User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Martin Tammsalu (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Russavia_restricted

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

1. 22:05, 12 August 2011 Russavia's reverts my earlier edit[1].

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

Sanctioned previously twice before for violating interaction ban: blocked for 2 days and blocked for 4 days

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Reverting edits is a violation of an interaction ban per WP:IBAN, note the same policy allows asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party, see WP:IBAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans and as affirmed by a subsequent clarification request to Arbcom. I don't know why Russavia feels he has to inject himself into this particular article Karen Drambjan, but his arrival is disruptive to my further involvement in this article as we are under a mutual interaction ban. In this case I am requesting that an admin undo the violating edit so that my further involvement in this article is not compromised.

• Reply to Petri Krohn. Whether or not the article belongs in Category:Far-left politics is a content issue. You had ample opportunity to revert this edit yourself if you disagree and we could have discussed this on the article talk page. However with Russavia's revert I can not be involved in the subsequent discussion on talk due to the mutual interaction ban, and thus this disruptive. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ed, your suggestion for a RFC is a good one, however we already have two uninvolved editors here supporting the inclusion of the article in Category:Far-left politics while Petri Krohn agrees that it ought to be included into a sub-category. In my experience getting one or two uninvolved editors commenting is a pretty good outcome for an RFC in this topic area. That said, if Russavia's edit is a technical non-intended breach, then reverting his edit is a viable enforcement action by an admin per Wikipedia:IBAN#Enforcement_by_reverting. That would then reset everything and if someone else like Petri Krohn wants to remove that category that's fine, we can have that discussion of the talk page. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohn initially objected to to the article's conclusion in the category when he stated "I see absolutely no way the article on Karen Drambjan should be included in the category Category:Far-left politics"[2].

FuFoFuEd challenged his objection: "Drambjan is described by Sky News as "a member of the marginal left-wing United Left Party. The party is not in parliament and until recently claimed legal succession to Estonia's Soviet-era Communist Party." Wikipedia's article on Far-left politics says in the lead: "This generally includes anarchists, communists and revolutionary socialists"[3].

Petri Krohn subsequently moderates his stance "The issue is not about whether Karen Drambjan is in the general topic of left-wing politics, that we all agree on. The edit in question was about inclusion of the article in the category. If you bother to have a look you will well see that the category is a top level category, not a place to dump individual politicians. I have no objection to the article being in some subcategory". So his objection doesn't appear to extend to a sub category of Category:Left-wing politics.

Collect follows up stating there is sufficient reason to characterise Drambjan by the category: "WRT the claim that a person is not "far left" I consider the statement in the article that a person is "left-wing" and quotes him as saying : He calls Estonia a morally bankrupt neo-Fascist county is quite likely sufficient for the characterisation"

I'm okay with a sub-category, perhaps Template:Left-wing politics in Estonia or Template:Left-wing activism in Estonia, but of course I cannot add it as it may been construed as a revert of Russavia's edit by some admin. If that isn't your interpretation, fine, open an RFC on my behalf and permit me to participate per your proposal. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ed, could the scope of the proposed "necessary dispute resolution" solution be extended to include the article Kaitsepolitsei, Russavia moved this article on August 13[4], (marking it as a minor edit). The name has been subjected to edit warring in the past[5].[6], and his latest revert needs to be be discussed on the article talk too. Thanks. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Russavia already raised the issue of my edits of Anti-Estonian sentiment in the previous AE case[7] on June 17, so I am unsure why he would bring it up here again. In any case after that previous AE report closed he subsequently asserted ownership and reverted[8] my edits[9] anyway. In fact he so comprehensively changed the article that it is now virtually impossible for me to edit it now, let alone respond to his comments on talk, without breaching my iBan, so I have given up on that article. Russavia pleads that he isn't a disruptive influence on Estonia topics, yet his latest contribution to that space seems to be making controversial moves [10], spraying articles I created with dispute tags[11] and nominating them for deletion[12] (how am I suppose to respond without breaching my iBan?) or resurrecting deleted images [13].[14] that he previously has edit warred over [15],[16],[17],[18], while seemingly oblivious to the offence caused. While some people have formed a somewhat negative view of his contributions to Estonia related articles as a result[19], I'm certainly willing to give Ed's constructive proposal a go and discuss the content of Russavia's recent reverts via talk or RFC if the other admins here agree. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified [20]

It is plain to see that Tammsalu is attempting to use an interaction ban in such a way that he is able to assume ownership of articles. It has already been made clear to this particular EEMLer that merely editing the same article is not an interaction. Refer to Tammsalu's own request for clarification from the committee at this link.

Moreso, Tammsalu's attempt to fling enough shit in the hope that some of it will stick is disruptive and furtherment of the battleground for which he was banned from EE topics, and also furtherment of harrassment of myself by him. Refer to Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination, in which the committee found that certain editors engage in vexatious reporting (of which this is), and have also engaged in harrassment of particular editors (of which this is), and also found that particular editors have displayed battleground mentality (which this very request is). One can also review Wikipedia:EEML#Martintg where the committee found that Martintg (now known as Tammsalu) has abused the dispute resolution process (which this report is) and also found that he harbours a battleground mentality (again, which this very report is).

Why have I edited on the article? Because it is clearly within my scope of interest, plus it has been in the news (albeit very briefly). I don't have to explain why I edit any article I may edit, but that is the reason. But have I interacted with Tammsalu? NO, I have not.

I am making it very clear here, that if WP:BOOMERANG does not come back to Tammsalu in this case, I will be taking this to Arbcom directly for their intervention, because it is clear that Tammsalu is being disruptive and engaging in battleground behaviour. I am asking that Tammsalu be sanctioned for his artificial battleground creation, with the warning that if there is another such case that I will ask for him to be topic banned for battleground behaviour.

This is also not the first violation of the mutual interaction ban by Tammsalu, so any block should take this into account.[21] One would also have to ask Tammsalu why if they have grown tired of the battleground bullshit (as per their talk page), they have clearly created one here knowing his own history and history of clarification from Arbcom?

I will offer to Tammsalu the same offer that I have in past, drop this frivolous complaint with an apology for even bringing it here, otherwise I will ask that sanctions be placed on Tammsalu for both breaching his mutual interaction ban and for creating yet another EE battleground. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 08:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please request that no action or decisions be made at this request until this coming Thursday, 12pm (that is +8GMT) as I am currently on the road, and it is almost impossible to edit WP from my mobile phone. I request this as I further comments on the request, but mainly in relation to suggestions and the like. It would be unfair to reach any decisions in this request without input from myself, so I am asking that this request be respected. There is no major rush as there is no ongoing problems which require immediate intervention. Thanks, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 00:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One has to remember that this is an avenue for Enforcement, hence Tammsalu has brought this here to attempt to have sanctions applied against myself. Wikipedia:EEML#Disruption_4 found that Martin had engaged in misuse of dispute resolution processes and has treated WP as a battleground. Due to Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination in which members of EEML had engaged in harrassment and vexatious reporting in an attempt to have editors driven away from the project Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted was enacted. That restriction very clearly reads:

The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

If one refers to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia it was clearly determined that merely editing the same article is not an interaction. This is clearly stated by the drafting Arb at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Comments_by_others_about_the_request_concerning_Russavia and the issue is also mentioned by FPaS in the same section.

As was found in the above enforcement request, bringing things to AE simply because of editing the same article does not constitute "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution", and therefore, that was found to be disruptive. Given Tammsalu's history of harrassment of myself and history of using dispute resolution processes to get rid of his "opponents" this should be indicating to admins that his very request is simply without merit, and that he should have been warned about this, instead he is being given the green light to continue doing what he was doing during the EEML days. And that is wrong.

Look at his previous requests, where he has used the long-term consentual interactions between myself and User:Miacek as a point of order at AE in the hope of getting me sanctioned. And it very nearly worked!!! Look at Russophobia where he wasn't involved, yet reported goings on on that article to AE, yet totally ignored the fact discussion was occurring on the talk page between parties. Look at his actions on anti-Estonian sentiment where he has totally reverted every edit of mine from the last 12 months (with the deceptive edit summary of copy edit), totally ignoring everything on the talk page. Why has he not mentioned that particular article? Because it will be shown that he has acted, and is acting, in a disruptive way, by using an interaction ban as a way of effectively removing me from articles in which it can be demonstrated clearly that Tammsalu has engaged in extremely POV editing, and has actively assumed bad faith on my part.

In fact, why has this been brought here for enforcement action, rather than going back to the committee for clarification? That would be the non-combative way of doing things, would it not?

If one peruses my own editing of articles within this general topic area an uninvolved editor would find it extremely difficult to credulously come to the conclusion that my editing is disruptive, by any stretch of the imagination.

It also disheartens me that we have here admins who believe that it may be necessary to prevent myself and Tammsalu from editing the same article. If such a proposition was to occur I would either ignore it completely and then have it overturned immediately as it not only rewards editors for attempting to assume ownership of articles by way of using arbitration enforcement, but it also would entail to some extent a topic ban and it has not been established that I have at any stage acted in a disruptive manner, so there is nothing to gain from effectively handing me a topic ban. Additionally, as numerous arbiters have stated, interaction bans were never meant to stop editors from editing the same articles. An example of this opinion is provided by Xeno at Tammsalu's recent request for clarification at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_6. Ed Johnston also states the decision could be made to restrict one of us from editing "Estonia" articles. Given circumstances, this is clearly directed towards myself, and if it were to occur the same thing as immediately before this would occur.

Refer to my edits on anti-Estonian sentiment (check talk pages as well), Talk:Estonia–Russia_relations#Merge_discussion, User_talk:Miacek/Archives/2011/June#Estonia-Russia_relations, User_talk:Russavia/Archive_20#Barnstar and one can see that I am hardly disruptive, nor do I need to effectively be banned from Estonia-related articles, which is the end result of what two admins have suggested, albeit briefly.

As to the current sgguestion of an RfC. I have pointed this out many times, and I will point it out yet again. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions - the words by Carcharoth are what it should be about, and what it has always been about for myself.

My edit to the article was done in the normal process of editing, as has been correctly supposed by the commenting admins here. The category was removed because it is subjective and has been placed there based only on editorial opinion rather than any solid sources. It is normal practice not to characterise politicians (even hardly notable ones) by way of labels such as "far-left", even moreso when there is nothing in the article which indicates this is the case, especially in terms of WP:RS. The removal of the category by myself was warranted, and it could have been discussed without the extra AE dramuhhhhhhhh. I am an adult, not a child, and I am more than capable of discussing things on the talk page, all the while concentrating on content, instead of attacking contributors. So the suggestion of the RfC on my part is totally not needed as we should be capable of discussing without it, but having said that if an RfC is the suggested way, then let's go with it. It would be also perhaps be advisable that EdJohnston and T.Canens, as the two commenting admins here at this request keep an eye on proceedings at any RfC, and see if any real disruption takes places, and whether editors are able to keep themselves focussed on content (as it should be), rather on attacking editors (as has been the modus operandi in the past). --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tammsalu has mentioned my moving articles and marking them as "minor". When I go the move page, I can't see "mark as minor" button see this screenshot, so I assume that it is standard?

Tammsalu has also raised the disgusting comments by an editor who recommended not to collaborate with "RuSSavia". This was disgusting back then, and it is disgusting now. I was also derided as an editor by that same editor, and other EEML members, for daring to upload Kremlin.ru materials, and also for content creation. Yeah, this type of activity is really disruptive. It also disgusts me that Tammsalu would dare bring up that disgusting jibe at a 2011 enforcement request.

Tammsalu also raises the issue of my requesting on Commons for the undeletion of an image which is clearly within scope, and isn't a copyvio, for use on Anti-Estonian sentiment. I don't really care if editors find it offensive, hey I find it offensive as well, but Tammsalu is clearly trying to portray that I am the one who created the image, when it is clearly, as marked, a campaign by a Russian newspaper. Tammsalu should also familiarise himself with WP:NOTCENSORED. Muslims find images of Mohammed offensive, yet will Tammsalu go and remove all of those images in support of those sensitivities? Of course he won't. The image is clearly within scope for hosting on Commons (read the undeletion request), and it is clearly a visual form of anti-Estonian sentiment. It was also only undeleted (the request started by myself I mean) because the other image which was in the top right of the article was a copyright violation, and hence the article was without any visual images. What exactly is Tammsalu's problem with this? If he believes that the file should be deleted, he is free to go and re-request for it to be deleted from Commons, however it is no copyright violation. And it is also clearly within the scope of the article.

And I have raised anti-Estonian sentiment as an example of how Tammsalu has clearly used the interaction ban as a way of him attempting to assume ownership of articles. He has undone EVERY edit I made in August 2010, under the false pretense of a copy edit. He did this whilst his last AE enforcement request was still active, yet the admins looking at that request ignored it. So did the two admins whom I approached for advice on how to proceed. So did the arbitration committee when it was raised at Tammsalu's clarification request on his justified block. Perhaps admins on this request would be able to provide their own opinion on whether Tammsalu has acted in a most disruptive way with his removal of all of my edits, and take a look at Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Major_problems_with_this_article where I have presented in plain English what has occurred with the article. At the very least it is an absolute display of bad faith on the part of Tammsalu with my edits, and at worst a display of disruptive and battleground behaviour on the part of Tammsalu. If Tammsalu wasn't so intent of playing the same old games on WP as he was in the EEML days, he would be able to respond on the talk page of the article, without addressing me but rather focussing on the content, as has been suggested by numerous arbiters. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tammsalu, so long as you concentrate on content, and don't make comments on myself (as you have, for example, by linking to the despicable "don't co-operate with RuSSavia" jibes), there is no reason you can't comment on anything, whether that be article content or at an AfD, which I have just noticed is an article you started (and which Twinkle posted to your talk page). There is no reason you can't be collaborative so long as one concentrates on the content only. If you are able to be an adult and do this, I wouldn't be reporting it to AE. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Tammsalu, the above is dependent on whether you are here to collaborate and contribute in a collegial environment, or whether you are just intent on having me sanctioned for anything u can come up with (which of course means nothing has changed from ur EEML days). I sincerely hope that it is the former. Time will tell I guess. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tammsalu/Martin did not create this article, I did. As far as I am concerned, Russavia is welcome to contribute. However I am not at all happy to see Tammsalu editing the article. I try to keep a distance from him and avoid editing or even reading anything he is involved with. I only hope he would extend the same courtesy to me. This time I thought we would see the exception – agree on the content of an article and cooperate, albeit with minimal interaction. This enforcement request once again proves me wrong.

I see absolutely no way the article on Karen Drambjan should be included in the category Category:Far-left politics. I thank Russavia for removing the misplaced category. I cannot see anything in the article history or article talk pages that I would describe as interaction. If Tammsalu cannot agree, I ask him to first explain why he believes the article should be in this category. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Drambjan is an article on a current event--an gunman attack with international media coverage. It seems a little weird to allow only your friends to edit "your" article. Drambjan is described by Sky News as "a member of the marginal left-wing United Left Party. The party is not in parliament and until recently claimed legal succession to Estonia's Soviet-era Communist Party." [22] Wikipedia's article on Far-left politics says in the lead: "This generally includes anarchists, communists and revolutionary socialists."FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not about whether Karen Drambjan is in the general topic of left-wing politics, that we all agree on. The edit in question was about inclusion of the article in the category. If you bother to have a look you will well see that the category is a top level category, not a place to dump individual politicians. I have no objection to the article being in some subcategory.

As the the question of WP:OWN, I am not stating ownership. I am saying that to my understanding I and Tammsalu have been following a voluntary mutual interaction ban. When entering into my editing domain he should follow the utmost courtesy. If he cannot accept this arrangement, then an administrator or ArbCom enforced interaction ban becomes the only option. As for this WP:AE request: it is clear indication of a WP:BATTLEground mentality. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I and Tammsalu have been following a voluntary mutual interaction ban" Ok, I didn't know that. The interpersonal politics in Wikipedia still largely elude me. Tammsalu seems to have a long term interest in (and knowledge of) Estonian topics, as do you. It's not very hard to discern you two don't agree on political issues though. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is news to me that Petri Krohn and I have been following a voluntary mutual interaction ban. The only reason we haven't interacted in the last year or so was that he has not edited any Estonian topics. I don't see any problem with our interaction in the Karen Drambjan article. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @EdJohnston: I do not object to Martin labeling Drambjan as "far left", I object to him being included in a top-level category that contains no other individuals. As far as I am concerned he is free to add the article to an appropriate subcategory. There are however none – Wikipedia seems not to categorize people by their political beliefs.

I would naturally question the labeling as "far" left and require sources. Far left maybe true in Estonia, but Estonia happens to have its own compass for ethics and politics – with the Waffen-SS and their supporters in the center-right and everyone else on the left.

There is a category Category:Estonian politicians by party. The thing to do would be to create the appropriate subcategory. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This shows a fundamental problem with interaction bans - I see no problem with Martin bringing this action here, moreover. WRT the claim that a person is not "far left" I consider the statement in the article that a person is "left-wing" and quotes him as saying : He calls Estonia a morally bankrupt neo-Fascist county is quite likely sufficient for the characterisation, and should be discussed with all interested parties. I suggest therefore that the 'interaction ban" has been shown to have an unintended consequence which should be examined carefully, with the possible resolution that Martin be allowed to engage in careful and civil discourse on the article talk page, and Russavia also be allowed the same careful and civil discourse on the article talk page, with any admin noting any lack of carefulness and civility and who has no prior involvement in the case be allowed to block either party as he or she sees fit. It is clear, however, that the revert is a technical violation of the interaction ban as written, and Russavia should be given a yellow card. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per note from EdJohnston: I do not like any contentious categorization in any BLPs. Notwithstanding that dislike, the category for "far right" does include BLPs already, so the argument that the corresponding "far left" category ought not include BLPs fails. If the person is clearly and non-contentiously associated with "far left" then there is no WP policy dictating otherwise. Do the editors feel that the person has not been associated with "far left" by strong reliable sources? Collect (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to expand on my earlier comment. Basically, both Martin and Petri raise potentially valid content-related points, namely that the BLP should be categorized somehow as related to left-leaning politics, but also that a top-level category for that may be inappropriate. (After reading more on the BLP in question, I see subject was also a member of a party representing the Russian minority but with a less clear left-right positioning at some point). I'm fairly confused why this content compromise is being hashed out here. What admins should decide is whether Petri, Martin, and Russavia may participate in that content discussion on the talk page. I've not seen Russavia comment on the content matter besides removing the category with HotCat, thus essentially not spelling out a reason. Given that Russavia's removal of the category is seen as a technical violation of the iban, even if possibly just an unintentional violation, but considering that Petri is also contesting the category, perhaps Martin should be allowed to at least discuss the matter on the talk page there with Petri without this being seen as an iban violation between Martin and Russavia. I see this situation similar to an AfD started by an illegitimate (in this context) editor, but in which other goodstanding editors !vote to delete. Although Petri also wrote that there was an iban between himself and Martin, this one does not appear official, thus unenforceable here. I have no opinion on sanctioning Russavia in any way, because I'm unfamiliar with ibans and how strictly they are normally enforced. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Russavia's counter-request that Martin be sanctioned for bringing the matter here, that seems most unreasonable. (Russavia's thundering tone above is also a little concerning, per se, WP:BOOMERANG-wise.) Where else is Martin supposed to ask for uninvolved admins' opinion on this? The text at IBAN is pretty clear that such an action is not an iban violation in itself: "Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason." Although User:AGK did block Martin for something similar in the past, he later changed his mind: [23]: "[...] On reflection, I agree with Sander Sade's point that the filing of an arbitration enforcement is a necessary exemption from the EEML interaction ban. [...] AGK 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)" FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to EdJohnston: I have no objection to Russavia's participation in the content discussion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to T. Canens: given Petri's comment on the Waffen-SS being today Estonia's center-right, [24] I'm losing my faith in a collegial cooperation in that article on his behalf. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm so far not quite convinced that Russavia's edit was intended as a revert of Tammsalu's edit - which is prohibited by the interaction ban - as opposed to an edit made in the normal course of editing. In other words, I'm not seeing evidence that Russavia knew that Tammsalu is the one who added the category or is willfully blind to that fact. With that having been said, it might be appropriate to prohibit, per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, these two users from editing the same article, since it is apparently that the standard interaction ban didn't really solve the problem. T. Canens (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Russavia technically violated the interaction ban, but I agree with T. Canens that it could have been inadvertent. No action here seems necessary. It may have been overkill for Tammsalu to file an AE complaint about this. The stated reason is that he will be unable to restore the Category:Far-left politics to the Karen Drambjan article without reverting Russavia, which he is not allowed to do. My suggestion would be to open an RfC as to whether that category should remain. Tammsalu can ask an uninvolved admin to close the RfC after a reasonable time. The admin can restore the category if the consensus is to do so. We could make an exemption from the IBAN for both Russavia and Tammsalu to participate in the RfC. I don't see a need to ban them from editing the same articles, though we could restrict one of them from Estonia if this keeps happening. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@FuFoFuEd and Tammsalu: I have re-read the Arbcom restrictions on the EEML participants (which include Tammsalu) and Russavia:

1) Russavia (talk · contribs) is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.

and

11A) The editors sanctioned by name in this decision [EEML] are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

If a discussion occurs at Talk:Karen Drambjan I think we can view it as 'legitimate and necessary dispute resolution' if both Tammsalu and Russavia participate there to discuss the far-left politics category. I suggest that Tammsalu and Russavia make their opinions known and try to convince the others. Then they should wait for an editor who is not under any restrictions to restore whatever category is arrived at by consensus. If you wish, you can open a formal RfC and get it closed by an admin. In my view, this plan would settle the issues and allow this AE request to be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read 'legitimate and necessary dispute resolution' to mean good-faith clarification, amendment and enforcement requests, not content discussions, as otherwise I don't see a principled place to draw the line. In this case in particular, I'm frankly unconvinced that allowing these two editors to interact with each other is a net benefit. T. Canens (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing: No action against Russavia. I am withdrawing my above suggestion that the parties can discuss with each other directly. The parties are advised to live with their current interaction ban. In the case of the Far-left politics category, this means they can make arguments on the talk page about it and try to persuade the others. They still may not address each other directly. Neither one can change the category so long as the other editor is the one who changed it last. The next time either Tammsalu or Russavia brings a case at AE about the other person, we should consider switching to a 'strict liability' interaction ban as proposed by T. Canens here. This should be easier to enforce, and not be as puzzling for the participants. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

nableezy - 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

• Interaction ban

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

1. Date See below

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

1. Notified of interaction ban by by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)
2. Asked to be more careful in minding the ban following a prior infraction by 2over0 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In the above diff, Jaakobou refers to me as either an editor (or activist) with a "similar perspective" of a "self-professed anti-Zionist". He does by providing an "example" of said self-professed anti-Zionist "adorning" me with a barnstar, linking to this diff in his statement. I dont appreciate the sly coaching in of "activist" by a user for whom I have yet to actually give a critique of their worth in any public forum. As such, I request that the interaction ban be enforced. How it is I leave up to you, though I ask that you consider, taking in to account both the long term and short term activity of this editor, whether or not there would be any tangible loss if the user were banned from the topic area. Looking at his recent contributions, I cant imagine that there would be any loss at all.

I have unarchived this section as it was never closed. If a user is free to disregard an interaction ban then so be it, but yall at least need to say that. nableezy - 19:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, the violation is regarding an interaction ban with me, not Roland. nableezy - 17:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

It wasn't clear to me how to illustrate that RolandR gives awards to editors who agree with some of his perspectives but this was needed to be clarified as reasoning for RolandR's politically motivated loss of ability to read Hebrew or distinguish that there are 3 wiki-reliable sources saying the same thing (on Ezra Nawi). I used the first two clear examples I found (awards to someone denied use of anti-Israeli content on his user page, and another to someone banned a 3rd time in 2010 for adding 'occupation' to Israeli localities), though I am sure others exist -- though, perhaps not as clear. The second link is to an award handed to an editor with whom I share an interaction ban. This ban was imposed after a lot of drama -- we both called each other 'disingenuous' and similar -- on 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC) and I have followed it for the past year with diligence (one accident, which I immediately tried to correct has occurred in a time span of 10 months). This prompted a complaint, but I believe that the link, which is intended to discuss RolandR's political motivation, should be allowed to be posted on AE. It is of a similar level of IBAN gray territory to that of allowing someone to post a complaint about a fellow IBAN editor. I am, actually, quite pleased with the no-interaction imposition since it saves me a LOT of grief and mucking about politically motivated distractions, tag-team mentality and other nothings and I prefer that I do not share the same editing space where possible. If there is a consensus among admins that the link to RolandR's activity in an AE complaint about RolandR is not in the gray/allowed area and that posting it should not be allowed at all costs, I will quickly retract, but it seems to me pertinent to illustrate RolandR's state-of-mind when he misled EdJohnson into a good faith revert (of 3 reliable sources) and page protection.
p.s. apologies to everyone involved for this drama. I have no intention of causing any and will follow by removing the link -- and avoid anything similar in the future -- if there is a consensus that it is improper -- or "sly coaching". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a show of good faith, while the link poses a gray area which called up this distraction and drama, I'd rather not have it up and have removed it.[25]
I'd rather avoid any IBAN issues even if it seems like a proper link. With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston,

I and RolandR share no interaction ban. Thus, I request that you retract your statement. (Offtopic) In the above thread, I have pointed out that RolandR has blatantly misrepresented Hebrew in order to mislead you into reverting on his behalf. To be frank, I'm not sure you can/should comment as an "uninvolved admin" either here or there. Regardless, RolandR's political beliefs are not an issue at all as long as he does not translate them into improper conduct.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. please read the threads thoroughly before passing out judgement.

Comment by a Biosketch

Jaakobou (talk · contribs) should strike out the words he wrote in parentheses, and this AE should thereafter be closed per moot point.—Biosketch (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Annnnndddddd this is about as perfect illustration as you're gonna get of the fact that AE doesn't put out fires in troublesome areas but instead serves as the can that holds the gasoline that is poured on these fires by various involved editors. I'll be frank and here and state my personal belief that we should simply get rid of AE since it causes way much trouble than it solves...

...but since we're here. At first I thought that this was just more bullshit whining and spurious reportin' by people in this topic area. However, it does seem that Jaakobou did indeed indirectly but purposefully, refer to Nableezy in the terms stated, by including this diff in his statement above. Strictly speaking he is not calling Nableezy himself all those things, he's just saying he has a "similar perspective" (to someone who is all these *bad* things), with a link to a bunch of comments by Nableezy. That looks like a pretty intentional violation of the interaction ban, edit conflict or not.

Short block (since this is a first time interaction ban violation), 24 hrs or so (12 if yer feeling nice), as a slap upside the head, to remind the user to observe the interaction ban and don't try and get sneaky with interaction ban violations would probably be in order. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Immensely amusing to read. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• LOL Yeah, ARBPIA3. Too many requests here based on the topic area. I blame the admins as much as the editors but I did say a bit ago that this was going to happen.(edit: btw, I made this comment before seeing all of the parties involved. It as in no way a violation of the interaction ban but meant to be a comment on the multiple threads I am watching based on other editors I check in on.)Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care to comment about the substance of the matter here, but the staleness is entirely the making of this board. The diff is from Aug 5, and the report from Aug 6. I understand that alleged long-term POV pushing backed by dozens of diffs is time-consuming to investigate, but this was an NPA-type incident involving one diff, and it was promptly reported. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Jaakobou did, in fact, comment negatively about RolandR in a recently filed AE request and the remarks about anti-Zionist editors are clearly non-neutral.

  A self-professed anti-Zionist with a prominent history of enriching the project with anti-Israeli advocacy content and adornment of editors (and activists) with a similar perspective (two samples: [26], [27]), RolandR has managed to lose the ability to read Hebrew properly on Ezra Nawi. I believe he can contribute to the project properly if he keeps his political beliefs and idols out of his arguments (and stops removing well cited content as "vandalism").

  Jaakobou is not under any topic ban at present, so I suggest that the sanction should be a one-week block. I am also puzzled that Jaakobou was active in merging together two AE requests above (on 5 August), both of them against RolandR, from whom he is interaction-banned. Since neither of these requests involved any criticism of Jaakobou's own edits, it seems to me that Jaakobou was pushing the limits of his own restriction while trying to get RolandR in trouble. I would be inclined to reject that whole request at WP:AE#RolandR with no action, but I'm still hopeful that other admins will comment before I do so. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry for my error about which editor was interaction banned. I'm withdrawing my comment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment about the issue because I'm generally considered an "involved" administrator, but just wanted to note that, as far as I am aware, Jaakobou doesn't have an interaction ban with RolandR, and has never had one. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the interaction ban was with Nableezy, the target of the second diff above. Jaakobou has since struck the link. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so just let it go this time, but remind Jaakobu very very sternly, finger wagging and all, to be careful about observing his interaction ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the staleness of the alleged violation, I don't see a need for any action at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: The only admin who has commented on the substance of the complaint so far is T. Canens, and he has proposed closing with no action. If no admin has seen anything actionable here since August 6, it is time to close. I checked above to see if any other editors have commented while marking themselves as uninvolved, but no-one has done so. Closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Smith2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Notice of editing restrictions placed on Smith2006 including "Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth"

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

1. 19 August 2011 "your entries and constant vandalizing of my entries on Sudetenland and other themes, are beyond your field of science" "you pursue an anti-German goal here. I am merely removing highly POV Polish additions and things written in bad English" Also asks the user if he is a Catholic, follows with offensive remarks
2. 19 August 2011 "Maybe, if you look undernearth your cellar in Polish-annexed Breslau, you may find the massacred German original owners buried in concrete" Steps up in offensive comments alleging that the user is living in stolen home whose owners were murdered
3. 18th August ""Marek, first learn proper use of the English language written and spoken, then return. This is not a Polish Nationalist lemma" attacks on other user and ethnic based attacks
4. 18th August "this is not a Polish nationalist encyclopedia", "changed name to English version" Offensive remarks based on ethnicity, the "English version" is actually a heavily Germanized name.
5. "Grotesque Polish nationalist claims" 15th August

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

1. Warned on May 2009 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs)
2. Warned and blocked on 2 June 2009 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User Smith2006 has previously been blocked numerous times for the same incidents-offensive name calling, pushing extreme biased edits into articles, and POV warring into German-Polish articles. He was first put on editing restrictions with following information 'Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking'. He was later blocked for violation of this issues for six monthsBlock decision with numerous examples of previous offensive behaviour He has now returned after long absence, but with the same problematic behaviour-calling other user entries "nationalist" and engaging in highly offensive remarks like "Maybe, if you look undernearth your cellar in Polish-annexed Breslau, you may find the massacred German original owners buried in concrete". Before he repeatedly violated the block [28]. While his six month topic ban expired, the notice of editing restrictions and civility warning is still valid. Now after long absence he returned but with the same kind of behaviour that led to previous block. Proposed decision:one month block(due to previous misbehaviour and blocks), six month topic ban on Polish-German relations as before.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

On the 15/16 of August, User:Smith2006 made a series of unsourced, mostly POV (anti-Polish) edits to several articles related to Poland and Czechoslovakia. Most were reverted by me. user:Yopie, user:Volunteer Marek, user:MyMoloboaccount and user:Keith D as unsourced or POV, with a note to discuss the changes and get consensus on the talk page in the edit summaries. I issued a warning on disruptive editing on his talk page. [[30]]

On 18 August, he reverted again without discussing on the article talk pages. Again, his changes were reverted as before.

On 19 August, he reverted yet again without discussion, and left offensive messages on my talk pages questioning my natioality and religion, and telling me: "Maybe, if you look undernearth your cellar in Polish-annexed Breslau, you may find the massacred German original owners buried in concrete by the Urząd Bezpieczeństwa or UB." [[31]]

Among the affected articles were: Henryk IV Probus, Wrocław, Silesians, Bolesław I the Tall, and Sudetenland. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous sanctions against Smith were already overblown, so I cannot understand why we should add another one to it. On Wikipedia, describing things the way you see them is, for some reason, regarded as worse than the actual things. There's something definitely wrong in that topic area and the involvement of the thread starter should make you stop and think whether Smith may, in fact, have a point. [32] Nanobear (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Not much subtlety here. This looks like a replay of the behavior for which Smith2006 was given a 6-month topic ban under DIGWUREN in June, 2009. I recommend that Smith2006 be again banned from from all Eastern-Europe related subjects with an expiry of one year. An alternative might be a one-year block, since he proved unable to observe the topic ban last time around and wound up being blocked for the remaining duration of the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 1st choice: Lets go through the motions and give him the topic ban. If he cannot manage to restrain himself and breaks the topic ban, any administrator can (and should) block for the duration. There is always the possibility he has learned to act with some restraint, at least if a block is hanging over him. 2nd choice: skip the topic ban and cut directly to block, as suggested by EdJohnston. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer one-year block. Second choice is one-year topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing: The user has continued to edit Wikipedia without responding here. The admin opinions are divided between a one-year block and a topic ban. I am imposing both the block and the topic ban. The editor is blocked for one year, and restricted indefinitely from the subject of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, on both articles and talk pages. The block can be lifted early if the user will respond on their talk page and promise to observe the ban and follow all Wikipedia policies. The topic ban is also negotiable if the user has a change of heart. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 06:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. Violation of the 1RR at The Electronic Intifada:
   1. 17:36, 21 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 441567303 by Sean.hoyland (talk) fair categorization")
   2. 00:13, 22 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 446020967 by Pudge MclameO (talk) other categories don't have sources")
2. Violation of the 1RR at Peace Now
   1. 17:33, 21 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 442363018 by Sean.hoyland (talk) bad edit; article addresses issue directly")
   2. 17:52, 21 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 446016407 by Sean.hoyland (talk) not by name, but its referred to categorically")
   3. 00:13, 22 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 446043180 by Nableezy (talk)")
3. Violation of the 1RR at Beitar Illit
   1. 17:07, 21 August 2011 (edit summary: "can't attribute such a bold statement to just one source. legality is disputed.")
   2. 17:16, 21 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 446012596 by Sean.hoyland (talk) i disagree, i say we open a new discussion")
   3. 00:14, 22 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 446042975 by Nableezy (talk)")

Additionally, the reverts at Beitar Illit violate the consensus established at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. The user is an obvious sockpuppet and should be blocked on that basis, but until that happens a topic ban should put in place.

The user has continued to remove the material on the illegality of the settlement at Beitar Illit (here)

And twice more today: [33] and [34]. Can this be dealt with? And also, can we start treating the removal of this material as vandalism not covered by a revert restriction? nableezy - 17:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another revert at Beitar Illit ([35]). Could we get some clarification as to whether or not reverting the removal of this material can be considered reverts of vandalism? Because this game is beginning to get a bit tiresome. nableezy - 06:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another at Beitar Illit ([36]). Can this be taken care of some time soon? nableezy - 14:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Warned on 21 August by myself

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

The user keeps edit warring on Beitar Illit with more 1RR violations and vandalism:

• 10:01, 23 August 2011 edit summary: time for new consensus
• 09:20, 24 August 2011 edit summary: Undid revision 446295109 by Sean.hoyland

Since unlike many other cases here this one is, I guess, quite simple, can we expect a swift administrative action on it? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• ZionistSufi has broken the 1RR yet again after I notified them of this AE and asked them to respond here. While we have not considered any evidence that this is a sock puppet, when an editor keeps reverting and completely ignores all advice and warnings, that is something we do associate with POV warriors and socks. Since we are up to four 1RR violations already over a period of a few days, I suggest that ZionistSufi be blocked for one month and topic-banned from the ARBPIA articles for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing: Hearing no objection, I am blocking ZionistSufi for one month and banning them from ARBPIA for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Someone35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

• Violation of the 1RR at Qula

1. 23 August 1st revert
2. 23 August 2nd revert

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

1. Warned on 23 August by Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 23 August by myself. I asked that the user self-revert or I would report him or her for violating the 1RR. The user declined to do so.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user is removing a reliable source, written by a professor from UCLA and published by Columbia University Press on the basis that he or she thinks that the source is wrong. The user is also instructing others not to edit war while, ironically, edit-warring.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

I'll write my statement here tomorrow, I must go to sleep now-- Someone35 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This young newcomer to the I-P area thinks it is the Wild West and he/she doesn't need to obey the rules. Disruptive edits like this one indicate that the behavior is unlikely to improve unaided. I suggest a short topic ban plus a warning that continuation of the same behavior afterwards will earn a more severe penalty. Zero^talk 00:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a major leap Zero. First offense. I'd defer to WP:NEWBIES and close this with a formal warning. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He/she got a warning, actually two warnings, after the offense. It only came here because she/he openly refused to obey the 1RR rule. Being a newbie does not excuse that sort of behavior. I'd propose a long block for an experienced user doing that. Zero^talk 00:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He/she was warned for edit-warring. It would be unprecedented to impose such a topic ban on an editor with no prior record, especially over 2 reverts. Dispute resolution is a process and it is tiring to see the same editor go to Arbitration Enforcement every time they get in conflict with someone else. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user was informed that they had already broken the revert restriction and was asked to self-revert. Instead of doing so, the user attempted to claim that everybody else was wrong and refused to self-revert. If the user does self-revert then there is no issue here, but as it stands the user is refusing to abide by the discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 01:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Closing: Blocked three days. User is not a complete newcomer. They have been on Wikipedia for four months. They defend their POV very strongly and they have already declined to self-revert after being informed of the 1RR. I think it is not necessary to wait longer for a statement from them. If we have overlooked some key fact about this dispute they can open an unblock request on their talk page and it can be discussed there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. 05:26, 22 August 2011 (edit summary: "Information from Die Spiegel is from 25th May 2009 and this information was in German Wikipedia earlier:

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martina_Hingis&diff=92509998&oldid=60207413 In the article is no citation to primary source")

1. 08:37, 23 August 2011 (edit summary: "rv - 1. sources are YOUNGER as information in Wikipedia, so Wikipedia was the primary source; 2. English sources says that he is Slovak, it exists no reliable English source about his Magyar origin WP:NOENG")
2. 08:51, 23 August 2011 (edit summary: "rv - they were not reliable sources. they are younger as information in wikipedia, and they says something different as English sources. "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones"")
3. 06:04, 24 August 2011 (edit summary: "rv - the content was undone without explenation, spiegler use the wikipedia as the source, see the talk page")
4. 06:09, 24 August 2011 (edit summary: "2 neutral english sources from google books supporting her slovak roots")
5. 06:12, 24 August 2011 (edit summary: "again added sources")
6. 09:24, 24 August 2011 (edit summary: "rv - they are not reliable, read your sources properly. sources of your last article: "Quellen: Diverse Medien, Wikipedia." they are similiary written as old information at Wikipedia. Find the better sources as the wikipedias feedbacks")
7. 10:15, 24 August 2011 (edit summary: "It says under the text: "Quellen: Diverse Medien, Wikipedia" = Sources: Various media, Wikipedia - its not reliable. Its questionable source, it cannot be use in the biography of living persons")

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

Someone35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Someone35 (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Banned from editing for 72 hours

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

• I have seen this appeal, so I don't have to be notified. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 different people reverted my edits without finish the discussion topic I started inTalk:Qula (it's 3 people now, OhioStandard also reverted it after I was blocked). I asked them not to turn it into an edit war and reply to the topic in Talk:Qula but they refused. In the arbitration request I couldn't say what was my side since I was blocked before I could respond there (the request was written about at 23:00 gmt +2 and I had to go to sleep, I asked the administrator to wait but he didn't wait).

You appear to have called Nableezy an anti-Semite in a Hebrew remark you added at the bottom of this talk page. (See Nableezy's objection here). Your statement is considered to be a personal attack. I suggest that you remove your comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's what i did, although there's a reason i written this in hebrew, it was not intended for him but for hebrew speakers. if he chooses to stalk me then it's his problem. can you please add this explanation for me in the block appeal request? for some reason i don't have the right to comment there-- Someone35 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least you have the courage to tell the truth. -asad (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Hebrew but I knew the meaning of what Someone35 wrote within 60 seconds of seeing it. Frankly I think Someone35's block should be extended. He/she simply doesn't seem to get it. Zero^talk 00:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he does not get it. The guy has only received demands to self-revert and templates. Maybe the admins sanctioning here should go read ARBPIA: "...Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Where else is more appropriate to a relatively new editor new to the topic area? A template is not sufficient. Furthermore, we should understand why the guy is upset. He feels that he is getting mobbed by a bunch of edit warring POV pushers. I am not going to comment on if I agree or not. He then got a block that was 2-2.5 days longer than needed to stop the disruption. A 12hr block under the conditions of the 1/rr amendment (no help words of advice or warnings required) would have done the trick. So how about an admin actually goes and starts a discussion with the guy instead of promoting an atmosphere that a new editor can easily assume is wikilawyering?Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have tried for you guys.[52] There are a couple admins who would have worded it much better. Obviously they are not around. Cptnono (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get him to behave properly, good for you. Meanwhile, the fact remains that he explicitly refused to obey policy after it was pointed out to him, and then he went on to libel another editor. Neither action is excused by inexperience. Zero^talk 10:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But the banhammer laid down by T.C is, IMO, rather draconian considering the nature of his violations. I have never seen such a punishment before - an indefinite ban that can only be petitioned once every three months? COMPETENCE is not a policy or guideline. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have happened if he acknowledged fault and undertook to behave better. But to this date he has only claimed to have done nothing wrong and that the rules are stupid. IMO that left TC with no option and I agree with his rationale. Zero^talk 23:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But I don't understand the petition process. Is there a precedent for this? I get the time-out process but this seems overtly humiliating, especially for such a young editor and first time offender. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original block which is being appealed was imposed per WP:AE#Someone35. That thread is still visible above. The other page you might want to look at when reviewing this is User talk:Someone35. This editor seems to have made a plain 1RR violation on an I/P article. Generally these can be closed quickly with no action if the user agrees to self-revert. In this case, the user refused to self-revert as shown by the diffs supplied in the report. It is generally not persuasive to blame others if you find yourself committing a 1RR. The nature of a 1RR is that it's easy to recognize a violation, and a long discussion at AE should not be needed. Those who disagree with the block argue that Someone35 is a newcomer and ought to be counselled. I did not find this argument convincing. One appropriate final warning ought to be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of his talk page, Someone35 has added a new section in which he asks Nableezy, 'Who pays you and where do you live?' EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the last section on Someone35's talk page, there is a conversation between Chesdovi and the user about another article, Palestinian rabbis. Included in that exchange is the following Hebrew from the user: אם אתה ישראלי למה אתה בעד לקרוא לתלמוד ירושלמי "התלמוד הפלסטיני"? מי קורא לזה ככה חוץ מאנטישמים כמו נבליזי?. The translation of that last question is "who calls it that except for anti-Semites like Nableezy?" I dont appreciate such an outrageous charge being leveled against me, in any language, and as such I request that the block not be rescinded but instead extended. nableezy - 16:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll call other editors antisemites in languages I don't think they can read, and in places I don't expect them to read." That's certainly a novel interpretation of WP:NPA. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikifan: This sort of open-ended topic ban, which may be appealed every few months, has been meted out in disputes related to Eastern and Central Europe. The admins who have been adjudicating ARBPIA enforcement have been warning for months that it was coming to this area too. Someone35 just happens to be the first editor (as far as I know) to get these sanctions in the Israel–Palestine topic area. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't know that. I've just never seen this before. Maybe someone could mentor Someone? I hope this community ban doesn't deter young editors from contributing. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, as this is the editor's first block, would it be within your own discretion to lessen the block to a lesser time---3 days does seem a bit too long for a first offence---perhaps make it 24 hours, albeit with a warning that future infractions will lead to longer blocks as per admin discretion. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Nableezy's information, perhaps Canens is correct, a topic ban is quite possibly in order here. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban for a personal attack (first offense again)?

I think editors need to take a step back, let Someone finish out his 72 hour block and request he strike out his statements about Nableezy. This AE would be Nableezy's 3rd for the month of August. AE should be used as a last resort, and IMO the charges are not damning enough to go here. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He deleted that sentence, but immediately added this and [53], which don't look much more friendly. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But users have more rights over their talk pages than on Wikipedia articles. Not sure on the validity of the userbox but edits like these shouldn't lead to topic bans. If Someone starts hounding Nableezy then I could understand. But Nableezy is a a veteran at AE and knows policy so I can understand how a young immature editor might feel victimized. Plenty of more appropriate noticeboards to handle these sorts of behavioral issues. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user was brought to AE because he violated the 1RR and refused to self-revert. He was subsequently blocked. Whether or not you consider that "damning enough" for a block really does not concern me, it very clearly merits a block. Calling another user an anti-Semite is a straightforward personal attack. There are a large number of users I would like to call racists (or much harsher things), but I dont, because we have a policy that forbids such actions. AE is for enforcing arbitration decisions. The Arab-Israeli conflict area is subject to discretionary sanctions as a result of an arbitration decision. This is exactly the place where this belongs. nableezy - 06:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He violated 1rr and was hit with IMO a heavy block (72 hours?) especially long for a first offense, and yes in spite of warnings. As far as civility goes, independent of arbitration rules. This is a trivial matter Nableezy, suggestions of a topic ban of any length are totally out of proportion to what Someone has said. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt an issue of civility. The user was complaining that another user used the words "Palestinian Talmud" in reference to Jerusalem Talmud, a topic that I have both no knowledge of and no interest in. But to underline his or her point, this user thinks it is somehow acceptable to say that only "anti-Semites like Nableezy" refer to it as the "Palestinian Talmud", forgetting that the person who actually referred to it as the Palestinian Talmud is a Jewish Zionist who, while not the most diametrically opposed user to me in terms of political views, has never, as far as I can tell, been accused of antisemitism by anybody. This isnt an issue of civility, this child thinks it is acceptable to write on the internet that a person is an anti-Semite without any evidence at all, in fact, with what appears to be the exact opposite of evidence. You think thats cool? You want to ask me "u mad bro?" But the user did remove the comment, I cant say that there is presently an issue. A fourteen year old child said something stupid, it has been removed, end of story as far as I am concerned. Should this child be allowed to continue editing such topics? Not my decision, and not really sure if that is a question to decide here. nableezy - 08:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue of civility here in the overall scheme of things. Any editor who attacks another editor using either nationality, race, religion, etc as the underlying basis of the attack should be shown the door immediately. if this editor is only 14 years old perhaps also contact their guardian as well, so that they can have their arse smacked and sent to their room with no dinner lol. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me Nableezy, is it my problem that you choose to Google translate things I was telling Chesdovi? Do you really think there was no reason I wrote that in HEBREW? If you choose to read what you're not supposed to read (like other people's talk pages in other languages...) you have no right to complain about what you find there. If I wanted to personally offend you then I would just write you in English/Arabic on YOUR talk page and call you an anti semite-- Someone35 (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get it. Personal attacks are not allowed in any language, and they are considered to be personal attacks even if you are not intending for the one you are attacking to read it. I didn't make the policies for WP, but I chose to abide by them to the best of my ability. If you don't want to abide by them, you are free to edit else where (like your website). -asad (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a personal attack. Again, if I wanted to insult him then I could just tell him that on his talk page-- Someone35 (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal attacks are not allowed in any language, and they are considered to be personal attacks even if you are not intending for the one you are attacking to read it." -asad (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I find no merit in this appeal. The violation is plain and the sanction is well within admin discretion. If the translation posted by Nableezy is correct, moreover, I think a topic ban is in order. T. Canens (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with T. Canens on the first count; neutral on the second. I should mention that Google translate confirms the translation (although of course with some grammar differences.) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this. The block has expired, so the matter is now moot, but in any event the appeal clearly did not succeed. Further, I find that Someone35 has demonstrated a clear inability to comply with the fundamental behavioral guidelines of Wikipedia. As the Arbitration Committee recently explained:

Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.

The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming".

Wikipedia's core behavioral policies outline certain minimal standards for acceptable user conduct by explicitly prohibiting a number of disruptive activities, such as personal attacks and edit-warring. The expectation of collegiality among participants goes beyond compliance with these minimal standards. The fact that a particular activity or attitude is not explicitly prohibited does not make it appropriate in a collaborative environment or conducive to maintaining a welcoming atmosphere.

I find it particularly disturbing that, despite multiple editors and administrators pointing out to them that calling a fellow editor an anti-Semite is an unacceptable personal attack, and despite the knowledge that a topic ban is being considered for this conduct, Someone35 continues to insist that it was not a personal attack, and indeed that it was the attacked editor's fault for noticing it in the first place.

Not so. As WP:NPA points out, "insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". That the attack was written in a language other than English is irrelevant.

Reviewing the behavior of Someone35 in this thread and elsewhere leaves me convinced that they will not be a constructive presence in this topic area, which is already rife with interpersonal conflicts. To the extent that Someone35's conduct is due to simple inexperience rather than knowing violations of the standards of behavior, I am of the view that competence is required for editing in this topic area. As the Committee noted in the discretionary sanctions provision for this topic area:

Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions. (emphasis added)

My conclusion is that until Someone35 can demonstrate that they are willing and able to "conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism" expected of editors, they should not be allowed to edit in this topic area or its closely related topics. Accordingly, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Someone35 (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Middle East, broadly construed across all namespaces, for a period of no less than 3 months. After 3 months, and every 3 months thereafter, they may apply to have the ban reviewed at WP:AE. Further, Someone35 may make one appeal to AE at any time within the next 3 months challenging this decision. They may also appeal to the Arbitration Committee at any time. The ban will stay in place until it is lifted on appeal at AE or by the Arbitration Committee. T. Canens (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Domer48_'fenian' 19:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Per Result concerning Jonchapple "User:Jonchapple is placed on Troubles probation for three months. This limits him to to one revert per article per week on all Troubles articles."

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland..."

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

1. 24 August 2011 1st Revert
2. 24 August 2011 Revert IP no violation
3. 25 August 2011 2nd Revert (Issue has been discussed previously [54]

1. 24 August 2011 1st Revert
2. 24 August 2011 2nd Revert
3. 24 August 2011 3rd Revert

1. 24 August 2011 1st Revert (reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors)
2. 24 August 2011 2nd Revert
3. 24 August 2011 3rd Revert
4. 25 August 2011 4th Revert

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

1. Warned on 14 August 2011 Enforcement Page by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 14 August 2011 User Talk Page by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Having been notified on their talk pag and offered advice from admin's this editor deleted the notices despite the advice offered on this type of edit. The editor accuses me of hounding them if I revert any of their edits. Claims that they are now "impotent" on Troubles Articles because of me. Despite been placed on probation of 1RR per article per week on the 14th the very next day they keep reverting me [55][56][57] on my talk page, despite having been asked not to post on the page. They have turned Article Talk Pages into battle fields, making unfounded or unsupported claims and prevaricating when challenged to support them, before descending to just personal attacks and blatant nonsense. I can't be bothered with this editor, and assuming good faith is out the window. Hopefully Admin's can discover what "potency" this editor wants to bring to Troubles related articles.

1. Despite the claim by Jonchapple that this is not related, their own edit on the Article talk page says the exact opposite. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jonchapple describes any editor who correctly states that the the Ulster Banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland as a "attention-seeking antagonists" may explain the antagonism displayed, and their claims of "impotance" as a result of the sanctions imposed here.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Ed. While I've no problem with your reasoning, I would make the following observation. If this type of editing is not "Troubles" related:"All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR," I would cite another example to those I've outlined above.

*Example: Liam Neeson. A run of the mill biography article on a Hollywood actor and it could hardly be reasonably construed as being "Troubles related." However, when you have a group of editors who edit Troubles Article, suddenly it becomes quit clear, that a reasonable conclusion is that any article were these editors revert and re-revert can quickly become Troubles related. The Articles I've outlined above fall into the exact pattern in my opinion.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[58] Notice was quickly removed.

Oh, come off it. I've broken no restriction; they're hardly covered. What next, articles about anyone or anything from these islands? I also have evidence you've been actively monitoring my contributions and reverting my edits, so beware of the boomerang. JonChapple^Talk 20:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also like to note that on the third set of "reverts" you've cited above, the first two are evidence of Scolaire and I concurrently editing and collaborating to improve the UK article. If you look at the talk page, we're in agreement. No reverting there (no undoing another editor's work), just minor changes. JonChapple^Talk 21:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here – what on Earth does that diff and me clarifying what I believe the term "Britain and Ireland" to mean have to do with anything? The United Kingdom and Ireland articles clearly aren't subject to Troubles sanctions. Just look at the page histories and the number of editors that have broken the 1RR that would apply if they were. JonChapple^Talk 20:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Completely irrelevant to the issue at band. When did you last see me edit-warring, or even editing at all, on any Ulster Banner-related topics or articles? JonChapple^Talk 20:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Ed, I hardly think changing "often" to "frequently" counts as a revert. I didn't undo another editor's actions; – the words mean effectively the same thing – merely changed the sentence to read bit less clumsily, so there weren't two "often"s in quick succession. JonChapple^Talk 07:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That edit history merely shows that Liam Neeson's nationality is a confusing mess. I fail to see how trying to decide whether he's British, Irish or American or all three has anything to do with that particular conflict, other than the United Kingdom (and, informally, the Irish Republic) was involved in it. JonChapple^Talk 18:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Troubles violation that I can see, but the reverts listed above seem to show that JonChapple seems has broken the WP:3RR rule at United Kingdom. The wording changes may not look important, but people are actively reverting them back and forth. Here are some of the changes by JonC:

1. "often user the term as a short form of the United Kingdom" => "frequently use the term as a short form for the United Kingdom" [59]

2. "Style guides of British media, as well as British government sources, allow the use of Britain for the United Kingdom..." => "British government sources often use the term as a short form of the United Kingdom, whilst media style guides generally allow its use.." [60]

3 and 4. "an informal name for the United Kingdom" => "a short form for the United Kingdom" (he made this revert twice) [61] [62]

There is some kind of a talk discussion at Talk:United Kingdom#Great Britain, United Kingdom and style guides. Editors who have reverted JonC's changes include User:Mais oui, User:HighKing, User:Scolaire and User:Domer48.

This is a conventional 3RR violation, and if JonC persists, he may be conventionally blocked for edit warring, which the admins here could do if they agree. I don't see any need to invoke the authority of Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to mention, JonChapple's claims of harrassment by Domer48 should be looked at, as i believe Domer48 is trying his best to get JonChapple into trouble so that he can get him banned. JonChapple has raised such concerns to me previously of hounding, and i told them to gather what evidence they can so hopefully they have to show that whilst Domer48 is trying to get JonChapple into trouble for disruption, that Domer48 himself is being disruptive.

The 3RR situation in regards to Ireland articles is a joke as certain editors persue a gang-up policy to ensure none of them break the 3RR whilst getting another editor into trouble. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm inclined to close this as no AE action needed, per EdJohnston, who is the admin who imposed the sanction originally, and therefore whose views on its scope are entitled to substantial deference. As to Jonchapple's claim of harassment, admins "are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" contributions.^{US v. Dunkel, 927 F. 2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991)} Such claims need to be substantiated with diffs before they will be considered. T. Canens (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing: No violation of the Troubles sanctions. The edit warring on United Kingdom has not continued since 25 August and does not appear serious enough to block for. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mathsci (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Topic ban under WP:ARBR&I.

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

• [63] (historic record of discussion on Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology)

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

A warning was given in the discussion above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Miradre has been editing the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology for a while now. The subject is not directly related to the topic ban, but there is nevertheless some proximity with topics covered in Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy. The article currently contains a section Reification fallacy (historic link) which in its first paragraph discusses in detail the reification of intelligence, a topic introduced by Stephen Jay Gould in the precise context of the debate on R&I in the two articles above (it is discussed in those articles). I have advised Miradre that even discussing that section, or proposing that he would move it and thus edit that content, is a clear violation of the topic ban imposed by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The responses of Miradre in the section linked to above were evasive and gave no recognition that this particular topic ("the reification of intelligence") lay well within the topic ban. The discussion took place on the talk page of the article because Miradre has previously blanked messages from me on their user talk page.

Another edit of this kind occurred in the section on "criticism" in Sociobiology, a week into the topic ban. The beginning of the section makes it clear that the criticisms were related to the debate on race and intelligenc: there is a wikilink to the article race and intelligence. This material, including its relation with sociobiology, is also covered in the article on the history of the race and intelligence controversy. Miradre edited the section here[64], two paragraphs after the paragraph where the debate on race and intelligence is discussed. Miradre has edited other parts of this article more recently.

Miradre added the section on IQ in psychopathy 2 days before the topic ban,[65] which is fine. But correcting somebody else's edit to it after the ban [66] does not seem quite right.

Userspace edits like this [67], with an explicit discussion of R&I content and literature, are also blatantly pushing at the limits of the topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC) further edits. Mathsci (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

• Concluding comments The extended topic bans imposed here on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin should probably be revised to exclude compulsarily participation in WP:AE requests related to WP:ARBR&I in which they are not involved. As a result of Captain Occam's intervention, others, including me, have made general comments here on Miradre's editing patterns following his topic ban.

Taking into account the views of multiple experienced editors commenting here about Miradre's edits (presented as a consequence of Captain Occam's comments), it would appear that Miradre might be heading for a, regrettably unavoida.ble, indefinite community ban. That of course is not a concern of this noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[86]

• The topic ban is regarding the intersection of race and intelligence. There was no discussion regarding race. Neither was there a discussion regarding intelligence. I was simply pointing out that the given source does not mention evolutionary psychology at all.[87] I was making no claim regarding and did not discus either race or intelligence and thus not their intersection. The Reification (fallacy) is of course not something limited to race and intelligence or for that matter invented by Gould but a general logical fallacy discussed in numerous other areas. Miradre (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Futhermore, the claim by Matschi that the terms intelligence and reification are somehow inseparable from the race and intelligence discussion and "has never been used in another context to my knowledge" is very strange considering that there is no mention of race in the "Reification fallacy" section. Furthermore, there are 18,600 Google Scholar hits for the terms "intelligence" and "reification". Most do not seem to mention race.[88]
• Not sure why Mathsci brings up that quote from Gould's book. As noted above, I made no claims regarding and did not discuss either race or intelligence. Obviously therefore not their intersection. I stated that there is no mention of evolutionary psychology in the claimed sources.[89] Neither does the "Reification fallacy" section discuss the race and intelligence controversy or mention race at all. The Reification (fallacy) is a common logical fallacy in numerous different fields. Miradre (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Mathsci has more recently also added a diff from the sociobiology article which he claims is related to an hidden, unsourced link several paragraphs away[90]. The link is hidden under the name "controversies in the history of intelligence testing" and the article text itself does not mention race. Anyway, the is–ought problem is about statements of the type "if there is rape/infanticide/incest among some animal species, then humans ought to practice rape/infanticide/incest also". It is not about the race and intelligence controversy. None of the race and intelligence articles mention that problem. Miradre (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Mathsci also objects to me removing an incorrectly placed citation mark in the psychopathy article.[91] Had nothing to do with the intersection of race and intelligence. Shows the desperate nature of the accusations.Miradre (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note also this seems be part of a general harassment of me. Wherever I go Mathsci and sometimes Aprock appears to oppose me, even if they never had made any edits to the articles before. In particular Mathsci's almost only recent activity in Wikipedia is following me around as can be seen from his edit history. Often to articles he has never edited before I started editing them. As well as making numerous different complaints to various noticeboards or persons regarding me or the articles I edit. Something should be done about what seems to have become an almost scary obsession with me. Miradre (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, the earlier topic banned Mathsci has clearly broken his promise to the ArbCom to stay away from this area. [92] See for example his edits here in a discussion regarding Lynn's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations: [93][94][95]. Miradre (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Mathsci has now added a strange, misleading, and inaccurate misrepresentation of a dispute at the Democracy Now article. I did not mention that quote in the talk page in response to removing the information from the tax statement as Mathsci claims. I mentioned that biased quote as an ironic counter against the equally biased self-congratulatory, self-published quotes that are prominent in the article. As anyone can see on Talk:Democracy_Now!#NPOV_Dispute:_Quotes. As well as Mathsci's refusal to include anything negative. Also, this is unrelated to this AE case. Miradre (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Mathsci continues with his misrepresentations. First he implies that I had made a COI complaint while I only asked him to consider this on the talk page of the article. It was Mathsci who made a complaint regarding this on COI board which lead to no action since I had made no COI complaint. Regarding the copyright complaint Mathsci had uploaded a copyrighted paper to his webpage and gave a public link to this. This link was of course removed by the reviewing administrator. Also, again, this is completely unrelated to this AE case so I do not understand why he takes it up. Seems to be further harassment. Miradre (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Mathsci continues with completely unrelated issues. Yes, I accept the result of the discussion at the BLP board which I initiated but it has nothing to do with the topic ban. Miradre (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Continuing with yet more unrelated issues, Mathsci now starts talking of an "unavoidable, indefinite" community ban. Every one of the critical editors who have expressed opinions here are editors who have been involved in extensive content disputes with me. They are not uninvolved or representative of the community. I note that I edit constructively and add substantial new material to Wikipedia from academic sources while Mathsci's only activity these days seems to be to participate in disputes and WP:WIKIHOUND and revert those editors he dislikes. See also Captain Occam's comments regarding this below. Miradre (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Mathsci is now accusing an evolutionary psychologist objecting to his view of having a COI. This is just as incorrect as it would be to accuse the anthropologists supporting him of having a COI. Also, it likely violates the prohibition against using COI accusations in order to gain the upper hand in disputes. Miradre (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Mathsci has also not so subtly accused me of antisemitism. That is offensive and incorrect. I have never made any such edits or comments. In fact, I have repeatedly reverted deletions of material by antisemitic editors regarding IQ. As well as argued that recognition of racial differences in IQ is necessary in order to explain differing group achievements which otherwise likely are seen as unjustified exploitations by high IQ groups and can have, and have had, consequences like persecution and genocide of high IQ groups. See my comments here copied from an earlier ArbCom case: User:Miradre/sandbox2 Miradre (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition Mathsci apparently thinks that the topic ban prohibits me from defending myself against such accusations since he cites the sandbox quoting an earlier arbitration case as additional evidence. Miradre (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Aprock: Aprock has already tried to get the ArbCom to ban me for editing such articles in the Request for Clarification but he was ignored. Again taking up exactly the same accusations (including the book Human Accomplishment and its rankings of the fame of individuals) that was ignored by the ArbCom is harassment. None of the articles are about either intelligence or race. Obviously therefore not about their intersection. See also my earlier reply to his identical, ignored accusations earlier before the ArbCom: [96] Miradre (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, he includes an edit that I had self-reverted: [97]
• Aprock is also adding various grossly inaccurate personal editorials regarding my edits: "Criticisms of socialism: evolutionary criticism of socialism from A Darwinian Left" (The book argues the opposite), "Bride price: evolutionary psychology explains it all" (Certainly never claimed that), "Incest taboo: genetic explanations for incest" (evolutionary psychology argues for a genetic aversion to incest) (Update: This particular inaccuracy has been fixed now), as well as making claims of promotion due to simply adding evolutionary psychology templates to evolutionary psychology articles. He is also trying to insinuate, for example, that I made 96 edits to the Psychopathy article regarding genetic causes when such edits are only a very small minority of my edits to that article. Miradre (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Aprock has added some more incorrect commentary. First, I rarely use primary sources but instead use textbooks and reviews. Second, adding new views is not prohibited but part of NPOV. Third, aprock seems to be arguing that adding any evolutionary psychology material at all is undue in itself since he objects to articles having any mention at all of such views. Fourth, his complaints makes it perfectly clear that he is trying to use AE to win unrelated content disputes. Miradre (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Aprock continues making incorrect statements. This is, as clearly stated, a review article: [98] Miradre (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to ResidentAnthropologist (As well as Maunus, AndyTheGrump, and Itsmejudith who consistently turn up and argue with the same strong personal POV on these topics): This comment is somewhat weird. He seems to be arguing that all pages with a discussion of liberal and conservative views are related to race and intelligence. I can assure him that they are not. Also his claim that my view is that "the mainstream consensus is wrong on R&I" certainly does not describe my POV on that issue. My POV is that the majority view among academic IQ researchers as has been determined in surveys is correct. Currently one focus for me is improving Wikipedia's articles on evolutionary psychology subjects which also include the application in anthropology. That is a sensitive subject for some anthropologists who reject evolutionary psychology. Which may be behind ResidentAnthropologist's (as well as Maunus's) objections. However, there are many things in politics and psychology that are not about the race and intelligence controversy. I have avoided any edits concerning either race and intelligence and thus also their intersection. Some seem to be using the topic ban as an excuse to stop me from editing any topic they personally disagree on. Miradre (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment to AndyTheGrump: He claims without any evidence that "almost all anthropologists 'reject evolutionary psychology". Of course, I have already cited evidence to the contrary such as introductory anthropology textbooks on the Cultural Anthropology talk page. But I think his complaint illustrates quite nicely the attempt to use AE enforcement to win content disputes on issues unrelated to the topic ban. Miradre (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment to Itsmejudith: She argues that my "English is poor too so when s/he adds large amounts of content, other people have to clean up afterwards." I am not a native speaker. But I have almost all of what I add on my watchlist and "cleaning up" does not seem to occur to any significant degree. Also, this does not seem to be an AE issue. Miradre (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Slrubenstein: Since Slrubenstein is another anthropologist ideologically opposed to evolutionary psychology also look above. First, the representation of the debate at the cultural anthropology has numerous factual errors and misrepresentations but since Slrubenstein admits it did not concern R&I arbitration there is no reason to go into details. Second, evolutionary arguments are not an important or even at all part of the debate and evidence regarding whether racial differences in intelligence are genetic or not. That evidence concerns statistical analyzes of IQ tests, brain scanning, reactions time, genetic testing, and on. Now, there may be evolutionary explanations if it is proven that the differences are genetic but that is another issue. The race and IQ debate is not dependent on evolutionary psychology but it may be that certain views and ideologies in anthropology that some anthropologists here endorse do are dependent on evolutionary psychology views not being true. Again I have avoided any edits concerning either race and intelligence and thus also their intersection. Some seem to be using the topic ban as an excuse to stop me from editing any topic they personally disagree on for other reasons. Miradre (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by noting that Miradre has been testing the boundaries of his topic ban from day one. His request for clarification for precise delineation of "broadly construed" was submitted within 24 hours of his topic ban. Since then he has gone on to make edits in a large number of articles testing the boundary. The topic area is "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed" as described in the case amendments. Miradre has pursued two topic areas related to the topic ban. Miradre's edits in these topic areas have generated significant dispute and disruption. Extensive walls of text have been produced on talk pages and notice boards involving a diverse group of editors. Links to such discussions are included.

The first topic area is that of evolutionary explanations for behavior and ability. This is a generalization of the point of view that Miradre was pushing in the topic area when he was banned. Specifically, Miradre was promoting content which supported the position that intelligence is genetically linked to race.

Over the past month, Miradre has pursued the promotion of evolutionary psychology across 43 articles, many of which had no previous mention of the topic. Much of the content added is based on synthesis of primary sources, and generally adds undue weight to the view of evolutionary psychologists. This is exactly the same disruptive editing pattern that characterized Miradres approach to editing race/intelligence related articles. I ask that this specific issue addressed. If this is not the correct venue for this behavior to be addressed, I ask that an admin or ArbCom member suggest a more appropriate forum.

Editing of artilces to promote the views of evolutionary psychology and genetic determinism.

• A Darwinian Left: [99] genetically determined behavior
• A Natural History of Rape: [100] genetic evolution of rape
• Aggression: [101] evolutionary explanations of aggression
• Agoraphobia: [102] evolutionary psychology explanations
• Antisocial personality disorder: 9 edits. [103] genetic vs. social explanations
• Archaeology: [104] biology vs. sociology
• Beard: [105] evolutionary psychology explanations for beards
• Bride price: [106] evolutionary psychology explains it all
• Causes of sexual violence: [107] evolutionary explanation of rape
• Cognitive bias: [108] promotion of evolutionary psychology
• Concealed ovulation: [109] evolutionary psychology explanations
• Criticism of evolutionary psychology: 106 edits. (see discussion above)

Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology: majority of talk page

• Criticisms of socialism: [110] evolutionary criticism of socialism from A Darwinian Left
• Cultural anthropology: 5 edits. [111] evolutionary/genetic explanations

Talk:Cultural_anthropology#NPOV_dispute: talk page discussion (quite the worthwhile read)

• Darwinian literary studies: [112] promoting evolutionary psychology
• Disgust: [113] undue synthesis based on single primary source
• Dowry: [114] evolutionary psychology explanations for dowries
• Evolution of morality: [115] undue synthesis based on single primary source
• Evolutionary approaches to depression: [116] promotion of evolutionary psychology
• Evolutionary developmental psychopathology: [117] promotion of evolutionary psychology
• Evolutionary ethics: 7 edits. [118] removing eugenics information
• Evolutionary musicology: [119] promotion of evolutionary psychology
• Evolutionary psychology: 10 edits. [120] criticisms of environmental explanations

Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#Controversies_section_violates_NPOV: talk page discussion

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard: notice board discussion

• Evolutionary psychology of religion: [121] evolutionary explanation of religion
• Fear: [122] evolutionary psychology explanations based on primary sourcing
• Gender and crime: [123] genetic explanations for gender differences in crime
• History of evolutionary psychology [124] touting of evolutionary psychology
• Incest taboo: [125] genetic explanations for incest taboo

Talk:Incest taboo#NPOV_dipuste: talk page dispute

• Kinship: [126] evolutionary psychology theories

Talk:Kinship#Thesis: talk page dispute

• Modularity of the mind: 9 edits. [127] added evolutionary psychology content
• Nature vs nurture: 5 edits. [128] moved evolutionary psychology material to the article
• Obsessive–compulsive disorder: [129] evolutionary psychology explanations based on primary sourcing
• Phobia: [130] evolutionary explanations
• Physical attractiveness: [131], [132] promotion of genetic and evolutionary psychology content
• Posttraumatic stress disorder: [133] evolutionary psychology section added
• Prehistory: [134] spamming evolutionary psychology
• Psychopathy: 96 edits. [135] evolutionary explanations

Talk:Psychopathy#Prenatal_precursor_section: talk page discussion

• Social anthropology: 6 edits. [136] social vs. evolutionary explanations
• Social anxiety disorder: [137] evolutionary explanations
• Sociobiological theories of rape: [138] evolutionary explanations of rape
• Sperm competition: [139] link article to Sociobiological theories of rape
• Syncope (medicine): [140] evolutionary psychology views added
• The Blank Slate: 35 edits. The article is about a popular book that argues for more consideration of genetic explanation of human behavior

Talk:The Blank Slate#Book reviews: talk page discussion

• Trypanophobia: [141] evolutionary psychology added
• Violence: [142] evolutionary/genetic explanations of violence
• War: 10 edits. [143] Inserting evolutionary psychology views from The Blank Slate

The second topic area is in the promotion of Charles Murray's book Human Accomplishment. As author of The Bell Curve Charles Murray is a key figure in the race and intelligence debate.

Editing of articles to promote Charles Murray's book:

• Discussion at NPOV/N: [144] (archived version: [145])
• Aristotle [146]
• Einstein's awards and honors [147]
• Genius [148]
• Historiometry [149]
• Isaac Newton [150]
• Leonhard Euler [151]

Talk:Leonhard_Euler#Removing_Charles_Murray.27s_Human_Accomplishment: talk page discussion

• Shakespeare's reputation [152]

Note that the diffs provided above are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all topical edits.

I too like Captian Occam have been observing the MathSci/Miradre. MathSci is quite open about tracking Mirandre's edits to the encyclopedia. Miradre seems to spew their POV in any article they can think of. Examine the Scenarios Occam Pointed out, where Mirandre attempts this to continue their own POV pushing here:

• Academia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Implicitly by suggesting that "Liberals" are in control of Academia and that they all in a massive "group think." (Thus the mainstream consensus is wrong on R&I) and does the same thing to Academia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
• NPR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Public broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are other great examples of continuing "Liberal Vs Conservative" war consistent with far right thinking by attempting to suggest their harmful.
• Social anthropology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Cultural Anthropology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) pages are extension of promoting the heredterian POV. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should start off by mentioning that although I’m topic banned from R&I, my topic ban makes an exception for AE, based on this request for clarification in which ArbCom determined that topic bans are not intended to prevent editors from opening or posting in AE threads. In the AE thread where my topic ban was expanded, the suggestion that I not participate in AE threads related to the R&I topic area is listed as "not compulsory". This exception is based on the linked request for clarification: "The latest clarification request may have carved out AE requests as a special case, but I see no justification to expand that exception further."

I’ve been paying attention to this issue involving Mathsci and Miradre because of an e-mail Mathsci sent me on June 30th, threatening me with some of the behavior that he’s directing at Miradre if I attempt to appeal my topic ban. (On June 30th I’d had no contact with Mathsci in the past several months—the only context of him e-mailing me was that I was discussing the possibility of appealing my topic ban with Newyorkbrad.) The last time I had to endure the full extent of this from Mathsci was sometime in February, so I’ve been watching his interaction with Miradre to get an idea of how he currently acts towards people whom he regards as his adversaries. What I’ve seen isn’t encouraging.

I am aware of five examples of Mathsci following to Miradre to articles he had never edited before in order to revert Miradre’s edits. In all five examples, literally the first involvement Mathsci ever had in these articles was reverting edits by Miradre.

1. Academia [153]
2. Groupthink [154]
3. NPR [155]
4. Public Broadcasting [156]
5. Cultural Anthropology [157]

That’s only the articles in which Mathsci’s absolute first edit to both the article and its talk page was reverting Miradre. If one also includes articles where his first involvement was opposing changes from Miradre without reverting him outright, there are three additional examples: The Blank Slate, in which the first edit Mathsci ever made was tagging content that Miradre added as being non-neutral, [158] as well as Leonhard Euler and Democracy Now!, in which Mathsci’s first-ever participation was to oppose Miradre’s edits on the talk page. [159] [160] The edits that Mathsci opposes from Miradre are on topics as diverse as the possible over-representation of liberals in academia, a book by the psychologist Steven Pinker, and public radio broadcasting. The only common theme to these edits is that regardless of where Miradre goes on Wikipedia, or what sorts of articles he edits, he can always count on Mathsci following him there and opposing him.

There are a few other ways that I think Mathsci’s behavior towards Miradre could be considered harassment:

• Mathsci’s habit of restoring his posts in Miradre’s user talk when Miradre attempts to remove them. For example [161] [162], [163] [164], or [165] [166]. (Note the threatening edit summary in the last diff.)
• In addition to that edit summary, there have been a few other examples of Mathsci trying to intimidate Miradre by threatening him with a community ban, such as [167] and [168].
• This isn't the only example of Mathsci being uncivil towards Miradre, but it might be the best one: [169] [170] [171] [172]
• As I understand it, this last exchange (“Please respect my privacy”, and Mathsci’s reaction) is referring to another type of harassment that Mathsci has directed at Miradre, which is publicly posting what he thinks is Miradre’s off-wiki identity and where he thinks Miradre lives. The DeviantArt account that Mathsci claims belongs to Miradre lists its owner’s real name on its main page, so this is an indirect way that Mathsci has revealed what he thinks is Miradre’s real name.
• Mathsci has also continued to bring up Miradre’s alleged location in subsequent content disputes, even though Miradre has never voluntarily disclosed this information. [173] [174]

Does it require any explanation what’s wrong with this? Anybody who’s been a Wikipedian for as long as Mathsci must be aware that it isn’t acceptable to try and intimidate another editor by posting private information about them, and that the request “please respect my privacy” from that editor should be responded to with something other than “Ha, ha, ha, ha.” More importantly, Mathsci has already been sanctioned for behavior that’s similar to this. I think in the past year I’ve improved on the behavior for which I was sanctioned in the R&I case (edit warring, etc.) but when I compare Mathsci’s behavior over the past month to the behavior described in his finding of fact, I don’t see any improvement.

---

I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about the quality of Miradre’s editing, so the purpose of this post isn’t to defend him. However, I think that Mathsci’s recent behavior is problematic enough that admins should consider the application of WP:BOOMERANG here. Perhaps the most appropriate response to this thread would be for Miradre and Mathsci to both be sanctioned.

I’m aware that in the past Mathsci has been a valuable editor because of his useful contributions to articles about math and classical music. However, according to his comment here, as of the beginning of this year Mathsci has lost interest in making contributions to articles. Looking at all of his recent contributions, his exclusive focus now is on pursuing the editors that he regards as his adversaries. This is after several arbitrators already told him here that he should cease his involvement in the R&I topic area. Quoting what Roger Davies said to Mathsci there: “I expressed the hope in the motion lifting the topic restriction that you'd walk away entirely from R&I-related issues. This is because I do not believe that participants in cases are the best people to push for enforcement as it only opens old wounds (as has happened here). If another editor's conduct is egregious enough, it will be noted by other - less involved - editors, who can initiate appropriate action. That advice still stands and I urge you to follow it.”

I should reiterate what my reason is for caring about this: even though Mathsci has mostly left me alone since his attempt to get me site-banned in February, his e-mail to me on June 30th makes it as clear as possible that this is only a temporary respite from him until I attempt to appeal my topic ban. Therefore, it is almost certain that in the future I’ll once again have to put up with the behavior he’s currently directing at Miradre, unless something is done to stop it. It would be beneficial to the community if Mathsci could somehow be encouraged to stop defying the instructions he was given by Roger Davies, and go back to making useful edits on math and music articles. I don’t have a strong opinion about how that should be accomplished, but I think admins should consider the suggestion that Ludwigs2 made in the amendment thread linked above: that Mathsci be placed under a restriction that disallows him from commenting on the behavior of other editors.

Update 8/16: Can any admins see the edit summary in this diff? This edit summary was the most recent example of outing from Mathsci, but it’s apparently been oversighted now. I saw what the edit summary said before it got overisghted, but I’m assuming that I shouldn’t repeat it here, because the whole point of content being oversighted is to make it not visible anymore. If any admins can access this edit summary, I think it’s Mathsci’s most blatant policy violation in this thread—although the fact that it’s been oversighted probably makes that obvious, since oversight isn’t used for run-of-the-mill personal attacks.

Response to EdJohnston

It was a request for clarification, not a formal motion, and it's here. In other words, an actual modification wasn’t necessy, because ArbCom decided that my topic ban hadn’t been intended to extend to AE in the first place. When Ferahgo’s and my topic bans were extended by you and Timothy Canens in this thread, the extension made a specific exception for AE because of this request for clarification. The instruction to not post about others’ behavior at AE was listed under the heading “The following is advice, and it is not compulsory”. The diff of where you included this exception is here. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

As I said above, I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about the quality of Miradre’s content editing, and it may be that there are some legitimate POV problems with it. However, it’s important to understand that this isn’t just an issue of Mathsci following Miradre from one article to another. What makes this a problem is that it’s being combined with other types of behavior that can also be considered harassment, such as restoring his deleted comments in Miradre’s user talk, trying to intimidate Miradre by posting as personal information about him, and responding with incivility when Miradre asks Mathsci to respect his privacy. These are the specific things that cause Mathsci’s behavior to rise to the level of what I consider harassment, although it certainly makes it worse that there doesn’t appear to be anywhere on Wikipeda that Miradre can go to escape from this.

I'm kind of amazed by how often I see the attitude that some other editors are displaying here, which I think is best summarized as “Incivility and attempted outing are okay when the editor doing them is right about content.” Is there a policy that says this that I don’t know about? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comments specifically on the R&I arbitration. However, I have yet to see Mirardre make a well-researched NPOV contribution to an article. I do not think Mirardre fits the bill of "single-purpose editor" but she is one step away. At the Race and Intelligence article, it turned out that the most persistent arguments that blacks are inherently inferior to whites in intelligence came from people promoting evolutionary psychology, which took Mirardre to EP articles. Then it emerged that one of the established academic disciplines most critical of EP is anthropology, which took Mirardre to Anthropology articles. I just spent the past few days undoing Mirardre's tendentious edits to various anthropology articles (in short: Mirardre found one journal article that had a comment to it that encouraged dialogue between anthropology between EP and anthropology. On the basis of this comment alone, EP added a whole new section to each article on the importance of EP within anthropology.[175] Do I have to tell you how many peer-review articles are published on anthropology each year? Imagine if, for each article, we created a new section in the encyclopedia article! And Mirardre was not even drawing on the article, but on a comment to an article. Note: academics do not list such comments on their CVs because they are not peer-reviewed (whether Mirardre doesn't know this fact or knows it but disregards it, either way it suggests she is not qualified to edit on academic topics. I deleted the addition because it gave undue weight to a fringe view, and from an inappropriate source.

The really troubling thing is this: the article itself was an interesting article on the nature-culture divide, and was accompanied by several comments. I pointed out to Miradre that there are a number of other articles on this theme, and that she could draw on these different articles and write a very informative and appropriate section on emerging new approaches to nature-culture in anthropology.[176] I was trying to take Mirardre's edit, and make a good-faith effort to consider what kind of work would lead to a genuinely positive edit, and give Mirardre constructive feedback. Mirardre just changed topics.

Mirardre then went on to argu that a whole chapter of a current textbook on cultural anthropology is about EP.[177] Again, my concern was, how to turn a source into an imporovement to our article, and I asked Mirardre to summarize the chapter. Mirardre became evasive, and refused to discuss the contents of the chapter, insisting that the important point is that there is a whole chapter.[178] Well, it turns out that is just a lie. MathSci took the time to verify Mirardre's claim and discovered that there is no such chapter.[179] As Matchsci demonstrated, the topic occupied two pages in a 450 page book.[180] Then Maunus found the textbook, read it, and discovered that the textbook "describes EP as a discipline that 'impinges on cultural anthropology.'"[181]

From this, we can see the following:

• Mirardre does not have the reading comprehension level of a college student (the audeicne for the textbook)
• Mirardre misrepresents sources in order to promote Mirardre's views
• Mirardre gets upset when other editors actually know more than her

I admit that this discussion on the surface is not about race and intelligence, but if you go back to the attempted mediation at R&I by Ludwigs, and subsequent arguments there, anthropology was consistently deprecated by advocates of EP in scholarly debates over race and intelligence.

A final comment on MathSci, whose editing has been impugned. It is true that MathScie has written a great many articles for WP, all impeccably sourced and well-written. It is true that he does not write as many new articles any more. I do not either. That is because my job requires m to write articles for which I will get credit, and WP does not count. I cannot speak for MathSci but I think a minimum requirement for an editor of an encyclopedia is the ability to comprehend that volunteer editors have more pressing and time-consuming obligations that mean they contribute erratically. We must judge MathSci not by the frequency of his edits by by their quality. I just went into some detail about an exchange on a talk page because this is the kind of contribution Captain Occam deprecates. Yet here we see that MathSci's contribution was exemplary and in fact just the kind of talk page contribution WP depends if it is to exist: Matchsci provided the evidence that Mirardre lied about there being a whole chapter on EP; MathSci provided the evidence that Mirardre was violating WEIGHT; along with Maunus MathSci demonstrated that Mirardre misrepresented the source. Were Mirardre left to her own devices we would have articles with lots of sources - but the articles would be poorly written, misrepresent the sources, even lie about them, and misrepresent scholarly debates. I have tried to work collaboratively with Mirardre and Mirardre has shown no interest in real research. Until Mirardre is banned, someone will have to check every source she cites, and correct her mistakes. This is a takes MathSci has assumed. He (and Maunus) deserves our praise and thanks for this Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much time to edit right now, but would just like to say in reference to comments above that Maunus and SlRubenstein are real experts in social science topics, while Miradre, as far as I can see actually is working like an SPA. His/her level of English is poor too, so when s/he adds large amounts of content, other people have to clean up afterwards. There seems to be a lack of understanding of how to summarise from academic texts, as opposed to direct quoting. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that given Miradre's past and current behavior it is fully justified, indeed necessarry that editors who are aware of his history review his edits to almost any page that he might edit. He is clearly agenda driven in the large majority of his edits - wikipedia cannot afford to let that go unsupervised. There is a difference between hounding and actually watching out for potential content problems based on documented experience with certain editors editing patterns. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second Maunus's comments. I'm not going to suggest that any of us can ever approach Wikipedia with a truly neutral POV (I don't believe that such a thing exists), but I think that Miradre not only edits in such a way at to push a particular POV beyond any acceptable limits, but that also, from the evidence offered, actually goes out of his/her way to find ways to do so, knowing that this will provoke a response. Frankly, I see no way that this attitude can be seen as compatible with Wikipedia's objectives. If Miradre wishes to change public opinion, and/or the opinions of academia regarding issues of race, heredity, and related issues, fine - that is his/her right - just not here, and not in the belligerent manner exhibited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Miradre writes above: "Currently one focus for me is improving Wikipedia's articles on evolutionary psychology subjects which also include the application in anthropology. That is a sensitive subject for some anthropologists who reject evolutionary psychology". Given that almost all anthropologists 'reject evolutionary psychology' (or does Miradre have evidence to the contrary?), such 'improvements' are nothing of the kind - they are instead attempts to apply undue weight to theories of little relevance to the topic in question. This is further evidence of Miradre's endless POV pushing and general combative attitude. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now Miradre responds by claiming to have 'cited evidence' in Talk:Cultural anthropology regarding the significance of evolutionary psychology to the subject. Fine. Except that the 'evidence' turned out to be almost entirely based on misrepresentation of the sources - again proving precisely the point I made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Slrubenstein is another anthropologist ideologically opposed to evolutionary psychology". And yet again, Miradre insinuates that any attempt to point out that the overwhelming consensus within cultural/social anthropology is that evolutionary psychology is of limited significance to the subject is based on 'ideology' - a highly dubious proposition, entirely lacking evidence. Anyone remotely familiar with the often-heated discourse within social/cultural anthropology will find the proposition that there is a common ideology laughable. Still, insinuations of bias are easy to make, and have the advantage that you don't have to offer evidence. Not directly related to this AR/E discussion, of course, except in that it may indicate why any topic ban is going to fail as long as Miradre persists with this battleground mentality and endless search for new articles to promote an ideologically motivated (yeah, I can do it too...) biological determinist perspective in subjects where such perspectives are fringe, if not entirely irrelevant.AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a response to Memills (below): are you going to offer any evidence to back up your suggestions that those commenting here have 'another agenda', or are you just going to leave it hanging, like the vacuous insinuation it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And while Memills is at it, what the heck is an 'anti-biological POV'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a "construct" has a long history in science, long before Gould. Nor is it limited to studies of intelligence; the term "construct" is used in many, if not most, areas of science. See the relevant WP article: constructs. That several editors above think that it only applies to intelligence is rather shocking. Rather, given the very strong anti-biological POVs of these editors, I suspect another agenda.

The editors criticizing Miradre fail to note that there was previous discussion on the Talk page about moving the "reification fallacy" subsection, as well as other sections, and was initiated by several other editors (not Miradre), (see here and here). The rationale for the move was that many of the criticisms of evolutionary psychology are actually more germane to the nature vs. nurture page than to evolutionary psychology in particular. The editors above who label evolutionary psychology as "genetic determinism," and/or who suggest that editors who are trying to accurately describe evolutionary psychology are "promoting" it, betray a strong anti-biological POV.

The attempt to associate moving the "reification fallacy" subsection with the topic of intelligence (to snag Miradre) is a red herring. It seems to me to be a POV-motivated attempt to harass and silence an editor with whom they philosophically disagree. Memills (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that more uninvolved people haven't shown up to offer their opinion on Miradre's editing. So far everyone criticizing him seem to be R&I regulars who followed him to other topics after he was topic banned (well, except for Itsmejudith who was recruited by Mathsci specifically to oppose Miradre [182]). We could get a clearer picture about whether Miradre's editing has been a problem if some of the editors active on other articles he edits (like, from the looks of it, psychology and public broadcasting etc) would post, instead of just the core group of editors who have historically opposed him on R&I and then followed him elsewhere.

For the record, I think there are some issues with Miradre's editing. The biggest one I've seen is his long, circular, and often off-topic arguments with other editors (Mathsci in particular) on talk pages. See a recent typical example of this here. This began as a question of whether Memills has a COI by commenting here as Mathsci claimed and then removed. This quickly devolved into an argument about whether it was a personal attack when Mathsci said that Miradre's arguments "are like those of a small child." Two uninvolved editors, Olyeller21 and Atama, complained there about how Miradre and Mathsci tend to waste other editors' time with this endless bickering.

I think Mathsci is more at fault here than Miradre. In my own experience I've seen that it is possible to resolve content disputes with Miradre, it just takes some effort and patience. On the other hand I've found that reasoned discussion with Mathsci is often impossible. Mathsci does not comment on the talk pages of R&I articles, apparently because he has promised ArbCom not to, so whenever he disagrees with one of my edits he responds with threats and accusations in my user talk.

• Some examples of Mathsci accusing me of colluding with other editors: [183] [184] Note his comment "This strategy of tracking a single editor is ill-advised" yet he has no problem doing the same thing to Miradre.

• Some examples of Mathsci commenting to threaten me with sanctions: [185] [186]

• Some examples of Mathsci continuing to comment in my user talk after I asked him to stop: [187] [188]

Two things worth noting here. First is the sheer quantity of this: nearly half of all revisions to my talk page are from Mathsci. Secondly, this is literally the entirety of my interaction with him. Never have I interacted with him on talk pages or articles, I have no prior history with him, and did not even know who he was until he started threatening me in my user talk. Based on my experience and observation, Mathsci has virtually no interest in collaborative discussions about content. When he disagrees with anyone's edits, he generally just resorts to belittlement, accusations, and threats.Boothello (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I hope that User:Captain Occam can supply a diff to the place where Arbcom modified his ban to allow him to comment at Arbitration Enforcement in R&I requests where his own edits have not been mentioned. This Arbcom action would, I assume, have been a formal motion. Lacking such evidence, I urge him to cease commenting here. The only edits being reviewed in this AE are those of Miradre and possibly Mathsci. (Mathsci's own edits are subject to review since he is the submitter). EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, per the Captain's response, I agree that his previous topic ban allows him to comment at AE. Should the admins here decide that his posts are not helpful, they might comment on that or take action on that when this report closes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to come here to look over this request for enforcement. I don't normally get involved in arbitration enforcement, but this request has sat for weeks without any action. I'm uninvolved and an administrator, so I figured that I might as well give this a shot.

There is a lot of discussion about this topic, but I think I can cut it down simply. Essentially, Miradre has been involved in the Criticism of evolutionary psychology article, and has edited the article as recently as a week ago. He is currently topic-banned under the discretionary sanctions proposed at WP:ARBR&I, per 2/0's decision, and the ban will not expire until early October. So the only question that needs to be asked, is whether or not the article in question falls under the ARBR&I ban.

Let me repeat what the actual ban covers, to clear up any misconceptions. The initial arbitration case was titled "Race and Intelligence", but the ban covers "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed".

Looking at the article, it's quite clear that human abilities and behavior are part of the article, specifically psychology itself, the discussion of IQ and personality traits in the "reification" section, the adaptability of human behavioral traits, and so on. In addition, those are intersected with ethnicity quite clearly, there is even a section on Ethnocentricism.

That means that the article clearly falls under the topic ban, and given the clear intention to "push the boudaries" as demonstrated above, I don't see that this is an isolated incident. Therefore, I am blocking Miradre for the maximum of one month, as recommended at WP:ARBR&I#Enforcement of topic-bans by block. -- Atama頭 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]