Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive107

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

Request concerning Jiujitsuguy

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : asad (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA


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


 * 1) 16/12/11 Re-adds the "Archaeology museums in Israel" cat to the Rockefeller Museum article after it was removed with an edit summary of "Not in Israel". JJG provides no real explanation as to why he re-added false information.
 * 2) 09/01/12 Adds " Ex Nazis" as a belligerent on the versus Israel side in the info box on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article.
 * 3) 09/01/12 Revert and re-adds the same info without bothering to start a discussion on the talk page.
 * 4) 12/01/12 Revert and edit-wars the material in a third time, but decides to finally bring something up about it on the talkpage.
 * JJG cites Israeli historian, Benny Morris, who writes, "Several dozen Britons, most of them former British army or police officers (by mid-March 1948 some 230 British soldiers and thirty policemen had deserted), also served in the Palestinian Arab ranks, as did some volunteers from Yogoslavia and Germany. The Yugoslavs, possibly in their dozens, were both Christians, formerly members or the pro-Axis Fascist groups, and Bosnian Muslims; the handfuls of Germans were former Nazi intelligence, Wehrmacht, and SS officers."


 * The Benny Morris source also states that the Jewish Yeshuv side was supported by at least 100 Americans. The only thing JJG focuses on are the “handful of Germans”. When you compare the amounts (a handful of German ex-Nazis to 100 Americans and dozens of British) you would think, in the interest of neutrality, that JJG would have added the American flag to the Jewish Yeshuv side to represent the 100 Americans or added the British flag to the Arab side to represent the "several dozen" British soldiers. But of course JJG's purpose on Wikipedia would explain why he did not decide to do that. Throwing in a reactionary and emotional symbol like a Swastika, which immediately becomes associated with the Arab armies, is a very clever way to push a POV by playing on the emotions of someone who is reading the article. Considering that he was previously topic-banned for "persistent ideological POV-pushing across many articles", one would think he would try to steer clear from these kinds of edits. All of this goes without mentioning the slow-paced edit-warring that was involved, namely two reverts within 72 hours.


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


 * 1) Topic-banned on 4/3/11 by for "persistent ideological POV-pushing across many articles"


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Jiujitsuguy is probably one of the most POV-warrior minded editors who I have come across. Recently, he barely escaped sanction for misrepresenting sources to push a POV. In fact, it appears as if the only reason he was not sanctioned, was do to lack consensus among admins, as one admin in particular objected and viewed the issue as a "content dispute" rather than a conduct one. The issue with this admin was later clarified by ArbCom, to the understanding that such an issue is one of conduct.

You would think someone so close to facing a lengthy topic-ban, and who was recently topic-banned for manipulating sources to push a POV, would be more conscious to avoid the type of POV pushing that he has engaged by the evidence of above. But it is very clear now that Jiujitsuguy just intends to use Wikipedia as another tool of his to push one of the most minority-POVs that exist in any major political subject in the world.
 * @ElComandanteChe- It is not a content dispute. There were more British and American forces who took sides during the war than there were Ex Nazi (this according to the source JJG provided). JJG cherry-picked the the belligerents and only added the Nazis and their flag to the Arab side. The first edit is shows the pattern of what behavior that JJG continues to display, and has displayed since he last topic ban expired two months ago for source distortion and POV pushing. -asad (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @WGFinley- The issue is not JJG having a reliable source or not, the issue how he used it. If you want to AGF, that's your prerogative, but I know that an editor who has a history source abuse will only have done what they did with the belligerent section because they were, once again, abusing the sources. By all the evidence and the quotes that JJG has brought to the admins attention, there is no doubt that he is well read. So then the question becomes -- why did he only put the flag of the Nazis to represent a handful of Nazis and not put the flag of the British or Americans to represent an equal or greater amount of troops? The only "good faith" answer available is that a known source abuser somehow, miraculously, did not read the part about the Americans of British. But I don't think that is what JJG is even claiming. He even said to User:Sandstein a few months back that he "[understands] that misrepresenting a source is a serious offense that undermines the integrity of the entire project." If those are the kinds of standards of AGF to be upheld, say bye-bye to any reliability and objectivity to anything in the I-P area.


 * Of course, there is the tendentious part and the gaming of the 1RR. He made two reverts in three days and on the second revert opened a discussion. It was not just an ordinary revert -- but a revert of highly controversial, cherry-picked material. And it wasn't just one revert of controversial material, but two reverts (mere hours apart) adding back the same controversial material. JJG exhibited the same sort of behavior at the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. Not only does he add highly controversial material into the article without consensus, he has the audacity to add it to the lead! If that wasn't enough already, he reverts without a even bothering to open up a discussion. I sure wish a ban from adding flags in a belligerent box on a single article would fix this kind of repeated POV pushing behavior. -asad (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



Statement by Jiujitsuguy

 * According to Zeev Schiff, under "Makeup of Arab forces," he states that "volunteers came from among Yugoslavian Muslims, deserters from the British Army and ex-Nazis." (History of the Israeli Army, Page 29)


 * According to Leslie Stein, “Some 500 Yugoslavs plus a number of Germans” fought on the Palestinian behalf. (The Making of Modern Israel, 1948-1967, Pages 44, 45)


 * Benny Morris notes on page 85 that the Arab ranks included "some volunteers from Yugoslavia and Germany." The Yugoslavs were drawn from both pro-Axis fascist groups and Bosnian Muslims. The Germans were composed of Nazi intelligence, Wehrmacht and SS officers. (1948, Page 85)


 * With respect to Morris, I utilized that source to specify the composition of ex-Nazis and units they were drawn from and not the quantity. Asad has misleadingly drawn your attention to the wrong page. I used page 85 and my edit (which identifies the makeup of involved German units) precisely corresponds to that page. I also utilized Zeev Schiff as a source as well and I can scan and email you the page if you don’t have access to the book. Asad, in mendacious fashion leaves out the fact that I used Schiff as a source. I could have also used Stein but believed that Morris and Schiff were sufficient.


 * The edits were well-sourced, accurate and explained on the discussion page as well as the pages of an involved editor In addition, rather than reinserting the edit I offered to compromise and this suggestion was met with a positive response and agreement I was glad to see that we were making progress on the issue and indicated this on respective talk and discussion pages here and here where I noted the following A discussion on the matter was held on our (GabrielF & JJG) respective talk pages and agreement as to the precise text concerning German and Yugoslav volunteers seems within reach. I'll formulate something over the weekend. The statement represents a clear indication by me to work collaboratively on the issue.


 * Asad deliberately misstates the record and omits critical portions from his narrative. In an attempt to formulate a compromise, I specifically offered to remove the flag as well as other modifications. Please note my compromise offer; "Would you object to something like "foreign volunteers" (without the flag stuff) similar to that which appears on the Israeli column? Could that be a possible compromise?" The response I received was a positive one and one which looked as though the issue was about to be resolved; "I would not object to the phrase "foreign volunteers" - particularly since there were volunteers from Arab countries not mentioned. I would object to the use of flags or to listing countries of origin in the info box." My response to that was, "Excellent. Progress is always a good thing. It is refreshing to deal with editors who are open-minded I'll work on something over the weekend and present you with a modified text." This exchange represents the best of collaborative editing and is removed from Asad's convoluted narrative. In fact, Asad didn’t even participate in the discussion. It seems as though his sole role was to wait on the sidelines for the opportunity to strike. Sigh


 * In sum the edits were well-sourced from reliable verifiable sources, the edits were discussed (in fact, I was first to open a discussion on the matter), A compromise was within reach, there was no violation of 1r, and I offered to work collaboratively as evidenced by the diffs. Moreover, if any admin wishes to have a scanned copy of the sources, I would me more than happy to comply--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I absolutely noted Yugoslavs and the noted sources don't mention American participation under disposition of Arab forces. Foreign volunteers for the Israeli side have already been noted under Mahal. I don't understand. I did everything by the letter and spirit of the book. I made edits that were reliable and verifiable. I did not violate 1r. I was the first to open a discussion at not just the discussion page but at the talk pages of involved editors. As noted above, I indicated a strong willingness to collaborate and compromise and was making headway in that regard and now somehow, this becomes a referendum on me? I've done a helluva lot of good for the space improving the Yom Kippur war article, the War of Attrition, creating a half-dozen articles on military battles. I have provided you with the sources. I scanned and emailed them to you and you can share with any admin you'd like. I'm going well above and beyond what is required and acted in strict accordance (by letter and spirit) with the rules. What more do you want? What annoys me the most is that Asad brought this AE after I left the following comment on the discussion page; A discussion on the matter was held on our (GabrielF & JJG) respective talk pages and agreement as to the precise text concerning German and Yugoslav volunteers seems within reach. I'll formulate something over the weekend It appears that he brought this AE simply to preempt the possibility that the article would include compromise language that he would object to.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion on your talk page, I'll stay low for a few weeks.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the matter in hindsight, I believe that the addition of the flag icon without a contemporaneous comment at the discussion page was wrong. I tried to rectify the problem by attempting to formulate modified text that would exclude the flag icon as well as other modifications. Regardless, I thought that since other scholarly texts (Schiff, Herzog, Stein and Morris) included the facts that I noted, it would be prudent to do so here. This is especially so since the Israeli belligerent column includes foreign volunteers. In any event, I recognize that the manner in which I added the info was incorrect and offer apologies for the stir.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ex-Nazis is precisely the term that Zeev Schiff uses and I will email the source to you if you provide me with an email address. It is not tendentious if that's the term the source employs. If you don't want to provide me with your email, then have HJMitchell forward it to you because I already gave it to him. I also added Yugoslavs. Some 500, composed of Bosnian Muslims and former pro-Axis militia, volunteered. Is that tendentious as well? I employed precisely the terms used by the source.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zeev Schiff: "Other Volunteers came from among Yugoslavian Moslems, deserters from the British Army and ex-Nazis."
 * Leslie Stein: "The Jews were not alone in mobilizing foreign volunteers. Some five-hundred Yugoslavs plus a number of Germans, Poles and over 50 Britons fought on the Palestinian behalf."
 * Chaim Herzog also notes that the Arab side employed Germans, Yugoslavs, British deserters and Poles to drive vehicles loaded with bombs into Jewish populated areas. (page 25)
 * Morris notes on page 85 that the Germans were drawn from ex-intel, Wehrmacht and SS officers and the Yugoslavs were drawn from Bosnian Muslim ranks and former pro-Axis militia. I used Morris only to note the composition of Germans and Yugoslavs.
 * Schiff was used to note that volunteers came from the ranks of ex-Nazis and Yugoslavs. Morris was used to note their specific composition, and sub-types. I noted Stein and Herzog at the discussion page. If other notable scholarly texts include these facts, should this content not be added to Wikipedia?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As I noted, use of the icon without contemporaneous comment of the matter on the discussion page was not the correct way to go about things. The information was accurate, though admittedly I could have gone about it differently and I noted this on the discussion page even before the instant action was initiated. In fact, I was in the midst of a discussion on the matter and was making progress and I was going to offer revised text, absent the icon as evidenced by the above-noted diffs.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by ElComandanteChe
I don't actually see any sense in this complaint. It's quite clear that Asad dislikes JJG, and that JJG has certain political views, but none of these is sanctionable. The first diff is month old. The rest is a content dispute, discussed right now on the relevant talk page. May be there are signs of slow edit-warring here, but JJG is the one who started the discussion on the talk page, and simultaneously worked in a collaborative manner to build a consensus version (here and here), while his opponents just kept pushing the revert button. The presented evidence is too weak to draw the sound analysis next to it. -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 00:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by ZScarpia
I'd say that the List of Belligerents quite clearly got out of hand. What readers would expect to see is a list of the major participants, which on the Arab side should probably be a list of Arab states (I doubt that Pakistan should be listed as a belligerent) and perhaps the Arab Liberation Army. I doubt that political parties should be listed as belligerents, or the 'foreign volunteers' listed on the Israeli side, who didn't serve in their own separate units. Better judgement would have precluded translating a reference to handfuls of Yugoslavs and Germans fighting on the Arab side into extending the belligerent list, particularly into making the leap of labelling Morris's ex-members of Nazi intelligence (presumably the Gestapo), the Wehrmacht and the SS as Nazis, when that isn't what Morris says, and of including the flag of Nazi Germany.    ←   ZScarpia  01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I missed the facts that Jiujitsuguy gave Schiff, who explicitly uses the term ex-Nazis, as a reference in addition to Morris and that, in a passage other than the one quoted, Morris does himself use that term, so I was incorrect to state that Jiujitsuguy misrepresented Morris. My apologies to everyone.    ←   ZScarpia  13:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem Z and thank you for your honesty. Apology whole-heartedly accepted without reservation.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia  14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy, 07:40, 21 January 2012: Ohiostandard isn't questioning whether sources are reliable, but whether they're being used in a non-neutral way.    ←   ZScarpia  13:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by The Devil's Advocate
Honestly, I had been thinking about bringing this to AE myself. One other article where JJG has recently been creating problems is the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. Diffs of his edits there: The wording about "if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs" was inserted into the lede of the article. His changes in the third diff with regards to scholarship are clearly tendentious, and his choice of sources leaves a lot to be desired. JJG's edits there seem to be trying to lay accusations of ethnic cleansing entirely on Pappe and by inserting material from numerous negative sources about Pappe, at times even presenting their remarks in the editorial voice as though they are facts, he is seeking to discredit the accusations themselves. JJG is cherry-picking sources and using them to push an extremely hostile POV, something he has done before. Back two months or so he was brought to AE for using travel guides to claim the Golan Heights were Israeli territory. This kind of behavior goes well beyond your typical content dispute.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 

@Netzer On the 1948 war article it was only after a second revert that JJG started a discussion on the talk page, making sure to revert my revert before he did. He has exhibited the same behavior on the Nakba article where he made sure to revert the revert before going to the talk page to explain why his blatant POV-pushing was in perfect conformity with policy, avoiding NPOV and focusing on WP:V naturally. That goes back to the Golan case where he engaged in the same kind of wikilawyering to avoid the fact that he was cherry-picking and misrepresenting sources in order to push his own agenda on the article. You may find that harsh, but I am just noting what is there for all to see.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the Nakba article, JJG didn't even initiate discussion on his changes there. Roland initiated discussion after JJG objected to a different edit having been removed months before.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have also opened a discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard regarding the reliability of the obscure source which Jjg has used as backing for his edits.Comments welcomed. RolandR (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@Shuki How about WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:DE, WP:POINT, and WP:GAME?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@Netzer Just so we are clear, I waited three days (longer than I had to wait) after his first revert for anyone to start discussion or revert him before finally performing the second revert. In contrast, JJG's revert of my second revert came within ten minutes and only then did he start a section on the talk page. When he did that, I was getting ready to put up a much larger comment on the talk page on general issues I saw with the article of which I felt JJG's edit was simply a symptom. That I wanted to start a broader discussion about the article is why I didn't start up a discussion the first time he reverted my revert.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

@WG Seriously, look at the diffs I provided in my comment above. This is not about flags or what's in the belligerents section. You are certainly familiar enough with the last report involving JJG to know that this is the case. You are using the designed-to-fail restriction imposed on Nableezy as a precedent for a restriction that a child would have little trouble obeying, while still allowing JJG to continue other disruptive behaviors.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by MichaelNetzer
There is no pre-requisite in WP policy to open a talk page discussion before an edit. It is only "required" when the edit is contested, which is what JJG did, in all the cases mentioned in this complaint. It's becoming increasingly difficult to work in this area as some editors are pulling no punches in turning Wikipedia into a one-sided referendum on the topic, and removing any edits that try to bring POV balance to the articles. This contrived complaint is another such example. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @The Blade of the Northern Lights: "Ending up here" is no indication of being guilty as charged. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @HJ Mitchell: This complaint is about the charges it makes, not a referendum on how the encyclopedia "benefits" from an editor. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your time on Wikipedia might be better spent advancing arguments for how these charges are invalid, or reading the policies you claim have not been violated, rather than taking potshots at comments by administrators who work hard to ensure that the right result comes out of these complaints. Have a little faith in us. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have complete faith in admins here, HJ, and I try not to take potshots. From what I'm seeing, AE is being abused by editors who are more than happy to see a one-sided tone overpower articles in this space. They resist well sourced edits that seek balance with persistent contrived arguments that make collaboration very difficult. The talk page discussions in this case alone show this. It's natural for admins to have a difficult time seeing through it the way editors who suffer from it do. I think that's one of the reasons editors involved in this area are welcome to comment here. In light of the facts presented by JJG, should not Shuki's comment about this misleading complaint be taken into consideration? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Shuki
This is a simple content dispute and one of the most frivolous AE's opened on ARBPIA since no guideline has been violated and the nominator has not even stated which guideline of ARBPIA has been violated. Editors, like Asad, (especially experienced ones who have already commented on AE before) who open misleading AE's should instead be sanctioned themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights, welcome to ARBPIA, or other admin, can you please take the initiative and add User:Asad112 to Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Asad has already proven he knows about the page, so this is a mere formality. Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What disturbs me most about the admin's waving their swords below is A) ignoring WP:BOLD, and B) a clear attempt at preventing updating of WP based on what they think is right (a content issue). Adding the word 'Nazis' to the article is clearly sourced and valid (part of history, duh), and if having the Nazi flag is a bit provocative JJG already apologized, and giving JJG a topic ban because he added the flag is quite disproportionate. Me thinks with Nableezy sidelined, (often protected here) the admins see an opportunity to 'even up' the field. FWIW, with several regular I-P editors already banned or coming off bans over the past year, things have already calmed down dramatically. --Shuki (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that OhioStandard did prove that this is a content issue after all. --Shuki (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG
Not sure what policy has been violated here. I do agree that Nazi flag is way OTT. I welcome JJG's self cooling proposition. I also agree with Z that the list got out of hand. At the same time, am I the only one who is sick and tired of tit for tat AE requests? This one in particular look rather meritless, and warrants wp:boomerang. - BorisG (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See my response to Shuki.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TDA, could you please comment in your own section? - BorisG (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Ohio Standard has just revealed himself as an ardent propagandist for one side. I would have hoped that admins would give less weight to partisan and one sided comments from strongly partisan editors. I also think his unsourced characterisation of Benny Morris as ultra-extremist is a BLP violation and should be striken out. - BorisG (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by One Night In Hackney
MichaelNetzer's comment of "There is no pre-requisite in WP policy to open a talk page discussion before an edit. It is only "required" when the edit is contested, which is what JJG did, in all the cases mentioned in this complaint", Jiujitsuguy did in fact revert twice before opening a talk page discussion. Just thought I'd correct this misleading summary of events.

The first revert at 04:58, 10 January 2012. Second revert at 22:26, 12 January 2012. Opens talk page discussion at 22:36, 12 January 2012.

So far from discussing the edit when it was first reverted, he reverted twice to add back the information and only started a discussion after making his second revert. 2 lines of K 303  10:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * JJG's edit was reverted twice by the same editor without that editor opening the talk page discussion. JJG opened the discussion 10 minutes after his second revert. Sorry if I was misleading but it seems JJG was alright on that issue in light of the circumstance. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000
Addition of the Nazi flag to the belligerent list was a very obvious and blatant example of POV-pushing, not justified by any policy. It isn't justified by sources either, since the sources only indicate the past background of these (very few) people and do not indicate that they were representing any government, party, or other entity that the Nazi flag is a reasonable logo for. A vastly better case could be made for adding a communist flag to the Israeli column, but of course that would be the opposite POV-pushing. Israel officially recognises 42 nationalities of foreigners who fought on their side. Zerotalk 01:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Malik Shabazz
Maybe it's just me, but the more people come here to say that adding a swastika to an article was "just a content dispute", the less I believe them. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Ohiostandard
( Please note later timestamp of this "eleventh-hour" addition as compared to timestamps of previously-posted admin comments. Thanks. - Ohiostandard )

Jiujitsuguy's application of the Nazi flag to our article was of course ridiculous and blatant. But to evaluate his other edits responsibly, one has to understand some details of the history and politics of the Middle East. Unfortunately these details are often difficult to follow for people who aren't already familiar with the region's complex history and the sources that write about it. So to try to address that dilemma I suggest we carefully examine just two of his other edits, both quite typical, and see what they tell us about his overall editing pattern:

It may help orient the reader if I say here that Jiujitsuguy's two edits appear to be motivated by his vehement objection to the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to characterize the effect of Israel's actions in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War during which more than 700,000 Palestinians lost their homes and land.

Since one admin has mentioned below that he's not familiar with JJG's participation history, I believe it's also a fair and appropriate orientation note to disclose that he edits from the perspective of a radical Zionist: When he was brought here a month or two ago, for example, he had used Popular Mechanics magazine as an authority on geopolitics to try to make Wikipedia's voice champion his ultra-extremist view that the land Israel took from Syria during the 1948 war, and still continues to occupy, is actually in Israel, is actually "an integral part of Israel", as he puts it.

This is a position that couldn't be more emphatically rejected by the entire international community; it's so extreme that even the Israeli government itself does not assert it. Finally, I doubt he'll deny that he's previously written on very prominent Zionist political sites to recruit fellow extremists to begin editing Wikipedia in accordance with Israel's nationally-mandated hasbarah ("propaganda" or "explanation") effort.

1st of two consecutive edits

Edit made by Jiujitsuguy at 17:34, 12 January 2012 UTC

Here Jiujitsuguy deleted the following sentence and completely removed its two supporting refs from our article:

The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been widely described as having involved ethnic cleansing, although not all historians accept that characterization.

To justify the deletion, he wrote in his edit summary,

"Exceptional claim of 'widely described' requires exceptional source. Not book review critic. Moreover, source is already twice noted & included in lead & that's overkill."

There are so many things wrong with this edit that it's hard to know what to focus on:


 * Most innocuously, his deletion of the "IANBLACK" named ref created a cite error in the article's footnotes.
 * His edit summary statement "source is already twice noted" is misleading. If you look at the article in its then-current state, you'll find that Black's piece in Great Britain's prestigious Guardian newspaper is referenced one other time, exactly, and then only in an indirect way.
 * The claim that he's responding to "overkill", to over-reliance on the Ian Black ref he deleted, just isn't credible when one considers that the article had 43 cites to works by journalist and Black co-author Benny Morris, and that in his next edit, JJG added a 44th ref to Morris.
 * The statement saying the depopulation had been "widely described" as ethnic cleansing does not come from a "book review critic". If he'd examined the refs he deleted before doing so, he'd have seen that the phrase "widely described" is sourced not to the book review, but to Ian Black's statement that "Abu Sitta is a leading expert on the nakbah and what is nowadays widely described as the 'ethnic cleansing' it involved." (emphasis added)
 * Ian Black is, indeed, an "exceptional source" for this purpose. He's the Guardian newspaper's Middle East Editor, he's a 2010 recipient of an international journalism award, and he's often interviewed as a mideast expert by other news organizations. Just yesterday, for example, the BBC World Service broadcast an interview with him that I heard via (US) National Public Radio about his in-country experiences in Syria regarding the populist uprising there.

2nd of two consecutive edits

Edit made by Jiujitsuguy at 17:37, 12 January 2012 UTC

Here Jiujitsuguy replaces the content he just deleted with an attack on author Ilan Pappe's book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, that attack coming via an Israeli political advocacy website from a man the Claremont Institute rightly calls "Israel's most contentious historian", Benny Morris.

What's really strange about JJG's replacement text is not that he relied exclusively on partisan Zionist authors to try to make his point. But what is odd is that he cites Benny Morris in an attempt to discredit the characterization of the expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948 as ethnic cleansing. Morris is completely comfortable with that term; he even champions the phrase and the principle it describes, and someone who's as intimately familiar with mideast politics and sources as Jiujitsuguy is surely knows this.

For example, consider these exchanges, excerpted from a 2004 interview with Benny Morris which first appeared in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and which is cited via the Logos Journal'' in the article JJG was editing:

Interviewer : So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

Benny Morris : I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.

Interviewer : You do not condemn them morally?

Benny Morris : No.

Interviewer : They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

Benny Morris : There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

Interviewer : And that was the situation in 1948?

Benny Morris : That was the situation...

Interviewer : The term “to cleanse” is terrible.

Benny Morris : I know it doesn’t sound nice but '''that’s the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed.'''

( emphasis added in three quotations above )

...

Interviewer : Are you saying that [the supreme commander of Israeli forces] Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

Benny Morris : From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer [of the Palestinian population]. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea...

In passing I'll also observe that in the same interview Benny Morris makes many comments that unquestionably show him as ultra-extreme in his views. For example, he characterizes the entirety of Palestinian society as a serial killer and says they should be treated as such, put in a kind of cage, at least, unless they're executed instead. He likewise remarks, "The Arab world as it is today is barbarian." It's simply indisputable that he's not a man to go to for a balanced opinion on anything to do with Israel or Middle East politics at all. I'm sure our Jewish friends here would say the same of any author who had expressed similar views about Israeli society.

But my main point in including the interview excerpt above is to show that it's simply misleading to try to use Benny Morris to argue against the phrase "ethnic cleansing" as a characterization of the events of 1948. Morris has since tried to make a case that it wasn't deliberate, but he nevertheless embraces the phrase "ethnic cleansing" for just that application.

Relatedly, if Jiujitsuguy had truly been interested in presenting a neutral point of view concerning Ilan Pappe's book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, rather than trying merely to discredit it, he could easily have found and used the review of the book by Publisher's Weekly, which describes it in part as follows:


 * Framing his argument with accepted international and U.N. definitions of ethnic cleansing, Pappe follows with an excruciatingly detailed account of Israeli military involvement in the demolition and depopulation of hundreds of villages, and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arab inhabitants. An accessible, learned resource, this volume provides important insights into the historical antecedents of today's conflict, but its conclusions will not be easy for everyone to stomach...

Also, along with many others who've expressed similar concerns on the article's talk page (link/permalink) and at RSN (link/permalink), I find it troubling that Jiujitsuguy replaced so widely respected a source as the Guardian's Ian Black with so heavy a reliance on economics professor Leslie Stein's book, The Making of Modern Israel, when Stein is very much a partisan apologist for Israel, according to third-party review quotations at RSN. I likewise find it a bit troubling that contrary to his week-ago promise (apparently rescinded?) on the article's talk page, Jiujitsuguy appears not to have forwarded any page scan from this book to those he promised it too, a book that none of have so far been able to access. I'd be less concerned about that if he had responded to requests for verbatim quotations that support his edit that he bases on Leslie Stein's Making of Modern Israel.

In conclusion, in these edits Jiujitsuguy deleted neutral, eminently-respected sources, using a verhy misleading edit summary to do so, and replaced them with with extremist sources, including heavy reliance on a book that is much less accessible and that he has so far refused to quote from directly to try to support his edit. In addition, he cited one extremely partisan author, Benny Morris, as if Morris objected to the description of the events of 1948 as "ethnic cleansing", which he most emphatically does not.

Finally, think about Jiujitsuguy's user name, for a moment. He doesn't edit articles on Asian martial arts, that I'm aware of, so why that name? If you'll "sound it out" slowly, you'll probably notice that the name can be interpreted as a double-entendre declaring its owner as a champion on behalf of Jewish ideology. Whether that play on words was intentional or not, the name does well-represent his combative editing behavior here.

It's my strong opinion that Jiujitsuguy's edits are first and foremost those of a hasbarah warrior, a zealous propagandist without intrinsic allegiance to Wikipedia and its principles except to the extent they can be used to disseminate his preferred message. The entirety of his editing here, never mind his explicit off-site canvassing for new partisans for just that purpose, demonstrates such contempt for the goals of the encyclopedia as I've rarely seen equaled among established editors. – OhioStandard  (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In summary, its my belief that a careful analysis of these of Jiujitsuguy's edits, quite typical for him, of the other incidents in this report, and of his very long history of using the encyclopedia to promote ultra-extremist views and of encouraging others to do so, make him entirely unsuitable as an editor in any article remotely connected to this difficult topic area. He's shown time and time and time again that he simply will always give his POV goals precedence over every other possible consideration. – OhioStandard  (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

''As the preceding section-title makes clear, this section of the page is for my own comments; it's not an invitation to open a debate here. Your own comments belong in their own separate and dedicated section. Similarly, please refrain from posting remarks in the "Results" section of this page if you're not an administrator. Thank you. – OhioStandard  (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)''


 * What pisses me off most (not just here but in general) are the attempts to get into one's head and to interpret his behavior and his language based on own views. This is a faulty way of thinking which produces zero valuable information. Always assume people mean what they say. Always look into what people do, not why they do it. JJG shall be judged according to his deeds, not his supposed motives. Morris credibility shall be judged according to his weight in academic word as historian, not moral assessment of his interviews. -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 22:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, OhioStandard would agree if we were discussing someone from his "side of the the political gulf in Mideast politics". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy
Since apparently the admins are taking OhioStandard's analysis seriously, I'd like to point out some inaccuracies (I'm AGFing when calling them that).


 * 1st edit:
 * I don't know what he meant by "journalist and Black co-author Benny Morris", but Morris is a serious professor of history and a leading expert in the field, which I doubt anyone who is familiar with scholarship on the IP conflict doesn't consider a reliable source. Black is a journalist, and this piece is a book review. I think any serious wikipedian would expect an article like this to contain many more references to scholarly works than to book reviews, even if they are from "Great Britain's prestigious Guardian newspaper".
 * Taking the very extreme step of typing both names into Google yields this from Benny Morris' wikipedia page: 'When Conrad Black bought the Post in 1990, Morris was one of the Israeli left-wing journalists. [Morris] continued to write as a freelance, producing Israel's Secret Wars, co-written with Ian Black of The Guardian'. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you did type both names into google you know that professor Morris is one of the leading scholars in the field of history of the IP conflict. I highly doubt anyone who has more than a passing interest in the history of the conflict doesn't know that. Good on you for using wikipedia as a source though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. You wrote 'I don't know what he meant by "journalist and Black co-author Benny Morris".  I simply indicated that it was a trivial task to discover a) that Morris had a career in journalism, and b) that he co-authored a book with Black.  The fact that he is also a Professor is neither here nor there with regard to understanding the sentence you indicated.  There is no need to take Wikipedia's word for the sentence I quoted - simply follow the sources in the article for his work as a journalist and check Amazon if you don't believe he co-authored the book with Black.BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's you who's missing the point. He was a journalist 20 years ago. Now he's a professional historian, and has been for quite a while. Calling him a journalist is just another attempt to make it seem he's not a high quality reliable source, when he very obviously is. He's one of the world's most prominent experts in his field which happens to include the subject of the article in question. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that he's referenced extensively, as opposed to referencing what an actual journalist wrote in a book review, for example. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that he is a reliable source, a Professor, and a legitimate person to cite extensively. But given that you claimed not to know what the sentence in question meant, I thought I would enlighten you.  Please stop making a mountain out of a molehill.BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement is from a book review written by a journalist. Not exactly the highest quality RS. Better sourcing was requested multiple times on the talk page but none was forthcoming. You'd think that if something was "widely considered", some scholars would note that. This is classic REDFLAG.
 * That Black was interviewed on the BBC about Syria has what relationship to a book review he wrote about something other than Syria?


 * 2nd edit:
 * OS notes that the Clairmont Institute calls Morris "Israel's most contentious historian" (implying that he is not reliable). What makes Morris contentious (particularly to a conservative think tank) is that he is one of the leading New Historians who question Israel's traditional historical narrative. Again, this is common knowledge to anyone who is familiar with the scholarship.
 * OS then attempts to impinge on Morris' scholarship based on a newspaper interview and OS's opinion thereof. I challenge him to take Morris to RS/N and see if anyone, including pro-P editors, think he is not a high quality RS.
 * OS appears to be saying Leslie Stein is not a reliable source and is a "partisan apologist for Israel", linking to the RS/N discussion which doesn't seem to support his conclusion that Stein is not RS.
 * OS continues by trying to pass a positive review of Pappe's book as "neutral" (I doubt that's what NPOV is about).
 * But the piece de resistance is OS's opinion one what JJG's username sounds like when you "sound it out slowly", and what that implies. Someone has Jews on the brain apparently. Here's an alternative explanation - JJG likes Jiujitsu but doesn't edit articles on martial arts. Occam's razor says...?

In summary, OS is apparently not well versed in who the leading scholars of the history of the IP conflict are. He obviously has a very partisan outlook regarding which sources should be considered reliable, based on his political opinion (which he is not shy about, as can be seen by the diff I posted in his section above). This colors his "analysis" throughout. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Brewcrewer
Sanctioning JGG for this complaint will create a disturbing precedent. This is as close as possible to a simple content dispute. The edit was clearly silly, but the usual consensus of editors that did not make that one judgement mistake ruled the day. No harm resulted, and that's exactly the way things are supposed to play out where volunteer editors are using their editorial judgement. A sanction here will be a sanction for poor judgement, something AE was clearly never intended for, and will cause a chilling effect here on Wikipedia. Editors will be afraid to make reliably sourced albeit controversial edits lest they be dragged to AE on the grounds that the edit was not sound. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Jiujitsuguy

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


 * I'm not too familiar with the history of Jiujitsuguy, so I will have to look into that more, but the above doesn't look too good. Given the history of sanctions, I would think that to include material like that he would want to bring it up on the talkpage first. Obviously awaiting Jiujitsuguy's response before trying to pin down how long any sort of sanction would be. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @MichaelNetzer I'm fully aware that discussion is only required when an edit is contested; however, given his history of sanctions I would expect him to be more circumspect, especially given the potentially inflammatory nature of his addition. I'm finding it hard to believe that he wouldn't have expected someone to contest it, and the best thing to do when making a potentially controversial edit after having been sanctioned for making similar edits would be to discuss it first.  That way, he probably could have avoided ending up here.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to hear from JJG before anything is decided, but the above amply demonstrates the kind of battleground mentality the topic area would be better off without. The edit-warring and selective quoting of sources to effectively skew the facts, taken together with the long history of sanctions and block of which JJG has been the subject would suggest a long topic ban is in order. It seems little has changed of JJG's attitude over the past few years, except that he has learned to play the game well enough to avoid being sanctioned for any one edit. His attitude is not completely out of the ordinary, but many of those with similar attitudes are currently blocked or topic-banned. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @JJG: The thrust of the complaint is not the verifiability of the claim that ex-Nazis were involved, but the neutrality of it when you didn't think to mention the British, American, or Yugoslav participants that were referenced on the very same page. But you're a clever guy, you knew that. You've also failed to address the combative reverting and general battleground mentality I raised concerns about. So let me ask you a direct question: how does the Israel-Palestine topic area benefit from your presence? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I missed that you noted the Yugoslavs as well, my apologies. I still think your conduct in reverting leaves a lot to be desired—re-adding content you know is controversial without first gaining consensus is never a good idea, regardless of whether it violates a technical restriction on number of reverts. I also think you're smart enough to know that adding the Nazi flag to such an article is likely to be seen as provocative. I think you would benefit from voluntarily taking a break from the topic area for a few weeks, and I'm still thinking of proposing that you should be obliged to explain your reasons for any revert both in an edit summary and on the talk page, but hat could take the form of a voluntary agreement rather than a formal sanction. Other than that, I would suggest that you try very hard to act collegialy and avoid being seen to act combatively, because the more combative you're seen as being, the more likely you are to find yourself in the dock here. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Rockefeller edit is stale and I'm not even sure why it was even mentioned in this context. I concur with ZScarpia's corrected comment, to me this flag stuff is nonsense and JJG knows it and knows it's the kind of thing he needs to stay away from. I concur with HJM's original comment, there is little else we can do here but long term or indefinite TBAN. With regard to asad, I don't agree with his synthesis of what happened in JJG's last case here or making reference to me without at least letting me know about it. --WGFinley (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are times when I would love to just gather up the regulars here and ban them from the I/P topic area. I'm not convinced that JJG should escape this thread without sanction, but topic bans are blunt instruments. Perhaps a more refined sanction, like a 0RR, a requirement to discuss all reverts or something else that might address the problems complained about here. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Ex-Nazi edit is plainly tendentious. (And yes, tendentious editing is a conduct issue that is within the jurisdiction of AE.) I think a topic ban is appropriate. @HJ: Sometimes blunter is better. Just look at the track record of the relatively "refined" community sanctions at issue in the Betacommand case. Besides, how do you craft a sanction that addresses tendentious editing without excluding the editor from the topic area outright anyway? T. Canens (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Refactor For Consensus
It seems to me JJG missed the initial point about the use of the Nazi flag, seems to be clear to him now. I want to AGF he is being honest about that but his history is less than clean from the ban. He appears to have reliable sources to back up his position but went about it in a completely wrong way. I would suggest some leeway was given in a similar circumstance about inserting "Palestinian" in various articles and categories, perhaps a similar remedy could be crafted here banning the editing of belligerents and use of flags for 6 months with the understanding the next infraction will be a long term TBAN. --WGFinley (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC) In light of what OhioStandard points out above, I see something a lot more problematic at work here.  Getting overly focused on the Nazi flag issue will prevent us from seeing the forest for the trees.  I think a topic ban of some long length would be called for at this point, as I can clearly see from OhioStandard's comments above that there's a level of tendentiousness I missed before. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Israel–Palestine is one of those topic areas that provokes extremely strong feelings in a lot of people. Those strong feelings have a tendency to blind each party to the potential that the other may be acting in good faith, and they can drive editors to do things that, outside of such areas, they would never normally contemplate. Thus, I think some editors are just not suited to edit in areas where they have such strong feelings. In Israel–Palestine, there are several (some of whom are currently on long-term topic bans), and I think JJG is perhaps one of them. As much I dislike the lack of sophistication in a blanket topic ban, I'm recommending a topic ban of no fixed duration, but to be reviewed after six months. Alternatively, if JJG were willing to step away voluntarily for six months, I would be willing to consider it a gentlemen's agreement, rather than a formal sanction. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  04:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This case has gone on long enough, there seems to be a consensus of opinion that a long-term TBAN is in order and I was not totally adverse to that myself. The time has come, indefinite TBAN which can be reconsidered at a later date after harmonious editing elsewhere in the project. --WGFinley (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Yfever

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Professor marginalia (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

Discretionary sanctions warning for Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:


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


 * 1) Activity SPA

Editor was advised in Dec by Aprock who is not an admin. The involved articles continue to be plagued by gaming and proxy editing on behalf of topic banned editors following the arbitration decision, and just one of the games has been to cry foul with the "nobody warned me first" defense. Besides the SPA pattern evident in the edit history, I have other reasons for being very concerned this is another new proxy account recruited to take over where others left off. I'm asking that an official notification be issued by an admin so there is no unresolved ambiguity over procedural enforcement.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

User talk:Yfever
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Yfever
Re T.C.: Race and intelligence, which is an area that OBVIOUSLY needs more agenda driven single purpose editors. I wonder which banned editor influenced this individual to come and refight old battles. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Yfever
WP:ARBR&I is the applicable case, I believe. I have no prior involvement in any of this, for the record, just following the trail from DRV. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I requested a checkuser report on this user at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev as a precaution because of intervening edits to Compensatory education by an obvious ipsock of Mikemikev. In the meantime, I think this type of editing reminds me more of . He was identified as a usurper of the administrator account . I don't quite know how this can be checked. Mathsci (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a historic link to the checkuser case where some of the problems with this user's edits are mentioned. Mathsci (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

@WGFinley, the remedy proposed is not a sanction, but rather to officially notify the user of WP:ARBR&I. aprock (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but that didn't really need an AE report, any editor can do the notification. --WGFinley (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Yfever

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


 * Which arbitration decision are we talking about here? T. Canens (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hipocrite & Tarc: Yeah, I see it now. When I made that comment above the request didn't contain any reference to an arbitration case. It was subsequently added. T. Canens (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Being an SPA in an and of itself is not subject to sanction, it's something to consider when accounting for behavior. We need some illustrations (diffs) of behavior that is subject to sanction to take any action. --WGFinley (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Request concerning PCPP

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong


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


 * 1) 8 Jan 2012 Recommenced editing article laced with references to Falun Gong (Clarification: the article is laced with them, not his edits)
 * 2) 8 Jan 2012 Ditto talk page
 * 3) 8 Jan 2012 Launched Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion seeking to submit the disputes about that page to dispute resolution


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

Took these actions immediately upon returning from 24-hour block from AE here for editing the referenced article.

I am not involved in the editing of the article, but am a mediator/clerk at DRN. Last block was for making edits specifically referencing Falun Gong, but topic ban is from editing any article or discussion related to Falun Gong, as this article and the DRN discussion about this article obviously are. I closed his DRN request for being in violation of his topic ban, but will reopen it if it is decided that no violation is involved with his pursuit of that article and DR about that article.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by PCPP
In addressing Mr Stradivarius's and the admins' points, I composed the talk page comments before the 24 hour block was imposed as a right of reply to Homunculus's analysis of my edits. As now that I realize the full extent of the topic ban to even passing mentions, I have no further intention of editing or discussing that particular paragraph, essentially dropping my objections to anything relating to the banned topic. I opened the case at DRN because I have no intention of further escalating the disputes, but address my issues with the involved users with a third party, and hopefully solve them. In light of this, I have stroke through the points 11 and 12, and have no intention of editing the article throughout the process.--PCPP (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply to T. Canens, I wrote the rebuttal points a few hours the talk page discussion appeared, but I found out that I was given a block as I was about to save the page. I copy+pasted it after the first block elapsed.
 * In response to EdJohnston, I opened the AE case because I felt that the Homunculus has behaved unfairly towards myself in the discussion process, and wish to address such concerns at DRN and hopefully settle them, as I do not wish a repeat of the previous edit wars which resulted in my sanctions. I only edited that article once since my block, and the article's issues, in regards to WP:CRIT, has been noted by several other users in the talk page, as well as Mr Stradivarius from DRN. The two passages I removed frankly fails WP:RS and WP:CRIT, since the former does not implicate CI at all, while the latter one consists of anecdotes from a Chinese language blog - the individual was not implicated in anything. Criticism articles, I believe, should provide a neutral and balanced approach to its subject of criticism.--PCPP (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Shrigley
Falun Gong features in the Confucius Institutes article primarily as a member of lists of proscribed political movements in China, of which there are many. As a result, there is some competition among fringe movements in China about which among them deserve mention on our articles. If the promotion comes not by aggressive SPAs, then they come from drive-by anonymous editors, like so.

My point is, Falun Gong is grafted onto the page in the same way that the 9/11 Truth movement might be grafted onto any United States government article. There is no organic connection between the Confucius Institutes and Falun Gong. As the filer himself notes, PCPP did not touch any content which mentioned Falun Gong in the article.

The talk page issue is a bit more delicate. A group of users rolled back all of PCPP's past edits on the article, including one which mentioned Falun Gong that got him topic banned, based on bad-faith presumptions. I imagine PCPP felt he had to explain himself amidst accusations that his absence on the talk page was "disruptive" and "uncommunicative". He should be commended for making no direct mention towards Falun Gong in his reply.

The DRN was on track to resolving PCPP's interpersonal issues; content was not discussed, let alone the small minority of untouched Falun Gong-related content. Shrigley (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Ohconfucius
AFAICT, this complaint is obsolete as PCPP was blocked for so doing already. The objection to him opening a case at WP:DR also seems prima facie unreasonable because it is every editor's right (especially when he is met with such hostility when making good faith edits), for he seems sincere in his efforts to find an amicable solution to impasse he faces there. I daresay that if PCPP had not made the mistake of mentioning Falun Gong in that DR request – which Transporter Man closed as being in violation of WP:FLG-A – PCPP would have avoided this AE request, but may well have been accused all the same of wikilawyering notwithstanding because on of the edits in question involved removing mention of Falun Gong. In any event, I have advised him not to touch any mention of FLG or Epoch Times, even though we know ET isn't accepted as a reliable source except in matters pertaining directly to the movement.

PCPP's editing style and his efforts at finding such a solution are a marked departure from past confrontational behaviour. In addition, it would be wholly inappropriate to sanction him again bearing in mind he has not edited said articles again since his block. Per Shrigley, the offences mentioned above are technical in nature. Because editors seem to feel the need to leave traces of Falun Gong persecution everywhere, many are mere coatracks, that it is well nigh impossible for any editor on Chinese politics not to come up against these. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Homunculus
A point of clarification: the editor filing the AE noted that PCPP's edits at Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes did not directly relate to Falun Gong. Unfortunately this was not the case. PCPP deleted a whole paragraph of notable, sourced content related to Falun Gong,[ and severely redacted another. Both were germane to the topic.  As has been pointed out, PCPP was already subject to a 24-hour ban for these deletions.  I do not know whether or not he violated his ban again by pursuing the issue further on the dispute resolution noticeboard—that's a question for the admins.  [[User:Homunculus|Homunculus]] (duihua) 03:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Mr. Stradivarius
Hi all, I was aware of this dispute from the dispute resolution noticeboard and had a brief look at the article and the talk page, but I didn't actually comment at the noticeboard. Regarding TransporterMan's diffs: I'm not sure about the first one, but the second one does seem to be, in part, carrying on the conversation about PCPP's edits to the section mentioning Falun Gong. In particular, points 11 and 12 from that edit seem to be referring to diffs 11 and 12 from this post by Homunculus, of which number 11 seems to be one of the diffs for which PCPP received his recent 24h block. I also wanted to say that, while PCPP's topic ban is potentially problematic if he chooses to further edit Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes, when I looked at the article I saw systemic problems relating to WP:CRITICISM, which I believe PCPP was trying to correct. Because of this, I think this dispute could respond well to dispute resolution, although, as always, this would depend on all parties maintaining good conduct and a commitment to collaboration. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning PCPP

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


 * Confucius Institute is neither directly connected to Falun Gong nor inextricably intertwined with that topic. Unless the particular edits are related to FLG - and I'm not seeing it, there is no violation here. T. Canens (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr. Stradivarius makes a good point regarding the second diff. I'd like to hear a response from PCPP about that diff before taking action, though. As to Homunculus' comment, those diffs have been dealt with already in the previous thread. T. Canens (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand your comment, PCPP. Are you saying that you composed the post before the block but didn't get to post it until after it? T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. PCPP's explanation is that he composed the comment pre-block, got stopped in the middle of posting it by the block, and then posted it after the block by copy-paste. Considering that most parts of the comment is compliant with the topic ban, and the only violating part did not refer to FLG by name, it is quite plausible that he simply overlooked the infringing part's relationship to FLG (I know that I did when I first looked at it). PCPP also states that he now recognizes the full scope of the topic ban. Under these particular circumstances, I don't think a block is necessary at this time. I would close this thread with a warning that the next topic ban violation will indeed result in a long block. T. Canens (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Mr. Stradivarius' point. The current view of topic bans allows editors to work on sensitive articles so long as they don't change anything regarding the topic area from which they are banned. PCPP appears to be failing to stay within the prescribed bounds, since it is clear that he edited Falun-Gong-related material on January 6. He was already blocked for that, but now he is raising a complaint at WP:DRN that seems to show no awareness whatever that he is banned from some of the topics he is raising. Inevitably any discussion of his DRN complaint is going to be a discussion of Falun-Gong-related material since numbers 11 and 12 of his diff here concern that material. In closing the January 6 AE with a 24-hour block, NuclearWarfare stated "Hopefully this will make him reconsider, because the next one is going to be a lot longer/indefinite otherwise." PCPP seems to be totally oblivious to the problem. The time may have come for a longer block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After more review, I'm now recommending that PCPP's ban be extended to include the topic of the Chinese government and any of its institutions.


 * In a new comment, PCPP has clarified the sequence of events and he should no longer be considered oblivious of the Falun Gong problem. I've checked through some of PCPP's edits since January 1, and looked into the overall drift of his complaint at WP:DRN, the one that was the occasion for TransporterMan to file this AE request. PCPP's edits at Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes did not appear neutral to me. For example in this edit he removed reliably-sourced mentions of misbehavior of two directors of particular Confucius Insitutes. His edit summary for this was "Individuals not representative of the institution." In an article on 'Concerns and Controversies', he wants to remove specific reports of controversies at Univ. of South Florida and Univ. of Waterloo on the grounds that these are problems with *individuals*?


 * This is only one of a series of edits that were commented on by Homunculus at Talk:Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes. I share many of the concerns expressed by Homunculus in that thread. As he says "An editor has recently made a series of fairly substantial edits to the page, but has neglected to provide any explanation of said edits.". In a later response on the same talk page, PCPP  states "I believe both Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury acted in bad faith towards me in this discussion"..."And to Homunculus, I don't need self appointed minders you hounding me over every one of my edits in China related articles.."


 * So here's the sequence of events:
 * PCPP makes a series of 23 edits to the article that revise it substantially, but says nothing on talk.
 * Homunculus responds on the talk page, lists some objections he has to specific edits, and asks PCPP to respond.
 * PCPP comes back with a charge that Homunculus was acting *in bad faith*, and only then provides any explanation of his article changes.
 * Without waiting for any answer from Homunculus, PCPP opens a complaint at DRN in which he charges Homunculus with showing hostility.


 * It is within the scope of AE to widen PCPP's topic ban if he shows himself unable to edit neutrally in matters concerning the Chinese government, even beyond the Falun Gong question. PCPP's topic ban from Falun Gong was indefinite and it is open for review any time after May 9. I recommend that the ban be *widened* to include the topic of the Chinese government and any of its institutions, such as the Confucius Institute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that we can stretch the discretionary sanctions that far. First, I'm not sure that "Chinese government" is a closely related topic to "Falun Gong", at least in the way that phrase has been interpreted by this board in previous cases. Further, even assuming that this is an available sanction, I don't think we can employ the FLG discretionary sanctions on edits wholly unrelated to FLG. T. Canens (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * PCPP is effectively under an indef TBAN, just blocked on 6 Jan for violating the TBAN and then two days later launches right back in to it again. Seems like there is little else to do but a longer block, I'd suggest 30 days with a note the indef is next. --WGFinley (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Request concerning SonofSetanta

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 2 lines of K  303  13:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/The Troubles


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


 * 1) 16:06, 23 January 2012 Revert 1
 * 2) 13:37, 24 January 2012 Revert 2, within 24 hours of revert 1 thus breaking the 1RR ruke
 * 3) 13:09, 25 January 2012 Revert 3, within 24 hours of revert 2 breaking the 1RR rule again
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :

Not needed, been blocked twice for breaching this sanction, including a one week block which expired only days ago.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

SonofSetanta has previously been blocked by a report at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71 for edit warring over content including the piece of text he just added back, as can be seen at this revert, this revert and this revert. The original wording was: "George Lapsley, a World War Two veteran (as can be seen by the decorations he wears) who had been a Troop Commander in the Coleraine Battery of the Territorial Army. His occupation was as the headmaster of a local primary school. With his previous military experience he was deemed fit to command and was appointed as Company Commander, E Coy, 5 UDR in Coleraine."

The current wording (exlucind the irrelevant Major, just as I excluded the irrelevant prefix text in the original version) is: "George Lapsley from St Jonston in County Donegal was a World War Two veteran who had been a Troop Commander in the Coleraine Battery of the Territorial Army. His occupation was headmaster of a local primary school. With his previous military experience he was given command of E Coy, 5 UDR in Coleraine"

Pretty much word for word the same, and since it's the same editor there can't be any disupute he knew it had been in the article before. 2 lines of K 303  13:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "This editor has been warned about his behaviour by admins recently for provoking edit warring on the Ulster Defence Regiment article and was clearly warned by User:Elen_of_the_Roads to stop asserting that I am a reincarnation of another editor". Could anyone point me to these warnings (plural, since more than one admin is referred to) I have received about my behaviour, and could anyone also point me to where I even said anything about him being a reincarnation recently? I can only assume he is referring to the text "since it's the same editor" which doesn't refer to anyone except SonofSetanta, since all I am doing is saying the same editor reverted to add back the same material in 2010. Obviously someone needs to check diffs more carefully before making accusations.... 2 lines of K  303  14:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : Here

Statement by SonofSetanta
This editor has been warned about his behaviour by admins recently for provoking edit warring on the Ulster Defence Regiment article and was clearly warned by User:Elen_of_the_Roads and User:EdJohnston @ []to stop asserting that I am a reincarnation of another editor. This editor is gaming. The information provided by me was in good faith and is very relevant to the article. The book used to source the information was only printed in 2010 and wasn't in my possession until a week ago so I can't be the person who posted the original information twice. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Murry. The disputed content in this case is not the subject of any RfC. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ellen. I wasn't a member a year ago so it couldn't have been me who put in the original text. I have not included this information before. I simply added a bit of text. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Murry1975
SonofSetanta has just come back from a week long block for edit warring on the UDR article this added to this 48 hour block for edit warring on the UDR article. He has called for an RfC on this article and for discussions on the talk page "I'm quite happy to wait for more opinions" and sidestepped these and called for quick edits instead  "I think it should happen today". The RfC runs for a month only one editor who has not edited the article previous has came forward through the RfC not that it is a given to wait for completion.Murry1975 (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Elen of the Roads
Note that while I did warn a lot of people a while ago to stop calling each other sockpuppets, I can't see anywhere here that anyone is doing that. Hackney seems to be saying that SonofSetanta had previously added the same text last week, so putting it back after someone removed it this week was a revert. Hackney, I'm not seeing where you/whoever removed that sentence prior to 23rd Jan - can you point me to the diff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Devil's Advocate. Indeedy, thanks. So SonofSetanta had added it a year and more ago as part of a larger edit, it got taken out pretty well immediately by Mo Einm, added back by SoS, taken out again by Domer, and presumably stayed out of the article until Monday, when SoS put it back in again. Odd that he would say he didn't, when the wording is so similar it's either a copyvio or a resurrection. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Mo Ainm, he has indeed, just inside 24 hours. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by The Devil's Advocate
I think he means this edit:. One of the changes made there was to include this paragraph, though it was in a different section. However, I don't see any discussion where that specific insertion saw objections before. Seems like it was simply reverted because it was part of other changes the editor had made. Restoring the part of a reverted edit that saw no prior objections does not, in my opinion, constitute a revert.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Mo ainm
SonofSetanta has just reverted again, making any discussion about whether the first revert was in fact a revert moot as the second and third reverts are clear reverts. Mo ainm ~Talk  13:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning SonofSetanta

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


 * The diffs prove out the violations, that and the WP:BOOMERANG below, and prior history of blocks in this subject area which demonstrate his familiarity with the Troubles decision, has earned a 90-day TBAN. --WGFinley (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 90 days sounds about right. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Request concerning One Night in Hackney

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : SonofSetanta (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/The Troubles


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


 * 1) 24/01/12 This editor is stalking and removing content without any prior discussion.
 * 2) 24/1/12 This editor is reverting without explanation on a very sensitive board which is subject to sanction.
 * 3) Date Explanation
 * 4) Date Explanation


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


 * 1) Warned on 12/01/12 by Name of administrator who imposed warning 1
 * 2) Warned on 11/01/12 by

This editor has reverted information at Ulster Defence Regiment in contravention of advice given by admins that all reversions should be discussed and agreed by concensus. The editor did not discuss this on the board. It is suspected that this editor is part of a tag team and that other editors who support him will now revert the information thus trying to keep ownership of the article and provoking an edit war. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Added This editor's behaviour is spurious in the extreme and this warring on the UDR article is part of a larger strategy to prevent articles on the Irish Troubles from being editied with a neutral POV. The policy seems to be remove and reduce anything which is favourable towards the subject and that is what is happening. Major George Lapsley is an Irish citizen who joined the British Army and Ulster Defence Regiment. Hackney disputed this information should be there although why I cannot understand as it is very relevant to the article. He removed the information on the grounds that the reference was not verbatim. Another reference was found "within Wikipedia" to support what he wanted but I suspect the information will soon be removed on another pretext because apparantly it has been removed by the cabal before which his complaint against me highlights.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

@WGFinley. The reuest from RepublicanJacobite tp see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKernel_Saunters&diff=prev&oldid=472979133 here does not refer to any of the subject matters being discussed at AE but instead to a discussion about the "background" section which Kernal Sanders will be posting. There is no boomerang beecause I posted my complaint at the same time. I am a very slow editor and didn't realise that this Hackney chap was posting a complaint about me at the same time on thse very spurious grounds. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:One_Night_In_Hackney#Warning
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by One Night In Hackney
Frivolous. The diffs at the time of typing refer to two different articles. The revert on the UDR article is a revert of where SonofSetanta attempts to add back material deleted over a year ago, and his edit warring in relation to this is the subject of a report on this very board. As for the Baxter article, John Potter is not the "UDR historian", or certainly not described as a historian by any reliable sources. The idea that I am not allowed to fix policy violations by making a single edit to an article is a tendentious one, and SonofSetanta should cease trying to guard his policy violating edits by making frivolous reports. 2 lines of K 303  13:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If indeed my edit summary of rm unsourced and incorrect assertion is incorrect as Flexdream alleges, and the information is in the source cited "i.e. Potter's book entitled "A Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1969 - 1992"" (page 132 the footnote quite clearly says by the way) perhaps Flexdream would be so good as to provide a quote from page 132 that sources the text in the article as he alleges? Could he also explain why if page 132 sources the text as he alleges, SonofSetanta had to make these edits claiming a totally different page in the book sourced the text? (It doesn't by the way, just for your information). Or, since none of that will be happening any time soon, perhaps Flexdream would be prepared to admit he hasn't read the book (I can provide a diff from yesterday that confirms that if you really want?) and accept that I have a copy of the book and know exactly what it does say on page 132, and page ix for that matter? Morals of that story - putting a footnote at the end of a sentence doesn't mean everything in the sentence is necessarily sourced, and people who don't even know what the book says shouldn't rush to judgment.


 * As for the "doubt", you'll find the "doubt" was very well-founded. You see if we rewind all the way back to 3 November 2008 we'll find the virtually identical text in the article, whereas the new source added was published on 18 March 2010. I note you have conveniently "forgotten" to add the rather salient "especially due to the footnote placement" part of my edit summary). The text added read:
 * "Major George Lapsley from St Jonston in County Donegal [footnote] was a World War Two veteran who had been a Troop Commander in the Coleraine Battery of the Territorial Army. His occupation was headmaster of a local primary school. With his previous military experience he was given command of E Coy, 5 UDR in Coleraine"


 * As "was a World War Two veteran who had been a Troop Commander in the Coleraine Battery of the Territorial Army. His occupation was headmaster of a local primary school. With his previous military experience he was given command of E Coy, 5 UDR in Coleraine" isn't apparently covered by the footnote, it's very important to include my edit summary in full. The new source (whose footnote wasn't even placed in a place which suggested it sourced any of the text after "County Donegal") wasn't even published when the text was originally in the article, yet we are expected to believe it just happens to source word for word the text that was there? I say "word for word" as there are no real differences between the two versions of the text, only minor cosmetic details. So yes, anyone fully aware of the facts would have quite understandable "doubt" about which part of that sentence is actually sourced by the book in question, due to the footnote placement and the publication date.


 * In summary, Flexdream knows little about my edits or the sources and has made a series of incorrect assumptions. He is correct about one thing though, I am focussing solely on the 1RR breach as that's the sanction that's been broken. Even if SonofSetanta's edits were correct (which they aren't), he's breached 1RR. The same can't be said of me, given the two diffs refer to two different articles and one of them isn't even a revert. 2 lines of K  303  10:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Murry1975
Of the examples given one is on the UDR article, one is on the Harry Baxter article, so what is the breach of guidelines? The warning given is about sockpuppet accusations which doesnt relate to either edit and hasnt been mentioned or asserted. A waste of time being brought here in my opinion.Murry1975 (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * SonofSetanta, where it asks about warnings, it means has the user been warned that there is an active Arbitration Enforcement that he is at risk of falling foul of. Not has there been some general admin banter about behaviour. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Flexdream
Edit 1 - Harry Baxter: One Night In Hackney removed '(the UDR historian)' as 'unsourced and incorrect assertion'. The source was cited, i.e. Potter's book entitled "A Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1969 - 1992" and 'UDR historian' seems a fair description of someone who writes the 'Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment'. To say it is 'incorrect' is simply an assertion. Setanta has started a discussion on Potter Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment and One Night In Hackney could contribute to that. I see no policy violation by Setanta and nothing misleading or unhelpful in describing Potter as 'the UDR historian'.

Edit 2 - UDR: One Night In Hackney removed all mention of Major Lapsley as he had 'doubt all the additional text is sourced'. 'Doubt' seems insufficient, when the additional text is not controversial or irrelevant and I am puzzled why anyone would choose to remove mention of Lapsley. I see no policy violation in adding this content. As there is no article page for Major Lapsley the UDR article seems appropriate.

One Night In Hackney has raised previous cases against Setanta, which seem to be based on the 1RR rule, not on the content of edits. Setanta is trying to add useful content to articles with sources and shows a willingness to discuss and consider content on the article talk pages. Guidance on commenting edits and when to discuss on talk pages might be useful.--Flexdream (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by RepublicanJacobite
WGFinley see here, Hackney said he was waiting for the finished draft before commenting, which is not unreasonable. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 16:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @SonofSetanta. How is he supposed to take part in a non-existent discussion? Did you start a discussion after your edit was reverted? No, you just edit warred to add it back. I see multiple discussions started by Hackney on the talk page about edits he's made with detailed explanations. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 17:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning One Night In Hackney

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


 * I don't see any violations in these edits this appears to be a clear boomerang from above to me. ONIH does need to participate in the discussion though and not do all his explanation in edit notes, I would consider an admonishment there. --WGFinley (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WGFinley, this should be closed as frivolous just like the thread below. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Mo ainm

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : SonofSetanta (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/The Troubles


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


 * 1) 25/01/12 This diff shows that by subterfuge the editor has tried to get around the 1RR restriction by reverting four passages at once. He has no explanation which would be inline with Military Task Force thinking or with recommendations on the UDR article.
 * 2) Date Explanation
 * 3) Date Explanation
 * 4) Date Explanation


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


 * 1) Warned on Date by
 * 2) Warned on Date by


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

This editor is part of an editing cabal who try to frustrate other editors wishing to improve articles which touch on the Irish Troubles. In this case you can see he tried to harden up the text about "killings" and removed an insert by me, properly sourced, about how women were more suitable as radio operators. There is no explanation for this other than to suggest the editor is gaming. Given that others in the cabal have made appearances on the page and similarly tried to frustrate edits by myself and others I believe it can be assumed this article is currently a target and will remain so whilst anyone tries to edit. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@WG Finlay. Yes the diffs show where the information removed was sourced by ME. I put the information in, Mo Aimh removed it. 4 reverts in one edit, without reason and without benefit to the article - so why would you suggest a 90 day ban for me? Furthermore I am not aware of editing anything since I posted this report. (apologies if my memory is wrong). SonofSetanta (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@BorisG> What do you mean most diffs are broken links? I provided one link only and it's working fine. Are you suggesting that I should receive sanctions for that? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mo_ainm#Warning
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by Mo ainm
A bizare report. Between his revert at 13:37 and 17:17 yesterday, a number of changes were made to the article, the majority of them by SonofSetanta. I disagreed with some, but not all, of the changes for a variety of reasons, which I explained here. For example as I point out on the talk page the information about Greenfinches and radios was already in the article, the text reads "Through time the role of women was expanded as it was realised that their higher pitched voices were more suited to radio transmission than men". Therefore the claim that "He has no explanation which would be inline with Military Task Force thinking or with recommendations on the UDR article" is false as I posted to the talk page before reverting SonofSetanta's changes, and fully explained why I "removed an insert by me, properly sourced, about how women were more suitable as radio operators".

SonofSetanta's response to this has been to post here saying "I happen to disagree so the information will be put back the way it was. Anyone who wants it removed should seek concensus here". This is turning consensus upside down, his changes to the article were reverted by me, therefore it's him who needs to seek consensus. "I happen" to disagree" is not even an adequate response to my reasons either, and his post was followed by a 1RR breaching revert.

I am perplexed by this report, is SonofSetanta planning to file AE reports every time anyone reverts one of his edits? Mo ainm ~Talk  13:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG
Obviously bad faith report. No sanctionable contduct has been reported. Most diffs are broken links. User:SonofSetanta should be sanctioned. - BorisG (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by RepublicanJacobite
As Mo ainm has said both here and on the article's talk page, the sourced information being talked about ("removed an insert by me, properly sourced, about how women were more suitable as radio operators" according to SonofSetanta) was removed because it duplicated existing content. Look at the the Greenfinches section in SonofSetanta's version; I was unaware something being "sourced" was a reason to duplicate content? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 17:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was then discovered that women's voices projected much better on radio transmissions so women were appointed as radio operators (third paragraph of section)
 * Through time the role of women was expanded as it was realised that their higher pitched voices were more suited to radio transmission than men (fifth paragraph of section)

Comment by Flexdream
This seems to be getting a little out of hand and is distracting from what wikipedia should really be about. I think a 90 ban would be excessive in the circumstances and punitive, but a short cooling off period might help everyone.--Flexdream (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Mo ainm

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


 * This one is completely frivolous and justifies a 90-day TBAN for, the diff provided even shows where information in the article was sourced. I am of half a mind to do 90-days simply for invoking the cabal but the bad faith behavior demonstrated here is enough for me. Unless there's a serious admin objection, since the filer has continued to violate 1RR since these were filed I intend to issue the TBAN. --WGFinley (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with WGFinley's assessment of this and will institute such a topic ban myself if WGFinley does not do so in the next day or so. Additionally, I would be inclined to include a ban from filing AE reports concerning other editors for the same duration (obviously this would not proscribe the filing of an appeal). CIreland (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

79.181.167.83 and other ips in the 79.181 range
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning 79.181.167.83

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : RolandR (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested : and others


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA


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


 * 1) 22:44, 23 January 2012 Removal of image, with incomprehensible explanation
 * 2) 00:15, 25 January 2012‎ First reversion, again with incomprehensible explanation
 * 3) 00:31, 25 January 2012 Second reversion, again with incomprehensible (but apparently untrue) explanation
 * 4) 25 January 2012‎ Third reversion, again with incomprehensible explanation


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


 * 1) Warned on 00:17, 25 January 2012 by
 * 2) Warned on 02:18, 25 January 2012 by

As well as the IP listed above, this edit has been made by User:79.181.161.119 and User:79.183.171.70. The edit has been challenged and reverted by myself, Malik Shabazz and Sean Hoyland. The explanation offered by this user (clearly the same person, with a dynamic IP) has been bizarre and incomprehensible. Despite a rewuest by Malik, and a warning with detailed explanation from me, the editor has continued to remove this image, and is close to breaching 3rr, let alone 1rr.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

[|here], [|here] and [|here].
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Comments by others about the request concerning 79.181.167.83

 * It's unclear whether this lovely edit by 79.181.150.79 is related. On the plus side, all this did highlight the fact that Salim Tuama, a BLP, had no sources...every cloud...  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning 79.181.167.83

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

Semi-protecting the page. Since the user seems to be using multiple IPs and is well versed in editing seems to be some anon socking going on. Little else to do given the dynamic IP use. --WGFinley (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Sander Säde

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 11:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: DIGWUREN


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


 * As a result of this I am banned from interacting with ANY member of the EEML, not just those who are banned from interacting with me.
 * I brought attention to the weird sanction placed on me yet not on other EEML members here. My concern back then, and still is today, is that editors can game this one-sided interaction ban as a battleground tool to sideline editors from articles and discussions. I can provide recent examples where this has occurred.
 * posts a response, which from that day forward I have used in my interactions on WP---comment on content, not on the editor.
 * posts problems with an article here
 * I post some comments in relation to Fuseau's comments.
 * Sander Sade posts a comment requesting a scholarly source which states specific information.
 * I post such a source because I have the source and am familiar with the source and the subject. Nothing in that violates "comment on content, not on the editor".
 * I post information which is not directed at Sander Sade, but at readers in general, and anyone who has any clue on this area will see that it is making the point that think-tanks and organisations with an agenda (social, political, economic, etc), and even though they may well be widely cited, their agenda that they are driving should be noted (using the "absolute joke" examples I made mention of), and that actually scholarly analysis is freely available and should be more highly considered. This is clearly commenting on content.
 * Sander Sade posts a response to me, and finishes with "Also, Russavia, isn't your interaction ban still active?"
 * The desired effect is achieved by Sander Sade, and I have removed myself (without comment) from any further participation on this article talk page. This is even though my comments are focussed entirely on content and are clearly targetted at article improvement, and I make no comments on editors. This self-removal of myself from the article within my area of interest (foreign relation of Russia) is done to prevent an editor such as Sander Sade using this as a reason to report me to AE; this is something that does occur and is a problem. It is wrong that editors get to effectively "topic" or "article" ban myself through using an interaction ban as a weapon.
 * Sander Sade all but accuses me and another editor of sockpuppetry. This is a demonstration of bad faith against both me and Fuseau, and it is an accusation that is without basis nor evidence, and for which I have no right of reply except for this request. The accusation is also highly problematic because Fuseau is doing a great job providing counter-arguments to editors on the article talk page, and Sander Sade is clearly trying to bait Fuseau, whilst also attacking myself after I have been evicted from the article by Sander's Sade invocation of the interaction ban.


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


 * 1) Warned on 9 December 2007 by


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I am requesting that Sander Sade be given an analogous interaction ban as has been placed on me at ARBRB. i.e.

Sander Sade is prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution.

Only then am I going to be able to return to the article talk page and continue to engage in content discussion.

I am also posting this AE request to Carcharoth's talk page, because I would like specific input from Carcharoth on this suggestion of theirs, and whether my actions and Sander Sade's actions on the talk page are within the spirit of their suggestion. This is particularly important because the Arbcom themselves have stated many times in the past that interaction bans are never supposed to prevent creation of content, and creation of content requires discussion. It is impossible to engage in article creation/expansion/etc when editors are being sidelined by nefarious use of an interaction ban when that was never the intent of the ban in the first place.

I am only presenting evidence relating to myself, other editors may have problematic edits from Sander Sade which need looking at too. I will also leave it up to admins to see if any further sanction may be required for what is clear battleground behaviour by Sander Sade. The issue of Eastern European topics being an editorial battleground is a long fraught problem.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sander Sade informed
 * I have notified Fuseau of this discussion also as a courtesy

Statement by Sander Säde
Sigh. How badly it is possible to misconstrue what happened?


 * "Also, Russavia, isn't your interaction ban still active?" was me asking in good faith if the interaction ban is still active or not - as otherwise we might have yet another enforcement request which ends with Russavia getting an addition to his/her extensive block log. I really would rather not have yet another such episode of wikidrama. I know there was an ArbCom case to remove the interaction bans, supported by all Russavia, Nug and Vecrumba, but as I usually don't follow ArbCom cases, I have no idea if the interaction bans were lifted or not.


 * "Sander Sade all but accuses me and another editor of sockpuppetry". Uh?! I think the diff shows rather clearly I am saying that I don't think Russavia and Fuseau are the same person - what I am saying is that I haven't seen a scholarly source presented by Fuseau. Having just re-read the whole section, I still cannot find a any scholarly sources whatsoever from Fuseau. Can you please provide the diff with the source, as I might have just missed it completely?

I don't mind the interaction ban. I usually don't edit the same pages as Russavia, so it would have a very little effect. I was hoping to get help from Russavia with an article about a historian Anatoli Razumov, but perhaps there is someone else who could help?
 * -- Sander Säde 14:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

@Fuseau: an article by Natalia Narochnitskaya on a random webpage as a scholarly source? I hope it is just a really tasteless joke. Can you at least show me how that article passed peer review and is published by a reputable scientific source? -- Sander Säde 17:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba
I strongly urge that interaction bans in the Baltic/EE/Soviet legacy space be lifted, as they have been interpreted consistently as meaning something other than (mutually) "editor A discussing editor B and not their edits" and other than "editor A contacting editor B on their talk page"—which is only what they should be. And even there, editor A should be able to address editor B with regard to the content of an edit at an article where both are active, and to revert or change each other's edits, as in any other content-based interaction. Either vacate all the bans or interpret interaction bans in a manner which promotes collegial and cooperative conduct between the parties involved. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Henrik et al., I would appreciate some thoughts on a strict interpretation of interaction bans, i.e., stay off each other's user talk pages and not discuss each other (i.e., discuss the editor and not the content); but that all normal interactions having to do with content are permitted. Anything else has the effect of granting a party de facto ownership and, by a participating in any venue, the effect of a party's participation being misconstrued as an act of attempted ownership, and any manner of interaction, no matter how innocuous, being taken as violations or attacks. Thanks. Quite frankly I am tired of a setup which has become nothing but a soapbox inviting editors to eviscerate other editors.
 * Is there some reason there's no appetite for taking the advice (my perception) of participants in conflicts as to what actions would ameliorate circumstances? I've made suggestions for years on substantive actions to take to disarm combatants and all I ever hear is crickets chirping.

P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Fuseau
diff requested by Sander Säde. I hope he doesn't dispute that a degree of Doktor nauk shows the author to be a scholar.--Fuseau (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute. Many politicians have doctoral degrees, and politicians are by definition politically biased. --Nug (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Nug
I see no issue with any of Sander Säde's talk page comments. I also note that Sander is not subject to any interaction ban, and there is no reason for one to be imposed as he does not have a history of submitting vexatious AE reports as a way of winning content disputes or perpetuating past conflicts. --Nug (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @The Devil's Advocate, you say "having a one-way interaction ban made into a mutual interaction ban is a common-sense amendment", but there are cases when a one way interaction ban makes sense, one could look at the FoF (and the evidence linked in it) of the original case to find out why. Sander is one of best behaved editors in the EE space, yet we find an AE report filed against him for nothing that is truly sanctionable. Generally one way iBans can be given when individuals misuse boards like WP:AE. --Nug (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @The Devil's Advocate, I don't know how you could in good faith assume that Sander would seek sanctions, when he plainly states he was merely seeking clarification lest presumably someone else may request enforcement. There is no evidence in Sander's history that would suggest that he would seek such a sanction, as I don't believe he has ever intiated any action on WP:AE against anyone in the past. But even if he did, that is not a reason to make an iBan mutual, as he is an editor in good standing and perfectly entitled to seek such action were he hypothethically to do so. --Nug (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Greyhood
In the discussion in question, Sander Säde has made this rather problematic comment. Supposedly it indicates that only fringe elements in Russian society ("Russian ultranationalists, skinheads and conspiracy theorists") would disagree with Freedom House (an organisation criticized by many countries and respectable persons, including Noam Chomsky), or that me or perhaps other participants of the discussion are representing or supporting the views of those fringe elements in Russian society. This is could be a violation of DIGWUREN. Grey Hood  Talk  20:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Estlandia
Right now I don't see a reason to admonish one side (Sander Säde). It is just a discussion regarding a content dispute. It looks like one side tries to circumvent the discussion and enforce their view by gaining administrative sanctions against their opponents - which seems unlikely to happen. I don't know if Russavia's interaction ban is still alive or is applicable in this case, but the diff he presented here doesn't show any violation of wiki policies. How did Sander's question violate any policy? Neither does this diff reveal actual accusations of sock puppetry. In sum, there is nothing that warrants sanctioning the party reported here. Estlandia (dialogue) 10:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by The Devil's Advocate
Seems to me like Russavia is using this AE request as a backdoor to amending the Arbitration case, by violating the restriction he wants to amend. It stretches credulity to accept Russavia's argument that he was not talking to Sander Sade in this instance. His comment is immediately after Sander's and is plainly responding to Sander's comments. This is clearly an interaction and thus a violation. If he objects to the sanction Russavia should be presenting this at Requests for Amendment or filing an appeal. Violating it and then using an editor's reaction to that violation as cause for incrementally implementing the desired change by requesting that admins impose an interaction ban is disruptive. More to the point, having a one-way interaction ban made into a mutual interaction ban is a common-sense amendment that I think most admins would support. There is no good reason to piggyback off an AE request to achieve it and doing so just seems like an effort to make a point.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

@Nug One-way interaction bans make sense sometimes sure, but I don't think this is a case where it really does. Sander plainly mentioned the interaction ban suggesting Russavia responding civilly to him in good faith would be enough for Sander to seek sanctions against him for violating the ban. While Russavia's apparent misuse of AE for raising these concerns is problematic, his concern is reasonable.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Sander Säde

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


 * The diffs presented in this case are in my opinion not sufficient to establish conduct that warrants sanction. I would be inclined to close this case without any action than a general whack on the head on all involved to start valuing neutrality over nationality and refraining from continuing to lob potshots at each other. (The participants, being veterans at this, are no doubt used to such admonishments however).  henrik  • talk  20:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking only of the particular comment that prompted this AE thread, I would say that it does not, in and of itself, justify a sanction, but it is unnecessarily hostile and combative, and not to the standard we should be expecting of any editor, much less those involved in contentious areas subject to arbitration remedies. I recommend Sander Säde be admonished not to unnecessarily comment on editors with whom he disagrees, and Russavia in particular. I would also remind him that repeatedly side-tracking discussions to talk about editors with whom he disagrees may result in sanctions. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  05:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do these admonishments ever do anything? T. Canens (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Osama57
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Osama57

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Golfballz (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME


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


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Osama57&diff=473263965&oldid=473262602 Explanation
 * 2) Date Explanation
 * 3) Date Explanation
 * 4) Date Explanation


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


 * 1) Warned on Date by
 * 2) Warned on Date by


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Osama57
I've had problems with this user I removed one of his refences in 2010s in fashion which I thought was pointless,especically if it's on Youth hairstyles and you're taking about what women like.He undoes it and then said it's vandlism which it was not. A couple of minutes later I commented on his page telling him to not call someone a vandal just because they don't like a reference and he replays by saying "Go cry emo kid. Nobody likes you." now he's saying i've harassed him go figure.

Statement by Osama57
Instead of providing evidence the emo look is still fashionable (which it isn't) in the article's talk page, he insults me by calling me a troll, and tries to intimidate me by warning me not to "start drama." The link i added (together with a statement by MCR), plus my own observations (hardly any emos left these days and fewer bands making emo music) seem to suggest the subculture is declining. I'm not scared of golfballz's bully-boy tactics and have nothing but contempt for users who resort to threats and unfounded accusations to stifle the views of others because they can't debate like mature adults. He was rude to me, i basically told him to go away as i don't talk to people with no manners. Here's what he posted on my talk page:

Vandalism are you trolling? I was just saying how pointless your reference, especically if it's on Youth hairstyles and you're taking about what women like? please don't try and start drama just because you don't like an edit-Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfballz (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Osama57

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

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

Request concerning golfballz

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Osama57 (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME


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


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osama57 Accuses me of trolling, harrasses me after i correct his vandalism, and tries to intimidate me by wrongfully reporting me
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010s_in_fashion&oldid=473165242 Vandalises page, removes section on emo fashion declining
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_video_games&oldid=473054680 Making unconstructive edits


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


 * 1) Warned on Date by
 * 2) Warned on Date by


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by golfballz
Ok first of all removing a reference is not vandlism like i said above(especically if it's on Youth hairstyles and you're taking about what women like)Just because i think you should of used a better reference does not make me an vandal. I never made a direct personal attack against him. I was just informing him he was in the wrong for calling me a vandal.

Comments by others about the request concerning golfballz

 * Wrong venue, as there are no arbcom cases covering video games, hairstyles or dancing fashions. Should this not have been reported at WP:ANI if anywhere? Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning golfballz

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

Request concerning Jamussy

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : asad (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:

WP:ARBPIA


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


 * 1) 13/01/12 Re-adds unsourced POV commentary to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development article
 * 2) 13/01/12 Tells User:Sean.hoyland, "Don't be like a child". Re-adds unsourced information
 * 3) 17/01/12 Adds unsourced information, in the edit summary tells User:Tiamut: "My dear, I guess noone has thrown a rock at your face. Take off your rose-tinted glasses..."
 * 4) 17/01/12 More disruption
 * 5) 23/01/12 Edit-wars material (again) into the Middle East Studies Association of North America article
 * 6) 23/01/12 WP:BATTLEGROUND evidenced, as user calls me a "coward"
 * 7) 23/01/12] Removes sourced information
 * 8) 24/01/12 Falsifies a source, violates the 1RR on the MESA article (for the third time), presumably tells User:Sean.hoyland to "shut up"
 * 9) 26/01/12 Removes sourced information


 * Diffs of notifications:


 * 1) Warned on 19/01/12
 * 2) Given last warning on 23/01/12

All the diffs pretty much sum up the story of this editor, who cunningly pretends to be Jordanian and speak Arabic. What I find more distasteful than the annoying edits of Jamussy, are those so-called "veteran" editors who come out in a disruptive editors' defense.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



Statement by Jamussy
Asad, a one-topic warrior, is blowing things out of proportion.

I DID NOT violate the 1RR rule. The many accusations of "removing sourced material" are subjective, at best. The "personal attacks" are in line with the kind of comments made by Asad and Sean_Hoyland. Further, each of these gentlemen focus almost exclusively on their POV in the Israel-Palestinian area. I have edits that support both sides of the arguement, because I am trying to edit fairly.

I don't think my behavior is edit-warring on the MESANA site. If it is, then Sean_Hoyland is equally guilty. I brought a source and altered my wording, he is only revertwarring.

Finally, the attempts to mark me as lying about my nationality or link me with banned accounts shows the flimsyness of these accusations.Jamussy (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Jamussy
I think these previous cases are relevant. My view is that Jamussy=Lutrinae=Modinyr. I was planning to file an SPI once the amount of disruption tipped the cost vs benefit scale. I have better things to do though as does everyone else. Sean.hoyland  - talk 21:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AE report for Lutrinae
 * Another AE report for Lutrinae
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Lutrinae/Archive
 * Modinyr vs Jamussy
 * Lutrinae vs Jamussy
 * A shared interest in Queen Rania of Jordan as logged out U. of Hawaii IP previously vs as Jamussy
 * Commonalities in edit timing for Jamussy, Lutrinae and Modinyr

Statement by Shrike
User should be notified about WP:ARPBIA sanctions by uninvolved admin first before he can receive any AE sanctions.--Shrike (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting assertion. Where does ARBPIA require notification by an uninvolved admin? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Jamussy

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


 * A 90 day topic ban for the edit warring would seem to be in order here; the first diff is particularly bad. The attacks also strike me as being borderline block-worthy by themselves, not sure if it's worth it, but I'd support a 24 hour block if others think that would help. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No need. Checkuser ✅ match to Modinyr. Blocked. Courcelles 21:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Granateple

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Fifelfoo (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement


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


 * 1) 23:23, 31 January 2012 23:47, 31 January 2012 23:42, 30 January 2012 Personal attacks ("cabal"; "totalitarian chickens")
 * 2) 06:15, 30 January 2012 Battleground
 * 3) 01:17, 30 January 2012; 04:43, 30 January 2012 IDHT and attempts to rapidly revisit community consensus
 * 4) For evidence regarding consensus, please see the concurrence with the closure in the permanent archive of the initial AN/I discussion; and in |the ongoing unarchived discussion.
 * 5) 02:53, 26 January 2012 Related to this closure of an RS/N request regarding a source making MEDRS claims about a Transcendental Meditation practice
 * 6) 05:43, 26 January 2012 And this closure rationale.


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


 * 1) Request a Transcendental Meditation warning be applied to User:Granateple


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 1) diff

Statement by Granateple

 * A non-admin recently closed a free and open discussion on RS/N, and acted as if it was an arb notice board. He brought the closure before ANI for review, but ANI didn’t want to review it. I don’t know why. Just as I was considering contacting ArbCom, this editor contacted you.


 * The good thing about this case and incident is that everything is contained in only two threads. The downside is that those two threads are rather lengthy (perhaps 25 minutes to read through), but they are essential for an understanding.


 * I am not very impressed when someone rely on a selection (and interpretation) of these threads, and I would like you to read them, so that you get an impression from the original two sources, so to speak. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, that is why I mention it. I don’t know how these things works.


 * The first thread is called “Is Hindawi a RS publisher for this content?”, and is found on RS/N.


 * The second thread is called “Please review my closure of an RS/N discussion (restored from archive)”, and is found on ANI.


 * I have nothing more to add, and thank you in advance for your time and patience. Granateple (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Granateple

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


 * I have warned Granateple, the conduct on the reliable sources noticeboard and some of the other diffs were enough for me. However, this was close to a WP:BOOMERANG, there's AN/I discussion here that seems to agree the RS discussion shouldn't have been closed by the user who filed this AE report. I feel this is probably not the last we've heard of this, there's quite a bit of tendentious editing to go around and it's not solely Granateple. --WGFinley (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – SonofSetanta (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : this AE Report


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


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

Statement by SonofSetanta
There has been no attempt at frivolity by me. Mo Aimh made an edit at Ulster Defence Regiment which clearly reverted in one edit four different edits I had made the previous day here - none of which removed anything from the article. . This is a clear breach of the 1RR policy on the article. There is nothing frivolous about that. One Night in Hackney stalked me to the Harry Baxter article to revert text about the Ulster Defence Regiment there without explanation or discussion which I felt was absolutely necessary given the current high feelings about the Ulster Defence Regiment article: that in addition to reverting an edit I made at the UDR article. The banning editor made it clear he was unhappy about the sourced text being removed but seemed to be under the impression that it was I who had reverted it - not true. I made the complaint in good faith, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Mo_ainm.

I fully realise that the situation is confused. By walking into two editing traps I have found myself blocked twice for nothing more than trying to edit an article. There is nothing contentious about my edits and all are sourced but the same couple of editors always step in to remove them and preserve the article as it stands. I am not a very experienced user but do my best on this noticeboard to comply with what is required of me. The truth is I'm very confused about it all. I'm left feeling that I have been successfully gamed again and that fair play hasn't been shown.>

I would like the sanction lifted and the genuine, good faith complaints against Mo Aimh and One Night in Hackey to be looked at afresh. I sincerely feel the wrong editor has received a topic ban.

@HJ Mitchell. In my defence I would ask you to look at my editing history. How many blocks I have received, where and why? My contention would be that I am not a troublemaker. I have an interest in military history and make good edits on Wikipedia in good faith. As far as the Ulster Defence Regiment is concerned though I am not permitted to make any changes it appears. I've not been involved in trouble anywhere else which is why I don't know how to make complaints properly or even fight my own corner. On this board I am lost but no-one seems to be in a mood to assist or even extend good faith to me.

@WG Finlay. I have not posted a complaint in response to any complaint against me. No complaints about me where on the board when I clicked the link to make my own complaint. I am not very good at filling out the complaints forms however and it seems that on two occasions mine have come in second as a result. Had I been faster then it would be the others who would be in this position. Look at the times, that should confirm what I'm saying. I ask you: whatever happened to "extend good faith" and "don't bite new editors"?

@T. Canens. I have already stated that I made no frivolous or vindictive complaints. Please try to extend good faith to me. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

@All admins. See post below by Domer48 to illustrate how I have been treated on the several occasions I have tried to edit the UDR article. Always the same people and always preventing me from doing anything - sourced or not.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification requested. I am still able to edit and post on the UDR discussion page. Is this ban I've been given some kind of voluntry thing on my part?

Statement by Wgfinley
For the record I wasn't notified but the filing party from the previous AE did so.

This case is a result of three different recent closures here at AE, they are listed above but for simplicity here are the three closures:
 * Report concerning Mo ainm
 * Report concerning One Night In Hackney
 * Report concerning SonofSetanta

There was support from multiple admins in all three of these cases for a TBAN of SonofSetanta that the report concerning him/her had evidence of revert violations on Troubles related articles. There was also support from multiple admins (I didn't close the first case) that the cases SonofSetanta filed were frivolous and without merit. Given his/her revert and battleground behavior also evidenced by previous blocks in this topic area, invoking the cabal and filing multiple AE reports in response to an AE report filed against him/her that started this whole spat he/she is entirely deserving of the 90 day ban from Troubles and AE. --WGFinley (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Further Administrative Action
SonofSetanta has continued participating in an article subject to his ban, I've been forced to block him for two weeks as he just came of a one week block, I notified him he can still participate in this appeal by posting to his talk page. --WGFinley (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Update Based on an email SonofSetanta sent me and some of his comments it seems he thought the system would prevent him from editing articles subject to his ban. I am going to AGF and assume he is being honest and give him a second chance. I've unblocked him and instructed him he has to govern himself in observing his ban. --WGFinley (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mo ainm
SonofSetanta says "The banning editor made it clear he was unhappy about the sourced text being removed". This refers to a comment he made in his bizarre AE report on me here, which read "and removed an insert by me, properly sourced, about how women were more suitable as radio operators. There is no explanation for this other than to suggest the editor is gaming". Before that AE report by SonofSetanta, I had posted to the article's talk page here regarding this, giving my explanation for the removal of that content as "already covered in the same section". I repeated the same point on the AE report here. went even further than me when replying to the AE report here and pointed out the text of both the original text and the duplicate addition, and pointed out which paragraph they could be found in with a link to the version being talked about. So I don't know why this "he removed sourced content" card is still being played despite it being pointed out not once but three times the information was removed because it was duplicate information. SonofSetanta made a series of new changes to the article. I disagreed with some of them, and I reverted the article once here while keeping the changes I had no problem with, and explained my reasons for doing so on the article's talk page here. SonofSetanta reverted my revert, breaching 1RR in the process. SonofSetanta's post to the article's talk page regarding this is here, and reads "I happen to disagree so the information will be put back the way it was. Anyone who wants it removed should seek concensus here". As I've already said in the original AE report this is turning consensus upside down, Some of SonofSetanta's changes were reverted by me, I explained why, it was up to SonofSetanta to seek consensus for those changes. Instead he didn't take part in the discussion in any meaningful way, he reverted me and filed a bad faith AE report because I had made one revert which I explained on the article's talk page. Mo ainm ~Talk  15:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to good faith? "There is no explanation for this other than to suggest the editor is gaming", despite the fact I had posted on the article's talk page here before he said that. Does good faith only work in SonofSetanta's direction? Mo ainm  ~Talk  17:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Domer48
SonofSetanta from their first talk page edit way back on the 13 October 2010 requested a mentor. They made the same request on their very first post on an editors talk page, asking that the mentor should have a "neutral point of view." There first edit to the UDR article was to remove a citation tag, and their fourth edit was to add an Attribution needed tag. In their very first talk page post we get the claim that Potter "is the official historian" and the very next day we had the whole " UDR historian" nonsense repeated again, again and then we get what appears to be an exact quote from the Potter book which says that  Potter is the "official UDR historian, at the invite of the British MOD." This of course was completely untrue as the book says no such thing. Within three days of starting to edit, they post not only on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard but start treads on both Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and then on the very same day the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard before going onto WikiProject Military history/British military history task force. It won't be the first time that we get the call of help, I'm an inexperienced editor. This editor has been at this since October 2010. They have been making the same claims, starting the same discussions, and claiming inexperience. They understood enough about wiki from the start of their editing so its time to change the record. Asking WG Finlay "whatever happened to "extend good faith" and "don't bite new editors"? is a complete joke. Still claiming that they are new in 2012 and inexperienced is really pushing it. -- Domer48  'fenian'  17:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite SonofSetanta topic ban, clearly stated on their talk page, stating that SonofSetanta is banned from "all articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, broadly construed across all namespaces for 90 days" they ignore this, and post on the very same article talk page. And per norm, claim ignorance. -- Domer48  'fenian'  18:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by One Night In Hackney
There's little point me going over the frivolous report on me again unless really required? I have to echo the comments about "good faith", since SonofSetanta blatantly lies about what a book says (although this is the whole "is Potter the UDR historian" debate he's presenting what he claims to be an exact quote from the book, only it doesn't appear in the book at all) and describes my behaviour as "spurious in the extreme and this warring on the UDR article is part of a larger strategy to prevent articles on the Irish Troubles from being editied with a neutral POV". That's hilarious, and you'll have to forgive me for blowing my own trumpet for a little while. Take a look at Category:GA-Class Irish Republicanism articles. 1993 Bishopsgate bombing, Maze Prison escape and Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape were all created and taken to GA status by me, and pretty much me alone. Real Irish Republican Army was taken to GA status by me. So out of the seven articles, four were taken to GA by me. Or how about the only article in Category:FA-Class Irish Republicanism articles? 1981 Irish hunger strike taken to GA by me, then taken to FA by me (with some minor help from others). Or how about the discussion regarding me at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Proposed decision? Like most things SonofSetanta says, it has little basis in reality. I grow pretty tired of him slinging mud at editors left right and centre (more diffs available, but I didn't feel the need to hammer it home) without anything to back it up, then demanding other editors assume good faith with him. Not happening under those circumstances.

I move (second time lucky, hence the "One intermediate revision by one user not shown") an article SonofSetanta created to the correct place, and he thanks me for the help. But when I make an edit to correct (described by Elen of the Roads as a "good edit") another new article SonofSetanta created, I'm a wikistalker. Obviously he hasn't read WP:STALK - "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". If you make an edit to any article SonofSetanta edits that he doesn't like you're disruptive and/or a stalker and he reverts you, it's that straightfoward.

There's still major WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems as well. After severe problems in the discussion at, I post the text of the book being referred to here. Nowhere in the text does it say Potter claims to the the "UDR historian", "regimental historian" or "official historian", as a matter of fact it doesn't even contain the word historian. I also wasn't aware historian was a title you could bestow upon yourself even if it did. He was told here by Elen of the Roads that "you need a reliable secondary source that he IS the UDR historian". But despite this, while banned, we get "It actually proves everything. Potter IS the official historian. Clear as day". This editor will not listen, he constantly claims to be new and says experienced editors should help him more. But when then do try and help he just ignores everything if he doesn't agree.

If, for a second, we accepted SonofSetanta's notion that one edit equals four reverts if it happens to revert four edits at the same time, surely that would mean by making four edits in one day he is attempting to game 1RR by making so many edits they cannot be reverted without breaching 1RR? Food for thought...

Unless this editor is prepared to change I have little doubt we will be back here at AE dealing with him again within a week of the ban expiring. I see nothing since the ban has been imposed that makes me think there would be any benefit to it being shortened at present. 2 lines of K 303  10:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG
Textbook case of IDHT. - BorisG (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta

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


 * Unless there is more to the story than the diffs presented above, I can't see any merit to an appeal of the "verdict", so to speak. The only grounds on which an appeal might succeed would be an appeal of the sanction itself. I see nothing so far that would make me think a 90-day topic ban is unreasonable, but I would be willing to listen to an argument to that effect. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The original complaints by SonofSentanta are apparently vindictive and at least one is also manifestly frivolous. 90 days is probably lenient. Decline. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

174.94.43.164
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning 174.94.43.164

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : RolandR (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA


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


 * 1) 16:29, 2 February 2012 Contentious edit, in breach of WP:TERRORIST
 * 2) 18:35, 2 February 2012 First revert
 * 3) 18:43, 2 February 2012 Second revert
 * 4) 18:49, 2 February 2012 Third revert
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :


 * 1) Warned on 16:41, 2 February 2012‎ by
 * 2) Warned on 18:44, 2 February 201 by

This article, like all articles in the Palestine-Israel area, is subject to a one-revert rule. This editor has made three reverts, one after a final warning. Although s/he claims in this edit summary to be "new to Wikipedia", in a later edit summary they state that they could "can sign in with my editor account"; it is clearly a signed-out experienced editor who is well aware of restrictions and sanctions.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Result concerning 174.94.43.164

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

NestleNW911
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning NestleNW911

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Coffeepusher (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Scientology


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


 * 1) NestleNW911 is a self proclaimed Scientologist who has been editing Wikipedia for a little over one year
 * 2) NestleNW911 is a single purpose account who since December 10, 2010 when s/he made their first edit they have edited exclusively Scientology related pages.
 * 3) Engages in a set agenda to promote Scientology as seen in the following
 * 4)   argued for the insertion of a specific denial of the claim that David Miscavige attacked Hawkings, but was specifically concerned with a pro-scientologist interpretation and attempted to erase or delete a version more faithful to the primary source s/he suggested
 * 5) NestleNW911 engages in Ad hominem attacks against critics of Scientology.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : User:NestleNW911 was originally suspected as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Shutterbug, and has gone through three cases one of which I myself filed  which ended up as inconclusive.


 * comment to WGFinley, First off I understand that being a single purpose account is not in itself a violation, however during the WP:ARBSCI investigation they found that SPA's with an agenda either for or against Scientology was so disruptive as to make it a sanction-able violation, as shown here. Now I do appreciate how you suspect this may be a WP:BOOMERANG and expect to be put under a magnifying glass. I would kindly request that if you find that accusation as unfounded if you could please strike through that comment.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * comment where did I say that he should be sanctioned because he was a scientologist? I did say that he was a scientologist, a SPA concerned with scientology, and was fronting a scientology agenda, thus a SPA with an agenda which is appropriate for sanctions.  I don't believe that I said we should sanction him/her because s/he was a scientologist.  now you are welcome to dissagree with my evidence, that is what this is all about, but how does that mean that I was boomeranging?  I am just asking that if you find that I have not used this to cover up more egregious behavior on my behalf that you would be so kind as to strike your comments about boomeranging that was all.  Coffeepusher (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentActually, I am going to just ask that you respect WP:AGF. You have accused me of Boomeranging based entirely on the fact that you disagreed with the evidence I brought to the table, as stated in your retort "in fact, your accusation that the person is a Scientologist and should be sanctioned without proof of WP:TE is closer to an ad-hominem personal attack than any of the evidence you submitted, hence WP:BOOMERANG."  I did provide what I thought was proof of WP:TE, and you disagreed with it and assumed that this was a bad faith request without referencing or looking at anything that would prove WP:BOOMERANG.  I am not saying that you haven't encountered multiple cases that resulted in sanctions against the posting party but you have read this page and automatically assumed that what I posted was in bad faith.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by NestleNW911
I acknowledge that an ArbCom case has been filed against me by Coffeepusher. I stand by my arguments in the past that have rendered the past Shutterbug investigations inconclusive. Yes, I am a Scientologist, and hence I mostly edit on Scientology related pages. Scientology is a huge part of my consciousness and I would like to uphold it the best way I can, however, I have taken care to abide by Wikipedia policy when I can. Yes, I have argued for a specific denial of the Hawkins-related allegation, but I did so in manner that kept with Wikipedia decorum. Another administrator approved the addition of such a counter-claim, saying, "I have no objection to including a specific denial of a specific claim" and that was the only reason that I felt free to add that. I did not stubbornly insist on it with no consensus. Infact, when Coffeepusher insisted that the Hawkins information be retained, I left it alone. I have not made any disruptive edits.

I deny that I "engage in a set agenda to promote Scientology." As it is, the representation of Scientology is heavy on the criticism, and reflects the negative bandwagon perspective. I truly believe that I am helping achieve NPOV by citing alternate sources that give Scientology a just representation and allows them to air their perspectives regarding the criticisms. I simply want both sides to be represented fairly.

What Coffeepusher alleges as "Ad Hominem attacks" are simply me researching the sources, communicating what I find while aiming to comply with WP:RS. I am questioning the reliability of the source. If I inadvertently committed a logical fallacy in doing so, my apologies, but I have posted in good faith.

As BTfromLA has generously posted on this page, I have "engaged in good faith dialogue with other editors in talk page, usually proposes things there before making changes, and defers to the community when my arguments are rejected." I also reiterate BTfromLA's assertion that some of my suggested edits have lead to "positive improvements to the articles."

With that I give my case. Thank you to those who have adjudicated my case fairly.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning NestleNW911
I have edited some of the Scientology articles alongside NestleNW911 and Coffeepusher. I'm not sure of the current state of Wikipedia rules that bear on this, so I'll just offer my impressions of the situation in the hope it may be of help to the arbiters. NestleNW911 is, as Coffeepusher suggests and Nestle has admitted, interested in editing Scientology articles toward what he (or she, I'll use "he" until I'm corrected) calls a more neutral POV, arguing that the current state of the articles in that area is overly focused on critical accounts. Nestle can be a frustrating editor--he has indeed used ad hominem arguments in an attempt to disqualify sources (ad hominem toward the sources themselves, rarely pointed at other editors), has attempted to introduce blocks of text from Scientology press releases into articles and, most disturbingly to me, has pulled quotes out of context to distort their meaning. However, he has engaged in good faith dialogue with other editors on talk pages, he usually proposes things there before making changes, and he defers to the community when his arguments are rejected. And some of his suggestions have lead to positive improvements to the articles--his edits are not just obstruction or disruption. Frankly, any Scientologist who accepts the church's public statements as true is going to run into trouble at Wikipedia, as the church has habitually made claims that virtually all third-party sources have found to be false, and has systematically responded to investigative reportage with ad hominem attacks on critics and journalists. So, I understand Coffeepusher's concerns--he's not making up claims, nor is he a problematic editor--but if it were left to me, I'd say that NestleNW911 does not deserve censure at this juncture. And I certainly don't think that he should be forced through another round of sockpuppet investigations, unless some very solid evidence of that emerges. -- BTfromLA (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning NestleNW911

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


 * Being an SPA is not a violation, nor is being suspected a sock. Tendentious editing as an SPA is. I definitely don't see any evidence of a personal attack (the source is criticized, politely) nor does the behavior look tendentious to me, it looks downright polite which leads me to believe this complaint to be frivolous and possibly a WP:BOOMERANG, I'll wait for other admin thoughts. --WGFinley (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, being an SPA in and of itself is not a violation. You have to have tendentious behavior that underlies an SPA in order to have a case for sanctions. You haven't made said case with the diffs provided. As far as WP:NPA that applies to other contributors, not to sources. Sources are shredded on a daily basis here at WP (see also WP:RS) as a matter of course. In fact, your accusation that the person is a Scientologist and should be sanctioned without proof of WP:TE is closer to an ad-hominem personal attack than any of the evidence you submitted, hence WP:BOOMERANG. --WGFinley (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)