Stellarkid

The following discussion is archived.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Stellarkid topic-banned, 2 months.AGK23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement:
Mr Unsigned Anon (talk)20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Stellarkid (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it:

1. [1] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus 27 Sep 06:51
2. [2] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus 27 Sep 17:02
3. [3] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus duringRfC 2 Oct 03:27
4. [4] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus duringRFC 6 oct 06:18
5. [5] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus duringRFC 7 oct 00:07 (6 oct 06:18 typo)
6. [6] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text during 2:nd editwar 15 Oct 16:30
7. [7] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text during 2:nd editwar 15 Oct 20:20
8. [8] Complaining over his own editwar at admin, showing intent to continue 15 oct 20:23
9. [9] Open AE against Nableezy 27 oct, ended 29 oct 21:00
10. [10] Tryig to round up Cptnono "== G Massacre == Just curious as to why you won't engage on the page with Nableezy out? Your opinion matters" 31 Oct 22:47
11. [11] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text 1 Nov 04:32
12. [12] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text 1 Nov 05:41

All edit above is about the lead dispute in article [Gaza War] and about the single words 'Gaza Massacre'.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. [13] Warning byTedder (talk ·contribs)
2. [14] Warning byMalik Shabazz (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block,topic ban orother sanction):
Requesting topicban

Additional comments byMr Unsigned Anon (talk):
Stellarkid (talk) have as seen continued his editwarring after the topicban ofnableezy -21:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) showing battlementallity whithout any sign of change.[reply]

• Response toEnigma

Your statement bather me as you sounds uninformed about me, and my case at AE. Have you read it at all? Have you read Jiujitsuguys ignorant ramblings and done some reserch about them? And about the 'helpfull' userTyw7 who starting up the first AE case after I asked him for help against Jiujitsuguys ramblings?. If you going to adress any of Jiujitsugus accusations against me you better find out if there is any substanse behind them or just a morons ramblings, yes ban me now damnit.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk)08:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Further response toEnigma

If you mean what you say and topicban atleast as many you threaten to do, perhaps even more of the povfilled editors on both sides, I guess that involve me. And I am positive to a solution like that. Let it be the night of the long blades. And I say sinserly, that would be the best to happen for wikipedia regarding IP-conflict related articles any administrator can do ever. Just be sure not to throw out any babies with the water.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk)11:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Responce to Stellarkid

Who did the AE against Nableezy for you? It cant be yourself as you show you dont understand editdiffs. That fact that you dont understand but have such a loud mouth is baffeling, even for you. And suprisingly to even more extent for Jiujitsuguy. Are you to releted? Cant belive you try to defend yourself with that crap of text. I cant stand it. Is this a conspiracy of morons here? You try to induce a hemorrhage to my poor brain? Why no policy against that. I have to go and suggest that somewhere. Next time try to understand the editdiffs or atleast use your left mousbutton and klick on it and, wow, not a dupe. Just a typo in the time/date. Incredable. Administrators (those of you who have understanding (most I do hope)), interfere or Wikipedia is doomed. As I said before. Ban me to if its needed, just remove that gang of highly devoted idiots. Wikipedias survival is at stake.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk)22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[15]

This has been a hard one for me to address and I will add a bit more tomorrow on specifics, but here is my more general statement.

I have been engaging in discussion in regard to this edit sinceArchive 58 &Archive 59 (long enough for my words to have been archived!) and onthe current talk page. In fact, this particular edit has been argued almost since the first week of the article, as one can see by reading the archive. For the record, the archive is now going on 60 pages andthe discussion regarding the Gaza "massacre" has been significant. There is not now, nor do I believe there has been, consensus to put this in the lede of the article.

That is why I spent considerable time discussing thepolicy issues involved, but was met consistently with the argument that "there is no consensus to remove the edit". There were even a couple of "no consensus" removals made by Mr Unsigned Anon himself[16][17] . One editor said the sheer number of words on the talk pages would have made us rich if we were paid by the word, lol -- and I am confident he was referring to me.

If it is true asWP:EW says: "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each others' contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion," then I am innocent of the charge.

I did do a handful of reversions over the last month, but by no means did I try tooverride anyone's contributions "without attempting to resolve issues by discussion."

The problem is, just as there was no consensus to remove the material, as charged; neither was there a consensus to add it. This becomes a circular argument and inherently feeds an edit war.WP:CONSENSUS points out thatDeveloping consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on. Those were exactly the concerns that were brought out in argument on the archives and talk pages.

I tried to stay with policy based reasons, as did all the editors who objected to its inclusion, starting withWP:CCC which says that "no consensus" is not an appropriate reason for reverting. Some editors, as I did, complained that the sources did not support the contentionWP:V, that the edit wasWP:OR, some offeredWP:NPOV, that the edit was not neutral. Some claimed it was neutral because it was an "alternative name", the other said it was not a name but a non-neutral description. One side said it wasWP:CENSOR, the other said it was OK in the body, but not in the lede thus not censorship. Some wanted to use Arab sources and other editor/translators on Wiki and others quotedWP:NONENG. Another policy-based argument that was made wasWP:LEADCITE which says: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

WP:BURDEN says thatthe burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If there is no consensus for an edit, the edit is controversial, seen as POV and offensive by some editors, unsupported by others, I believe it should be removed until there is consensus to include it, rather than included until there is consensus to remove it.

I'm not trying to be a policy wonk here but I think WP has these guidelines and policies for just such a reason, and believe in this case they support me rather than the complainant.Stellarkid (talk)07:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more specificity as promised:

I feel confident that this AE is in retaliation for the recent one I advanced against Nableezy, ([18]) coming as it does on the heels of it, and seeing how he himself participated in this "war" as I pointed out earlier. He canvassed an administrator to warn mejust hours before filing this complaint --

• "think its protectiontime again. I would prefere a version with Stellarkids reverts undone"

Mr Anon himself demonstrates broad propensity to remove sourced materials that do not conform to his view. See for example these diffs with the accompanying edit summaries:

• [19]" Cant understand why the lead is filled upp with pov stuff even if ballansing out eachother. Start a section or continue to use the reportin other sections. I put the stuff I cut in talk for use els)"
• [20]
• [21] removed israeli side exlanation that is undue weight in lead)
• [22] Removing israels intention to not cooperate. Its intention is bring undue weight and can be presented futher down.)
• [23]
• [24] views, comments away.

But though there are some who might suggest it, I realize that this AE is not about him but about me.

Specifically related to the diffs in question- please note that my edit summaries all refer to policy, and are always accompanied with discussion on the talk page!

The first three diffs are to acompromise version that removesboth Operation Cast Lead and "Gaza Massacre" from the lede. This was to answer the complaint that Operation Cast Lead was a name which showed a bias toward the Israeli POV.

Edit four[25] was a compromise suggestion, retaining the word "massacre".

Edit five is a duplicate of edit four, an error by Mr Unsigned Anon.

Edit six and seven was an attempt to start afresh after the article had been locked. Again this was based on my belief that contentious material, particularly in the lede, should be removed until there is consensus to include it, rather than we should provide a consensus to remove it, post facto.

Edit eleven was also an attempt to start with a fresh slate by removingall the names until consensus was achieved to put them back in.

Edit twelve was acompromise with an editor on talk to put back at least the name with the most Google news hits, ie OCL.

Diff 8 Is ludicrous, since I ask for further article protection and guidance. And since the article had been locked the the offending passage in place, makes no sense whatsoever.

Diff 10 is equally ludicrous, as Cptnono's opinion does indeed count.

In the WP essayWP:Consensus not numbers it saysIn many cases, people have claimed to reach consensus, but really just got tired of considering the views of the minority report, so the result became the bullying by the majority. I see this as exactly the case in this article, through consistent reversions to the same edit presumably "against consensus," as well as through the use of various boards meant to intimidate opposing editors into leaving the article. I could not walk away, since "silence implies consent" and there is a larger principle involved that would not be served by walking away and agreeing to disagree. This allows "the opposition" to continue to claim that the edit is stable and consensus-based, when it is not. If the argument is advanced that there must be consensus to remove something, it is obvious that there is no consensus for the addition in the first place.Stellarkid (talk)17:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of the topic ban onGaza War,Talk:Gaza War, and any other pages related to the subject. I've only become involved in mediatingGaza War since it came up on RFPP; I endorse a topic ban for this user to restore some civility to the article and talk page. Perhaps a time limit of a year should be put on the user, so they have an opportunity to be productive after then?tedder (talk)21:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he was trying to "round me up". I completely agree that Gaza massacre as it is used is incorrect. I'm trying to chill out from this page since it has gotten so out of hand, I need to cool down, and I thought Stellar's concise reasoning could handle the job just fine without me screwing it up. He didn't understand thatWP:3RR included reversal of "actions of other editors, in whole or in part." It looks like he thought his reasoning was sufficient so the change was OK. It doesn't work that way. He juts got a warning from two admins about the same 3 reverts and I hope he takes it to heart. Being newer isn't an excuse but it should be taken into consideration. I also think a reminder of the motherly "2 wrongs don't make a right" is something would be nice. I think this AE is premature and Stellar will show that he is more than capable of following the rules and needs to go reread them. Punishing him to restore stability (which has never existed on the article unfortunately) is completely out of line. Asking him to not edit war over "massacre" should work but if you need justice (which isn't the point of this is it?) impose a 1rr.Cptnono (talk)21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: The length of how long this has been going on should have no bearing on Stellar. He deserves a fair assessment without being lumped in with others. This recent wave (that is how it looks to me at least) involves editors who have not been involved with AE before or are newer to the article as well.Cptnono (talk)07:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I felt the decision concerning Nableezy above was uncomfortably one-sided, given that he was handed a stiff topic ban while Stellarkid, who had edit warred with equal enthusiasm since arriving at the page in question, got no sanction whatever, I had reluctantly decided to make no comment about it as I felt it best not to second guess the judgement of an uninvolved admin. At this point however, I feel something must be said.

I thought Stellarkid was extremely fortunate not to have also been topic banned in the previous case, given his sheer hypocrisy in bringing the case against Nableezy when he had been almost equally guilty of edit warring on the same article (examples[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]) but the fact that he has immediatelyresumed his edit war over the edit in question after just seeing another editor given a stiff penalty for doing so, demonstrates either an extraordinary lack of restraint or else a palpable contempt for this process. Either way, I think at this point Stellarkid must receive a sanction at least on par with that given to Nableezy (although as I understand it the length of Nableezy's ban is currently under review). This kind of behaviour is simply not acceptable.Gatoclass (talk)23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This report has degenerated into a mess. Why aren't users abiding by the instruction tocomment only in your own section? Please show some respect for the AE admins and stop treating this like a talk thread.Gatoclass (talk)04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any sanction against Stellarkid. He is an excellent editor who has contributed greatly to the integrity of the article in question and has remained civil throughout. This is a common tactic that Mr Unsigned Anon employs. He attempts to silence and censor those he disagrees with by filing complaints and having them blocked or topic banned. If anyone deserves to be sanctioned it's Mr Unsigned Anon for the following reasons:

He has reverted me twice here[35] and here[36] within a span of less than 24 hrs. The second revert is particularly distressing becuase I was engaged in a debate with another editor who asked me to self revert here[37] and I was considering his request as evidenced by[38] Then Mr Unsigned Anon comes along and reverts me before the other editor even has a chance to respond to my proposal. Mr Unsigned Anon is very savvy and sophisticated when it comes to Wiki rules and procedure. He will push the envelope just far enough without bursting it. While technically, he's not in violation of 3R in letter, he's certainly in violation of spirit.

Moreover, he has engaged in a disruptive and infantile course of conduct

I've compiled a list of Diffs for your review concerning Mr Unsigned Anon. A review of these Diffs is important and sheds light on the nature of Mr Unsigned Anon.

Here [[39]] he is warned to stop engaging in disruptive reverts.

Here [[40]] he makes inquiries about my race.

Here [[41]] he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics.

Here [[42]] he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.

Here[[43]] he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page.

Here [[44]] he taunts me to engage him in an edit war.

None of these comments are relevant, all of them are infantile and some of them are downright offensive. A sanction should therefore be imposed on Mr Unsigned Anon in the form of a lengthy topic ban.--Jiujitsuguy (talk)03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Unsigned Anon has just reverted yet again here[45] That would make three reverts in just over 24 hours. This is how he operates. Pushing the envelope just far enough. It is etremely frustrating to watch him take advantage of the rules to sanction another editor while he himself is an experienced edit warrior who will stop at nothing to censor those he disagrees with.--Jiujitsuguy (talk)03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the strange and deprecatory comments made by Mr Unsigned Anon above here[46] here[47] and here[48] concerning Enigmaman and Stellarkid speak for themselves. We’ve all gotten hot under the collar at times (the Middle East can do that to you) but these comments are beyond the pale. Clearly, if anyone deserves to be sanctioned in this mess, it's Mr Unsigned Anon--Jiujitsuguy (talk)22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on for months, with basically no progress. One reports another, it's generally ignored, rinse and repeat. Mr Unsigned Anon, for example, has been taken to AN/I several times, but no administrators really want to get involved in this mess. Topic bans should be meted out, starting with Mr Unsigned Anon. Remove one, see if anything changes, and then progress from there. The trouble, as with all I/P disputes, is that the only people who care to edit the pages are people with a very distinct POV, on one side or another.Enigma^msg07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had edited the article once or twice early with an apparent non-controversial edit but decided to stay out of the main controversial issue and not followed it. I was surprised by the severity of Nableezy's recent sentence but in hindsight can see it justified since the tolerance level of uninvolved admins is dropping as time goes on and Nableezy's problematic behaviour was evident on other articles in the I-P realm not just the 'Gaza War'. In stark contrast, StellarKid does not have a similar pervasive problem in the I-P realm at all, so requesting an I-P topic ban for an apparent edit war on one article is plainly exaggerated, an insincere request and simply unreasonable. FWIW, this article would/should have joined the low traffic articles long ago and editors moved on. If I were to hand something down here, it would be to protect the article as is (with all it's problems) and let the issue calm down if that is possible. I'm leaning with Jiujitsuguy and Enigmaman on this. --Shuki (talk)21:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had nothing to do with this editor but checking oneTalk-Page contribution by Stellarkid tells me not to expect very much. The fact he hasJiujitsuguy on his side will not do him any favours.86.158.184.158 (talk)22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is 85.158.184.158's edit on the Gaza War talk page -- talk about non-productive edits.[49]Stellarkid (talk)23:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced by her/his statement, Stellarkid has no understanding of what edit-warring is. As recently as yesterday, Stellarkid made 3 reverts in a little more than 1 hour.[50][51][52] Now Stellarkid is trying to claim that edit-warring while arguing on an article's Talk page isn't edit-warring.

From the little I've seen of her/him, Stellarkid seems to treat Israel-related articles as abattleground. Stellarkid has created "controversies" based on an inability to read the sources carefully (comparethis tothis and finallythis). Stellarkid has had difficulty distinguishing betweena press release and a news article and understanding why a press release based on a blog post (!) isn't a RS.

I think a short break from editing articles in this area would give Stellarkid a necessary opportunity to read some of the key Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Full disclosure: Before Stellarkid accuses me of retaliation, I might as well write that I lefta message on nableezy's Talk page after he was topic-banned. My comments here have nothing to do with the fact that Stellarkid initiated the AE action against nableezy (which I didn't know until Stellarkid told me). —Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk23:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is weird. You just got admin and that should make you rise to another level of judgement as well as not ignoringWP:AGF. You brought some examples from one other article not directly related to I-P conflict and you back up a topic ban? How can you not deny bringing more baggage here? Even if those were two problematic edits, that certainly does not contribute productively to the discussion here. Everyone, even you and I, has problematic edits every once in a while and you have not shown how this is characteristic of Stellarkid. --Shuki (talk)07:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A break from editing to read policy is the equivalent of being sent to the corner to think about what you have done (or whatever your mother preferred). I think Wikipedia can be above that even though editorsdo act like little kids sometimes :)Cptnono (talk)07:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Shuki, if you don't thinkJ Street is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, perhaps you don't know what J Street is. —Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk07:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond a bit to your accusations. Of the three diffs that you put up just now, two of them are in the original complaint by Mr Unsigned Anon and I responded to them above. I did not appreciate thatany removal of material put in by another user constitutes arevert. With respect to the third diff, theredoes seem to be a consensus that theGaza War article is way too long, the material was irrelevant, and it was not in the correct section either. With regard to the two reverts in the lede, I believed I made a BOLD edit to the lede by removing all names, it was reverted. I went back and changed it in another way, based on the concerns (if not entirely) of the reverting editor. The edit was based on a rationale and compromise, and on my belief, expressed above, that when an edit in the lede is controversial, it requires consensus to add it, not remove it. If this is wrong thinking, please point me to the relevant policy.

Regarding the JStreet controversy, I added a controversy section because there is considerable controversy surrounding JStreet and just who it represents. In fact another editor hadsuggested a "criticism" section back in August, on the grounds that many of these organizations have "criticism sections" and there were one or two supporters of that suggestion. I was "BOLD" and added a "controversy section. You removed the "controversy" section I added as "unneeded" and I did notwar it back in, since I am consistent in my belief that there must be consensus toadd something, not remove something if it is seen as controversial. By removing it you demonstrated there was no consensus to add it. I then added some more articlesto the talk page - relevant to the article in question and reflecting the controversy or criticism that exists in the Jewish community and elsewhere with regard to J Street. I still believe that the opinion of the ZOA under the leadership ofMorton Klein is relevant to the article and believeyour response inappropriate, less than civil, and actually could be said to have violatedWP:BLP. If you had thought I didn't know the difference between blogs and press releases, a word to the wise might have been nice. (and in fact appropriate from an administrator, I would think)Stellarkid (talk)04:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stellarkid, your statement "I still believe that the opinion of the ZOA under the leadership of Morton Klein is relevant to the article" is deeply troubling. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the issue described (but actually grossly misrepresented) by ZOA regardingFenton Communications "the largest public interest communications firm in the United States", Ben-Ami's former employer prior to J Street, accepting a contract from theQatar Foundation has anything to do with Ben-Ami and hence J Street at all. ZOA even say so themselves. There are so many, many things wrong here that I'm utterly astonished that you "still believe" it's relevant to the article. It's this lack of understanding, this acting upon what you "believe", this inability to distinguish between good sources and blatant agit-prop/misrepresentation that gives me grave reservations about your ability to address I-P related issues in a way that is consistent with both policy and the discretionary standards.Sean.hoyland -talk11:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the article's talk page, guys (I think).Cptnono (talk)11:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, my comment is made within the context of this arbitration enforcement discussion. It is intended to illustrate a specific instance and provide empirical evidence here to support the notion that Stellarkid may not be able to address I-P related issues in a way that is consistent with both policy and the discretionary standards. He's well aware of my views on the talk page.Sean.hoyland -talk 11:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)...and for interest, I was intending not to comment at this AE until I saw his ""I still believe" statement.Sean.hoyland -talk11:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Understanding or interpretation of the sources doesn't cause someone to edit war, though. Did he edit war or not is the question isn't it?Cptnono (talk)11:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No or else this would just be at the edit warring noticeboard. The question is whether Stellarkid's actions bring him within scope of the arbitration enforcement process and if so what should be done. My example is intended to illustrate a troubling instance where there is, in my view, a conflict between what he "believes" and what wiki policy and the discretionary sanctions say. Has it damaged content ? No, not yet but beliefs are persistent things. Note that I haven't said whether I favour or oppose a topic ban because it's not my decision. I've already said (at Nableezys AE) that I think Stallarkid needs a mentor and needs to agreee to abide by the sanctions.Sean.hoyland -talk12:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you supporta topic ban in order to preempt disruptive editing you foresee Stellarkid making in the future? And you are using two articles to base this on? --Shuki (talk)19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interested to know how you got that from me saying "I haven't said whether I favour or oppose a topic ban because it's not my decision."Sean.hoyland -talk19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in what I think I'll tell you. I think Stellarkid should be restricted to editing from the non-Israeli perspective for a set period like a month. That means every edit in the I-P area he makes during that period should be one that adds information from sources like human rights groups, Palestinian sources, Arab media, other sources that are critical of Israel too numerous to mention due to the inherent liberal bias of reality. If he can do that it will do him a world of good. Also, no sneakily looking at the NGO Monitor/StandWithUs/CAMERA sites in his bedroom for a monthSean.hoyland -talk19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"other sources that are critical of Israel too numerous to mention due to the inherent liberal bias of reality." Good one! No bias there is there?  :)Stellarkid (talk)02:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, I apologize for claiming you suggested a topic ban and I totally missed your last comment to Cptnono, though I still disagree with your claim. Interesting solution LOL, I think if we could all 'be friends' and truly collaborate, then a day with 'reverse editing' would be interesting. Unfortunately, I think there is a lack of respect with regard to many editors, but that's a discussion for another place. --Shuki (talk)20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved editor, having never edited theGaza War article at the center of this controversy nor have I edited for or against Stellarkid or Nableezy, other than leaving comments related to the AE that Stellarkid filed against Nableezy. My interest in that AE and now this one is due to the fact that I have in my 1000 plus edits always held by the principal that WP gets stronger by the addition of relevant well-cited RS text. The Nableezy case has greatly disturbed me since I seem to be observing an editor being rewarded for removing relevant well-cited RS text, while an editor who researched, wrote, cited and attempts to keep that relevant well-cited RS text in the article gets severely punished. I realize that case is still under review, so I hope to see a different outcome in that case.

I looked at some of Stellarkid's edits not limited to those he made on the Gaza War article and found a disturbing pattern. The removal of RS cited text (without discussion on Talk pages) seems to be a pattern for Stellarkid. The cited text that he deletes is always text that disagrees with his apparent POV. A quick look through his edits brought up the following obvious examples; there are more if more are needed:

This edit where his edit summary claims "Refugees from 1948 War: It is not in there. Such inflammatory charges without a page number! Searched the book on Google and I read the chapter(s). Not there". And yet here is the online occurrence of this text in the reference he removed[53] which clearly contains the sentence (search for "nine massacres"):

"During Hiram, IDF troops carried out at least nine massacres of Palestinian civilians and prisoners of war (at Eilaboun, Saliha, Safsaf, Jish, Hule, Majd al-Kurum, Bi'na, Deir al-Assad, and Arab al-Mawassa).(page 245, with citation 347)"

This is almost *identical* to the text he removed with the claim that it was not there:

"During Operation Hiram, at least nine massacres of Arabs were performed by IDF soldiers.^[1]".

It should be noted that Stellarkid never commented on this deletion in the article's Talk page - although he discussed other editor's changes there before and after making this change. The POV outcome of his edit - removing a statement that made the IDF look bad - is obvious.

This edit where he removes a whole cited chunk of text with the misleading edit history: "rmv'd plagiarism from Amazon author's site: www.amazon.com/Bible-Zionism-Traditions-Archaeology-Post-Colonialism/dp/1842777602" when in fact this was an exact quote from the deleted referencehere, and clearly the editor who added it included the name of the book but was not sophisticated enough to properly cite it and put it in quotes. A serious NPOV editor would take the 15 seconds to fix it by properly citing it and putting it in quotes. A POV editor who felt they should abide by WP policy would at least make a note about the deletion and copy the text deleted to the article's Talk page. But Stellarkid never left a comment of any kind in this article's Talk page. Here again he chose instead to simply remove the cited material that make Israel look bad.

I am flabbergasted by the rewards Stellarkid has so far received for his repeated deletion of relevant RS cited text in the Gaza War article which is documented above as part of this AE. The fact that there are numerous instances of it, in multiple articles, makes his behavior worse. Thank you,Jgui (talk)21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having taken the time to weigh in. I am not so sure that you have evidence of a "disturbing pattern," but I do want to address the two edits that you have taken the time to investigate. Regarding the first, you are absolutely correct that I should not have removed that edit. I should have asked for a page citation instead. I can only plead that I was a relatively new user, and I did look in Google Books, and my own copy of the book and didn't see it. It seemed like an extreme comment to make without book & page number and I removed it. I see now that the page number has been inserted that it is indeed there, {footnote 347, citing Eschel& Etzion, as well as himself (1988)}. Had I been a more sophisticated editor I would have added a page # request citation, rather than to have removed it as I did.

TheBible & Zionism removal I stand by.This is an editorial review from Amazon quotedin its entirety with neither quotes nor attribution. I see now that readingWP:Plagiarism that I could have attempted to notify the editor, but I had no idea at that time how to find out who was responsible for which edit. I could have attributed it myself, but I was/am under the impression that editorials from Amazon, especially when taken wholesale, are not appropriate. I see that since at edit in August of this year, no Wiki editor has added his own summary of this book.Stellarkid (talk)02:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stellarkid, I am quite sure the disturbing pattern is there - you have shown that you do not respect the work of other editors who place relevant RS cited text into articles since you clearly think you have the right to delete their work without cause when it disagrees with your POV. The flagrant instance of your deletion of Nableezy's work and the two examples above are not the full extent of it.

Stellarkid, so you think you should be given a pass because you are a "new user"? Can you please relate your full experience editing WP, including any previous user account you may have now or have had in the past? Thank you,Jgui (talk)03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jgui, no I do not think I should be given a pass because I am/was a "new user." I was taking out material I believed was unsupported. I realize now I could/should have asked for a page number instead. I reserve the right to know more now than I did then. I am not asking for any passes forany reason, just explaining the edits that you have presented as best I can. I hope to be judged fairly is all.Stellarkid (talk)04:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stellarkid, that's nice - I would have hoped that you could have used the same standard of fairness yourself. Now can you please answer my other question: can you please relate your full experience editing WP, including any previous user account you may have now or have had in the past? Thank you,Jgui (talk)05:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do try to be fair, though I may not always succeed. As for your other question, what exactly are you implying? On second thoughts, never mind. Let's focus on the basis of this complaint. I don't want to go through an endless inquisition just to satisfy someone's paranoia. It becomes an inquest in which innocence cannot be proven.Stellarkid (talk)06:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stellarkid, my "paranoia" aside, your failure to state that you are a new user without a history of other accounts, forces one to assume that you are not a new user. Thank you,Jgui (talk)15:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jgui, a quick look at your contributions (and talk page) makes it clear that you are "uninvolved" (as you stated) only inasmuch as the Gaza War article is concerned. You edit (updated:almost) entirely in the I-P areaand are a member of Project Palestine. (this error based on a 'thank you for joining' template on the editor's talk page) I don't know if you are also a member of the I-Pcollaboration group or not. At any rate, you made clear your perspective onme andmy edits, and it was obvious that you hadcome to your conclusions prior to asking the question. There is little/no point in making denials to someone who is not inclined to believe one. You would have taken my denial as false, and now my silence as "proof." Although expected, it says more about you than it does about me. I urge you to stick to the substance of this complaint.Stellarkid (talk)19:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stellarkid, it would be nice if you would check your facts before making statements - I do not edit "entirely" in the I-P area, and I am not a member of Project Palestine or any other groups here. I think it would also be nice if you would take your own advice about sticking to the substance of this complaint - and I hope you will stop trying to bait me. Thank you,Jgui (talk)20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jgui, you must excuse me then, for I saw this"Thank you for joining" on your talk page. I see that, based on your next comment, you apparently didnot join, though of course there is nothing wrong belonging to such a group as it is a proper enough group, just as Wiki Project Israel is. I erroneously jumped to conclusions when I saw the"Thank you for joining" template. And I should have said & meant to say "almost entirely," which would have been correct. I shall correct my post.Stellarkid (talk)21:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jgui, you are way out of line for making an unfounded accusation like that--Jiujitsuguy (talk)04:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jiujitsuiguy, it isn't unfounded when I have the references above to back it up. Please read what I wrote and read the links I provided. Thank you,Jgui (talk)04:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you're implying that he has had other accounts in the past and your claim is baseless and without foundation.--Jiujitsuguy (talk)04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Jgui's logic with the sourcing is that the RS and/or the method used to present the RS has been disputed in some cases. It is obvious Jgui and Stellar are looking at it differently so please don't assert that it is fact, Jgui.Cptnono (talk)04:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't produce any weighted opinion on any of the charges against Stellarkid, I was not a party to that disputes raised above and so far had only some occasional interactions with his edits and his frame of mind. However, I wish to make the following statement - it is conceivable that concerns about this editor are justified; either way, I find it troubling that the request was filed by no other than Mr. Unsigned Anon, whose behavior itself is far from perfect, based on my recent experience with him. I find this fact as ironic as countries like Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia reprimand Israel via resolutions in UN Human Rights Council. I hope that final judgement on the case will be by someone really neutral and uninvolved. --Scepticfrom Ashdod^(talk)09:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sceptic is spot-on in his analogy. When weighing this claim against Stellar, one has to consider the source. It is clear that Mr Unsigned Anon is the one without clean hands, see[54] He has engaged in an egregious pattern of disruptive conduct that includes uncivil behavior, personal attacks, socking and disruptive editing. Allowing him this platform is akin to allowing North Korea to criticize the European Union on its human rights record.--Jiujitsuguy (talk)15:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol  :)Stellarkid (talk)20:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would like to apologize for commenting in the section devoted only to the comments of involved admins. AGK was right toremove that comment. However, my concerns regarding his impartiality and ability to effect fair decisions in this realm remain.

Why? First, AGK has used the lack of formal notification to Stellarkid of the ARBPIA sanctions as a rationale for refraining from imposing any sanctions on him. However, AGK did not issue a formal notification of the ARBPIA sanctions to Cptnono, which was the only action I asked be taken with regard to the complaint I filed against himon October 12th.

If formal notification is required for action to be taken in the future, why didn't AGK notify Cptnono? Will Cptnono not be sanctioned under the ARBPIA restrictions in the future because of the lack of notification? Further, why did AGK also say in Cptnono's case that he would have applied sanctions, but that doing so many days after the disruptive behaviour had taken place would be punitive? There seems to be some contradictory reasoning in effect here.

Please also note that AGK had commented in Cptnono's case as follows:

• This thread is much too lengthy. I hope not one of you expect the administrator who reviews the complaint to read this discussion in its entirety. AGK 00:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It was lengthy largely as a result of numerous postings by Cptnono. In the future, if someone wants to avoid getting sanctioned, should they simply fill the page with lengthy posts protesting their innocence, so that admins cite tl;dr and dismiss the case? Why did AGK decide to finally issue a result in that case on October 28th (13 days after his comment regarding its length), only one day after a case was opened against Nableezy, and only one day before he decide to issue Nableezy a 4-month topic ban?

In conclusion, I have a number of concerns about the way this case, Nableezy's and Cptnono's have been handled. I hope that AGK will take a good long hard look at the way he has handled all three cases. I think he has seriously messed up here and hope he takes concrete action to reverse the impression his decisions have given of an admin who is out of touch with what is actually going on in this realm.Tiamut^talk12:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any who read this comment would be well-advised to undertake an impartial evaluation of the circumstances to which Tiamut refers, and to not allow themselves to form an opinion based on the rhetoric and opinions of an involved party.AGK20:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is something in my statement that is factually incorrect, please correct it. If you feel there is important information missing, please add it. Otherwise, I agree that all uninvolved parties should carefully review the circumstances that led to your topic banning of Nableezy, and the issuing of minor warnings to Stellarkid and Cptnono. They can decide for themselves whether the concerns I have raised are warranted.Tiamut^talk08:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I am powerless in this case to sanction Stellarkid under the discretionary sanctions remedy ofPalestine-Israel articles, as he has not been formally notified of the final decision as the remedy requires. So I am first serving him with a notification.

  I consider Stellarkid to have edit warred. Had it been within my power, I would have banned him from this topic for two months; but the paperwork denies me the ability to do so. A standard block for edit warring is an option, but it would be a punitive and weak gesture at this stage—especially considering that it would at most be around a week in length.

  The whole "Operation Cast Lead/Gaza massacre" dispute has gone on for quite long enough. I'm indefinitely protectingGaza War. It has now reached the point where the disruption caused over that one sentence (and over other disputed points) outweighs the benefits from permitting open editing of the remainder of the article. Mediation or another DR forum is in order, but you'll all have to want to resolve the dispute for that to work.AGK01:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness me that is nonsense. The reason for the warning is to ensure that users know about the ARBPIA sanctions prior to having any such sanctions imposed. Stellarkid just initiated the previous case against Nableezy under said sanctions - heself-evidently was aware of them. I think this decision needs review.Gatoclass (talk)04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, indeed this seems a strange statement, since it looks to me like he was indeed notifiedhere at the same time the action was filed against himhere, and considering that Stellarkid has been the most active participant in this action that was filed against him and that he started contributing within 12 hours of when it was first openedhere. Can you explain your statement better? Thank you,Jgui (talk)08:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{Comment by Tiamut removed --12:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC).}

I'm uninvolved, but since I've had previous experience of enforcing arbitration restrictions as an admin I thought I'd comment. The purpose of arbitration restriction notifications is to ensure that an editor can't claim he was unaware of them if he commits further infractions. Stellarkid clearly demonstrated that he was aware of the ARBPIA restrictions on 27 October 2009, when he filed an enforcement request against Nableezy[55] in which he cited ARBPIA as the sanction or remedy that Nableezy had violated. The purpose of notification - i.e. awareness of the restrictions - was satisfied at this point, and there would have been no point in templating an editor who had demonstrated that awareness. (That may be why nobody appears to have done it.) Stellarkid's actions before 27 October probably cannot be caught under ARBPIA due to the lack of notification, but those after would certainly have been taken by him in the full knowledge of the ARBPIA restrictions. The question then becomes one of whether his actions after 27 October merit the imposition of arbitration sanctions. --ChrisO (talk)10:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While ChrisO has as usual made the point very well, I would only add that it is not quite correct to say that Stellarkid only became aware of the AE sanctions on the 27th, because in fact he participated in the Cptnono caseas early as October 12. They could hardly have escaped his attention at that time.Gatoclass (talk)11:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration remedies are typically not as open to IAR as other authoritative texts. If there is a consensus that, in this case, a notification is not necessary, then I would happily proceed and sanction. But I think my hesitancy is understandable: defying a clear provision of an arbitration remedy is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect the committee would respond to with a desysopping.AGK11:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the notification clause has never been interpreted that strictly, indeed looking at the ARBPIA notification log it seems a number of users have previously been sanctioned without formal notification. I am generally strongly in favour of process myself, so certainly I understand your caution, but I think we are also entitled to apply a little common sense, and when someone has previously opened an ARBPIA case of his own there simply cannot be any doubt that he already knew about the existence of the sanctions.Gatoclass (talk)12:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with your position. Stellarkid hasvoluntarily committed to a 1RR for two months (the length of time I was contemplating sanctioning him for), which might put a new angle on things. I am, however, hesitant to give leniency to one user where I have made it clear I am being quite unsympathetic to the majority of contributors to this article.AGK12:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Tiamut's comment, first because this section is for uninvolved administrators only, and second, because I am growing weary of his piping up with "omg AGK is involved in this dispute he's never contributed to and hasn't ever touched until a week ago" at every turn. He does make a good point about there being a "huge banner at the top ofTalk:Gaza War," though.AGK12:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your hesitancy, but I don't think that IAR would be an issue here. The intention of notification is to ensure that editors should be aware of arbitration restrictions before they are sanctioned. That requirement was clearly satisfied by Stellarkid's own AE request on the 27th, since he explicitly referred to those restrictions of his own volition. It may well be that he was aware of the restrictions before then, as Gatoclass says, but there's absolutely no doubt that he knew of them by the 27th. I very much doubt that the Arbcom meant for sanctions to beonly applicable if a notification has been given, even though it's undisputed that the editor was fully aware of the restrictions. In a sense, Stellarkid is falling between the cracks of a technicality. I would suggest sanctioning as you propose, then kicking it over toWP:RFAR#Requests for clarification to request that the Arbcom endorse it. --ChrisO (talk)12:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment here as somebody who has never taken part in Palestine-Israel Arb enforcement, but has been highly active in the corresponding work on Balkans Arb enforcement. My suggestion is: there is a reason whyWP:ARBMAC has been overall a success story, with a record of sanctions that have very noticeably reduced the general level of disruption in the field, whileWP:ARBPIA sometimes looks like such a failure, with much fewer actual sanctions but a much higher level of secondary disruption caused by the debates about sanctions themselves. The reason is that withWP:ARBMAC we never bothered with legalistic bureaucracy like this. I can assure you that in an ARBMAC case, sanctions in a case like this would have been put in force as a matter of course, with no long debate and no complaints afterwards. Nobody at ARBMAC has ever challenged such a decision, and no administrator ever got in trouble over it, certainly not from Arbcom.Fut.Perf.☼12:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and helpful; and I agree with Gatoclass and ChrisO too. On a more general point,WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.Rd232^talk13:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the points above, I have to agree that there is more than sufficient clear evidence that Stellarkid was aware of the restrictions before his actions, and can thus be sanctioned on that basis. However, if there is no one willing to impose sanctions independent of ArbCom, we could request a clarification of ArbCom as to whether the ruling applies in this case.John Carter (talk)18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(UNDENT) Can someone explain in fifty words or less, why topic banning or not topicbanning someone is worth the time it takes me (or anyone else) to read this epic miniseries?--Tznkai (talk)22:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 reasons: 1/ Whether sanction requirements were satisfied (aka notification/knowledge of sanction), and; 2/ To check how previous violations were handled, and whether voluntary 1RR (among other things) justify using the same or a different approach. To save you reading it, there was a clear consensus that point 1 was satisfied, but no uninvolved input was given on point 2.Ncmvocalist (talk)09:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because being too lazy to read some text is not an excuse for allowing an editor to go on disrupting. Most of what was written is without substance, anyway; what mostly counts is the relative merits of the complaint.AGK16:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is something to be said for economy of effort, and last I checked, this thread had already been actioned - was the action, or lack thereof, so onerous that it justifies the time and energy of myself or othervolunteers to look at it when we could be doing other things?--Tznkai (talk)18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy's edit warring was considered "onerous" enough to earn him a two-month topic ban. Is there some reason why Stellarkid's ongoing edit warring, on the same page, over the same edit, both before andafter the Nableezy case which he himself initiated, should not be considered onerous enough to earn him a similar sanction? The issue here is one of consistency. If you think the principle not worthy of your "time and energy", that is your prerogative, but I and others who have commented on this issue beg to differ.Gatoclass (talk)09:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting the Gordian Knot: I suggest applying the same sanction to Stellarkid as to Nableezy (two-month topic ban), and have done with it.Rd232^talk11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think applying a 2-month topic ban would be ok. The argument that someone can report another editor for breaching an ArbCom ruling, but can't be sanctioned under that ruling, because they haven't been notified the ruling exists, seems to be against ideas expressed inWP:BURO.PhilKnight (talk)11:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Adjusted result: Thanks for your input, everybody. I've pursued my initial intentions and topic-banned Stellarkid for 2 months. The feedback both from the arbitrators and everybody who has chipped in here is that they a formal notification is not necessary in Stellarkid's case, which I do not object to. For the record: I intend to action any AE complaints filed over this subject area in a similar way as I did this one.AGK23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Brews ohare

The following discussion is archived.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Brews blocked for 24 hours by MBisanz.AGK23:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement:
Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics}18:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Brews ohare (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare topic banned

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it:
In a nutshell, Brews ohare refuses to disengage and rectify his behavioural issues that lead to the sanctions against him. More specifically, he pushes for policy changes which people do not want (he has some support, however), and refuses to back down when consensus is against him. I wish I could keep it to only a few edits, but the sheer volume (again) makes this impossible.

Some proposed policies, essays, discussions, etc... (or basically his arbcom defense, minus the attacks). Also some warnings. I'm sorry that I cannot be succinct, as these are all intermingled with each other.

1. User:Brews ohare/Dealing with minority views
2. WT:Editing Scientific Article history
3. User talk:Brews ohare#Gag_orders
4. User talk:Brews ohare#Entirely clear
5. Forum shopping @ Jimbo's

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Some who were easy to trace back. The rest are buried somewhere in Brews' massive edit history. Others could provide with more.

1. User_talk:AGK/Archive/55#Your_advice_to_Brews_ohare
2. User_talk:Brews_ohare#Friendly_warning
3. User_talk:Brews_ohare#Caution

Enforcement action requested (block,topic ban orother sanction):
Block for the rest of his one year ban. Thetrouble Brews is causing is not worththe 10 or so content-related edits he's made since the ARBCOM.

Additional comments byHeadbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics}:
A shame it's come to this. Brews behaves like this in good faith, but disruptive behaviour is disruptive no matter intentions. Brews was sanctioned for problematic behaviour, and instead of fixing his behaviour, he's trying to make it into policy. Brews could edit completely non-controversial articles such asCake or those found inCategory:Canadian artists, but would ratherright the great wrongs which have been caused to him. He's been warned enough times by more editors than I can count on my hand, and he still does not desist. Brews takes attempt to help him as proofs he's a modern martyr.

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics}18:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

• Notice on Brews talk page.

There is no disruption. There is no violation of remedies against me. Headbomb is not a party to any of the cited discussions and is simply intruding where he has suffered no injury.Brews ohare (talk)19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a more exhaustive analysis of this frivolous actionhere. Unfortunately, the block was implemented immediately, allowing no opportunity to post more detail earlier.Brews ohare (talk)19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion of other editors' comments can be foundhere.Brews ohare (talk)19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration changed nothing. If there has been any difference, Brews has become more disruptive to the project, rather than less. There is not enough signal (e.g. quality edits) to justify the noise. Please just block Brews and be done with this situation. It is very frustrating and demoralizing to our productive editors.Jehochman^Talk19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a trace of disruption here. I do see a lot of disruption on politics pages that are tolerated by the Admins. Jehochman told another Admin to tolerate an attack on his talk page by ChildofMidnight. If that's the norm, then I don't see why Brews writing upthis proposal is so disruptive. What Brews wrote on Jimbo's talk page was 100% justified. When an engineering professor is banned from all physics pages, including the ones on which he made outstanding contributions, then something is deeply wrong. That view is shared by quite a few editors here.Count Iblis (talk)20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brews' behavior continues to be problematic, he has not learned from the arbitration, he doesn't heed warnings (everyone else is wrong in his eyes), and Iblis has contributed to the problem by telling him that he is OK and should ignore everyone else's warnings. He could easily disengage, but he won't. He's been flirting with a block for violating his probation, including derogatory remarks about other editors and assuming bad faith, almost continually. I also have to agree with Jehochman about his low signal-to-noise ratio. However, I donot see how Brews' mere mention ofTalk: Speed of light solely as an example of a particular kind of behavior (the diff on which the block was based), with no discussion of physics and not on a physics page, violates his topic ban.—Finell (talk)21:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finell, the diff does not justify a one year ban, which was requested, but it does justify a one day ban. Personally I think Brews got off lightly. Next time it will be longer, I'm sure.

Iblis, whether Brews is an engineering professor or not is irrelevant; he is judged on the quality of his editshere. --Michael C. Price^talk21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even more pertinently, expertise and the ability to contribute valuable content does not justify behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Further, Brews is not contributing valuable content. He could be editing articles outside his topic ban, including articles on math and technical topics. Instead, he spends all his wiki-time thrusting himself into disputes and soapboxing.—Finell (talk)22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Brews was topic banned, I expected that he would leave Wikipedia permanently. It turned out that he decided to stay and get involved in discussions about wiki-policies. I do see that this ispotentially problematic, given his history. But then Arbcom could have foreseen that a physics/engineering diehard like Brews is probably not going to write articles on, say, Albanian coins. They specifically want Brews to stick to the letter of the topic ban. Given this situation, we can react to Brews' involvement on policy matters in two ways. We can say to him: "Stop, find something else to do." Or we can be glad that he didn't leave Wikipedia and give constructive criticisms on his essays. If we ask him to do someting else, then I think Brews will leave permanently, and that would be a loss to Wikipedia.

The essay written by Brews does address the problem of engaging in endless debates on the talk pages. So, it seems to me that Brews has learned something. I don't see the harm of Brews writing such essays and discussing them. Also, I don't see that we are in a position to tell Brews that he should stop doing this and instead contribute to an article on e.g. Albanian coins. After all, Wikipedia contributors are volunteers, you can't force people to volunteer.

Now assume that I'm wrong and looking at the curent situation we really think that Brews should stay away from policy pages. Then surely the best way to do that is to modify his topic ban. Impose a topic ban for policy pages, AN/I etc., and appoint some mentor who will have to approve or deny requests by Brews to contribute to some topic (physics or not physics). I.m.o. Finell would be the ideal mentor.Count Iblis (talk)00:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't want to edit on Albanian coins he can still edit articles about the music he likes to listen to, the movies he likes to watch, his favourite books/authors, his city, the places where he has been on vacation etc.That's the kind of experience that you need so that you can understand that the subject you normally edit isn't so special, after all, and that more or less the same things happen anywhere.That's the kind of experience that you need so that you learn what it feels like when you suddenly have to argue in the opposite direction to what you are used to. As I see it, an important function of a topic ban is to make the editorlearn something about Wikipedia by getting a wider perspective. By jumping to a meta level instead of editing other topics Brews ohare is avoiding this learning experience. And as someone who is unwilling to learn more about Wikipedia he shouldn't try to push changes of the way Wikipedia works.HansAdler08:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans: I've got quite a bit more insight into how WP works as a result of all this tedious infighting. That is why I wrote anessay about conduct that I think would help a lot to fix some of the issues I've run into. This essay is constructive, and I invite you to contribute to its formation.Brews ohare (talk)19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO That is taking "broadly construed" too far. Ohare was clearly not discussing physics in the edit mentioned. He seems to be doing his best in circumstances where he still believes he has been wronged. Please leave ohare alone and don't rub his nose in it!Abtract (talk)22:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be that the single edit specified by the blocking admin was only a borderline violation of Brews' parole, there's certainly no question that he has been sorely testing the bounds of his parole and topic ban for the last several days. Brews editing since the close of arbitration has almost exclusively focused on attempting to modify and circumvent a number of core Wikipedia policies. His proposed policy changesall stem from the disputes that led him to arbitration in the first place, and represent a perpetuation of old battles in new arenas.TenOfAllTrades(talk)22:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, essentially that's what I'm getting at. It's old battles repackaged as something different.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics}01:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any trace of that. The problem with Brews was that he dominated the talk pages to get his way. If Brews now wants to put forward certain arguments on policy pages, write essays etc. motivated by his experience, then that is not by definition a problem. The question is if he is now again editing in a disruptive way. I don't think he is. He is not dominating any discussions on the NOR talk page, on the ESCA talk page in any even remotely similar way as he did on the speed of light page.

Then, what does happen is that some editors and Admins are giving Brews the advice to stay away from the policy pages, but that is not in response to any problematic behavior over there. I can then understand that Brews, who is asked to strictly adhere to the physics topic ban and has found something else to do and does that without problems, would then be irritated.

If people here think that I'm wrong to say that he contributes on policy pages without problems, then they should have come here directly, produced the evidence of disruptive behavior there and then and have asked for the topic ban to include also the policy pages. What is not ok. is to say now that others have given Brews the advice to stay away from the policy pages in the past and that Brews did not listen and that this somehow constitutes disruption by Brews.Count Iblis (talk)01:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of topics, pages or discussions Brews ohare is welcome to edit on or about; just not physics-related ones. He needs to move away from the battles that stemmed from them. If he is unable or unwilling to comply with this restriction strictly, both in letter and in spirit, then he needs to find ways to remedy this voluntarily. There's no point wikilawyering this restriction because this is his second block; after another block, the duration of the blocks will be substantially longer to the point that they will represent site-wide bans. If you do not wish this to happen, then perhaps you can help Brews find ways to avoid violating his remedy, rather than (unintentionally) letting him to push the boundaries. This means directing him to topics, pages and discussions that are not just unrelated to physics, but those where he will not be tempted to continue to bring up physics (or the old battles that came about from there, even the ArbCom case), broadly construed.Ncmvocalist (talk)06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist: I believe you misconstrue my activities as somehow a continued battle against the sanctions against me. Although I don't believe these sanctions to be appropriate or well thought out, I have not attempted to change them. On the other hand, I believe brouhahas like that I became entangled in could be avoided with some different tactics, as outlined in myessay and in various discussions on Talk pages. I do believe that some changes like these would add to a more constructive editing environment, and that is my purpose. To interpret my actions as some kind of subliminal subversion, as some do, is not consistent with an objective look at what is going on here. Rather, it is conjecture and attempted mindreading, unsupported by any facts.Brews ohare (talk)19:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have blocked Brews ohare for 24 hours specifically forthis edit which references a current discussion on a physics related topic which is a violation ofhis topic ban.MBisanz^talk19:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This fails to address the complaint. Brews appears to be doing nothing productive. They are misusing Wikipedia in violation of their probation. We either need an agreement to honor the probation, or else there should be an indefinite block for disruptive editing. I see no reason why they will magically change their outlook 24 hours from now.Jehochman^Talk14:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • This thread has been mooted byWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FSpeed_of_lightMBisanz^talk14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:HistoricWarrior007 appeal of topic ban

Request concerning appeal of topic ban by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Discussion concerning appeal

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Statement by HistoricWarrior007

Response to Biophys

Response to Future Perfect at Sunrise

Response to Looie496

Comment by Biophys

Comment by uninvolved Looie496

Comments by other editors

Result concerning appeal of topic ban

Request concerning Rockpocket

User requesting enforcement

--Domer48_'fenian'21:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

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

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Revert #1Revert #2Revert #3

Explanationhow these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR. A revert isany action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors,in whole or in part.

Enforcement action requested (block,topic ban orother sanction)

Unsure

Additional comments

Their actions on the third reverthere, resulting as it does in the removal of the text I addedhere from the article could be viewed as gaming. Having added the text, their removal is tantamount to a revert. Regardless they did go over the 1RR limit with thistext being removed.

• Comment - These complaints are tedious. Rockpocket is trying, in good faith, to improve the article, and has put a lot of work in. Some editors are more concerned with the letter of the law than the spirit. I'd rather have an editor who actively tries to collaborate but technically breaks 1RR, than editors who fastidiously avoid 1RR but avoid collaboration.Mooretwin (talk)21:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't this nice. Lets actually discuss what happened here. I explained my intentions in advance on the talk page to rewrite the article to remove the awful editorializing that promotes a POV. I'd already done the same thing on thePeter Hart article. There was a general acceptance that this was a good idea, with the exception of Domer, who expressed his personal opinion that one historian's analysis was invalid and this we needed to state this. Yesterday I spent 5 hours reading and writing a new, fully referenced and balanced conclusion section which Domer reverted in one revert[61]. He was warned that this was disruptive by Elonka[62], which I tend to agree with. I reverted back, explained and invited discussion (explicitly stating that I did not wantanyone get get involved in a revert war[63].) In response Domer provided his usual alphabet soup[64] and reinserted the critiques on the historian he has an issue with. Originally I thought this was a revert, but he actually added slightly different criticism (lifted from the same attack piece as the original stuff I removed) thereby avoiding a revert, which is interesting if we are talking about gaming.

I went back and summarized the new content in a neutral way (adding material) and hid the inappropriate critiques as per the consensus over the last few weeks on the talk page. This was not a revert, either in principle nor in practice.This may or may not technically be a revert, I really don't know. However, when trying to overhaul an article in this way, such edits are going to happen. I would hope anyone, with a modicum of understanding ofWP:N, should see the pattern of edits here and appreciate what this "report" is all about.

I don't know what else to say here. It appears clear that Domer has worked out how to laywer around these 1RR edits across a number of articles. He routinely makes one revert a day to ensure his preferred version remains and is quick to report anyone else that is not as clever at rule evasion. I came infrom outside, used the talk page as we are asked to, I spent time researching a subject I knew little about and care about even less, all in an attempt to rescue a balanced nuanced article from the POV mess that had been created. More I did this with the advance support of most contributors on the talk page. Quite how one does that without taking more than one "action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" I really don't know. If this is the purpose of the Trouble's ArbCom remedy then I give up, I really do.Rockpocket21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ok, so after a big preamble, you went over the 1RR. Now personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith aside that is what were here for. --Domer48_'fenian'21:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What are you here for, to ensure those who don't accede to your POV are taken out of the equation one way or another? Personally, I'm here to write neutral balanced articles, not see who can manipulate the rules to ensure their POV is maintained. Whatever. If someone can tell me exactly what I did wrong here - having volunteered most of my weekend to sort out your mess - then I'd be happy to fix it and be on my way. But I think you really need to take a step back and ask yourself what exactly you are trying to achieve here. Because a neutral, balanced encyclopaedia sure ain't it.Rockpocket22:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article-in-question should've been 'protected'. A harsh approach, but it stabilizes an article.GoodDay (talk)22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between assumption of good faith, which was done, and recognition of bad faith, which is what this is. Rockpocket has made a concerted effort, both in the article and on the talk page to reach NPOV on this artilce. Domer first reverted everything[65] and then re-inserted his pov back into one of the sections[66]. No discussion, just flashing 'rules' at people[67][68][69] in the form of threats. He then tries to get the other editors blocked in order to get his way. Be under no illusion mods, this is part of concerted strategy at work in a number of articles. There is absolutely no way Rockpocket should face sanction for good faith and constructive editing.

Also, without getting overly personal, is it appropriate that Domer has attempted to get other users blocked no less than 3 times in the last week alone? First provoke an edit war and then try to get the "competing" editor blocked. This, I'm sure is not what this page is intended for.Jdorney (talk)22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Tznkai, below. The first edit was a revert. No doubt about it. Beyond that, there is no confusion. The goal was not to revert anything, the goal was to continue with the series of edits to turn the article into a balanced, nuanced read, rather than the POV mess it was. Were there subsequent additional "technical" reverts in there? It appears so. The point, however, is that 1RR is one thing when it comes to stopping revert warring. In that sense it levels the playing field. However, one editor has come in for a 3rd opinion, gone to the talk page, explained their reasoning extensively in advance and then was in the process of overhauling an article with the support of most contributors. In contrast another invested editor, in isolation and without any significant support, games the system to try and get that editor blocked. Is leveling that playing field really what we are trying to achieve here? Again, if you would like to tell me what edit I should make to resolve thisand improve the article, then please do so and we can all go and do something more productive. I put to you that those two things are mutually exclusive.Rockpocket22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Tznkai, below. Perhaps, yes. In fact, I think I mentioned I was going to add that on the talk page, but then forgot. I'll certainly keep that in mind in future. However, Domer alone has made it perfectly clear that he will not accept these edits, and indicated his intention to add back such criticism. He backed off his initial attempts to do the same thing on thePeter Hart article because - due to BLP - he was unable to continue to revert war over it. Instead, he has moved the criticism to this article and apparently will continue to add it here. It seems to me the more relevant part of the ArbCom remedy on this instance is not 1RR but"All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions." I came here as an outside opinion from the Hart article[70] hving never edited the article before. Pretty much everyone except Domer has reacted positively to my efforts. How long are we going to permit invested contributors to control content by gaming the system? Do we need a formalized way of establishing what outside opinions say, to stop this reoccurring?Rockpocket23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tznkai, no it couldn't have been prevented by use of a tag or sandbox, because Domer would have reverted anyway in order to promote his own pov. That's how he operates. There is a degree of bad faith here that has to really be investigated to be believed.Jdorney (talk)23:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example of Domer's attitude to editors who wish to go against his POV: In response toJohn, he quite literallydismisses him: treats him with apparent contempt ("Ill simply ignore their [sic] drive-by remarks").Mooretwin (talk)23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problems with Rock's conduct at the article-in-question.GoodDay (talk)23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend closure of this AE report.GoodDay (talk)23:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Elonka, so Rockpocket has to revert his own changes, even if they are constructive edits, if they could be construed as a revert? That is not how you're going to create decent articles and prevent edit wars I'm afarid. Quite the opposite. A good faith NPOV edit and a bad faith POV edit are not equal and should not treated equally for the sake of procedure. If they are then anyone with a POV just needs to get efficient at working the system to get all their edits through. That way lies the end of WP.Jdorney (talk)00:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's more than 1 revert in 24 hours (and I'm still fuzzy on whether the second and third edits were reverts or not), then yes, it would be helpful if Rockpocket would reverse his own change. We're not going to block someone for accidentally going over 1RR in the heat of the moment, as long as they realize their error and then fix it in a timely manner. As for whether or not the edit is constructive, well, by its very nature a revert means that there is disagreement about whether the change is constructive or not. One editor's "constructive change" is another editor's "POV mess". Ultimately, the goal of 1RR is to get editors to stop using revert as an editing tool. A revert may be a quick "I don't like that edit" option, but reverts are not effective in implementing long-lasting changes in an article. The best way to proceed here, is to take the long view. Those who are able to moderate their behavior and edit in a careful manner should do so, and that will help administrators to identify those editors who arenot able to do so, so we can remove them from the mix. --Elonka00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elonka. If I can put this to bed by making further edits, I'm perfectly happy to do so. But someone is going to have to tell me exactly what exactly I should write, because I don't wish to add critical third party opinions about a BLP (Hart) that, with the apparent exception of Domer, everyone appears to agree is highly inappropriate. I fully accept it was naive of me to continuing to edit this article when it should have been clear that I risked being reported for 1RR. I've learned that lesson. Bear in mind, the sanctions direct editorsto get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions, what are we to do when such opinions are not only ignored, but purposefully countered by editors determined to keep their preferred version? Should this issue persist, I'll come to AE myself with a request for probationary sanctions in advance.Rockpocket00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I'd say to back off the changes in the diffs above of Reverts #2 and #3. Though when you say "everyone appears to agree is highly inappropriate", do you have a diff? Because if someone is making changes to an article to bring it in accordance with a clear talkpage or noticeboard consensus, that probably shouldn't count as a revert. --Elonka01:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support when I proposed it in advance:[71][72][73]. Support when I justified the edits afterwards[74][75][76][77] Until, perhaps coincidentally, a few seconds ago, Domer was the only editor who expressed disagreement with the edits (with the exception of the "suspected informers" issue, which is still under perfectly civil and constructive discussion).Rockpocket01:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there appears to be consensus that the article needs to be reworked. The diffs that you presented, however, do not seem to be saying anything about the issue of the Hart source. That's why I'm saying that it might be wise to rollback those two edits (the reverts that are cited at the beginning of this thread). It will de-escalate the situation for now, and the content question can continue to be discussed on the talkpage. --Elonka03:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the issue of Hart was absolutely central (see[78].) It was this issue that I set out to address and this issue that the wide agreement was expressed. If the consensus is not for the balanced treatment of Hart, then I don't know what it was for. I'm really uncomfortable rolling back those edits, though, because I consider them a coatrack of BLP issues (see the parallel discussion on thePeter Hart talk page). We simply should not adding huge selective swathes of critical comment about a living individual for the sole purpose of discrediting their work (this is even admitted on the talk page). I'd rather be blocked than add that material back myself. However, I will recuse myself from the article for the next 24hrs to let the other editors there come to their own decision.Rockpocket05:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket was not the first admin to try to promote NPOV, but he is the first to make any kind of tangible progress. All of the others were scared off by threats of blocking. If this pattern is allowed to continue, no progress will ever be made at this or several other articles.

So once again, it makes no sense to order a revert of constructive edits in favour of edit-warring ones. I suggest admins do not take my word for it but go and look for yourselves.Jdorney (talk)00:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you're speaking of tag-teaming. How would one proove it? How would one defend against it?GoodDay (talk)00:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, I'm happy to block anyone who is violating NPOV, as long as there is proof of such. For example: Are one or more editors repeatedly adding unsourced information? Are they using unreliable sources? Are they editing against a clear talkpage or noticeboard consensus? If so, show me diffs, and I will take action. But simplysaying someone is editing in a POV ortag team manner is not helpful. Instead, if their POV is obvious, prove it: Get opinions from a dispute noticeboard, show the result of an RfC, come up with something that clearly shows that there's a consensus against the POV edits. But don't just say that an editor is pushing a POV, because then that's one editor's opinion against another, and that's not something that an administrator can take action on. --Elonka01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening here is that one editor in particular is giving absolute credence to one source, which confirms his POV and using everything in his power to remove or undermine another source, which doesn't. It is my understanding that we are supposed to report neutrally on what is in the sources, giving equal weight to each.

As I've said this is clear to anyone who has a look at the talk page. What is needed is Admin discretion. But ok, since you asked for diffs. Here for instance, talking up one source and talking down another.[79]. Or here,[80], inserting a whole load of text the only purpose of which is to undermine another source. And worst of all (recently) here[81] where he reverted, in its entirety, a day's work by Rockpocket, precisely because it was giving equal weight to each source and not arguing for a particular interpretation. What makes all of this much worse is a complete refusal to discuss the issues at hand. Instead, people are threatenend with blocking, as in here[82] or simply dismissed as here[83].

Ok, that's NPOV, re use of this page as a gaming tactic. Examples from this article only, though there are many more, FIrst of all, most recently here[84], as you know, Domer has tried to get Rockpocket blocked. This might be fair if he had discussed the issues at hand, but he refused to do this. Most frustratingly of all are edits like this[85], where he not only refuses to discuss, but then claims to have discussed and declares he's going ahead with editing/reverting regardless. This what makes this case so important. Without a good moderator, this article is going no-where. Finally here[86] he got me blocked for defending a lead reached after careful discussion with the previous admin who was brought in to de-POV the article.

This is not about me, I don't care if got blocked. Actually I was happy to do it as it seems to have attracted the attention of more admins to the article. It's about this editor constantly using this page to try to eliminate other editors and "win" edit wars. By my count here[87], he has made four requests for blocking here on 1RR violations in the last week alone. ANd this is not unusual. In each of these cases, this editor and also usually (sorry to name names but Big Dunc) have provoked the edit wars in question by reverting other people's work and then come straight here to get them blocked. Sorry for being so long-winded, but this needs to be addressed.Jdorney (talk)02:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is going off-track from the AE thread, but let me try to address your post: I'm sorry, but it's just not compelling evidence. I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but instead I'm trying to point out that to you editors who are in the middle of a dispute, everything is probably "obvious". You probably think that any sane person could just take a look at the talkpage and see things clear as day. But trust me, it's not as clear to someone who's not familiar with the situation. That's why when I said diffs, I meant diffs of a clear talkpage consensus. Example: Say there's an article about tomato juice, with one side saying "fruit!" And the other side saying "vegetable!" And the talkpage is full of obscure sources which each side says proves their point. But to an outside observer or administrator, the talkpage is a mass of text, with sources that we're not familiar with, talking about a subject we don't know much about (and probably don't care much about, either). Whatdoes stand out in those situations though, is if we can spot a clear talkpage consensus, with a bunch of short posts where multiple editors are saying that they agree with a course of action. Or, it's easy for us to review a brief noticeboard discussion where uninvolved editors are mostly weighing in with similar opinions. So far when I look atTalk:Dunmanway killings though, I can't see the subtleties yet. I see that there's a consensus that the article needs to be reworked. That's it. If there's a consensus for anything else, it's non-obvious, and will probably take more time on my (or some other admin's) part to wade through it. That's one of the reasons that we keep repeating over and over, "Get outside opinions". Or here's a more practical example: Go toWP:ANI. Pick some thread at random, about articles or a topic area that you know nothing about, with editor names that you've never heard of. Now, try to read that thread and make a decision on "what should be done". Most likely you will rapidly discover that it is extremely difficult to sort through content disputes when you're coming in cold. It's not always clear who's "right" or "wrong", or who's pushing a POV, vs. who'sresisting the POV-pushers. Does this make sense? --Elonka03:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I get what you're saying. It is not easy to tell from outside. Actually that's the point of flinging rules and policy at people - to confuse the issue. Here we have an established, respected admin, the latest of many, whois obviously knowledgable about the area and interested in the article. He now has to face blocking because of one editor whose entire contribution to WP consists of edit warring and requests for blocking of other users. What I'm saying is that he should have discretion to use admin powers to enforce NPOV. You may say that he can't do this because he is "involved", but the discussion clearly shows that only an involved admin will be able to grasp the issues.Jdorney (talk)10:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Rock faces blocking is because he breached 1RR nothing to do with any other editor, he is responsible for his own edits and as you say he is around long enough to know the way it works here. If he is editing the article then he is not a neutral admin he is just another editor, if he wanted to remain neutral he shouldn't have got into a slanging match with Domer. He is far from neutral on this issue.BigDunc10:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In responce toTznkai below, yes it could have been avoided, I didsuggest a solution. As forElonka, they ignore Rocks removal of whole sections of referenced text, and still post a comment on my talk for adding it back. The fact that see claims that the second revert is unclear, illustartes her double standard which has resulted in me asking and then tell her to stay of my talk page. NowRock violated 1RR, simple as! asTznkai has said above this is a little odd, and people get touchy about non-standard use of blocks, thatElonka has no problem withdouble standards should also cause some "concern."--Domer48_'fenian'10:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so mods you can enforce these two user's gaming of the rules or you can let the admin get on with cleaning up the article. Choice is yours.Jdorney (talk)11:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not calling for a block of any user and I am not gaming the rules, Rock is, to use your words,established, respected admin so he is well aware of the rules about 1RR, being involved with the whole Troubles debate, he is not some innocent who stumbled across the article and made changes and was caught unaware,he even said on the page that he was going to revert again, which was a blatant disregard of the community sanctions. Now this has turned into a case of shoot the messenger. Instead of whining about other editors if he held his hands up we could move on from this mess and get back to the the encyclopedia.BigDunc13:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should revert the article back to before the disputes began, then work things out on the discussion.GoodDay (talk)15:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends, revert to when? If we revert to before Rockpocket's edits we lose all the good work (and it is very good work) in not only dealing with npov but also clearing up the article and making it more coherent and easier to read. If editors have legitimate problems with these edits let them raise them properly on talk instead of reverting.Jdorney (talk)15:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loose those edits, nay. Just have them 'transfer' to a talkpage 'or' a sandbox.GoodDay (talk)15:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)I believe editors are still confused at the meaning of 1RR. The policy statesSome editors may choose voluntarily to follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. This does not grant the right of 1 revert every 24 hours. It means that if you have been reverted, stop and discuss, period. I believe that we should be more explicit in the interpretation of 1RR in that it should preclude any reverts of a revert regardless of the length of time involved. This encourages stable articles, and discussions on the Talk page to reach consensus. It also prevent tag-teaming and other gaming. Perhaps if the policy doc was more explicit or had a policy of NRR (No ReReverting) NROAR (No Reverts of a Revert) DRR (Don't ReRevert) or something similar, we'd spend less time here.... --HighKing (talk)16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in this topic area (Troubles, aka Britain/Ireland articles) are under a different kind of 1RR restriction, as a result of an ArbCom case and subsequent community discussions. See{{Troubles restriction}} for more info. --Elonka18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai in all honesty, this is a straight forward report. Now I’m not going to even bother addressing Elonka’s comments below or the others comments above. The diff’s are there to support the report that’s it. Your right with your comments above “people get touchy about non-standard use of blocks.” --Domer48_'fenian'20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a game. Admins are not referees. Thsi is about improving the articles. Would blocking Rochpocket stop edit wars or encourage them? Would it help stabilise the content of the article? Would it help improve the content? If not then why block?Jdorney (talk)10:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tznkai below, very good advice.BigDunc19:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good advice.Rockpocket19:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a 1 second/minute block to acknowledge the violation and then just move on. My only concern was that blocks would be slective. --Domer48_'fenian'20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, because that woulddefinitely serve a preventative purpose, right? The "violation" is fully acknowledged. I know what I did, I know why it was reported and I know how to stop it happening again. I simply dispute the application of this remedy to what was obviously not edit-warring but part of an ongoing process to improve a problem article, with a consensus of agreement on the talk page. But don't fear, it will not happen again (just as it has never happened previously).Rockpocket02:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is an ongoing discussion at ANI about whether or not the Troubles case's remedies should be modified, to additionally authorize discretionary sanctions in this topic area. Anyone with an opinion on the matter is invited to comment at:Wikipedia:ANI#Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles. --Elonka17:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 1RR restriction is meant to avoid edit wars, bypass the sock puppetry problems, and otherwise level the playing field, hopefullypushing all editors to the talk pages rather than the article itself. Generally, a string of consecutive edits, or edits clearly meant to be consecutive are counted as one edit for the purposes of revert restrictions. The first two listed reverts do seem to be in fact, reversions in that they undid another editor's writing in whole or part. I am howeverholding this request since there seems to be some confusion.--Tznkai (talk)22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could this have been avoided, say with the use of a sandbox or the {{major edit}} tag?--Tznkai (talk)22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a topic where such an approach had any prospect of success we wouldn't be being discussing here, would we?Angus McLellan(Talk)23:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first action is definitely a revert, though the second and third appear to be more complex, and I'm finding it difficult to tell if they're reverts or not. In any case, I'm not sure a block would be appropriate in this situation, since Rockpocket seems to have been making a good faith effort to edit the article. There are also some extenuating circumstances, in that Domer48 had made a sweeping change with his own revert today, wiping out several days of work (much of which was Rockpocket's) in one sweep.[88] Domer's action appears much more disruptive than any technical second revert which Rockpocket might have made subsequent to that. Perhaps the best way through this would be to give Rockpocket the opportunity to re-examine and reverse any action of his which was regarded as a revert, and then we tell everyone to take a day off? --Elonka23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

1. I think it's about time we re-assessed the purpose and effectiveness of the 1RR restriction here. It's designed to prevent revert warring where there is no progress or discussion, not collaborative editing where some changes are undone and others revised, etc. At the limit, the overly literal and strict application of 1RR is unhelpful to the goals of Wikipedia and the spirit of wiki. It also risks scaring off anyone not willing to be masochistically dedicated to mastering not only the technical aspects of editing, but the intricacies of what exactly is allowed and what is not.WP:IAR should be applied as appropriate. I don't see how sanctioning Rock is going to achieve anything here. The aim of the restrictions is to move articlesforward through collaborative editing, not to enable the blocking of attempts at progress.
2. One solution to avoid constantly having these AE enforcement debates is to work entirely in a sandbox until consensus is achieved, avoiding 1RR issues. This worked quite well atTalk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/draft in redrafting the lede ofPIRA, albeit it was mighty hard work and required an engaged moderator.
3. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The Plague is still open, if anyone has any genius ideas on how to improve things to make these areas more friendly to good-faith efforts to develop articles, whilst still holding revert/revert/revert wars in check, and less susceptible to raising the letter of rules over the spirit, contrary toWP:NOTBUREAUCRACY andWP:IAR.Rd232^talk00:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend closing this report as "no action". It was filed by Domer on Rockpocket, and it looks likegaming the system, as well as being a bitpointy. The sequence of events was this: AtDunmanway killings, Domer wiped out several days of edits in his own revert.[89] This naturally caused confusion on the article, and he has been warned for this. Rockpocket then, perhaps unwisely, chose to partially revert Domer's action, but he was within his rights since it was his first revert of the day. However, when he then continued editing, and modified two sentences, Domer claims that they were "reverts" and immediately filed this 1RR report. This does not seem to me to be acting in good faith, and it is not the first frivolous 1RR report that Domer has filed. Now, I agree that it was not particularly wise of Rockpocket to immediately jump back into editing the article after Domer's large-scale revert. But Rockpocket has acknowledged this and voluntarily recused from editing the article for 24 hours. This seems sufficient resolution to me. Let's close this report as "no action", and move on. --Elonka16:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happiest if we can close this report no action. I encourage the commentators to hold their tongues for a few, and for the participants to come to some sort of agreement. I again suggest for large scale changes, which reverts do not play well with, to use and abide by the {{major edit}} tag, or in the alternative, use the talk page to discuss changes and a sandbox to preview them before touching the main article itself. We should all be able to agree that stagnation in articles is a bad thing - and quite frankly any time we're writing about death in major conflict, having a position is the norm - not the exception. The charge we have on Wikipedia is to do our best to work past it, which includes working past dwelling on the biases of others and working around them, not against them. I have to some extent, seen all the editors in this discussion in action, and I believe all are capable and willing work forward.

Are the parties willing to move forward on some such understanding?--Tznkai (talk)18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hetoum I

The following discussion is archived.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Various socks blocked, sockmaster ban extended to indef.Fut.Perf.☼08:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Hetoum I (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it:
Not required

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. [90] 1rv per week restriction bySeraphimblade (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)
2. [91] 6 months block byMuZemike (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block,topic ban orother sanction):
Indefinite ban

Additional comments byGrandmaster:
Hetoum I (talk ·contribs) was placed on 1rv per week restriction back in 2007. He was blocked a couple of times for violating his restriction, and after that stopped using his main account, using instead anonymous IPs and sock accounts to edit war across multiple pages and vandalize. The evidence about massive disruption by this user is presented here:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive. As result of the above SPI request, Hetoum was banned for 6 months. However, he evaded his block again, this time using the account ofBrunotheborat (talk ·contribs). According to checkuser, Brunotheborat is a sock of Hetoum:[92] Since Hetoum shows no intention to stop his disruptive activity, I think it is time to reset his ban to permanent.Grandmaster08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another sock of Hetoum,Plainsriver (talk ·contribs). Can we place the articlesKhanate of Erevan andKhanate of Nakhichevan on permanent semi-protection, because of extremely high amount of vandalism by this user?Grandmaster05:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[93]

Grandmaster, in light of your newly-found desire to have restrictions applied only where there is actualdisruption (rather than simply the breaking of arbitrary rules that involve no actual disruption), please state what the disruption here was.Meowy16:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster is POV-pushing also here! Anyone of you, please, can explain me where is the vandalism made by HetoumI at Khanate of Erevan or Khanate of Nakhijevan?? I see only some addings there, which seems to be supported by sources. Hopefully even Perfect will see the difference between adding the Armenian name for Erevan Khanate and... vandalism!Andranikpasha (talk)07:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same as adding Azerbaijani name forDemocratic Republic of Armenia. Is it relevant there? But regardless of content issues, Hetoum was not supposed to be socking, mass reverting pages, and vandalising. And now he is not supposed to edit Wikipedia at all.Grandmaster07:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Per the confirmation of socking by Versageek and the above referenced prior sanctions, I have blocked Hetoum I for a period of one year, which is the maximum term a sanction derived from an Arbitration case may extend. Community bans may be indefinite and are handled atWP:AN.MBisanz^talk19:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And since he's been found to be socking yet again after this decision (seeUser:Fazeri), I have set the block to indef. I assume, as a matter of course, that this user has now reached the stage where no admin would ever want to unblock him again, so, unless somebody objects, he is now indefinitely community banned.Fut.Perf.☼06:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Grandmaster, Meowy and Andranikpasha above: please stop this mutual sniping; it's unproductive. Grandmaster, for the sake of correctness, please don't use the word "vandalism" when what you're dealing with is socking, those are different things. Meowy and Andranikpasha, stop railing against routine ban enforcement. You may not like the fact that Hetoum is banned, but he is banned, and that means his sock activity will be blocked and reverted, period. Grandmaster is very welcome to report such incidences here, and if you continue sniping at him simply for doing so, this will be treated as disruptive conduct on your part.Fut.Perf.☼08:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mr Unsigned Anon

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

User requesting enforcement:
Jiujitsuguy (talk)22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Mr Unsigned Anon (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanationhow these edits violate it:

1. [94] Here he acknowledges that his conduct could get him banned

1. [95] Here, he calls me a racist.

1. [96] Here, he uses gratuitous vulgarity.

1. [97] Here again he uses gratuitous vulgarity.

1. [98] Here, he refers to me as a "retard" and a "moron" and also implies that he has other Wiki accounts.

1. [99] Here, he rambles on and makes some strange reference to “night of the long blades”

1. [100] Here, he calls me "ignorant" and a "moron"

1. [101] Here, he makes inquiries about my race

1. [102] Here, he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics

1. [103] Here, he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.

1. [104] Here, he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page

1. [105] Here, he taunts me to engage him in an edit war

1. [106] revert of sourced material

1. [107] revert of sourced material

1. [108] revert

1. [109] revert of sourced material

1. [110] removal of sourced edits

1. [111] removal of sourced edits

1. [112] removal of sourced edits

1. [113] removal of sourced edits. Preceding four reverts were effectuated within a span of ten minutes.

1. [114] His explanation for revert. "Cant understand why the lead is filled upp with pov stuff even if ballansing out eachother. Start a section or continue to use the reportin other sections. I put the stuff I cut in talk for use els (sic)"

1. [115]

1. [116] His explanation for revert. "removed israeli side exlanation that is undue weight in lead."

1. [117] His explanation for revert. "Removing israels intention to not cooperate. Its intention is bring undue weight and can be presented futher down."

1. [118] revert of sourced material

1. [119] revert of sourced material. Preceeding 2 reverts effectuated within 20 minutes of each other.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

1. [120] Warning byTyw7 (talk ·contribs)

1. [121] Warning byLooie496 (talk ·contribs)

1. [122] Warning byLooie496 (talk ·contribs)

1. [123] Warning byBasket of Puppies (talk ·contribs)

1. [124] Warning byenigmaman (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block,topic ban orother sanction):
Permanent block, topic ban. Has contributed no substantive edits of his own except for extensive reverting. Engages in uncivil behavior and admits to socking.

Additional comments byJiujitsuguy (talk):
I am requesting a lengthy topic ban or block. Mr Unsigned Anon has engaged in uncivil, discourteous conduct with some racial overtones. In addition, he has engaged in a pattern of disruptive conduct and relentless reverts of sourced material. This despite being warned that his disruptive conduct could get him blocked.--Jiujitsuguy (talk)22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest gem that Mr Unsigned Anon just recently left on my Talk page[125]That comment resulted in a 24 hour block issued by BozMo (talk | contribs)here[126] Mr Unsigned Anon seemed proud of his actions calling it "fun" here[127] and taunted the issuing Admin to issue him a lengthier block here[128]--Jiujitsuguy (talk)01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also inclined to believe that he has multiple accounts based on statements that he made here[129].--Jiujitsuguy (talk)14:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Mr Unsigned Anon Notified[130]

There is not an allegation anymore. He admitted to losing his last password and starting a new account. It sounds like he expects a block and he is simply screwing around/being really inappropriate lately. This should be a pretty easy one to close out and I don't think it will hurt his feelings.Cptnono (talk)23:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Revisionism and Islamic Anti-Semitism at Wikipedia

Well, thats it fellow editors. Before I get banned I leve this litle thing, by our userJiujitsuguy (Jiujitsuguy). It might explain his behavour.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk)01:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found Mr Unsigned Anon's contributions to be largely unhelpful and difficult to follow (the latter because of a language issue perhaps?) He is also too quick to revert and often makes provocative comments that do nothing to encourage collaboration. I would support a ban from the Gaza War article for him.

I also think that banning Jiujistu Guy and Stellarkid from the Gaza War article (for revert-warring and editing without regard for NPOV) would be a good step in the right direction as well. Perhaps then, other less trigger happy and aggressive editors could get some real work done on the article.Tiamut^talk12:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tiamut has it exactly right - except that Stellarkid's editing without regard for NPOV (deleting relevant RS cited text) extends to the whole I-P topic so his ban should apply to that whole topic; I haven't looked at any of JiujitsuGuy's edits so I can't comment on his at this time. Thank you,Jgui (talk)15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fun is good, very bad spelling is very bad, and "Mr Unsigned Anon" is a great user name. MUA, if you are permabanned can I have it, I liek it.Meowy17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to stay out of this one since Mr Unsigned Anon has put out an AE on me, above. But with all the discussion going on about me, I feel I have to respond to this one despite any perceived COI. In the little more than a month since Mr UA has come on the scene, editing about 2 articles, he has been responsible for taking a number of other editors to various wiki forums for discipline, and to second Tiamut above, his contributions are "largely unhelpful" "difficult to follow'" and he "often makes provocative comments." Add to this a tendency to use slash and burn tactics and blatantly edit from his particular POV, his presence in the area has done nothing to encourage a collaborative atmosphere. Totally disagree with Tiamut in relation to her comments about Juijitsuguy and myself. We neither of us may be perfect but we try not to edit-war or to edit without regard to NPOV. Tiamut shares a POV with Mr UA, and I with Juijitsuguy but the answer to better editing is not destroying the competition but using the competition to build better and more neutral and informative articles. None of us is perfect, but Juijitsuguy (and I like to think myself) is different, in that he is working fromgood faith effort. Mr Anon, on the other hand, I am convinced, based on his "provocative" comments, disruptive editing in the month+ he has been here, is not working from good faith but deliberately trying to disrupt the projectStellarkid (talk)22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blocks imposed on Mr Unsigned Anon were imposed for conduct that occurred after this AE was filed. It is inconceivable to me that a block of one week is sufficient to address his borish and vulgar conduct. The described conduct is beyond uncivil. It is strange and bizzare. He was well aware that he was under the threat of sanction and his behavior only worsened. Is this the action of a rational person? Add to this the fact that he's made not one original constructive edit. His editing ability appears limited to relentless reverts as evidenced by the partial list of diffs that I've compiled. There's also an issue of socking which he has admitted and is also listed among the compiled diffs. Subsequent to filing this AE, I foundthis page as further evidene of socking. Mr Unsigned Anon has also been issued several warnings including those of sanctions governing Israel/Palestine disputes. These warnings have all been documented and diffs for same have been set forth. It is also worthy of note that he has not a single defender. All who chose to comment on this matter, even those who share similar viewpoints with him, have agreed that his conduct was disruptive and in fact, only worsened with time. Therefore, a one week ban is an insufficient remedy to address the conduct of an "editor" who has demonstrated a total lack of regard for his fellow editors and the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. A much lengthier ban is in order here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk)23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Action appears redundant with this user's block, buthold in the meantime.--Tznkai (talk)05:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block is only one week in length. Sanctions are placed after considering a much longer time frame. Discussion should, on that basis, continue as normal.AGK01:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to watch his behavior coming off of his block before making any actions.--Tznkai (talk)22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed, does not appear to be interested in collaborative encyclopedia building.--Tznkai (talk)05:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru

The following discussion is archived.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

QuackGuru blocked 2 weeks for topic ban violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

DigitalC (talk)23:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans &ban notice

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

#

1. [131] - QuackGuru editsQuackery, adding information aboutD.D. Palmer, the founder of Chiropractic, below "He founded the field ofchiropractic..." and directly below a reference tag containing "History of Chiropractic • Carl Cleveland, Jul '52". This article also has other mentions of Chiropractic.
2. [132] - QuackGuru adds information to a section ofVaccine controversy, adding information directly after a sentence that mentions Chiropractic. The topic is directly related to Chiropractic, and Chiropractic is mentioned about a dozen times in that section of the article.
3. [133] - while this edit is uncontroversial, QuackGuru is supposed to not be editing these pages at all. This articleTrick or Treatment is about a book that "evaluates the scientific evidence for acupuncture, homeopathy, herbal medicine, and chiropractic", and is therefore a topic directly related to Chiropractic.
4. [134] - QuckGuru's ban specifically mentioned QuackWatch. This diff is the same article as above,Trick or Treatment. He adds a link to a review hosted at QuackWatch. The book review that he added again specifically mentions Chiropractic, as does the article.
5. [135] - is one of QuackGuru's several edits toNaturopathy. This edit is again below a sentence mentioning chiropractic. The article itself mentions Chiropractic several times, again making it directly related to Chiropractic.
6. [136] - again editing atQuackery, this time adding text which specifically mentions Chiropractic.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block,topic ban orother sanction)

Block for evading topic ban, OR clarification and extension of topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

From my reading of the ban, s/he was to be banned from "any topics dealing with Chiropractic", and the above topics obviously dealt with Chiropractic. S/he purposefully ignored the ban and continued to edit those articles. This is a sample of diffs, and is not exhaustive. QuackGuru has made many edits at some of the articles listed above. This user has been blocked several times, including a block for 2 weeks for violating the principles of discretionary sanctions[137],[138].DigitalC (talk)23:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[139].

There is no question that QG violated his topic ban and the block is justified. I do have an explanatory comment on SarekOfVulcan's comment below. I'm not sure if sandbox notes should be included in the ban, but they may well be. Whatever, there is enough other evidence to justify the block. FYI, the particular wording"quackery is more prevalent within chiropractic than other healthcare professions" is not an attack by QG on chiropractic, but a quote from research by chiropractic authors. It's a fact that even they admit. You can read about it here:Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism#Ethics_and_claims. Just thought you might like to know this. It doesn't change the fact that QG's block is justified. --Brangifer (talk)02:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. Even sourced appropriately, it would be a clear violation of his topic ban were it added to an article at the moment. I appreciate the input -- think there's anything left to discuss here, or should someone go ahead and close? --SarekOfVulcan (talk)07:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason for keeping this open, so it can probably be archived. Thanks for dealing with the situation. Let's hope he learns something from this. --Brangifer (talk)07:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs #1 and #6 clearly violate the topic ban on chiropractic, so I'm imposing a two-week block, consonant with the previous one. Their recent addition of "sandbox notes" concerning chiropractic may also violate the topic ban, especiallythis one stating quackery is more prevalent within chiropractic than other healthcare professions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)23:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Notification: unconventional sanction for anon IP editor

Jacurek

Request concerning Jacurek

Discussion concerning Jacurek

Statement by Jacurek

Statement by Radeksz

Statement by Piotrus

Comments by others about the request concerning Jacurek

Result concerning Jacurek

Fynire

The following discussion is archived.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Fynire blocked, 30 hours.AGK03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

O Fenian (talk)22:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

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

[163] revert 1,[164] revert 2, less than 24 hours after the first

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block,topic ban orother sanction)

Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has previously attempted to claimEamon Broy was an informer not a double agent, for example seethis version. The second revert is totally unacceptable in my opinion, as it removes a source I added and also adds back incorrect information that had recently been changed by an IP editor and I fixed that at the same time, before Fynire blindly reverted in breach of 1RR. Note that Fynire is also claiming on other pages that "informer" is not neutral despite being the term sources use, before adding his own unsourced opinion that Broy was an informer to this article, this is pure disruption in my opinion.O Fenian (talk)22:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[165]

A second option was provided - double agent or informer, That's all. Irt depends on where you stand. You can't have one only. --Fynire (talk)22:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Repeatedly pushing, by reversion, a given viewpoint without discussion (and, apparently, without any attempts to reference) is unacceptable. Fynire is blocked for30 hours. Discussion and dispute resolution should be the primary aspects of an editor's toolkit; the undo function should be used sparingly, and with special caution in contested subject areas.AGK03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:HistoricWarrior007 appeal of topic ban

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

Note: I have reformatted this request - it appears to be an appeal against a ban imposed byUser:Future Perfect at Sunrise after he was told this was the place to appeal[166], but was incorrectly formatted as a complaint.henrik•talk22:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement:

HistoricWarrior007 (talk)20:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Appeal of topic ban

Sanction or remedy that this user wishes to appeal:

Unjust Topic Ban

HistoricWarrior, withthis edit I feel you have crossed a line. You (and others) were warned some weeks ago that the permanent hostility and edit-warring on that article would not be tolerated forever. For the aggressive"ownership" attitude, hostility, threats and personal attacks expressed in this latest posting of yours, in connection with the months-long history of near-permanent edit-warring on the same article, you are nowtopic-banned from the2008 South Ossetia War article, all articles related to it, and all related talk pages, for a period oftwo months. This topic ban will be logged at the Arbcom enforcement section ofWP:DIGWUREN.Fut.Perf.☼11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of prior warnings:

HistoricWarrior007 has no history of prior warnings.

Ban was imposed here:[167]

Enforcement action requested:

Exoneration from the Unjust Topic Ban

Additional comments byHistoricWarrior007 (talk):

I do not believe the ban is appropriate, as it goes against this wishes of the Community, 6 experienced editors told Future Perfect at Sunrise that his watchful eye in our article was unnecessary, and no one spoke out in his favor,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring, and the ban based on the policy I did not know about,WP:DIGWUREN.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise&action=historysubmit&diff=325113200&oldid=325060114

I fully stand behind this topic ban: HistoricWarrior007 has a history of a persistently hostile, very combative battleground attitude over that article, combined with nearly incessant slow revert-warring over many months. I have become convinced that his presence is the main factor that has made the talkpage of2008 South Ossetia war an incredibly toxic environment. The edit that triggered the sanction[168] was just the straw that broke the camel's back. His conduct here and previously onWP:RFAR, with the aggressive claim that all those dozens (or hundreds, by now?) reverts of his were not revert-warring but removal of "vandalism", and his immediate assumptions of bad faith on my part, just illustrate the same problem. (Incidentally, it's ironic I was accused of being anti-EMLL when I sanctionedJacurek (talk ·contribs) the other day; now I'm being accused of being pro-EMLL because I happen to sanction somebody on the other side.)

Since the topic ban, HW has shifted his activity to other Russian war topics, such as Dagestan and Chechnya, and some of his edits have been so blatantly tendentious I am seriously considering if even more stringent restrictions are necessary. Here[169] he is inserting an unsourced, highly negative biographical assertion as a fact, when he must know (from the main article on that person) that the underlying claim is, at best, contentious. Here[170], in an edit that is actually skirting the topic ban (a bio of a semi-notable political analyst, which he only wrote as aWP:COATRACK because he was previously promoting quotations from that analyst on the South Ossetia article for evident POV reasons), he describes the orientation of a Russian political journal as "a common sense magazine that does it best to explain what is going on in Russia without pandering to corporate interests". – I am convinced no editor of HW's intelligence and experience could possibly, even for a minute, fool himself into believing this is a neutral description. Therefore, this edit, even though only affecting a minor side issue, displays a reckless disregard for NPOV. This kind of irresponsible editing, by failing to strive for NPOV, is in and by itself sanctionable behaviour (in terms of the discretionary sanctions clause: failure "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia"). 07:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just adding a dummy edit here to prevent the thread from being archived without a conclusion.Fut.Perf.☼08:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before reading further, I ask the reader only one thing: Look beyond the accusation. Look for the actual evidence. That is all I ask.

FutPerf accuses me of (1) ownership of the article; (2) edit-warring and hostility; (3) threats;

(1) Ownership: I have encouraged everyone to use the discussion page prior to editing, as is required by the article’s "controversial" template. I have discussed all of my edits, prior to making them. When a new user made an edit that I didn’t agree with, I reverted it, and asked him to use the talkpage; after the discussion, his arguments were better than mine, and he made the edit. There is a ton of material in the article that I disagree with in the article, but sometimes I win the discussion and they go, and sometimes I lose the discussion and they stay. And if anyone still thinks that I “own” the article, I volunteer for a 4 month long 1RR restriction in that article.

(2) Edit-Warring and hostility: as was previously pointed out to FutPerf, what was occurring in the article was not edit-warring but vandalism, and reverts of said vandalism. Despite 6 users pointing this out to FutPerf, all of whom are knowledgeable, long-term editors of the article, with a 2-4 pro-Georgian - pro-Russian split, FutPerf ignored our combined statements, and proceeded to claim edit-warring where none existed. Proof:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring.

(3) Threats: I challenge FutPerf to find a single threat that I made. Here is what FutPerf believes is a threat: "I am tired of you using these tactics. I won't hesitate to expose anymore of these tactics, the minute I see them. So don't use them." On the other hand FutPerf has been accused of making threats in our article, as is shown in the link above.

FutPerf claims that I was warned, in the above listed link and here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War However, in the latter link, ArbCom completely ignored FutPerf’s request; when a Court ignores a request, the status quo prevails, and no warning occurs.

I also fail to see why I am being punished perWP:DIGWUREN, considering that I had no knowledge ofWP:DIGWUREN. FutPerf states that it applies to all Eastern European Articles, but FutPerf failed to mention it in both of his "warnings".

The edit that I am being topic-banned for can be found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=historysubmit&diff=324541357&oldid=324532032 Granted, it wasn’t my brightest move, and the joke at the end was in poor taste. Nevertheless, in my defense, the edit involved the title debates, which occupy, literally, over 100 pages; it’s where every point was argued and counter-argued at least several times.

It is also interesting to note that FurPerf topic-banned me shortly after I presented evidence for ArbCom, and that he made the "warning" in the article, shortly after FeelSunny and I spoke out in the ArbCom case, regarding the Cabal.

To summarize, I am being banned for something I did not do, by an administrator who is hostile towards me, using a policy I never heard of.I have no history of prior bans/blocks/warnings. Thus, I am appealing.

Biophys takes the song that I posted, altered it, and on the basis of his alterations, claims that I am a member of Nashi.

Biophys' Version: "knife-bayonet penetrates atrembling body of your enemy"

Actual Version: "knife-bayonet penetrates the body...The poet-praised Caucasian Region is covered in blood, in the hearts hatred stings, but SpetzNaz will close hatred's path with their chests, because SpetzNaz doesn't run from danger"

The point of the song is to show that everyone suffered, but Biophys altered it, to make it look like the SpetzNaz was out to get the "enemy". (The word "enemy" isn't mentioned in the entire song, not even once. Nor is the word "trembling".) Additionally, Biophys connects this song to the KGB, that he sees everywhere. However the song is about the SpetzNaz. SpetzNaz is as much related to the KGB, as the Green Berets to the CIA; in other words - there's no relationship.

Please see here for further elaboration:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_Biophys

It is interesting to note how quickly Future Perfect at Sunrise changed his reasons from (1) ownership of the article and (3) threats, completely dismissing those, and now arguing for (1) hostile-combative attitude and (3) toxicity of the talkpage, but he's still keeping the revert-warring claim.

My hostile-combative attitude can be easily debunked, by the fact that I backed down, when a new user presented better evidence, that contradicted evidence presented by MDB, a publication that I have always backed, and even had a dispute with FutPerf about:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_27#Italics_vs_Quotes, where he made the edit, and I took it to the talkpage.

My recent reverts resulted when a user blanked a whole section, and I restored that section. With the exception of that, I had no reverts after FutPerf issued his "warning", that weren't reverts of vandalism. The revert wars have died out, before FutPerf entered the article. Please review this section, which completely debunks FutPerf's claim about my hostile-combative attitude:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Moving_Over_from_my_Talkpage_-_naval_stuff. A short summary: two users came to me to ask for a mini-dispute resolution regarding the position of the Russian Naval Forces in the 2008 South Ossetia War. How can I be hostile and combative, when fellow Wikipedians are asking me to resolve a dispute?

I had less than 100 overall reverts, not counting vandalism reverts. I have never broken 3RR. I was never warned for any of my reverts. I repeatedly asked fellow Wikipedians to use the talkpage. FutPerf shows that he has no data on the issue, by claiming for "dozens, maybe hundreds" of reverts. I understand people are busy, but when administering a two-month topic ban, isn't it at least necessary to know whether a user did 24 or 400 reverts? Isn't it vital to know the time span? In a year's time of editing that article, I had less than 100 non-vandalism reverts. That's less than 1 revert in three days.

In response to the new "evidence" brought in by FutPerf:

151: Litvinenko first worked for the FSB, and then worked against the FSB for Berezovsky's Group. That makes him a double-agent, which is all that I inserted. I didn't say whether he was a bad or good double agent, but if you are working for two different security organizations, giving the intelligence of one organization to another, you are a double-agent, and I fail to see what's so negative about that. Every country has double-agents, it doesn't automatically make one the embodiment of evil.

152: I wrote an article on Patrick Armstrong, who works with Sharon Tennison to strengthen the US-Russia relationship. I made an effort to exclude anything he wrote that was relevant to the 2008 South Ossetia War, out of the article. I fail to see how that skirts the issue.

Future Perfect at Sunrise also claimed negativity about my edits to the Second Chechen War and Invasion of Dagestan Articles. He has yet to provide proof of how those were bad. I am a military historian, I edit articles relevant to military history. Why is this a crime? And no user can be truly NPOV, we all know that, and we all have bias on the basis of our education. One punishes editors for warring over POV, not for merely inserting their POV into the articles. The very fact that FutPerf is bringing such "evidence", shows that he has no evidence. And in terms of the Invasion of Dagestan, right after I began to edit that article, FutPerf, who showed no interest in the article prior to my editing of it, moved to delete the SpetzNaz image.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dagestan_1999.jpg

(3) Toxic Atmosphere: the most toxic atmosphere that I have seen in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article, was created by FutPerf. For instance when he came into the article to offer his services, he was vehemently rejected:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

I will quote some of the reception that FutPerf's idea received, and these sum up the views of everyone who edited the article, except Biophys, who thinks I'm a member of Nashi, and KGB is editing Wikipedia Articles. Here is the reception to the toxic and hostile environment that FutPerf created, and then turned around and accused me of creating; reception to FutPerf's "policing" the article:

A.I'm sorry, but I don't think threatening editors is the correct answer here. Many of us have been working hard to improve the article. Offliner (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

B.So let me get this straight. An administrator is threatening to block a group of users who are almost entirely responsible for the article in its current form, simply because of the unavoidable fact that the topic is controversial and there are parties on both sides who are adamant that the article stay neutral from their view? So what would you rather, one person or one group with coinciding views to edit it to their liking with no disruptions? Your logic is incomprehensible to me...LokiiT (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

C.If I'm thinking of the same "small group of editors" that you're referring to, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I belive that you're sadly mistaken. Although disagreements do break out, as they usually do on such a controversial and fairly recent topic, this "small group of editors" has done a superb job of revamping this article over the past several months. There is little revert-warring occurring, and the only reason for the high revert count is due to the fact that Reenem's edits are often reverted, as they are done improperly and violate WIkipedia rules, as HistoricWarrior said earlier...Laurinavicius (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

D.Do I understand it right your last message means you intend to block me from editing this article together with a "whole cast of its regular editors" unless I convince you this article can breath with me editing it? If so, you can proceed with your administrator duties and rights and block me right away, if this is your intent. Please take into account that whatever decision you make, you make it on your own discretion, of course, and this message is in no way an expression of my wish to be blocked. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FurPerf's threats and subsequent carrying out of said threats, are the reason for the hostility that he is getting, and not just from me.

Nobody is accusing Future Perfect at Sunrise of EMLL, and the Jacurek case is irrelevant. The accusation I made, was that as soon as FeelSunny and I spoke out in the ArbCom case, Future Perfect at Sunrise threatened us in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article, thereby creating the toxic atmosphere. He also "warned" Xeeron from the other side.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War FeelSunny, Xeeron and I were the most active ArbCom contributors from the 2008 South Ossetia War article, that weren't directly involved in the case. And he directly accused the three of us.

The accusation against FutPerf is that he worked actively to against the writers of the 2008 South Ossetia War Article that commented on the ArbCom case, irrespective of the sides.

On the 18th of September, 2009 I asked to be included in the proceedings:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

On the 22nd of September, Future Perfect at Sunrise appeared with a threat in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

On the 5th of November, I presented evidence:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FEastern_European_mailing_list%2FEvidence&action=historysubmit&diff=324160468&oldid=323152291

On the 8th of November, I received the topic ban:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Topic-banned

And I've yet to understand why I was blocked perWP:DIGWUREN a policy that FutPerf didn't warn me about, a policy that I didn't even know existed.

According to FutPerf, I was "warned" twice:

Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring (please note the response to FutPerf's "warning" by editors on all sides, as we tried to, in vain, inform him that the edit-war was over.)

And Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War

Please note, that with the exception of Biophys, who thinks I'm Nashi because I posted a SpetzNaz song, (that's like relating Green Berets to Black Panthers,) no one supports FutPerf. In the second request, FeelSunny asks for proof of edit warring, and Biophys provides his altered version of the song instead. The second one was also phrased as "Question to ArbCom" to which ArbCom didn't reply. So it FutPerf's language, "Question to ArbCom" really means "warning to the editors I am mentioning below". You can find the elaboration here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Topic-banned

I would like to note four things:

1. All of the evidence that was presented against me, was refuted. The very fact that Tznkai has to devolve to talking about my username, shows the drops of evidence that the accusers have. I feel like I'm at theSalem Witch Trials. Maybe Tznkai would be kind enough to show me which evidence by FutPerf he used, but for some reason I doubt he will do so.

2. The Arbitration Committee for ban appeals consists of Coren, Roger Davis and Cool Hand Luke.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBCOM#BASC I don't see Tznkai on there. The way I understood the process, was that only experienced administrators who look at all sides of the evidence, not just the parties' usernames, are subject to commenting on ban appeals. I apologize if I was wrong, and this is indeed Salem.

3. I apologize for requiring the administrators to actually get their facts right before the ban, or denying the appeal. Tznkai claims thatthe community at large has abandoned the topic area because of irritating partisans. If Tznkai was kind enough to actually check the logs, he would notice 9 active editors, in the past two weeks, in a single article! If the discussion page was included, the total number is 16 active editors, not to mention a few active IPs. We must have a lot of partisans. And our partisans must vote for both sides of the issue, and argue with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=history

I'd also like to note that I was given a Barnstar for the article, by a completely neutral editor who was just watching for grammar/vandalism,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HistoricWarrior007#For_the_Incredible_Work:_The_Tireless_Contributor_Barnstar, and that FutPerf, Tznkai, and Biophys need to present actual evidence, not posting a SpetzNaz song and claiming it's Nashi song, not accusing me of calling a double-agent, a double-agent, and in all honesty, you need something aside from my username to convict me.

4. Despite all this, Tznkai now accuses me of editing Wikipedia like a Patriot,whatever that means. It is interesting to note, how quickly the accusations change. I never knew that edition like a Patriot is against Wikipedia rules. A Patriot strives for NPOV, because he wants the World to know the truth about his country, be it bad or good, and is tired of the lies spread about it. A Nationalist edits for POV, because he just wants to tell the World that his country is #1, irrespective of reality. It is important to know what Patriotism and Nationalism mean, and to not confuse the two.

• Some background information.Biophys (talk)00:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPS, in your topic ban you stated "you (and some others) were warned...". It would be helpful if you could provide a pointer to the warning.Looie496 (talk)18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, when an admin comes to an article, and in two messages makes a threat to block users in packs - this is called "going postal". And here, thesame admin is going to topic ban an active editor that has addedtons of useful information to the article, virtually making it look like it does now.

Yes, the post that FPAS incriminates to HW looks bad, as a "batteground spirit" one. The only real reason, though, is HW isalive andfrank. There are dozens of editors out there with the same battleground type of behavior, who normally conceal their intentions, but may wellcoordinate their disruptive activity, and involve in any kind of illegal activity to push their POV.

However, only the 3-4 most misbehaving members of this Eastern European mailing list out of a dozen may now get a topic ban. Now here an admin just makes a three months topic ban for one wrong edit. Plus, HW was one of the editors that helped to protect the article from the anti-Russian mailing list members, and he was attacked by them numerous times in "2008 SO war" and other articles. And now he gets banned for "battleground behavior." No matter how much FPAS is sad about the initial unwelcoming attitude of the article editors towards him, his decision in this case is absolutely not fair.FeelSunny (talk)18:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File the appropriate reports and gather evidence on the other ones then. I'm not going to go looking around just on your say so, nor am I capable of reading your mind as to figure out exactly who you are talking about.

In the vernacular, (frankness, if you prefer) put up, or shut up.--Tznkai (talk)18:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not too difficult to get to the arbcom pagewhich is linked in my previous post and see that one of the main purposes of the Eastern European mailing list members was to pester HW007 and Russavia and provoke them. It isnot too difficult for anuninvolved administrator.FeelSunny (talk)18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot be called a completely uninvolved person, since while I'm not a prominent editor of the article, I'm still a very avid reader of both the article and its talkpage, and have been monitoring them ever since their conception. That's why I decided to have my say in this case, as soon, as I became aware of it, since it strikes me as - and I see no other suitable description for it - completely unjust.

The was no evidence shown in the case to prove that HistoricWarrior is guilty, only accusations. I will do my best to show you why I believe that HistoricWarrior is valuable to the article, and to Wikipedia. Please bear with me, as I try to show you the side that the accusers will not.

To begin with, I saw the edit, that according to Future Perfect at Sunrise "broke the camel's back", and frankly, I find it laughable. I don't know, maybe to an article's outsider, HistoricWarrior's (let's admit it) overwhelming (but rather hilarious - even his opponents sometimes admit that) sarcasm can seem to cross the line, but my experience is that after a couple of posts one will understand that it's his general manner of speech, which doesn't carry any hostility towards anyone, and will stop noticing it whatsoever.

To be honest with everyone, I also have to say, that I completely agree with what HistoricWarrior said in that notorious post. Kamikaze tactics, stalking/haunting tactics, flashmobbing tactics, and just about every other dirty tactic one can think of has been implemented in the article, by certain users, and group of users including, but not limited to, the notorious Eastern European mailing list group.

I can only praise HistoricWarrior when he comes out and calls things their proper names. This, and also the fact, that he almost singlehandedly managed to oppose said group in their attempt to rename the article to an inherently POVed title with his clear and concise arguments. This act not only attracted, and still attracts a certain degree of hostility to him (which he constantly has to endure), but is the very reason, why he was awarded Barnstars, for his coolheadedness and professionalism. Maybe that "certain degree of hostility" is what Future Perfect at Sunrise has perceived as an "incredibly toxic environment" in the article, but he couldn't be more mistaken.

This level of hostility was present in the article much earlier than HistoricWarrior appeared. It was just concentrating between a different set of editors. And trust me when I say it, the current level of hostility is at its historical lowest. Judging by the latest discussion between editors (connected to release of UNOMIG report on the war, which cleared up majority of contentious issues, but introduced lots of others - as usual), the improvement in interaction is so strikingly noticeable to anyone who was unfortunate enough to see the article at least half a year before now, that I'm completely at loss of understanding, why Future Perfect insists on ruining that miraculously established balance between differently POVed editors. Does he really think, that if he removes one of the most prominent contributors to the article, the situation somehow will improve?

Let me assure him, then, that it will just mean that all contentious issues in the article from now on will be raised to community's attention by someone else - which will make said "someone" a next hotspot for all controversy and accusations by opposing groups. Will that "someone" and then another and another "someones" become next targets for Future Perfect's bans, until article won't have a single homogenous group with internally noncontradicting POV? Does that make any sense? Not to me.

Seriously, I think Future Perfect at Sunrise should familiarize himself more with the article's background, before trying to impose his uninformed decisions. Just where was he, when EEML cabal was taking their jump at the article (and the cabal is now getting only two months' ban each)? Where was he, when article renaming issue was so contrived that it took several rename attempts, three flashmob votes, and numerous renaming discussions? For a glimpse of what I'm talking about, all of these links concern article rename (and that's without 3 months worth of the latest ones):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_2#Article_namehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_3#Name_changehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Google_hits_confirm_most_popular_nameshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_4#Media_call_it_Georgia-Russia_conflicthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_War_in_Georgiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#name_change.3Fhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Rename_nowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_5#Article_renamehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_6#Seriously.2C_this_article_needs_to_be_renamedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_7#Requested_movehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_8#Needs_to_be_renamedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_10#Article_renamehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_rankings_on_Google_Newshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_11#Name_of_articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_13#.22South_Ossetia_War.22.3Fhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_14#Title_consensushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_15#New_Title_consensushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_17#Renamehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_19#Renamehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_22#Specific_options (there is actually a vote)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_23#To_Those_Opposing_the_current_titlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24 (the whole archive is dedicated to another vote)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#The_title_and_the_leadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#An_Argument_that.27s_yet_to_be_defeated_by_all_the_.22let.27s_change_the_war.27s_name.2C_yes.2C_again.2C_we_really.2C_really_want_to.22_peoplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25#It_Appears_that_Kober_did_violate_the_moving_conventionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26 (that's yet another archive dedicated to yet another vote)

Those neverending rename discussions were so dirty, long (really, REALLY long) and persistent, that some editors (even innocent bystanders) said they are disgusted and nauseated by it, and quit editing the article (if not Wikipedia, I'm afraid) forever. Ever since "we should start a rename discussion" is a running gag among extremely-dark-humor lovers, and any other editor will have a hard time reacting to such proposal adequately (in this regard, HistoricWarrior's reaction that he expressed in his post was more adequate, than I myself would have been able to muster on his place).

Despite all that and unlike some other editors, HistoricWarrior managed to remain open to compromise as can be seen from the latest example: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Moving_Over_from_my_Talkpage_-_naval_stuff).

I really insist on Future Perfect getting a full read of talkpage archives (no, seriously. it's a worthy read even in itself, not just only in this case), if he indeed wants to make informed judgements on article's proceedings. I also can only wonder, what he could have meant by an "incessant slow revert-warring" by HistoricWarrior, and I doubt there can be any evidence to it (I have never seen any). It occurs to me, though, that maybe Future Perfect have never seen before how truly controversial articles are usually edited.

Personally, I suggest to consider that: during a whole year of editing (and especially during one of the rename votes) many opponents would have liked to frame HistoricWarrior up. EEML cabal went as far, as trying to suck a case of Canvassing out of their collective finger, but it was so ridiculous, that it fell apart without starting. The simple fact, that even his worst opponents haven't managed to uncover any kind of misbehavior on his part that they could cling on, says more to me, than anything else.

Having said all that, I suggest to lift this ban, while majority of other editors still hadn't remembered their old grudges, and tried to bury HistoricWarrior and each other in accusations in order to gain "editing advantage", and thus returned on the wrong path of accusing each other instead of improving the article. I was really glad when that trend discontinued, and I really hope to never see it any more, thank you.ETST (talk)12:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving this in 24 hrs barring an uninvolved admin requesting otherwise = must bury this quickly, lest some honest administrator sees it.Meowy03:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If I understand the basic argument here, HistoricWarrior007, aside from having an unfortunate username that suggests he is here to do battle instead of build a collaborative encyclopedia, claims the community at large is against this topic ban. The community at large has abandoned the topic area because of irritating partisans. I see no reason to believe that HistoricWarrior007 is not one of them. I see evidence that not only has HistoricWarrior007 has not left his rather strong opinions at the door, but has let it infect his work. I see excellent reason to extend the topic ban even wider, or to boot HistoricWarrior007 off the project entirely.Appeal denied.--Tznkai (talk)15:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for the ban appeals subcomittee, rather than for another administrator to overturn a discretionary sanctions, you need to e-mail theBan Appeals Subcommittee. As for evidence, I looked at your contribution log and at your talk page, which suggest that you identify yourself as a "patriot" (whatever that means to you) and youedit in advocacy for the associated point of view.--Tznkai (talk)20:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving this in 24 hrs barring an uninvolved admin requesting otherwise.--Tznkai (talk)16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^Benny Morris,Righteous Victims - First Arab-Israeli War - Operation Yoav.