Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive108

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Luciano di Martino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia#Final decision
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision

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

The history of this problem is elaborated at Talk:Giorgio da Sebenico#References and onwards. There is a problem at the article Giorgio da Sebenico regarding the artist's nationally-related designations between how they're referred to in Italy and in Croatia, which is an area covered specifically by the area of conflict in the Dalmatia case (medieval Zara) and also the WP:ARBMAC#Area of conflict. The general consensus about that article name has been established using all the proper procedures, by English-speaking editors and using English-language sources, back in 2007, which is well documented in the talk page archives in a detailed requested move.

Regardless of this, this user has pushed their POV and consistently engaged in a seemingly endless series of reverts, typically removing or even explicitly denigrating references that don't fit their POV. They don't often revert completely so the edit war is less obvious, but anyone who even looks at the history of the article and the talk page can see a pattern - it's the same person and it's the same POV. This has gone on since May last year, and the user has since supposedly stopped using the named username, but merely in favor of anonymous accounts, which I believe to be abusive behavior, as I've explained and enumerated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luciano di Martino. The SPI includes the list of IPs used by the user.

Yesterday, things took another turn for the worse, when User:Eleven Nine, which I believe to be yet another sockpuppet of the same person, added their POV back into the article claiming they were just copying it from the Simple Wikipedia - as if that is somehow a legitimate rationale for abuse. Yet, this is simply transparent - http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giorgio_Orsini&action=history clearly lists all the same IPs used for the same abuse on the English Wikipedia.

All this amounts to an amount of disruptive behavior that is well beyond the threshold of abuse defined by the aforementioned arbitration decisions. I am requesting we block this user and any of their sockpuppets for a longer period of time in an effort to curb further abuse.

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

1. Warned on User talk:Luciano di Martino when they were blocked once for the same abuse back in May 2011

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have tried to engage this user in discussion regarding the matter, and also reverted many of their abusive edits myself, so I can't enforce such an arbitration decision myself because of WP:INVOLVED.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I've placed the notification at their latest two sockpuppet talk pages:

• User talk:71.178.106.120
• User talk:Eleven Nine

BTW looking at the edit history pattern, I also suspect User:Davide41 may be an earlier sockpuppet. This might have been going on for quite a while now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:SOCK allegations need to go to WP:SPI and not here: The edit history for "Eleven Nine" and "Davide41", AFAICT, is inconclusive, and given how my previous WP:SPI reports have been judged, I doubt they would render a conclusive judgement based on it. I could request checkuser, but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters says "Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case - Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages." so I mentioned it here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake - I thought this is an open arbitration case :) Yes, there is little to be done about the sockpuppeteering as such, but there's plenty of evidence of violating WP:ARBMAC, from the decorum onwards. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment below demonstrates the problem we're dealing with - a clear refusal to comprehend even the most basic verifiability, neutrality and article title policies, let alone the provisions of the aforementioned arbitration(s). Apparently we're all an evil cabal that's out to get them. This would be funny if it wasn't so sad given the amount of effort that's been expended on trying to assume good faith from them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This "enforcement" is a tip of series of incivilties and personal attacks on a number of people who exposed forgeries used to "prove" that the famous Italian medieval sculptor and architect Giorgio Orsini is not descendant of the noble House of Orsini and, therefore, not an Italian.

The proofs of his family identity are given by famous British architect Sir Thomas Graham Jackson (end of 19 and beginning of 20eth century) based on works and documents discovered by Italian professor Dr. Galvani (Annuario Dalmatico, 1884 and in another of his works dated 1887). Sir Jackson is explicit: "The architect to whom it was entrusted has long met with unmerited oblivion and Dr. Galvani is entitled to the credit of having discovered his name and restored it to fame." Elaborated and full refutal of "Juraj Dalmatinac" name was given in the Ancora su Giorgio Orsini article in Atti e memorie della Società dalmata di storia patria, Volume 6; Società dalmata di storia patria, La Società, 1969, page 151. The most recent assessment of the Griorgio Orsini's family origins and identity are coming from Giuseppe Maria Pilo, Per trecentosettantasette anni. La gloria di Venezia nelle testimonianze artistiche della Dalmazia, Edizioni della Laguna, Venezia 2000, p. 37; 109

This Joy [shallot] attacker offered only forgeries written by Croatian scribe Fiskovic claiming that Orsini never used his family name contrary to the documents discovered by Dr. Galvani and asserted fully by Italian professor Giuseppe Maria Pilo. Two other professors Davide and di Martino tried to clarify Orsini's origins were mercilessly attacked, mocked and ridiculed by Joy [shallot]'s friends and forced in retirement and inactivity.

The Joy [shallot] attacker tried to disqualify di Martino claiming that a number of anonymous contributors are again di Martino himself, which was rejected by Wikipedia administration.

As to the WGFinley adiministrator, based on the 'warning' posted on my user talk page, it's obvious that he tried to blindly support the attacker meritslessly. --71.178.106.120 (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was named as a guilty party above by the illustrious Wikipedia attorney Joy [shallot]. By no way, I do not understand what is my guilt here? Anyway, it does not matter! Following contributions of other guilty parties, I came across an excellent article written by Dr. Carl Hewitt, a MIT professor emeritus, Corruption of Wikipedia which, in its single paragraph, written by another professor (John Harnad), gave the answer I was looking for:

Professor John Harnad (who was blocked by Wikipedia) summarized as follows [Wikipedia Review 2008b]:

Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared to devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner “elite” arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted “rulebook” and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.

It is truly a “Tyranny of the Ignorant”. (emphasis added)

• Bottom line: I'm out. I will be not fighting for any truth, accuracy, or credibility within Wikipedia or within any of its articles. No objections against being named puppet, vandal, etc. here or there.--Eleven Nine (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I've protected the page for 7 days given the edit warning there and placed the DS warning on the talk page and in a talk post. There's a lot of WP:TE going on there and the talk page is pretty enflamed at the moment. I've warned 71.178.106.120 (talk · contribs) but WP:SOCK allegations need to go to WP:SPI and not here. This topic area is rife with socks, I'm not seeing any solid evidence to make a WP:DUCK judgment here. --WGFinley (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be regarding an open arb case, this wouldn't qualify as it's regarding arb sanctions. A case that someone is socking to evade a block or sanctions is very germane at SPI, you need to have some evidence that supports doing it though and I don't think you have very much on it based on what was provided. --WGFinley (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm satisfied that 71.178 == Eleven Nine == Luciano di Martino. I'm applying a short block to the IP, and indeffing and tagging the accounts accordingly. I'm also going to indefinitely semiprotect the affected article. Let me know if anything else needs protection. T. Canens (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur given latest developments while I was busy this weekend! --WGFinley (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bidgee (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Interaction_ban

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

1. (02:32, 6 February 2012) On Simple Wikipedia it has come to my attention, by a editor on Simple Wikipedia, that Racepacket has breached one of the Arbcom remedy. He has openly stated about a dispute that he had with another editor (User:LauraHale) which is indirectly referred to the editor whom he had a conflict with.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Racepacket made personal statements about LauraHale and Hawkeye7 that are grossly offensive, which are not included here because their privacy should be preserved. In the same edit, Racepacket made allegation about a Simple Wikipedia editor also of a sexual nature in the edit summary (which was so offensive it has since been revdel by an Simple Wikipedia Sysop). Bidgee (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Right, what part of the interaction ban don't you understand? It clearly states both partys must not comment on "each other directly or indirectly", what Racepacket did was indirectly commented about LauraHale, he doesn't have to say the name of the user to be breaching Arbcom's ruling. His comment also suggesting something which grossly offensive to get GA is just damaging to the other two parties. Bidgee (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC) at User talk:Racepacket[reply]

Please note: ArbCom was independently notified of this a few hours ago. We are currently considering taking it over to deal with ourselves. I'll post an update as soon as this is clearer. Thank you for your forbearance in the meantime,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's now committee consensus to take over this matter and it will be heard at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#User:Racepacket. Perhaps people might like to copy over/make their comments there in the #Arbitration enforcement section. The draft motion is currently being worked on and will probably go up this evening (UTC) sometime.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking only at the linked item, and only with respect to the linked item, looks to me like Racepacket was trying to only address/dispute the incorrect accusation (that the Arbcom decision was for disruptive editing) while trying to talk as little as possible (in that situation) about the individual in question. Not commenting on the individual, not using their name, and only repeating what the individual alleged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Bidgee said, and please also note that the edit summary was revdel'ed because a Simple Wikipedia admin thought it was grossly inappropriate. I haven't seen it since I'm not an admin there, though. --Rschen7754 05:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking admin (although not the revdeling one; that was Kansan), I can assure you the edit summary in question was completely inappropriate and slanderous, and casts the comment itself in a rather different light to that you've read it in. Not actually naming the individual was a bit of a safety-net, but does not excuse that sort of statement being made about any other user without proof.sonia♫ 06:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is only on what we can see / was linked. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If what is said is true, and I have no reason to doubt Bidgee, than perhaps a global meta ban is in order, for we can do without such editors anywhere on any project. If it is decided this is the way to go, it should be started str8 away. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 12:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an Arb wants to see the edit summary it can be provided. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Domer48_'fenian' 20:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

1. 12:26, 7 February 2012 First Revert: Despite a talk page discussion their first response was to revert and then offer a spurious rational.
2. 11:22, 8 February 2012 Second Revert: Again ignores discussion and blanks section. With yet another spurious rational.

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

Not Required, editor is well aware of sanctions and has been sanctioned for these type of edits.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There is a discussion on the talk page which the editor had not participated in, and simply reverted text which has been in the article for some time and which was also raised in a previous discussion. They are well aware of the 1RR and know full well that Reverting on these articles is problematic.

I consider this to be totally out of order. Threatening an editor is very disruptive.

As to it being "a very minor and marginal contravention of 1RR" and "pretty marginal under the totality of circumstances" I would make the following observations:

1. On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors. So clearly the editor was reversing the actions of another editor.
2. This article is subject to a 1RR. Therefore a contravention.
3. The editor reverted despite an ongoing discussion, and then blanked the whole section again despite ongoing discussions. That is the the totality of circumstances.
4. The editor then makes an attempt to prevent me from making this report, trying to force me to withdraw it. Poor show.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

This is clearly another vindictive attempt by Domer48 to have banned an editor whom he doesn't like. Domer48 has a long record of reporting editors, including me, for technical violations such as this, despite being guilty of many such violations himself. Indeed, given the previous occasions, this could be an example of harassment and bullying.

The edits are clearly done on different days. To run and report someone merely 1 hour and 4 minutes short of a 24-hour interval indicates that an editor is deliberately looking for things to report.

Domer48's strategy is to have editors whom he doesn't like banned from articles so that he can have free reign to impose his POV into the article. (In this particular case, he wishes to retain and insert text that seeks to use [[WP:SYNTHESIS|synthesis] to associate the Orange Order with the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism.)

If moderators want to encourage and support this kind of behaviour on Wikipedia, then proceed to ban me.

As for the specific comments above:

Edit 1 wasn't despite a talk-page discussion, it was because of the discussion, and no spurious "rational" was offered.

Edit 2 didn't ignore discussion - again it resulted from the discussion, during which the serious flaws in the section had been highlighted by others - and no spurious "rational" was given.

In any case, under WP:BRD it is perfectly acceptable to be bold and remove text.

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

In my view, this is a very minor and marginal contravention of 1RR. As the editor concerned seems to have had a clean record for about 2 years now, I am not inclined to impose any administrative sanctions. I think the respondent can take the fact of this AE case itself as an unofficial caution to take a bit more care with 1RR in the future, for his/her own sake. Subject to any contrary views from other uninvolved administrators, I propose to close this as "no action" within 12 hours.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is pretty marginal under the totality of circumstances, so I don't disagree with Mkativerata's proposed action (or really, lack thereof). T. Canens (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tom harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Standard discretionary sanctions and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Purpose of Wikipedia (specifically use of the site for advocacy or propaganda)

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

1. 12:18, 6 February 2012 Moves subsection on claims of antisemitism to the top of the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories, above the history section and main theories section. Explains plainly that he is trying to increase the "prominence" of these claims in the article.
2. 02:46, 7 February 2012 Adds a very skewed bit of material to the first paragraph of the lede stating in the editorial voice that "in fact" the theories "articulate the long-established antisemitic theme" of Jews manipulating world politics.
3. 12:19, 7 February 2012 Adds to the top of the main theories section wording that implies all the conspiracy theories claim it was carried out by Jews.
4. 21:32, 7 February 2012 Inserts information to the lede saying the conspiracy theories arose due to "hatred and fear of Jews" like "all conspiracy theories" citing a For Dummies book.

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

1. This editor is well aware of the discretionary sanctions having warned other editors, having the decision linked to on his userpage, and being involved in past AE requests. I also reminded him of the discretionary sanctions on his talk page before he made the last two edits and he responded to my comment.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This situation arose because of a discussion over the category for Conspiracy theories involving Jews where several editors insisted that it be kept because they felt antisemitism was a "major component" of the conspiracy theories. I noted in the discussion, along with another editor, that pretty much every conspiracy theory has some variant claiming Jews were involved and that this did not justify putting the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories in general alongside the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Zionist Occupied Government, claims widely associated with vile antisemitism and neo-nazis in particular. Responding to that discussion one of the users for keeping the category created a subsection suggesting that the category further be renamed to "Antisemitic conspiracy theories" and it was in that discussion when Tom first makes his position clear stating his belief that Israel is just mentioned in conspiracy theories as a placeholder for Jews. There are other blatantly inappropriate actions and comments going on in that discussion from people suggesting that category be kept, but Tom's behavior in editing the article has been most egregious, with even some of the editors for keeping the category thinking his actions are going too far.

@Tom I was not the only one to revert your edits as I note above. My arguments in every last discussion on the talk page have been about what is said by independent and reliable sources as well as how a change comports with policy, and anyone is free to look over the article talk page to check that. I did not file this report with any ill intentions towards you or the article. Your insistence on pushing this antisemitic association into prominent parts of the article without regard to what the vast majority of sources say or, more importantly, do not say even after I asked you to stop is what prompted this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Netzer The first and last diffs are definitely not reverts. With the first it was a routine rewording to avoid some confusion created by an edit and the last was an attempt to find a strong word that might be more accepted than "generally" as editors did not like that term. As to the three in between I admit I was losing track of things. I probably should not have performed the second revert of the removal of "U.S. government agencies" and "mainstream" but I did go to the talk page as soon as I performed the second revert. When it comes to the removal of the Princess Di mention, it is not something I consider a revert because nothing of significance was removed. Should an editor put overly-long material into the lede, for instance, shortening it will likely involve removing quite a bit of material. What matters, in my opinion, is whether the meaning of the original edit has been altered in some way by the change. I can reasonably say that another editor would have removed the mention of Princess Di, if not reverted the entire edit, for being completely unnecessary in the lede and a potential Pandora's Box. My intention was to try and preserve the meaning and intent of Tom's edit while avoiding the undoing of Tom's contribution altogether. After AQFK expressed that he believed this was a revert I did say I would be happy to be reinsert the material if a proper place could be found for it and have left a proposal on the talk page to suggest a way that could be done.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[2]

You left out the part where I posted an extended quote on the talk page, and provided reliable sources with each edit, showing that antisemitism is a defining characteristic of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Even when they aren't overtly Jew-baiting, they repeat the classic anti-Jewish stereotypes from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, writing "neocons" or "Zionists" or "globalists" for "Jews" - not merely my own opinion, but those of the reliable sources I included with each edit. You've dismissed Kay's book Among the Truthers as a hit piece, and suggested Jewish news sources can't be reliable on the question. Against the sources I provide, you place your own original research - you're familiar with the theories, and they aren't antisemitic. Sorry, but antisemitism is a defining characteristic of 9/11 conspiracy theories in general, and that's supported by reliable sources. For some time the article has relied heavily on primary sources, down-playing the more embarrassing parts of the theories. The consensus developing on the talk page favors correcting that, using the best secondary sources, and giving our readers an accurate description of the theories in context.

Of course all this about sources and what they say belongs on the talk page, but so far your replies there have been variations on "Nuh uh!" and "Is not!" Now you're reverting the sourced edits, simply because you don't like what the sources day, and your argument having failed on its merits, you've filled the talk page with specious objections, and now filed this complaint, hoping I guess to make it too costly and time consuming for people to work on the article. At least for this evening, you've succeeded. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mkativerata's comment below, from Conspiracy theories and Secret Societies for Dummies, pg 95-96, here's the passage my edit summarizes:

"The modern conspiracy theory and conspiracist mind-set, laid down in influential books and seeays, is relatively new, having grown up since the Frence Revolution of 1789, which was often blamed on the Jews and the Freemasons. This nicely illustrates that all conspriacy theories have grown out of hatred and fear of Jews, or hatred and fear of secret societies, initially the Fremasons(see Chapter 9). In fact, often both, because Freemasons were many times perceived as the willing tools of "World Jewry."

"All conspiracy theories, right up to the present-day 9/11 ones, are the same recycled theories that grew from this original source. Only the names of the accused get changed. And if you accept this as being so, then it leads inevitably to the next logical question: Why the Jews?"

The author goes on: "In the U.S., it isn't hard to sniff out the obsessive Jew baiting in many of the "alternative conspiracy theories" offered up the the "Truthers," for example, who believe that 9/11 was an atrocity commited by the government(see Chapter 8)." Substantially similar points are made in Jonathan Kay's Among the Truthers. The essential antisemitism of 9/11 conspiracy theories is well established. My edits, to the best of my ability, reflect the sources I cite. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata, I'd draw your attention to the next paragraph as well, and the author's further development of the theme. Similar points made in other sources also support what I wrote. There's always room for improvement, but subject to the length my edit is an accurate summary of the reference cited, and of the general consensus of researchers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata, in the first edit I moved the section higher up, appropriately I think. TDA moved it somewhere else. In the second, I cited the ADL; TDA reverted. In the third, I cited publiceye.org, and Slate; TDA reverted that too. The fourth cites Conspiracy Theories for Dummies because it's accessable, and the material is backed up in the work of other academics and journalists, as is made clear on the talk page. But, a different editor reverted that. Each edit accurately summarizes the consensus of researchers, journalists, and academics, among whom this isn't contentious or controversial at all. NPOV isn't a compromise position midway between what two Wikipedia editors think, it's the neutral representation of what the reliable secondary sources say. In those sources, the antisemitism of 9/11 conspriacy theories is well established. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that some 9/11 conspiracy theories (CT) are anti-Semitic. For example, one of these theories are that 4,000 Jews stayed home from work on 9/11. This theory is described as anti-Semitic by news organzations such as the JTA (10 years on, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about 9/11 persist) and the BBC (Were Jews forewarned about the attacks?). Honestly, the article suffers a bit of a Western bias. In the Middle East, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are very prevalent. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a well-known Holocaust denier[3] has frequently blamed Jews for 9/11, including in speeches at the UN[4] forcing Al Qaeda to issue statements refuting Ahmadinejad.[5]

Yes, I think that Tom might have gone overboard in these diffs, but it should be noted Devil's Advocate has been doing plenty of advocacy and POV-pushing of his own. In fact, Devil's Advocate's conduct has been far worse as many editors of that article would tell you. I can provide evidence if you like. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem the primary discrepancy with Tom Harrison's edit is the difference between or and and regarding the correlation between Freemasons and Jews. Based on the quoted text in the cited source, the difference seems negligible because both entities are interwoven into a common causual origin:

• "This nicely illustrates that all conspriacy theories have grown out of hatred and fear of Jews, or hatred and fear of secret societies, initially the Fremasons(see Chapter 9). In fact, often both, because Freemasons were many times perceived as the willing tools of "World Jewry. In fact, often both, because Freemasons were many times perceived as the willing tools of "World Jewry.""

This suggests that Admin:Mkativerata's following statements...

• "they [the sources] are completely misrepresented"
• "Nowhere in those pages is anything said that could, on any view, remotely support the claims made in the edit that (1) 9/11 conspiracy theories have their origins in the hatred and fear of Jews"
• "...and source misrepresentation is another thing entirely."

...are unfounded and are unjustly damaging misrepresentations of Tom Harrison's edits. This is not to say anything about edit wars and POV pushing, but only to say that Harrison did not seem to misrepresent the source in the way he was admonished for doing, and should not be sanctioned based on this particular allegation.

Tom Harrison appears to have the staunch support of at least 6 editors in the talk page discussions, while the TDA has the fleeting support of 3.

Just the opposite, it seems, The Devil's Advocate, filer of this complaint, has engaged in a far more egregious edit war and removed well sourced material from the article, raising the ire of many editors there. Not only that but TDA goes on to file this complaint while disrupting the editing process for editors who are at a loss for how to deal with his tendentious behavior, on the one hand, but who also don't want to file an AE complaint against him themselves, on the other.

TDA also most likely violated 3RR with these 5 edits/reverts of other editors within a 24 hour period:

• 00:20, 8 February 2012
• 17:56, 8 February 2012
• 19:33, 8 February 2012
• 23:34, 8 February 2012
• 23:46, 8 February 2012

Devil's Advocate's explanation for this run of edit-warring and likely 3RR violation was... *"I honestly do not consider it a revert to remove part of a change as part of a rewrite unless that change is somehow important or relevant to the material, which the mention of Princess Diana was not." ...which entirely dismisses the very definition of a revert.

I wouldn't purport to suggest what remedy is needed for whom, but it seems the severity of Harrison's edits are being greatly exaggerated, while a highly-possible 3RR violation, edit-warring, and community-disruptive behavior by Devil's Advocate need to be addressed. It also seems TDA has had a similar fallout not long ago and understands the need for community agreement. TDA should at least be made to accept that it's best to step back for now, and stop reverting edits, at least until there's a little more community support for his/her position. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th edits are completely unacceptable in what purports to be a neutral encyclopaedia. The unacceptability arises from the poor sourcing and the tone of non-neutral advocacy with which the content is written. Even when the sources might be neutral (the Dummies book; let's assume it's reliable) they are completely misrepresented. For example, this edit says:

9/11 conspiracy theories, like all conspiracy theories, have their origin in hatred and fear of secret societies, and hatred and fear of Jews.

The sentence is sourced to pages 96 and 97 of this book. The pages are fully viewable following the link. Nowhere in those pages is anything said that could, on any view, remotely support the claims made in the edit that (1) 9/11 conspiracy theories have their origins in the hatred and fear of Jews and (2) in that respect they are "like all conspiracy theories". Edit-warring and battleground behaviour is one thing. Advocacy, POV-pushing and source misrepresentation is another thing entirely. For that, I would impose an indefinite topic ban that would be lifted if Tom harrison can demonstrate the capacity for neutral editing, proper sourcing, and compliance with editorial standards, in other areas. I would appreciate comments from other uninvolved administrators. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom harrison: Your very quote says "This nicely illustrates that all conspriacy theories have grown out of hatred and fear of Jews, or hatred and fear of secret societies, initially the Fremasons". It directly contradicts your claim that "all conspiracy theories have their origin in hatred and fear of secret societies, and hatred and fear of Jews". --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom: the very fact that you are using throwaway sentences from a "For Dummies" book as sources for bold, contentious and prominent claims in a Wikipedia article is problematic. And in this case, looking at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th diffs presented, it is symptomatic of trying to find anything, anything at all, to support blatant violations of NPOV. And I think you know it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Mkativerata in all respects. T. Canens (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur, 2nd, 3rd and 4th diffs are beyond the pale - blatant POV pushing and written in polemical style and completely WP:SOAPBOX. Given the severity I agree with indefinite TBAN. --WGFinley (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for the comments. An indefinite topic ban is imposed. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mooretwin (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

1. 12 January 2012 23:00 First revert
2. 13 January 2012 17:11 Second revert within 24 hours, in breach of 1RR

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

Not Required, editor is well aware of sanctions and has been sanctioned for these type of edits.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It is claimed that reverts of IPs do not count under 1RR. However, it would seem that this exception applies only to the specific 1-revert-per-week terms of probation and not to 1RR. (In other words, more than one revert of an IP within a week would not be a breach of probation, but within a day it still falls foul of the more general Arbcom ruling.) This complaint relates to a violation of the general Arbcom ruling, i.e. 1RR. Mooretwin (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • You can't have it both ways. It is surely obvious that I am making a point to Domer48. He makes yet another frivolous yet vindictive complaint about me, so I demonstrate that I can do the same, whereas previously I have let it slide. As they say, "he started it". Ban me and not him, and you reward Domer48's behaviour to which I was merely responding. Mooretwin (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

As the filing editor has already been informed that reverting the edits by IP's are not sanctionable I can only see this report for what it is, disruptive. Now it has been decided here that the editors edits were a violation of 1RR and decided no action was required I would sugget that it be reviewed in light of not only their tit for tat report which is clearly vindictive but their attempts at trying to blackmail me into overlooking their violation of 1RR.

@Mabuska, since you were also placed on probation you would also be well aware of Terms of probation which state that Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert. Likewise, this editor was also on probation and blocked for incivility but it did not seem to stop them for more personal attacks.

@ Mooretwin: I also consider it frivolius to suggest ignorance of 1RR when it clearly states that: Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty. It also states that If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. When in doubt, don't revert!.

I would also add that a quick review of your bad faith posts,[23][24][25][26] [27][28][29] lend nothing to the discussions and are themselves santionable. As you are the only editor who is using this battle ground approch I suggest you stop now.

Mooretwin attempted to blackmail Domer here into withdrawing his AE report by threatening this frivolius report if he didn't. Despite me telling him here that reverts of IP edits (and the IP's disruptive editing was dealt with at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106#86.145.111.123) are exempt from 1RR, he's still made this report with diffs that date back almost a month. Classic case of WP:BOOMERANG in my opinion. Mo ainm~Talk 11:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind everyone that Domer48 is currently subject to 6-month Troubles-wide probation of 1RR a week that was imposed upon them on on 27 Septemeber 2011 - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive98#Domer48. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As you didn't read what I posted above I'll emphasise it for you reverts of IP's are exempt from 1RR Also will you make the same comment above on the 2 reverts in 24 hours made by Mooretwin? Some how doubt it. Mo ainm~Talk 11:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to revert IPs appears to relate only to the probation terms (i.e. the 1-revert-per-week). This report is about a violation of the general Arbcom ruling, i.e. 1RR. That ruling doesn't appear to exclude reverts of IPs. (In other words, more than one revert of an IP within a week would not be a breach of probation, but within a day it still falls foul of the more general ruling.) Mooretwin (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP or not i think depends on the kind of edit they made. Constructive versus disruptive. @Mo ainm - this enforcement is about Domer48 not Mooretwin just as Mooretwin isn't as far as i'm aware subject to probation at this time for anyone to need reminding of it. Yet if Mooretwin is guilty of breeching 1RR then he is liable for sanction as well. No prejudice against anyone here, compared to some. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the complaint above that Domer48 raised against Mooretwin, it looks to me that Domer48 is playing the system and has kicked off this 'tit for tat'. Blocking Mooretwin now will seem to reward such behaviour, and incentivise it. Wikipedia should encourage editors who are contributing useful content and improving articles, not editors who seek to play the AE system. If you really want to block Mooretwin then block Domer48 as well. --Flexdream (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the contribution Mooretwin makes to Wikipedia [30] I don't see blocking him as a good outcome for wikipedia. I'd rather see more contributions like that, and fewer AE complaints and judgements. --Flexdream (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The diff supplied by Mo ainm is at best quid pro quo and at worst blackmail as indicated. As already noted, reverting an anon who has violated WP:1RR is not considered a violation. The blackmail and the age of the diffs dug up here to have some "dirt" on Domer is blatant battlegrounding, an attempt to manipulate the dispute resolution process and deserving of a 6-month TBAN from Troubles. --WGFinley (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• For once we try to be lenient, and then this? This is patently frivolous. I agree with WGFinley that a sanction is in order. T. Canens (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first choice is HJ's indef topic ban with leave to appeal after 6 months; second choice is one year, per Blade. T. Canens (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Given his most recent comment (which I moved to his section), I'd go for a year-long topic ban from the Troubles; he fully admits this was solely raised to be pointy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) Even on the face of it this is one of the most frivolous requests I've seen in a long time, but with the talk page comment, this looks like a petty, vindictive request and that apparent attempt at blackmail is precisely the kind of battleground behaviour we don't need in topic areas like this. Additionally, given this comment, which shows this request was clealry made in bad faith and intended to be frivolous, I have blocked Mooretwin for two weeks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that a topic ban is in order, especially given the above diff. Perhaps indefinite with leave to appeal after six months? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with this. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree to indefinite with right to appeal as well, especially in light of the most recent response. --WGFinley (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine with me too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the impressing unanimity of admins above, and under the authority of WP:TROUBLES#Standard discretionary sanctions, Mooretwin (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed at AE after six months, and every six months thereafter. Mooretwin may also make an appeal of this ban immediately after the imposition of the sanction, per WP:AC/DS#Appeal, and may appeal the ban to the Arbitration Committee at any time. T. Canens (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

asad (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, Violation of mandatory rule requiring editors to explain all reverts on the Golan Heights talk page

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

1. Feb. 2 2012 Partially reverts back to the revision of an IP and User:Plot Spoiler to change "Israeli settlers" to "Israelis"

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

1. Topic-banned on Nov. 29 2010 by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)
2. Blocked on Dec. 2 2010 by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) for "abusive sockpuppetry"

(Original topic ban was reset at end of block and expired two months ago)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Shuki has continued a trend originally started by an IP, and followed up by Plot Spoiler, of misrepresenting the source attached to the population numbers on Golan Heights infobox. The BBC source clearly states, "Population estimate: 20,000 Israeli settlers, 20,000 Syrians" [31]. Shuki's misrepresentation of that fact is a clear attempt to push a certain Israeli POV that Israelis in the Israeli-occupied territories do not need to be referred to as "settlers". While that might be a fine topic to discuss and try to reach consensus with on a talk or collaboration page, blatantly ignoring the source with a trigger-happy revert approach is unacceptable. Furthermore, there is a requirement that all editors must discuss any revert performed on talkpage. Shuki (and Plot Spoiler for that matter) have failed to do that.

I believe Shuki's history speaks for itself. Barely two months out of a topic-ban that was reset do to sockpuppetry, Shuki seemed all to eager to defend[32][33] a obvious, disruptive sockpuppet. I can't really see how to topic area has benefited from Shuki's presence.

@Shrike, it may have been a content dispute if they actually provided the source, but the just piggybacked and misrepresented the BBC source. -asad (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate, No where in the report is it mentioned that there was no explanation. I am not quite sure what your point is. -asad (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, I have shrunken the text of what I feel is the less matter of importance in my report, as it seems there is too much attention being paid to that. -asad (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley - You said, "Here we are to consider the removal or addition of a single noun describing a segment of the population in the Golan as "settlers" or not." I would really be hoping that you would consider it on the basis of an editor changing material that doesn't correspond with the source already linked to push a POV. If you are tired of the whole A/E saga, please just go to the WP:ARBPIA and tally the amounts of blocks and bans per each side of the conflict. I am sure that you will find the trouble is overwhelming coming from one side of the conflict. -asad (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens - I would really like to reiterate what Sean has said. Also, since when has it become to acceptable behavior within ARBPIA to blindly revert something that doesn't even correspond with the source that it is linked with?? It is not a fight over "six letters", it is a about a veteran editor who removes a word which pushes a POV of the Israeli narrative of the Golan Heights. And in doing so, ignores the reliable sourced attached to the statement. What is even more ridiculous is that my edit summary of prior to Shuki's revert said "see talk page." I explained clearly on the talk page that the BBC source does not correspond with the text (see here) and Shuki reverted anyways. Again, since when is this kind of editing acceptable within ARBPIA, more importantly, since when is this kind of editing acceptable within Wikipedia at all? -asad (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please note that I am reserving my right not to have to respond to any sort of request against me until it is filed in the proper method and channel. But I would just like to say that perhaps I may have been more inclined to go to Shuki's talkpage to civilly inform him that he ignored a source in his revert, but one of the last times I civilly went to Shuki's talkpage with a matter, my edit was reverted as "vandalism". Thusly, I am not inclined anymore to bring requests to Shuki's talkpage, as he might report me for "vandalism".

Secondly, I think Shuki's response below to the matter is tantamount to him saying that sources don't matter so long as he has determined that a phrase is inappropriate to describe "one people" (I.E. - calling Israeli settlers - settlers). I don't care if the argument is whether or not potatoes should be called "red potatoes" or simply "potatoes. If the high-quality source says "There are 20,000 red potatoes on Old MacDonald's farm" and an editor and removes the word "red" from the picture, that is blatant misrepresentation of the source and applying WP:VERIFY and WP:SYNTH. I don't really think I should explain how or why the term "settlers" is contentious, but the mere fact that Israel views the Golan Heights as its sovereign territory and the rest of the world doesn't would explain why high-quality, reliable sources, overwhelmingly describe the Israeli population in the Golan as "settlers".

Shuki's inability to see this is proof enough as to why he shouldn't be editing in the topic area. Furthermore, we have to deal with things like retaliatory A/E filings and comments such as "Your combined desperation and perseverance to eliminate me", and "asad has demonstrated that he's taken on policeman and attack duty". This displays Shuki's WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. -asad (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[34]

I'm wondering if I should open an AE against asad for not AGF and for turning into a serial attacker here on AE, curiously replacing a currently t-banned editor, instead of a collaborative editor that would normally have sent a cordial notification, or at least a threat warning instead. I have not edited the Golan article or talk page in over a year, or even two or more, if ever, from a look back at the last few hundred edits in history. I am aware of the 1RR on all Israel Arab articles or assume that it applies on the Golan articles as well. I did not check if my edit was a revert of a previous edit since I was not part of the edit war and had no intention of getting into it either by even bothering to 'risk' violating the personal 1RR, and from coming off a Tban as asad has kindly reminded all. I was not aware of the heated edit war on such a lame issue of removing labels, to which I thought was a simple case of making NPOV and I did mention this in the edit message. The page is on my watchlist since I had worked on several Golan Heights-related articles in the past, but I do not actively follow that area either. I have not been notified of this special restriction, and it was not been posted to the WP:ISRAEL page which would be a natural place for that. The Golan article merely appeared high on my watchlist of hundreds of articles and I made a quickie while not being active in the last few days. When I did make the edit, I had noticed a template, but when I saw the 1RR word did not bother to read the rest of the message, assuming it was the standard one. If you all want to not AGF and instead claim I'm playing dumb, then thank you all.

Blade, I appreciate your comments. I would like to hear your thoughts and suggested sanctions about the profanity above and which the experienced editor has not bothered to remove after being pointed out. If you really did want to be a collaborative and objective uninvolved admin here on AE, you would have immediately reprimanded Sean, and blocked him for at least a half-day, for including battleground profanity and not bothering even to retract it, in the new 'no tolerance AE'. All editors coming to edit on AE is an automatic signal that they themselves are exposed to scrutiny, not only the subject. AE is not a chat forum. I also appreciate you adding the quickie and non-productive 'Shuki not looking good' instead of simply leaving it with a mention you had no time to come to a conclusion on what is a relatively short AE anyway. And mentioning Amira Hass shows your ignorance of the subject, not your awareness. Amira Hass does not write about the Golan Heights at all. AE is not an easy place to admin, but I expect NPOV from the admins here in order to be fair representatives of WP. Can you do that? --Shuki (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean and asad. Your combined desperation and perseverance to eliminate me surprises me and amazes me. 'A blind revert', 'ignoring a source', 'I explained clearly' (in other words, you're an angel). asad has demonstrated that he's taken on policeman and attack duty, but Sean, I've always considered you to be the mature side of the anti-proIsrael editors, and not the reckless warrior you've now turned into. It wasn't a blind revert, it was a copy edit. Whining about the 'high quality source' is truly laughable if you see what is actually being discussed - NPOV a pejorative label. Settler is not itself a pejorative, but entirely antagonistic in that context where you insist on one people, when talking about population figures, needing to be qualified as settlers or anything else. I don't need a high-quality source to confirm in an infobox that we can call Israelis Israelis and not Israeli settlers, though they might be in your POV and the source you found. Nonetheless, Sean, as you have requested, I have stopped making edits like that and refrained from similar activity since then.

You on the other hand, have not removed the uncivil profanity, which makes it a daily reiteration of your combativeness which is so not welcomed here. You say, " if she continues there needs to be a cost because editors are not allowed to behave like this in the topic area " therefore, Blade, T Canens, WGFinley, I am adding Sean.hoyland to this AE as well, in violation of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions (many of the guidelines set forth on that page, such as Decorum, Editorial process, Dispute resolution, Editors reminded, Editors counseled, Standard discretionary sanctions, etc... My edit was not an attempt to introduce my POV on the Golan page or to misrepresent a 'source', and I have already demonstrated my understanding of the special 1RR-Talk on that article and refrained from continuing. In complete contrast, Sean, has had four days to remove that antagonistic profanity as well as blind dismissal of fellow editor's comments, and refused.

Blade, T Canens, WGFinley, I am also adding asad to this AE, for violating many guidelines on WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions and for not merely and kindly using my talk page for dispute resolution instead of opening another battlefront on AE, which is supposed to be a last resort, and clearly violating AGF. --Shuki (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HJ, save the ink. I think you are lucid enough to see, as well as pointed out from other editors here, that this single infobox edit is not about ignoring a source at all. Given that, despite Sean's misleading comments, I've already said that it was not a provocation, certainly not an intentional, that I was mistaken in not investigating the page history and talk page before making that single quickie edit, that I was mistaken in not reading until the end of that unique warning, and that I have since refrained from editing that page, effectively tbanning myself on that and as well all Golan articles. I think you are being led on by those who wish to Make a mountain out of a molehill and actually egging them on in this battlefield which I do not want to be on anymore. It's not about my tbans, and it's not about some consistent problematic behaviour either, which also should be given a small credit after being tbanned for so long. If you want to make it all of that, go ahead. I think that this is a frivolous accusation that could have been avoided by a simple mention on my talk page so I could revert and avoid this waste of AE time. Even my 'rival' Nableezy had the courtesy to talk when issues arose. If you choose instead to analyse my behaviour since I have been back editing and actually do believe all that asad and Sean have said about my editing is true and ignore that this issue is stale and not just merely a way for you and Sean to eliminate me (Sean insists I stop making edits like thisand I have) and you yourself just made a very troubling false comment that Shuki has a long and troubled history at the Golan Heights article, (really HJ?? How many edits have I ever made there? I suggest you remove that accusation), then I trust your clear judgement. --Shuki (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are academic sources that use different terminology [35] so its are merely content dispute.--Shrike (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this ugly infantilism useful Sean? You have a proclivity to curse at other users which needs to stop already. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to revert that on TDA's sound advice and replace it with a diff where my comment is more pertinent. Since you have commented on it I'll leave it there. I rarely "curse at other users". I should do it more. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troubling you've become so brazen that you don't care if admins at AE see your openly uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my stream of openly uncivil behavior and non-stop personal attacks are the problem. Nevertheless you should be concerned about making edits that violate ARBPIA restrictions and Strike should be concerned about saying things that misrepresent the situation. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like there was an explanation for the revert. The explanation is that the infobox should either mention that the Syrians are Druze Arabs or avoid calling the Israelis settlers. Shuki should not be dictating the terms to be used in an article, but that is not enough of an issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, nevermind, it appears the restriction requires discussion on the talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like neither Shuki or Plot have contributed to that article since the restriction was imposed so it is reasonable to presume they would not be aware of it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should further be noted that neither editor was duly warned of the unique restriction on the article. Shuki was given no warning at all, while the warning to Plot was vague in saying reverts needed to be explained per the requirement, without mentioning that such an explanation is required on the article talk page. Asad, all the same, has rushed to AE with this request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR This is a unique restriction on the article, not a general ARBPIA restriction from what I understand. Seems a bit much to say they would definitely be aware of some article-specific restriction in an article where only one of them has made any contributions before this and that nearly two years ago. Rather than assume that both of these editors looked over the talk page notices with a fine-tooth comb and decided to ignore the restriction, I think we should assume good faith of these editors and recognize that most people don't even think to check for a unique restriction on a specific article. Warning both editors of the unique restriction on Golan Heights in clear detail is the only action that any admin should take.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@T.Canens I hope you are not suggesting sanctions, because it seems reasonable to think that Shuki would simply not have been aware of the unique restriction on the article. Asad filed this report without so much as warning Shuki of the restriction. Seems to me like Asad is really just interested in getting sanctions imposed on Shuki.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment responding to HJ's suggestion at his talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest, if there is going to be action on Shuki, that it be of a more limited duration. Honestly, I think the editor probably did just miss the article-specific restriction in the notice and as no warning about that restriction was given by asad before he filed the AE request an indef ban from this article would just be excessive. Exactly how would Shuki even appeal that under the circumstances? Something between one and six months would at least drive the point home that such explanations are needed on the talk page of that article without denying Shuki the ability to ever contribute to it again. I mean, after just making one contribution to the article in nearly two years this unique restriction is being used to indef the editor from the article. Are you really going to apply that sort of draconian tactic against other ARBPIA editors who are new to editing that specific article?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether Shuki and Plot Spoiler have been individually informed of the restriction, since the article's edit page has a big header stating: "WARNING In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks." When reverting, they must surely have seen this. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, this is not a small announcement hidden away on the Talk page. It is a statement in bold letters, in a box, at the top of the edit page. I don't believe that it would be possible to miss this when editing the page. RolandR (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, the issue for me is that you ignored a clearly reliable source and changed article content to impose your view of what is neutral. Plot Spoiler did exactly the same thing of course (and again here, a bad habit that will certainly result in an AE report if it doesn't stop). You apparently genuinely believe that "Israelis" is more NPOV to describe Israeli settlers who live in Israeli settlements in areas that are outside of the green line and occupied by Israel such as the Golan Heights, despite the high quality source cited in this case using the standard terminology, terminology that is of course used by countless other sources, and so you feel justified in aligning Wikipedia content with your personal views. The problem is that your view of NPOV is inconsistent with Wikipedia's view of NPOV. If this were a one off, an exception, assuming good faith would make sense, but this is a feature of your editing in the topic area that has been going on for years across many articles. It's symptomatic of your inability or unwillingness to set aside your personal views and simply follow policy when it comes to Israeli settlers and the occupied territories in general. You may not like my personal views on what constitutes "profanity" but I don't impose those views on article content. You won't find me writing "bullshit" next to any of the many policy violating edits made by advocates in the topic area. I'm willing to believe that you didn't notice the article specific restrictions but I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to accept that after all these years you still believe that ignoring a source and erasing standard terminology is "a simple case of making NPOV". Can you stop doing things like this, yes or no ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, I prefer TDA approach. Categorizing people could be done in the body or lede text, infobox could contain total population. Anyway the discussed issue appears as content dispute that was resolved successfully imho, on article talk page. In sanctioned areas, the AE appears to be an arena of gaming where as you noted sometimes it is very desirable to "eliminate" editors with opposite "ideology". Administrators should be aware of that. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring a source, ignoring the talk page, ignoring an editing restriction and just doing whatever an editor wants isn't a content issue. It's a behavioral problem that needs to corrected by the editor or dealt with by sanctions. Insisting that editors follow policy as Asad has done is the "ideology" that Shuki is supposed to support here. We have AE to deal with inconsistencies between what an editor does and what they are supposed to do. What really matters is that Shuki stops making edits like this. It's easy. She can just stop doing it and say so. If that's too difficult she can simply take the articles that get her into trouble off her watchlist. Either way, if she stops there won't be any reason for editors to file AE reports but if she continues there needs to be a cost because editors are not allowed to behave like this in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, I don't understand how you can see a "desperation and perseverance to eliminate me" in what I wrote. It isn't there. I just want you to agree to stop making edits like this. That's all. You can do that. If you do that there is no reason for you to sanctioned is there. You are free to throw any number of accusations against me, I don't mind, as long as you stop making these kind of edits. If the topic area was being monitored by an intelligent bot that checked edits for compliance with policy, article restrictions and the sanctions, it would have filed this AE report against you. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim, I posted my response to HJ Mitchell's concerns yesterday on my talk page here. Regarding the proposed remedies, apart from #4, indefinitely semi-protecting the Golan Heights article, I think they're irrational or at least from my perspective the conclusions don't follow from the information present. There's no dependency between the merit of an AE report filed by an editor and the degree to which that editor is directly involved in the events that led to the AE report so I don't understand the rationale for restricting AE filing. Would it harm the topic area to ban me from filing or editing on WP:AE on any case not directly involving me for six months ? No, so it's not something I care about. If you see it as something that would benefit the topic area, go for it. If I see things happening in the topic area that merit an AE report, I will send the prepared AE report to any of the large number of editors and admins in the topic area who are allowed to file AE reports because an AE report that has merit needs to be filed by someone. Do I recognize and acknowledge a battleground behavior and incivility on my part in this report ? No, my objective was to try to get Shuki to stop making edits like this by explaining why I think her edit was problematic and symptomatic of a wider problem that I think she needs to address to avoid AE reports being filed. I also described what I regard as bullshit, an attempt to portray a clear policy/sanction violation as a content issue, as bullshit. My comments caused a lot of noise and bluster but Shuki explained her position and said she will not make edits like this in future. Apparently I use different criteria to identify battleground behavior, incivility, personal attacks and I'm used to noise. If I used the criteria being employed here I would be filing an AE or an ANI report against editors everyday. Since there is a mismatch between criteria, I told HJ Mitchell that I will not comment at AE reports anymore unless I file them (and I only file cases when there is serious disruption) or they are filed against me. I have no intention of recognizing or adopting the criteria being used in this report to identify battleground behavior, incivility, personal attacks and I will be continuing to describe what I regard as bullshit as bullshit. Consequently, not commenting at AE reports anymore seems like an obvious solution. Do whatever you think will benefit the topic area and its content the most. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A casual reader perusing this topic area might think Wikipedia has long thrown out neutrality and donned the populist hate-mantle. Editors trying to reclaim a semblance of NPOV are castigated for every move, threatened, intimidated and dragged to AE under false pretenses and pretentious charges. Qualifying a diverse Israeli Golan population as "settlers" in an infobox is far more pejorative and inflammatory than saying a settlement lies in the Judea & Samaria Area. Yet battle-editors complaining about Shuki's removal of one term, wouldn't rest until their own hated term was nearly erased from the encyclopedia. The legal statements on settlements, their verbose presence in leads and also in article sections, their disruptive placement interrupting content on the subject itself with bombastic titles and redundant repetitions, have turned these articles into a Wikipedia hate-in. One must wonder at the audacity displayed here with such "angelic" pretensions of neutrality. Shuki made a simple and correct edit towards the center in an infobox label. Nothing that warrants this level of disruption. How long will admins allow this abuse of AE to continue? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@TDA and admins: I agree that the proposed sanction against Shuki is an overkill for what seems an innocent oversight of a unique (and relatively unknown) prohibition for that page. It was also a reasonable and moderate edit that had already been through much more extreme states by other editors, evident by the fact that Shuki's edit helped clarify the dispute and modify the contentious terms towards the more neutral tone that's now in the Infobox:Population listing. That said, I think TDA misunderstands "indefinite" as "infinite", which I remember being explained otherwise here before. As I recall, "Indefinite" could be a week or a month or a year, depending on an editor's behavior. It essentially means "undefined", not "endless". If I'm wrong, admin clarification would be appreciated. Still, I agree with TDA that the sanction is exorbitant for this case. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the standard definition (at least on Wikipedia) of "indefinite", and I'm sure if Shuki keeps out of trouble, an appeal in a few months' time would stand a good chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Blade. Kindly withdraw from this thread. Your comments about reading up on Hass and Fisk, two authors on the extreme side of the spectrum (let alone a convicted defamer and someone whose reliability is mocked), indicate you're lacking familiarity with the basics of the Arab-Israel conflict. This unfamiliarity is further apparent from your suggested sanction. Even if sources uses the term "settlers" when describing Jews living in the Golan Heights, there are plenty of sources that simply use the term "Israelis." The latter neutral term should obviously be preferred in the name of NPOV. To weasel-word a maligned term into an infobox,[36] edit-war when it is removed,[37] is itself cause for sanctions. A fortiori sanctions should boomerang when the edit-warring npov-violating editor has the chutzpah to initiate an AE when things don't go his way .--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what linking to a diff on my userpage has anything to do with anything? -asad (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Will it never end for some folks? Here we are to consider the removal or addition of a single noun describing a segment of the population in the Golan as "settlers" or not. This has led to a revert war putting the article back into protection again and this case on AE. I think we need to seriously approach our work in this topic area and if the same folks are going to come here time and time again with some fight or another then they shouldn't be editing this topic. Then we have the polite exchange among various parties as well. Don't even know where to start with this one. --WGFinley (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing is clear though, I definitely agree that article needs to be indefinitely semi-protected, it's under constant disturbance from anon editing, with the number of bans in on this topic there's a good chance it is sock editing and deserving of protection. --WGFinley (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this request can be readily disposed of on the ground that Shuki failed to observe the restriction which requires a talk page explanation for the revert. No opinion on other matters, though I do find this massive fight over six letters to be frankly perplexing (just when I thought nothing in this topic area would surprise me anymore...). T. Canens (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ugh. Though I'm not terribly shocked an all-out brawl would happen over something like this, as I've read enough about this subject (Robert Fisk and Amira Hass, but others as well) to have seen this happening in the real world, I don't think people who engage in it really belong editing those articles. I'll look over the rest later, but this doesn't make Shuki look good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shuki; I'm trying not to rush to judgment here, I'm merely trying to make it clear what impression I have. I always enter these with an open mind, but I try to make my thoughts known so you don't have to guess. Since telepathy is not among the tools received upon adminship, the best way to communicate that is to write it here, it doesn't make it my final answer; my mind can always change. My reading list above is also suppoeed to be demonstrative, not exhaustive; Hass has reported on it in the past anyways, so I've read the prosaic and condensed version of certain news events. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @Brewcrewer; don't try to patronize me. Your perception of my knowledge of the subject is a red herring; I'm not interested in carrying on debates over semantics here (though I should say my view on this isn't as one-sided as you seem to think; my explanation for my reading above appearing as such is that I wrote that on about 4 hours sleep and didn't think to list "one from each side"), nor am I interested in being told what I do and don't know by someone who has never met me (I feel no obligation here to demonstrate precisely what I do and don't know, though I've long been aware of Hass' conviction and of fisking). I'm interested in seeing whether or not Shuki violated an ARBPIA article restriction. Please keep your comments to issues pertinent to the topic at hand. Incidentally, I haven't suggested a sanction just yet, as I'm still not sure what I think the right course of action is yet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's concerning that an editor only too well aware of the contentiousness of this topic area would make such an edit, which any reasonable person could tell was going be to a source of further contention. I don't know what sort of action would be appropriate, but I think it would be a mistake to allow that sort of provocation to go unacknowledged.

  It's equally concerning that a group of editors, and Sean.hoyland in particular, would see an AE request against a third party as an appropriate venue to thrash out their personal differences. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and AE certainly isn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Addenda:
  • I've given Sean.hoyland a formal notification of the discretionary sanctions. Other editors should be aware that hijacking AE threads (especially those on third parties) for interpersonal disputes will lead to sanctions should it recur.
  • WP:ARBPIA#Log of blocks and bans shows that Shuki has a long and troubled history at the Golan Heights article, andpardon me, I seem to have misread the log. Apologies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC) in the Israel-Palestine area generally, leading to multiple topic bans, blocks, and restrictions. Template:Editnotices/Page/Golan Heights, which is displayed when one edits the Golan Heights article, very clearly advertises the restriction which Shuki allegedly violated, and, as I said above, I think any reasonable editor would have known that that edit would cause controversy. As such, I am suggesting an indefinite ban from the article Golan Heights. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've stared at this for a several days and considered the circumstances again and here is what I propose to dispose of this report.

1. Shuki (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from Golan Heights as suggested by HJM. He reverted without explanation as required on the talk page and the edit notice as well. I put this into place on this article to avoid these senseless edit wars with no discussion on talk. Ironically enough it seems when it did get discussed some compromises were reached, let this stand as an example that on contentious articles like this TALK first, EDIT second. This is not the way I desired to have my point proven.
2. Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) banned from filing or editing on WP:AE on any case not directly involving him for six months for battleground behavior and incivility.
3. Brewcrewer (talk · contribs) banned from filing or editing on WP:AE on any case not directly involving him for six months for a direct personal attack on an uninvolved admin patrolling WP:AE. There's clearly some prior disagreement here and clearly has nothing at all to do with this case. WP:AE should not be subject to hijacking for one's personal axes.
4. Golan Heights is indefinitely semi-protected due to constant and ongoing disruption by anon editors, likely related to sockpuppetry by banned users.
5. All contributors to WP:AE are reminded, if you come here with unclean hands or to further your battleground dispute in this venue and disrupt WP:AE, you are subject to sanction.

• Support as proposer. --WGFinley (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As the admin who Brewcrewer was addressing, I'll abstain on 3 to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but I support the others. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Where's Brewcrewer's personal attack? T. Canens (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Without remarking on the merits of the proposed remedial action, I recommend that you expedite the resolution of this complaint, because it has been pending for some days, and the discussion by uninvolved editors has been particularly heated. In future, perhaps it might be considered that, on a case-by-case basis, ending discussion by involved editors where it becomes disruptive or heated may be a productive interim solution. AGK [•] 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• At this moment I agree with 1, 4, and 5. As to 2, Sean.hoyland has just been notified of the discretionary sanctions like a day ago and the offending edits predate that notification. We can probably still find constructive warning from his past participation at AE (so sanctions are not entirely impossible), but I want to consider his response to the proposed sanction first, considering his apparently clean history. As to Brewcrewer, I'm not quite seeing the PA right now. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sean is well aware his behavior here is subject to sanction, it's spelled out boldly at the top of this page and he has 149 edits here. We also previously held formal warning wasn't required for someone who participated on WP:AE, I reopened a case I closed because of it. As far as Brewcrewer telling an uninvolved admin he shouldn't be providing an opinion that is a clear personal attack. It's a politely worded "you don't know what you're talking about" and GTFO -- using flowery verse doesn't make it any less personal. Admins shouldn't have to wear industrial strength flame retardant suits to patrol here, this type of behavior needs to stop. I have found all the admins who patrol here are receptive to constructive criticism, people shouldn't be bashed over the head with it. --WGFinley (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As to Sean: Yes, I remember that. I wrote the comment that caused the reopening of that case...As I said, we can probably find constructive warning, but since HJ just made a formal notification, I'm a little wary about piling on with a sanction immediately afterwards.

  As to Brewcrewer, I'm not convinced. I'm very wary of sanctioning people for criticizing AE admins, even if the criticism is totally misguided. If Blade really were totally clueless, how is someone supposed to point it out? Since admins need not recuse simply due to criticism directed at them, no matter how heated, people who go overboard with their comments do so at their own peril (compare WP:BUTT), since they risk antagonizing the admin and being treated less favorably. I'm not convinced that actively sanctioning criticism, no matter how misguided, is a good idea. T. Canens (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I respect your opinion as always Tim but I just think you are going lightly on this one. Taking action to protect WP:AE from becoming a constant battleground just carried out in a different venue is not piling on. Sean contributed to the ensuing very heated disturbance and Brewcrewer was happy to take a swipe at Blade when Blade did little more than make a passing reference to some recent reading he had done. Getting criticized is part of taking the mop and to be expected, even more so here given the nature of it, I think this went well beyond criticism, it was disproportionately hostile. I wish you would reconsider but understand and will see what others think. --WGFinley (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid I agree with Tim here. I don't think Sean was in need of anything more severe than a warning for what appears to be a first offence. I'm less certain about Brewcrewer's comment, which was unhelpful and patronising, but I wouldn't say it was a personal attack and Tim is right that we should be wary about sanctioning people for criticising administrators. Also, #4, while sensible, seems redundant, sicne the article is already protected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will yield on #2 and #3 (though I am of the opinion willful condescension is on its face a personal attack) but I would like #5 to stay so that if this issue comes up again for either of them we won't be as lenient next time. #5 is not redundant, it's putting those who created the mess on this report on notice: cut it out. --WGFinley (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, apologies. I meant to say that #4 (protection the article) was redundant, not #5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for #4 just to have it on the record this was reviewed and is the consensus at AE on that article. Otherwise someone will come along in a couple months and say "why is this semi-protected" and undo it. --WGFinley (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless there are any objections, I'm going to close this thread within the next 12 hours or so and enact remedies 1, 4, and 5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

—Biosketch (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions/WP:Tendentious editing

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

1. 10 February 2012 – adds unsourced commentary diminishing the importance of a poll indicating that one third of the Palestinians supported the attack
2. 10 February 2012 – removes sourced information about the poll's findings from the lead with an edit summary claiming that it is unsourced, and subsequently refuses to self-revert despite being directed to the source on his Talk page

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

1. Notified on 16 September 2011 of ARBPIA restrictions by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 6 December 2011 for edit warring by Hertz1888 (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on 12 December 2011 for edit warring by Jayjg (talk · contribs)
4. Warned on 15 December 2011 for edit warring by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
5. Warned on 15 December 2011 for disruptive editing by Jayjg (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Beyond the subjective characterization of the poll in such a way as to prejudice the reader into dismissing its significance (diff 1) and the subsequent refusal to self-revert an edit that removed all information on the poll from the lead despite being directed to the source for the poll on his Talk page (diff 2), this user is a classic case of a tendentious editor as defined at WP:Tendentious editing. His edits are overwhelmingly concerned with negatively portraying Israel in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and elevating the prominence of Palestinian claims, e.g.:

• removes a passage about Haj Amin al-Husseini's involvement with the Nazis during WWII as irrelevant to the article History of Israel, but adds a passage about a Hamas minister of health speaking out against the Holocaust.
• reverses the order of Israeli and Palestinian accounts so as to give greater prominence to the Palestinian narrative.
• reverses the order of Israeli and Palestinian names so as to give greater prominence to Palestinian names.

I'll stop here since evidence going back more than a couple of weeks is usually considered stale, but the pattern can be readily established with more and severer diffs if need be.—Biosketch (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments

• @User:Jd2718, an article ban at Itamar attack would be fine minimally for knowingly adding a false POV-motivated characterization to the lead and for falsely summarizing the removal of sourced information as unsourced. But when the same user who knowingly adds false information to the lead of a hot-button article and dishonestly summarizes the removal of sourced content he knows is sourced also goes around making changes to other articles in a systematically POV manner, that makes his edits collectively WP:TENDENTIOUS. Tendentious editing in the Israel-Palestine topic area has been considered sanctionable under ARBPIA discretionary sanctions at AE before, so your request to narrow the scope of this enforcement request would be asking Admins to apply a different standard to this case than has been applied in the past to similar cases brought against POV editors.—Biosketch (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:Wgfinley, User:HJ_Mitchell, you're mistaken in concluding that the content Dalai Lama removed was unsourced. It was sourced in the article and there's no doubt at all that Dalai Lama knew that. There's no requirement to keep repeating citations in the lead that're elsewhere in the article. And the crucial point is that Dalai Lama knew the content was sourced when he falsely characterized it and later removed it from the lead entirely because he didn't like it. It's clear he was aware of the source because before he removed the content he added that it was based on a poll. He could only have known that if he was aware of the ref for the content that appears later in the article. Dalai Lama isn't some arbitrary passerby at Itamar attack; on the contrary, he's one of the most extensive contributors to the article in recent months and one who's gotten into conflicts with numerous other editors in the past for trying to delete reliably sourced content not consistent with his POV. See the long series of edits and reverts in August-September 2011 to see that this is indeed the case.—Biosketch (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.—Biosketch (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't this guy been hammered for having an offensive name? Jtrainor (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, compare and contrast with [38] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been discussed before. See User talk:Dalai lama ding dong#Username. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief. It's just a song. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint/request should be narrowed. I have questions about a couple of the diffs. Of the two diffs that make this an AE matter, in the second I see removal of unsourced information. Is the source elsewhere in the article? Of the five diffs showing the editor has been warned, Ed Johnston's is ARBPIA, the rest are general edit warring? And of the three diffs being used to illustrate tendentious editing, I consider the latter two (balancing the ordering) to be legitimate topics for discussion (but of course not for edit warring), and far from tendentious. Jd2718 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I'm still not seeing the source (in the back and forth between Biosketch and Dalai lama ding dong on the latter's talk page, Biosketch asserts that it is there, but doesn't cite it). And, yes, one ARBPIA warning is indeed enough. However, it appears that the report was expanded with unrelated or unsupporting diffs, including non-AE warnings. Thus my suggestion that the report should be narrowed. Jd2718 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ jd2718: Yes, the source is in the aticle, and was pointed to to DLDD on his talk, as explaine in the filer's comment accompanying the second diff, which says "removes sourced information about the poll's findings from the lead with an edit summary claiming that it is unsourced, and subsequently refuses to self-revert despite being directed to the source on his Talk page" - I've bolded the part you are apparently having difficulty with. And I would think ONE ARBPIA warning is more than enough. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ jd2718: A quick glance at the article in question shows that the claim is indeed sourced, exactly as Biosketch claims: "An opinion poll conducted by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 63% of Palestinians surveyed opposed the attack while 32% supported. The groups interviewed 1,270 adults face-to-face in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip from 17 to 19 March 2011.[62]" Did you look at the article at all before posting your comment? And BTW, you are clearly involved in the topic area, so you need to remove the misleading "uninvolved" from "comment by uninvolved jd2718"

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

• Don't really see enough behavior that should be subject to sanction. The first diff appears to be editorial that should have a source otherwise it's WP:SYN but I don't see a huge violation there. The second diff did remove unsourced information and any user can remove it. If the source is in the lead you should still cite it again per the Citing sources guideline. The following 3 diffs are much more telling of some general battleground behavior but I don't know if it's enough to sanction. This editor doesn't seem to know what the talk page is for though and should be relying on it more and edit comments less. --WGFinley (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a reminder to use talkpages more frequently and a strong encouragement to discuss contentious edits should suffice. Not seeing anything worth an extended ban just yet, although I'd suggest that continuing down this path could result in a long topic ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Removing unsourced information is, of course, a legitimate editorial action, but it looks to me like this user has been very careful to only removed unsourced information when it suits their POV, which is tendentious editing. I don't know if there's anything outright sanctionable, though a stern warning that this path leads only to a topic ban certainly seems in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Gatoclass (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

1. 08:41, 7 February 2012 Gross misrepresentation of sources; use of substandard sources; WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour; see additional comments section below for explanation
2. 08:57, 7 February 2012 As for first diff above

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

Jaakobou clearly knows about ARBPIA as he was a party to the original case[39] and has since been sanctioned under ARBPIA several times:

1. 14:17, 18 March 2008‎ - one week ban imposed by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
2. 14:28, 1 May 2008 blocked one week by FayssalF (talk · contribs)
3. 21:58, 29 November 2010 - interaction ban imposed by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)
4. 06:09, 20 April 2011 - "warned not to make clearly meritless requests for enforcement, especially requests that make obvious misrepresentations of fact" by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In the first diff provided in the evidence above, Jaakobou states that two Palestinian newspapers including official [Palestinian] news wire Wafa ... described "supernatural rats", twice as big as normal rats and breeding breed four times faster. He supplies three sources for the paragraph. Only one is a news article; it makes no mention of "supernatural rats", twice as big as normal rats and breeding four times faster.[40] The other two sources are (sarcastic) opinion pieces, which as Jaakobou must surely be aware by now, cannot be considered reliable as sources for facts per WP:RSOPINION. Even so, neither of these refer to supernatural rats ... twice as big as normal rats and breeding four times faster.[41][42] One does make mention of "giant rats" and includes an unattributed quote "large as dogs" - which, assuming it is accurate, may be a direct quote from the Palestinian news wire itself, or just a colloquial expression quoted from someone interviewed for the story. Regardless, these sources are not remotely sufficient to justify the inclusion of a truly exceptional claim such as that an "official news wire" of the Palestinian Authority accused Israel of releasing "supernatural rats".

Had Jaakobou not been so eager to restore his defamatory paragraph, he might have noticed that a fourth source, which actually contained the extraordinary claims he is so keen to include, was previously removed from the article - but this source too was only an op-ed, and a heavily sarcastic one at that[43] - although Jaakobou thinks not, as he affirmed in the edit summary of a previous revert.[44]

Jaakobou is well aware of the objections to the misuse of heavily sarcastic jibes sourced from op-eds and presented as straight fact. We know this because he has been reminded of it in edit summaries[45][46][47] by the people he has been edit warring with over this content,[48][49][50][51][52][53] and because it was explained to him long ago on the article talk page. He simply doesn't care.

A couple of further comments. Jaakobou is an editor with a long history of misconduct in the topic area (see the comments about him from other users in the original WP:ARBPIA case, for example). As I recall, he narrowly avoided a siteban some time ago over this. When he was more active on the project, he acquired a reputation for filing meritless requests for action at both AE and AN/I. In my experience, he also happens to be one of the more unpleasant characters to deal with here; rather than discuss content, his communications on talk pages are leavened with vague insinuations of impropriety on the part of his respondents; an example being my last contact with him, last year, in this discussion, where he finds fault with almost everyone while managing to avoid practically any concrete discussion of content. IMO he has avoided a topic ban this long only because of his lack of recent activity, but he has had years to reform and as his latest edits demonstrate, has apparently learned nothing in all that time. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to HJ and Blade

@HJ and Blade: My apologies for apparently failing to explain the issues clearly enough. With regard to the charge of "gross misrepresentation of sources", allow me to present the two edits in question again.

• In the first diff, Jaakobou added the statement that In 2008, two Palestinian newspapers including official news wire Wafa [...] described "supernatural rats", twice as big as normal rats and breeding breed four times faster.[54]
• In the second diff, Jaakobou added the statement that Palestinian newspapers reported that settlers had flooded the Old City of Jerusalem with "supernatural rats", twice as big as normal rats and breeding four times faster.[55]

In both cases, Jaakobou attributes the quote "supernatural rats" to Palestinian newspapers (one of which is apparently an official news wire of the PA). But this quote does not come from "Palestinian newspapers" - it comes from a heavily sarcastic op ed parodying the reports in those newspapers.[56] The effect is to hold up "Palestinian newspapers" - and by extension, Palestinians - to ridicule. I want to emphasize the seriousness of this misrepresentation: Jaakobou is charging that an "official news wire" of the PA credited the Israelis with having and employing supernatural means in their struggle with Palestinians.

That is not merely an exceptional claim - it's an outrageous one. Such a claim would clearly require exceptional sourcing, but Jaakobou's source for this tosh is a heavily sarcastic op ed which is obvously employing exaggeration for effect - exaggerations that Jaakobou has presented in the article as factual statements. So apart from misrepresenting the sources, Jaakobou has also grossly breached the requirements of WP:V.

There is plenty more I could add, but in the interests of brevity, I will conclude simply by noting that these gross breaches of policy are not the result of mere rashness or carelessness on J.'s part - he has restored this trash no fewer than six times over the course of many months.[57][58][59][60][61][62] He has also pointedly ignored the objections raised to this content.[63][64][65][66] So these are not only gross breaches of policy on J.'s part, they are also deliberate and calculated breaches, carried out over an extended period. Gatoclass (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to HJMitchell

Having already clarified my evidence, I am surprised to find that you still apparently see nothing "tendentious" about Jaakobou's edits. To recapitulate: he cherry picked the most prejudicial phrase available - supernatural rats - from a collection of sarcastic opinion pieces of highly dubious value as reliable sources. He then totally misrepresented the phrase by attributing it to a news story in "Palestinian newspapers", in such a way as to make it appear these newspapers, including one associated with the Palestinian Authority, were making the ridiculous accusation that Israel had released "supernatural rats" - thus inviting contempt for the associated Palestinian organizations. He did this a total of five times over the course of many months.[67][68][69][70][71] His last restoration was so careless he neglected to include the very source from which his cherry picked phrase originated - this in spite of the fact that he knew the phrase had been challenged by at least two other users.[72] At the same time, he doubled down on the offence by including an image of a rat with a caption even more misleading than the phraseology in the original misrepresentation.[73]

With regard to your comment that the edit Jaakobou reverted was itself tendentious - presumably on the grounds that you think a section on the rat story was justified - you are entitled to that view. But I am obliged to point out that Jaakobou did not have consensus for his restoration of that section on the talk page, as at least two editors - myself and Poyani - had objected to its inclusion, while two others - Roscelese and Marokwitz - had expressed objections to the sourcing.[74][75] My own objection to the inclusion of the section in question can be read here, and I must reject any suggestion that the argument presented there is "tendentious". Gatoclass (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should also point out that the "supernatural rats" claim is only the most egregious of J.'s misrepresentations. He has in fact misattributed a slew of statements to "Palestinian newspapers" that in fact were made in op eds. These include statements that the rats were "twice as big as normal rats" and that they "breed four times as fast", as well as earlier misattributions that the rats were dog sized, "liked to attack Palestinian children" and so on. The point is that in articles which are clearly employing sarcasm as a mode of expression, one cannot possibly know whether these statements were meant to be taken literally or if they are just examples of the writers' attempts at sarcasm. Jaakobou however, approaches these statements from the assumption that they must all be literally true, because it suits his POV to do so. Consequently, he sees no problem with misattributing these statements to "Palestinian newspapers". The problem with such an approach ought, I think, to be self evident. Gatoclass (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update to evidence

Jaakobou's latest edit demonstrates that he simply doesn't get it.[76] He thinks that by removing the quotes from "supernatural rats" he is somehow solving the problem, but his new edit if anything makes the passage worse. The problem is not that there are quote marks around the term "supernatural rats", the problem is that he is attributing the term to Palestinian newspapers, when the term originates from an obviously sarcastic statement in an op ed which almost certainly was never intended to be taken literally. There is no evidence whatever that Palestinian newspapers ever asserted that Israelis were releasing "supernatural rats" - if they had made such a ludicrous claim it would surely have been reported in more than one place. Jaakobou's new "solution" indicates that this is at least as much an issue of competence as it is of battleground mentality. I think at this point he's had more than enough chances to get it right. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some further clarification, in response to Jaakobou's latest comments.

Jaakobou asserts that his latest edit, which substituted the term "rats with supernatural qualities" for his original "supernatural rats", has resolved the problem, but it hasn't even begun to address it. His edit still egregiously misrepresents the Palestinian newspapers in question because it attributes to them an (exceptional) claim we have no evidence they made, ie that supernatural rats, or rats with supernatural qualities, were being released by Israel. The characterization of these rats' qualities as "supernatural" comes not from these Palestinian newspapers, but from an opinion piece satirizing their story. Jaakobou's edit, in other words, misattributes an opinion expressed by a newspaper columnist to the original news report published by Palestinian newspapers. This doesn't just misrepresent the newspapers (and the sources) in question, it also clearly breaches at least three elements of core policy, WP:Attribution, WP:REDFLAG and WP:RSOPINION. And it does so in such a way as to defame the Palestinian organizations in question, which is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.

RSOPINION states that Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. Why is this policy necessary? Because of the recognition that many opinion editors routinely distort the facts in order, for example, to make a point, pillory their political adversaries, appeal to the prejudices of their readers, or just write in an entertaining way. It should I think be obvious that the hazards of relying on satirical opinion pieces for statements of fact are much greater still, because in such articles the facts are typically distorted to the point of absurdity to achieve the desired satirical effect.

Again, it isn't just one such factoid lifted from a satirical op-ed by Jaakobou and misattributed to Palestinian newspapers, but a whole series of them. The assertions that Palestinian newspapers described the rats as "dog size" or "twice as big as normal rats" (take your pick), that they were "breeding four times faster", "like to attack Palestinian children" and so on, were all sourced to various satirical op eds - most of them to just one[77] - and misattributed by Jaakobou to the papers themselves. Any of these statements could be, and likely is, an exaggeration made for the sake of parody. An experienced editor should surely understand this without needing to have it explained, but in Jaakobou's case he went on - and still goes on - adding these claims in contravention of multiple core policies even after being reminded of those policies. Gatoclass (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou is now trying to justify his misattributions by (retrospective) reference to an alleged quote from the original Palestinian report that appears on the Palestinian Media Watch website, an Israeli advocacy site. Even working on the assumption that the quote accurately reflects the views expressed in the original Palestinian report, the quote does not include statements that the rats are "supernatural", that they are "twice as big as normal rats" or that they "breed four times faster" than a normal rat. These are all statements taken not from the original report, but from an opinion piece satirizing that report. By misattributing these statements to the original Palestinian report, Jaakobou has perpetrated a falsehood which has had the effect of portraying "Palestinian newspapers" in the worst possible light. Gatoclass (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ynhockey

Truly extraordinary that an admin whose own user page states that "nearly every significant edit I've made to an Arab–Israeli conflict-related article so far has been dubbed, directly or indirectly, a POV push" would attempt to pass himself off as an uninvolved admin in the I-P topic area. That aside, your claim that misrepresentation of sources is a "content dispute" not actionable at AE is patently wrong, as shown by this thread. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JH Mitchell and T. Canens

With regard to the question as to whether J.'s conduct is "serious" enough to warrant sanction - I obviously believe it is or I would not have brought this case. My concern is not simply that Jaakobou repeatedly misattributed statements, it's that the effect of those misattributions was to invite scorn for Palestinians. In my view, any content that tends to promote ethnic or cultural stereotypes should be subject to the utmost rigour and only included if that information is unambiguously relevant, notable and impeccably sourced. Hopefully then, it will be clear why I think that misattributing hyperbolic statements to make it appear that Palestinians claimed they were being tormented by "supernatural rats" is an offence occasioning some sort of sanction. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should also point out that in spite of all that's been said in this case, Jaakobou has still failed to correct his misattributions,[78] and indeed is attempting to defend them. What reason is there, then, to suppose he will stop attempting to edit war this misinformation into the article at the close of this case? Given his intransigence on the issue, I see no alternative but to request some sort of sanction. Gatoclass (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Billinghurst

I don't have time to respond in detail to Billinghurst's comment, so I will just note firstly that Billinghurst has made exactly one edit to WP:AE and can hardly be described as familiar with this process or the problems which beset the given topic area, and secondly, that I think it inappropriate for Jaakobou to be canvassing for commentary on this case at IRC where the discussion cannot be reviewed. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [79]

To be honest, I'm having difficulty following the complaint and it seems to underline the severe battleground behavior which I've long put behind me (since 2008). Gatoclass, however, has never really been an honest participant in discussions relating the Arab-Israeli dispute whether it was content related or user behavior related. A review of his participation will quickly show a clear pattern of personal preference to a certain type of user -- and I'm not talking about good contributors.

On point, Gatoclass has not approached me with his concerns and, certainly, his view was more than challenged on the talkpage and on article space -- by an admin no less.[80]

His explained reasoning to remove said paragraph (which is about a ridiculous conspiracy theory) was "None of the sources refer to this specifically as a conspiracy theory." .. "Neither would it be unreasonable for Palestinians to conclude that the rats were being released in a malicious attempt to affect their quality of life. For something to be a conspiracy theory, it has to include a major element of irrationality."[81]

How about the fact that Jews live in that neighborhood also? Where's the rationale behind racist rats?

The [Palestinian official newspaper] report said that "Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents of the occupied Old City of Jerusalem. Settlers flood the Old City of Jerusalem with rats." It is not clear how these rats were taught to stay away from Jews, who also happen to live in the Old City.[82]

I've noted this to Gatoclass on the talk: The mere suggestion that Jews bring in rats with a goal to kick out Arabs and replace them with Jews falls under "conspiracy theory" whether it is correct or isn't correct. "Such [conspiratory] allegations reflect a sick mindset and are part of a long-standing tradition of blaming Israel and Jews for almost everything that goes wrong in Arab countries and the rest of the world."[83] In this event, the only reason that there are regular rats -- not the cat chasing ones that can distinguish Arab from Jew -- is low sanitary conditions in the Old City and not an evil Jewish plot. Regardless, it is not up to you or me to judge the rationality of these conspiratory allegations. We're here to convey what has been published by reliable sources.[84]

To be honest, if this is just about the phrasing used, then it doesn't belong here -- and, certainly, I did not invent any of the terms used myself but used the terminology of sources. If the phrasing has not been best, Gatoclass can certainly refine it. However, Gatoclass first choice of complete deletion and claims that this is not a conspiracy theory unless that term is specifically expressed, followed by this rushed non-collaborative attempt of complaint -- present my case for the underlying problem in Gatoclass's behavior.

Direct quotes of the original Palestinian allegation include: "cats run away from these rats because of their size and ferocity.", "they seem to be immune to poison", "this female rat gives birth seven times a year, each time giving birth to 20 babies"[85]

In this context -- this complaint as though my behavior of returning the paragraph (after it was deleted a few months ago, when editors stopped paying attention) seems wholly unproductive and personal.

I have no problem with the idea that the paragraph could be fixed a bit but this complaint has little to no merit and, if anything, I believe Gatoclass should be reprimanded for wasting everyone's time like this.

p.s. I've managed to work relatively well with editors who are not interested just in drama (Quasi-Barnstar Memorabilia - click links) -- including on the conspiracy article. Sample: [86] Gatoclass, for his own participation, has been blocked a year ago when edit warring with a third editor on the very article in question on this complaint. I incidentally changed his edit after he violated WP:ARBPIA which could be an added incentive for his non-collaborative approach. However, he still seems interested in removing anyone working on the page and deleting the paragraph rather than in correcting the phrasing to his liking. Maybe this is not the case but just my perception due to this rushed complaint. If he states to the contrary, I will certainly take their word for it.

@Admins:

Gatoclass has been blocked a year ago fighting a 3rd editor on the conspiracy article and managed to sustain the same spirit as before. I would like to promote that he (a) be reprimanded for this complaint, and (b) (optional) article banned for a short period (24hrs?) for maintaining a politically motivated, non-collaborative, battleground promoting behavior that is detrimental to the spirit and purpose of the project -- I think it is a bad idea to let people maintain such spirit over more than a year without a wake-me-up. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens:

The rat conspiracy paragraph was blanketed out and I reverted after a few months of not noticing the edit. I also added a picture with a bit of existing text (presented here as 2 diffs despite being done in one editing go). The term "supernatural" is not important and I am not attached to it. Gatoclass has not bothered to approach my edit on the talkpage and explains here that he (a) assumes bad faith, and that (b) his participation is politically motivated -- this explains why he's trying to game the system rather than build consensus. His activity here, specifically the usage of diffs, is to a fault on a number of levels as well. At least a few his new "clarifying" diffs come from time periods where I was completely oblivious to the article. His "clarification" is not a fair representative of his activity, which got him blocked, or my activity.

The term "supernatural", btw, is not far off from the direct quote and explains it with clarity. Rats in Jerusalem do NOT chase away cats, are NOT immune to poison, and the females do NOT give birth SEVEN TIMES a year to 20 babies.[87] Regardless if the term "supernatural" is used in sources or not (and it is used, e.g., in the last ref's title), I am not attached to it and have no issues with rephrasing it. It is mere semantics as long as the paragraph about the rat conspiracy is in the article and presents the conspiracy theory about ... above average(?) rats.

p.s. English is not my mother tongue and I am more than open to discussion and suggestions. You'll excuse me if I'm not as open to blanket deletions and/or politically motivated bad faith accusations.

@HJ Mitchell:

As far as I can tell. The word "supernatural" was used by Palestinian Media Watch -- a reliable source for translation and news about Palestinian media -- and not by the Palestinian newspaper. However, the exact translation describes rats which are certainly beyond the normal. The whole problem, IMHO, stems from Gatoclass' idea that the story is somehow legitimate (per: "Neither would it be unreasonable for Palestinians to conclude...") and not a concocted conspiracy (per: "not a conspiracy theory"). Had he approached the text with collaborative suggestions rather than a battleground mentality, I believe he would not have been blocked and would not have filed this time-wasting report.

@Admins:

1. I hope you will address this problem, where an editor is pushing a clearly politically motivated deletion effort while using this forum to badger a fellow editor. No one is perfect, but the spirit of the wiki project is collaboration, not arm wrestling.
2. To ratify my earlier comment -- that I am not overly attached to the semantics used in the article and that my main concern was battleground mentality regarding the existence of the "not a conspiracy theory" paragraph -- I've gone ahead and fixed the 'supernatural' issue based on the best source material available.[88] I would have fixed this issue had Gatoclass approached my renewal of the paragraph's existence using the talkpage but it seems he's still under the [politically motivated] intent of having the entire text completely removed.

With respect.

@Response to Gatoclass' -- 12:56, 15 February 2012 -- update:

The Palestinian fable about rats capable of chasing away cats and of being immune to poison (source, pg. 10) can be summarized with the term "supernatural qualities" ("supernatural rats" is gone) without anyone throwing a fit over it. I can't explain why the "update" ignores the changes and attacks the already removed text. Maybe Gatoclass is more competent than I and is capable of explaining this discrepancy. Regardless, it is frivolous behavior and a waste on everyone's time. I could have, for example, continued helping the concerns raised regarding 'Israel-Palestinian conflict'[89] instead of responding to this politically motivated harassment.

To make things easier on reviewing admins:

"cats run away from these rats because of their size and ferocity... All of the conventional efforts to kill them have not succeeded, because they seem to be immune to poison" - Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), controlled by the office of Mahmoud Abbas, July 18, 2008 (source, pg. 10)

I can't explain why Gatoclass insists this does not qualify as a conspiracy theory when there's enough sources (PMW analysis report and op-eds) that treat it as such and no sources that say the opposite. As long as he tries to throw weight around in order to impose this politically motivated belief into wikipedia article space, it might be a good practice to ban him from WP:ARBPIA topic area.

Apologies for not coming with this information earlier -- I considered this complaint pure harassment and did not want to waste time by looking at things which occurred in 2011.

Here goes...

My latest diff not from this month's undo operation has occurred on May 2011:

"Not yet finished, but this deals with most issues content-wise. Still haven't dealt with "supernatural" issue which I've opened for discussion" -- Jaakobou, 20 May 2011

Gatoclass deleted the paragraph with his novelty personal belief (i.e. not supported by any sources) that it was "not a conspiracy theory",[90] and was reverted by an admin who asked for an explanation.[91] In June 2011, a while after discussions died down, Poyani removed the paragraph (without an edit summary).[92] I noticed the rats section has been removed months later, and I undid his action and asked him to not take advantage of the fact that editors stopped paying attention to the page.

Reviewing my last contribution in May 2011, I was accepting the complaint against "supernatural" and did not reinsert it.[93] The only inaccuracy of the time appears to have been my using of the term "dog sized" when the exact translation on al-Hayat al-Jadida was "cats run away from these rats because of their size and ferocity". I forgot about this argument by February 2012, when I reverted Poyani and it appears that contentious language was reinserted by Gilabanrd on October 2011[94] prior to being removed again by Poyani on November 2011.[95]

Was I the one ignoring input and pushing the article towards the realm of extraordinary claims or was Poyani engaged in slow edit-warring, which caused me to reinsert a version I fixed in May 2011? Regardless, Gatoclass was and still is using hyperbole, not existing in the article, to promote his unsupported personal belief that it is not enough of a conspiracy theory to merit mere inclusion (per: "My own objection to the inclusion of the section in question can be read here" -- Gatoclass, February 2012)

Gatoclass could have just nudged me to get me to fix the article again (as I did in May 2011) -- but that does not appear to be his purpose.

Gatoclass disagrees with how I fixed the text about the Palestinian story of poison-immune rats that target Arabs (unnatural qualities). That's fine and I plan to remain open to resolving concerns when they are raised. Regardless, he has misrepresented the history (I was working towards a solution in May 2011), and attempted using AE as a weapon in a content dispute. To top it off, he now suggests he plans on creating an edit war to impose his view (per: "What reason is there, then, to suppose he will stop attempting to edit war"[96]). I'd hope, instead, that he would rather work with the community to build a consensus -- but he already stated his goal was deleting the entire story. I assure that I have no intention on edit-warring on the semantics (or anything else, for that matter), and I feel like I'm repeating myself when I keep noting that Gatoclass appears to still be in the same mind-frame that got him blocked for edit-warring a year ago.

So, after an uninvolved administrator told Gatoclass that it is misleading to list these two diff separately , as they were made 16 minutes apart with no intervening edit, he goes and repeats his charge, treating each one as a separate incident.

@T.Canens: On your user page, you have a sub page, "AE" , containing instructions for filers. One of these instructions is "There must be at least one recent edit that is alleged to violate the remedy. If all the edits cited are old, the case will likely be closed as stale without action, and the filer may face sanctions for filing a meritless request. As a rule of thumb, edits are not recent if they are more than a few days old.". When filed, both diffs used here were more than 6 days old, and they are now a week old. Can you explain why the filer shouldn't face sanctions for filing a meritless request?

You further state " Attempting to mislead or deceive is a very bad idea and may result in sanctions." One of the admins here has commented that 'The edits were made sixteen minutes apart with no intervening edits, so it seems a little misleading to list them separately". Does that admin have it wrong, or is there some extenuating circumstances here, beyond the fact that the filer is himself an admin, that would prevent sanctions from being applied to this frivolous and misleading report? 71.204.165.25 (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou has repeatedly argued that these edits are acceptable, because they are sourced to Palestinian news reports. However, his source is not the alleged original reports themselves, but hostile citations in Palestinian Media Watch. This site has been discussed several times at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard[97][98][99][100], and the consensus is that it cannot be considered a reliable source except for its own views. It should not be accepted as a reliable source for the views of third parties. Jaakobou is aware of this, since he has himself taken part in these discussions. Given this, he should not be attempting to use PMW as a source for such contentious claims; such claims should be cited directly from the original, if it can be located. If it cannot, the most that can be said is that PMW alleges that such statements were made. RolandR (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any consensus by univolved editors--Shrike (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is there a consensus to what RolandR is claiming. There is a general agreement that (a) their translations are reliable, (b) their analysis is not entirely impartial, (c) it is preferred to use more mainstream and/or original sources where available. I haven't seen anyone successfully claim PMW's "hostile" translations are not a reliable source. CNN and other major sources, believe they are reliable and use their translations for reports. They were even joined by Senator Hillary Clinton in a joint press conference introducing a report on Palestinian schoolbooks.[101]

Further samples: The Washington Times^[102][103], Washington Post^[104][105], BBC^[106][107], Jerusalem Post^[108][109], CBS News^[110], CNSNews.com^[111][112], Haaretz^[113][114], The Ottawa Citizen^[115], United Press International^[116].

Regardless of RolandR's (false) claims of widespread rejection, it is clear PMW were not widely rejected as well as that they are most definitely a reliable source.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—it seems that Gatoclass is taking a content dispute in which he is involved to WP:AE in hopes of getting the opposing editor sanctioned. Even in the admin section (where I might've placed this comment, but I have had too many interactions with both Gatoclass and Jaakobou for that), the discussion is whether Jaakobou's edits violated content policies, which is not an argument for WP:AE. If Gatoclass has a problem with the content Jaakobou is inserting and believes that there's a problem with the sources or WP:SYNTH or whatever, he should seek consensus on the talk page, and failing that, open a content RfC. If anything, misrepresenting content disputes as behavioral issues in order to remove any opposition is an act of gaming the system and should be summarily dismissed by the administrators at WP:AE. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The edits were made sixteen minutes apart with no intervening edits, so it seems a little misleading to list them separately. To the edits themselves, I do not see anything remotely resembling "gross misrepresentation of sources"—Jaakobou's edit seems like a reasonable summary of the Jerusalem Post article to me. I note also that Jaakobou was actually reverting an edit from November 2011. The lack of edit summary for what was clearly a contentious edit look plainly tendentious to me, and I can understand why Jaakobou might feel aggrieved by that edit. I don't see anything actionable here, and indeed I'm tempted to say the request is completely frivolous unless I've overlooked something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not really seeing anything either; what I was just going to write is essentially what HJ Mitchell wrote above, so I won't repeat it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we looking at the same article? As far as I can see nowhere in the Jerusalem Post article did the author mention supernatural or otherwise gave any indication as to the rats' (supposed) size or breeding rate. T. Canens (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those seem to come from one of the other refs Jaakobou provided. The sourcing for those claims seems very poor, and one could make an argument that it's novel synthesis, but I don't follow Gatoclass's leap to the conclusion that this is tendentious, and the edit he was revering certainly appears tendentious (albeit long stale) to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK:

• Jaakobou re-ignited a content dispute by reverting an arguably tendentious edit
• Jaakobou (re-)added material which was not fully supported by the sources cited, arguably misrepresenting them
• Jaakobou sourced at least part of this material to a source whose reliability he knows has been questioned on several occasions (NB, determining the reliability of sources is outside the remit of AE)

The question is: does this rise to a level where a sanction ought to be considered? Input is requested from other uninvolved admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• First, whether or not we end up imposing a sanction, this request isn't frivolous. To be frivolous, a request must not have even arguable merit. The fact that we have to discuss the proper resolution at length is strong evidence that it at least makes a colorable claim of sanctionable conduct. Nor, as far as I am aware, does Gatoclass have a history of filing largely inactionable requests, so sanctions are unwarranted on that front as well.
• Second, misrepresentation of sources is a conduct issue that is within AE's jurisdiction. Even if a source is accurately represented, I am of the view that knowingly and intentionally using sources that is plainly of low quality in an effort to push a particular PoV is also sanctionable misconduct, as such behavior is plainly inconsistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. While we do not generally interfere with good faith disagreements over sources, when no reasonable editor, well versed in our policies and practices, would have used a particular source, we can and should intervene.
• As to whether sanctions are warranted in this particular case, I'm a bit torn and very tired right now. I'll hopefully make up my mind tomorrow. T. Canens (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• After looking it over again, I'm not really sure what to do either. Part of me would be willing to let this go with a very strong warning not to do it again, another is looking for a topic ban of some sort (most likely from the article in question). I'll think on it for a while. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin's view.
[Background. Jaakobou asked in IRC for an an administrator's opinion, without explaining the nature of the matter, and I accepted the challenge. He has pointed to me an interchange on an administrator's talk page, and without further input ...] I have read through the exchanges on the administrator's talk page, here and the components on the page being edited. Following that I have asked a few targeted questions and received brief answers specifically focused on the article.

The revert in question on the article page in response to the removal of the section seems reasonable in the context of no edit summary, and not having specifically edited the article in six months; and looking at the text on the talk page. Though I would have liked to see the fact of the revert raised on the talk page.

• I cannot agree with the allegation from the complainant from what I see of the two diffs, nor looking at the history of the article
• I do see some superlatives used that are not accurately matching the references and probably should be replaced more replaced with text something like "rats there were described of an abnormally large size". I would suggest that there be a concentration on utilising the words from articles, and possibly less use of a thesaurus. If in doubt, underplay the text.
• I do feel that an edit summary should say what the editor did, not focusing on what the previous editor did
• I would like all people to focus less on the commentary within the article, and more on trying to produce an encyclopaedic article. The referred work seems more to be a piece of investigative journalism to produce a summary of findings, and such more like original research rather than a reflective encyclopaedic article.

It would be good to see both parties try to understate rather than overstate encyclopaedic articles, especially as to me the articles has many elements of construction by people where English is not their primary language and some of the wrong connotation comes through in the use of words. Within that context, it would seem inappropriate to sanction anybody, and to get people to inquire politely about the appropriate or relevance of word used, rather than to accuse of disruption. (Truth be known I probably see more superlatives used in the description of the case, than attributed in the article.)

In conclusion, no rebuke or sanction as it looks to me to be a good faith revision. Review the article in a holistic sense as it pulls together circumstances to provide a points of view and is presented as an investigative article, rather than an article in an encyclopaedia, definitely look to review the use of certain words. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

• This has gone on long enough. I don't think we're going to get a consensus among uninvolved admins for a sanction of any sort, so unless any uninvolved admin vehemently objects, I propose to close this within the next 24 hours without action, but with a caution to Jaakobou that sanctions will be forthcoming if a pattern of questionable edits emerges in the future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine with me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine with me too. In the end, looking at these edits in isolation, I cannot say that they clearly reached the level of sanctionable misconduct. That said, a pattern of such edits over a period of time may well be sanctionable, even if the edits individually are not. T. Canens (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]