View source for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

← Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:
This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 3.239.0.0/16 has been blocked by ‪ST47‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a web host's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and they should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 07:37, 6 August 2027. Your current IP address is 3.239.201.171.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
This IP address range has been globally blocked.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

This block affects editing on all Wikimedia wikis.
The IP address or range 3.239.0.0/16 has been globally blocked by ‪Elton‬ for the following reason(s):

Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected:

This block will expire on 18:08, 17 February 2029. Your current IP address is 3.239.201.171.

Even while globally blocked, you will usually still be able to edit pages on Meta-Wiki.

If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

Other useful links: Global blocks · Help:I have been blocked
You can view and copy the source of this page:
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE|the automated editing program|Wikipedia:AutoEd}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>
<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|Requests for enforcement]]=</includeonly>
<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}{{shortcut|WP:AE|WP:ARE}}
</noinclude>
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
<noinclude>{{TOC limit}}</noinclude>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 117
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(4d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}

== Ottomanist ==

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

===Request concerning Ottomanist===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 19:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ottomanist}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ARBMAC]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greeks&diff=prev&oldid=500680384] Tendentious editing and edit-warring 
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=499674291] Complete lack of talkpage decorum
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greeks&diff=prev&oldid=500680507] Assumptions of bad faith
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mesfushor&diff=prev&oldid=500680795] Disruptive canvassing

; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
#Warned on [http://http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOttomanist&diff=493867918&oldid=493747024 Date] by {{user|WhiteWriter}}

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Ottomanist, formerly known as {{userlinks|Interestedinfairness}} is a returning user that has been particularly disruptive of late.  In his previous incarnation, he had racked up 3 blocks in less than two months as well as a topic ban on [[Kosovo]] for aggressive behavior and edit-warring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInterestedinfairness&diff=294801540&oldid=294765074].  His talkpage was a graveyard of blocks, warnings, conflict, and aggressive incivility on his part [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Interestedinfairness&offset=&limit=250&action=history].  It's been pretty much the same since his return. He was recently blocked after a particularly nasty bout of disruptive behavior on [[Republic of Kosovo]] and making comments such as these [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E4024&diff=prev&oldid=493878812] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=493876782].  Since then, nothing's changed.  In [[Albania]], he has been slow-revert warring incessantly since June 23rd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=prev&oldid=498919613] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=prev&oldid=498969683] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=prev&oldid=499062390] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=prev&oldid=499201826] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=prev&oldid=499350568] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=prev&oldid=500369997] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=prev&oldid=500403241] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=prev&oldid=500677026], either removing this map [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sanjak_of_Albania_Map_1431.svg] or adding this one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albanian_vilayet.jpg], and shows no sign of stopping.  In the talkpage,he keeps admonishing other users that they are disruptive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlbania&diff=500370180&oldid=499501237] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlbania&diff=500403375&oldid=500377275].  In a discussion in [[Talk:Serbia]], after what seemed like a promising start, things take a very nasty turn after I criticize one of the sources he used [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=499351631], and all of a sudden it's all about the "so-called Greek nation" and how "some editors" have "issues" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=499674291].  It is clear that "some editors" means me, and that this is nothing more an attempt to get under my skin.  Greece and the Greek people have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  He makes no attempt to rebut my criticism of [[Stanford J. Shaw]], he just makes things personal.  Several days later, he makes a particularly tendentious edit at [[Greeks]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greeks&diff=prev&oldid=500405511], and proceeds to edit-war over it, getting more and more agitated with each revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greeks&diff=prev&oldid=500571272] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greeks&diff=prev&oldid=500676571] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greeks&diff=prev&oldid=500680384].  This in spite of the fact that he has been reverted by several different users and has been told by them on the talkpage that his edits are problematic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greeks#Ancient_vs._Modern].   Instead of changing tack, he assumes a conspiracy against him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greeks&diff=prev&oldid=500680507], while at the same time admonishing other to assume good faith [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greeks&diff=prev&oldid=500676310]. He just repeats over and over that his edits are sourced, but I actually meticulously checked the sources (and I invite everyone else to do likewise, they are available online) and they say ''nothing'' of the kind. Similarly in [[Serbia]] he makes a tendentious edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=499062922] and then reverts back to it while admonishing others to reach a talkpage consensus first [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=500679036]. Lastly, he has a real annoying habit of canvassing user he thinks share his POV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottomanfan&oldid=498749729] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nedim_Ardo%C4%9Fa/Archive_6&diff=prev&oldid=498749499] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mesfushor&diff=prev&oldid=500680795] (the last one minutes after his latest revert on [[Greeks]]). To summarize, based on past and current behavior, it is my distinct impression that this user is [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build a neutral encyclopedia]], rather he is here to push a particular POV, as his username implies, [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|right great wrongs]] and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|fight great battles]].  Given the persistence and severity of the disruption he causes, I am firmly convinced that nothing short of an indef topic ban from ARBMAC topics, broadly construed, will put a halt to it.

Ι am disappointed, if not altogether surprised that Ottomanist's first action upon being notified of this report is yet more canvassing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nedim_Ardo%C4%9Fa&diff=prev&oldid=500699972] to users he considers "friendly".  That, and combative accusations about my "sordid" past, consisting of a single diff he dug up from ''2007''. 

;Update - continuing disruption
Despite Ottomanist's protestations that he is being civil, the truth is quite the opposite [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGreeks&diff=500571459&oldid=500462003] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greeks&diff=prev&oldid=500860986] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=500879781] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=500884409].  In [[Albania]], it was the ''other'' user, Antidiskriminator, that requested a Third Opinion, not Ottomanist.  In [[Talk:Greeks]] he is misusing and misinterpreting sources (as I explain in discussion) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGreeks&diff=500994586&oldid=500973250], either deliberately or out of incompetence.  Either way, not good.  

In [[Mount Tomorr]], after an IP editor makes the following disruptive change [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Tomorr&diff=500835135&oldid=491723150], which contradicts the sources used, I revert back within a few minutes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Tomorr&diff=next&oldid=500835135] to the article's original version, in accordance with the sources.  Ottomanist, obviously following my contribs, blind-reverts back just to spite me, having the gall to tell me in the edit summary that the IP editor's version was "stable" and lecturing me to seek a "consensus" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Tomorr&diff=next&oldid=500839754].  I don't think I can overstate how disruptive this is.  He is lying in the edit-summary, falsifying sourced content, blind-reverting, wikistalking, you name it. It's quite apparent his only intent was to annoy me.

In [[Republic of Kosovo]] he reverts to a previous version that involves massive changes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=500871760], and then tries to mislead both in the edit summaries and the talkpage.  While the two versions are radically different (Ottomanist's version contains two long sentences about Islam, which the previous version did not include), he keeps blandly repeating in the talkpage that all he did was "de-clutter" and made it "simpler" etc [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=500871955] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=500873118] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=500932108]. When WhiteWriter protests, he taunts him that he has been "barred 15 times" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=500879781] and tells him to "calm down", then insults him some more.  He apparently enjoys taunting WhiteWriter about his block log, something which he does in this very thread [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=500860099], which by the way is a '''false''' statement, WhiteWriter hasn't been blocked anywhere near 15 times (i'm counting only 7-8, 4 of which resulted in an unblock, and none in the last 2 years or so).  It seems like Ottomanist's idea of defending himself includes taunting others, lying, and slinging mud at those that oppose him (what is the purpose of bringing up my and WhiteWriter's block log?) 

Ottomanist's claims that he is here to debunk nationalist myths are malarkey.  As his contribs show, he is only interested in "debunking" Serbian and Greek "nationalist myths" (i.e. antagonizing Greek and Serbian editors), while having no interest in debunking Albanian "nationalist myths".  I don't think this fools anyone:  This fellow clearly has an axe to grind with certain countries. Even with a topic ban looming over his head, he hasn't changed his behavior one bit, rather he seems to have gone even more on the offensive.  I have been editing the Balkans for a long time, almost 5 years to the day, and I have seen many users come and go.  I can safely say that Ottomanist is in the top 5% in terms of the disruption he causes in these articles, and that he is perhaps a ''textbook example'' of the kind of disruptive user this topic area neither wants nor needs.  


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOttomanist&diff=500693820&oldid=500676831]

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning Ottomanist===

====Statement by Ottomanist====

Regarding the actual criticism: I requested arbitration for the [[Albania]] page before, [[Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Albania|right here]], following procedures. I also tried to [[User_talk:Antidiskriminator#Resolution|contact the user in a friendly manner my self]] to try and resolve the issues. As for the [[Serbia]] page, we had a good discussion which didn't go Athenean's way. I am not on here to perpetuate nationalist myths, and if this means debunking nationalist claims, then so be it.

Moreover:
User: Athenean needs to consider his own past when bringing up others' :

see here for only a taste of the many instances of him being banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final_decision for disrupting Albanian and Balkan-related articles. 

:Athenean (talk · contribs) placed on 1RR revert parole.[59] Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

:Banned from editing articles related to the Balkans, broadly construed, for a period of six months. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:Cautioned that future disruption may result in a topic ban, per AE thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

'''He has also very publicly made calls for Greek users to come together and 'defend (Greek) heritage'''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=148160839 here] 
Athenean is a specialist in reporting people that contribute using '''proper sources''', and he'll make sure to revert them '''because of [[wp:idontlikeit]].''' 

This encyclopaedia must be kept up-to-date with scholarly pursuits: it is not a place to give nationalists a place to present their credentials. 

[[User:Ottomanist|Ottomanist]] ([[User talk:Ottomanist|talk]]) 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

====Comments by others about the request concerning Ottomanist====

* '''Comment by Evlekis'''

No doubt disruptive but not beyond help. He has introduced sources onto the articles and these can sit harmlessly as external links or even in the main space but the problems we have encountered have been the edited statements for which the sources have been provided, often they simply do not support each other. I believe the solution is more tactful editing: for example, when denying that modern Greeks are descended from ancient Greeks, it is blatantly controversial. Instead, the source could have been used with a supporting statement such as how over the years people have assimilated and others have gone the other way, or something to that effect. He believes in discussion but could earn far more respect if he were to state his proposals first rather than attack the article with his first move and then create conflict. [[User:Evlekis|Evlekis]] ('''Евлекис''') ([[User talk:Evlekis|argue]]) 22:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights]], your first suggestion is best. No need to be hard so a three-month break from the ARBMAC-infected articles would probably be best. The user can be polite when he wants, he just needs time to "de-radicalise". [[User:Evlekis|Evlekis]] ('''Евлекис''') ([[User talk:Evlekis|argue]]) 21:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

* '''Comment by WhiteWriter'''
Well, i would agree with this. As ARBMAC tell us, one "man on mission" can create a lot of problems. I noticed very one-sided edits, and i also remember Interestedinfairness, his edit warrings, POVs and his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AInterestedinfairness block log]. Clear start? Not, if you ask me... --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter|WhiteWriter]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 13:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:@interestedinfairness/ottomanist writte only in your sections, nowhere else. I dont try to hide my history like you did. and not to mention your edits on several highly controversial pages where you Pov push, BEFORE gaining any consensus for your controversial edits and source removal. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:WhiteWriter|WhiteWriter]]<sup>[[User talk:WhiteWriter |speaks]]</sup></span> 00:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@WhiteWriter Exposing your bias very clearly - what does another account over three years ago have to do with it, I already declared I'm back after three-years..?

*how about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AWhiteWriter&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= yours, which is massive] - sock puppetry, edit warring -- '''you've been blocked 15 times'''! 
*See Atheanean's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAthenean&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= block log]

- [[User:Ottomanist|Ottomanist]] ([[User talk:Ottomanist|talk]]) 21:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

===Second statement by Ottomanist===

Regarding the actual criticism: I requested arbitration for the [[Albania]] page before, [[Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Albania|right here]], following procedures (dated 1st July, unlike the claim above, whilst the other user asked for one [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=500525199|a few days later]]. I also tried to [[User_talk:Antidiskriminator#Resolution|contact the user in a friendly manner my self]] to try and resolve the issues. As for the [[Serbia]] page, we had a good discussion which didn't go Athenean's way, hence all the accusations of behaving uncivilly, etc. 

As for the [[Serbia]] page: there was a good discussion which didn't go a certain users' way. Regarding the source of Stanford J. Shaw, I asked the user to show me one historian who hasn't been criticised, contrary to the claim that I didn't answer the issue about sources. Regarding his other claims about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=499062922 this page], I think it's very clear that after a discussion [[Talk:Serbia#Southern_province|here, with other users]] that the idea that it was a "tendentious edit" is rather unfounded. 

The issue of the [[Greeks]] page: This is a content dispute, but all my responses have been civil, as the talk page attests to. Claims that I got "more and more agitated" in the discussion is simply not true. Editors are free to check the whole discussion [[Talk:Greeks#Ancient_vs._Modern|right here]]. 

Most of what we have here is [[ad hominem]] attacks, rather than attention being paid to the content. I think the administrator's suggestion below is too harsh, and further [[User_talk:Ottomanist|to a discussion here ]], I sincerely feel that they would reconsider their initial judgement in light of all the evidences presented by me above. 

- [[User:Ottomanist|Ottomanist]] ([[User talk:Ottomanist|talk]]) 02:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

===Result concerning Ottomanist===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
*Ottomanist doesn't look like someone who really needs to be editing in this topic area.  I'd be for an indefinite ban from anything related to the Balkans, broadly construed, with a chance to appeal after 3 months; ordinarily I'd tailor something much narrower, as I've found that carefully drawn sanctions tend to push editors into places where they're actually productive, but I don't see that happening with anything under ARBMAC.  I could be persuaded to make it 6 months, though, if other people feel that way. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]]  ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 01:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

:*Well just to emphasize your point TBotNL, Ottomanist has opened a retaliatory thread below on Athenean. I've noted there that I concur with your ruling here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=501651509&oldid=501650749]. Both threads should be closed at this point and the topic ban enacted. <br>However I think given the action below the appeal time should be set at 6 months not 3 - Ottomanist should use the time to edit constructively elsewhere on wikipedia. I would also strongly suggest he re-read [[wp:agf]] and [[wp:point]]. Furthermore I am not opposed to a block for Ottomanist, for violating wp:point (and attempting to use WP:AE as a weapon) if others think it might be appropriate--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]]  <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 01:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

== Shrike ==

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

===Request concerning Shrike===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : [[User:Asad112|asad]] ([[User talk:Asad112|talk]]) 23:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Shrike}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yanun&curid=18120279&diff=500603152&oldid=500522572 4 July 2012] Shrike blindy reverts 6.5 kB of sourced material under the false justification of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:ONUS]]

; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
#Topic-banned on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles&diff=414869432&oldid=414822509 Feb 19 2011] by {{user|AGK}}

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
What we have here is a clear cut case of someone wanting to have their cake and eat it the same time. In the first diff, Shrike makes a massive revert of sourced material, by claiming "All the recent edits turned article to POV nightmare and piece of propaganda." This is a blatant misrepresentation of reality as Nishdani clearly used sources per [[WP:RS]]. The sources included were:
*[[Edward Robinson (scholar)|Edward Robinson]], ''Biblical Researches in Palestine and the adjacent regions: a journal of Travels in the years 1838 and 1852 ,'
*[[David Dean Shulman]], ''Dark Hope,'' University of Chicago Press, 
*Belén Vicéns,''L'Orient Mitjà en el punt de mira,''Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2005
*Robert Blecher, 'Living on the Edge: The Threat of "Transfer" in Israel and Palestine,' in [[Joel Beinin]], Rebecca L. Stein, (eds.)''The Struggle for Sovereignty: Palestine And Israel, 1993-2005,'' Stanford University Press, 2006 
Three of these sources are from university presses and the final is a notable scholar. Furthermore, Shrike [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yanun&diff=prev&oldid=500625923 demanded][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yanun&diff=prev&oldid=500628980] that Nishdani go through source and explain why it conforms with [[WP:RS]] policy. 

Shrike seems to have a relapse of their principle on [[Governance of the Gaza Strip]] article. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governance_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=500763407&oldid=500761256 this] edit, Shrike adds a source to claim that the Gaza Strip is run by a dictatorship. When a reasonable objection is brought up to the [http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/MSPS95.pdf source] Shrike provided, <small>(as it is just a blanket mention of Hamas in Gaza being a dictatorship without any supporting evidence in a highly partisan essay)</small> s/he responds by saying that they don't have to explain there source, and such challenges should be brought up to the [[WP:RS/N]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Governance_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=500819847&oldid=500803397]. When a relevant objection is brought up to blatant hypocrisy, Shrike dismisses it by responding, "The rest of you comment have nothing to do with improving '''this''' article please so such comment is not appropriate in this talk page."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Governance_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=next&oldid=500819847]

What is also evident in all of this is Shrike's attempt to [[WP:HOUND]] Nishidani. Anyone who looks at Nishidani's edit history can see that he is a well-read/researched editor who obviously spends a lot of time going through sources and making major improvements and additions to articles. On multiple occasions, Shrike has followed Nishidani to articles that 1) s/he have never edited in the past and 2) have extremely low page views. This was the case with his revert on the [[Yanun]] article. It is also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azzam_Pasha_quotation&diff=498460328&oldid=498361171 evident] on the [[Azzam Pasha quotation]] article. A editor shouldn't be allowed to revert large swaths of sourced material at their whim, and claim [[WP:BRD]] (which is rather more of an essay than an actual policy).

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

:'''@Anon''' - No where did I bring up the 1RR. This report is clearly about an editor's tendentious editing and hounding. Please try again. -[[User:Asad112|asad]] ([[User talk:Asad112|talk]]) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:'''@Shrike''' - If Nishidani is bringing in "activist" sources, what does that make Efraim Inbar -- the author of the source you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governance_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=500763407&oldid=500761256 linked] with the government of Gaza as being a "dictatorship"? I think the bio on his [http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/efraim_inbar/ Web site] speaks for itself:
::''"'''Prof. Inbar served in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as a paratrooper'''. He was a member of the Political Strategic Committee of the National Planning Council and the '''Chair of the Committee for the National Security Curriculum''' at the Ministry of Education. He serves on the '''Academic Committee of the History Department of the IDF''' and as the President of the Israel Association of International Studies. Prof. Inbar is widely quoted in the Israeli and international press."''
:You ought to find <s>your</s> the utter hypocrisy here quite damning. -[[User:Asad112|asad]] ([[User talk:Asad112|talk]]) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
::There. Fixed. Respond to the utter hypocrisy please. -[[User:Asad112|asad]] ([[User talk:Asad112|talk]]) 14:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : 
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shrike&diff=500874690&oldid=500824990]
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning Shrike===

====Statement by Shrike====
The are two points that I want to made
# This request is frivolous for one revert because the language of sanctions is quite clear from [[WP:AC/DS]] " despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The filer filed to prove this on this grounds the request should be dismissed.
# This a content dispute the sources that Nishidani presented don't constitue [[WP:RS]] on the topic and thats the reason I have reveted him
Moreover this already discussed on the relevant page but lets see the sources that Nishidani presented 
:*[[David Dean Shulman]], ''Dark Hope,''  - As it evident from his Wiki page he is not expert on the middle east and should not be used to make such claims.He wrote his book as an activist so inclusion of him is violation of [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:NPOV]] 
:*Belén Vicéns, ''L'Orient Mitjà en el punt de mira,'' -book in foreign language though probably OK additional verification was needed
:* [[Tanya Reinhart]], ''The Road Map to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003,'' - She is a linguist not an expert on the topic but rather an activist
:*[[Anna Baltzer]], 'Outposts, Settler Violence, & the Village of Yanoun,' - Again known activist the use of her in the article it very questianble
:*[http://www.fmep.org/reports/archive/vol.-12/no.-6/settlers-force-desertion-of-yanun-village ''Settlers Force Desertion of Yanun Village,''], Settlement Report | Vol. 12 No. 6 | November-December 2002], [[Foundation for Middle East Peace]]-Anti Settler activist organisation.
I don't say that all sources are bad but because he mixed  bad and good it was very hard to separate between them and thus the reason I have reverted his edit.

Now about the Gaza article I never claimed that anyone except me should take the source to the RSN,I suggested that if the source is problematic it could be taken that's all anyhow I have provided justification why this source should be used.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Governance_of_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=500819847] if it wasn't enough I would take it to [[WP:RSN]].--[[User:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 05:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The usage of bad source is disastrous to the area also calling good faith edits as vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYanun&diff=500611080&oldid=500610751] only add fuel to very hot situation and its violation of [[WP:NPA]] thus I ask to warn Nishidani about [[WP:NPA]] and usage of bad sources and warn Asad about filing frivolous AE requests.--[[User:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 11:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

@'''asad''' I have no intention to respond to your personal attack and violation of [[WP:NPA]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&diff=500954712&oldid=500949431]--[[User:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 14:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

====Comments by others about the request concerning Shrike====
Maybe I don't understand what 1RR means properly (but I think I do). This complaint is about someone making 1 revert. I'm puzzled by the motivation of the filing editor to file a report against someone who hasn't violated anything. This is clearly a content dispute and it should be taken to the talk page. Oh, and is anybody ever going to do something about these never-ending baseless reports? Aren't you admins tired of dealing with this nonsense yet? Or is that fun for you maybe... who knows. [[Special:Contributions/99.237.236.218|99.237.236.218]] ([[User talk:99.237.236.218|talk]]) 01:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
: Please note that this anon is itself under investigation [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#99.237.115.11|above]]. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 03:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
::Please note that the IP under investigation above is not me, and that if you continue to make these baseless accusations in an attempt to tarnish my reputation, I will seek administrative action against you for violating [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:HARASS]]. If you have an issue, feel free to try [[WP:SPI]]. Otherwise, knock it off. [[Special:Contributions/99.237.236.218|99.237.236.218]] ([[User talk:99.237.236.218|talk]]) 04:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I documented what was going on:
*(a) the blanketing of extensive edits based on sources by area specialists with academic or major publishing house imprints
*(b) turning up on rare pages I began to edit to revert me, without examining my edits and their sources 
*(c) the use in edit summaries of indications of wiki policy putatively violated that, on examination, prove to be irrelevant or specious, in short, an excuse to exercise as a right, arbitrarily, the 1R option rather than discuss on the talk page. 
*(d)He often reverts me on rare articles ([[WP:HOUND]]) while another editor and I are discussing precisely my edits, and rarely if ever actually engages in those discussions. 
I think that this is a behavioural problem. I'd not prefer a punitive sanction at this point. I would appreciate it if, those three reverts and their edit summaries are looked at. I think a fair assessment is that Shrike is not following best policy, using improper policy citations out of context, and obsessed with me. A strong warning not to persist in this erratic behaviour is, in my view, all that is needed at this point.  [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

:Apropos the several RS. I think they are self-evidently RS (Shrike: please read beyond the [[WP:lead]] of any article before making a judgement like that: To cite just one. I wrote the [[David Dean Shulman]] article, and it specifies below the lead that his first degree was in Arabic, and he is has advanced graduate work in in Islamic civilizations) but told Shrike to go to RSN if he doubted that. He didn't go there. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
::Reply to [[User:AnkhMorpork|Ankhmorpork]]. If I introduced 'loads of '''crap''' sources', an hour at the [[WP:RSN]] with a just request would have had the experts there kicking me, justifiably. Please do not use hyperbole, mischaracterization is enough.
:::As a matter of editorial coherence, would I also remind you that at [[Yanun]], you challenged me on only one of the several sources by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yanun&diff=500521018&oldid=500498541 eliding it here.]  [[User:Shrike|Shrike]] then arrived after I'd restored it, and wiped all of my sources off. You now support this blanketing in defending him, saying they are a bunch of 'crap sources'. Had you believed that at the time, you should have edited as Shrike did, and not just query one source of several. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 15:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC) 
::::It is definitely not a content dispute. Wiping out 3 hours editorial work on a dead page, edits that introduced several new sources under major or academic imprint by scholars, in a blanket revert, cannot be a content dispute, in any other sense than [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|I don't like the content you introduced, even if the sources are of high quality]]. None of the characterisations of the sources you now bring here reflects their quality. The appropriate forum is [[WP:RSN]], which I have insisted both of you go to, and then notify me. You haven't. Just as you haven't noted that Khalidi is no longer on the page. Shrike removed it. I didn't revert him but added a better source. Neither you nor Shrike have added one jot or tittle to the page, which has grown thanks to several editors from 6 to 15.8kb in a few days. We are here, I repeat, to constructively assist in writing articles, not to be obstructive or litigious.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:You cannot add content based on tendentious insignificant activist sources and partisan NGO's, demand that the content remains, and insist that those that take a different view file an RSN report before excising the disputed content. See [[WP:BRD]] <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><font color="#990000">Ankh</font></b>]]'''.'''[[User talk:AnkhMorpork|<font color="#000099">Morpork</font>]]'''</small> 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::I agree. Indeed I never add that sort of content. As any glance at the pages I contribute to will show, I enter most articles only when I have read books by specialists, historians, anthropologists, or writers with a recognised competence to write about a subject they have direct experience of,  whose works touch on the article's topic. In lieu of this quality of source for contemporary events, I restrict myself, in this area, to the mainstream Israeli press. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 14:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Maculosae tegmine lyncis|Aen.1.323 cf ''Inferno.''1.42]]. Requiring an apology would be far too punitive. All I'm asking for is some sign Shrike admits his use of policy tags over these three cases has been misleading, his elision of RS material improper, and a willingness to read [[WP:RS]] and stop doing this regularly on following me to pages he hasn't edited.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 16:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
'''Comment by AnkhMorpork'''
:This is a standard content dispute being selectively reported at AE. 
* Shrike's edit was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yanun&diff=prev&oldid=500521945 proceeded by talk page discussion] in which the poor standards of some of the sources was pointed out. 
* The response to these reservations was "go to WP:RSN if you wish to challenge this source." There was no consensus that the sources were reliable and this duty was incumbent upon the person wishing to use them.
* The sources that Shrike then removed in his edit included: 
# Unattributed contentious claims by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a partisan self-published NGO, 
# Unattributed historical claims and non-expert views of Hussein Khalidi, an International Solidarity Movement activist cited in the book, Peace Under Fire: Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement written by Josie Sandercock, another ISM activist with no academic background in the Middle East.  
# Unattributed non-expert views of peace activist, David Shulman
# Unattributed non-expert views of Palestinian human rights activist, Anna Baltzer, "known for taking positions counter to the Israeli government regarding the Palestinian territories"
# Unattributed non-expert views of political activist "considered extreme in her political views even by many left-wing activists", Tanya Reinhart
* Shrike's edit was immediately followed by a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yanun&diff=prev&oldid=500603459 talk page explanation].

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

Asad states ''"If Nishidani is bringing in "activist" sources, what does that make Efraim Inbar"'' to claim supposed hypocrisy. This is an absurd comparison. Inbar is a professor in Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University, the director of its Center for Strategic Studies, was a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University and Georgetown University, a visiting fellow of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and has lectured at Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Oxford, and Yale. He has written over 60 articles in professional journals. To equate him with a nescient insignificant activist demonstrates shocking judgment and an inability to determine what constitutes a RS. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><font color="#990000">Ankh</font></b>]]'''.'''[[User talk:AnkhMorpork|<font color="#000099">Morpork</font>]]'''</small> 11:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:The University of Chicago Press is not an activist publishing group, nor is Stanford University Press, or the Autonomous University of Barcelona, or Routledge. [[Edward Robinson (scholar)|Edward Robinson]] is not an activist, nor is the BBC, nor is Haaretz. Yet sources published by University of Chicago Press, Stanford University Press, the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Routledge, the BBC, and Haaretz were all removed under the guise that all of the edits were "propaganda". That is, to put it lightly, unacceptable. That is an editor hounding a user to simply block any progress in building an article. Standing in the way and saying "NO NO NO" is not constructive, it is rather disruptive. The edit by Shrike was supremely tendentious. It removed several obviously reliable sources. Combined with the edit to [[Azzam Pasha quotation]] in which Shrike removes several sources despite not having even read them under a bogus claim that they "might" be "OR or SYNTH", you have a pattern of a user seeking to disrupt others work here. That is tendentious editing, pure and simple, and that can and should be dealt with by this board. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 13:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)</small>

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

===Result concerning Shrike===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
*I've pretty much got to agree with Maculosae tegmine lyncis here.  Was the revert ideal, no.  Was it worth an AE thread, probably not.  I'd advise Shrike to avoid giving the impression of wikihounding Nishidani; I'm honestly not completely convinced that's what's going on here, but appearances can be significant factors in future decisions.  If it's really a pattern, or if it becomes one, then demonstrate it with the necessary diffs.  Until then, I think it'd be a bit out of proportion to sanction someone for one admittedly less than ideal revert.  [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]]  ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 21:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

== TrevelyanL85A2 ==

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

===Request concerning TrevelyanL85A2===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 19:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|TrevelyanL85A2}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBR&I]]. The only appropriate remedy here appears to be an indefinite site-ban. That could happen here or could be enforced, even without a motion, by any member of arbcom.
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if  required) :
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
Not applicable. This user is banned in absolutely crystal clear terms from making arbcom requests of the kind he has is attempting to make, particularly even the slightest thing which mentions my name. He has no idea what he's doing and his "activities" have no place whatsover on wikipedia. 
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

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

:TrevelaynL85A2 cannot mention me anywhere on wikipedia. What is it that he doesn't understand about that? [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 20:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
::How far does TrevelyanL85A2 think he can go? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=501301445&oldid=501300357] He and his DeviantArt friends are making a mockery of wikipedia. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 21:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
:::As MastCell can confirm, I did not communicate with him about TrevelyanL85A2 in this context, and I have stated this explicitly on wikipedia. If TrevelyanL85A2 wishes to continue presenting his own very particular take on this on wikipedia, that is his own responsibility. If he does not retract his claims and make a public apology, why should he be allowed to continue editing here? As far as I am concerned, this is clearly a disrutption-only account at the beck and call of two highly disruptive site-banned editors. The proof of that is not the gratuitous attack on me but on MastCell.  [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 21:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
::::TrevelyanL85A2 has made the following set of edits on [[User talk:The Devil's Advocate]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate&diff=501358792&oldid=501351369][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate&diff=501415311&oldid=501378093][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate&diff=501431050&oldid=501416535] In the second diff he has encouraged others to start an RfC/U  on me. He is presumably aware that such a suggestion is yet another serious violation of his extended topic ban. Given the recent information provided on-wiki about off-wiki contacts amongst the DeviantArt group, there seems to be little doubt that TrevelyanL85A2 has been in contact with the two site-banned editors, Occam and Ferahgo, and is now continuing their own campaign as a proxy. Indeed, as Courcelles has pointed out on another arbcom page,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=501300849] that seems to be ''all'' he is doing at the moment. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 21:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

TDA appears to be trolling here. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
:If TDA disagrees with the results of the [[WP:ARBR&I]] review, he had the opportunity in May to express his objections. He did not do so. If he now feels that there should be an amendment or clarification of that review, this is not the correct venue. TDA will probably receive a an official logged warning if they continue making unhelpful remarks here. A sock troll of Echigo mole set up an abusive RfAr which was instantly removed by Courcelles and the sock CU-blocked. The trolling notifications were removed from all the user talk pages. Describing that as disruption is singularly unhelpful and clueless. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 06:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Update''' The RfAr of TrevelyanL85A2 has now been declined as numerically impossible.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=501518840&oldid=501508608] Shortly after that posting of Roger Davies, TrevelyanL85A2 asserted that he was withdrawing the request.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=501520155&oldid=501518840] In that diff, he still does not seem to be heeding the warnings that have been given to him and/or his friend SightWatcher. They apply equally well to both. As MastCell has carefully explained,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=501440171] his failed RfAr relied on an extremely bad faith assumption which was demonstrably false. It involved casting aspersions on both MastCell and me; he repeatedly made those claims during his unsuccessful appeal and continued to do so after his one month block ended with this RfAr. The name "Mathsci" appeared multiple times throughout the request, despite TrevelyanL85A2's claim that it primarily concerned MastCell. (There is an unsurprising similarity with the aspersions cast by Occam back in December 2010 concerning Roger Davies and me.)

Following his unblock, TrevelyanL85A2 has given every appearance of continuing the dispute/campaign of Occam and Ferahgo as a proxy. SightWatcher has disclosed on-wiki that the DeviantArt group has been conferring off-wiki during TrevelyanL85A2's block. TrevelyanL85A2's most recent diffs still show that he has not yet relinquished the idea of encouraging wikipedia processes that will affect me and my editing directly and adversely. That is completely at odds with his extended topic ban and the advice and warnings he has received from multiple editors, administrators and arbitrators. In the last diff, [[WP:IDHT|instead of heeding those warnings]], he has preferred to listen to The Devil's Advocate, who has stated several times now that the arbcom sanctions were not appropriate. The Devil's Advocate has no authority to misguide TrevelyanL85A2 in this way. In the diff above, TrevelyanL85A2 writes about "mixed messages" when everybody ''except The Devil's Advocate'' is telling him exactly the same thing. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 10:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC) 
:MBisanz, EdJohnston and others commented on the problematic posts of SightWatcher (easy enough to find) and both gave warnings to him. One of the posts was even redacted by AGK. Presumably TrevelyanL85A2 read all those posts since they related directly to him. Despite that, he apparently [[WP:IDHT|took no notice of them]].  [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
<!-- Add any further comment here -->

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : 
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
Here is the diff for the record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrevelyanL85A2&diff=501289655&oldid=501289556]

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning TrevelyanL85A2===

====Statement by TrevelyanL85A2====
I'm following the advice I was given by ArbCom as well as I know how to do.  I was told at AE to request arbitration on the mailing list, and when I did so, I was told by ArbCom to make a public arbitration request after my block expired.  I'm simply following the instructions I was given by ArbCom.  They knew what knew what my request was about when they told me to make it in public, and I don't believe they would have told me to do this if they meant to disallow it.
:Re to Courcelles: I don't think my request is commenting on Mathsci's conduct.  I'm not criticising Mathsci's behaviour, I'm only referring to him in order to criticise MastCell's behaviour.  My understanding was that there's a difference between "referring to editor X" and "commenting on editor X's conduct", and this is why it wasn't a contradiction for ArbCom to tell me I should make my request in public even though I couldn't comment on Mathsci's conduct.  Did I misunderstand that?--[[User:TrevelyanL85A2|TrevelyanL85A2]] ([[User talk:TrevelyanL85A2|talk]]) 21:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

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

:Re to EdJohnston: I was told by Jclemens [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jclemens&diff=prev&oldid=494900549 here] that I'm allowed to restore Echigo Mole's comments in my user talk, and other editors like Collect and Nyttend have also been allowed to do this.  I'm defending my own ability to restore his comments, not his socking itself.  I'm also defending my right to allow people to post on my talk page without others editing parts out of it without my consent.  However, why would I be prohibited from talking about Echigo Mole?  As far as I know he's never edited R&I articles.--[[User:TrevelyanL85A2|TrevelyanL85A2]] ([[User talk:TrevelyanL85A2|talk]]) 05:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

====Statement by The Devil's Advocate====
From my reading, Trev is allowed to comment when his conduct is raised as an issue and to engage in dispute resolution. The arbitration request to me seems evident of the editor's lack of experience with the practice, but points to obvious issues with the restrictions. Mathsci has repeatedly edited Trev's user talk page against Trev's explicit request that he cease. His request for arbitration deals directly with that issue of Mathsci's conduct towards him and, as such, would seem completely valid under the wording of the topic ban. I think an arbitration request was the wrong way to go, but the restriction was terribly worded and seems too much like a one-way interaction ban with a vaguely-defined group of users, which is destined to fail.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 21:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
:Math, I am simply concerned at what appears to be a poorly-worded and poorly-considered restriction on an editor and your frequent use of it to push for this editor to get site-banned, something you were flat-out demanding before the restriction was enacted. While I have only a little knowledge of this dispute and the situation in the R&I topic area, it is not difficult to figure out that there would be considerably less drama if you would just stop provoking Trev. Edit-warring with him on his talk page over those comments even after his repeated requests that you stop, something you only did with Trev, is obviously going to create friction and you clearly have not made any effort to defuse the resulting tension. Rather, you have only heightened it by repeatedly demanding a site-ban over his complaints about ''your actions'' on ''his talk page''. For heaven's sake man, Trev is topic-banned. Should he edit the R&I topic area repeatedly despite the ban, you will get the site-ban you desire anyway and should he stay away from the topic area and you then why the hell does it matter if he keeps editing articles about video games and Indian warships? Demanding a site-ban every single time he utters your name reeks of a vendetta, especially when you are making a point of maneuvering yourself into disputes with him in the first place.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 23:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
::I assure you Math, had I known such a bizarre restriction was being imposed I would have objected. The disruption does not come from removing the comments the first time, but from how you responded to Trev restoring them. When he asked you not to continue editing his talk page, you should have stopped. Instead you repeated the act several more times. Did you expect Trev to just be quiet about your conduct as you repeatedly jumped into his userspace to do something there he expressly asked you to stop doing? Obviously, Trev's RFAR is prompted by all that since it is what led to Mast blocking him and removing his talk page privileges so I fail to see how it is not relevant that you are the one who started all that and are now demanding he be site-banned for mentioning your unavoidable connection with the situation.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
:::The response is relevant if your response in particular is provoking the actions you are using to push for a site-ban. If you are actively picking a fight with Trev because you want him site-banned, I don't see why an admin should indulge your demand that he be site-banned for responding to your provocations.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 16:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, MBisanz, if that is the case then the restriction is even less clear than I thought. The wording is as follows: 

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

The wording technically restricts him from ''participating'' in said discussions if his conduct is not mentioned. No explicit prohibition on commenting about any specific editor is mentioned. My understanding of bans is that the exemption for dispute resolution and noticeboard discussion ''does'' free them up to comment about editors and subjects they are otherwise restricted from mentioning so long as it is relevant. In other words, the comments at the Arb case request are normal as part of an attempt at resolving a conduct dispute over administrative actions taken against Trev by an admin regarding Mathsci. Should Math be in private communication with Mast and the two of them have a close friendly relationship, it does raise questions about his use of admin tools against editors such as Trev in support of Math, including where he has used them at Math's apparent behest. Were Trev to say, "MastCell deleted the pages at the request of another user" and did not provide the diff that would show it was Math or make any mention of who that user was, then there would be immediate demands that he name the user in question and provide evidence to establish the relevance.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 01:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
:Your example points to the problem. If someone is defacing your property by proxy you should not be restricted from noting this fact. That is the problem with one-way interaction bans. Suggesting that Mathsci can repeatedly engage Trev in a disruptive manner with Trev having no ability to complain about this behavior leads to obvious problems. It only creates a recipe for further disruption to the project, not the opposite. We can't really know what would have happened had Mathsci let the comment from a sock on Trev's page slide, or if he had been consistent with his behavior towards other editors by not edit-warring with Trev over the issue, but that is not what happened. All I can say is that Trev was not editing Wikipedia at all for months before this happened, and after Math edit wars with Trev over the user talk comments this stuff happens. Cause and effect.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 06:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Cailil, as I have been trying to point out repeatedly, this is not a matter of Trev following the topic area and inserting himself into this situation for no apparent reason. The timeline leading up to the recent incidents goes like this:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrevelyanL85A2&diff=469935461&oldid=448412518 17:41, 6 January 2012] Trev is formally notified of the discretionary sanctions. Trev makes no further R&I-related edits in articlespace after this talk-page discussion.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&diff=470325996&oldid=469960882 21:31, 8 January 2012] Ferahgo requested an amendment to ARBR&I and mentions Trev. At no point does Trev appear to be notified that the case has been initiated and makes no comments on the request.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrevelyanL85A2&diff=471944061&oldid=471893381 22:35, 17 January 2012] EdJohnston leaves a comment notifying Trev of an AE discussion. He does not comment there either and Ed notes that he was not proposing sanctions because had stopped editing the topic area. Furthermore he suggests Trev refrain from getting involved in the topic area further.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrevelyanL85A2&diff=490880821&oldid=481438728 23:39, 5 May 2012] The first notification Trev receives about the amendment case that ultimately leads to the ban we are discussing, but again he appears to make no comment and the case is closed about a week later with the topic ban issued.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrevelyanL85A2&diff=494424935&oldid=492452491 06:07, 26 May 2012] Trev is notified of an amendment to the case. All of that constitutes the background. By this point no edits had been made by Trev to the topic area in close to five months.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrevelyanL85A2&diff=494598506&oldid=494424935 10:58, 27 May 2012] An IP sock, apparently of Echigo, commented at Trev's topic page the day after the review was amended. This sets off the period of edit-warring. Up to that point all indications are that Trev was staying out of anything involving the topic area, including an apparent lack of interest in commenting in his own defense. However, the situation in his userspace forces the matter.

Did he have any need to "track" the topic area or the editors in question to find out the information listed on the case request? No. Anyone taking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Mathsci&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2012&month=5 a cursory glance] at Mathsci's contributions surrounding his edit-warring over the banned editor's comments would become immediately familiar with all the shenanigans Trev noted.

So, I fail to see the legitimacy of your accusation that Trev was somehow not constructively staying out of the topic area. Trev was not editing Wikipedia '''at all''' until that nonsense started happening on his user page and that's gotten all this started, which I sincerely doubt was his intent. It's like if a bunch of guys show up at your house and pee on your rug. All you want is to replace your rug cause it really tied the room together and, next thing you know, you're getting involved in faked kidnappings and everyone's trying to kill you when you really just wanted to get your rug back so you can go back to bowling in peace.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 06:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:Sight has not said anywhere on-wiki that the DeviantArt group was discussing this situation. Sight only specifically mentions discussing the issue with Trev and that Trev was e-mailing other people about his desire for arbitration after a week of not getting a response from ArbCom. By "mixed messages" he is talking about the suggestions that he raise these issues publicly to ArbCom only to be told he is violating the ban by doing just that. It is not about what I have said. As to him mentioning your name in the request, there is no ban on mentioning your name. The ban was that he could not participate in discussions about your conduct and he was told by an Arb that he could not comment on your conduct. Seems to me that he clearly tried to respect that.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::It is not clear if AGK redacted those comments on the basis that the mere mention of you was a problem, or if it was more reasonably due to the possibility that the comment could provoke a response. When Ed and MBisanz warned Sight it is clear they were talking about the possibility of Sight filing an arbitration request on Trev's behalf, in partial response to a direct query on that point by Sight. Your suggestion that Trev was somehow not heeding those warnings, presuming he did read them, is not meaningful as the warnings did not directly address him or the question of whether so much as uttering your name was prohibited. I should note the restriction against Trev is not worded as a normal interaction ban one-way or otherwise, where mentioning an editor would be prohibited unless the other editor violated or is perceived to have violated the ban. The restriction seemingly allows interaction with you so long as it is not to discuss your conduct. It is a thin line to tread, but a situation where he is disputing the involvement of an admin regarding administrative actions supporting your position that includes a block against Trev and removal of his user talk privleges that resulted from interactions between you and a banned editor on Trev's talk page seems to be an obvious situation where mentioning you is unavoidable. Really it is an example of the problem with these one-way restrictions since it seems punitive to the extreme to bar Trev from complaining about conduct in his userspace.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 21:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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

====Comments by others about the request concerning TrevelyanL85A2====

===Result concerning TrevelyanL85A2===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

I don't think we can treat this as an infraction, if the arbitrary committee encouraged him to do this. Maybe one of them could clarify if they actually meant a request like the one that was filed. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 20:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
:: Whatever, now while that strange new arb request over at the "Case" page is ongoing, I probably ought not to be participating in decision-making here anyway, so ignore me for the moment. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 21:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
:I would disagree. It might not be an infraction to discuss Mastcell, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ATrevelyanL85A2 who blocked him]. It is a violation to mention Mathsci in his discussion of Mastcell's conduct. While it might be hard to do from a grammatical perspective, I believe Trevelyan's hands are tied by the Arbcom restriction to only discussing Mastcell if he can do so in a manner that does not reference Mathsci. I'm leaning towards a block of three months unless an Arb tells me they specifically said he could mention Mathsci's editing on-wiki. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 20:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
*TrevelyanL85A2 was told via e-mail: "Yes, you are restricted from making comments on Mathsci's conduct". [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

*Thank you Courcelles for clarifying. Specifically, I find that TrevelyanL85A2's statement ''"This is concerning because MastCell's involvement in the dispute '''was privately requested by Mathsci:'''"'' (emphasis added) includes at least one reference to Mathsci's conduct. If TrevelyanL85A2 withdraws his Arbcom request and agrees that if he ever references Mathsci again on-wiki he will be indefinitely blocked, I am willing to forgo a block at this time. If he cannot agree to that, then I will implement a three-month block for violation of his topic ban. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 21:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

*@TDA: As I read the topic ban, TrevelyanL85A2 may only comment in discussions concerning their own conduct; not the conduct of others towards them. That may result in the appearance that their hands have been unfairly tied and Mathsci may or may not be taking advantage of TrevelyanL85A2's restriction, but Arbcom has reviewed the situation previously and decided the way disruption would be resolved in this area is by preventing TrevelyanL85A2 from making any comments about Mathsci, even those regarding Mathsci's conduct towards TrevelyanL85A2. As I understand it, the primary goal is the cessation of disruption, not fairness or equality. Also, it is worth noting that TrevelyanL85A2 has not been entirely silenced with regard to Mathsci, as he is free to email requests concerning Mathsci to Arbcom. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 23:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

*@TDA: That interpretation might be more plausible if he had not named Mathsci as a party to the dispute. If he is a filing a case where Mathsci is a party, then he is not simply referencing Mathsci's name in passing as a bystander. Also, there is no evidence that Arbcom intended to leave TrevelyanL85A2 the right to report bad acts if Mathsci was somehow involved in. Sort of like "even if you see person X paying person Y to pee on your lawn, you cannot report it to the police if it involves discussing person X." '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 01:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

*I would take no action on this complaint, but only because I believe that we should leave it to the arbs and clerks to deal with any alleged topic ban violations on arbcom case pages. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 00:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
**That's a fair point. I asked at [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Question_on_protocol]], because Courcelles is an arb and he commented here without saying we should leave it to them. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 01:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
*It might be reasonable to put this AE complaint against Trevelyan on hold until the committee has reached a conclusion on the Arb request opened by Trevelyan, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets]]. I read Trevelyan's RFAR as a complaint about restraints that admins have put on the editing of Echigo Mole.  Defending Echigo Mole is surely a prohibited activity for Trevelyan, leaving aside the fact that he names Mathsci in his complaint which is also prohibited. By the time the committee reaches their conclusion on his request for arbitration, we should know if they saw any good-faith purpose to Trevelyan's request. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 03:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

*Agree with Tim & Ed - we should either place this on hold or wait for the Arbs call on it (but at this point with 5 declines  it is unlikely to be accepted). However I also agree with MBisanz. If the Arbs don't deal with this in their decision then it'd be fair to say we see this is a direct breach of the topic ban (mention of Mathsci and as Ed points out the mention of Echigo Mole). In my view 3 months would be an appropriate sanction, as it's clear that rather than finding other things to do on wiki Trevelyan is following the area he is topic banned from and the editors he is banned from interacting with, in so doing he's both breached the spirit & the letter of the ban--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]]  <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 01:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->

== Doctor Franklin ==

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

===Request concerning Doctor Franklin===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : [[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 11:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Doctor Franklin}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Shamir&diff=501214297&oldid=501209344 08:09, 8 July 2012] 
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yitzhak_Shamir&diff=501266212&oldid=501264249 16:59, 8 July 2012] 

; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
#Warned on [[User talk:76.117.57.30]] by {{user|Lihaas}}
#Warned on [[User talk:Doctor Franklin]] by {{user|Brewcrewer}}

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
He had been warned against his edits and called to discuss. He made comments there but per BRD he did not wait for consensus and then adds this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yitzhak_Shamir&diff=501215493&oldid=501209009 NPA accusations]. The said user's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Doctor+Franklin newly registered account] is shown in the reverts per before. The 1RR template on the talk page was only just added (by me), so im not sure if he needs a warning or a block.
:For the record, and in response to the below., i also specifically mentioned here "im not sure if he needs a warning or a block" as this is my first time here and the other user above said its a 1RR violation.
:Also he issue does directly relate to Shamir as it involved his statements (written as emanating from him alone and not a satement of fact in relations to the two countries (which is what the extension seeks to do)). He also had multiple edits as IP (per talk page) and then came back to re-add.
::Just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doctor_Franklin&diff=501552493&oldid=501455293 gave him welcome links] to help him review guidelines, btw[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 12:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)  

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : 
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doctor_Franklin&diff=501381815&oldid=501379122] - and that shows he has no idea of editing pracices and intends to go on.

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning Doctor Franklin===

====Statement by Doctor Franklin====
To whom it may concern:

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

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


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

I also intend to forward this issue to the Polish news media since what has been published is libelous to the Polish people.{{unsigned2|19:33, 9 July 2012  (UTC)|Doctor Franklin}}

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

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

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

I stand by my decisions.  I did try to discuss this in talk. It is the complaintant here who should be sanctioned for promoting a distorted source and not acting professionally, and being hostile to a new editor.  I really don't know if I want to continue editing after this.  I was just trying to fix something that was obviously very, very wrong.{{unsigned2|06:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)|Doctor Franklin}}

====Comments by others about the request concerning Doctor Franklin====
[http://www.polishforums.com/news-politics-4/wikipedia-anti-polish-smear-help-60562/ This] off-wiki canvassing might be of interest here. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 20:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Not involved here, but his last sentence needs clarification, via WP:DOLT.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2&cent;</small>]]  [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>&copy;</small>]] 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) <small>Note: Quazi-legal sounding threat was removed afterwards.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2&cent;</small>]]  [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>&copy;</small>]] 11:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)</small>


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

====Statement by ZScarpia====

The statement that Shamir's father was "stoned" to death is taken from a ''Haaretz'' [http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/yitzhak-shamir-1915-2012-a-modest-man-an-uninspiring-leader-and-a-genuine-zealot.premium-1.447900 blog], which, I'd guess, may not be subjected to the editorial controls which would allow it to be used as a reliable source.

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

Two [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_of_israel ''Times of Israel''] articles (the first of which is cited elsewhere in the Wikipedia article on Shamir) strongly suggest that Shamir himself was the source of information about the deaths:

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

:[http://www.timesofisrael.com/when-shamir-revealed-how-his-parents-and-sisters-were-killed-in-the-holocaust/ ''When Shamir revealed how his parents and sisters were killed in the Holocaust''], 30 June 2012, ''May 1989: ‘My father, Shlomo Ysernitzky, while seeking shelter among friends in the village where he grew up, they, his friends from childhood, killed him’'':
::"JERUSALEM, May 10, 1989 (JTA) – Yitzhak Shamir has always been known as a man who plays things close to his vest, whether it be of a political or personal nature. So his revelation last week about the death of his family in Nazi Europe was met with much surprise, as well as armchair debate on the psychological nature of the Israeli prime minister’s motivations and fears.
::While reading out loud the names of his family members killed by the Nazis, Shamir disclosed that his father was killed by Polish childhood friends in his own village, after he succeeded in escaping from a German death train.
::“My father, Shlomo Ysernitzky, who escaped before the train left for a death camp and while seeking shelter among friends in the village where he grew up, they, his friends from childhood, killed him,” Shamir said in a trembling voice.
::Shamir revealed this on Holocaust Remembrance Day last week, while participating in a daylong public reading of names of Holocaust victims at the Knesset.
::He also listed many other members of his family who died at the hands of the Nazis. His mother, Pearl, and a sister apparently died in death camps, while another sister was shot dead by the Nazis."
::An aide said he was unsure what prompted Shamir to go public with the information."

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

<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:ZScarpia | ZScarpia]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 16:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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

::::My statement addresses source reliability, weight and whether the statements made should be addressed as facts in the Wikipedia voice, which, given DoctorFranklin's objections, I think is relevant to the case. After all, the behaviour of the editors opposing his edits is also under examination.
::::As an aside, given the warning you left [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.117.57.30 here], would you like to explain which of DoctorFranklin's edits amounted to vandalism?
::::<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:ZScarpia | ZScarpia]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 18:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas has mentioned the possibility of blocking Doctor_Franklin. For DF to be sanctioned under WP:ARBPIA, he would, of course need to have first been given a  warning, either explicitly or constructively. As far as I can see, DF has not been warned previously about the WP:ARBPIA sanctions in place. Neither of the warnings listed above mention the WP:ARBPIA case or follow the pattern of the normal formal warning. In addition, the first warning listed accuses DF of vandalism, an accusation which is frowned on unless any edits are obviously vandalism. As far as I can see, none of DF's under either incarnation on the Shamir article actually were.   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:ZScarpia | ZScarpia]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 19:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::Did you see his talk page? What BrewCrewer said, what he responded as intending to go on and "deal with it", and then what i said above "i dont know if i should be adding this here" then saying what he responded was another reason he doesnt intend to cooperate (as does the external comment)[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 22:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

===Result concerning Doctor Franklin===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
*I'm sorry guys but this is all very poorly explained. The reason it is being claimed this falls under [[WP:ARBPIA]] is that the subject of the article [[Yitzhak Shamir]] was the Prime Minister of Israel. [[WP:ARBPIA]] places all "Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted [...] under discretionary sanctions." In this context (a Polish-Israel dispute) that does not extend to [[Yitzhak Shamir]], however it is covered by [[WP:ARBEE]] which places "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted [...] under discretionary sanctions". Inserting OR about nationality of Shamir (whether he became Polish or not) and/or edit-warring about it would technically be sanctionable. But in this case I have my doubts that the conduct here fits that category (but it's 3am here and I'll review tomorrow). <br>I'm pretty shocked to see a user being taken to ArbCom Enforcement for their first edit to wikipedia as a named account and one edit as an IP. That's a very swift [[wp:bite|bite]], even if their edits are [[WP:NOR|original research]] and possibly violate [[WP:ARBEE]]. The only reason I can see for that is the off-site canvassing. Ordinarily in a case like this I'd be happy to leave the situation with the page being protected and ''everyone'' warned but with Doctor Franklin attempt to chill discussion by invoking the Polish Media and with the call for meatpuppets pointed out by [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy]] we have a problem here. Doctor Franklin, comments that attempt chill discussions by making legal threats, or attempting to recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia are prohibited. I will ask you to stop using legalistic language ("libellous", "slander" etc). We understand that you're new here and that wikiepdia has a lot of rules and might be difficult to understand at first, but we have rules here and we have to enforce them. <br>I'm holding off making a call on whether to take action or not until other sysops review this, but right now I'd suggest [[WP:TROUT]]s all round here, and that the article remain protected--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]]  <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 02:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
*:After reading all this over, I think Cailil has the right idea here, and if no one objects in the next several hours I'll close this up.  [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]]  ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 21:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
*::@Lihaas - the page is protected we can do no more about the canvassing than that--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]]  <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 01:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

== Dailycare ==

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

===Request concerning Dailycare===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : [[User:Jiujitsuguy|Jiujitsuguy]] ([[User talk:Jiujitsuguy|talk]]) 16:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Dailycare}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ARBPIA]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> 
#'''Source Distortion:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=501105029&oldid=500988340] Changes source and notes that source states that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=501105029&oldid=500988340 "some states"] regarded the Straits of Tiran as an international waterway when in fact the source contains no such qualifier and states unequivocally that it was an [http://books.google.com/books?id=L_xxOM85bD8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ground+Warfare:+An+International+Encyclopedia&hl=en&src=bmrr&sa=X&ei=Mzn6T47pK4Tc0QHO0NnRBg&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22ordered%20the%20closure%20of%20the%20straits%20of%20tiran%2C%20an%20international%20waterway%22&f=false international waterway].
#'''Source Distortion:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=501291996&oldid=501217848] Does it again and changes the source to note that only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=501291996&oldid=501217848 "some countries"] regarded it as an international waterway when the source contains [http://books.google.com/books?id=L_xxOM85bD8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ground+Warfare:+An+International+Encyclopedia&hl=en&src=bmrr&sa=X&ei=Mzn6T47pK4Tc0QHO0NnRBg&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22ordered%20the%20closure%20of%20the%20straits%20of%20tiran%2C%20an%20international%20waterway%22&f=false no such qualification].
#'''Source Distortion:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=500840322&oldid=500836381] In this edit he removes content attributed to the [http://books.google.com/books?id=L_xxOM85bD8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ground+Warfare:+An+International+Encyclopedia&hl=en&src=bmrr&sa=X&ei=Mzn6T47pK4Tc0QHO0NnRBg&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22ordered%20the%20closure%20of%20the%20straits%20of%20tiran%2C%20an%20international%20waterway%22&f=false subject source], but does not remove the source. Instead, he moves the source to the end of the sentence, thus attributing statements to the author, that the author does not subscribe to and that is not contained in the subject source.
#'''Source Distortion:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=495793920&oldid=495792622] In this edit he adds the following "''killing 16 and wounding 54''." He attributes this statement to Tom Segev at pages 149-152 (or at the very least made it appear as though Segev's book contained this information by adding the casualty figures just before the Segev reference). I looked at those pages and could not verify the veracity of those casualty figures [http://books.google.com/books?id=ggLatcD7gW4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=1967+segev&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yPH6T8HuEKrD6AGm1JjnBg&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22fourteen%20officers%22&f=false] The only specific casualty figures provided by Segev in connection with the raid is on [http://books.google.com/books?id=ggLatcD7gW4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=1967+segev&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yPH6T8HuEKrD6AGm1JjnBg&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22fourteen%20officers%22&f=false page 151] where he notes that [http://books.google.com/books?id=ggLatcD7gW4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=1967+segev&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yPH6T8HuEKrD6AGm1JjnBg&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22fourteen%20officers%22&f=false 14 Jordanian officers] and soldiers were killed in the battle (including a Jordanian pilot) and 37 more were injured. I don't know where Dailycare got his figures from, but it certainly wasn't from Segev as he suggests.
 
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
The [[Six Day War]] article contains conspicuous ARBPIA warnings [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&action=edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Six-Day_War] and Dailycare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dailycare edits near exclusively] in the topic area. In addition, Dailycare has previously commented on these boards [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive49#Comments_by_Dailycare] and has also been the subject of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive45#Dailycare prior AE] in which he escaped sanction.

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

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : 

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dailycare&diff=prev&oldid=501416974 notification]

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning Dailycare===

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

Concerning the first three points the [http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1556&context=iclr source] states, inter alia, "The juridical status of the Gulf of Aqaba (the Gulf) and the Strait of Tiran (the Strait) '''has been a subject of heated controversy''' between the Arab nations and Israel since the establishment of Israel as a state in 1948." This is the first sentence in the "Introduction" part of the document. 

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

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

Concerning the last point, Jiujitsuguy alleges that I'd have attributed the casualty figures to the Segev reference. '''This isn't the case''', since the Segev reference was in the text already prior to the edit. If I recall correctly I got the figures from the infobox on the [[Samu Incident]] article as Nableezy correctly guesses below. A correct reaction to this (indeed there was no inline citation for the casualty figures in my edit) would have been to either insert a {{cn}} template, or simply look up a source. On the other hand, the sentence already has a wikilink to the [[Samu Incident]] article. Cheers, --[[User:Dailycare|Dailycare]] ([[User talk:Dailycare|talk]]) 20:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
::Excuse me for posting here, since I don't want to comment broadly. Other than to say that one should never use wiki articles as sources let alone infoboxes. Tom Segev, ''1967,'' Abacus, 2007 gives the figures for Jordan's Samua casualties on p.181. The source is correct (JJG didn't check or have the book apparently). The pages are wrongly cited. The casualties Segev gives are 14 officers and soldiers killed, 37 injured.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 20:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
::: I'm editing this comment a bit to add, that in apparent response to my statement above Jiujitsuguy has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=501489209 modified] his complaint concerning the last point. --[[User:Dailycare|Dailycare]] ([[User talk:Dailycare|talk]]) 18:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

====Comments by others about the request concerning Dailycare====
I can't possibly be the only person shaking their head at the request. JJG's distortion above far exceeds any "distortion" in DC's edits. 
#The first diff cited, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=501105029&oldid=500988340 this], was from 7/7. In it, DC adds ''by some states'' to ''The [[Straits of Tiran]] was regarded as an international waterway'' to ''The [[Straits of Tiran]] was regarded by some states as an international waterway''. This edit was preceded by the 3rd diff cited, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=500840322&oldid=500836381 here], which took place on 7/5. In that diff, DC added an article titled ''Legal Status of the Gulf of Aqaba and the Strait of Tiran: From Customary International Law to the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty'', published in the ''Boston College International and Comparative Law Review''. In that added source, on page 126, the article says ''Israel, therefore, has argued consistently for the most lenient characterization, under international law, of both waterways, in order to ensure the freedom of navigation necessary to protect its economic and political interests. Conversely, the Arab nations bordering the Gulf of Aqaba and Strait of Tiran have historically resisted Israel's characterization of these waters as international,s asserting Arab sovereignty over the Gulf of Aqaba.'' The source very clearly says that some states do not regard the Strait of Tiran as an international waterway, and DC changed what was now a disputed POV to a sentence that appropriately included both relevant POVs. To claim that this is "source distortion" is bad-faith gamesmanship. JJG knows full well that a cited source, at the end of the next sentence, disputes the text that he has been attempting to keep in the text as though it were indisputable fact.
#The second diff is more of the same. Dailycare brought a source that specifically says that several states do not regard the Strait an international waterway. To claim that to then update the article so that it does not make inaccurate POV statement as though it were a fact is not "source distortion". 
#More of the same. Perhaps he should have just removed that tertiary source and stuck with the scholarly secondary one, but that he did not do so is, to me, more of a sign of attempting to accommodate other editors by not just removing a source.
#For where DC got ''killing 16 and wounding 54'', [[Samu Incident|this infobox may be of use]].
This is one of the more blatant displays of attempting to use this board in an underhanded manner. None of these edits merits any punitive action, not one of them. To call any of them "gross source distortion" after things like [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive102#Jiujitsuguy|this]] is just obscene. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 18:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)</small>

===Result concerning Dailycare===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

== Dalai lama ding dong ==

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

===Request concerning Dalai lama ding dong===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><font color="#990000">Ankh</font></b>]]'''.'''[[User talk:AnkhMorpork|<font color="#000099">Morpork</font>]]'''</small> 19:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Dalai lama ding dong}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ARBPIA]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict&diff=500073147&oldid=500051125 17:44, 30 June 2012‎] Replaces "a huge volume of" with "a number of" stating, ''"Removed POV wording."'' This is despite later claims of not having seen the source. [http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=261757 Source] states " Hyams’s call was echoed by a huge volume of Twitter users"
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict&diff=500539763&oldid=500227371 19:45, 3 July 2012] Again replaces "a huge volume of" with "a number of" stating, ''"I can not find any source here that refers to  huge volume"'' [http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=261757 Source] states " Hyams’s call was echoed by a huge volume of Twitter users"
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict&diff=500687993&oldid=500565060 18:46, 4 July 2012] Again edits this sentence and falsely attributes the "a huge volume of..." claim to Hyams misrepresenting the source which states nothing of the kind
#'''Additional example of source distortion:''' Re-classifies Lebanon as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&diff=500667294&oldid=500661873 "Foreign Volunteers and irregulars"] using [[Michael Oren]] as a source when in fact Oren stated that Lebanon was a [http://books.google.com/books?id=dlMW4GSQHnYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=six+days+of+war&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZZn0T5HZPIqm6gHQiIj_Bg&ved=0CD0Q6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Syria%20and%20Iraq%20led%20the%20invasion%20followed%20by%20lebanon%22&f=false combatant nation] and not merely a nation from which volunteers participated.
 
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. -->
#Warned on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADalai_lama_ding_dong&action=historysubmit&diff=450838810&oldid=450760280 16 September 2011] by {{user|EdJohnston}}
#Warned on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADalai_lama_ding_dong&action=historysubmit&diff=477454286&oldid=476206801 18 February 2012‎]  by {{user|HJ Mitchell}}
#Warned on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=498219482 18 June 2012‎]  by {{user|The Blade of the Northern Lights}}

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : 
Dalai Lama Ding Dong has been repeatedly warned and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADalai+lama+ding+dong banned] for a 1rr violation and for violating a topic ban three times. What exacerbates the issue is that these edits constitute further source misrepresentation which is all too familiar. His edit summary of "Removed POV wording" followed by a later acknowledgment of not having seen the relevant source indicates his tendentious approach. DLDD was explicitly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=498219482 warned] by The Blade of the Northern Lights after [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive116#Dalai_lama_ding_dong|similar misconduct]], ''"he is advised to be cautious editing in the topic area and to be especially conscious of properly representing sources. He is further advised that infractions in the future will most likely lead to stiffer sanctions."'' Please view [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive116#Result_concerning_Dalai_lama_ding_dong|here]] for background.


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dalai_lama_ding_dong&diff=prev&oldid=500695565]


<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

===Discussion concerning Dalai lama ding dong===

====Statement by Dalai lama ding dong====

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

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

There s therefore no misrepresentation here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

====Comments by others about the request concerning Dalai lama ding dong====
;Comment by Jiujitsuguy
I was going to file against DLDD myself but on another matter entirely. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&diff=500667294&oldid=500661873 this edit]  he disregarded four sources and actually removed three with the following explanation ''"as per talk"''. DLDD has not made a comment at Talk since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&diff=496957444&oldid=496955732 June 10] and it had nothing to do with the instant edit. DLDD however retained [[Michael Oren]] as a source which is fine but then he placed Lebanon in the "volunteer and irregulars" column. The problem is that Oren classified Lebanon as a combatant nation, not merely "volunteers and irregulars." [http://books.google.com/books?id=dlMW4GSQHnYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=six+days+of+war&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZZn0T5HZPIqm6gHQiIj_Bg&ved=0CD0Q6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Syria%20and%20Iraq%20led%20the%20invasion%20followed%20by%20lebanon%22&f=false] Thus, not only has DLDD engaged in tendentious editing by disregarding four reliable sources and inexplicably removing three, he actually misrepresented [[Michael Oren]]’s view and since Oren is a living person, he has not only engaged in source distortion but has misrepresented the views of a living person.--[[User:Jiujitsuguy|Jiujitsuguy]] ([[User talk:Jiujitsuguy|talk]]) 20:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

;Comment by ZScarpia
Besides using the phrase, "a huge volume of Twitter users," as though Twitter traffic is measured in gallons or litres of Tweeters, there are a number of shortcomings in the ''Jerusalem Post'' article which make it a bit non-ideal as a source. It fails to mention that the image, as originally released by Reuters, [http://honestreporting.com/top-tweet-on-gaza-proven-false/ carried a caption] saying that the girl had been killed in an Israeli airstrike. Reuters corrected the error a day later. Though unexplained, that is what the article means by "outdated". Also, the article fails to mention that ''Honest Reporting'' [http://honestreporting.com/badawi-tweet-update-un-official-visits-israel/ mounted a campaign] to have Badawi sacked, collecting signatures and encouraging readers to [http://honestreporting.com/exposed-un-media-official-responsible-for-false-photo-tweet/ tweet and post links] to their article, which is probably the source of the "huge volume of Twitter users" referred to.   <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:ZScarpia | ZScarpia]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

;Comment by Tom Harrison
Here DLDD replaces a dead link with "citation needed," saying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Textbooks_in_the_Palestinian_territories&action=historysubmit&diff=500074994&oldid=499494706 "Removed dead link, i can not find ut anywhere, cite required."]; It took me less than five seconds to search for the article title; the link to the Jerusalem Post was the first result. 

In this edit ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict&action=historysubmit&diff=500539763&oldid=500227371 "See talk page, this is what the sources say. I can not find any source here that refers to huge volume."]) he reverts "huge volume" to "number," denying the source supports it. Of course, "huge volume" is a direct quote from the source. After this is pointed out, he changes it again,([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict&diff=next&oldid=500565060 "Proper attribution given to statement."]), but it isn't proper attribution, it's mis-attribution, unsupported by the source that he must have just read. 

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

;Comment by Zero0000
Please look at what is being fought over.  The article subject "Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" is an important one about which a large amount of serious writing has been done.  Yet some editors think that a tweet made by a UN employee in her spare time is worthy of a large section.  Of course it is completely trivial and only gained news attention because of deliberate campaigns by activist organizations.  A lot of the article consists of such rubbish and there seems no point in trying to improve it when there are editors around who are opposed to turning it into a proper encyclopedia article. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 01:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

===Result concerning Dalai lama ding dong===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
* This request appears to have been open for some time without any administrative response, so I'll take a crack at it. I am strongly leaning toward an indefinite topic-ban for DLDD. I see 4 previous blocks for problematic editing in this topic area; a tendency to play fast and loose with sources and generate busywork for other editors with misguided "challenges"; and a previous [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=498219482 warning about properly representing sources] which has apparently been disregarded.<p>I'll leave this open for comment from other admins, but personally would recommend an indefinite topic-ban for DLDD. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

== Athenean ==

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

===Request concerning Athenean===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : [[User:Ottomanist|Ottomanist]] 23:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Athenean}}
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ARBMAC]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greeks&diff=500992455&oldid=500991833] Removing sourced material with no regard for TalkPage discussion 
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greeks#Ancient_vs._Modern] ad hominem attacks instead of focusing on the sources and a discussion
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbia&diff=497139247&oldid=496800248] Assumption of bad faith
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bolerodancer#Warning] Threatening and stalking other users using very disturbing language

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

=== Request about [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ===

Athenean is a user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athenean#Banned  who was previously on a 4-month editing restriction of 1RR]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Athenean He has been blocked several times] and in the past [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Athenean&diff=309464168&oldid=307616444 has also been under another 3-month 1RR in Balkans-related topics] 

He is still very aggressive and often makes personal attacks which verge on the distressing such as this personal attack against {{user|Bolerodancer}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bolerodancer#Warning here].

*He joined Wikipedia in 2007 and form the outset was very much obsessed with a [[wp:battleground|battleground]] behavior. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=148160839 Most worrying was his edit asking on the WikiProject Greece talk page that called for other Greek users to unite and fight against the nasty Albanian propaganda]
 
*Athenean's reverting explanations([[wp:idontlikeit]] often most often based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albania&diff=prev&oldid=148778844 where he tried to defend notions of Greek history and heritage]

*Most worrying of all is his complete lack of respect for other users, and the removal of sourced material 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Balkans&diff=prev&oldid=498053874 such as here ]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Cyprus&diff=prev&oldid=497891608 and again here]
and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durrës&diff=prev&oldid=497585500 again], continued a few weeks later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durrës&diff=501365277&oldid=501324499 again]. 

These few instances are enough to make users feel like they cannot contribute without having their work removed by this user on anything to do with either [[Greece]], [[Albania]] or indeed the [[Balkans]]. As the long history of bans that this user has racked up in the past few years attests to, he is very much obsessed with a [[wp:battleground|battleground]] behavior.
To me a ban from Balkan-related articles seems like the only way to get this user to engage strictly in talk page discussion rather than edit warring and removing sourced material in a cavalier fashion. 

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : 
[[User_talk:Athenean#Arbcom|here]]
- [[User:Ottomanist|Ottomanist]] ([[User talk:Ottomanist|talk]]) 23:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

====Comments by others about the request concerning Athenean====

===Result concerning Athenean===
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.-->
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

Seriously - you're under discussion a few threads above and you make a frivolous complaint (using diffs from 2007) against the user who brought the original case here? Please see the big red box above: "''editors who file clearly groundless, frivolous, vexatious, or bad-faith requests may be similarly sanctioned, even on a first offense.''". [[WP:Boomerang]] applies to complaints filled by [[clean hands doctrine|unclean hands]]. <br>I move to close this and the above request about User:Ottomanist - with an indefinite topic ban from anything related to the Balkans, broadly construed imposed on Ottomanist--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]]  <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 01:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
:The fact that the other user brought similar arguments agains me (dating from over 3-years ago??) doesn't count. I think another administrator should have a look at this, you seem very emotional and you haven't checked the thread properly. - [[User:Ottomanist|Ottomanist]] ([[User talk:Ottomanist|talk]]) 01:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):
User:MiszaBot/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header (edit)
Template:Admin (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Archive list (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Article links (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Clear (view source) (protected)
Template:Cob (view source) (protected)
Template:Collapse bottom (view source) (protected)
Template:Collapse top (view source) (protected)
Template:Collapse top/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Contentious topics/log (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cot (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Diff2 (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ds/log (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Efn (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Encodefirst (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Flatlist (view source) (protected)
Template:Green (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hab (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hat (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hidden archive bottom (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hidden archive top (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hidden archive top/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Ifsubst (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ivmbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ivory messagebox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ivory messagebox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:La (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Template:No ping (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:No redirect (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:No spam (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Noping (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Nospam (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Notelist (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Noticeboard links (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Nowrap (view source) (protected)
Template:Olist (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Ombox (view source) (protected)
Template:Ordered list (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Paragraph break (view source) (protected)
Template:Pb (view source) (protected)
Template:Ping (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Plainlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Pp-move (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Pp-move-indef (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Re (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Redirect (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Reply to (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Round (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Shortcut (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Skip to bottom (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Skip to bottom/styles.css (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Small (view source) (protected)
Template:Space (view source) (protected)
Template:Spaces (view source) (protected)
Template:TOC left (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:TOC left/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:TOC limit/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Talk quote inline (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Talk quote inline/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Talk quote inline darker (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Talk quote inline darker/styles.css (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Talk quote inline with italics (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Talk quote inline with quotes (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Template link (view source) (protected)
Template:Tl (view source) (protected)
Template:To (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Tomats (edit)
Template:Tq (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Tqd (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Tqi (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Tqq (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Trim (view source) (protected)
Template:U (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:User-multi (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:User link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Userlinks (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Xt (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yo (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Archive list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Effective protection expiry (view source) (protected)
Module:Effective protection level (view source) (protected)
Module:File link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:List (view source) (protected)
Module:Math (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ombox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:MultiReplace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:No ping (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Protection banner (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Protection banner/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Redirect (view source) (protected)
Module:Redirect hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Reply to (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Shortcut (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Shortcut/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Shortcut/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:TableTools (view source) (protected)
Module:Toolbar (view source) (protected)
Module:UserLinks (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:UserLinks/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:UserLinks/shared (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Return to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement"