaretz were all removed under the guise that all of the edits were "propaganda". That is, to put it lightly, unacceptable. That is an editor hounding a user to simply block any progress in building an article. Standing in the way and saying "NO NO NO" is not constructive, it is rather disruptive. The edit by Shrike was supremely tendentious. It removed several obviously reliable sources. Combined with the edit to Azzam Pasha quotation in which Shrike removes several sources despite not having even read them under a bogus claim that they "might" be "OR or SYNTH", you have a pattern of a user seeking to disrupt others work here. That is tendentious editing, pure and simple, and that can and should be dealt with by this board. nableezy - 13:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Time to kiss and make up

Yes, unacceptable; no, not inappropriate to raise a complaint; but, despite the confrontational stance elicited by this venue, hopefully the timely warning will have now been heeded and there's nothing an apology for the time-wasting or an open/tacit agreement to be more circumspect in the future can't mend; perhaps, if certain topic areas bring out the worst in an editor, he/she might find it soothing to try their hand for a while at molluscs or something equivalent, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Shrike

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

• I've pretty much got to agree with Maculosae tegmine lyncis here. Was the revert ideal, no. Was it worth an AE thread, probably not. I'd advise Shrike to avoid giving the impression of wikihounding Nishidani; I'm honestly not completely convinced that's what's going on here, but appearances can be significant factors in future decisions. If it's really a pattern, or if it becomes one, then demonstrate it with the necessary diffs. Until then, I think it'd be a bit out of proportion to sanction someone for one admittedly less than ideal revert. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with TBotNL; this is not (at least at this juncture) AE materiel. KillerChihuahua 14:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

TrevelyanL85A2

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

Request concerning TrevelyanL85A2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mathsci (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBR&I. The only appropriate remedy here appears to be an indefinite site-ban. That could happen here or could be enforced, even without a motion, by any member of arbcom.

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

Not applicable. This user is banned in absolutely crystal clear terms from making arbcom requests of the kind he has is attempting to make, particularly even the slightest thing which mentions my name. He has no idea what he's doing and his "activities" have no place whatsover on wikipedia.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

TrevelyanL85A2 is topic-banned from starting any kind of arbcom case involving me. He is doing so now on behalf of his friends, two site-banned users Captain Occam and Ferahgo-the-Assassin. This editor is hot off a one month AE block and has now apparently set his sights on creating maximal disruption on wikipedia. From statements on the arbitration committee talk page, he has been chatting with his DeviantArt friends (two of whom are arbcom site-banned users, both highly disruptive and neither of them particularly honest). TrevelyanL85A2 seems to be out to make mischief on their behalf. TrevelyanL85A2 has shown no interest whatsover in being involved in even the tiniest weeniest way in building a high quality encyclopedia to promote human knowledge, which is the main purpose of wikipedia. He should be site-banned from wikipedia. (That should apply equally well to any editors that arbcom have deemed to be associated with him and who choose to support his frivolous request there.) An administrator unconnected with arbcom should simply block the account indefinitely without allowing this to proceed further. Mathsci (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

TrevelaynL85A2 cannot mention me anywhere on wikipedia. What is it that he doesn't understand about that? Mathsci (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How far does TrevelyanL85A2 think he can go? He and his DeviantArt friends are making a mockery of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As MastCell can confirm, I did not communicate with him about TrevelyanL85A2 in this context, and I have stated this explicitly on wikipedia. If TrevelyanL85A2 wishes to continue presenting his own very particular take on this on wikipedia, that is his own responsibility. If he does not retract his claims and make a public apology, why should he be allowed to continue editing here? As far as I am concerned, this is clearly a disrutption-only account at the beck and call of two highly disruptive site-banned editors. The proof of that is not the gratuitous attack on me but on MastCell. Mathsci (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

TrevelyanL85A2 has made the following set of edits on User talk:The Devil's Advocate. In the second diff he has encouraged others to start an RfC/U on me. He is presumably aware that such a suggestion is yet another serious violation of his extended topic ban. Given the recent information provided on-wiki about off-wiki contacts amongst the DeviantArt group, there seems to be little doubt that TrevelyanL85A2 has been in contact with the two site-banned editors, Occam and Ferahgo, and is now continuing their own campaign as a proxy. Indeed, as Courcelles has pointed out on another arbcom page, that seems to be all he is doing at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

TDA appears to be trolling here. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If TDA disagrees with the results of the WP:ARBR&I review, he had the opportunity in May to express his objections. He did not do so. If he now feels that there should be an amendment or clarification of that review, this is not the correct venue. TDA will probably receive a an official logged warning if they continue making unhelpful remarks here. A sock troll of Echigo mole set up an abusive RfAr which was instantly removed by Courcelles and the sock CU-blocked. The trolling notifications were removed from all the user talk pages. Describing that as disruption is singularly unhelpful and clueless. Mathsci (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to enforce arbcom sanctions, not to question the validity of those sanctions. The response of wikipedians to the edits of Keystone Crow are not remotely relevant here (or anywhere on wikipedia). He was blocked by a checkuser as an obvious disruptive troll sock of a community banned wikistalker. Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Update The RfAr of TrevelyanL85A2 has now been declined as numerically impossible. Shortly after that posting of Roger Davies, TrevelyanL85A2 asserted that he was withdrawing the request. In that diff, he still does not seem to be heeding the warnings that have been given to him and/or his friend SightWatcher. They apply equally well to both. As MastCell has carefully explained, his failed RfAr relied on an extremely bad faith assumption which was demonstrably false. It involved casting aspersions on both MastCell and me; he repeatedly made those claims during his unsuccessful appeal and continued to do so after his one month block ended with this RfAr. The name "Mathsci" appeared multiple times throughout the request, despite TrevelyanL85A2's claim that it primarily concerned MastCell. (There is an unsurprising similarity with the aspersions cast by Occam back in December 2010 concerning Roger Davies and me.)

Following his unblock, TrevelyanL85A2 has given every appearance of continuing the dispute/campaign of Occam and Ferahgo as a proxy. SightWatcher has disclosed on-wiki that the DeviantArt group has been conferring off-wiki during TrevelyanL85A2's block. TrevelyanL85A2's most recent diffs still show that he has not yet relinquished the idea of encouraging wikipedia processes that will affect me and my editing directly and adversely. That is completely at odds with his extended topic ban and the advice and warnings he has received from multiple editors, administrators and arbitrators. In the last diff, instead of heeding those warnings, he has preferred to listen to The Devil's Advocate, who has stated several times now that the arbcom sanctions were not appropriate. The Devil's Advocate has no authority to misguide TrevelyanL85A2 in this way. In the diff above, TrevelyanL85A2 writes about "mixed messages" when everybody except The Devil's Advocate is telling him exactly the same thing. Mathsci (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz, EdJohnston and others commented on the problematic posts of SightWatcher (easy enough to find) and both gave warnings to him. One of the posts was even redacted by AGK. Presumably TrevelyanL85A2 read all those posts since they related directly to him. Despite that, he apparently took no notice of them. Mathsci (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here is the diff for the record.

Discussion concerning TrevelyanL85A2

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2

I'm following the advice I was given by ArbCom as well as I know how to do. I was told at AE to request arbitration on the mailing list, and when I did so, I was told by ArbCom to make a public arbitration request after my block expired. I'm simply following the instructions I was given by ArbCom. They knew what knew what my request was about when they told me to make it in public, and I don't believe they would have told me to do this if they meant to disallow it.

Re to Courcelles: I don't think my request is commenting on Mathsci's conduct. I'm not criticising Mathsci's behaviour, I'm only referring to him in order to criticise MastCell's behaviour. My understanding was that there's a difference between "referring to editor X" and "commenting on editor X's conduct", and this is why it wasn't a contradiction for ArbCom to tell me I should make my request in public even though I couldn't comment on Mathsci's conduct. Did I misunderstand that?--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Re to MBisanz: Before I withdraw my request, I would like to clarify with ArbCom (via e-mail) what they wanted me to do when they advised me to make the request in public. I thought I was following their instructions, but I must have misunderstood them. Please give me time to discuss it with them and understand their instructions to me before I withdraw it.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Re to EdJohnston: I was told by Jclemens here that I'm allowed to restore Echigo Mole's comments in my user talk, and other editors like Collect and Nyttend have also been allowed to do this.  I'm defending my own ability to restore his comments, not his socking itself.  I'm also defending my right to allow people to post on my talk page without others editing parts out of it without my consent.  However, why would I be prohibited from talking about Echigo Mole?  As far as I know he's never edited R&I articles.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

From my reading, Trev is allowed to comment when his conduct is raised as an issue and to engage in dispute resolution. The arbitration request to me seems evident of the editor's lack of experience with the practice, but points to obvious issues with the restrictions. Mathsci has repeatedly edited Trev's user talk page against Trev's explicit request that he cease. His request for arbitration deals directly with that issue of Mathsci's conduct towards him and, as such, would seem completely valid under the wording of the topic ban. I think an arbitration request was the wrong way to go, but the restriction was terribly worded and seems too much like a one-way interaction ban with a vaguely-defined group of users, which is destined to fail.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Math, I am simply concerned at what appears to be a poorly-worded and poorly-considered restriction on an editor and your frequent use of it to push for this editor to get site-banned, something you were flat-out demanding before the restriction was enacted. While I have only a little knowledge of this dispute and the situation in the R&I topic area, it is not difficult to figure out that there would be considerably less drama if you would just stop provoking Trev. Edit-warring with him on his talk page over those comments even after his repeated requests that you stop, something you only did with Trev, is obviously going to create friction and you clearly have not made any effort to defuse the resulting tension. Rather, you have only heightened it by repeatedly demanding a site-ban over his complaints about your actions on his talk page. For heaven's sake man, Trev is topic-banned. Should he edit the R&I topic area repeatedly despite the ban, you will get the site-ban you desire anyway and should he stay away from the topic area and you then why the hell does it matter if he keeps editing articles about video games and Indian warships? Demanding a site-ban every single time he utters your name reeks of a vendetta, especially when you are making a point of maneuvering yourself into disputes with him in the first place.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I assure you Math, had I known such a bizarre restriction was being imposed I would have objected. The disruption does not come from removing the comments the first time, but from how you responded to Trev restoring them. When he asked you not to continue editing his talk page, you should have stopped. Instead you repeated the act several more times. Did you expect Trev to just be quiet about your conduct as you repeatedly jumped into his userspace to do something there he expressly asked you to stop doing? Obviously, Trev's RFAR is prompted by all that since it is what led to Mast blocking him and removing his talk page privileges so I fail to see how it is not relevant that you are the one who started all that and are now demanding he be site-banned for mentioning your unavoidable connection with the situation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The response is relevant if your response in particular is provoking the actions you are using to push for a site-ban. If you are actively picking a fight with Trev because you want him site-banned, I don't see why an admin should indulge your demand that he be site-banned for responding to your provocations.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, MBisanz, if that is the case then the restriction is even less clear than I thought. The wording is as follows:

TrevelyanL85A2 is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Misplaced Pages, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.

The wording technically restricts him from participating in said discussions if his conduct is not mentioned. No explicit prohibition on commenting about any specific editor is mentioned. My understanding of bans is that the exemption for dispute resolution and noticeboard discussion does free them up to comment about editors and subjects they are otherwise restricted from mentioning so long as it is relevant. In other words, the comments at the Arb case request are normal as part of an attempt at resolving a conduct dispute over administrative actions taken against Trev by an admin regarding Mathsci. Should Math be in private communication with Mast and the two of them have a close friendly relationship, it does raise questions about his use of admin tools against editors such as Trev in support of Math, including where he has used them at Math's apparent behest. Were Trev to say, "MastCell deleted the pages at the request of another user" and did not provide the diff that would show it was Math or make any mention of who that user was, then there would be immediate demands that he name the user in question and provide evidence to establish the relevance.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your example points to the problem. If someone is defacing your property by proxy you should not be restricted from noting this fact. That is the problem with one-way interaction bans. Suggesting that Mathsci can repeatedly engage Trev in a disruptive manner with Trev having no ability to complain about this behavior leads to obvious problems. It only creates a recipe for further disruption to the project, not the opposite. We can't really know what would have happened had Mathsci let the comment from a sock on Trev's page slide, or if he had been consistent with his behavior towards other editors by not edit-warring with Trev over the issue, but that is not what happened. All I can say is that Trev was not editing Misplaced Pages at all for months before this happened, and after Math edit wars with Trev over the user talk comments this stuff happens. Cause and effect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Cailil, as I have been trying to point out repeatedly, this is not a matter of Trev following the topic area and inserting himself into this situation for no apparent reason. The timeline leading up to the recent incidents goes like this:

• 17:41, 6 January 2012 Trev is formally notified of the discretionary sanctions. Trev makes no further R&I-related edits in articlespace after this talk-page discussion.
• 21:31, 8 January 2012 Ferahgo requested an amendment to ARBR&I and mentions Trev. At no point does Trev appear to be notified that the case has been initiated and makes no comments on the request.
• 22:35, 17 January 2012 EdJohnston leaves a comment notifying Trev of an AE discussion. He does not comment there either and Ed notes that he was not proposing sanctions because had stopped editing the topic area. Furthermore he suggests Trev refrain from getting involved in the topic area further.
• 23:39, 5 May 2012 The first notification Trev receives about the amendment case that ultimately leads to the ban we are discussing, but again he appears to make no comment and the case is closed about a week later with the topic ban issued.
• 06:07, 26 May 2012 Trev is notified of an amendment to the case. All of that constitutes the background. By this point no edits had been made by Trev to the topic area in close to five months.
• 10:58, 27 May 2012 An IP sock, apparently of Echigo, commented at Trev's topic page the day after the review was amended. This sets off the period of edit-warring. Up to that point all indications are that Trev was staying out of anything involving the topic area, including an apparent lack of interest in commenting in his own defense. However, the situation in his userspace forces the matter.

Did he have any need to "track" the topic area or the editors in question to find out the information listed on the case request? No. Anyone taking a cursory glance at Mathsci's contributions surrounding his edit-warring over the banned editor's comments would become immediately familiar with all the shenanigans Trev noted.

So, I fail to see the legitimacy of your accusation that Trev was somehow not constructively staying out of the topic area. Trev was not editing Misplaced Pages at all until that nonsense started happening on his user page and that's gotten all this started, which I sincerely doubt was his intent. It's like if a bunch of guys show up at your house and pee on your rug. All you want is to replace your rug cause it really tied the room together and, next thing you know, you're getting involved in faked kidnappings and everyone's trying to kill you when you really just wanted to get your rug back so you can go back to bowling in peace.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sight has not said anywhere on-wiki that the DeviantArt group was discussing this situation. Sight only specifically mentions discussing the issue with Trev and that Trev was e-mailing other people about his desire for arbitration after a week of not getting a response from ArbCom. By "mixed messages" he is talking about the suggestions that he raise these issues publicly to ArbCom only to be told he is violating the ban by doing just that. It is not about what I have said. As to him mentioning your name in the request, there is no ban on mentioning your name. The ban was that he could not participate in discussions about your conduct and he was told by an Arb that he could not comment on your conduct. Seems to me that he clearly tried to respect that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear if AGK redacted those comments on the basis that the mere mention of you was a problem, or if it was more reasonably due to the possibility that the comment could provoke a response. When Ed and MBisanz warned Sight it is clear they were talking about the possibility of Sight filing an arbitration request on Trev's behalf, in partial response to a direct query on that point by Sight. Your suggestion that Trev was somehow not heeding those warnings, presuming he did read them, is not meaningful as the warnings did not directly address him or the question of whether so much as uttering your name was prohibited. I should note the restriction against Trev is not worded as a normal interaction ban one-way or otherwise, where mentioning an editor would be prohibited unless the other editor violated or is perceived to have violated the ban. The restriction seemingly allows interaction with you so long as it is not to discuss your conduct. It is a thin line to tread, but a situation where he is disputing the involvement of an admin regarding administrative actions supporting your position that includes a block against Trev and removal of his user talk privleges that resulted from interactions between you and a banned editor on Trev's talk page seems to be an obvious situation where mentioning you is unavoidable. Really it is an example of the problem with these one-way restrictions since it seems punitive to the extreme to bar Trev from complaining about conduct in his userspace.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

TrevelyanL85A2 is banned from commenting about Mathsci. Echigo Mole is the sock that is harassing Mathsci. Commenting about Echigo is just begging for further tests of limits of his ban. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning TrevelyanL85A2

Result concerning TrevelyanL85A2

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

I don't think we can treat this as an infraction, if the arbitrary committee encouraged him to do this. Maybe one of them could clarify if they actually meant a request like the one that was filed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, now while that strange new arb request over at the "Case" page is ongoing, I probably ought not to be participating in decision-making here anyway, so ignore me for the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree. It might not be an infraction to discuss Mastcell, who blocked him. It is a violation to mention Mathsci in his discussion of Mastcell's conduct. While it might be hard to do from a grammatical perspective, I believe Trevelyan's hands are tied by the Arbcom restriction to only discussing Mastcell if he can do so in a manner that does not reference Mathsci. I'm leaning towards a block of three months unless an Arb tells me they specifically said he could mention Mathsci's editing on-wiki. MBisanz 20:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• TrevelyanL85A2 was told via e-mail: "Yes, you are restricted from making comments on Mathsci's conduct". Courcelles 21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Courcelles for clarifying. Specifically, I find that TrevelyanL85A2's statement "This is concerning because MastCell's involvement in the dispute was privately requested by Mathsci:" (emphasis added) includes at least one reference to Mathsci's conduct. If TrevelyanL85A2 withdraws his Arbcom request and agrees that if he ever references Mathsci again on-wiki he will be indefinitely blocked, I am willing to forgo a block at this time. If he cannot agree to that, then I will implement a three-month block for violation of his topic ban. MBisanz 21:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• @TDA: As I read the topic ban, TrevelyanL85A2 may only comment in discussions concerning their own conduct; not the conduct of others towards them. That may result in the appearance that their hands have been unfairly tied and Mathsci may or may not be taking advantage of TrevelyanL85A2's restriction, but Arbcom has reviewed the situation previously and decided the way disruption would be resolved in this area is by preventing TrevelyanL85A2 from making any comments about Mathsci, even those regarding Mathsci's conduct towards TrevelyanL85A2. As I understand it, the primary goal is the cessation of disruption, not fairness or equality. Also, it is worth noting that TrevelyanL85A2 has not been entirely silenced with regard to Mathsci, as he is free to email requests concerning Mathsci to Arbcom. MBisanz 23:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• @TDA: That interpretation might be more plausible if he had not named Mathsci as a party to the dispute. If he is a filing a case where Mathsci is a party, then he is not simply referencing Mathsci's name in passing as a bystander. Also, there is no evidence that Arbcom intended to leave TrevelyanL85A2 the right to report bad acts if Mathsci was somehow involved in. Sort of like "even if you see person X paying person Y to pee on your lawn, you cannot report it to the police if it involves discussing person X." MBisanz 01:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would take no action on this complaint, but only because I believe that we should leave it to the arbs and clerks to deal with any alleged topic ban violations on arbcom case pages. T. Canens (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point. I asked at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Question_on_protocol, because Courcelles is an arb and he commented here without saying we should leave it to them. MBisanz 01:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• It might be reasonable to put this AE complaint against Trevelyan on hold until the committee has reached a conclusion on the Arb request opened by Trevelyan, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets. I read Trevelyan's RFAR as a complaint about restraints that admins have put on the editing of Echigo Mole. Defending Echigo Mole is surely a prohibited activity for Trevelyan, leaving aside the fact that he names Mathsci in his complaint which is also prohibited. By the time the committee reaches their conclusion on his request for arbitration, we should know if they saw any good-faith purpose to Trevelyan's request. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Tim & Ed - we should either place this on hold or wait for the Arbs call on it (but at this point with 5 declines it is unlikely to be accepted). However I also agree with MBisanz. If the Arbs don't deal with this in their decision then it'd be fair to say we see this is a direct breach of the topic ban (mention of Mathsci and as Ed points out the mention of Echigo Mole). In my view 3 months would be an appropriate sanction, as it's clear that rather than finding other things to do on wiki Trevelyan is following the area he is topic banned from and the editors he is banned from interacting with, in so doing he's both breached the spirit & the letter of the ban--Cailil 01:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Franklin

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

Request concerning Doctor Franklin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Lihaas (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Doctor Franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 08:09, 8 July 2012
2. 16:59, 8 July 2012

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

1. Warned on User talk:76.117.57.30 by Lihaas (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on User talk:Doctor Franklin by Brewcrewer (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

He had been warned against his edits and called to discuss. He made comments there but per BRD he did not wait for consensus and then adds this NPA accusations. The said user's newly registered account is shown in the reverts per before. The 1RR template on the talk page was only just added (by me), so im not sure if he needs a warning or a block.

For the record, and in response to the below., i also specifically mentioned here "im not sure if he needs a warning or a block" as this is my first time here and the other user above said its a 1RR violation.

Also he issue does directly relate to Shamir as it involved his statements (written as emanating from him alone and not a satement of fact in relations to the two countries (which is what the extension seeks to do)). He also had multiple edits as IP (per talk page) and then came back to re-add.

Just gave him welcome links to help him review guidelines, btwLihaas (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

- and that shows he has no idea of editing pracices and intends to go on.

Discussion concerning Doctor Franklin

Statement by Doctor Franklin

To whom it may concern:

The complaintant is attempting to invoke a rule pertaining to Arab-Isreali conflicts to suppress dissenting views on the issue of Yitzhak Shamir's family history in Poland and Belarus during the Nazi occupation of Soviet Belarus. Neither Poles nor Belarusians are Arabs, so this rule cannot apply. However some Israelis are dual nationals of other countries such as Poland. The dispute here is not disputing the Holocaust or how horrible it was. The dispute here is what happened to one man in one place in modern Belarus. The complaintant is asking you in employ a tortured construction of this rule to suppress legitimate dissent.

I have never attempted to edit a Wiki text previously, but this particular text was so one sided that I felt obligated to fix it. I have a degree in History and I have traveled through out Poland and Eastern Europe. The complaintant has persisted in violating the WP policy on Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:REDFLAG#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources The exceptional claim here is that Yitzhak Shamir's father was killed by a specific ethnic group without a shred of evidence from anyone who was there as to what happened. The complaintant cites two sources to support his exceptional claim: 1) a published statement Yitzhak Shamir himself who was not present at the location at the time, and 2)an alleged footnote from Jan Nowak-Jeziorański, A NEED FOR COMPENSATION which was published in the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, January 26, 2001: http://wiez.free.ngo.pl/jedwabne/article/21.html I have read the original work and it is now available online and it does not read as quoted in the citation by the complaintant: http://en.wikipedia.org/Yitzhak_Shamir#cite_ref-4

I believe that the complaintant has repeatedly distorted a source and then invoked this complaint to obstruct the process. Furthermore, statements of politicians which are intended to build a certain image with voters require more scrutiny than what has been provided, particularly when they make accusations of ethnic violence, etc.

I also intend to forward this issue to the Polish news media since what has been published is libelous to the Polish people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Polish media was involved in this case already by the complaintant because he/she cited text in article as written by a Polish author in a Polish newspaper which that author did not write and that newspaper did not publish. Misplaced Pages has policies against this and copyright violations. I don't know the law exactly in Poland, but in some countries changing another author's work can be a violation of his/her copyright or other intellectual property rights. That's not a legal threat, but citation back to Misplaced Pages's policy. What that author did write in that article was about the defamation of the Poles, "To conclude from the 1941 pogroms that the Holocaust was the common work of Poles and Germans is a libel. All who feel themselves to be Polish have the responsibility to defend themselves against such slander." I agree with what the author actually wrote, and I am proud to have acted.

My point is that is one thing report that Shamir made allegations against the Poles in his father's death. It is another thing for Misplaced Pages to treat his unsupported opinions as fact, which is what the complaintant has been involved in promoting, using a distorted source. Perhaps Misplaced Pages needs to have a specific policy about allegations of ethnic violence?

Really, I am happy to have the topic locked. It needed to be done because these people turned the page into a completely one sided pro-Shamir puff piece. I didn't know that it was possible to have it locked or I would have requested that. I am sure that there is more which has been written about Shamir in Polish by respected Polish journalists and scholars. Their contributions should be welcome. Considering that Shamir lived in Poland, was educated there, and may have retained dual Polish citizenship until his death, it was more than appropriate to invite Polish participation on the topic of his life.

I stand by my decisions. I did try to discuss this in talk. It is the complaintant here who should be sanctioned for promoting a distorted source and not acting professionally, and being hostile to a new editor. I really don't know if I want to continue editing after this. I was just trying to fix something that was obviously very, very wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Doctor Franklin

This off-wiki canvassing might be of interest here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This user has a talent he disrupting two areas of discretionary sanctions simultaneously WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBEE--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not involved here, but his last sentence needs clarification, via WP:DOLT. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Note: Quazi-legal sounding threat was removed afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights - umm, the external canvassing?Lihaas (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

The statement that Shamir's father was "stoned" to death is taken from a Haaretz blog, which, I'd guess, may not be subjected to the editorial controls which would allow it to be used as a reliable source.

I've searched online and in various printed books for details of how Shamir's family members died, but information is hard to find.

Two Times of Israel articles (the first of which is cited elsewhere in the Misplaced Pages article on Shamir) strongly suggest that Shamir himself was the source of information about the deaths:

Yitzhak Shamir, Israel’s modest, hardline ex-PM, dies at 96, 30 June 2012: "The family he left behind were mostly killed in the Holocaust. His father, he would reveal in the 1980s, was killed by childhood friends from his own village. Those experiences, many of his colleagues believed, were central in shaping Shamir’s intransigent political views and determined battling for Israel’s security."

When Shamir revealed how his parents and sisters were killed in the Holocaust, 30 June 2012, May 1989: ‘My father, Shlomo Ysernitzky, while seeking shelter among friends in the village where he grew up, they, his friends from childhood, killed him’:

"JERUSALEM, May 10, 1989 (JTA) – Yitzhak Shamir has always been known as a man who plays things close to his vest, whether it be of a political or personal nature. So his revelation last week about the death of his family in Nazi Europe was met with much surprise, as well as armchair debate on the psychological nature of the Israeli prime minister’s motivations and fears.

While reading out loud the names of his family members killed by the Nazis, Shamir disclosed that his father was killed by Polish childhood friends in his own village, after he succeeded in escaping from a German death train.

“My father, Shlomo Ysernitzky, who escaped before the train left for a death camp and while seeking shelter among friends in the village where he grew up, they, his friends from childhood, killed him,” Shamir said in a trembling voice.

Shamir revealed this on Holocaust Remembrance Day last week, while participating in a daylong public reading of names of Holocaust victims at the Knesset.

He also listed many other members of his family who died at the hands of the Nazis. His mother, Pearl, and a sister apparently died in death camps, while another sister was shot dead by the Nazis."

An aide said he was unsure what prompted Shamir to go public with the information."

Though personally I don't believe that Shamir would have invented or embroidered the story, since Shamir himself appears to be the its source, it would be better from the neutrality point of view to state in the article something to the effect that "Shamir, speaking in 1989, said that ..." rather than relating the account as a fact in the Misplaced Pages voice. Perhaps somebody could check Shamir's biography to see what is written there.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as an aside, youre discussing content, this thread is not about content its the manner in which he partook the awant to change.Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

My statement addresses source reliability, weight and whether the statements made should be addressed as facts in the Misplaced Pages voice, which, given DoctorFranklin's objections, I think is relevant to the case. After all, the behaviour of the editors opposing his edits is also under examination.

As an aside, given the warning you left here, would you like to explain which of DoctorFranklin's edits amounted to vandalism?

    ←   ZScarpia   18:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas has mentioned the possibility of blocking Doctor_Franklin. For DF to be sanctioned under WP:ARBPIA, he would, of course need to have first been given a warning, either explicitly or constructively. As far as I can see, DF has not been warned previously about the WP:ARBPIA sanctions in place. Neither of the warnings listed above mention the WP:ARBPIA case or follow the pattern of the normal formal warning. In addition, the first warning listed accuses DF of vandalism, an accusation which is frowned on unless any edits are obviously vandalism. As far as I can see, none of DF's under either incarnation on the Shamir article actually were.     ←   ZScarpia   19:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you see his talk page? What BrewCrewer said, what he responded as intending to go on and "deal with it", and then what i said above "i dont know if i should be adding this here" then saying what he responded was another reason he doesnt intend to cooperate (as does the external comment)Lihaas (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@ZScarpia,

You will note that none of the direct quotes from Shamir which have been found to date mention that Shamir's father was killed by Poles. The mention of Poles appears only in the article and could be the attribution of the writer or editor. This is why historians prefer to use first hand sources and not rely upon what someone thought he said, or a footnote in a book which itself has no source or is taken out of context.

Yet, Lihaas insists, and insists and insists that Shamir said his father was killed by Poles, despite no direct quote from Shamir or other supporting evidence, and despite the unlikeness of Poles having been in Belarus before the Polish-Soviet War of 1920 or after the Soviet conquest of Western Belarus and deportation of Poles to Siberia in 1939-40. I really did try to reason and discuss, but there is no reasoning with someone who made comments that Shamir was entitled to some special treatment because he was an Israeli prime minister, or thinks that Poles and Belarusians are Arabs.

You will also note that the footnote that I deleted, and Lihaas continued to reinstate refers to Shamir as "Polish born" despite the fact that the main article states that Shamir was born in Belarus in Imperial Russia. Her "proof" is in conflict with the main page and community, while my entries where in harmony with it. I simply added information, and Lihaas is determined to delete any historical information which detracts from the premise of her "facts" that Shamir's father was killed by Poles, even when that information simply refers to other Misplaced Pages entries.

The larger problem here may be an Isreali/Jewish usage of the term "Poles" to include people who are not ethnic Poles, i.e., Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Ruthanians, etc. (I also mentioned this in the Talk section...) They would seem not to understand the ethnic complexity of the region, nor do they appear to want to learn about it. It is easier for them to simply call all of these groups which existed in the 1920-1939 Polish political state "Poles", even after that multi-ethnic state collapsed in September 1939 and has never returned as such. They apparently don't understand that their usage of "Poles" is ignorant and offensive to people who are truly ethnic Poles. What is more disturbing is that people like Lihaas are determined to prevent a reasoned discussion of that ignorance.

Result concerning Doctor Franklin

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

• I'm sorry guys but this is all very poorly explained. The reason it is being claimed this falls under WP:ARBPIA is that the subject of the article Yitzhak Shamir was the Prime Minister of Israel. WP:ARBPIA places all "Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted under discretionary sanctions." In this context (a Polish-Israel dispute) that does not extend to Yitzhak Shamir, however it is covered by WP:ARBEE which places "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted under discretionary sanctions". Inserting OR about nationality of Shamir (whether he became Polish or not) and/or edit-warring about it would technically be sanctionable. But in this case I have my doubts that the conduct here fits that category (but it's 3am here and I'll review tomorrow).
  I'm pretty shocked to see a user being taken to ArbCom Enforcement for their first edit to wikipedia as a named account and one edit as an IP. That's a very swift bite, even if their edits are original research and possibly violate WP:ARBEE. The only reason I can see for that is the off-site canvassing. Ordinarily in a case like this I'd be happy to leave the situation with the page being protected and everyone warned but with Doctor Franklin attempt to chill discussion by invoking the Polish Media and with the call for meatpuppets pointed out by User:No More Mr Nice Guy we have a problem here. Doctor Franklin, comments that attempt chill discussions by making legal threats, or attempting to recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Misplaced Pages are prohibited. I will ask you to stop using legalistic language ("libellous", "slander" etc). We understand that you're new here and that wikiepdia has a lot of rules and might be difficult to understand at first, but we have rules here and we have to enforce them.
  I'm holding off making a call on whether to take action or not until other sysops review this, but right now I'd suggest WP:TROUTs all round here, and that the article remain protected--Cailil 02:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  After reading all this over, I think Cailil has the right idea here, and if no one objects in the next several hours I'll close this up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  @Lihaas - the page is protected we can do no more about the canvassing than that--Cailil 01:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare

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

Request concerning Dailycare

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA

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

1. Source Distortion: Changes source and notes that source states that "some states" regarded the Straits of Tiran as an international waterway when in fact the source contains no such qualifier and states unequivocally that it was an international waterway.
2. Source Distortion: Does it again and changes the source to note that only "some countries" regarded it as an international waterway when the source contains no such qualification.
3. Source Distortion: In this edit he removes content attributed to the subject source, but does not remove the source. Instead, he moves the source to the end of the sentence, thus attributing statements to the author, that the author does not subscribe to and that is not contained in the subject source.
4. Source Distortion: In this edit he adds the following "killing 16 and wounding 54." He attributes this statement to Tom Segev at pages 149-152 (or at the very least made it appear as though Segev's book contained this information by adding the casualty figures just before the Segev reference). I looked at those pages and could not verify the veracity of those casualty figures The only specific casualty figures provided by Segev in connection with the raid is on page 151 where he notes that 14 Jordanian officers and soldiers were killed in the battle (including a Jordanian pilot) and 37 more were injured. I don't know where Dailycare got his figures from, but it certainly wasn't from Segev as he suggests.

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

The Six Day War article contains conspicuous ARBPIA warnings and Dailycare edits near exclusively in the topic area. In addition, Dailycare has previously commented on these boards and has also been the subject of a prior AE in which he escaped sanction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The above-noted edits demonstrate that Dailycare has engaged in gross source misrepresentations on multiple occasions. Repeated and egregious distortions of this nature should not be tolerated in any topic area. This is not just a one-time affair, chalked up to carelessness or sloppiness. It represents a deliberate and repeated mendacious attempt to distort and misrepresent sources. This type of conduct undermines the fundamentals of Misplaced Pages and should not be tolerated in any topic area, least of all a contentious topic area such as the Arab-Israeli topic area.

@TC you state the following; "A single comment and a case closed as inactionable, both from 2009, are in my view insufficient to justify finding that Dailycare has been constructively warned." First of all, according to Toolserver, Dailycare has made 7 edits to AE, not a "single edit." (I am of course excluding the two he's made in the instant AE) Second, you did not address the fact that Arbitration remedies and warnings are conspicuously posted on the article. You also did not address the fact that this particular editor edits exclusively in the Israel-Arab topic area. If these arguments are not persuasive enough, please explain how this case would differ from the MichaelNetzer case where you noted the following I'm of the view that MichaelNetzer has been, at a minimum, constructively warned of ARBPIA sanctions prior to this report and may consequently be sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions. There is no requirement in ARBPIA that the warning be particularly directed to the editor, or given by an administrator, or logged (or even loggable); all that is required is "a prior warning". My view is that MN's history of participation at AE, especially when considered in conjunction with the ARBPIA banner on Talk:Jerusalem ("WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"), compels the conclusion that he has been constructively warned and no additional warning is necessary. The same conspicuous warnings are posted on the instant article.

Also, I must take issue with your claim that his edits were a product of carelessness. Please note that most of the casualties in the Samu operation were Jordanian soldiers who were beaten back when they attempted to thwart the Israeli military operation. Note please where Daily placed the casualty count ]. He didn’t place it by the part that discusses the repulse of the Jordanian intervention but by the attack on the village itself. Please also note that Daily makes no distinction between civilian and military deaths thus making it appear as though all those killed were civilians. This, in combination with the Segev reference error make it more likely than not that the edit was deliberate. In light of the foregoing, I ask you to reconsider your initial evaluation.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Discussion concerning Dailycare

Statement by Dailycare

This request seems to be a waste of time, but let's go through the points nonetheless:

Concerning the first three points the source states, inter alia, "The juridical status of the Gulf of Aqaba (the Gulf) and the Strait of Tiran (the Strait) has been a subject of heated controversy between the Arab nations and Israel since the establishment of Israel as a state in 1948." This is the first sentence in the "Introduction" part of the document.

The source also says, in the same "Introduction" section: "Ships proceeding to or from Israel's port of Elath must cross into Egypt's territorial waters when passing through the Strait of Tiran, and into the territorial waters of either Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia when navigating through the Gulf. Israel relies on unrestricted access to the waterways for trade as well as for protection of its own security interests. Israel, therefore, has argued consistently for the most lenient characterization, under international law, of both waterways, in order to ensure the freedom of navigation necessary to protect its economic and political interests. Conversely, the Arab nations bordering the Gulf of Aqaba and Strait of Tiran have historically resisted Israel's characterization of these waters as international, asserting Arab sovereignty over the Gulf of Aqaba."

Therefore, saying either that there is controversy on the legal status of Tiran, or that "some states" consider it an international waterway, is more in-line with the source than simply saying outright that it was considered an international waterway. Saying just that it was considered an international waterway amounts to a rather selective and creative use of the source. Trying to enforce this selective use in this AE request could be considered when deciding which user to sanction due to this AE request.

Concerning the last point, Jiujitsuguy alleges that I'd have attributed the casualty figures to the Segev reference. This isn't the case, since the Segev reference was in the text already prior to the edit. If I recall correctly I got the figures from the infobox on the Samu Incident article as Nableezy correctly guesses below. A correct reaction to this (indeed there was no inline citation for the casualty figures in my edit) would have been to either insert a template, or simply look up a source. On the other hand, the sentence already has a wikilink to the Samu Incident article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for posting here, since I don't want to comment broadly. Other than to say that one should never use wiki articles as sources let alone infoboxes. Tom Segev, 1967, Abacus, 2007 gives the figures for Jordan's Samua casualties on p.181. The source is correct (JJG didn't check or have the book apparently). The pages are wrongly cited. The casualties Segev gives are 14 officers and soldiers killed, 37 injured.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm editing this comment a bit to add, that in apparent response to my statement above Jiujitsuguy has modified his complaint concerning the last point. --Dailycare (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Dailycare

I can't possibly be the only person shaking their head at the request. JJG's distortion above far exceeds any "distortion" in DC's edits.

1. The first diff cited, this, was from 7/7. In it, DC adds by some states to The Straits of Tiran was regarded as an international waterway to The Straits of Tiran was regarded by some states as an international waterway. This edit was preceded by the 3rd diff cited, here, which took place on 7/5. In that diff, DC added an article titled Legal Status of the Gulf of Aqaba and the Strait of Tiran: From Customary International Law to the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty, published in the Boston College International and Comparative Law Review. In that added source, on page 126, the article says Israel, therefore, has argued consistently for the most lenient characterization, under international law, of both waterways, in order to ensure the freedom of navigation necessary to protect its economic and political interests. Conversely, the Arab nations bordering the Gulf of Aqaba and Strait of Tiran have historically resisted Israel's characterization of these waters as international,s asserting Arab sovereignty over the Gulf of Aqaba. The source very clearly says that some states do not regard the Strait of Tiran as an international waterway, and DC changed what was now a disputed POV to a sentence that appropriately included both relevant POVs. To claim that this is "source distortion" is bad-faith gamesmanship. JJG knows full well that a cited source, at the end of the next sentence, disputes the text that he has been attempting to keep in the text as though it were indisputable fact.
2. The second diff is more of the same. Dailycare brought a source that specifically says that several states do not regard the Strait an international waterway. To claim that to then update the article so that it does not make inaccurate POV statement as though it were a fact is not "source distortion".
3. More of the same. Perhaps he should have just removed that tertiary source and stuck with the scholarly secondary one, but that he did not do so is, to me, more of a sign of attempting to accommodate other editors by not just removing a source.
4. For where DC got killing 16 and wounding 54, this infobox may be of use.

This is one of the more blatant displays of attempting to use this board in an underhanded manner. None of these edits merits any punitive action, not one of them. To call any of them "gross source distortion" after things like this is just obscene. nableezy - 18:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I must say this report strikes me as frivolous. Even in the fourth edit, which does not adequately support the information, the material added is hardly consequential. The death toll is only slightly higher and the figures for wounded tend to widely vary in these situations and this variance is not terribly meaningful. While not clearly indicating what citation is backing material and copying information from another article without checking for sourcing is generally poor editing practice, it is not even remotely a sanction-worthy action with such minimal changes. I also find the comment about Dailycare being warned to be suggestive as the comment "escaped sanction" makes it seem like there was some danger of sanction when that prior report was clearly a frivolous one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Dailycare

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

• Finding constructive warning is a matter of discretion sparingly exercised. A single comment and a case closed as inactionable, both from 2009, are in my view insufficient to justify finding that Dailycare has been constructively warned. (In the lead case from early this year where we found constructive warning, the user at issue participated in numerous AE threads in the two months immediately preceding the AE request.)

  Regardless, the only diff I find to be questionable is the fourth one, and it strikes me as more carelessness than deliberate misrepresentation. I think we can close this with a warning. T. Canens (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

7 edits, the latest of which is about two years ago. I know what I wrote in that case. The purpose of a warning is to ensure that the user knows that (1) the area is subject to sanctions and (2) their conduct has been considered problematic. An individual warning fulfills both purposes. A general warning such as {{ARBPIA}} or the 1RR edit notice accomplishes (1) but not (2). When someone has an extensive history of participation at AE, especially if such participation is recent, they may reasonably be presumed to be familiar with the standard of conduct expected of editors and therefore to have knowledge that their own conduct may be considered problematic. But merely editing an A-I article, regardless of whether {{ARBPIA}} is present on the talk page, is usually not enough to allow for sanctions to be imposed. Actual, individual warning is the rule. Constructive warning is the rare exception.

I just re-read the paragraph as edited by Dailycare, and I really can't see any implication that those killed and wounded are civilians. The evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that Dailycare simply copied the figure from the infobox, which is obviously suboptimal but not to the point of requiring immediate sanctions for an isolated incident. T. Canens (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agree, especially on the point that I find the first set of edits, regarding the Straits of Tiran issue, unobjectionable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Dalai lama ding dong

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

Request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ankh.Morpork 19:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA

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

1. 17:44, 30 June 2012‎ Replaces "a huge volume of" with "a number of" stating, "Removed POV wording." This is despite later claims of not having seen the source. Source states " Hyams’s call was echoed by a huge volume of Twitter users"
2. 19:45, 3 July 2012 Again replaces "a huge volume of" with "a number of" stating, "I can not find any source here that refers to huge volume" Source states " Hyams’s call was echoed by a huge volume of Twitter users"
3. 18:46, 4 July 2012 Again edits this sentence and falsely attributes the "a huge volume of..." claim to Hyams misrepresenting the source which states nothing of the kind
4. Additional example of source distortion: Re-classifies Lebanon as "Foreign Volunteers and irregulars" using Michael Oren as a source when in fact Oren stated that Lebanon was a combatant nation and not merely a nation from which volunteers participated.

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

1. Warned on 16 September 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 18 February 2012‎ by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on 18 June 2012‎ by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Dalai Lama Ding Dong has been repeatedly warned and banned for a 1rr violation and for violating a topic ban three times. What exacerbates the issue is that these edits constitute further source misrepresentation which is all too familiar. His edit summary of "Removed POV wording" followed by a later acknowledgment of not having seen the relevant source indicates his tendentious approach. DLDD was explicitly warned by The Blade of the Northern Lights after similar misconduct, "he is advised to be cautious editing in the topic area and to be especially conscious of properly representing sources. He is further advised that infractions in the future will most likely lead to stiffer sanctions." Please view here for background.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Dalai lama ding dong

Statement by Dalai lama ding dong

Note that I requested that the source be identified for the phrase 'huge volume' here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict&diff=500539763&oldid=500227371 I also directed attention to the talk page here whttp://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict#Tweet_about_IDF_airstrike where i stated that

I can not find any reference to a huge volume of twitter users in the present sources, despite a claim that it is there, so please produce the RS here that states that before restoring those words. Also note my re wording, only the JP says that the tweeter falsely claimed that the girl was killed in an IDF airstrike the night before. The rest do not say that she falsely made that claim, only that the claim was made. Ie only one source states the word falsely in relation to the date. The reference to the claim about the date appears to relate to the caption to the photo. There is NO reference to a date in the tweet. Unless someone can provide an RS that states that she captioned the photo, and did not use an incorrect Reuters caption, then this claim can not be allowed to stand due to BLP.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There s therefore no misrepresentation here.

I then went to attribute the words huge volume, and mistakenly attributed them to the individual, and not to the Jerusalem Post. I acknowledged that here. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jiujitsuguy#Media_coverage_IP_conflict_tweet_section.

see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War

For the Lebanon issue, where I am only one of many who has reverted the staus of Lebanon as a combatant nation. Have these others also been included in the mis representation claim? See eg this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1948_Arab–Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=500516932

Here is the page where i reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1948_Arab–Israeli_War&diff=next&oldid=500661873

It can be seen that one of the sources Oren is still there. Since i reverted, i returned the page to what had been There before, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1948_Arab–Israeli_War&diff=prev&oldid=500516932 Therefore the Oren source was already there, snd if it is misrepresentation, then it wa not me who put the Oren source against it.

Most of my work consists of correcting and challenging incorrect claims which do not match the sources, as can be seen from my work. It took me a long time to understand ho wikipedia works, and i now attempt to follow the rules in all cases.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Much of my work would be a lot easier if quotes such as 'huge volume' were attributed. Why was it not stated that it was from the JP? Why was it not in quote marks. This makes searching for the source so much easier.

Comments by others about the request concerning Dalai lama ding dong

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

I was going to file against DLDD myself but on another matter entirely. In this edit he disregarded four sources and actually removed three with the following explanation "as per talk". DLDD has not made a comment at Talk since June 10 and it had nothing to do with the instant edit. DLDD however retained Michael Oren as a source which is fine but then he placed Lebanon in the "volunteer and irregulars" column. The problem is that Oren classified Lebanon as a combatant nation, not merely "volunteers and irregulars." Thus, not only has DLDD engaged in tendentious editing by disregarding four reliable sources and inexplicably removing three, he actually misrepresented Michael Oren’s view and since Oren is a living person, he has not only engaged in source distortion but has misrepresented the views of a living person.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by ZScarpia

Besides using the phrase, "a huge volume of Twitter users," as though Twitter traffic is measured in gallons or litres of Tweeters, there are a number of shortcomings in the Jerusalem Post article which make it a bit non-ideal as a source. It fails to mention that the image, as originally released by Reuters, carried a caption saying that the girl had been killed in an Israeli airstrike. Reuters corrected the error a day later. Though unexplained, that is what the article means by "outdated". Also, the article fails to mention that Honest Reporting mounted a campaign to have Badawi sacked, collecting signatures and encouraging readers to tweet and post links to their article, which is probably the source of the "huge volume of Twitter users" referred to.     ←   ZScarpia   21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Tom Harrison

Here DLDD replaces a dead link with "citation needed," saying "Removed dead link, i can not find ut anywhere, cite required."; It took me less than five seconds to search for the article title; the link to the Jerusalem Post was the first result.

In this edit ("See talk page, this is what the sources say. I can not find any source here that refers to huge volume.") he reverts "huge volume" to "number," denying the source supports it. Of course, "huge volume" is a direct quote from the source. After this is pointed out, he changes it again,("Proper attribution given to statement."), but it isn't proper attribution, it's mis-attribution, unsupported by the source that he must have just read.

Unfortunately a good part of DLDD's work here consists of challenging correct claims which do match the source, then changing them so they no longer match the source. It's become impossible to take DLDD's word for anything. Every edit he makes must be carefully checked. Tom Harrison 11:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000

Please look at what is being fought over. The article subject "Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" is an important one about which a large amount of serious writing has been done. Yet some editors think that a tweet made by a UN employee in her spare time is worthy of a large section. Of course it is completely trivial and only gained news attention because of deliberate campaigns by activist organizations. A lot of the article consists of such rubbish and there seems no point in trying to improve it when there are editors around who are opposed to turning it into a proper encyclopedia article. Zero 01:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Paul B

The Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict is an utter disgrace. The whole section entitled "False tweet by UN employee" is little short of an obscene misrepresentation of facts, including the very title. It does not even make clear the fact that the tweet was based on a Reuters news report which the author accurately repeated. This whole repulsive hatchet-job does not deserve to be there, since this important article-topic should not be covered by a series of one-sided anecdotes about trival incidents. Whether of not DLDD was correct in this case, it is clear that this article is a serious problem. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Lihaas

The warnings here have nothing to do with the editing and it is barely 1RR. Hardly need an indef ban. A requisite shortern block with warning/warning alone sould suffice. The complaint was violated by him or his sock.Lihaas (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Dalai lama ding dong

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

• This request appears to have been open for some time without any administrative response, so I'll take a crack at it. I am strongly leaning toward an indefinite topic-ban for DLDD. I see 4 previous blocks for problematic editing in this topic area; a tendency to play fast and loose with sources and generate busywork for other editors with misguided "challenges"; and a previous warning about properly representing sources which has apparently been disregarded.

  I'll leave this open for comment from other admins, but personally would recommend an indefinite topic-ban for DLDD. MastCell  21:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. T. Canens (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Go for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Activism1234

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

Request concerning Activism1234

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 03:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Activism1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

• 6 July 2012

In the above diff, Activism1234 (hereon A1234), copies much of this blog in to the article United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. There are many problems with this diff, starting with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, but it gets way too long way too quick to go over here. The entire diff is covered at User:Nableezy/Sandbox for any admin interested in it. But 2 of the most severe problems with the diff are explained here.

1. "Quran Day"

Blog:

Here is a photo essay for one school that had a Quran Day, where they were encouraged to memorize the Quran. A similar ceremony from this past May can be seen here.

Article:

Many schools commemorate Quran Day, where they are encouraged to memorize the Quran.

1. http://rdus.sch.unrwa.ps/ar/news-det-31519.html
2. http://rdus.sch.unrwa.ps/ar/news-det-23699.html

Neither link says anything about any "Quran Day". Each link is to a set of photos with a brief story prior, with each story briefly talking about ceremonies honoring those who had memorized the most Quran. The words "Quran Day" do not appear anywhere on either page, and in fact the word "day" only appears once on the page covering a girls school and zero times in the page covering the boys school. This is completely fabricated, and put in to the article because A1234 copied a blog entry into an encyclopedia article as though it were fact.

2. "Quranic agenda"

Blog:

The Maghazi Prep School for Girls makes everyone know it has an explicitly Quranic agenda. It also mentions that its vision is to help the girls raise a generation of people who will "defend their country."

Article:

The Maghazi Prep School for Girls states that they have a Quranic agenda, and its vision is to help the girls raise a generation of people who will "defend their country."

1. http://mpg.sch.unrwa.ps/mod.php?mod=quran
2. http://mpg.sch.unrwa.ps/index.php?action=pages&id=2

The cited source to this supposed "Quranic agenda" is this page. That is an online Quran. Nowhere does it say anything about any agenda, much less a "Quranic agenda". That statement, made in Misplaced Pages's voice and cribbed from a right wing blog, is like saying USC states that they have a Quranic agenda and referencing this.

In both instances, an Arabic primary source is cited, something that most readers, and editors, will be unable to verify for themselves. The actual source, a partisan blog, is never referenced, despite being used to copy, in some instances word-for-word, made up garbage to bash a UN agency.

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

1. None, which is why I am here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The only thing I am asking for here is that A1234 be formally notified of the ARBPIA case and that this notification be logged on the case page. Who knows if the user's past account was ever notified, but I'd like to get this one notified. I'm not asking for any other sanction. I requested this at User talk:EdJohnston, but that regrettably got too unwieldy to follow. Ed said I could ask another admin to review this to see if such a notification is called for. There are other issues and other diffs, but in the hope that this is detailed enough to understand but short enough not to ignore, I'll leave it at that.

In response to the below, the reason I bring this here now is that similar actions have continued at other articles. Including that would make the report far too unwieldy, so I chose the most straight forward example of cribbing material from a blog and citing an Arabic source, that was obviously not read, for something that source does not come close to supporting. Had this ended at this article I wouldn't have brought it up. But it has not ended. See the bottom of the linked sandbox above. nableezy - 04:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Re KC, yes, in this instance that is correct. It is not what happened in other edit-conflicts with the user (see for example the histories of the articles Mahmoud Abbas or Hamas). The reason I brought this up is a. the user inserted material lifted straight from a blog without saying he took it from that blog, and b. the material that he inserted, sourced to primary Arabic sources, was, in at least two instances, completely made up. Because the issue of not abiding by WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT continued at Hamas, I thought it prudent to request that the user be formally notified of the case, so that future episodes of making things up out of thin air and claiming that some Arabic source supports it may be appropriately dealt with here. nableezy - 14:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Activism1234

Statement by Activism1234

I already engaged in such a discussion with Nableezy concerning UNRWA. It is unclear why an action in the past that was not committed with intention to violate Misplaced Pages's policies should be brought up again. The issue in question was reverted and let alone. I did not know that it has become fashionable to tell people they've made a mistake, ask them to change it, engage in a discussion (albeit rather rude and condescending and not cooperative at all, as opposed to for example the discussion on the WIPO page with another editor who asked me to clarify something and then understood it and we worked together, or on the Yasser Arafat page in the last section in which another user, with different views, worked with me to add information to the article), revert, leave it alone for a week, and then file a complaint about said action.

But whereas many in the community are fine with asking others for clarification and then working cooperatively with them (see above examples), Nableezy tragically goes down the road of condescending tone and assumption, generalization, and then filing a complaint even though the words were reverted and have not been revisited and Nableezy stated he/she does not like to report people and was first warning me. It's odd to warn someone, revert, that person doesn't edit it again and makes sure not to do it in the future, and then decide to report.

It's a silly report, aimed at wasting some of my valuable time. --Activism1234 04:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment above strongly implies that you "lack the capability" to translate from Arabic. Does this therefore mean that you did not read and understand the sources which you added to the article? Did you acquire the facts that you added from the original Arabic source, or from a secondary source? RolandR (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

My comment above strongly implied that Nableezy may believe I lack such capability. I thought it was clear that I am fortunate enough to possess such capability either to understand the Arabic, use the powerful and mighty tool of Google Translate, and/or ask for other people who are fluent in Arabic to help (unless there are reliable media outlets that provided a translation as well, in which case I would just use them as a reference). It clearly wasn't as clear, but this should clear it up clearly. If I am ever unsure of a translation, I would paraphrase what the article or statement is about rather than quoting it. --Activism1234 13:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000

This editor wrote "Personally, I've been part of the Wiki community for years, and then took a break for about a year, before creating a new account (forgot my info on my old one and wanted to start editing fresh and new)." It is impossible to forget an old active account name (just look in the history of any edited article). Given the disruptive nature of this editor's behavior, the chance that it was disruptive last time too is rather great. I suggest that it be required to identify the previous account before being allowed to continue editing. Zero 09:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no logic to this. Besides the fact it has zero relevance to the AE request here, Nableezy already asked me about this, and I appropriately responded. If your account name was a string of numbers and letters without relevance to your life, and an account that you barely used either, would you remember it? Don't go making assumptions and personal attacks. That assumption is harsh and immensely disturbing.

In your statement, you made many assumptions that have no basis in the truth, such as: "It is impossible to forget an old active account name," in which 2 assumptions were made (it's impossible, and the account was active), and also "the chance it was disruptive last time too is rather great." And lastly, there's nothing disruptive about my account, other than Nableezy likes to start fights, harass, and take an issue with every edit even when I give him an explanation and he seems to not be able to understand it. I seek to enrich the Misplaced Pages community by adding important information. Nableezy has attempted on multiple occasions to censor information that doesn't agree with his personal views, which is immensely regrettable. I am happy to work with Misplaced Pages users to help benefit the community, even those whose views I disagree with (for example, see Arafat talk page, last section, conversation with Al Ameer Son, or WIPO talk page, in which an editor who originally misunderstood an edit seemed clarification from me which was provided and led to the two of us adding even more info to the edit). Nableezy does not allow for such work with him, instead going on and reverting, condescendingly asking for explanation which I have provided and was often right, and when I'm wrong and I let it be reverted and acknowledge it won't happen again he decides to file an AE report a week later...

I hope that in the future such gross assumptions won't be made, as they only create donkeys. Enjoy. --Activism1234 13:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't remember what a single one of the pages you edited in the years you were a part of the Misplaced Pages community before taking a break was?     ←   ZScarpia   13:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Activism1234

Comment by Shrike

Nableezy topic ban was over only recently and he already active in the WP:AE , he was already warned about his battleground edits by three different admins , and yet he continues with same edit pattern.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by AnkhMorpork

This issue has already been exhaustively discussed on EdJohnston's talk page who commented "This started out as a complaint about Activism's editing at Hamas. It's funny there is no discussion about any of this on Talk:Hamas." The idea that this edit by an ostensible newcomer should end up at AE is ridiculous. Instead of haranguing newbies, a collaborative discussion on the talk pages is advised. Ankh.Morpork 14:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Activism1234

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

• Comment: I have not yet read through all the evidence and have no opinion on result as yet; however, regarding the account, it may be impossible to forget an account name but very easy to forget the password; further, unless you suspect concurrent editing (in which case go to SPI not AE) this has precisely zero bearing on the complaint. I advise editors to resist the desire to badmouth and attack fellow editors; attempts to Poison the well will not help your case and may indeed (if taken far enough) lead to sanctions for yourself. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 14:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Question: A1234 made additions which were found objectionable, the were reverted and he did not restore the content, is that correct? KillerChihuahua 14:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Decline any action at this time, and advise Nableezy to be more circumspect about what cases he brings here. The edit in question was removed, and not restored; there was no edit war nor other issue. We do not sanction people for making good faith edits and then abiding by the decision they did not improve the article. KillerChihuahua 14:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)