To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ~~~

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Callanecc‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

notification.

Since the TBAN was imposed I have brought Rape during the Rwandan Genocide to GA status, and the Rape during the Bosnian War article is now a GA candidate, I have expanded and replaced most of the references on the article, removing primary sources as well as newspaper references and replacing them with academic sources. This is a controversial article and I have managed all that work without losing my temper at anyone. I should like the chance to do the same thing with some articles dealing with human rights abuses in the region covering the TBAN. I have also created a few stubs and another article which appeared at DYK, Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War. I believe the TBAN has now become punitive and not preventative, as I have had but one drunken outburst since it was imposed. The following users requested I let them know when I file an appeal, so am pinging them. @RegentsPark: @Drmies: @Bbb23: @Vanamonde93: Darkness Shines (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Glrx: It most certainly was sourced, "the widely held estimate is that almost 200,000 women were raped during those nine months. [sic] Yet in an interview with me in Dr Geoffrey Davis , who was working in Bangladesh in 1972 suggested this number was far higher." Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia p 120. On "The PHR report also showed that ninety four per cent of internally displaced persons (IDP's) had been victims of some form of sexual assault". see Women, Migration, and Conflict: Breaking a Deadly Cycle p50, "94% of displaced households", and that is the source used. On 215,000 to 257,000 victims of sexual abuse, cite to Physicians for Human Rights estimates that during the conflict, between 215,000 and 257,000 of them were subjected to sexualized violence, and now you can say sorry, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, what source misrepresentation? That is a PA as it is not true. I just wrote the quote above. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:. Other than a 1RR restriction, which I would be fine with, (barring the usual BLP, copy vio stuff) I cannot think of anything myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keysanger has declared himself uninvolved, however he is involved in a content dispute with myself and another editor on the WoTP article. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:, I can assure you I will do my best not to lose my temper, and I have been very careful to not get into editing disputes when on the piss. As to your point on sourcing, no can do. The majority of sources I ues are books from academic publishers or journals I access through JSTOR. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:, I am not being intransigent, I got the impression you did not want me using offline sources or paywalled papers. I am OK with the suggestion, but have a question. GA reviews can take up to three months, do I have to wait from when I rewrite an article, nominate it, and then hang around for months before it passes before asking for the TBAN to be fully rescinded? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said when DS asked me on 8 Aug, I would have been happy to lift the TBAN myself if there was nothing of the same behaviour as what led to the ban. However I found some edits of concern so wasn't willing to lift it myself. Now I see why he reacted the way he did but comments like this are just not acceptable under any circumstances. Having said that, if other admins agree that the TBAN can be lifted I'd be quite happy to do it myself but I like some agreement to do it.

Whether it's still required, if others agree I'd be quite happy to lift it as a second chance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: as the admin who imposed the sanction I'm quite happy for that suggestion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think DS did a good work on those articles. So he should be given a second chance.--Shrike (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what damage DS may have caused, the penalty may not quite fit the crime at this point. One voice for "second chance" on this. Collect (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't always gotten along with DS in the instances where we have interacted, but he is an excellent content contributor and I do not believe he deserves a TBAN.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The TBAN had other issues besides personal attacks. See insertion of unsourced figure of 200,000 rapes at result/DS. Consequently, I looked at Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War to spot check fact figures; I looked at no other article. There's a claim in the article that "The PHR report also showed that ninety four per cent of internally displaced persons (IDP's) had been victims of some form of sexual assault". There's also a claim of 215,000 to 257,000 victims of sexual abuse. The latter claim can be bound in Reis/PHR report on pages 4 and 59, but it is not on pages 17-18 as claimed in footnote 15. I did not find any support for the first claim of 94 percent. The PHR report does state that 94% of households (a household comprises more than one person) surveyed had one or more incidents of (not necessarily sexual) violence (eg. pp 2, 71). Page 47 states, "Regarding sexual violence, 9% (94) of the 991 respondents reported one or more war-related sexual violence experiences." See also Table 2, page 44, that breaks down the type of violence in households.

I'm concerned that DS is not accurately reporting statistics and that there could be an extraordinary POV bias.

Consequently, I would not lift the TBAN.

I'll commend the claim of only one recent civility incident, but I did not examine civility. Glrx (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:. 1RR does not address misstating sources. (WP:V.) 1RR would prevent an edit war over challenged material, but many incorrect assertions may go unchallenged. The 94-percent-of-internally-displaced-persons statement went unchallenged in RdtSLCW. Even when that statement was challenged here, DS neither understood the challenges nor the source. DS also does not discern that the earlier 200,000-rapes issue is not about the number of rapes but rather that the cited source never stated such a figure. Glrx (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Mea culpa: 1RR was DS' suggestion not yours. Glrx (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this violate the TBAN?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965&diff=624077838&oldid=624064459 DS revert 3 September
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=624123968&oldid=624117101 User query to DS talk about revert
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965&diff=624124592&oldid=624077838 DS self revert

Glrx (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the original AE request, and given the outrageous conduct by Darkness Shines which led to the AE enforcement request, as well as during the AE enforcement request, and given that this was only a few months ago, I strongly recommend denying this appeal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I am not sure if I am "uninvolved". I have not edited in ARBIPA generally, but I have edited in ARBPIA.)

In my brief interactions with DS, his conduct was fine and civil. I did not agree with any of his edits, but then I disagree with the edits of lots of people, so that is perhaps not too important. I do not have any opinion about wider matters. Kingsindian (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned about DS's behaviour in the Talk page of War of the Pacific.

1.- User Darknes Shines cites A Reference Guide to Latin American History (page 155) as support for the 14. February 1879 as the date of the beginning of the War of the Pacific, The source is fine, but here are a few more: [1]. The book states on page 155:

Bolivia responded to Chilean protests by asserting the legality of the tax and declaring war on Chile (March 14., 1879). By that time Chilean forces had already seized the Bolivian port of Antofagasta (February 14., 1879).

There is no support for the 14. February as date of the beginning of the war. He invented a support of a RS where it doesn't exist.

2.- Furthermore, User Darkness Shines had no problem to invent a Combat of Antofagasta, on 14. February 1879. despite I asked DS twice ([2], [3]) to deliver a WP:RS for the statement, DS never did it. He invented a event that never occurred.

3.- In the same comment he states To write "some authors consider the 14 February as the beginning of the war, other not" is OR, as you have no source to support that statement, albeit he self had deleted my proposal (Some authors set the beginning of the war with the first naval battles, others on February 14, 1879) and the given RS: [4]

I ask the members of the committee "to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment". --Keysanger (Talk) 16:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DS, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that what you did. --Keysanger (Talk) 19:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Darkness Shines has, since his TBAN, faked Reliable Sources, invented historical events, misrepresented statistics, insulted other editors, is unable to answer the the most simple questions about his doings, and he finds always a good reason to justify his malpractices. For every of these cases you find facts in this discussion. There is neither remorse nor change. I would suggest that you again read Darkness Shines's long paper trail of blocks and imagine how many deletes, reverts, edit wars, discussions, insults, protected articles, conflicts between editors, how many good editors that never will come back, and how many wasted time for admins has caused his behaviour. Your duty is "to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment" and that is "now" and not "may be tomorrow". --Keysanger (Talk) 15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: I agree with this proposal. I was thinking of nominating one of his article to GA, he can be helpful. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support lifting the ban. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: Without assessment of the request, the relevant TBAN was applied by Callanecc here and modified here (original AE request that let to the TBAN here). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll note at the outset that I participated in the administrators' discussion that led to the ban being appealed. The appeal does not address the reasons for the topic ban, so we may assume that their validity is uncontested. Instead, the appeal argues that the topic ban should be lifted because of good article work done by Darkness Shines, and no loss of temper on their part. However, as Glrx points out, the topic ban was not (only) imposed for deficiencies in self-control, but also for edit-warring and misrepresenting cited sources. Because the appeal does not address this misconduct, we can't establish that the ban no longer serves a preventative function. I would therefore decline the appeal. Moreover, Darkness Shines writes in their appeal that they had a "drunken outburst" since the ban was imposed. In my view, people susceptible to drunken outbursts on Wikipedia, however rarely, should not edit sensitive and controversial topics. For this reason, too, I would decline the appeal.  Sandstein  19:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What Darkness Shines now says (on 19:37, 30 August 2014) about their source misrepresentation that contributed to Callanecc's decision to impose the sanction is at odds with my assessment of their editing in the previously mentioned administrators' discussion. This indicates, to me, that the ban is still needed to prevent similar misconduct by Darkness Shines in this topic area.  Sandstein  19:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a slightly more refined restriction that we could impose to recognise DS's improved conduct since the topic ban and allow him to make constructive edits but to keep him away from the conflicts that got him the topic ban in the first place? DS, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glrx: 1RR was not my suggestion, and is not one I endorse. I agree with you that it would be inadequate, though it would not address the issues you raise, such as your concerns over sourcing in the Sierra Leone article—which is not covered by the current restriction an is out of scope for this board. That said, I'm not convinced that such a blunt instrument as a blanket topic ban from the subject area is (still) merited, and I would be interested to hear sensible suggestions for lesser restrictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's an idea. Why not let DS chooose a specified number of articles (say 3) in the TBAN area that he wants to improve/bring up to GA, and let him work on those only for a specified amount of time? Then if this is successful, to come back here and discuss a further lifting of the TBAN? Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems a reasonable compromise, though I'd prefer it to apply to one article at a time and the lack of scrutiny of GAs makes me nervous. I would need assurances on neutrality and sourcing (particularly that that the sources were properly represented—not just assuming good faith for offline/paywalled sources), but if I got those assurances and DS managed to avoid getting into personal disputes along the way, I would be more amenable to loosening or lifting the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • DS, I'm sure you're not the only Wikipedian with a library card. A sensible way could be found to find a third party to check the sources. Now, are the terms I've suggested acceptable or do you think intransigence is going to get you a better offer? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've no problem with you using offline/paywalled sources, I just want a third party to check that the article properly represents those sources; if it does, I'll be much more amenable to lifting the topic ban. I'll let other admins weigh in on your question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There have been no comments in four days, and I sense that there is no momentum for lifting the ban or granting an exemption. Does any admin who favors lifting it want to lead the way here? Otherwise the ban-lifting, which requires consensus, will probably fail. The AE archive bot has taken this report away once already. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be quite willing to grant the exemption discussed above (one article, to be brought up to GA standard and to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure accurate source representation and neutrality), but I'd like to have the endorsement of another admin or two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell -- Thanks for the proposal. Are you willing to be the admin who Darkness Shines negotiates with, to agree on the article and review the sourcing? EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA :

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

1. 13 September 2014 Reverting in middle of discussion by 5 editors [5] that said the article shouldn't include this information and yet instead following WP:DR he reverted.In my opinion its classical case of WP:IDHT.
2. 13 September 2014 Violation of WP:NPA by calling fellow editor ignorant and WP:BATTLE behavior by accusing other editor in vote stacking.
3. 9 September 2014 Disrupting WP:OR board to WP:SOAP about an event by presenting his version of WP:TRUTH instead discusing WP:OR problems
4. 8 September Blatant source falsification to WP:POVPUSH nowhere the source say that " settlers, who argue the presence of Palestinians is driving them off" .I could not find in the source that settlers said that.The source quite clearly says what is the reason by quoting head of settlers community.This edit was meant clearly to conceal those reasons to show settlers in negative light clearly WP:TE.
5. 25 August 2014-"Your disingenuousness" - clear violation of WP:NPA and fail to WP:AGF.
6. 22 August 2014 "Some idiot" Clear violation of WP:NPA.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

The editor was banned indefinitely in WP:ARBPIA2 the topic ban was lifted by appeal

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 12 MAY 2012 by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• The editor was banned indefinitely by ARBCOM for exactly the same violations [6] namely "edit-warring ([71], [72]), as well as incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ([73], [74], [75])." Though his topic ban was lifted nothing has changed in user behavior.
• Its clear that his incivility and failure to WP:AGF with source falsification to promote his own WP:POV make him unsuited to edit WP:ARBPIA area.--Shrike (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

{{ping|

Response to Kingsindian:

• Please stop with Straw man arguments no one claimed that the user is not discussing.The user has clearly acted against consensus and reverted.
• WP:NOTTHEM
• Please explain what his edit has to do with WP:OR argument?
• The diffs are not stale only one recent diff should be provided from the past week [7]--Shrike (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: So its OK to make personal comments about other users? And the phrase "his ignorance of international law" could be only construed as violation of WP:NPA also you forgot that was not the only problem in his comment but accusing of other user in vote stacking is clear indication of WP:BATTLE.--Shrike (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000 and Johnuniq: Then why not simply give a reasons the source talks a lot about that.This nothing more simpler then that.This edit was meant clearly to conceal those reasons to show settlers in negative light clearly WP:TE.--Shrike (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:.How does calling anyone an idiot(dif 6) is "characterisations of another's edits" but if there will be such approach the area will be more toxic.Editors like Gaijin42 testify they don't want to deal with that . WP:CIVILITY is still one of the 5 pillars in Wikipedia --Shrike (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8] @EdJohnston, HJ Mitchell, and Sandstein: I like to take voluntary break from WP:AE for 4 month starting today but I ask that it will be not mentioned at WP:ARBPIA log--Shrike (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Sorry to be late in replying (if indeed a reply is necessary?). I notified the relevant page on Sunday evening at 20:29 that I would be abroad for a few days. If administrators want me to clarify any of those diffs I'll do so. I know I'm a bore at AE and often elsewhere and will simply for the moment list the chronology behind this incident which Shrike has seized on with such alacrity to allege I am someone totally unfit to edit the I/P area. It deals with the WP:BATTLE insinuation that with 1 revert I was 'edit-warring'. That this kind of 'stuff' can lead to accusations of the kind made here leaves me blundering about woefully wagging a wrinkled simian arse.

• I made this edit 13:48, 12 September 2014‎ (e.s:relevant also to dissent within the ranks by the specialists whose job it is to select targets, many of which have resulted in mass civilian deaths)

• I then went and built up a complete survey of reportage on the issue by creating a new section on the Refusal to serve in the IDF article.

• User:WarKosign‘s initial response several hours later (20:24, 12 September 2014‎)didn’t indicate any problem with this. He adjusted the sentence with the e.s:’ external link to wikilink, added IDF response to the letter by 8200 members, moved paragraphs - deaths should come before reactions.’

• A half an hour later he had second thoughts and added an undue tag at 20:54, 12 September 2014‎, (e.s: an undue tag - the leter was written nearly a year before the operation, so it is not specific to it.)

• As is perfectly normal among serious editors, User:WarKosign then questioned the following afternoon my edit at 16:02, 13 September 2014‎ and opened up a discussion on the talk page.

• 12 minutes later User:MarciulionisHOF added that a balancing statement to it was required, missing the fact that WarKosign had done just that the evening before.

At this point, my new edit had stood for over a day, had been questioned by only one editor as possibly undue and the editor who thought so resorted properly to the talk page to resolve the difference of opinion.

• Plot Spoiler, a mere 28 minutes after the discussion was organized, just walked straight into a page he doesn’t edit and reverted me 16:30, 13 September 2014‎ (‎Alleged violations by Israel: marginal relation to this conflict, more of the same POV pushing)

• This is utterly typical of Plot Spoiler's practice, day in, day out all over the I/P area. He removes material with deceptive edit summaries on sight while ignoring the talk pages. If challenged, he disappears.

Let me illustrate. Most egregiously for a recent instance I noted, at Battle of Shuja'iyya (2014) with this succession of edits (1) (2) (3).

he removed en masse civilian testimony from the survivors of the Shujaiyya bombing. In doing so, he was merely repeating a large deletion previously attempted by User:Galatz some weeks earlier here an edit which I had to revert, while of course immediately opening a discussion on the talk page were Galatz to consider my revert unfair, here. Galatz never replied on the talk page, a third neutral party supported my judgement. Plot Spoiler’s deletions therefore were done in defiance of a talk page precedent supporting the retention of the material. He made a brief complaint on the talk page after placing a POV tag with the e.s:‘This POV pushing on Gaza conflict articles by the usual battleground editors is beyond the pale’

I presumed by that that Plot Spoiler considers WP:NPOV to read contextually.. Only Israel's operational tactics are relevant to the page. Palestinian accounts are 'beyond the pale' (an unfortunate idiom, by the way). When I and another editor duly responded with technical corrections, he never replied to defend his behaviour or edit. He tagged it for discussion, never made one, and disappeared, an economical POV pushing mode. A POV tag signals a 'discussion is underway'. He dropped one, made no argument, but disappeared. Doing that means tagging is just an article smearing device to warn off readers.

• Two minutes later, with his textual fait accompli under the belt, Plot Spoiler then duly added his opinion to the discussion opened up a half an hour earlier. His edit preempted the discussion.

• This is the precedent for why I, having made an edit, which stayed up a day, had been queried, but then placed under discussion in the best possible wiki manner, reverted him (e.s:Undid revision 625392763 by Plot Spoiler (talk) Inadequate edit summary. Subjective judgement. Preemptive erasure of disliked material without discussion)

• Shrike almost immediately reverted me. 20:57, 13 September 2014‎ (e.s. please follow wp:brd))

• A discussion (with a consensus pattern of voting that ignored one of the most elementary construals of a simple construction in English) then developed. I had little time to address it, the period being taken up in assisting preparations for a trip in which I had to accompany a very elderly relative to his home in Germany) but I did
• I notified the relevant page on Sunday evening at 20:29 where this discussion was taking place that I would be abroad for a few days.

• Two hours later (22:04, 14 September 2014‎) Shrike, having just read I would no longer be available on wikipedia for several days, responded with his customary courtesy I guess by filing this complaint against me in my absence. Read that ‘coincidence’ as you will. The gravamen of the charge is that I am ‘unsuited to edit WP:ARBPIA area.’

There's definitely a deep behavioural problem here. I leave it to lucid neutral parties to analyse where. I'd like someone who has the instruments to begin to look into how often I have been subject to this harassment by editors identifying with one POV, i.e., brought to book on charges that have been summarily dismissed. Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am not outstaying my welcome by adding, now that this vexation is over, just one clarifying note re one of the several wild charges repeated about me. Since this goes into the record, it's something I need to set straight.

User:Plot Spoiler you write:

'The editor could benefit from not being an exclusively single-issue editor.’

Even the most cursory glance at my main page shows that is utterly false. Over half of the 200 odd articles I’ve created or worked on in depth have nothing to do with the I/P area, i.e. Chinaman's Hat (done as a joke to rise to a wry off-the-cuff suggestion it couldn’t be improved beyond a stub); Homer (suffering disturbance from a ranking scholar who had a private thesis and a WP:COI conflict), Epic of King Gesar (reading it I detected Chinese source bias, fixed and reformulated the whole article), Shakespeare authorship question (Again plagued by stagnation and stood over by a conspiracy-theory lobby. I heard User:Tom Reedy 's exasperated cry for help and three of us redid it to FA level over 8 months of hard work), Charles Dickens, Irving Goldman, Barasana, Franz Steiner, Gertrud Kolmar, Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa, Docetism (catching an exasperated remark at some forum over its state, which I hadn't read) etc.etc. Doing hard articles is a real pleasure, and I've never, save in one case, found the labour I put in challenged. The heavy investiment in the I/P area is explained quite simply. Using the same rigorous source evidence, close construal and methods I use in those articles, I am persistently reverted, challenged, branded as an anti-semite, or drawn into outlining extenuating indeed exasperatingly tiresome justifications on the talk pages, often in defence of a plain commonsense reading of the rules, or of source prose, in the face of a general trend of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by editors who do not seem particularly interested in what we're doing here, writing a global encyclopedia that every party can read and not feel underrepresented. The result is area article stagnation, and an underinvestment by otherwise interested editors because the attrition on personal time is unenviable and often pointless. Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I edit in the I/P area, though I never edited either of these particular articles or their talk pages except for the talk page of Israel and the apartheid analogy in 2013. Zero^talk 05:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd first like to comment on the diff #4 of 8 September, which Shrike calls "blatant source falsification". Please read the source At West Bank rally, settlers demand Palestinian-free buses:

“What parent would allow his daughter to travel on a bus full of Arabs?”

“Jews are wary of traveling on buses full of Arab workers from Judea and Samaria,” Katzover said. “A large number of them support terror. No one knows when one of them may pull out a knife for this or that reason… your average good Jew is scared to travel.”

Amazingly, Shrike thinks that Nishidani's summary "settlers, who argue the presence of Palestinians is driving them off [the buses]" is a misreport. On the contrary, this exemplifies Nishidani's carefully measured style of writing, since the source would clearly justify a much stronger summary. Zero^talk 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Next, why is Nishidani's revert (diff #1) actionable, while the immediately preceding revert of Plot Spoiler and the immediately following revert of Shrike (both of the same material) are not? Turning to the talk page discussion, we see that Nishidani has spent much more time discussing the text than either Plot Spoiler or Shrike have. One should also note that the debated text tells both sides of the argument, which is a normal feature of Nishidani's edits and why he is such a valuable contributor. Zero^talk 04:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding diff #2, Shrike had written, inter alia, "Hamas of course control the borders of Gaza" and Nishidani attributed this to Shrike's ignorance of international law. This was an error on Nishidani's part; he should have just noted the astonishing chasm between Shrike's claim and the facts without theorising as to why Shrike made it. Zero^talk 09:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin's "evidence" consists of a few items of talk page discussion where Nishidani wrote something that Gaijin disagrees with. The weakness of this case is all too evident. It should be closed. Zero^talk 01:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re diff 2 [9]: "ignorance of international law" is of course not the same as "ignorant". The comment to which Nishidani responded shows that the editor is indeed unfamiliar with international law as relevant to the topic that was being discussed. Combined with Zero's points above, the observation reinforces my sense that this entire report is itself an exercise in bad faith and disingenuousness, perhaps rising to the level of WP:BATTLE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs 5 and 6 are stale (and anyway not actionable). To avoid WP:TLDR, I will address diffs 1, 2, 3.

• Diff 1 is the most silly. Plot Spoiler (original revert) has made a grand total of 2 talk page edits, Shrike has made 34 edits while Nishidani has made 265. Who is discussing stuff and who is not? This is typical of Plot Spoiler's behaviour. I can give examples if requested.
• Diff 2 is about an RfC which I started, in which everyone agreed on a compromise except the editor concerned (MarciulionisHOF). The editor initially insisted Sep 12 on putting up a long rant in the RfC header, and kept going on after the RfC closed. This is typical of his behaviour on the talk page. I do not want to get him into any trouble - he is probably new.
• Diff 3 is about a content dispute. It took place both on the talk page and the WP:NORN. Needless to say, there is nothing actionable there.

Call me prescient, but I knew this kind of gaming would happen. Kingsindian (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A brief comment on diff 5. It was a productive discussion (though very long), and the editor (WarKosign) himself finally swapped the picture for another one I had suggested. Kingsindian (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 4 asserts that this edit was "Blatant source falsification" because the source does not say "settlers, who argue the presence of Palestinians is driving them off". However, the edit is not falsification—it is simply a brief summary of the key points from the source. The source's heading includes "settlers demand Palestinian-free buses", and paragraph 4 includes the view of a spokesman that "...they've [Palestinians] occupied the buses, not out of malice. They've scared away the Jews..."—in other words, the presence of Palestinians on the buses is driving away Jewish travelers. The source gives reasons that the settlers are reluctant to travel on a bus under the conditions described, but the text added by Nishidani is merely an accurate and neutral description of the key points—separate transportation systems were abolished, and settlers have protested because the presence of Palestinians has made settlers unwilling to travel on the buses. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Shrike's comment at 08:24, 15 September 2014: The article is Israel and the apartheid analogy and Nishidani's edit addressed the fact that certain separate transportation systems were abolished (that is, were not apartheid). However, it would be misleading to leave the text at that as if Palestinians and Israelis were happily traveling together—accordingly Nishidani's edit identifed that the arrangements had been protested. How can that be tendentious editing? By contrast, adding commentary to justify the protests would be off-topic and minor POV pushing on the basis that any mention of an Israeli action must be accompanied with text to justify the action. Shrike's claims are very strong (blatant source falsification, tendentious editing) and would require strong evidence whereas I see only assertions. If reviewing admins agree, perhaps Shrike should be counselled against this approach. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Re diff 5: Perhaps too much is being read into the term: disingenuous: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere. The context shown in diff 5 is reasonable—an editor stated "I did not see the criticism, only that the photo disappeared without clear reasons" when in fact the editor had received a detailed explanation after asking at Nishidani's talk—that is lacking in frankness. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani caricaturized me a person crying that everything is antisemitic (pro-Palestinian theme - sample, generally derogatory - sample at "zion crime factory"):

• "you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic" ... (excuse for attack) - 08:56, 31 August 2014

Justified the attack as deserving:

• "The evidence for what I wrote is in the section heading you created." 15:43, 31 August 2014 (No. There is no evidence there.)

• "the unilateral Israelocentric POV drafting"..." inside some Israeli ministry.:)" 21:36, 30 August 2014.
• There's a bunch of other small ones which he did not respond to when asked for clarification -- e.g. needless use of "mass civilian deaths" in an edit summary, alleging "distaste" was the argument presented (when it wasn't). Ignoring major changes (the formation of a unity government) as "No sensible objections".."presented. Let's move on."[10]
• "You just about exhausted the hasbara printout sheet"..."taught to recite" 22:52, 11 September 2014
  • Both editors were rambling -- Nishidani embellished with a violation of smearing another editor with blue cheese spread. i.e. Implicating someone as reciting from a propaganda printout sheet.

• I've asked for guidance. Sandstein suggested I ignore 'pettiness of others'. I also specifically asked about the history of Nishidani but only now learn of an indefinite block and other blue cheese spread pettiness. Fabulous.
• "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert." Kingsindian -- cannot be considered a good idea (I would hope). I see this type of thinking as 'Goya-worthy' and feel this a good place to get clarification for everyone. Please. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell and Sandstein: - It would benefit the behavior of people involved if you add clarification to the issues I presented. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC) + MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been previously active in the 2014 Gaza article, but have not been active for the past several weeks. He regularly disparages WP:RS as being unreliable propaganda (refering to them as Hasbara), and using his own WP:OR to argue why sourced information should not be included. His WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is one of the reasons I no longer actively edit in this area. In light of his previous topic ban, it seems that there may be a persistent problem here. Due to my absense from the article, these "diffs" are all older (20 days?) so are not good evidence for current activity, but are useful I think in showing the persistent nature of the problem.

• [11] (3rd comment in threaded discussion) "The Washington Post just picked up the hasbara, and we know from past studies this is propaganda. " and "My point is that this is an IDF meme"
• [12]
• [13] Long difficult to quote WP:OR
• Arguing that the NYT is not reliable (because they hire people from Israel!) while Palestinian bloggers are very reliable (972mag.com) (Entire section, but last comment in the section in particular) [14]

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I have to state that Nishidani is a valuable editor that I like to collaborate with because of his deep knowledge both on the I-P topic and the wikipedia principles. On the other side, I prefer avoiding any interaction with Shrike who I don't see as a constructive and interesting contributor.

I only focused on diff 3. This diff should be counted for and not against Nishidani and the different accusations he is targeted by, such as WP:NPA. Indeed, Nishidani explains very precisely in that diff why his contradictor (Shrike)'s point is not correct. He does it without any attack and is extremely factual. That is perfect exemple of the behaviour to adopt on wikipedia. It is amazing Shrike reports this. (Just for the following of this argumentation: Nishidani reports an WP:undue issue.)

In this request, Shrike argues that the answer of Nishidani in diff 3 is a form of... wp:soap because he explains a problem of wp:undue on a wp:or board! That's of course not an acceptable argumentation. And other contributors here above mentionned it was not actionnable [against Nishidani]. I agree with them.

But in my opinion, this diff and the fact it is reported by Shrike is actionnable against him for a topic ban on this board! Indeed Shrike proves here that he makes :

• WP:Lawyering and just gathers argument to get arguments;
• More, the argumentation of Nishidani in diff 3 proves (without performing any accusation there !) that Shrike was performing Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing because he didn't ignore the wp:undue problem reported by Nishidani. Civil POV puhing and Lawyering illustrate the same kind of disruptive behaviour very difficult to put in light but extremely time consuming for all contributors...
• More, regarding the global lack of consistancy of this request, I think Shrike is just on the bad side of the WP:POINT.
• I don't intervene often here but I have the feeling to see Shrike on each request (which the Referees/Admins will be able to evaluate better than me).

For these reasons, I would suggest Shrike is banned to intervene here.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #1: Nishandi added a paragraph that I saw as wrong. I partially amended the section, tagged it as dubious and opened a talk page discussion to address the matter. More editors agreed with me that the paragraph is WP:UNDUE, with Plot Spoiler removing the section. Nishidani called this "editing behaviour, of lockstep naysaying" "close to reportable" and restored the section contrary to the usual procedure.

Diff #2: In several cases Nishandi made off-hand remarks about other editors competence that I found insulting. Here "this is the English wikipedia, and precise construal of source language is obligatory" implying that I lack it, and even bothering to provide me with a supposedly helpful translation to my native language that I did not ask for. Here "No sensible objections to 'governed' have been presented. Let's move on" - apparently an objection that the user doesn't agree with isn't "sensible".

Nishandi mentioned on one of the talk pages being away for a few days, so any arbitration should wait a few days to give the user a chance to respond. WarKosign (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I have not noticed Nishandi edit warring previously. The user does post long and detailed arguments with a clearly stated bias on the talk pages, sometimes winding into WP:SOAP and/or WP:IDHT. -WarKosign (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most troubling issue here is the WP:tendentious editing displayed. Dismissing RS on occasion from the likes The Washington Post or The New York Times because in Nishidani's view they are parroting "hasbara" or some "IDF meme", while inserting content from non-RS highly activist blogs like 972mag. That is unacceptable, to go along with the incessant personal attacks and battleground mentality. The editor could benefit from not being an exclusively single-issue editor. It questions their commitment to the overall Wikipedia project instead of just pushing a certain point of view. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request looks to me like a cynical attempt to eliminate an opponent. I see nothing actionable in the diffs, which appear to be a hodge-podge, put together to make the complaint appear more compelling, but what it boils down to is a trivial content dispute in which the complainant and the respondent are on opposing sides.

• Diff #1 is the aforementioned content dispute. I find no fault with Nishidani's conduct here—this, broader view of the history is much more instructive. Nishidani added 2,204 characters at 14:48, 12 September 2014‎. User:WarKosign commenced a discussion on the talk page about the material at 17:02, 13 September, in which Nishidani participated; at 17:30 User:Plot Spoiler removed it; at 21:48 Nishidani reverted Plot Spoiler; and at 21:57, Shrike revered Nishidani, arguable tag-teaming to game the 1RR. This was the state of the talk page discussion.
• Diffs 2, 5, and 6 are characterisations of another's edits, not of them personally' (the "P" in NPA). If we're going to start sanctioning people for that sort of thing, we would end up sanctioning just about every editor in the topic area.
• Diff 3 seems entirely on-point and pertinent to the discussion.
• Diff 4 is quite obviously a summary of the cited source. Nowhere is there any requirement that sources be quoted verbatim; Wikipedia being a tertiary source, summary is an essential part of writing the encyclopaedia.

I recommend closure with no action against Nishidani, and consideration of sanctions against Shrike for using AE as a battleground. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. These edits do not strike me as disruptive and the complaint is, at best, far-fetched and, at worst, vexatious. I vaguely recall a number of previous similarly questionable and declined enforcement requests by Shrike, although I may confuse them with somebody else. If somebody can confirm that, I'd support a ban from making AE requests.  Sandstein  14:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No admin seems to be interested in taking action here. My appreciation, after also reading Nishidani's statement, is that there are probably editors here without whose contributions to this topic area Wikipedia may be better off, but I don't see the clear-cut evidence for any serious sanction. Without admin objection, therefore, I'll close this thread in the next 24 hours without action.  Sandstein  13:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HJM and Sandstein that no action against Nishidani is needed. This report by Shrike is far-fetched and unpersuasive. I recommend that Shrike be banned from participating in ARBPIA-related AE discussions for three months, unless his own edits are mentioned. The rationale is due to his using AE as a battleground. There are also long-term issues of tendentious editing by various people which I think Sandstein alludes to. Time does not permit considering every case of non-neutral editing, but whenever we have enough evidence to proceed, we should do so. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBEE : Topic ban (at least temporary) from Eastern/Central European topics (or at least Russia/Ukraine)

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

1. Sept 1 Baseless accusations about some conspiracy which involves myself, User:RGloucester and User:Iryna Harpy and perhaps User:331dot
2. Sept 1 More unfounded aspersions of conspiracy and tag teaming... in the same comment in which s/he demands that *others* assume good faith towards him/her!
3. Sept 1 Tendentious wiki-lawyering about the use of the WP:WEASEL word "alleged" (Haberstr wants articles to say everything is just "alleged" when it doesn't match his POV)
4. Sept 1 WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. More of that in other diffs and in regard to other comments by other users.
5. Sept 2 More accusations and WP:BATTLEGROUND
6. Sept 2 "There's an organized and successful effort to make Ukraine conflict articles biased." - baseless WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, conspiracy talk. Later added ". Because there is a team of four or five working together it is impossible for one editor to stop their POV push" [15] (just to be clear, the editors he's accusing of being in a conspiracy together actually *disagreed* with each other about the relevant article. Two of them actually more or less supported Haberstr in this particular instance (they wanted the relevant article deleted) but they had the nerve to disagree with Haberstr elsewhere, hence the aspersions.)
7. Sept 2 - more of the same.
8. Sept 6 WP:BATTLEGROUND style comment, more thinly veiled accusations of some conspiracy and strange talk of some "New Cold War"
9. [16] Battleground section title on another user's talk page
10. Sept 6 Snide comments on the talk page repeating the implied accusation of collusion or some "secret conspiracy". This is after repeated warnings from other editors and me mentioning that if he continues with these baseless accusations he'll wind up at WP:AE

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Notification of discretionary sanctions by User:Callanec on Sept 1 [17], note most of the WP:BATTLEGROUND comments were made *after* the notification/warning was issued.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since User:Haberstr moved over from Syrian-war related articles (where he also apparently got into some trouble) to ones related to the ongoing situation in Ukraine, he's displayed a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, has made a series of baseless accusations towards any editor active in this area who has disagreed with them, and engaged in tendentious editing. I'm mostly skipping evidence and diffs for the last one because it's mostly and specifically content related but it has involved moving talk pages without consensus (while move discussion was ongoing), changing wording to highly POV versions and demanding that his POV is given WP:UNDUE space in relevant articles (see the diff with comment by Kudzu1 above for an example). He's been warned/talked to/notified several times. Initially his most egregious comments were confined to his talk page but he has since began to make similar comments and aspersions on article talk pages.

His behavior has been noted by several editors (though of course, Haberstr contends that these are in a conspiracy against them):

• Warning by RGloucester [18] about Haberstr's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems.
• Warning by NeilN [19]
• Comment by Kudzu1 on the nature of what Haberstr regards as "NPOV": [20]
• Warning about the baseless accusations by Iryna Harpy [21] and [22]
• Comment from 331dot about Haberstr's accusations [23] [24]
• 331dot pointing out the problems with Haberstr behavior, and a warning about unilateral page moves [25], [26][27]

Further comments and replies

Reply to HiLo48's edit at 02:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC) (moved here by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

HiLo48, it's not that. Me and you have had our disagreements but I've never seen a reason to take a dispute with you to this particular noticeboard (and if somebody does take a dispute they have with you here, I would be happy to say a few things in your favor - guarded and qualified, of course, but positive none the less). Yes, people will have different perspectives. And it may even be the case that it is very hard for these people to find common points of agreement. The problem with Haberstr' behavior is on a different level, however. It's classic WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT combined with a disruptive approach which says "If I don't get my way, I will get back at you by making your (editing) life difficult". Which is the quintessence of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. EVEN IF somebody happens to agree with the POV they're trying to push, it's hard to defend the way they're going about it. Volunteer Marek  04:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Penwhale: " @Volunteer Marek:, can you answer Sandstein's question?" - I'm sorry, what question are you referring to? I see one question mark in Sandstein's comment and that's at the end of a statement addressed to other AE admins. Volunteer Marek  04:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Penwhale: Well, the word "obviously" and the phrase "on their own" are in that sentence. You should probably ask Sandstein to clarify if you're not clear on what he's saying. My view is that, sure, any particular one of these diffs is not sanctionable on its own. Which is why I didn't run to WP:AE the first time that Haberstr started accusing editors about being in a conspiracy against him. Or the second time. Or the third time. It was only when he kept doing it, when it started to become an issue on talk pages - in that it pretty much shut down productive discussion - that it reached a certain critical point, where it became clear that Haberstr's battleground mentality was disrupting the editing process that I filed this report. I don't disagree with Sandstein's assessment except perhaps in the matter of degree (I'm also assuming that the rest of his comment, the part about bickering is not directed at me but some of the other commentators, as the only other comment I posted here was trying to say something nice about HiLo)

I'm sort of not clear about what is you're asking. Volunteer Marek  18:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of this request [28]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

You're losing this veteran editor, Wikipedia, and I've made thousands of NPOV edits since 2007. These obviously POV Ukraine entries, where the POV editors don't even allow a widely supported POV tag, that's just not encyclopedic, it's just too much. (Note that this arb com attack on me was apparently sparked by my request here: Ukraine: Volunteer Marek's pre-discussion removal of POV tag (twice) on admin noticeboard.) But, if Wikipedia has taken the side of the U.S. and NATO in the New Cold War, then there's no problem, because Wikipedia now has become the pro-NATO Wikipedia in all its Ukraine conflict entrie. I understand that the Russian-language Wikipedia is appparently anti-NATO, anti-U.S. POV on Ukraine conflict articles. Ain't war by other means just fine and dandy!?

The critical and obvious sign of POV is the following: nearly all RS report certain accusations against Russia as allegations or claims, but the POV editors insist on transforming these claims into facts. Sometimes they do so in the title of entries; see Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014). (On the same article's talk page, see also this discussion: POV: Claims presented as facts. ) Usually, though, the claims transformed into 'facts' are in the introductory sentences of an entry. For example, here is something from the start of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine: "These men were identified as Russian special forces and other paramilitaries." Well, no, RS reported these allegations as claims, not as facts. I of course changed the biased copy and was almost immediately reverted. Much much more on the intro paragraphs bias here[29] and here[30]. Here is something from the lead paragraph of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation: "Russia absorbed the peninsula after staging a military intervention in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ..." The preceding is in fact a claim, and is stated as a claim in all RS news reports. (By the way, the "Annexation" article duplicates 2014 Crimean crisis. Like the "Invasion" entry, I suppose the POV editors just wanted to get a contentious word into the name of another Ukraine conflict entry, and don't care about the duplication violation. Those editors had earlier, and without discussion on the talk page, changed the NPOV 'Incorporation' into the arguably POV 'Annexation'.)

I have a long track record of working well with NPOV editors, working well with POV editors who sincerely want to become NPOV, and an ability to NPOV improve politically charged articles: [31], [32]. And I have attempted to do the same regarding Ukraine conflict entries: I improve Ukraine-related articles with appropriate, balanced, NPOV edits and, when such changes are reverted (as they almost always are), I attempt to discuss the matter on article talk pages, and then as a last resort I appropriately tagging obvious POV entries as POV. I always support POV tag application with a substance-full list of many POV violations. The POV editors never engage, in particular Volunteer Marek, never engage in the normal, substantive discussion, and never allow the POV tag discussion to play out as Wikipedia policy requires. All attempts to get the POV editors to listen to what numerous people have said about their actions, their destruction and embarrassment of Wikipedia on the Ukraine topic have been futile. Anyone who reads their talk pages knows what is going on and disinterested administrators should consider a topic ban for those most resistant to NPOV. They can start with whoever started and still aggressively supports this ridiculous page: Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014).

Let's read that again: "If you have not taken sides and are in fact an editor who is NPOV-oriented, please discuss so we can agree that my lead is more or less (tweaking graciously accepted) NPOV. If you have enlisted with one side or the other in the new Cold War, please be self aware and don't get involved in the NPOV discussion." I stand by it; it seems like excellent advice, and I'm very surprised that an editor would attack such a quote.

I also stand by the following opinion: "There's an organized and successful effort to make Ukraine conflict articles biased." Based on their extensive discussion on their talk pages, a pro-Maidan group is out to make Ukraine conflict edits POV anti-Russian and pro-Maidan. And I admit it is their 'right' to do so, if they can get away with it. However, I promise to desist from making such a claim or allegation in the future. As any dedicated NPOV editor will imagine, I've been very frustrated by the successful pro-Maidan, anti-Russian attack on Wikipedia neutrality. I have never seen anything like it, and I hope we see the back of it soon. At the very very least, though, POV tags should be applied to the worst violators while we wait out the POV editors. We owe that to our readers. In other words, the following sort of behavior needs to stop: [33]. But it is not just Marek who is the problem: note the quick POV tag removal here: POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry. Haberstr (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now, I see a lot of assuming bad faith on both parts of the dispute here, but I'm currently at a loss as to how we might translate this into useful admin action. None of the reported diffs by Haberstr strike me as obviously sanctionable on their own. Nonetheless, the statement by Haberstr is concerning insofar as it alleges an organized propaganda effort by the "other side" without providing any convincing evidence. This contributes to a picture of a battleground attitude that might require a topic ban. Any other admin opinions?  Sandstein  11:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• AE is part of the Arbitration umbrella, and as such we generally do not like people making threaded comments (especially since it can spiral out of control quickly). That being said: Allegation (both the term and action of Haberstr) should not be used unless that is the actual case. Thus, @Haberstr:: can you provide hard evidence to back up your allegation? @Volunteer Marek:, can you answer Sandstein's question? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Volunteer Marek: I believe that Sandstein's assessment refers the diffs supplied by you (the "None of the reported diffs by Haberstr strike me as obviously sanctionable on their own." part), and I would like some more information on them. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading this thread makes me instinctively want to topic-ban several participants, including Haberstr and Herzen for contributing to a battleground atmosphere by casting fellow Wikipedians in the role of operatives of a propaganda network, as well as others for casting aspersions and pointless ranting. (The only thing that does not bother me is the canvassing. This is not a consensus-based process, so it doesn't matter who makes statements.) Assuming that most of my admin colleagues will not want to go along with that, I recommend that we close this request with no action, except a reminder that others expressing opinions or making content edits with which one disagrees does not necessarily make them POV-pushers or enemy intelligence operatives. Comment on content, not on the contributor.  Sandstein  18:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to propose something a little more refined than a topic ban, Sandstein, I'd be open to persuasion. Perhaps a specific restriction against casting aspersions, backed up by lengthy blocks for violations? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of complicated sanctions. They tend to lead to an enforcement overhead that is not proportionate to their usefulness.  Sandstein  10:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of continued bickering and battleground-like conduct among editors who are not party to this request, I've closed off discussion among them, although any existing informative opinions should of course still be taken into account. Now, on the merits, I think that we should close this with a warning to most participants that any battleground-like conduct, canvassing, soapboxing etc. may lead to a topic ban without further discussion. But if any admin wants to impose topic bans or other sanctions on the basis of the evidence already before us, then I could understand that too.  Sandstein  10:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read through all the comments on this request and checked out Haberstr's past record at the admin boards. At present I don't see a need to topic ban User:Haberstr. But it is clear that he engaged in non-neutral canvassing and I recommend a one-week block for that. Even if he's correct that some of our articles aren't neutral he needs to patiently work with others to get them changed. He appears to be convinced that the justice of his cause excuses his bad behavior. As User:Sandstein observes, he exhibits a battleground attitude and casts 'fellow Wikipedians as the operatives of a propaganda network.'

• Haberstr seems to believe he is entitled to place a POV tag on articles he disagrees with: 'These obviously POV Ukraine entries, where the POV editors don't even allow a widely supported POV tag, that's just not encyclopedic, it's just too much.' Our Wikipedia practice is that the POV tag is placed to allow a respectful discussion of the POV issues to take place, and its continued presence requires consensus, not just the opinion of one person. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing, since no admin seems to want to take action.  Sandstein  21:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA : 1RR violation

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

1. 21:18, 22 September 2014 Reverted to reintroduce BBC material deleted in the previous edit. Rewrote it slightly.
2. 00:47, 23 September 2014 Reverted previous edit.

Note that SeattliteTungsten called both edits "reverts" in his/her edit summary.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 16:56, 11 September 2014 Official warning issued by HJ Mitchell on account of Sep 10-11 AN/I case]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• 12:54, 27 July 2014 Issued with standard ARBPIA notice.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Sep 8-11.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I didn't want to submit this case, and over a period of 9 hours twice offered to let SeattliteTungsten avoid it by self-reverting. However, he/she just wants to argue so here we are.

As Penwhale has already pointed out, SeattliteTungsten's understanding of the rule is defective. It is also defective in terms of what a revert is. If reverts can be sanitised by making some changes to the reverted text, then we can happily revert all day long as long as we remember to change the text a little each time. The 1RR rule would become inoperative. In each case, some text had just been deleted in toto and SeattliteTungsten put it back with some changes. The changes don't alter the fact that SeattliteTungsten reinserted ideas and their sources that another editor had just completely removed. In each case, SeattliteTungsten correctly used the word "revert" in his/her edit summary so it is puzzling that he/she now wants to argue they weren't reverts after all. Zero^talk 06:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified Zero^talk 11:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

The complaintant's contribution to Wikipedia is overall worthwhile and positive. However, the current complaint is frivolous and wholly without merit.

1. The purpose of the 1RR rule is to prevent an "edit war"; there is no edit war here. 0) "Obama is black" 1) "Obama is white" 2) "Obama is black" 3) "Obama is white" 4) "Obama is black": not until #4 is there a violation of 1RR ("edit war") because #0 and #1 are edits and #2 and #3 are permissible first reverts. This required sequence did not occur.
2. The 1RR rule applies to edits of the same text. 5) "Obama is a black Democrat" 6) "Obama is a white Republican" 7) "Obama is a black Democrat": I expect there is consensus that #7 is not a a 1RR violation. Suppose the same editor instead submitted sequentially, 7A) "Obama is black Republican" and then 7) "Obama is a black Democrat": by the complaintant's erroneous logic, the editor has committed a 1RR violation with two reverts, first the #7A "white" to "black" revert and then the #7 "Republican" to "Democrat" revert. I hope there is equal consensus that it is incorrect to conclude that #7 becomes a 1RR violation only if the intermediate version #7A is uploaded. (Even if the language of 1RR were to literally support this interpretation, in the immortal words of the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, it would be "a hypertechnical reliance upon statuatory provisions" and therefore incorrect as a matter of substance.) The complaintant's examples are from different sections and do not have the 0,1,2,3,4 pattern required for a 1RR violation.
3. The 1RR rule requires reversions to previously existing text. Despite the inaccurate characterization of "revert" in both comments, neither of the two edits was a revert that restored previously existing text.
4. Both examples are instances of new text that did not previously exist. Indeed, the incorporation of elements based on the prior edits to create new text is the intention of a collaborative process. This distinguishes the changes as edits and not reverts. WP policy explicitly states, "The first and foremost alternative to reverting when you find you disagree with an edit is to find a third version of the text that incorporates at least some of the elements of the prior text and the current text." Both examples cited are third versions of text and, therefore, are not reverts. In the first example, the text about the BBC was substantially reduced to incorporate an element of the prior edit that the text was unnecessary or irrelevent or too long. In the second example, the reference to GPF's position was changed from an indirect reference to a direct quote to address the concern of the prior edit that the statement might be misquoted or otherwise taken out of context.
5. The first example has eight different changes only one of which is claimed to be a revert (but isn't... see above) while seven of the eight changes are original work.
6. Re: User:Penwhale's interpretation that *RR refers to edits of the same page not the same text, I do not agree. It lacks context. There is no edit war here. *RR is about preventing ad nauseum back-and-forths reverting the same text to a previous version. Distinct *RRs require an intervening edit by someone else before it is possible to revert a second time. The 3RR policy explicitly clarifies, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." This should be clear: multiple reverts are only multiple reverts when there is an intervening re-revert. For the hypertechinical readers: if someone happens to make an intervening minor edit to a completely unrelated section of a page, the wholly unrelated intervening edit to a completely different section does not suddenly create a *RR violation where one did not exist before. Such a claim is absurd. Therefore, the meaning is clearly, "A series of saved revert edits by one user that are unaffected by intervening edits by another user counts as one revert" so even if there are intervening edits, the intervening edits must be edits, i.e., reverts, to the affected text. [This numbered item added later. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)][reply]
7. Re: User:Penwhale's characterization of BBC as revert, I strongly disagree with this characterization and will explain why this is the case technically, contextually, substantively, and editorially. (I do not like technical reasons and I believe contextual and substantive reasons are more important here. The editorial reason is ironic to the point of being humorous.)
   1. Technically, to "revert" means to return to a previous state. This was not the case here. The BBC example is not an example of being returned to a previous state. The introduced edit was a new state that had not previously existed so it cannot technically be a revert. There were only fourteen words added about the BBC of which five words were either "the", "separation" or "barrier" in an article about the separation barrier. Under the absurd definition that an edit containing any new words (only nine "unique" words were added) that were previously deleted constitutes a revert, by reductio ad absurdum we would have the ridiculous definition of any new edit having the word, "the" is a "partial revert" if any previous edit existed which contained the deleted the word, "the"!
   2. Contextually, I am reiterating that there is no edit war. The context of this edit is the definition of what Wikipedia policy encourages editors to do: collaborate by incorprating some of the previous edit into new (third) text. The complaintant is wasting time making frivolous complaints when a review of the edits shows they were in different sections and there was and is no edit war comprised of reversions of the same text.
   3. Substantively, this was actually an example of a properly working collaborative process, the opposite of what is alleged: the "first" text contained 43 words about the BBC. The "second" text contained 0 words. The "third" text was a compromise that was shortened to 14 words. Contrary to the complaintant's misleading description of a non-existent, imaginary edit war, "happily revert[ing] all day long as long as we remember to change the text a little each time" the correct and non-misleading description of a collaborative process was "FIRST: 43 words; SECOND: 0 words; THIRD: 14 words" which is the opposite of an edit war and is a good example of (in the present case) two editors with different POVs quickly converging upon a solution. The reality is that the third text (alleged 1RR violation) was a 67% compromise from 43 down to 14 words, yet after immediately receiving a 67% compromise the complaintant alleges an editing violation that is characterized as being uncompromising when the reality of the evidence presented is actually an example of convergence -- the opposite of an edit war. (For the scientifically oriented readers, an "edit war" regarding 43 words comprised of edits that are each 67% compromises has a half-life of about 1 - 2 edits.)
   4. Editorially, the compromise text which is cited as the first example by the complaintant has now been restored by another editor (unknown to me) who has derisively mocked the complaintant's deletion of the BBC as an authoritative source of English language usage. In the end, it is the defendant's proposed compromise text that now seems to be accepted as the editorial consensus on the subject page. The irony should not be lost on neutral reviewers that from an editorial perspective, the case for sanctioning should be against the complaintant: in the extreme for vandalism but at least for bad judgment. In addition to typing one hundred times on the defendant's user page, "I am sorry for wasting other people's time filing a frivilous complaint" the complaintant should be ordered to perform self-flagellation with a wet noodle for having bad editorial judgment. [These numbered items added later. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)][reply]

The complaint should be summarily dismissed. Because the complaintant was informed (generally) that the cited examples do not constitute a 1RR violation for the above reasons prior to filing the complaint, the complaintant should sanctioned with a symbolic 1-hour block and a request to type, "I am sorry for wasting other people's time filing a frivilous complaint" one hundred times on the defendant's user page as a sanction for wasting time by filing this frivilous complaint. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Observation: @SeattliteTungsten: generally speaking, *RR applies to edits of the samepage, not text. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The BBC-related material is definitely a revert (partial revert, but a revert nonetheless). I am a bit more lenient on the other one, as the citation that SeattliteTungsten provided is a little better, although in spirit it is still reintroducing something that was removed. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The request has merit. Both edits are reverts as described at WP:3RR ("a "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material") because both reintroduce texts, or parts of text, that a previous edit removed. Because SeattliteTungsten's long response indicates that they misunderstand or refuse to accept the revert restriction, a block is required to enforce it. SeattliteTungsten is blocked for 48 hours.  Sandstein  09:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA : violation of previous AE sanction

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

As the result of a recent AE case, SeattliteTungsten was blocked for 48 hours on account of 1RR violation at Israeli West Bank barrier.

In response, SeattliteTungsten created at least four (I believe at least seven) sock puppets to continue editing the same article. These accounts were confirmed as socks by CheckUser Ponyo:

• TeapotDame (talk · contribs)
• Humuskedasticity (talk · contribs)
• GhostOfPhilLeeds (talk · contribs)
• StrawWoodBrick (talk · contribs)

I am confident that the following two accounts, which I was too slow to add to SPI before Ponyo checkusered the others, are also socks:

• ZeroMostelZL (talk · contribs)
• YoMamaSoDumb (talk · contribs) — currently blocked for username policy violation but appealing
• SevenOrEleven (talk · contribs)

I propose that all these accounts be permanently blocked (some may have been already) and that SeattliteTungsten be indefinitely topic-banned.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 16:56, 11 September 2014 Official warning issued by HJ Mitchell on account of Sep 10-11 AN/I case]
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SeattliteTungsten 09:12, 24 September 2014 Blocked 48 hours for 1RR violation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• 12:54, 27 July 2014 Issued with standard ARBPIA notice.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Sep 8-11.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As argument against mitigation, I'll mention:

• The first of these socks was created during the previous AE case, even before a sanction was proposed, indicating a clear intention to not abide by its decision.
• CheckUser Ponyo commented: "there was a concerted (yet unsuccessful) effort to try to cover their tracks here with multiple IPs and falsification of UAs" indicating that SeattliteTungsten is very much aware that this behavior is not allowed.

This editor will come back. Can we please have a brief (say, one month) semiprotection of Israeli West Bank barrier and its talk page to give him/her a time to reconsider? Zero^talk 00:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V's block of one month is reasonable for the pure sock puppetry offence, but I think it is inadequate for the AE violation offence. Zero^talk 02:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice this message from SevenOrEleven which basically says the socks will keep coming and we can't do anything about it. Zero^talk 03:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. Zero^talk 00:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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

•  Note: As a result of the sockpuppetry, I've blocked SeattliteTungsten for a week. No comment on the other aspects of the proposals. Mike V • Talk 01:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think TBAN for a minimum of X months (i.e. indefinite TBAN w/ no appeals allowed for X months) may be required. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an unusually aggressive case of sockpuppetry, with multiple checkuser-confirmed accounts, and as noted by the requester, threats that the socking will continue. According to the checkuser, "there was a concerted (yet unsuccessful) effort to try to cover their tracks here with multiple IPs and falsification of UAs, however the technical trail was obvious". This calls for a comprehensive sanction. I am indefinitely blocking SeattliteTungsten as a normal admin action, and I am indefinitely banning SeattliteTungsten (under any account) from anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a discretionary sanction. In my view, any appeals restriction will need to be applied by those reviewing the appeal (if any) in case it is made in a disruptive or frivolous manner.  Sandstein  08:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute :

[[38]]

Section 4.2 [[39]] violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it, even after being shown and asked to desist Neotarf basically told them to get over it or take it to the correct board.

User:Sandstein, I have corrected my error [[40]] Discretional sanctions which specifically apply to self identifying transgender individuals, in this case Tutelary is a transgendered individual and the comment saying that they are claiming to be a woman does violate that remedy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you look at the issue of [[41]] which resulted in a topic ban after findings of fact which noted comments [[42]] identical to what was stated on ANI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I apologize in advance if I did not file this correctly and I ask for help to correct it as I have never made an Arb Enforcement request.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[43]]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Posting here purely in my capacity as an arbitration clerk as this is related to a current case. For (possible) background see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop#Proposed findings of fact 3 by Neotarf and User talk:Callanecc/Archive 14#Workshop Page. Whether to take these into consideration is up to the admins here and I make no comment on what action I believe should be taken. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This request is incomprehensible. The linked-to section of the decision, "Equality and respect", is not a remedy but a non-enforceable principle. It is neither apparent nor explained how Neotarf's edit might violate any remedy.  Sandstein  11:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein, I have offered Hell in a Bucket a little advice about their posting. Bishonen | talk 11:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • The request is still malformed, as it contains no dated diffs, messy formatting and no evidence of awareness of discretionary sanctions. I am having trouble taking any of this seriously. On the merits, it appears that the contention by Hell in a Bucket is that this two weeks-old diff is some sort of personal attack related to transgender issues. Even if that were the case (and it's at least not self-evident), it looks rather stale to me and also does not seem to be covered by the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary sanctions, which provides that "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues (...)". The diff at issue does not relate to an article. I would therefore take no action in this case.  Sandstein  14:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see that this edit by Neotarf (a post at ANI supporting a topic ban of Tutelary) requires action against Neotarf under the discretionary sanctions of the Manning case. In any case, no evidence is given here that Neotarf has been notified of either the Manning or the Sexology discretionary sanctions. This request should be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't necessary mean we can't action via normal admin power, but yes, I agree that there's nothing that AE can do with regards to DS. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed accordingly.  Sandstein  08:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wlglunight93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA : 1RR violation

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

1. 19:47, 28 September 2014 partial revert of this edit on 26 August.
2. 20:25, 28 September 2014 second reversion, within an hour, of the same edit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

.

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Notified by Oncenawhile on 20 September.[44]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has been edit-warring over many articles with many editors, generally stopping just short of breaching 1RR. S/he has been warned several times, by WarKosign on 8 September,[45] byMalik Shabazz on 10 September,[46] byOncenawhile on 20 September,[47] by RolandR on 20 September[48] and 22 September,[49] and by Thucydides411 on 22 September.[50] So there is no excuse for not knowing about the policy, and the possible sanctions for breaching it. Many of this editor's other edits are questionable or POV, but they usually skirt around 1RR (though this was apparently breached at Template:Iran–Israel proxy conflict on 27 September, and at Israel on 20 September). But the edits above are a clear breach of the 1RR ruling, and suggest that the editor is indifferent to this, or is growing careless with her/his rapid edit-warring. In either case, a sharp reminder of the requirements for editing in this subject area would be appropriate.

HJ Mitchell, if you are inclined to accept this as an honest mistake, then the editor should at the very least be asked to self-revert. RolandR (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

There has been an honest mistake here. I made this edit (which I didn't realize it was a revert since I wasn't reverting anyone in particular), but later Darkness Shines reverted his own edit, but for some reason he also changed my edit, so I restored it. In any case, I'll be more careful from now on, knowing that almost anything can be interpreted as a revert.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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

• I initially blocked Wlglunight93 for 24 hours, but in light of their statement I think a warning is sufficient on this occasion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree and since it's already done I'm closing this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Reaper7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions

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

• [51] misusing WikiProject talkpage for blatant form of tendentious canvassing about a controversial article, including attacks against three named editors and massive assumptions of bad faith (presenting them as an "organized campaign" and suggesting their editing is motivated by their "ambiguous or hidden ancestry"). Clear expression of battleground attitude.
• [52] expression of similar battleground attitude and assumptions of bad faith on own talkpage

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. WP:ARBMAC2#Reaper7 previously site-banned for 6 months by Arbcom in 2009 Arbmac2 case for the same kinds of offence (hostile canvassing and personal attacks)
2. [53] earlier block in 2007, again for the same kind of behaviour
3. logged warning on WP:ARBMAC in 2011, for the same kind of bad-faith assumptions (ascribing editors' motivations to their nationality) [54]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Recent standard alert [55], just a day prior to the edit in question

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Given the intermittent but extremely persistent, long-term nature of this conduct issue, I'd suggest only a permanent, full topic ban will be appropriate here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[56]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

There has been an organized campaign along proven ethnic lines with proven sockpuppets concerning the Macedonia pages and it is my aim to remedy this. There have been meaningless bannings on both sides and constant requests such as this one, for members to be banned indefinitely - a culture that solves nothing on the pages themselves. I request that Fut.Perf., who has been disciplined before is disciplined again. It does not matter how often he carefully sets out the template for a banning action, what is key here is the motivation.

I suggest the user is warned that wiki project pages are designed for canvassing for work to be done on certain pages. A brief glance at the Greece wiki page that Fut.Perf. monitors for Macedonia related problems will prove this. The Macedonian pages are in need of more editors and there is currently an investigation - which I am not included in, concerning poor behaviour due to users of specific nationalities and sockpuppets once again in the pages. Taivo is one of those accused and that is why I mentioned him and I have been victimised by Fut.Perf. in the past hence his name mentioned - but not in an insulting manner as he claims. Fut.Perf. is a user who tries specifically to ban members of what he believes is are against a certain stand point concerning the Macedonia issue. I hope for end of this poor bevaiour with a strong and swift reprimand for abuse of Enforcement requests by user Fut.Perf.. This culture has created war ground and should not be acknowledged or tolerated unless dealing with genuine sockpuppets or genuine insults on the pages themselves. I have done nothing on the pages to warrant a ban what so ever. Please take the time to check my last edits. Fut.Perf. is trying to ban myself for asking wiki project Greece for more editors to make there presence know on the Macedonia pages. I have warned the editors which users to be wary of to avoid further conflict. That is not worth a ban or any type of action. Once again, the behavior of Fut.Perf. demonstrates severe bad faith and should not be tolerated or encouraged, no matter how many members he has tried to ban concerning this subject in the past. I am not a Sockpuppet, I have not insulted members, but I have been victimized my this member and others in the past specifically over these pages. I have edited 1000s of pages and never met such aggression as that as I have found on the Macedonia pages. The problems I have had on these pages relate specifically to Taivo and Fut.Perf. hence my warning to the project members of this members for exactly this reason. We cannot afford anymore bannings. This bullying should not stand and I hope for fair outcome unlike in 2011 where Fut.Perf. is not rewarded for attempting to ban members who have not negatively edited any of the pages he feels he needs to police with draconian measures. These are the type of members we are attempting to free ourselves from - his/her page says everything: User:Macedoniarulez Thank you for your time. Reaper7 (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with user's background but in this instance she/he did nothing but 1) express her/his opinion in a request for comment 2) try to convince a contributor (me) who had participated in the actual debate to "let it pass". She/he has no involvement in the actual argument (no edit on the main article), no reversions and never insulted other users. Regarding the second point (warning a contributor), it was me who initiated the discussion in his talk page, hence I take full responsibility for this. I believe that he used the ethnic metaphor as a way to convince me to withdraw from the meaningless debate. Stevepeterson (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The request has merit. The submitted diffs are evidence of Reaper7 treating Wikipedia as a ethnic/nationalist battleground. What I find particularly odious are their references to the "editors carrying ancestry from the Republic of Macedonia [and] others with more ambiguous or hidden ancestry", as if any editor's ancestry, even if it were known, would be significant for what they contribute to Wikipedia. Reaper7's statement is additional evidence of an inappropriate battleground attitude, given that it does very little to address their own editing, which is what is at issue here, and does not recognize the problematic nature of their conduct, but makes lengthy and vague allegations against the complainant that are however devoid of evidence. The previous sanctions indicate a longterm conduct problem. Unless an administrator objects, I will ban Reaper7 from anything related to Macedonia (with respect to any meaning of the term).  Sandstein  13:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper7 managed to get himself blocked and topic-banned directly by Arbcom in WP:ARBMAC2 in 2009. From this report it seems that his pattern of partisan editing is continuing. I agree with a new topic ban which I suggest should be indefinite, and should include any topics related to the region of Northern Greece known as Macedonia. Reaper7 even wants Thessaloniki (a city in Greek Macedonia) to get attention of editors of the proper nationality: "editors of Jewish, Slavic and Turkish origin have clearly got this article wrapped up" (8 August 2014). EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with a topic ban, though I'd have no real qualms about lengthy block unless there's evidence of substantial constructive contributions in other topic areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with a topic ban.  Sandstein  13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]